Stupid Headline Alert: They, Then and Now: Asking for pronouns has become a social standard. Who is it serving?

[Schism]

They, Then and Now Asking for pronouns has become a social standard. Who is it serving?

If you met me, you’d probably ask what pronouns I use.

No, I wouldn't.

You’d ask me because my gender identity is not that clear — to you, at least.

I could care less.

I wear light makeup and paint my nails and, depending on the occasion, might be in a slip dress with a kitten heel.

Who cares? Not the majority of people.

And yet, if you heard me speak, you’d probably assume (correctly) that I was assigned male at birth (AMAB, in the current jargon; I was also, of course, assigned the name Brock). You might assume, based in part on my voice and disposition, that I date and sleep with men, like a gay man (also correct).

Hooray for you. For me, it's TMI.

And so you’d ask what pronouns I use because it’s considered the polite thing to do now

No, it's not. Only in your self-absorbed world is this important.

— an accepted part of our perilous new social-justice social contract —

LOL...whatever that means.

and you don’t want to offend me with your ignorance

My ignorance, or your narcissism?

and you do want to flatter yourself with your deft ally-ness, all the while probably thinking, especially if you’re over 30, Oh goodness, the world is so different now.

The world isn't going to bow down to your sexual fantasies.

Get over it.

 

[Queen Margo]

I went to lunch to day and "Brandi" with a he/him on the name tag took our order.
I thought it was a she with an attitude upon greeting. Seems no one likes their job anymore, no matter how much the pay.
Anyway, all it did was confuse us.
Seems like a power play to me.

 

[TheParser]

Being 85, I simply cannot bring myself to say something like "Everyone should bring their book tomorrow."

But I admit that it's neater than saying "Everyone should bring his or her book tomorrow."

And, of course, if I were still working, I could get fired for using the traditional and now discredited "Everyone should bring his book tomorrow [even if 60% of the listeners are female]."

So if a person looks like a man, but that person identifies as a woman, then I see no harm in humoring "her."

"She" is not hurting anyone -- unless "she" falsely accuses people of dissing "her."

99% of human beings (both straight and gay) identify as either male or female.

We should be kind to the 1% who do not.

Life is horrible. They, like us, are just doing their best to get through it as best as they can.

 

[Peter]

This isn't a thing as far as I've ever experienced.
I've worked with someone who transitioned from femail to male and it really wasn't a problem.

I have a feeling the only people who care about this are people who are desperate to make it an issue and then complain.

How about just be polite to each other and call people what they want to be called?
It really isn't hard.

 

[buck]

They, Then and Now Asking for pronouns has become a social standard. Who is it serving?

No, I wouldn't.


I could care less.


Who cares? Not the majority of people.


Hooray for you. For me, it's TMI.


No, it's not. Only in your self-absorbed world is this important.


LOL...whatever that means.


My ignorance, or your narcissism?


The world isn't going to bow down to your sexual fantasies.

Get over it.

I dont know.. I read the article and found it sad. Even he believes it's all nonsense that has been co-opted by well meaning, virtue signaling, straight liberals and corporations at this point.

He seems to be over it by now. Thank god. Maybe this whole thing is finally coming to an end.

 

[Schism]

Being 85, I simply cannot bring myself to say something like "Everyone should bring their book tomorrow."

But I admit that it's neater than saying "Everyone should bring his or her book tomorrow."

And, of course, if I were still working, I could get fired for using the traditional and now discredited "Everyone should bring his book tomorrow [even if 60% of the listeners are female]."

So if a person looks like a man, but that person identifies as a woman, then I see no harm in humoring "her."

"She" is not hurting anyone -- unless "she" falsely accuses people of dissing "her."

99% of human beings (both straight and gay) identify as either male or female.

We should be kind to the 1% who do not.

Life is horrible. They, like us, are just doing their best to get through it as best as they can.

My issue was with the headline: "Asking for pronouns has become a social standard."

It has not and will not ever be standard. This is left wing "normalization" and indoctrination.

It's an attempt to pretend that something has happened that has not happened. It's a lie.

 

[Captain Adverse]

They, Then and Now Asking for pronouns has become a social standard. Who is it serving?

Who is it serving?

1. The delusional, and/or the attention seeking.

2. Those with designs to undermine American society by twisting and destroying the meaning of words and using such language/new-speak to confuse and divide.

Think "1984" by George Orwell and the "Ministry of Truth."

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You know, I take steps to make my gender and my pronouns crystal clear online, even though I am very obviously and very stereotypically masculine/male. (Not traditionally so, because I do a lot of gender-nonconforming stuff as a threat display-- go ahead and **** with me, I'll follow you home and **** your dad and he'll make you call me "mommy", bitch.) Reason I do it is to normalize the practice, so the only people who have to offer or ask aren't the ones who have to worry about people-- accidentally or intentionally-- misgendering them.

 

[buck]

I liked this from the article, which would seem to be a good response to at least one poster here:

Everyone asks me for my pronouns. To me, what that means is ‘I see that you’re a man. And I see that you’re dressed in a woman’s costume. And I would like to know whether or not you want me to participate in the fantasy you’re having,’ ” they said. “I don’t think my answer should fundamentally change anything about how we’re interacting right now. And the fact that you’re so desperate to know is weird.”

This guy is very aware if how nonsensical this has become.

 

[Ontologuy]

Grammatical pronoun choice is determined by the observer based on sexual cues displayed by the observed. The observed has no grammatical-rule say in the matter. There is no such accurate-grammar thing as the observed person's "personal pronoun". Thus singular pronouns are he/him/his, she/her/hers, or it/it/its. There are no more than these in grammatically signular accurate English. The onus of choosing which pronoun to use in speaking/writing about a person, by English grammar rules, is on the observer; the observed has no say in the matter.

The erroneous leftist construct of personal pronouns may have multiple intents. One intention is to sooth a little under 6% of the population who suffered an epigenetic malfunction in the womb that caused a gestational anomaly resulting in some degree of transsexual and/or homosexual dysfunction of their brain, and the specific personal pronoun assigned to a given brain anomaly may aid the individual in feeling normal instead of feeling victimized by fate. Another intent is more political, that being to infiltrate a bit subtly this erroneous construct into everyday government and corporate life, to thereby compel legitimacy upon the illegitimate erroneous personal pronoun construct. Those who then ascribe to the personal pronoun illegitimacy signify thereby their leftist alignment, which gives the Democrats today a feel for how broad their reach is. Another intent is to see how many people they can seduce into dumbing themselves down and buying into the personal pronoun illegitimacy, which thereby lets them know what it takes to reach and brainwash people, and gives them an idea of how many people out there suffer from a victim mentality.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Grammatical pronoun choice is determined by the observer based on sexual cues displayed by the observed. The observed has no grammatical-rule say in the matter. There is no such accurate-grammar thing as the observed person's "personal pronoun". Thus singular pronouns are he/him/his, she/her/hers, or it/it/its. There are no more than these in grammatically signular accurate English. The onus of choosing which pronoun to use in speaking/writing about a person, by English grammar rules, is on the observer; the observed has no say in the matter.

The erroneous leftist construct of personal pronouns may have multiple intents. One intention is to sooth a little under 6% of the population who suffered an epigenetic malfunction in the womb that caused a gestational anomaly resulting in some degree of transsexual and/or homosexual dysfunction of their brain, and the specific personal pronoun assigned to a given brain anomaly may aid the individual in feeling normal instead of feeling victimized by fate. Another intent is more political, that being to infiltrate a bit subtly this erroneous construct into everyday government and corporate life, to thereby compel legitimacy upon the illegitimate erroneous personal pronoun construct. Those who then ascribe to the personal pronoun illegitimacy signify thereby their leftist alignment, which gives the Democrats today a feel for how broad their reach is. Another intent is to see how many people they can seduce into dumbing themselves down and buying into the personal pronoun illegitimacy, which thereby lets them know what it takes to reach and brainwash people, and gives them an idea of how many people out there suffer from a victim mentality.

Hmmmm.

I think you left out one other reason, to create more "identities" and further divide people into conflicting/competing segments.

That's how authoritarian socialism works, divide and then pit the divisions one against the other. This allows the "elite leadership" group to maintain control while giving the peon's the idea they are being taken care of.

 

[Ontologuy]

Hmmmm.

I think you left out one other reason, to create more "identities" and further divide people into conflicting/competing segments.

That's how authoritarian socialism works, divide and then pit the divisions one against the other. This allows the "elite leadership" group to maintain control while giving the peon's the idea they are being taken care of.

There is intent and there is function -- they are not always the same. Though you have clearly presented here this further dividing of people as a definite function of creating all these different personal pronouns that represent the various brain dysfunctions- mind dysphorias, I don't have enough information to determine whether that was also an intent. Often what happens is a few intents create a construct and then the employment of that construct yields happy consequences that the creator(s) had not foreseen and thus did not originally intend, in this case perhaps, the chaotic conflict dividing of people. What can then happen is that the creator(s) might then say, "oh cool, look at this, I like this" as they realize they hadn't foreseen that originally, but now are saying they're quite happy with it. Whether they then hang on to that happy consequence and call it "an intent" from hereon is possible, even though it might not have been an original intent.

 

[TheGoverness]

Oh, no. The horror.

 

[Gatsby]

The pronoun game is just a way for low-status, overeducated, downwardly-mobile white people to pretend to be wealthy. Once upon a time they'd learn to have strong opinions about craft beers and organic quinoa. Before that, they'd learn which fork to use for the salad at an elegant dinner party. Now they have this.

Ironically, once the pronoun stupidity left the ivory towers of academia and was adopted by random shitheads on Twitter, it stopped being a social signifier of high status. So it won't be long before they have to find some new way of pretending to be wealthier than they are.