Pronouns annoyance

[crochetmonkey74]

I support every human being having the right to be who they are. This is not a bashing thread but I do want views on this.
Today , my friend messaged something about a non binary celeb. I replied with "I like him I think he's great" she then sent a text lecture about misgendering.
I actually didn't do it deliberately. My thoughts are these though: how can you insist on how others (who you will never hear or even know about) talk about you?
I agree with referring to people however they want you to in real life of course, am I just being a grumpy old bag? I genuinely want to get better at understanding the pronoun thing. What are your thoughts?

@Eyerollcentral
Of course, race is a social construct. it's obvious. In fact, it's insulting to say it's biological. In fact, that's when you get into eugenics. And that's why eugenics has always failed and any 'scientific' approach to race always has massive flaws because race is a social invention.
What does race even mean? In every society racism takes a different form. Because it's a social construct. Even more than gender/sex since sex at least has a biological basis.

Somebody put it very well in saying that going along with grammatically-incorrect pronouns is the inch you give and then, eventually, male rapists in women's prisons is the mile that they take. After all, you accept Kevin (now Karen) as a woman, as you've been willingly referring to that person as 'she' - so why are you protesting now? What has suddenly turned you into an uninclusive intolerant bigot?

It's even sillier when you're talking about a celebrity whom neither of you will ever meet, and still insisting on 'respecting' that celebrity by using non-biological pronouns. Suppose I was talking to a friend in Basildon about films and happened to comment that I thought Javier Bardem was a talented man, would that make me a nasty disrespectful bigot, as he would naturally consider himself as a hombre and not as a man?

If somebody saw me and asked me what my pronouns were, I'd see them as either a bit dim or maybe not a native English speaker, who was very new to the language and still learning. Unless the latter, I think my reaction would be not dissimilar to how people react to Borat, when he asks them questions that either just don't make any sense and/or otherwise suggest somebody who struggles somewhat with his cognitive abilities.

And as for the suggestion upthread that it's not an issue about having to stop and think if every second person has an odd pronoun, that IS exactly what it is when people start demanding that everybody declare a pronoun.

If Tom and Michael are automatically 'he/him' and Angela and Sarah are automatically 'she/her' without anybody needing to think for a moment, you only need to remember the (currently - who knows how popular it may become?) few anomalies; BUT once you've told everybody to state pronouns, it is then implicitly incumbent on everybody to stop and think for every person, rather than just taking the instant natural grammatical step that you would if nobody had ever been asked: after all, the question commonly asked in these scenarios is "What are your pronouns?" as opposed to the doubtless now classed as hateful "Do you use normal pronouns?"

Kind of like asking every person to go individually through a very long list of every single known allergy and answer with a yes or no, when you could much more reasonably asked if people have any allergies, ended up with a 'safe - no concerns' list of the majority of people and saved everybody a load of bother. Except that allergies are a real thing and are important not to get wrong.

Just to reiterate. This is ZERO genetic basis for race. Yes, there is some genetic variation according to heritage (which would be thus ethnicity) but it's tiny in comparison with the rest of the human genome.
FFS, the Nazis believed that race was determined by DNA!!! You really don't want to go down that route!

I’m not concerned about people thinking I’m rude tbh. I would be prefer to be thought rude over being thought a liar.
‘I don't believe in a God but when I go to churcg with my auld granny I don't refer to Him as 'That Twat'. I call the priest Father Paul (eg.) not Mr Griffon. If I did it deliberately and persistently, I'd be kicked out or chastised’ ludicrous argument. Firstly, people aren’t compelled to be members of a faith. We are all members of society in a way we can’t opt out of. Secondly, you have chosen to go in a church. By going to a church you are tacitly accepting that you will abide by the conventions of the church. No one is making you.
’but it's true that there are people who care about it very much, and you run the risk of being mildly chastised’ the very same is true conversely though, people who do not believe you can change sex or that you can be without a sex care about it very much. They are also positions based in fact. You however are attempting to argue that people should ignore facts as others don’t like it. There is no foundation to your position other than ‘they don’t like it’.

The pronouns appropriate for the opposite sex. Yes she/her is etched on your dna in a way because every cell in your body is female, including your dna.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll
Absolutely not. Most people are able to accept appropriately gendered pronouns. And also the need to protect vulnerable women and place some limits around those spaces while also recognizing the different vulnerability of transwomen. Or the biological differences which cannot be completely reversed when having gone through puberty as a male or female.
It's not give an inch and they'll take a mile. It's way more nuanced and complicated and we can find a compromise to accommodate transgender people AND protect women's rights

No, you are conflating issues. People can identify their ethnicity, usually most humans will have dna which demonstrates that they have a mixed ethnic background. You are assuming that identifying people’s ethnic make up is a means of establishing who is better or worse. That’s a misunderstanding coming from inside your own head. You might be on steadier ground arguing for example that nationalities are a social and political construct, but that is separate to ethnicity obviously.

Go back to my previous posts. I haven’t attempted to go down that route. You will see I have said ethnicity NOT RACE was determinable by dna. You have missed the point again.

Is she/her etched on to my DNA?

It refers to your sex, as other people perceive it. As you know 🙄

The pronouns appropriate for the opposite sex. Yes she/her is etched on your dna in a way because every cell in your body is female, including your dna.

She and her are not biological processes. They're nouns, like names. Names change. Words that are attributed to sex change too. Such as doctor, dress, voter. They're certainly not on my DNA.

It's not give an inch and they'll take a mile.

It's exactly what it is. Misguided naive people gave an inch and well.

She and her are not biological processes.

They relate to your sex, which is a biological reality that cannot be changed.

I would be prefer to be thought rude over being thought a liar.

As Magdalen Berns put it so well.

No, I am not conflating anything. You are.
First you said race, now you're saying ethnicity.
To be clear. Race is 100% NOT determined by DNA. It is a social construct.
Find me any scientific evidence that race is genetic.
Ethnicity = heritage. There is some genetic differences but very few. This is simply biological fact. Yes, if there is shared ancestry there may be some shared DNA but it's very small in comparison with the entirety of the human genome.
And obviously zero biology involved in nationality 🙄
You do seem quite confused to be honest, jumping around difference concepts and changing what you mean in response to the points I'm making.

The example given by OP was identifying as non binary so I'm relating my real life experiences of that, which are all in teenagers.

Also don't forget that declaring yourself as 'non-binary' is in itself a deliberately arrogant and offensive action. For you to be non-binary, that must mean that you view everybody else as nothing but a walking stereotypical clone of what a factory-default man or woman is. No natural variations, no individuality, no multi-dimensional lived human experience of the kind that we all actually very obviously consist of in the real world.

Basically, YOU are either Barbie or Ken, but I am special. I am a fabulously interesting, personally-charactered, wonderfully enigmatic individual with a great many nuances to everything that I am and represent; but you are deeply dull and essentially the same as half of all the other people in the whole world.

It is not a neutral declaration; it is a bullying act of aggression and a gross insult. If we were to use their own language, they would be displaying bigoted, eclusive, phobic behaviour and literal violence. Why do only they get the inalienable right to specify how everybody can be compartmentalised, but we aren't even allowed to question their proclamations - about us?

The biological differences between males and females exist before puberty. For example when a female is in her mother’s womb, her ovaries are already formed. They don’t appear with the onset of puberty. A womb doesn’t spring from nowhere. Her skeleton, including her pelvis and cervix, are obviously complete at birth. You can’t ’reverse’ biological differences anyway. A person who goes through a process of transition doesn’t biologically change. At best their hormonal make up is altered synthetically and their physical characteristics may be cosmetically changed, but it doesn’t change their biology. They remain the biological sex they were born, right down to the cells of their body.
Everyone has the right to live their life in safety. The poster is correct regarding pronouns as once you remove the truth of reality from the arena, anything in goes and that is how you end up with rapists in women’s prisons saying they feel like they are a woman. One step has inexorably led to the other.

Exactly. Well put. 👏

I didn’t say they were? I said there were appropriate pronouns for males and females. I said in a way she/her is etched on your dna as every cell in a woman’s body is female and she/her are the appropriate pronouns for a female in the English language. If you prefer I can say female is etched on every cell in your body.

You said race. I immediately changed the term to ethnicity. Not confused at all. Unlike you who has a very shaky grasp on the fundamentals of material reality.

The poster is correct regarding pronouns as once you remove the truth of reality from the arena, anything in goes and that is how you end up with rapists in women’s prisons saying they feel like they are a woman. One step has inexorably led to the other.

I'm not sure why some of the posters who say they have sympathies with GC feminists but think preferred demanded pronouns are fine and dandy have such a massive blind spot on this.

@Eyerollcentral
I agree regarding sex. As you can see from my posts, I have said we can't ignore the biological differences of having gone through puberty as a man or woman as much is irreversible and there are times when it is relevant.

But you made the comparison to race which is not remotely the same (that it you're pale skinned you cannot be black in terms of race - but of course, you can, that's 100% wrong). So now you're jumping back to sex which was not the point you were making before.

No you made the comparison with race saying it was a social construct. You were the person who brought up the racist classifications established by a racist system. I have answered the points you raised.
There is nothing biological that can be reversed by taking hormones and having plastic surgery. Biology is always relevant. Biology can’t be reversed. The idea is nonsense.

Pronouns are not at all like being gay. It might be if we were all required to be gay too and add it to our emails and announce it in meetings and shout it from the rooftops because someone in hr thinks it’s a good idea.

@Eyerollcentral
YES! Race is a social construct.
I'll say it again!! Of course it is!!
It's the eugenics folk who believe it has some kind of genetic basis.
You said a pale person cannot be racially black. Well, you're wrong, they can. That's your lack of understanding of race (and what is race anyway - "black" itself is a social construct)

And of course our biology can be changed! That's what medicine does all the time, every day. But that's a separate issue.

Well, more fitting would be if someone does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to refer to the spouse of a gay man or woman as their husband or wife. Because they don't believe in gay marriage so why should they be forced to recognize it?