Do pronouns feel alien to anyone else?

[janeseymour78]

By this, I mean I have friends who are 100% pro pronouns as a show of support and we've had our debates, and then there are others who say it is unhealthy to reinforce stereotypes, eg. By using them on work signatures

For me though, adding she/her pronouns to everything and even having being asked what they are verbally, she/her feels alien to me in a visceral way. I'm curious about this because I have several friends who don't share that feeling at all.

Im GC and I don't believe people are binary. I have elements of feminity and masculinity that whatever else that form who I am. I know I'm a woman, I have endometriosis so I'm painfully aware, as well as all the other reasons women are made aware of their sex.

It comes down to adding 'she/her' to everything would not feel right to me, as though it didn't reflect me. It would like I was falsely reinforcing my womanhood when I don't live my life that way or feel that way. Am I making sense? Do others feel this way?

Seriously? Associated with feminine names, labels?? That's talking about stereotypes!

Then in that case, by refusing to refer to trans women by their chosen names or feminine labels, you are enforcing sex-based stereotypes.

No. I am merely observing their sex. In any case, this isn't about what I do, it's about you producing this definition of gender identity that is not based on stereotypes- which you have failed to do.

Is this a joke?!

The 'social category and identity' - what is that if not a stereotype? What is the 'identity' of woman without refering to sexist stereotypes?

Or are you saying the 'social category/identity' of woman is nothing more than a female name and pronouns?! That 'woman' is a name and a pronoun?! Because I have no words for how mad that is.

Look ,definitions reflect reality. Woman 'adult human female' reflects a reality we all live. We are evolved with near 100% accuracy to be able to identify woman/ men on sight . Because otherwise we could not so successfully reproduce. The word 'woman' reflects that lived experience of all of us. Its a very useful word: a word for 'adult human female' has probably existed in all human languages for as long as humans had language it is so useful.

So the word 'woman' was forged in the lived experience of all people.

The definition you have come up with, on the other hand, is so obviously made up to fit your gender theories. That's why its so nonsensical.

Nope, you are deliberately labeling them, knowing that doing so projects sex-based stereotypes on them that are associated with "men" (labeling them as such makes it easier for you to smear them as "predatory fetishists" thanks to to those stereotypes), as well as puts pressure on them to confront to the gender norms imposed on "men".

If feminine names and pronouns are a "stereotype", then using masculine names and pronouns to refer to trans women is imposing masculine stereotypes.

Period.

@divingskies
> We are evolved with near 100% accuracy to be able to identify woman/ men on sight.

Yeah, right. This delusional "we can always tell" nonsense again. Except the countless cases where you can't.

> The word 'woman' reflects that lived experience of all of us. Its a very useful word: a word for 'adult human female' has probably existed in all human languages for as long as humans had language it is so useful.
So the word 'woman' was forged in the lived experience of all people.

You are literally describing the social construct of gender. The labels, categories, words, and social norms that humans construct around sex, are gender.

Also, lots of societies recognized more gender categories than "man" and "woman".

Because, obviously, women are the ones who get pregnant, bear children and the most likely to be raped. So we need to define in law what a woman is. We're also the sex with the historic record of oppression and disadvantage.

If you can't grasp that, you are either stupid or deliberately obtuse, and I can't do a lot to help you.

YY.

labels, categories, words, and social norms that humans construct around sex, are gender.

Yes. Note how you used the words "construct around sex". It's based on sex. Sex came first, sex is material reality.

A woman is the noun for a human female who has reached adulthood. Like a doe is a female deer, a mare is a female horse.

Nope, you are deliberately labeling them

She's labelling them as their sex, with all that goes with that. Male people commit 98% of sex crime. Their statistical risk profile is different to women.

Still a social construct.

The "material reality" itself doesn't come with any labels. The labels are created by humans. The labels are gender. They are in no way inherent to "material reality", even if you choose to impose them on that basis.

So why should we accept your rigid binary?

All of those are labels created by humans. All words are a social construct, not inherent to biology itself.

No, you are denying the reality of your own experience if you seriously think you cannot tell, by sight, women from men (remember, I am using those terms to refer to sex). I cannot, like most people, do this for many other species as I have no evolutionary need to, as I do not need to identify males from other species to have sex with. It is plainly not arguing with honesty or good faith to pretend that you cannot identify men from women on sight.

You are literally describing the social construct of gender. The labels, categories, words, and social norms that humans construct around sex, are gender

No, I was extremely clearly describing sex. The word woman refers to sex. Adult human female. That is what the word refers to. It refers to sex. I did not anywhere reference the stereotypes that people ascribe to sex. I referred to biological sex, and how we can spot that on sight, why its important for reproduction that we can, and why we created a word for it based on sex.

All of those are labels created by humans.

Yes. The female reproductive role is not a label created by humans. It is one of two possible reproductive roles.

Or perhaps you know of a third?

No, there are definitely male and female deer.

There were male and female deer happily able to spot each other and shag to produce male and female fawn long before humans evolved or post modernism was constructed.

Its post modernism that humans created, not the sex binary.

The "material reality" itself doesn't come with any labels.

But still it exists. The material reality is that one developmental pathway leads to one reproductive role, and one leads to the other. Sometimes things go wrong in development. It's really that simple.

You are confusing recognizing material reality and social constructivism. Language is socially constructed but sex is not - it exists in non-verbal animals and humans. Conventionally, woman means "adult human female" not collection of identities and labels as you suggest. Even if we accepted your colonisation of the language, we would still need a word for adult human female in our society as we are not the same as men. So what is that word?

The word "woman", however, is a label created by humans.

This is just a question to learn more details about the topic at hand,how

how is it possible that a person can choose e.g. Non binary, but has all the biological features of x or y chromosomes ?

Yes - to mean adult human female. Why are you intent on changing that? This is colonisation.

@Zerogravity
> Language is socially constructed but sex is not - it exists in non-verbal animals and humans.

I fail to see why that matters. I'm not arguing against "sex existing", I'm arguing against your insistence on imposing unwanted labels according to sex, and striving to restrict other people's bodily autonomy.

Its a word that reflects that reproductive role. Man and woman are words for male and female in humans. Male and female are words that reflect reproductive roles.

The 'labels', as you call them, reflect that observed reality.