They/Them - Non-Binary - First Article I've Read That Uses It
shailynn
They never tell you what you need to know.
"Courtney Stodden alleges Chrissy Teigen sent DMs telling them to kill themself"
When I first read this, I was thinking "who else are they talking about in addition to Courtney Stodden?"
This is the first national article I've read using neutral pro-nouns and it doesn't make it easy to follow. Hey, you want to use what ever pro-noun to describe yourself, that's fine by me, but coming from this person (Courtney Stodden) seems like an insult to all the people that REALLY want to use the term(s) for the right reason(s). Just another attention grab by a long forgotten D-list Celebrity or someone really trying to change their image?
(Stodden recently shared on social media that they’re non-binary and use they/them pronouns.)
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/courtney…
When I first read this, I was thinking "who else are they talking about in addition to Courtney Stodden?"
This is the first national article I've read using neutral pro-nouns and it doesn't make it easy to follow. Hey, you want to use what ever pro-noun to describe yourself, that's fine by me, but coming from this person (Courtney Stodden) seems like an insult to all the people that REALLY want to use the term(s) for the right reason(s). Just another attention grab by a long forgotten D-list Celebrity or someone really trying to change their image?
(Stodden recently shared on social media that they’re non-binary and use they/them pronouns.)
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/courtney…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
78 comments
She could have said "telling me to kill myself"
More progressive stupidity brought to us by people with brainwaves that function like rumdummoron's.
If we decide to use non binary pronouns, the pronouns must still match the single vs multiple nature of the person or persons referenced.
I saw an HIV medication commercial and the medication does not work for those assigned female at birth. Rather than saying it can’t be used by females, they had to be woke and use a full sentence to say female! Wtf?!
I think the real news in this thread is that Skifredo has revealed himself to be a full on supporter of China
Wrt regards to the HIV commercial, well, you have to cater to your target audience. There are more bothersome commercials and messages out there than that.
This is probably 1/10 of one percent of people who, to advance the cause of "wokeness" have used the liberal media, Hollywood elites, and general progressive attitudes to make this issue appear exponentially larger than it is. Going by what you read and see on TV, you might think that 1 in 3 people are suffering intense emotional trauma over this crap. The truth is probably more like one in a hundred thousand, and if those wackos are truly offended by words like "he" or "she" then they ought to look for the real source of their unhappiness rather than blaming others. Most who claim to support this bastardization of the English language are simply attention seeking morons.
at this current rate the way things are going woke fucks are going to be demanding for new alphabet and numeric systems. and that will still not be enough.
This thread reminded me of the old SNL sketch "Pat" where no one knew which pronouns to use.
When SNL was still funny!
There are two sexes. A man who gets shot up with female hormones and his junk chopped off is still a man. His body will fight the "transition" until his dying day.
"Non-binary" is just denial of basic biology.
Renaming manholes (no homo) to maintenance holes was a waste of tax payer money. But things have now been pushed too far.
I am not in favor of rehashing the English language because some snowflake might be offended because he’s not happy having a penis, and doesn’t want to be called he.
There are huge issues to deal with in this world, and pronouns should remain as they are. I’m sure folks in Israel aren’t concerned about pronouns as Palestinians lob rockets at them!
Like most here, neutral pronouns are weird for me because I grew up learning a different way. But if someone prefers neutral pronouns, then that's what I'll use. It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't cost me anything. I'm not going to throw a fit every time I need to figure out a harmless new thing.
I grew up in a largely black neighborhood in Irvington NJ. I identified more with the black folks in my area - than many of the white folks.
Does that allow me to use the n-word? I hold a strong identification to the black community even today. We are throwing the dictionary out the window, so everything is fair game.
Let’s also redefine racism to its 2021 definition! Racism is now a disagreement on the basis of racial lines. If another person disagrees on a racial matter, they are a racist.
An example - I’ve noticed that most all folks perpetrating violence against Asian Americans are blacks. Evidently that makes me a racist.
Nope, but I've expressed the opinion to my black friends that black culture should also move towards removing that word from their casual slang. Some people agree with that opinion; others do not. It's not a binary debate and it never will be. Again, language changes; you don't have control.
I'll take that question in another direction. I'm sure that in the past (and perhaps even today) there have been plenty of white people who've said "What do mean I can't call them niggers anymore? I've always called them niggers! It's going to be weird not calling them niggers when I grew up calling them niggers and I don't want to change!" in much the same way that some people in this thread are foot-stamping over using gender neutral pronouns. Ultimately, I'm okay with the people who want to keep using N-bombs in casual conversation losing that argument. I feel pretty much the same way about the use of gender neutral pronouns.
All that being said, gender neutral pronouns don't carry the same controversy and potential conflict of racial epithets. I have been in situations where I used the wrong pronoun and, in every one of those situations, the person either let it slide or politely let me know that they identify differently. So, then I apologize, make a mental note, and we keep talking. Or, I've gotten it wrong, and someone else approaches me to say "Hey, you probably didn't know, but that person uses gender neutral pronouns." And again, I just make a mental note and move forward. I've never seen anyone come to blows or have a shouting match over the use of gender neutral pronouns. If anyone's teacup is rattling over this particular issue, then you're just shopping for useless outrage.
Which is all very different from racial epithets, because I really can't imagine a scenario where someone comes up to me and says "Hey, you probably didn't know, but Mike doesn't like to be called a nigger." If I call Mike a nigger, then Mike should kick me in the nuts. Full stop.
But those are just my 2 cents...
I guess I was looking for control over something - and there’s no control over the evolution of language.
Let’s discuss something interesting, like the proper pronouns for ricks - ricknouns if you will. We really need something that indicates that we are at least five times manliness than a mundanes male hairless ape. Twenty times manlier than loser crabs.
DISCUSS!!!
This whole pronoun, binary/non-binary thing is NOT evolution. It's a MOVEMENT attempting to FORCE largely unpopular beliefs and opinions upon the entire population. Words that are biologically correct, and as old as the language itself, are being REMOVED and REPLACED with "new" words. If you don't agree with the underlying CONCEPT those words support you will be labeled as homophobic or some such thing, and maybe even "cancelled" for not getting on board the "woke train."
This is not a natural evolution of language. Rather it is exactly what Orwell referred to as NEWSPEAK. It is intentionally CHANGING the language in order to drive changes in human behavior.
I've attached an article describing one example of how this very thing is happening right now. If you don't feel like opening the article, here's a sample of what's going on at Penn State University:
"Specifically, the proposed rules would “move away from the use of gendered pronouns” by replacing “he/him/his and she/her/hers with they/them/theirs or use non-gendered terms.” It would also replace “male-centric” terms such as “freshman/sophomore/junior/senior with first-year (1st-year), second-year (2nd-year), third-year (3rd-year), fourth-year (4th-year), and beyond.”
You may be wondering what the problem is with words like Freshman, Sophomore, etc. Here it is:
Freshman - obviously because it contains "man"
Sophomore - I have no idea what the beef is with that
Junior/Senior - sexist because males (fathers and sons) typically use those suffixes
The article also teaches us that "upperclassmen" is both sexist and "classist." Classist? Here "class" refers to a group of students, not social or economic status, but nevertheless PSU says it's classist. I wonder if PSU believes that a "school" of fish is a bunch of brick buildings in the ocean.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/…
Here's a more complete guide to correct language, and how to not be a disgusting offensive person, directly from the PSU website:
https://studentaffairs.psu.edu/campus-co…
Going back to something I mentioned earlier, the primary reason why we no longer refer to black people as "niggers" or "negroes" anymore grew directly out of a social movement that, in vast swaths of the U.S., was *deeply* unpopular. I remain totally okay with those people losing that fight.
And I still believe that all this pearl-clutching over gender neutral pronouns is a lot of manufactured drama.
In the case of sex and gender, it's become a distinction without a difference. A drag queen in the Castro and a longshoreman off the coast of Louisiana are still male. A girl who likes trucks and boy's clothes is still a female. The whole notion of a physical vs internal sexual identity is absurd and unnatural.
Just like the N-word implied that blacks were inferior or even subhuman, this proliferation of pronouns and other silly terms like "birthing people" and "chestfeeding" implies that science must be subordinated to the whims of the moment, and is another shot at objective truth.
"blackwhite — To accept whatever one is told, regardless of the facts. In the novel, it is described as "...to say that black is white when [the Party says so]" and "...to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary""
From Newspeak wiki
Except that this isn't a new thing, and historical records of gender-fluid people and subcultures go back to the ancient populations that existed on most continents. Which is to say, whether or not it's valid is a squishy topic that does not get resolved by whether or not you like it.
But again, in terms of all the hand-wringing over "It's an assault on ... something ... I don't like new things!", I've been in several social situations where this topic comes up, and when it comes up, it essentially always goes something like this:
PERSON: "Hey, so I heard you refer to me as a 'she' earlier, and I just wanted to let you know that I'm gender neutral."
ISHMAEL: "Okay."
[END SCENE]
It's barely a squall in a teacup.
“Dear Idiot”
Is that gender neutral enough for y’all
sie, hir, hirs, hirself
zie, zir, zirs, zirself
“Ze is a writer and wrote that book hirself. Those ideas are hirs. I like both hir and hir ideas.” Please note that “ze” is usually pronounced with a long “e” and that “hir” and its forms are usually pronounced like the English word “here.” Some people instead go by "ze/zir" pronouns because of the more consistent pronunciation and spelling.
https://www.mypronouns.org/how
New? In this society it is. The whole concept of "gender fluidity" or different external and internal sex exists in no other species. We're sexually dimorphic, determined by genetics. We might want to think it's a spectrum due to aberrations on the fringe, but does a thalidomide baby born with 3 fingers mean that the number of fingers on a person "exists on a spectrum"?
I don't know what social situations you've been in where you're referring to someone by their pronouns in their presence. Maybe I need to get out more. I'll humor them, in the same way I would a nephew who insists that he's a dragon. i.e. as cute, but we all know the reality of the situation is otherwise. Like those shirts on Amazon that say "There Are More Than Two Genders" but are available only in men's and women's sizes.
It's not a serious discussion.
https://www.amazon.com/There-More-Gender…
possible solution: make those shirts from hefty bags. garbage bags don't give two fucks about gender.
It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again!
Comparing us to other species is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Our intellectualism and complexity of emotions makes us orders of magnitude different from any other creature. As a comparison, look at our ability to use tools versus the next-most competent species that uses tools. We use tools to put vehicles on Mars, while apes use blades of grass to herd and gather bugs to eat, or occasionally hit each other with rocks. Given that our brains provide us with a vast diversity and capability for tool use, it's not impossible that our brains also make our internal concept of gender and identity *also* vastly more complex than any other creature.
I'm not making the argument that I know exactly what is true with regard to people who are gender neutral or identify as a gender different from physiological birth gender. I've never experiences that type of divergence, but just because I haven't that does not mean that anyone else's divergence is automatically false, either because I've not directly experienced it or I don't like it.
Could some gender-fluid people be attention seekers of some sort? Sure. But I also know gender-fluid people who are grounded, smart, and adverse to attention and drama. Again, I lack the direct perspective to judge definitively, but I struggle to imagine why they would inject that complexity into their social interactions if it's entirely bullshit.
"I don't know what social situations you've been in where you're referring to someone by their pronouns in their presence."
PERSON A: "Are all of you going to the bar after the event?"
ISHMAEL: "All of us are, but she isn't."
PERSON B: "Just so you know, I use gender neutral pronouns."
ISHMAEL: "Okay."
[END SCENE]
And I'm not humoring anyone. My perspective on a given person's complexity or deep-seated feelings are all external and I'm not in a position to make a judgment on the sincerity or validity of how they feel about their own identity. But I know that I can treat them how they want to be treated and it doesn't cost me anything at all.
And the fact that it IS such a recent phenomenon in our culture gives me pause. The same way we’ve gone from 1:10,000 people having “Gender Identity Disorder” to 1% (100x as many) being “born as the wrong gender.” That looks more like social contagion than an intrinsic part of the human condition. If gender and sex were disconnected, then why do they correlate so strongly in 99.9% of the population? Why does a man who wants to live as a woman need to get shot full of hormones and surgically altered to do so?
If gender means whatever the person thinks it does in the moment, and isn’t tied to anything observable, why is it a literal crime in some jurisdictions to “misgender” someone? It’s strange that even a decade ago to say that a boy who played with dolls should be encouraged to see himself as a girl was retrograde and misogynistic, reinforcing outdated gender roles, and shit like that.
Agree that you can treat someone in a kind fashion. But at what point are you just fostering a delusion? I don’t have an easy answer. I think about this from a biological and medical perspective above all.
"And the fact that it IS such a recent phenomenon in our culture gives me pause."
Not me. Because I don't see it as a recent phenomenon. Based on reported numbers, the demographic of people who identify as homosexual has skyrocketed from several decades ago to today. That's not because there's a factory out there churning out gay people. It's because today there is less stigma attached to coming out as gay, and people feel safer and more normal coming out. In general, people feel safer and more able to be public about how they feel. Whereas not very long ago, people were terrified of being "outed" as anything other than straight/heterosexual. I believe that this population has always been present; but they haven't been vocal or public.
Regarding misgendering as a crime, I have no good opinion. When things change, people sometimes make good or bad laws in response. But, if someone identifies as gender neutral, and someone else insists on calling them "he" or "she" just because they don't like the idea of gender neutrality, then that person is an asshole.
Were enculturated into our gender roles. While I believe in transgender rights. I think there is mental illness involved to a degree. The inability to enculturate into one's expected gender roles. Poor socialization and coping skills.
Also the role of trauma. Female rape victims can become androgynous as a subconscious way of not wanting to attract men. Fear of being raped. Male victims of prison rape will tend to become reclusive. Prefer clothing sizes that hide their body shape. Shy away from hygiene so as not to deter people from being around them. Some will refrain from wiping their butts so the smell makes men go away. Likewise sexually abused boys may engage in guy sex as adults because of the trauma. Battered women may end up in lesbian relationships.
But no matter what there are only 2 gender roles. The feminine and masculine. Which one a person subscribes to shouldn't be held against them culturally nor legally
Honestly, you make some very good points. My problem with this whole thing is that we're apparently transforming the way an entire population communicates and conducts itself to accommodate a very tiny percentage, whether it's one percent or 1/10 of one percent, and I doubt it's as high as that. Far more people suffer from bipolar disorder, but we don't ask every person we meet whether or not they have it. In fact, if we did, it would be considered an invasion of privacy and highly inappropriate. And as you rightly point out, "We're dealing with a mash-up of psychology, hormonal biology, and brain chemistry." In other words, it's an affliction, just like bipolar, and should be treated as such.
I completely believe there are some people who really suffer with having genitalia different than what they feel belongs there. So if I've known Victor for a while, he dresses and acts like a man, everyone refers to him as "he", and one day he gets his junk removed, starts wearing dresses and mini-skirts, and says the name is now Victoria, I'll be the first one to call her by female pronouns, and treat her with the same dignity I would any other woman. As you say, I may not "like" it, I may not understand it, but I will respect it.
But this whole changing back and forth thing every time the wind blows... I'm just not buying it. If anything, it's a slap in the face to people who have agonized for years over legitimate gender issues, whether they have made the difficult decision to medically and permanently switch over, or simply "come out" and begin living life openly in a manner not consistent with their genitalia, or continue to suffer in silence. This whole "fluidity" bullshit minimizes the struggle faced by people with actual problems, and forces all of society to bow down to people who are either attention grabbers or just plain indecisive, like a kid who doesn't know whether he wants to be a garbage man or a brain surgeon.
Whatever people might think about Caitlyn (Bruce) Jenner, if tomorrow she suddenly decided to transform (or RE-transform) back into a man (and she's probably got the financial resources to do that) I'm pretty sure that would discredit her self-described lifetime of angst dealing with gender identity. There are people suffering the same way that don't have the financial ability and/or social support to do anything about it. If Caitlyn went back to being Bruce, what would that say to those people?
I'll call someone by their preferred pronouns, for the same reason I won't intentionally mispronounce someone's names. I understand there are people who legitimately struggle with it, and they deserve all the compassion in the world. But the whole notion of gender-fluidity, especially when "misgendering" someone is a mortal sin in society, to be absurd. How do I know if Pat is a woman, a man, neither, both, or something else entirely, when she/he/they were something else yesterday?
See the shirt above, even on a shirt proclaiming otherwise, they acknowledge the physical binary exists. Biology DGAF about political correctness. Gender neutrality means what? That they don't dress or act entirely "male" or "female"? Does that mean a girl who likes to play with trucks is less female than her sister who prefers dolls? Even a few years ago, this mentality was seen as retrograde and sexist. It doesn't make sense.
"My problem with this whole thing is that we're apparently transforming the way an entire population communicates and conducts itself to accommodate a very tiny percentage."
I've only changed how I communicate with those who ask me to, which (as you say) is a small percentage. So, this thing that everyone is hand-wringing about has affected me barely on occasion.
"Far more people suffer from bipolar disorder, but we don't ask every person we meet whether or not they have it."
And I don't ask people about their gender identity, but if tell me that they're gender fluid or identify as a different gender, I say "Okay." And we move on. There's really no "special care" or onerous burden here. I've never broken a sweat from referring to a singular person as "they".
"In other words, it's an affliction, just like bipolar, and should be treated as such."
I disagree completely. As I've mentioned previously, I know people who are smart, high-functioning, and productive in their jobs and social interactions. But for reasons that are internal to them, they identify outside of their birth gender. They are already stable, but they identify differently. Now, some feel compelled to go down the path of gender reassignment surgery, and that's a whole other end of the spectrum. The vast majority don't do that. They just ask that you respect how they identify. And 'respect' isn't the same thing as 'humoring' them.
"But this whole changing back and forth thing every time the wind blows... I'm just not buying it."
The number of people who actually do that on an ongoing basis is miniscule, but the news sure loves to fixate solely on them and make them look like a much larger demographic of the whole. Also, there has to be some leeway given to those who are initially figuring things out, which for some is going to be a messy and unpleasant process (mostly for them). It's not like there's a lot of formal guidance out there for people who are trying to sort this stuff out. But, at least now it's better than it has been in the past.
Generally speaking, Caitlyn Jenner is viewed warily by the trans community. She's sort of a mixed bag for them.
@Tetradon...
"I understand there are people who legitimately struggle with it, and they deserve all the compassion in the world."
No, they don't. And for the most part, they aren't looking for compassion (or sympathy or pity). They just want you to respect how they identify, which is really low hanging fruit even for people you don't like. Some people who identify as gender neutral are shitheads. And if someone asks me about them, I'll say "They're a shithead." Because, if I say "He's a shithead.", then in reality I'm the shithead.
"But the whole notion of gender-fluidity, especially when 'misgendering' someone is a mortal sin in society, to be absurd."
Again, I see plenty of news stories providing outrage porn around this, but not so much in real life. I've had people who had to remind me of how they identify because I'm human and I forget. They're polite about it; I'm apologetic. There's no drama. Most of the people who identify differently understand that it's a process both for them and the people around them.
But, as I stated before, if you're someone who is misgendering someone intentionally because you don't like it or you can't be bothered... well, I don't know if it's a "mortal sin", but that person is a great big asshole.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In terms of being not a big deal, this stuff is flea-fart-in-a-hurricane.
Your experience may not be indicative. This has obviously caught the attention of some major state legislatures. Other bills in New York and Massachusetts.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews…
Get an advanced scientific/medical degree on this issue, or just shut up. It's better to stay silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
And this Fox News story is one of those that seeks to further a partisan culture war to create manufactured drama, ultimately with the goal of attracting eyeballs and therefore making money (and I'm not under the impression that left-leaning news sources do the same thing). The bill itself (the link to which this Fox News story somehow fails to provide...) is here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces…
The bill makes it clear that the first step towards a care worker being in violation of the law is *repeated and willful* use of the wrong pronoun (which still means that person is an asshole...). Arrests and charges only happen if the violations reach a level that was shown to cause the risk of death or physical harm. This is actually in accordance with CA's existing legal penalty for health and safety code violations at long-term care centers.
But that's jumping the gun; what would happen first is that the care facility gets a notice that one of it's staff is violating this statute (just like a safety code violation). If, for whatever reason, the care facility fails to address the issue, then it becomes a matter of prosecution and possibly fines or other penalties (that aren't jail time).
Now, I actually don't like this law, because I suspect that all the same things could be accomplished using anti-discrimination laws that are already on the books. Also, proving that misgendering is directly linked to physical harm or risk of death is a high burden of proof. It's far easier to rule on discrimination, which is valid if the care worker is intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong pronouns after being asked to do something different.
Even that Fox News story admits that the chances of jail time are remote, but then goes on to do its level best to play up the possibility of prosecution and jail time. Because pearl clutching makes money.
Again, I don't like that law, but not because I think it'll send scores of people to do hard time because they used the wrong pronoun. I just think it's redundant to other more relevant laws that are already on the books. I think you'll wait a long time for that law to send anyone to jail. I think the bill's author is trying to score points with his constituency by writing redundant laws.
What you decide as a "partisan culture war" has become a legitimate freedom of speech concern (well beyond this one issue).
The notion that misgendering someone can cause harm to health is not bizarre when it is part of a greater level of harassment between staff and a ward. Keep in mind that this law is narrowly limited to staff at care facilities (like nursing homes) and residents. I have had family members in assisted living and nursing care. Thankfully, it never happened to my family, but I saw how some bad hires on staff would get into aggressively adversarial relationships with residents, and this could lead to verbal harassment and withholding care. If that harassment includes repeated and intentional misgendering, then this law could kick in *if* that facility is not smart enough to let that staff member go once it becomes aware of what's going on.
And some care facilities do need to be coaxed into letting go of bad hires, because it's hard to find replacements in that field.
But I still don't like that law, because it's redundant to other more effective laws.
You won't answer because it doesn't. You're just a bigot
Surprise!
Breaking news.. an agenda pushing out of touch with reality fool agrees with another agenda pushing out of touch with reality fool. Who would have figured? Lol
Derp.
______________
I disagree and this has nothing to do with "woke-ness." This is perhaps the only example in the entire thread where precise, unambiguous, language matters. For medical reasons; perhaps to avoid a lawsuit.
Yes, I see your point about avoiding lawsuits. But that means if they simply said "females should not use this drug" then someone born female, who identifies as male, might not put 2+2 together and therefore would think it's perfectly okay to use. I don't disagree with you, but it's a lot like how they always say "don't take this drug if you're allergic to it." Duh.
Example:
Someone throws a rock through your window with a threatening note attached. The police ask do you have any idea who would have done that? "I don't know, but whoever it was, they really frightened me."
Doesn't work as well, grammatically, when you know who the person is.
Example:
"I don't think John is a very good leader. The team is not meeting goals."
"Well you know, they have some unconventional ideas regarding this project."
"You mean the whole team has unconventional ideas?"
"No sir, I mean John. THEY have unconventional ideas."
That's probably why this ridiculous zie, zir, hir thing is being offered as an alternative. But to think that a majority of people would accept and use that kind of nonsense speech is not practical.
Someone is either male or female, or identifies as male or female. "He/his" and "she/hers" should be sufficient to indicate someone's gender, or the gender they choose. If you're going to be "he" on Mondays and Thursdays and "she" every other day of the week, so be it. Don't ask me to learn a new language.
"Doesn't work as well, grammatically, when you know who the person is."
Here's the fix, and it's not complex:
PERSON 1: "I don't think John is a very good leader. The team is not meeting goals."
PERSON 2: "Well you know, John has some unconventional ideas regarding this project."
PERSON 1: "Thanks for your input. I know exactly who you're talking about and neither one of us broke a sweat."
Granted, it doesn't fix every grammatical interaction, but you can avoid most potentially confusing communications either using the person's name or using the word "person". I've stated that I don't love the use of gender-neutral plural pronouns to address singular individuals, but that's where it's going. I'd like to see other unique terms come into use, but that won't happen because somebody created a website and has proposed their own terms (however well thought out they might be). The language will evolve on its own and without anyone being in control. It certainly won't change because of a lot of arm waving and worrying.
"That's probably why this ridiculous zie, zir, hir thing is being offered as an alternative."
It's not ridiculous; it's someone attempting for form a more elegant solution to the issue of gender neutrality versus strict binary genderisms in grammar.
"But to think that a majority of people would accept and use that kind of nonsense speech is not practical."
It's also not nonsense. When there was a movement to stop addressing black people as 'niggers' and 'negroes', there was an opposing side that thought it was impractical and nonsensical to refer to a race as a chromatic color. Turns out, they lost that fight and I'm 100% okay with that. And now, there's a change moving forward in most grammar style guides to capitalize the 'B' in "Black" when referring to "Black people". And there's a lot of people hand-wringing about that as well, but I predict that they will lose that fight. I haven't made the switch yet (as you can tell from this and previous posts) but it's more because of habit and not any entrenched attitude. But I'll get there eventually, and I predict that (much like gender neutral pronouns) it won't kill me ... even a little bit.
"Someone is either male or female, or identifies as male or female. "He/his" and "she/hers" should be sufficient to indicate someone's gender, or the gender they choose."
Except that's not true. The use of gender neutral pronouns specifically addresses people who feel non-binary with regards to gender, regardless of the naughty bits that hang (or don't...) between their legs. That doesn't mean they pick a gender every day or week; it means that they don't view themselves as having a specific gender at any time.
And I'll be the first person to admit that I don't understand how that feels, because I've never felt that way. But, my lack of direct understanding does not give me the right to judge the validity of how someone feels internally about themselves. Again, I know smart, stable people who feel this way, and they aren't attention seekers. So, I refer to them using gender neutral pronouns, and not because I'm humoring them at any level.
It remains incredibly simple to do. This could all very easily be a culture shift rather than a culture war, except some people really love their tempests in a tea cup.
https://tuscl.net/glossary.php
You're right. I don't care what people want to be called. I only care about being told to submit to it, you fucking douchebag.