|
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 |
On September 10 2026 00:57 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 00:49 WombaT wrote:On September 09 2026 22:25 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 17:41 Velr wrote:
I feel like native english or other non-gendered language speakers have a hard time understanding just how bad "they/them" feels to people coming from gendered languages.
My mind jumps to two things when I hear "they/them", one is utterly dehumanising on the level of calling groups of people animal names, actually even worse. The other is the "royal" we, which also feels horribly wrong for the opposite reason.
I don't claim either of these is "correct", it's just how it feels to me and I would guess many others with similar language background. To this point, the use of they/them can be (and often is) just as disrespectful and hateful as he/him. It comes down to tone and intention. In written word the actual tone and intent are near impossible to determine. It’s fine as a default, we kinda assume most people on TL are male and tend to act accordingly, I know I do, accurately but there’s nout wrong with being neutral about it Some people can be wankers about it, I had a colleague in college insisting on correct pronouns while studiously never getting my bloody name right (my given name is my middle name) But like, whatever. It’s really neither a difficult adjustment, nor a massive imposition if people request it, I don’t see why this is controversial If people prefer they/them, one can presuppose that they don’t find it dehumanising, which is all that matters really Of course you should call individuals whatever they want to be called, that’s a small act of kindness and basic politeness. My point is that if you switch to they them as a default, you are not going to offend no one. I have a friend who has been accused of being gay his whole life, it’s a trigger for him because he is not. So when people walk up to him with they-them and he corrects them and they give him the patronizing, aww your gay but scared look it sets him off. And the way numbers work is if there are 10000 men and 10 non binary, if you offend 2 % with the they and 80% with the he, you are still upsetting more with the they. (Made up numbers to illustrate a point). The reality is there is no perfect answer and constantly judging others as not as “progressive” or “left” of you (not saying you do this, because you don’t) is all about the person doing its ego and not making things better. Hell it’s even in the word , progress is not about perfection it is about making things better. Trying to better and learn how to improve.
Yuhp, hence trying to use gender neutral pronouns or other non-gendered naming conventions to make spaces more inclusive.
Glad we agree.
|
On September 10 2026 00:11 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 00:01 Velr wrote:On September 09 2026 23:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I guarantee you there are more people who will be offended if you default to he/him when the gender of a person is unknown or irrelevant than people who will be offended if you default to they/them. In person?! If so I would highly doubt that. Realistically how often do you think something like the following is going to happen, online or in real life: "Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane." "Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?" "What? Fuck you, Sasha is a boy, how dare you?"
That's just idiotic regardless of the pronoun used. Equally stupid are:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Has she looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"What? Fuck you, Sasha is a boy, how dare you?"
and
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Has he looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"What? Fuck you, Sasha is a girl, how dare you?"
An actual normal exchange:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Has he looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"Sasha's a girl, but no, she hasn't yet, any tips?"
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
|
On September 10 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 00:50 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 23:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I guarantee you there are more people who will be offended if you default to he/him when the gender of a person is unknown or irrelevant than people who will be offended if you default to they/them. I don’t know that’s true. There are plenty of men who get super offended when you assume they are gay, trans, or non binary. Same with women. You can say that’s wrong, but it doesn’t change the reality. And I’m not sure why it is wrong for a man or woman to feel like their gender identity is important but OK for a non binary to think their gender identity is important. There must be some miscommunication here because defaulting to a genderless pronoun when you don't know how to refer to someone in the third person isn't disrespecting any men or women. The previous default before grammar pedants stopped correcting people for singular they/them was to say "one" (e.g. "one should keep in mind..."), and the default before that was to use he/him generically.
Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely.
|
On September 10 2026 01:29 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 00:57 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 00:49 WombaT wrote:On September 09 2026 22:25 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 17:41 Velr wrote:
I feel like native english or other non-gendered language speakers have a hard time understanding just how bad "they/them" feels to people coming from gendered languages.
My mind jumps to two things when I hear "they/them", one is utterly dehumanising on the level of calling groups of people animal names, actually even worse. The other is the "royal" we, which also feels horribly wrong for the opposite reason.
I don't claim either of these is "correct", it's just how it feels to me and I would guess many others with similar language background. To this point, the use of they/them can be (and often is) just as disrespectful and hateful as he/him. It comes down to tone and intention. In written word the actual tone and intent are near impossible to determine. It’s fine as a default, we kinda assume most people on TL are male and tend to act accordingly, I know I do, accurately but there’s nout wrong with being neutral about it Some people can be wankers about it, I had a colleague in college insisting on correct pronouns while studiously never getting my bloody name right (my given name is my middle name) But like, whatever. It’s really neither a difficult adjustment, nor a massive imposition if people request it, I don’t see why this is controversial If people prefer they/them, one can presuppose that they don’t find it dehumanising, which is all that matters really Of course you should call individuals whatever they want to be called, that’s a small act of kindness and basic politeness. My point is that if you switch to they them as a default, you are not going to offend no one. I have a friend who has been accused of being gay his whole life, it’s a trigger for him because he is not. So when people walk up to him with they-them and he corrects them and they give him the patronizing, aww your gay but scared look it sets him off. And the way numbers work is if there are 10000 men and 10 non binary, if you offend 2 % with the they and 80% with the he, you are still upsetting more with the they. (Made up numbers to illustrate a point). The reality is there is no perfect answer and constantly judging others as not as “progressive” or “left” of you (not saying you do this, because you don’t) is all about the person doing its ego and not making things better. Hell it’s even in the word , progress is not about perfection it is about making things better. Trying to better and learn how to improve. Yuhp, hence trying to use gender neutral pronouns or other non-gendered naming conventions to make spaces more inclusive. Glad we agree.
Yawn, GH light, got it.
|
On September 09 2026 18:55 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 16:50 dyhb wrote:
I've made several posts trying to understand your perspective and trying to understand DPB's, but the only thing that made sense is the kinds of people that ask "What is a man" don't know enough about biology or intersex to answer "What is a male." That part makes sense. The rest makes less sense. No, you tried to find a way where you could either match what I said and your initial response with something where you either did not fail to understand what DarkPlasmaBall wrote to begin with, or to communicate what part of what he wrote you took issue with. At least that is the most charitable way I can read this interaction. Your last 2 posts are a great example of what you could have led with if you either understood the conversation you are in, or were capable of/interested in communicating it without someone nudging you along. Yes, I quoted exactly what part of his post I took issue with, and it appears that you and DPB still don't understand the issue. How can excluding certain classes of self-identified man/men not fail to reduce the problem in complexity/complication/ambiguity by those undertaking to do so?
I've tried to distill the point down to some basics in order to aid him, and now you, in explaining that nature of your disagreement (or just say you agree with me, who knows at this point):
Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman?
When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous?
If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term?
Naturally, not a single one was answered, (and you're a big DPB-whisperer, so feel free! You've appointed yourself judge of the debate/discussion, your honor, but I will graciously permit you to give your personal opinion), and a tangent was brought up on testes. I already knew and attested that going from man to male didn't eliminate all complications, but it removes the non-psychological non-biological ones, of which there are huge debates regarding gender identity and gender expression and cultural norms that perhaps you've heard about. So in comparing complications and removing huge classes of them, I'd say the definition aims at reducing complications and succeeds in its reduction. The charitable reading I'm giving him is that he really found it necessary to restate that some remain.
The broken piece of "What is a man" gotcha-question chain of thought is that the real reduction in complications is unjustified, not that male involves all the same complications as beforehand. That's always going to be primary point #1. You've alluded to knowing this in Personally I don't really care of its definition past "sex and gender are 2 different things" and "what does the person I am talking to understand/mean when they hear/say the word"
And you still seem to fail to understand my role in this exchange since you seem to read it as a defence of DarkPlasmaBall's point, which it is not. You had the assignment of discussing his thesis, I was the headteacher that handed you back your assignment and told you to "try again" because your argumentation failed the criteria for the assignment with no consideration for the conclusion. DarkPlasmaBall: A is B, therefore B has all of A. You: How does B have all of A??? Me: You have to question why A should be B (which you did later down the line, but while trying to argue that really that was included in your questioning of how B should have all of A, which is why you got another failing grade). With your last posts you outlined your belief system, thus gave opportunity to see where they might be incompatible, and how that shapes your argument, and where it might be incompatible with DarkPlasmaBall's. You are now finally in a position where you can argue your point logically without making a fool of yourself. Before you moved in a logical construct that isn't supportive of your ideas, while pretending that you weren't. With point #1 taken, we go to point #2: What is a man/woman deliberately excludes some from A (taking your framing in the hopes that it leads to greater understanding from you). Its starting premise is that there are A and then there's some C, D, and E that aren't part of A. B has been used to exclude them. This is an exclusionary definition not a simple substitution. Some of the excluded may believe in their hearts that they are A, they may go through life telling people they are A, and pass for A on the street, but the problematic definition says they never were. The remaining problem, and this is a big problem for the What is a man/woman types, is that B also has some vagaries that they're probably not willing to contend with ultimately. It might mean more are included in A that they wish to exclude, and that's a real issue with that standpoint. It's eliminated a whole host of complications, unjustifiably if you ask me, but some remain.
|
On September 10 2026 01:40 Acrofales wrote:
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
That's not someone being offended by being misgendered, that's someone not fluent in English being slightly confused because they were misled by the (factually wrong) advice some grammar pedants pushed on people.
On September 10 2026 01:47 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 00:50 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 23:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I guarantee you there are more people who will be offended if you default to he/him when the gender of a person is unknown or irrelevant than people who will be offended if you default to they/them. I don’t know that’s true. There are plenty of men who get super offended when you assume they are gay, trans, or non binary. Same with women. You can say that’s wrong, but it doesn’t change the reality. And I’m not sure why it is wrong for a man or woman to feel like their gender identity is important but OK for a non binary to think their gender identity is important. There must be some miscommunication here because defaulting to a genderless pronoun when you don't know how to refer to someone in the third person isn't disrespecting any men or women. The previous default before grammar pedants stopped correcting people for singular they/them was to say "one" (e.g. "one should keep in mind..."), and the default before that was to use he/him generically. Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely.
Okay but there weren't any people to my knowledge getting offended by "one" and that was normal for at least 20 years. The only blowback I've seen singular they/them get is by the anti-woke grifters that bitch about everything imaginable. And if you're pointing out that those folks will get offended, okily dokily, I know. That can be the end of this conversation.
|
On September 10 2026 01:48 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 01:29 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 10 2026 00:57 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 00:49 WombaT wrote:On September 09 2026 22:25 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 17:41 Velr wrote:
I feel like native english or other non-gendered language speakers have a hard time understanding just how bad "they/them" feels to people coming from gendered languages.
My mind jumps to two things when I hear "they/them", one is utterly dehumanising on the level of calling groups of people animal names, actually even worse. The other is the "royal" we, which also feels horribly wrong for the opposite reason.
I don't claim either of these is "correct", it's just how it feels to me and I would guess many others with similar language background. To this point, the use of they/them can be (and often is) just as disrespectful and hateful as he/him. It comes down to tone and intention. In written word the actual tone and intent are near impossible to determine. It’s fine as a default, we kinda assume most people on TL are male and tend to act accordingly, I know I do, accurately but there’s nout wrong with being neutral about it Some people can be wankers about it, I had a colleague in college insisting on correct pronouns while studiously never getting my bloody name right (my given name is my middle name) But like, whatever. It’s really neither a difficult adjustment, nor a massive imposition if people request it, I don’t see why this is controversial If people prefer they/them, one can presuppose that they don’t find it dehumanising, which is all that matters really Of course you should call individuals whatever they want to be called, that’s a small act of kindness and basic politeness. My point is that if you switch to they them as a default, you are not going to offend no one. I have a friend who has been accused of being gay his whole life, it’s a trigger for him because he is not. So when people walk up to him with they-them and he corrects them and they give him the patronizing, aww your gay but scared look it sets him off. And the way numbers work is if there are 10000 men and 10 non binary, if you offend 2 % with the they and 80% with the he, you are still upsetting more with the they. (Made up numbers to illustrate a point). The reality is there is no perfect answer and constantly judging others as not as “progressive” or “left” of you (not saying you do this, because you don’t) is all about the person doing its ego and not making things better. Hell it’s even in the word , progress is not about perfection it is about making things better. Trying to better and learn how to improve. Yuhp, hence trying to use gender neutral pronouns or other non-gendered naming conventions to make spaces more inclusive. Glad we agree. Yawn, GH light, got it.
So you disagree not based on the words written, but who wrote them?
|
On September 10 2026 01:52 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 01:40 Acrofales wrote:
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
That's not someone being offended by being misgendered, that's someone not fluent in English being slightly confused because they were misled by the (factually wrong) advice some grammar pedants pushed on people. Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 01:47 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 00:50 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 23:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I guarantee you there are more people who will be offended if you default to he/him when the gender of a person is unknown or irrelevant than people who will be offended if you default to they/them. I don’t know that’s true. There are plenty of men who get super offended when you assume they are gay, trans, or non binary. Same with women. You can say that’s wrong, but it doesn’t change the reality. And I’m not sure why it is wrong for a man or woman to feel like their gender identity is important but OK for a non binary to think their gender identity is important. There must be some miscommunication here because defaulting to a genderless pronoun when you don't know how to refer to someone in the third person isn't disrespecting any men or women. The previous default before grammar pedants stopped correcting people for singular they/them was to say "one" (e.g. "one should keep in mind..."), and the default before that was to use he/him generically. Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely. Okay but there weren't any people to my knowledge getting offended by "one" and that was normal for at least 20 years. The only blowback I've seen singular they/them get is by the anti-woke grifters that bitch about everything imaginable. And if you're pointing out that those folks will get offended, okily dokily, I know. That can be the end of this conversation.
No I was pointing out how people who get their sexuality mistaken as LGBTQ dont like it, and as was explicit about it.
Things 20 years ago were different, I very much agree with that.
I am getting awfully sick of people saying they want to have open discussions about this sort of thing and then every second post when they don’t get complete agreement feigning offense and making some explicit or hint that the other poster is “bad”. It’s one of the major reasons the left is losing online. Be the perfect “progressive “ or you’re bad is not inclusive.
|
I neither said nor hinted you are bad. I have an opinion and you haven't persuaded me to change it, if you don't see any reason to change yours then so be it.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On September 10 2026 02:14 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 01:52 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 01:40 Acrofales wrote:
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
That's not someone being offended by being misgendered, that's someone not fluent in English being slightly confused because they were misled by the (factually wrong) advice some grammar pedants pushed on people. On September 10 2026 01:47 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 00:50 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 23:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I guarantee you there are more people who will be offended if you default to he/him when the gender of a person is unknown or irrelevant than people who will be offended if you default to they/them. I don’t know that’s true. There are plenty of men who get super offended when you assume they are gay, trans, or non binary. Same with women. You can say that’s wrong, but it doesn’t change the reality. And I’m not sure why it is wrong for a man or woman to feel like their gender identity is important but OK for a non binary to think their gender identity is important. There must be some miscommunication here because defaulting to a genderless pronoun when you don't know how to refer to someone in the third person isn't disrespecting any men or women. The previous default before grammar pedants stopped correcting people for singular they/them was to say "one" (e.g. "one should keep in mind..."), and the default before that was to use he/him generically. Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely. Okay but there weren't any people to my knowledge getting offended by "one" and that was normal for at least 20 years. The only blowback I've seen singular they/them get is by the anti-woke grifters that bitch about everything imaginable. And if you're pointing out that those folks will get offended, okily dokily, I know. That can be the end of this conversation. No I was pointing out how people who get their sexuality mistaken as LGBTQ dont like it, and as was explicit about it. Things 20 years ago were different, I very much agree with that. I am getting awfully sick of people saying they want to have open discussions about this sort of thing and then every second post when they don’t get complete agreement feigning offense and making some explicit or hint that the other poster is “bad”. It’s one of the major reasons the left is losing online. Be the perfect “progressive “ or you’re bad is not inclusive.
I don’t really get your objection here, far as I can tell Fleet’s point is merely to assume a gender neutral state in spaces such as this until proven otherwise
I am very openly a bloke so being referred to as such is grand for me personally, but those assumptions can be alienating
Not just to accommodate trans folks but cis women as well
Generally I think you have good sensibilities but I think you’re off on this, respectfully
|
On September 10 2026 02:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:52 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 01:40 Acrofales wrote:
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
That's not someone being offended by being misgendered, that's someone not fluent in English being slightly confused because they were misled by the (factually wrong) advice some grammar pedants pushed on people. On September 10 2026 01:47 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 00:50 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 23:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I guarantee you there are more people who will be offended if you default to he/him when the gender of a person is unknown or irrelevant than people who will be offended if you default to they/them. I don’t know that’s true. There are plenty of men who get super offended when you assume they are gay, trans, or non binary. Same with women. You can say that’s wrong, but it doesn’t change the reality. And I’m not sure why it is wrong for a man or woman to feel like their gender identity is important but OK for a non binary to think their gender identity is important. There must be some miscommunication here because defaulting to a genderless pronoun when you don't know how to refer to someone in the third person isn't disrespecting any men or women. The previous default before grammar pedants stopped correcting people for singular they/them was to say "one" (e.g. "one should keep in mind..."), and the default before that was to use he/him generically. Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely. Okay but there weren't any people to my knowledge getting offended by "one" and that was normal for at least 20 years. The only blowback I've seen singular they/them get is by the anti-woke grifters that bitch about everything imaginable. And if you're pointing out that those folks will get offended, okily dokily, I know. That can be the end of this conversation. No I was pointing out how people who get their sexuality mistaken as LGBTQ dont like it, and as was explicit about it. Things 20 years ago were different, I very much agree with that. I am getting awfully sick of people saying they want to have open discussions about this sort of thing and then every second post when they don’t get complete agreement feigning offense and making some explicit or hint that the other poster is “bad”. It’s one of the major reasons the left is losing online. Be the perfect “progressive “ or you’re bad is not inclusive. I don’t really get your objection here, far as I can tell Fleet’s point is merely to assume a gender neutral state in spaces such as this until proven otherwise I am very openly a bloke so being referred to as such is grand for me personally, but those assumptions can be alienating Not just to accommodate trans folks but cis women as well Generally I think you have good sensibilities but I think you’re off on this, respectfully
He can do whatever he wants. I’m just pointing out it’s not objectively better and people who do not choose to are not “bad”.
Drone brought some good questions, as did others, that would lead to good discussion and fleet didn’t take the opportunity but certainly has to attack me and my character. Because of this I choose to not give him the benefit of the doubt, as is also my right. It seems like judgement is the goal, not discussion or even changing peoples minds.
On September 10 2026 02:27 LightSpectra wrote:
I neither said nor hinted you are bad. I have an opinion and you haven't persuaded me to change it, if you don't see any reason to change yours then so be it.
Fair enough.
|
On September 10 2026 02:46 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 02:38 WombaT wrote:On September 10 2026 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:52 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 01:40 Acrofales wrote:
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
That's not someone being offended by being misgendered, that's someone not fluent in English being slightly confused because they were misled by the (factually wrong) advice some grammar pedants pushed on people. On September 10 2026 01:47 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 00:50 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 23:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I guarantee you there are more people who will be offended if you default to he/him when the gender of a person is unknown or irrelevant than people who will be offended if you default to they/them. I don’t know that’s true. There are plenty of men who get super offended when you assume they are gay, trans, or non binary. Same with women. You can say that’s wrong, but it doesn’t change the reality. And I’m not sure why it is wrong for a man or woman to feel like their gender identity is important but OK for a non binary to think their gender identity is important. There must be some miscommunication here because defaulting to a genderless pronoun when you don't know how to refer to someone in the third person isn't disrespecting any men or women. The previous default before grammar pedants stopped correcting people for singular they/them was to say "one" (e.g. "one should keep in mind..."), and the default before that was to use he/him generically. Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely. Okay but there weren't any people to my knowledge getting offended by "one" and that was normal for at least 20 years. The only blowback I've seen singular they/them get is by the anti-woke grifters that bitch about everything imaginable. And if you're pointing out that those folks will get offended, okily dokily, I know. That can be the end of this conversation. No I was pointing out how people who get their sexuality mistaken as LGBTQ dont like it, and as was explicit about it. Things 20 years ago were different, I very much agree with that. I am getting awfully sick of people saying they want to have open discussions about this sort of thing and then every second post when they don’t get complete agreement feigning offense and making some explicit or hint that the other poster is “bad”. It’s one of the major reasons the left is losing online. Be the perfect “progressive “ or you’re bad is not inclusive. I don’t really get your objection here, far as I can tell Fleet’s point is merely to assume a gender neutral state in spaces such as this until proven otherwise I am very openly a bloke so being referred to as such is grand for me personally, but those assumptions can be alienating Not just to accommodate trans folks but cis women as well Generally I think you have good sensibilities but I think you’re off on this, respectfully He can do whatever he wants. I’m just pointing out it’s not objectively better and people who do not choose to are not “bad”. Drone brought some good questions, as did others, that would lead to good discussion and fleet didn’t take the opportunity but certainly has to attack me and my character. Because of this I choose to not give him the benefit of the doubt, as is also my right. It seems like judgement is the goal, not discussion or even changing peoples minds. Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 02:27 LightSpectra wrote:
I neither said nor hinted you are bad. I have an opinion and you haven't persuaded me to change it, if you don't see any reason to change yours then so be it. Fair enough.
I find (bolded) kind of fucked in light of us agreeing that progressive is about progress not perfect, and that I've never said or insinuated that anyone not using gender neutral pronouns is bad.
You're right - Drone raised some interesting points from the perspective of someone with a gendered native tongue. I can understand how that would make conversation more confusing, and I've mentally tallied it as a decent reason why they/them default could be problematic. It doesn't sink the ship, but it's a noted flaw. There's no discussion for me to pursue there, I've just conceded the point. Perhaps I could have been more vocal about that concession.
Your objections have been much less substantive, and I tried to draw a logical line (with the restaurant analogy) to figure out where we differ, similarly to what I did with Drone, but we just hit a wall of you feeling attacked and not being able to progress.
If you can, tell me where you object:
Step one : I accept that gaming spaces are an example of a hostile environment for women and non-males, because male is the 'default' in many/most gaming spaces.
Step two : I accept that moving towards changing spaces I participate in to a gender-neutral default would help combat such hostile environments.
Step three : I accept that the solution is neither perfect nor complete, but ultimately is progress towards the goal of minimizing my contribution to hostility of environments based on gender.
|
On September 10 2026 03:10 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 02:46 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 02:38 WombaT wrote:On September 10 2026 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:52 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 01:40 Acrofales wrote:
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
That's not someone being offended by being misgendered, that's someone not fluent in English being slightly confused because they were misled by the (factually wrong) advice some grammar pedants pushed on people. On September 10 2026 01:47 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 00:50 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 23:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I guarantee you there are more people who will be offended if you default to he/him when the gender of a person is unknown or irrelevant than people who will be offended if you default to they/them. I don’t know that’s true. There are plenty of men who get super offended when you assume they are gay, trans, or non binary. Same with women. You can say that’s wrong, but it doesn’t change the reality. And I’m not sure why it is wrong for a man or woman to feel like their gender identity is important but OK for a non binary to think their gender identity is important. There must be some miscommunication here because defaulting to a genderless pronoun when you don't know how to refer to someone in the third person isn't disrespecting any men or women. The previous default before grammar pedants stopped correcting people for singular they/them was to say "one" (e.g. "one should keep in mind..."), and the default before that was to use he/him generically. Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely. Okay but there weren't any people to my knowledge getting offended by "one" and that was normal for at least 20 years. The only blowback I've seen singular they/them get is by the anti-woke grifters that bitch about everything imaginable. And if you're pointing out that those folks will get offended, okily dokily, I know. That can be the end of this conversation. No I was pointing out how people who get their sexuality mistaken as LGBTQ dont like it, and as was explicit about it. Things 20 years ago were different, I very much agree with that. I am getting awfully sick of people saying they want to have open discussions about this sort of thing and then every second post when they don’t get complete agreement feigning offense and making some explicit or hint that the other poster is “bad”. It’s one of the major reasons the left is losing online. Be the perfect “progressive “ or you’re bad is not inclusive. I don’t really get your objection here, far as I can tell Fleet’s point is merely to assume a gender neutral state in spaces such as this until proven otherwise I am very openly a bloke so being referred to as such is grand for me personally, but those assumptions can be alienating Not just to accommodate trans folks but cis women as well Generally I think you have good sensibilities but I think you’re off on this, respectfully He can do whatever he wants. I’m just pointing out it’s not objectively better and people who do not choose to are not “bad”. Drone brought some good questions, as did others, that would lead to good discussion and fleet didn’t take the opportunity but certainly has to attack me and my character. Because of this I choose to not give him the benefit of the doubt, as is also my right. It seems like judgement is the goal, not discussion or even changing peoples minds. On September 10 2026 02:27 LightSpectra wrote:
I neither said nor hinted you are bad. I have an opinion and you haven't persuaded me to change it, if you don't see any reason to change yours then so be it. Fair enough. I find (bolded) kind of fucked in light of us agreeing that progressive is about progress not perfect, and that I've never said or insinuated that anyone not using gender neutral pronouns is bad. You're right - Drone raised some interesting points from the perspective of someone with a gendered native tongue. I can understand how that would make conversation more confusing, and I've mentally tallied it as a decent reason why they/them default could be problematic. It doesn't sink the ship, but it's a noted flaw. There's no discussion for me to pursue there, I've just conceded the point. Perhaps I could have been more vocal about that concession. Your objections have been much less substantive, and I tried to draw a logical line (with the restaurant analogy) to figure out where we differ, similarly to what I did with Drone, but we just hit a wall of you feeling attacked and not being able to progress. If you can, tell me where you object: Step one : I accept that gaming spaces are an example of a hostile environment for women and non-males, because male is the 'default' in many/most gaming spaces. Step two : I accept that moving towards changing spaces I participate in to a gender-neutral default would help combat such hostile environments. Step three : I accept that the solution is neither perfect nor complete, but ultimately is progress towards the goal of minimizing my contribution to hostility of environments based on gender.
I’ve already answered 1 and 2 multiple times in great detail. But I disagree with both statements as written.
1. It is hostile for much worse reasons. The assuming all males has its obvious down sides, but also is gender neutral in the sense that everyone is treated equally unless they choose to disclose. Many non males have stated this is a positive for a wide variety of reasons.
2. I believe this is not a certainty but your hope. It can just as easily just offend a different group. And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile.
3. The best way forward is for people to be kind to individuals and not assume the worst until it is obvious that their intentions are malice.
|
On September 10 2026 03:42 Billyboy wrote:
I’ve already answered 1 and 2 multiple times in great detail. But I disagree with both statements as written.
1. It is hostile for much worse reasons. The assuming all males has its obvious down sides, but also is gender neutral in the sense that everyone is treated equally unless they choose to disclose. Many non males have stated this is a positive for a wide variety of reasons.
2. I believe this is not a certainty but your hope. It can just as easily just offend a different group. And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile.
3. The best way forward is for people to be kind to individuals and not assume the worst until it is obvious that their intentions are malice.
1. Fair correction in that it's not the ONLY reason the spaces are hostile. It's just -part- of the reason. However, does this mean that you don't recognize "Everyone is treated equally unless they choose to disclose (as non-male)" as problematic? That statement explicitly states that it is NOT gender-neutral. It's not gender neutral in a sense, it's explicitly NOT gender neutral.
"Many non-males have stated this as a positive for a wide variety of reasons" also falls under the umbrella of 3's accepting that it isn't perfect or complete imo.
If I amend 1 to:
"I accept that gaming spaces are an example of a hostile environment for women and non-males, in part because male is the 'default' in many/most gaming spaces."
do you then accept it? I expect you disagree that it's important enough to care about - that's fine. Just asking if you agree whether or not the statement itself is true.
2. I believe this is not a certainty but your hope. It can just as easily just offend a different group. And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile.
2. It logically follows if you agree with premise 1, so you not agreeing with premise 1 of course means you object to premise 2.
"And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile." is fine, but it was never a stated goal to make peace and unity in the universe, as we both accept because we agree progress is progress not perfect.
3. The best way forward is for people to be kind to individuals and not assume the worst until it is obvious that their intentions are malice.
3. While this is a nice, positive aphorism it's well outside of the scope of what we're talking about. "Just be nice to people" is great, but we're talking about how spaces can have a default gender and (whether or not) that can be problematic. "Just be nice to people" isn't a solution if we were to agree that there's a problem.
|
On September 10 2026 04:03 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 03:42 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 03:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 10 2026 02:46 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 02:38 WombaT wrote:On September 10 2026 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:52 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 01:40 Acrofales wrote:
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
That's not someone being offended by being misgendered, that's someone not fluent in English being slightly confused because they were misled by the (factually wrong) advice some grammar pedants pushed on people. On September 10 2026 01:47 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 00:50 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
I don’t know that’s true. There are plenty of men who get super offended when you assume they are gay, trans, or non binary. Same with women. You can say that’s wrong, but it doesn’t change the reality. And I’m not sure why it is wrong for a man or woman to feel like their gender identity is important but OK for a non binary to think their gender identity is important. There must be some miscommunication here because defaulting to a genderless pronoun when you don't know how to refer to someone in the third person isn't disrespecting any men or women. The previous default before grammar pedants stopped correcting people for singular they/them was to say "one" (e.g. "one should keep in mind..."), and the default before that was to use he/him generically. Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely. Okay but there weren't any people to my knowledge getting offended by "one" and that was normal for at least 20 years. The only blowback I've seen singular they/them get is by the anti-woke grifters that bitch about everything imaginable. And if you're pointing out that those folks will get offended, okily dokily, I know. That can be the end of this conversation. No I was pointing out how people who get their sexuality mistaken as LGBTQ dont like it, and as was explicit about it. Things 20 years ago were different, I very much agree with that. I am getting awfully sick of people saying they want to have open discussions about this sort of thing and then every second post when they don’t get complete agreement feigning offense and making some explicit or hint that the other poster is “bad”. It’s one of the major reasons the left is losing online. Be the perfect “progressive “ or you’re bad is not inclusive. I don’t really get your objection here, far as I can tell Fleet’s point is merely to assume a gender neutral state in spaces such as this until proven otherwise I am very openly a bloke so being referred to as such is grand for me personally, but those assumptions can be alienating Not just to accommodate trans folks but cis women as well Generally I think you have good sensibilities but I think you’re off on this, respectfully He can do whatever he wants. I’m just pointing out it’s not objectively better and people who do not choose to are not “bad”. Drone brought some good questions, as did others, that would lead to good discussion and fleet didn’t take the opportunity but certainly has to attack me and my character. Because of this I choose to not give him the benefit of the doubt, as is also my right. It seems like judgement is the goal, not discussion or even changing peoples minds. On September 10 2026 02:27 LightSpectra wrote:
I neither said nor hinted you are bad. I have an opinion and you haven't persuaded me to change it, if you don't see any reason to change yours then so be it. Fair enough. I find (bolded) kind of fucked in light of us agreeing that progressive is about progress not perfect, and that I've never said or insinuated that anyone not using gender neutral pronouns is bad. You're right - Drone raised some interesting points from the perspective of someone with a gendered native tongue. I can understand how that would make conversation more confusing, and I've mentally tallied it as a decent reason why they/them default could be problematic. It doesn't sink the ship, but it's a noted flaw. There's no discussion for me to pursue there, I've just conceded the point. Perhaps I could have been more vocal about that concession. Your objections have been much less substantive, and I tried to draw a logical line (with the restaurant analogy) to figure out where we differ, similarly to what I did with Drone, but we just hit a wall of you feeling attacked and not being able to progress. If you can, tell me where you object: Step one : I accept that gaming spaces are an example of a hostile environment for women and non-males, because male is the 'default' in many/most gaming spaces. Step two : I accept that moving towards changing spaces I participate in to a gender-neutral default would help combat such hostile environments. Step three : I accept that the solution is neither perfect nor complete, but ultimately is progress towards the goal of minimizing my contribution to hostility of environments based on gender. I’ve already answered 1 and 2 multiple times in great detail. But I disagree with both statements as written. 1. It is hostile for much worse reasons. The assuming all males has its obvious down sides, but also is gender neutral in the sense that everyone is treated equally unless they choose to disclose. Many non males have stated this is a positive for a wide variety of reasons. 2. I believe this is not a certainty but your hope. It can just as easily just offend a different group. And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile. 3. The best way forward is for people to be kind to individuals and not assume the worst until it is obvious that their intentions are malice. 1. Fair correction in that it's not the ONLY reason the spaces are hostile. It's just -part- of the reason. However, does this mean that you don't recognize "Everyone is treated equally unless they choose to disclose (as non-male)" as problematic? That statement explicitly states that it is NOT gender-neutral. It's not gender neutral in a sense, it's explicitly NOT gender neutral. "Many non-males have stated this as a positive for a wide variety of reasons" also falls under the umbrella of 3's accepting that it isn't perfect or complete imo. If I amend 1 to: "I accept that gaming spaces are an example of a hostile environment for women and non-males, in part because male is the 'default' in many/most gaming spaces." do you then accept it? I expect you disagree that it's important enough to care about - that's fine. Just asking if you agree whether or not the statement itself is true. --- 2. It logically follows if you agree with premise 1, so you not agreeing with premise 1 of course means you object to premise 2. "And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile." is fine, but it was never a stated goal to make peace and unity in the universe, as we both accept because we agree progress is progress not perfect. --- 3. "The best way forward is for people to be kind to individuals and not assume the worst until it is obvious that their intentions are malice." While this is a nice, positive aphorism it's well outside of the scope of what we're talking about. "Just be nice to people" is great, but we're talking about how spaces can have a default gender and (whether or not) that can be problematic. "Just be nice to people" isn't a solution if we were to agree that there's a problem.
I agree with you new 1 much more, my issue would be it still seems like a major contributor when it appears to be far more minor than the big issues.
2. Progress means getting better not getting different. I’m not convinced without changing other more important things that this will not make things worse. Kind of like what the safe injection sites did here, between not fully thinking it through, incompetence which almost led to corruption charges and nothing else in the system changing, it ended up causing a lot more problems than it solved and also made it far more difficult to get future programs and projects in place and funded.
It’s more than just being nice, it is understanding that one size fits all ends up more often than not being one size fits none. You have to look at all those that are impacted by any change and try to see potential flaws and abuses. There are plenty of good intentioned plans that cause way more problems then they solved. For us Canadians many of them are with good intentioned people trying to help the indigenous.
|
On September 10 2026 04:20 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 04:03 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 10 2026 03:42 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 03:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 10 2026 02:46 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 02:38 WombaT wrote:On September 10 2026 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:52 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 01:40 Acrofales wrote:
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
That's not someone being offended by being misgendered, that's someone not fluent in English being slightly confused because they were misled by the (factually wrong) advice some grammar pedants pushed on people. On September 10 2026 01:47 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:24 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
There must be some miscommunication here because defaulting to a genderless pronoun when you don't know how to refer to someone in the third person isn't disrespecting any men or women. The previous default before grammar pedants stopped correcting people for singular they/them was to say "one" (e.g. "one should keep in mind..."), and the default before that was to use he/him generically. Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely. Okay but there weren't any people to my knowledge getting offended by "one" and that was normal for at least 20 years. The only blowback I've seen singular they/them get is by the anti-woke grifters that bitch about everything imaginable. And if you're pointing out that those folks will get offended, okily dokily, I know. That can be the end of this conversation. No I was pointing out how people who get their sexuality mistaken as LGBTQ dont like it, and as was explicit about it. Things 20 years ago were different, I very much agree with that. I am getting awfully sick of people saying they want to have open discussions about this sort of thing and then every second post when they don’t get complete agreement feigning offense and making some explicit or hint that the other poster is “bad”. It’s one of the major reasons the left is losing online. Be the perfect “progressive “ or you’re bad is not inclusive. I don’t really get your objection here, far as I can tell Fleet’s point is merely to assume a gender neutral state in spaces such as this until proven otherwise I am very openly a bloke so being referred to as such is grand for me personally, but those assumptions can be alienating Not just to accommodate trans folks but cis women as well Generally I think you have good sensibilities but I think you’re off on this, respectfully He can do whatever he wants. I’m just pointing out it’s not objectively better and people who do not choose to are not “bad”. Drone brought some good questions, as did others, that would lead to good discussion and fleet didn’t take the opportunity but certainly has to attack me and my character. Because of this I choose to not give him the benefit of the doubt, as is also my right. It seems like judgement is the goal, not discussion or even changing peoples minds. On September 10 2026 02:27 LightSpectra wrote:
I neither said nor hinted you are bad. I have an opinion and you haven't persuaded me to change it, if you don't see any reason to change yours then so be it. Fair enough. I find (bolded) kind of fucked in light of us agreeing that progressive is about progress not perfect, and that I've never said or insinuated that anyone not using gender neutral pronouns is bad. You're right - Drone raised some interesting points from the perspective of someone with a gendered native tongue. I can understand how that would make conversation more confusing, and I've mentally tallied it as a decent reason why they/them default could be problematic. It doesn't sink the ship, but it's a noted flaw. There's no discussion for me to pursue there, I've just conceded the point. Perhaps I could have been more vocal about that concession. Your objections have been much less substantive, and I tried to draw a logical line (with the restaurant analogy) to figure out where we differ, similarly to what I did with Drone, but we just hit a wall of you feeling attacked and not being able to progress. If you can, tell me where you object: Step one : I accept that gaming spaces are an example of a hostile environment for women and non-males, because male is the 'default' in many/most gaming spaces. Step two : I accept that moving towards changing spaces I participate in to a gender-neutral default would help combat such hostile environments. Step three : I accept that the solution is neither perfect nor complete, but ultimately is progress towards the goal of minimizing my contribution to hostility of environments based on gender. I’ve already answered 1 and 2 multiple times in great detail. But I disagree with both statements as written. 1. It is hostile for much worse reasons. The assuming all males has its obvious down sides, but also is gender neutral in the sense that everyone is treated equally unless they choose to disclose. Many non males have stated this is a positive for a wide variety of reasons. 2. I believe this is not a certainty but your hope. It can just as easily just offend a different group. And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile. 3. The best way forward is for people to be kind to individuals and not assume the worst until it is obvious that their intentions are malice. 1. Fair correction in that it's not the ONLY reason the spaces are hostile. It's just -part- of the reason. However, does this mean that you don't recognize "Everyone is treated equally unless they choose to disclose (as non-male)" as problematic? That statement explicitly states that it is NOT gender-neutral. It's not gender neutral in a sense, it's explicitly NOT gender neutral. "Many non-males have stated this as a positive for a wide variety of reasons" also falls under the umbrella of 3's accepting that it isn't perfect or complete imo. If I amend 1 to: "I accept that gaming spaces are an example of a hostile environment for women and non-males, in part because male is the 'default' in many/most gaming spaces." do you then accept it? I expect you disagree that it's important enough to care about - that's fine. Just asking if you agree whether or not the statement itself is true. --- 2. It logically follows if you agree with premise 1, so you not agreeing with premise 1 of course means you object to premise 2. "And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile." is fine, but it was never a stated goal to make peace and unity in the universe, as we both accept because we agree progress is progress not perfect. --- 3. "The best way forward is for people to be kind to individuals and not assume the worst until it is obvious that their intentions are malice." While this is a nice, positive aphorism it's well outside of the scope of what we're talking about. "Just be nice to people" is great, but we're talking about how spaces can have a default gender and (whether or not) that can be problematic. "Just be nice to people" isn't a solution if we were to agree that there's a problem. I agree with you new 1 much more, my issue would be it still seems like a major contributor when it appears to be far more minor than the big issues. 2. Progress means getting better not getting different. I’m not convinced without changing other more important things that this will not make things worse. Kind of like what the safe injection sites did here, between not fully thinking it through, incompetence which almost led to corruption charges and nothing else in the system changing, it ended up causing a lot more problems than it solved and also made it far more difficult to get future programs and projects in place and funded. It’s more than just being nice, it is understanding that one size fits all ends up more often than not being one size fits none. You have to look at all those that are impacted by any change and try to see potential flaws and abuses. There are plenty of good intentioned plans that cause way more problems then they solved. For us Canadians many of them are with good intentioned people trying to help the indigenous.
Heard.
Heading to work, but followup if you care to:
I'm not asking for governmental change that declares all unknown persons must be referred to as "They/Them" or you're forced to get a tramp stamp saying "I'm a bad person".
I'm much more saying "If we greeted every new person here by their username until we had something better to refer to them as, wouldn't that be generally more inclusive?" and fwiw I think we do an okay job of that here and that TL isn't a space I'd describe as openly hostile to non-males... but I'm a male so I wouldn't know.
I don't know how that would 'make things worse' tbh.
|
On September 10 2026 05:00 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2026 04:20 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 04:03 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 10 2026 03:42 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 03:10 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 10 2026 02:46 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 02:38 WombaT wrote:On September 10 2026 02:14 Billyboy wrote:On September 10 2026 01:52 LightSpectra wrote:On September 10 2026 01:40 Acrofales wrote:
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
That's not someone being offended by being misgendered, that's someone not fluent in English being slightly confused because they were misled by the (factually wrong) advice some grammar pedants pushed on people. On September 10 2026 01:47 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
Not meant to be offensive and not offensive or shouldn’t be offensive are two different things entirely. Just as how it should be and how it is, are different things entirely. Okay but there weren't any people to my knowledge getting offended by "one" and that was normal for at least 20 years. The only blowback I've seen singular they/them get is by the anti-woke grifters that bitch about everything imaginable. And if you're pointing out that those folks will get offended, okily dokily, I know. That can be the end of this conversation. No I was pointing out how people who get their sexuality mistaken as LGBTQ dont like it, and as was explicit about it. Things 20 years ago were different, I very much agree with that. I am getting awfully sick of people saying they want to have open discussions about this sort of thing and then every second post when they don’t get complete agreement feigning offense and making some explicit or hint that the other poster is “bad”. It’s one of the major reasons the left is losing online. Be the perfect “progressive “ or you’re bad is not inclusive. I don’t really get your objection here, far as I can tell Fleet’s point is merely to assume a gender neutral state in spaces such as this until proven otherwise I am very openly a bloke so being referred to as such is grand for me personally, but those assumptions can be alienating Not just to accommodate trans folks but cis women as well Generally I think you have good sensibilities but I think you’re off on this, respectfully He can do whatever he wants. I’m just pointing out it’s not objectively better and people who do not choose to are not “bad”. Drone brought some good questions, as did others, that would lead to good discussion and fleet didn’t take the opportunity but certainly has to attack me and my character. Because of this I choose to not give him the benefit of the doubt, as is also my right. It seems like judgement is the goal, not discussion or even changing peoples minds. On September 10 2026 02:27 LightSpectra wrote:
I neither said nor hinted you are bad. I have an opinion and you haven't persuaded me to change it, if you don't see any reason to change yours then so be it. Fair enough. I find (bolded) kind of fucked in light of us agreeing that progressive is about progress not perfect, and that I've never said or insinuated that anyone not using gender neutral pronouns is bad. You're right - Drone raised some interesting points from the perspective of someone with a gendered native tongue. I can understand how that would make conversation more confusing, and I've mentally tallied it as a decent reason why they/them default could be problematic. It doesn't sink the ship, but it's a noted flaw. There's no discussion for me to pursue there, I've just conceded the point. Perhaps I could have been more vocal about that concession. Your objections have been much less substantive, and I tried to draw a logical line (with the restaurant analogy) to figure out where we differ, similarly to what I did with Drone, but we just hit a wall of you feeling attacked and not being able to progress. If you can, tell me where you object: Step one : I accept that gaming spaces are an example of a hostile environment for women and non-males, because male is the 'default' in many/most gaming spaces. Step two : I accept that moving towards changing spaces I participate in to a gender-neutral default would help combat such hostile environments. Step three : I accept that the solution is neither perfect nor complete, but ultimately is progress towards the goal of minimizing my contribution to hostility of environments based on gender. I’ve already answered 1 and 2 multiple times in great detail. But I disagree with both statements as written. 1. It is hostile for much worse reasons. The assuming all males has its obvious down sides, but also is gender neutral in the sense that everyone is treated equally unless they choose to disclose. Many non males have stated this is a positive for a wide variety of reasons. 2. I believe this is not a certainty but your hope. It can just as easily just offend a different group. And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile. 3. The best way forward is for people to be kind to individuals and not assume the worst until it is obvious that their intentions are malice. 1. Fair correction in that it's not the ONLY reason the spaces are hostile. It's just -part- of the reason. However, does this mean that you don't recognize "Everyone is treated equally unless they choose to disclose (as non-male)" as problematic? That statement explicitly states that it is NOT gender-neutral. It's not gender neutral in a sense, it's explicitly NOT gender neutral. "Many non-males have stated this as a positive for a wide variety of reasons" also falls under the umbrella of 3's accepting that it isn't perfect or complete imo. If I amend 1 to: "I accept that gaming spaces are an example of a hostile environment for women and non-males, in part because male is the 'default' in many/most gaming spaces." do you then accept it? I expect you disagree that it's important enough to care about - that's fine. Just asking if you agree whether or not the statement itself is true. --- 2. It logically follows if you agree with premise 1, so you not agreeing with premise 1 of course means you object to premise 2. "And or create just a different way for people looking to be hostile to be hostile." is fine, but it was never a stated goal to make peace and unity in the universe, as we both accept because we agree progress is progress not perfect. --- 3. "The best way forward is for people to be kind to individuals and not assume the worst until it is obvious that their intentions are malice." While this is a nice, positive aphorism it's well outside of the scope of what we're talking about. "Just be nice to people" is great, but we're talking about how spaces can have a default gender and (whether or not) that can be problematic. "Just be nice to people" isn't a solution if we were to agree that there's a problem. I agree with you new 1 much more, my issue would be it still seems like a major contributor when it appears to be far more minor than the big issues. 2. Progress means getting better not getting different. I’m not convinced without changing other more important things that this will not make things worse. Kind of like what the safe injection sites did here, between not fully thinking it through, incompetence which almost led to corruption charges and nothing else in the system changing, it ended up causing a lot more problems than it solved and also made it far more difficult to get future programs and projects in place and funded. It’s more than just being nice, it is understanding that one size fits all ends up more often than not being one size fits none. You have to look at all those that are impacted by any change and try to see potential flaws and abuses. There are plenty of good intentioned plans that cause way more problems then they solved. For us Canadians many of them are with good intentioned people trying to help the indigenous. Heard. Heading to work, but followup if you care to: I'm not asking for governmental change that declares all unknown persons must be referred to as "They/Them" or you're forced to get a tramp stamp saying "I'm a bad person". I'm much more saying "If we greeted every new person here by their username until we had something better to refer to them as, wouldn't that be generally more inclusive?" and fwiw I think we do an okay job of that here and that TL isn't a space I'd describe as openly hostile to non-males... but I'm a male so I wouldn't know. I don't know how that would 'make things worse' tbh.
It’s totally fine if you want to do that. Not something I will be doing based on my personal experiences. Unless some new information appears. And I certainly won’t be judging those who don’t, nor those who are imperfect with their pronoun use. I’m not looking for reasons to kick people out of the tent, I’m looking for common ground to bring more in.
I think less rigid gender acceptance, which is happening, is much more important than pronouns. Most of what we even consider masculine or feminine is current marketing and the pronoun stuff seems more about dividing us than it is bring us to some better place.
|
Holy fuck.
"What the, somebody came to my doorbell yesterday! I saw a glimpse of them on the Ring camera!"
"Did they leave any like, note or something?"
Completely natural English exchange. Singular they. I have no idea why people pretend it doesn't exist.
And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha"
This is not a realistic response at all lmao
And even better, you can see how not-rare singular they is by removing a single word, Sasha.
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
|
On September 10 2026 05:38 Turbovolver wrote:Holy fuck. "What the, somebody came to my doorbell yesterday! I saw a glimpse of them on the Ring camera!" "Did they leave any like, note or something?" Completely natural English exchange. Singular they. I have no idea why people pretend it doesn't exist. Show nested quote +And, gratuitously, especially for you who refuses to believe they might confuse anybody:
"Oh, you're a pilot? My friend Sasha always wanted to fly a plane."
"Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
"They who? I only mentioned Sasha" This is not a realistic response at all lmao And even better, you can see how not-rare singular they is by removing a single word, Sasha. "Oh, you're a pilot? My friend always wanted to fly a plane." "Have they looked into enrolling in a flight academy?"
I’m in the new word camp because of confusion , that being said, I’m sure the new word has issues I’m not familiar with and maybe if I was I’d prefer this.
But my examples of where I have been confused that come to mind is my wife talking about her 5 friends and how there day is going, whatever. Then she finishes with “they are coming over for dinner after.” Me “no problem.” Head to the store and pick up extra food for 5 cook and set the table trying to be as helpful as possible for brownie points. Wife shows up with her non binary friend and I realize shit, that’s what she meant. Which in her context was totally reasonable. Had she said he I would have known it was just one and had she said she I would have known it was just one, but probably asked who. They I just incorrectly presumed it was all five.
The other more common situation is I’m not fully paying attention, kids, phone, email, tv, tired or whatever and I miss some detail, my brain defaults to plural as it’s used too. I generally catch up eventually.
Not some massive issues, but some that would be solved with a separate word.
Anyway it gets picked to change is going to have problems as humans, especially as we get older are adverse to change.
|
Oh, I am not wading into the actual debate that spawned this, I just wanted to fight the good fight for singular they in English. It's real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
