You can be fined $250,000 for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ pronouns if they demand

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imjack

Can I just call men 'her' and 'she' and women 'he' and 'him' in general conversation and act like it's not offensive?

If you would be fined for doing otherwise, would you not be concerned?

I would be concerned with the integrity of people. It's pretty childish to do the opposite of something someone asks, specifically because they ask.

If someone has the respect to call someone else 'professor' how far away from that is this concept?

I don't see myself being fined in the future, because I don't hold that disrespect. The question is a hypothetical contrast, because calling someone transgender the wrong pronoun purposefully is already a 'thing'.

a reply to: Abysha

It has no basis in English grammar. It's usage is common, but purely colloquial.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imjack

Can I just call men 'her' and 'she' and women 'he' and 'him' in general conversation and act like it's not offensive?

If you would be fined for doing otherwise, would you not be concerned?

I would be concerned with the integrity of people. It's pretty childish to do the opposite of something someone asks, specifically because they ask.

If someone has the respect to call someone else 'professor' how far away from that is this concept?

I don't see myself being fined in the future, because I don't hold that disrespect. The question is a hypothetical contrast, because calling someone transgender the wrong pronoun purposefully is already a 'thing'.

Would you address them as Herr Hitler because they asked?

If I respected them and they were my friend, I would would accompany them. But someone demanding that you conform your thought and language to theirs is tyranny.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Abysha

It has no basis in English grammar. It's usage is common, but purely colloquial.

1500's usage as a gender-neutral singular pronoun isn't a "basis in English grammar" to you? It's not new and it's more than colloquial.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Abysha

It has no basis in English grammar. It's usage is common, but purely colloquial.

1500's usage as a gender-neutral singular pronoun isn't a "basis in English grammar" to you? It's not new and it's more than colloquial.

I'm an admitted grammar Nazi. I'm sorry but a plural pronoun does not logically stand for singular nouns. But yes, when there is no specific nor previously identified noun, I also use "they" and "them", as is obvious by my previous post.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imjack

Can I just call men 'her' and 'she' and women 'he' and 'him' in general conversation and act like it's not offensive?

If you would be fined for doing otherwise, would you not be concerned?

I would be concerned with the integrity of people. It's pretty childish to do the opposite of something someone asks, specifically because they ask.

If someone has the respect to call someone else 'professor' how far away from that is this concept?

I don't see myself being fined in the future, because I don't hold that disrespect. The question is a hypothetical contrast, because calling someone transgender the wrong pronoun purposefully is already a 'thing'.

Would you address them as Herr Hitler because they asked?

If I respected them and they were my friend, I would would accompany them. But someone demanding that you conform your thought and language to theirs is tyranny.

Calling someone Hitler because they ask is not equatable to gender.

I'm assuming you meant you would accommodate your friend, not accompany them, and this makes sense, because you are friends.

But calling them Hitler doesn't address what I'm saying. Calling people the opposite of the way the they wish is what they find offensive. If they said they were Hitler, do you call them Jesus? Can you not see how calling them Jesus would anger them, regardless of calling them Hitler?

You seem to feel your logic is sound, but I disagree about what the issue is. For example, just like your side-debating, calling someone 'they' or 'them' isn't really offensive. It's not about calling them the correct noun, as much as it is not calling them the gender identifiable one they dislike.

Almost no one will disagree that if they randomly come up to you in rage that is a bad situation but that isn't the heart of this stance. It's more for places where you cannot just give them the finger and leave, like School, or Work.

a reply to: imjack

To be fair, the law in question includes names and titles.

The issue is that the subjective feelings of this person determines my behavior by law. You determine how I speak, and I must conform or be penalized. Is it a sign of respect and decency to coerce others under threat of penalty to call you what you wish?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Abysha

It has no basis in English grammar. It's usage is common, but purely colloquial.

1500's usage as a gender-neutral singular pronoun isn't a "basis in English grammar" to you? It's not new and it's more than colloquial.

I'm an admitted grammar Nazi. I'm sorry but a plural pronoun does not logically stand for singular nouns. But yes, when there is no specific nor previously identified noun, I also use "they" and "them", as is obvious by my previous post.

I'm sorry but it's been used that way for about 500 years. You may be a grammatical taste-maker in your own world but I'd rather listen to the general consensus of Webster, Oxford, and others when it comes to these matters.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I am IMAGINED KLINGON warlord so ALL SHOULD pronounce "LORD" before my glorious fictious name with the SAME practical AUTHORITY...
offend ME and I can kill you it's my CULTURAL belief now....well SOME any way...ain't gonna just DIE without a DAMN good reason for it....


CAN'T wait to drag some poor sepcieist into court....

If it wasn't meant to be a spiciest, Trooper-- you just freaked
out the Merriam-Webster. Maybe I need an upgrade IDN.
If nobody minds, you can all address me as all lower-case ns. ...
nobody special. It seems to fit anytime after the first pledge drive.

For a courtesy to some small percentage of the population that's
sufficiently self-important to require a special prefix: that could
also have me charged with a six figure fine for my insolence... fine.
My perimeter is an open book with a lot of hidden meanings: some
are meaner than others. 250 grand is still gonna be a bad trade.

PS
You, trooper are for sure a Cuisinartist. I keep thinking about that
blur of sharp S#t and kit form a-holes. Remind me to stay in some
other state when you're spooled up.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Here is how it works for me:

If you have a penis, I'll call you sir.

If you have a vagina, I'll call you mam.

It doesn't matter to me when you got your penis or vagina, only what sexual organs you have in the moment that I am addressing you.

Well, get ready to start checking pants and skirts then if that's how you will solve this. i can see you going "Crocodrile Dundee" on people now.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imjack

To be fair, the law in question includes names and titles.

The issue is that the subjective feelings of this person determines my behavior by law. You determine how I speak, and I must conform or be penalized. Is it a sign of respect and decency to coerce others under threat of penalty to call you what you wish?

The law should include names and titles. Not sure what that's fair to other than people with names and titles.

The persons feelings are not subjective, to the other person, that statement is almost mindblowing to the level you undermine others in your argument. 'the way you speak'. Your opinions aren't facts by verse of them being your opinions.

Unless you think that it's appropriate to call someone their previous name when they went through legal effort to change it, just to troll their gender issues.

You speak a big deal about grammar, and how important English is to you, even though you make mistakes too(Like accommodate/accompany), but when it comes to the basic definition of "Gender"

the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

there is a reason it is specifically adds "with reference to social and cultural differences". It's because it's speaking to the stereotypes of male and female. Not literal, even though this is included. For example, it's stereotypical for a male to have a penis. That is how the word is drawn to sex. Not all males have a penis, and not all males that lack a penis are transgender. Being able to reproduce or not, or even having a Penis, is not what makes you male gender. There are many sets of Chromosomes, however only two Genders, so it's not that either. What makes someone male or female is social stereotypical representations of the biological functions, that don't represent the gender role in caliber on their own anyway. Giving birth hardly makes someone a 'mother'.

a reply to: Abysha

Dictionaries define according to usage. That says nothing about the argument. The consensus also defined the earth as the centre of the universe. They turned out to be wrong. Either way, Consensus is what they demand, and it's for political reasons, as is evident by the Oxford Dictionary's reasons for suggesting "they", despite better and more grammatically correct ways of solving the problem.

a reply to: imjack

None of that is the point nor my concern. My concern is state coercion to determine not only what cannot be said, but what must be said. This doesn't just apply to the very few people who are transgendered, but to anyone and everyone.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
If I saw a Tranny as a courtesy I would call her she but the second anyone demanded or even asked me to call them some nonsensical made up term id just call them "F*** off moron" and move away, I try to spend as little time around crazy people as possible

Gender neutral pronouns aren't made up terms. The projections are that within 20-30 years English won't be using his/hers/etc... anymore anyways, it will all be gender neutral.

So in only 30 yrs will be at 2+2=5

Thats really scary, anyone who think this is a good thing is an idiot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Abysha

Dictionaries define according to usage. That says nothing about the argument. The consensus also defined the earth as the centre of the universe. They turned out to be wrong. Either way, Consensus is what they demand, and it's for political reasons, as is evident by the Oxford Dictionary's reasons for suggesting "they", despite better and more grammatically correct ways of solving the problem.

And... you are saying political correctness is also why they used "they" as a singular pronoun in the 16th century?

They/them... it's a singular pronoun, whether or not you want to accept it. Sure, Oxford and Webster definitions of words are generally "consensus" but... your personal usage of it is also a consensus. The difference is that you have no authority and they do thus your "consensus" is meaningless to those who want to use English in the most proper fashion.

But use your personal colloquialisms (like a moratorium on they/them as a singular) all you like. Just don't pass off your passion for English as a qualification to profess it.

a r loopeply to: omniEther

My new pronoun, should I ever find myself in NYC shall be: "Exalted One" (and that's going to be the abbreviated, informal version.)

The long version would make Danerys Targaryen jealous.

a reply to: Abysha

No they use it because there is no particular or previously identified subject. They could have corrected their grammar easily by not using a singular pronoun. It never had anything to do with gender identity, until political influence deemed grammar sexist.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imjack

None of that is the point nor my concern. My concern is state coercion to determine not only what cannot be said, but what must be said. This doesn't just apply to the very few people who are transgendered, but to anyone and everyone.

If someone requests you call them a different pronoun, your freedom isn't being imposed. You aren't being censored.

It's a request.

The issue is denying the request seems crass, because it's not made out of necessity, but formality. Conversations are run on formality. I don't speak with someone who addresses me as "Hitler". Anyone asking you to use the appropriate pronoun for them isn't assuming you're calling them the wrong one out of anything other than misunderstanding. Someone purposefully using other words specifically to incite a micro-aggression is different.

The question is who gets to define the pronoun? The speaker or the individual? If it's the speaker, then why am I not allowed to just call people Fire Extinguishers? IMO people should be allowed to define themselves, and nothing is wrong with error, unless it's purposeful and ill-intent.

I don't see how people are coming together to be purposefully and wrongfully defined to falseflag censorship based on micro-aggression.

What I do see is a lot of people who are asses, and I'm glad the Government is making this something comparable to Slander, because it is. If you're living in fear you might wrongfully cross these boundaries, maybe you should inspect your general rhetoric and understand the context means a lot here.

a reply to: imjack

It isn't a request when you can face hefty fines for not addressing that person as they want to be addressed... This is imposing the will of others on people.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Abysha

No they use it because there is no particular or previously identified subject. They could have corrected their grammar easily by not using a singular pronoun. It never had anything to do with gender identity, until political influence deemed grammar sexist.

Gender identity or not, its use as a singular pronoun is correct. To me, it sounds like my reason to use it as a singular is less politically-driven than your reason to not use it.

they/them/their - the usage of these words are fairly insulated in that very few English conventions rely on them being exclusively used as plural. Honestly, there isn't a reason to not use it in the singular other than you think it sounds funny.