('cause why else would you need to know someone’s pronouns?)
Because others talk about you amongst themselves? Referring to “that person over there” is hardly uncommon.
Nothing like initiating a conversation with aggravated and antagonistic language.
Likewise, there isn’t anything quite like casually putting somebody you don’t know into some conceptual box. Maybe it could help some to reflect upon how the practice they take for granted imposes upon others.
As every cat knows, it’s the box you put yourself in that’s important.
A: Hi Steve!
B: Actually my name is Kevin.
A: (Rolls eyes) Whatever. You look more like a “Steve” to me.
B: Yeah, I get that a lot.
A: Later Steve!
[Person B gets a nametag reading “Hello, my name is Kevin”]
A: Jesus, Steve. You don’t have to be such an antagonistic douche about it.
Not commenting directly on this article, but it made things a little easier when I was studying Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan that “she” and “he” and “him” and “her” were pronounced identically: Tā (tah). “Her” (possessive) and “his” were both pronounced: Tā de (tah duh).
The written forms did have gender indicators though, with 她 being the feminine “tā” and 他 being masculine one, and 的 indicating possession.
Everything should be “pay what you want”. Which is to say, nobody should be able to hold things that you want hostage based on a unilateral price point. The catch, though, is that you should “want to pay” a fair price. This is the part that seems so alien to people, because we have plenty of experience with exchanges where the goal is simply to get the thing for the lowest possible price with no consideration for whether that price is reasonable or just. For example, there are probably a fair number of people who would think it perfectly reasonable to just check the combination of boxes which give you the maximum discount on the degenderettes site - and part of my criticism is that their format actually kind of encourages that.
The counter-model is how they do it at cons and bookfairs, where they actually interact with each person and try to get an understanding of their situation. If it seems like someone has been through some shit in their life and really needs a gesture of solidarity, they just give them the patch free. If the person seems like they have funds and can afford to support the mission, they suggest a donation even on top of what the asking price is.
Now, that wouldn’t work if a fucking economist rolled up to their table, it only works because everyone involved in the exchange has a genuine sense of respect and shared values outside of the economy. Because even if they’re not actually friends, they have a reason to care about each other. A shorter way of saying this is that functional communism (again a.k.a. non-oppressive exchange) requires community.
It also makes commerce with certain non-US parts of the world difficult. A lot of the EU, if memory serves, has laws on the books that explicitly ban discriminatory pricing of any sort, for any purpose. I remember a minor fracas about it when it resulted in some rather unpleasant surprises when it came to insurance.
It’s a simple, practical thing, but people in the EU need pronouns too.
I think you are confusing my distaste for labels with a distaste for pronouns. You see, I was replying to kpkpkp’s comment about labels. You seem to have read my comment but failed to check out the context. Labels and pronouns are separate ideas. For example, I can say I am straight which is a label but not a pronoun. Or, I could say I prefer the label gender fluid and the pronouns They and Them.
Labels to describe or identify things is a separate idea from self applied labels of identity. When we apply labels to things, we often call those labels names as in “the name of the thing you are sitting on is a chair” which is a reasonable and mostly objective label. But when we decide to apply the same sort of labeling to a person, that’s something different entirely. You see, when an external actor labels you, it minimizes you to some extent because you have been placed in a neat mental little box in that person’s world. It thingafies you, it diminishes you, and is a overly reductive view of a fellow human being. If we must use a label, I like human. It was a very popular label in “the day” and may be due for a comeback. Proper names are a great use of labeling as well. Parental labeling if you will.
These externally applied labels are problematic in my view but self applied labels are so far beyond my world view as to be alien to me. Why anyone would choose a label for themselves is baffling.
Is it actually baffling, though? I mean, if we walk off the deconstruction of what it means to label a person, does it makes sense why a man who has sex with other men might describe themselves as “gay”, especially knowing that other people will probably otherwise assume they are “straight” (as opposed to simply keeping an open minds about it)?
Yes. It is actually baffling to me for a person to choose to box themselves in.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
