EPT
It doesn't discriminate, no chance to go wrong.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3994
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
ZeroByte13
753 Posts
It doesn't discriminate, no chance to go wrong. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 06 2023 23:24 Acrofales wrote: Yeah, I understood that. But if it's a list, why not just list them all in subject form, rather than the second one in object form, which gives the impression that if I say I identify as he/them, I want to be called "he" if I am the subject of the sentence, but "them" if I am the object. If I were to list my pronouns as he/they, wouldn't that be clearer in showing that I am happy to be referred to as either he or they, or as an object, as him or them? I see what you're getting at now, sorry if that came off over-explainy or condescending. Subject form all the way across is usually how people do it, but I could see someone doing it as he/them or they/her, which maintains the original cadence of he/him or she/her or they/them. Idk. I'll let him say for himself though. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 06 2023 23:27 ZeroByte13 wrote: And this is why it's easier to always use they/them. It doesn't discriminate, no chance to go wrong. Not usually, but like I said before if someone is transgender or non-binary and they have expressly preferred pronouns which are not they/them, you should use them as long as you know them. They/them is usually just fine if you're ever in doubt, but be open to hearing someone say they prefer something more specific. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
753 Posts
Otherwise, no one has ever told me "oh, they'd prefer she/her btw" when I used "they/them" when referencing someone, because this is never important when talking about people you don't know and will not know (my typical work situation). So I guess this still works: On July 06 2023 17:42 ZeroByte13 wrote: My guess would be - if their personality is great and I want to talk to them often, it'd be easier to adapt. If it's not the case, well, why would I talk to/about them much anyway? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15473 Posts
On July 06 2023 16:20 Slydie wrote: For sexuality, you are right, you can just leave them alone. I think teaching kids that being a-sexual is completely normal is a good idea, though. For genders, it is more complicated, as we are often forces to pick male or female, and for very good reasons: Sports is one glaring issue, but also changing rooms, prisons, healthcare etc. This needs to be discussed properly. What you "identify as" should not be the only factor. You are correct. But we have had people in this thread who are also against the idea of people adopting a gender other than the one they were given at birth. Some people think the entire idea is a net negative. My intention was to show how the identity component, in a vacuum, is entirely benign and truly means nothing externally. Let people be what they want. But I do agree the other topics are complicated and difficult. The only one I am confident in is: all sports should be “biological women only” and “open”. Rather than male and female. I think the trans rights advocates are overplaying their hand and pulling a LatinX on society by trying to say trans women should participate in women’s competitions in sports. It’s just harming the optics of the rights movement. The one I am on the fence about is trans stuff in kids under 18. I don’t fully understand the nitty gritty of the biological effects of puberty blockers. But I firmly believe a child should never be allowed to biologically alter their body before the age of 18, no exceptions. What I have been told is that puberty blockers do not have a permanent effect and allow someone to just push the decision out until they are 18. But after follow up investigation, it appears we aren’t 100% sure that is true and there may be permanent effects. So I leave that box as gray. I plan to investigate further but it is possible the information simply does not currently exist. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On July 06 2023 14:56 BlackJack wrote: The fixation is not just on trans people but also on the broader ideas of gender ideology. Personally I think it’s really fascinating. It’s kind of like COVID in that it’s a new thing that’s happening on a grand scale that everyone is trying to figure out. It also has massive generational divides. The idea that everyone can pick whatever pronouns to call themselves that everyone else has to abide by that lest they be an asshole is really interesting. Ideas that you can be gender fluid and be a man one day and a woman the next or even back and forth on the same day. Very interesting. I’ve seen some people with pronouns like she/them. What’s that mean, they can be a woman at the start of the sentence but non-binary by the end of it? Or their gender depends on how the sentence is structured? I don’t really know. At some point it just feels like a bunch of bullshit everyone is making up as they go along and the final and most fascinating part is that it seems like it’s the teenagers that are evolving these ideas and all the adults in the room are just going along with whatever they decide. Near as I can tell the genderfluid and nonbinary stuff is an afterthought for most people. 90% of the fixation is on trans men and trans women, from what I see. But I’ll grant that a big part of this is the generational warfare “The kids are doing something WEIRD!” part of it. And I shouldn’t underestimate the draw that has; there’s a reason there were about a million chumbox news articles about what millennials are or aren’t doing. I guess you could see the present moral panic as a modern version of people in the 60s and 70s freaking out about long hair. But if so, the usual dynamics apply: the old people fundamentally misunderstand what the kids are doing and why, and they’re scaring themselves silly imagining how this is going to Destroy America or w/e. Meanwhile the kids just want to be left alone. Sometimes there are aspects of the kids’ new trends that really are harmful (I think 60s drug culture really was incredibly lethal, for instance), but the old people don’t have a chance of “getting through to them” about it because their understanding of the situation is so misinformed and catastrophized. Like, suppose for the sake of argument there is something to the “social contagion” thing (I despise the term and think the research supporting it is shoddy, but I digress). At its heart, the phenomenon being described would be transness having an outsized presence in the national conversation in a way that biases kids to think gender misidentification might be a component in their psychological issues. That’s happened with various diagnoses over the years – people mistakenly diagnose themselves as OCD or something because it’s been in the news – and obviously it’s better for people to correctly (rather than incorrectly) identify the source of their problems. But, come on, it’s a dumb reason for a panic. Some trans kids will figure out they’re trans sooner, some cis kids will think they’re trans for a bit, but they’ll figure it out in the end. It’s normal and good for kids to be trying out identities for themselves (gender and otherwise) to figure out what suits them the best. Meanwhile the fearmongering about it is actually a major component of perpetuating the dynamic, so it’s self-defeating if the goal is actually to help kids (of course, I think the actual goal of the fearmongers is grift, in which case it’s not self-defeating at all). | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15473 Posts
On July 07 2023 00:25 ChristianS wrote: Near as I can tell the genderfluid and nonbinary stuff is an afterthought for most people. 90% of the fixation is on trans men and trans women, from what I see. But I’ll grant that a big part of this is the generational warfare “The kids are doing something WEIRD!” part of it. And I shouldn’t underestimate the draw that has; there’s a reason there were about a million chumbox news articles about what millennials are or aren’t doing. I guess you could see the present moral panic as a modern version of people in the 60s and 70s freaking out about long hair. But if so, the usual dynamics apply: the old people fundamentally misunderstand what the kids are doing and why, and they’re scaring themselves silly imagining how this is going to Destroy America or w/e. Meanwhile the kids just want to be left alone. Sometimes there are aspects of the kids’ new trends that really are harmful (I think 60s drug culture really was incredibly lethal, for instance), but the old people don’t have a chance of “getting through to them” about it because their understanding of the situation is so misinformed and catastrophized. Like, suppose for the sake of argument there is something to the “social contagion” thing (I despise the term and think the research supporting it is shoddy, but I digress). At its heart, the phenomenon being described would be transness having an outsized presence in the national conversation in a way that biases kids to think gender misidentification might be a component in their psychological issues. That’s happened with various diagnoses over the years – people mistakenly diagnose themselves as OCD or something because it’s been in the news – and obviously it’s better for people to correctly (rather than incorrectly) identify the source of their problems. But, come on, it’s a dumb reason for a panic. Some trans kids will figure out they’re trans sooner, some cis kids will think they’re trans for a bit, but they’ll figure it out in the end. It’s normal and good for kids to be trying out identities for themselves (gender and otherwise) to figure out what suits them the best. Meanwhile the fearmongering about it is actually a major component of perpetuating the dynamic, so it’s self-defeating if the goal is actually to help kids (of course, I think the actual goal of the fearmongers is grift, in which case it’s not self-defeating at all). people struggle with identity as a whole between ages 12-22’ish. When people have a feeling of not quite having an identity that feels like it “fits”, they consider components of their identity individually and feel out various changes to see what feels right. Gender identity being a much more prevalent topic and whatnot lately means more people will consider it a possible cause of their overall “identity dysphoria” and fiddle with the idea. It’s not a bad thing, but it does complicate the conversation and makes some people think it’s just a fad. Like having a goth phase or something. The issue is that the emotional volatility of that age range also means some people may take drastic steps which may not be reversible later. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35118 Posts
On July 06 2023 23:27 ZeroByte13 wrote: And this is why it's easier to always use they/them. It doesn't discriminate, no chance to go wrong. My English teachers back in highschool would have gotten so angry reading this. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
753 Posts
On July 07 2023 01:50 Gahlo wrote: Yeah, but I guess these English teachers did grow up in a bit different world.My English teachers back in highschool would have gotten so angry reading this. Where I'm from, if you say "they" and point at a single person, it might be taken as a nasty insult by many. As in "I don't even recognize you as a person" way. Because it's so alien in that language. Luckily English is different and more tolerant to such things. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On July 06 2023 23:24 Acrofales wrote: Yeah, I understood that. But if it's a list, why not just list them all in subject form, rather than the second one in object form, which gives the impression that if I say I identify as he/them, I want to be called "he" if I am the subject of the sentence, but "them" if I am the object. If I were to list my pronouns as he/they, wouldn't that be clearer in showing that I am happy to be referred to as either he or they, or as an object, as him or them? It's just to keep the original format of subject/object like with he/him, but you're right that listing all of them like he/him/they/them or listing only the subjects or only the objects like he/they or him/them would be clearer. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
753 Posts
I understand - he/him = I identify as a masculine person / male / man - she/her = I identify as a feminine person / female / woman - they/them = I don't want to identify as either of above But he/them is... I identify as a man / male / masculine when I'm a subject but as unspecified when I'm an object? Why is this difference? But I guess nobody uses he/her, so there should be a reason why he/them is a thing. Sorry for my ignorance, this just feels a bit weird to me. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 07 2023 02:19 ZeroByte13 wrote: Btw am I missing something here? This is what confuses me a bit, this "he/them" I understand - he/him = I identify as a masculine person / male / man - she/her = I identify as a feminine person / female / woman - they/them = I don't want to identify as either of above But he/them is... I identify as a man / male / masculine when I'm subject but as unspecified when I'm object? Why is this difference? Sorry for my ignorance, this just feels a bit weird to me. It's not specific to whether you're the subject or object of a sentence, and it's not that you're being asked to mix and match in any way, it's just a shorter way of saying he/him/his + they/them/theirs together. Either set of pronouns is fine, that person is fine being referred to in either of those two ways. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
753 Posts
Now I realize I'm looking like a complete idiot. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Also asking questions and actually looking for the answer makes you the opposite of an idiot. No shame in that. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On July 07 2023 02:19 ZeroByte13 wrote: Btw am I missing something here? This is what confuses me a bit, this "he/them" I understand - he/him = I identify as a masculine person / male / man - she/her = I identify as a feminine person / female / woman - they/them = I don't want to identify as either of above But he/them is... I identify as a man / male / masculine when I'm a subject but as unspecified when I'm an object? Why is this difference? Sorry for my ignorance, this just feels a bit weird to me. A person's pronouns don't define a person's gender. They only define what a person is okay with being referred to as. I am a man and I am happy to be referred to as he, him, his, they, them, or their. Referring to me as "them" doesn't change my gender. I am still a man. I am just being referred to with a gender neutral pronoun. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
753 Posts
Here I meant exclusive "they/them", not "he/them", so in this case doesn't it mean they don't want to be referenced in a specifically masciline or feminine way, prefering neutral option? It doesn't define their gender but it defines gender-ness of reference to them. I should have written "I don't want to be referenced as either of above", this is what I meant, sorry if it wasn't clear. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17919 Posts
On July 07 2023 02:40 ZeroByte13 wrote: "they/them = I don't want to identify as either of above" Here I meant exclusive "they/them", not "he/them", so in this case doesn't it mean they don't want to be referenced in a specifically masciline or feminine way, prefering neutral option? It doesn't define their gender but it defines gender-ness of reference to them. This is what I meant, sorry if it wasn't clear. It could also just be that they do identify as a man or woman, but would rather not give that information in the context? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17919 Posts
On July 07 2023 02:12 StasisField wrote: It's just to keep the original format of subject/object like with he/him, but you're right that listing all of them like he/him/they/them or listing only the subjects or only the objects like he/they or him/them would be clearer. thank you for clarifying! | ||
|
ZeroByte13
753 Posts
On July 07 2023 02:46 Acrofales wrote: This is what I just said, right? It doesn't define their gender, it defines that they don't want (for whatever reason, not wanting to disclose information might be one of them) to be referenced in a gendered way.It could also just be that they do identify as a man or woman, but would rather not give that information in the context? But I think we all understand each other now. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
| ||
| ||
