And if that’s too complicated, we can always just use “they” for everyone. That’s what I’ve been doing this entire thread (not to mention everywhere else for months). It’s been working fine. No one has complained that they were confused by my language, no one has complained about me misgendering them.
Of course I realize that it’s possible I’ll one day offend a transgender person who doesn’t realize this is my universal policy and thinks I’m refusing to acknowledge their gender because they are trans. Maybe I’ll offend a cisgender person who feels that being referred to by gendered pronouns is a very important part of their identity.
If that does come up, I’m sure we’ll be able to work it out between ourselves. I think a transgender person could be forgiven for being suspicious of a person who claims to have a policy of not using gendered pronouns, but I really doubt that many transgender people would be offended by someone who actually doesn’t use gendered pronouns. And if they really, really were offended by that, then I’d apologize and having had the conversation would use the term they preferred when referring to them (or avoid using pronouns for them and just used their name). Saying ‘he’ or ‘she’ about one particular person would certainly be weird, but I doubt I’d forget to do it after I’d had a discussion with that person where they told me that it was important to them.
The hardest thing for me to take is that people hold the position both that: 1) we shouldn’t have to respect the gendered-pronoun-wishes of transgender people; and 2) it is a good idea to use gendered pronouns at all. If gender is an important part of identity then shouldn’t we respect other people? If gender is not an important part of identity then why the hell is it the only thing about a person deemed important enough to convey in a pronoun?
After my falling out with Internet Atheism I dropped everyone I had paid attention to then, including DarkMatter2525; I’m glad to know that they have your stamp of approval. I might check them out again.
my flawless knockout of an out of context fumbling against Peterson
Usually people don’t compliment themselves in internet comment threads. It’s kind of a guarantee that no one will take anything you have to say seriously
When I say that I like the vids, that’s not to say I necessarily agree with all the content therein; merely that I enjoy the humorous and logical approach to arguing against the tenets of Christian theism that make absolutely no sense.
When it comes to atheists in general, I totally understand their lack of belief and I fully accept it, as long as they aren’t insufferable dicks about it. Again, overzealous fanaticism of any flavor is not my jam.
Since nobody has any evidence for their beliefs (or the lack thereof) then everyone gets to believe or disbelieve whatever they like.
Obligatory:
"Don't pat yourself so hard on the back; you might break your spine."
Of course it is. Its meant to be demeaning and ostracizing to those on the receiving end. A person acting in a civil manner with the barest of common courtesy to others would not do so deliberately or repeatedly. It is intended as a malicious attack.
Because he wants a special privilege to act like an asshole to others in public without consequences.
Because civil rights laws do not exist? Of course they can, especially in public settings and words which are intentionally defamatory and prejudicial.
Again, your view of what constitutes “compelled speech” is a load of garbage. You are just seeking avenues for malicious attacks on others. Something which is not protected speech ever.
I’d guess in the case of many Jordie Bros, yes, but in those of many others, I think their complaint is more about their perception/claim that they’re the ones being maliciously attacked, by (supposedly) being “compelled” to use certain words (and to not use others). I gather that’s what the silly complaint about “compelled [and supposedly forbidden] speech” is all about.
And overall, that’s all another ironic form of Victim Card playing by members of the empowered (white male) dominant group.
Case in point regarding civil rights laws and the necessity for keeping them intact and enforced; due to that recent bullshit SC ruling, some people are now trying to use that as precedent to claim racial discrimination ‘should be’ legal again.
And anyone who actually read the decision would see that it was a useless punt. The court never evaluated claims of discrimination or religious belief. In fact Kennedy said in two areas of it that if not for the attitudes of the Human Rights Commission, the baker would have undoubtedly lost.
I think that doubly applies to fandoms which get very fundamentalistic in their own way (see the freak out over the recent Thundercats reboot or anything regarding the Last Jedi that isn’t a criticism of film making as a whole).
Hell, I’m CisHet, and I’ve had it happen to me in real-life, 3D-meatspace; instances where some dudebro or another thought I wasn’t acting sufficiently ‘feminine’ enough for their tastes. (Needless to say, the things I said in response to such lame digs were usually much worse.)
It’s disingenuous to arbitrarily assert what someone else’s intent may be; denying that such microaggressions have any negative impact on the people they are directed at.
Oh, absolutely; rabid fanboys and fangirls who are so ardently invested in their chosen fandom are often the very worst sort of zealots.
