They/Them - Non-Binary - First Article I've Read That Uses It

Them has always been plural until now.
She could have said "telling me to kill myself"
More progressive stupidity brought to us by people with brainwaves that function like rumdummoron's.

Despite my best efforts to hate her, I find Courtney Stodden attractive.

I find this to be more detrimental than helpful.

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?!

When an empire hits the silly hour, it's run is over. China produces engineers; we produce snowflakes. Non-binary lol. Why can't we just say it: The mentally ill.

^
I think the real news in this thread is that Skifredo has revealed himself to be a full on supporter of China

Courtney Stodden has no shame, and will do everything and anything to keep herself in the headlines.

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.

I have to believe that this whole pronoun thing, they, ze, hir, zir, fucking bullshit is just another case of the tail wagging the dog. Throughout my entire career and to this day, my job requires me to be in contact with many clients on a daily basis. In a given year I interact with thousands of different people. I've come across quite a few gays and lesbians. I've met a few "hes" who live their lives as "shes". But I have yet to meet a single person who used, or asked me to use, these bizarre, vague, nondescript and confusing words in reference to gender preference. Not one.

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.

I consider myself an ally of the LGBTQ+ community, and even I was a bit puzzled when "they/them" became a thing. It's also something we used to get dinged for in English class if we used they or them to describe a singular entity. I wonder how teachers are keeping up with the times now...

here's a thought: maybe it should be about time the fucking woke should finally become awaken.

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.

Another thought is that things like "they/them" are really reaching to fit under the umbrella of what "woke" really means...

How are inoffensive non judgmental pronouns offensive?

I think there are way more important issues in the world than what pronouns some has been wants to use.

Non-Judgmental or not its all fake bullshit to try to turn a successful land into another failed society. Want to see a perfect example of what human beings create when they want an equal society? North Korea. 99% of the people are equal; they live in the worst country on earth. Male/female/mentally ill. Trust the science.

The US is a failed society because of the very tenets you support. Change is necessary to save it

They better add a "preferred pronouns" section to all of our phones contacts because there is no way I am going to remember individual preferences otherwise.

This thread reminded me of the old SNL sketch "Pat" where no one knew which pronouns to use.

^Justin
When SNL was still funny!

Was Cousin It way ahead of it’s time?

^ you may be on to something there. Man I loved that show when I was a kid!

We're being Punk'd. They want to see what idiocy we'll accept.

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.

I agree with tetradon in a way. I think once the door was opened, it became a challenge to see how far reasonable folks would allow themselves to be pushed.

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!

Eh ... languages change, regardless of whether or not you approve. It's actually the thing that makes language more interesting.

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.

Let’s take it a step further.

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.

"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?"

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...

False outrage of the day, promulgated by folks with nothing else to do with their time.

Ishmael you make several good points. I agree with your line of thinking.

I guess I was looking for control over something - and there’s no control over the evolution of language.

I hate to give twentyfive the win on this because he often argues with my bud rick, but he’s got this thread sussed. At the end of the day it is losers getting offended by stupid shit.

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!!!

I understand what some of you guys are saying. Language naturally evolves over time, usually due to technological advancements that require new words to describe them, or sometimes words or phrases that were once considered "slang" have become widely acceptable. Almost invariably, the evolution is the ADDITION of words that didn't exist before.

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…

I noticed that yesterday when I read it but the bigger issue is Chrissy Teigen is an ass.

Eh. No, it is part of a natural evolution because the primary motivators that change language over time have historically been social, political, and religious movements. Technology is certainly part of the mix, as well. But you not liking the social movements causing the change doesn't make them "unnatural". It just means you don't like it.

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.

^ Both MO and CMI make some valid points. But just because a language "changes" or not doesn't make it a good thing. In this case, it's part of a broader agenda to redefine truth according to the whims of the moment, and to signal that you believe the "right things."

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

"The whole notion of a physical vs internal sexual identity is absurd and unnatural."

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.

We as a society invent new words all the time. (cheugy? really?) I just wish we could create a new set of pronouns that meant gender neutral. Using plural pronouns they/them for an individual seems clunky and grammatically incorrect. If I refer to an individual as they, do they refer to themselves as we? We also need to come up with a new honorific title for gender neutral individuals. Can't very well start a letter to they/them with Dear Mr. or Mrs..

I can get on board with that. I'd prefer new singular pronouns that are gender neutral rather than using plural pronouns as language spackle. Something like that could still develop, but who knows.

You could start that hypothetical letter
“Dear Idiot”
Is that gender neutral enough for y’all

Those gender neutral pronouns have already been created, although depending on the source there may be some differences in spelling.

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

"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."

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.

Here's the shirt

https://www.amazon.com/There-More-Gender…

shirts that say "There Are More Than Two Genders" but are available only in men's and women's sizes. ahh the drama that can arise from that.

possible solution: make those shirts from hefty bags. garbage bags don't give two fucks about gender.

^ I thought Silence of the Lambs was well ahead of its time in pronoun usage.
It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again!

"The whole concept of 'gender fluidity' or different external and internal sex exists in no other species."

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.

@CMI, I see your point on a more complex conception of self, but I haven't seen a scientific argument that non-gender-binary individuals physiologically differ. The “brain size” argument is stupid. Just because a trans person has a brain with parts more as the size of the other gender doesn’t count. It would be like saying that because the average woman is 5’4” and the average man is 5’9”, that anyone under the midpoint is a woman and anyone over that is a man. Sex is biological and in mammals, binary.

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.

The science we're dealing with here isn't straight anatomy. We're dealing with a mash-up of psychology, hormonal biology, and brain chemistry. And all of those sciences are inexact, sometimes wildly so. So, again, it's not possible for me to make a cut-and-dry judgement on these squishy concepts or someone else's internal perspective.

"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.

If they ski, golf and play poker I am fine with anyone.

There are more than 2 sexes. Thats a given. Sex is biological. Gender is learned however. And we only have 2.

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

And men who are turned out in prison will wear tight clothes grow their hair act feminine. Yet revert back to masculine roles when let out.

All I know is that if this means Chrissy Teigen goes away for a while, it’s a good thing. She’s whiney and annoying as fuck. And apparently an evil bitch lol.

@Call.Me.Ishmael

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?

@misterorange, well said. I find the change from "gender identity disorder" and "gender reassignment surgery" to "cross-gender identification" and "gender affirming surgery" a curious one, particularly when they demand medical treatment (surgery and hormonal manipulation). Well, is it a disease or isn't it? Because if it's just a preference, why is it covered under medical/pharmaceutical health benefits? Especially when data shows that getting surgery does not markedly reduce suicidality.

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.

@misterorange...

"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.

Ishmael, you make a good argument. To be continued... I'm heading out to a strip club and there are no trannies there. As far as I know anyway. Jeez, I fuckin' hope not.

How does transgendered people having rights and acceptance negatively impact you???

@CMI, I extend them compassion the same way I think all people who suffer a serious condition (though ICEE pushes his luck here) are deserving of compassion.

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…

@ICEE, this is called the motte and bailey fallacy, commonly wherein someone takes a broader position, then when it is attacked, retreats to a narrow but defensible position, and pretends they're the same thing.

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.

As I said earlier, when things change, there are usually both good and bad policies to address that change.

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.

Minor correction: "(and I'm not under the impression that left-leaning news sources [don't] do the same thing)"

How does transgendered people having rights and acceptance negatively impact you???

@CMI, it sets a precedent. The whole notion that "misgendering" someone can cause death or physical harm is bizarre. I don't see why this version of being uncivil should be privileged above others.

What you decide as a "partisan culture war" has become a legitimate freedom of speech concern (well beyond this one issue).

@ICEE responds to my pointing out his flawed logic by repeating himself. Were you born this dense or did you have to work at it?

Just to reiterate, I don't like that law. But, it doesn't actually set a precedent until a case makes it to court and there's a ruling. Before that, it's just an untested law. And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a case hinging on this law making it to court.

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.

^ Then there's no need to separately carve out "misgendering." Anyways, I think we agree more than not here.

How does transgendered people having rights and acceptance negatively impact you???


You won't answer because it doesn't. You're just a bigot

I mostly agree with ICEE. Arguing endlessly about the merits of using one set of pronouns over another just comes off as thinly veiled intolerance. Who cares?

So if a stripper identifies as “they/them” do I have to pay for 2 VIP dances?

"I mostly agree with ICEE."


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

"You won't answer because it doesn't. You're just a bigot"

Derp.

@Cashman: "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 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.

^ I have several friends who work(ed) at Gilead (which makes the PrEP drugs). Lots of discussions with the FDA go into label wording like that, as it will affect every piece of marketing material that goes out.

This is a non issue unless you're bigoted. What pronoun someone chooses to be called has no impact on your life.

@Random
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.

^ My pronouns are His Majesty/His Majesty's. Bow as you utter them.

Before this whole they/them thing became a thing, there is one example I can think of where "they" was potentially used in the singular, and that's when the identity of the person is unknown.

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.

@misterorange...

"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.

And before anyone specifically *here* lobs charges of "nonsense language" at anyone else on Earth at all ever, I'll just leave this here...

https://tuscl.net/glossary.php

No one cares this much about pronouns. You're just bigots

@2ICEE
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.

You mean you don't want to live in a society where they're accepted and have rights

Not unless everyone is required to wear a badge describing what their individual medical and psychological conditions are. You know, like The Scarlet Letter. You can wear a big "A" for asshole.

See being a bigot isn't so hard to admit to