Taskmaster: if you don’t use ‘correct’ pronouns you’re a philistine…

[Sugarleaf]

…Who’s stuck in the past. To be ‘cool and curious’ you need to use non- biological sex based pronouns. And this is about a ‘certain generation.’ I mean I’m 32 and think it’s bollocks.

plus, as a bonus, ‘if you don’t like me, fine, as long as you use my correct pronouns.’

ffs

For the vast majority of people, "cis women" do not exist, there are simply women and transwomen.

Well, maybe sweetnsourr is one of the posters with the ability to detect who is and isn’t really transgender. They might be another user who should submit their knowledge to the world’s health organisations so that that ability is used to make lives better.

Maybe the poster doesn’t believe that Willoughby is really transgender at all so therefore the use of the word ‘cis’ as he uses it is not a trans person using the word, if you know what I mean.

Remember, there are posters who are not transgender themselves but who then post on MN FWR on behalf of trans people.

Diversity is learned about by being exposed to diversity, not through indoctrination into correct thinking.

"Problem is the social convention of respecting another's choices despite not agreeing with them has long been broadly decreed into existence"

Respect, of course, is earned not enforced.

In which societies has there" long been broad decrees that everyone must repsect everyone else's choices?" And what does this look like in practice?

Only in totalitarian regimes ( and there are quite a few around the world) is. a population expected to openly voice things they are actually in disagreement with, and/or which offends their own sensibilities.

Logically speaking: if you want to declare pronouns fluid and state your preferences, then they can't equally be described as having the objective state of correct or incorrect. It's either one or the other.

I can tolerate, just about, being asked to respect a preference. I strongly object to being told I'm using them incorrectly if I don't do so.

Also, not sure this is a reasonable use of the word philistine. I can't see how this issue could be considered something of artistic or cultural value.

Have you read '1984' by George Orwell? A very prescient book about the nature of a totalitarian regime/society

Forcing people/ a population into a position of cognitive dissonance ( holding two contradictory ideas in one's head at the same time) is the modus operandi of totalitarian regimes. Everyone has to pay lip service to the regime with harsh penalties for non compliance.

The subjugated population is expected to repeat a falsity so often that it ends up believing that falsity to be true. 2+2 = 5.

Children aren't 'unsafe' from learning about diversity in humans only from people who think they shouldn't.

The diversity that they're supposed to be taught about humans is, the diverse cultures, political systems, languages, religions etc not how many different personality types with different degrees of stupid that humans in the West can be.

I don't want to judge Chloe but what she said seems to be very fixated on the idea of being cool and I think she looks like someone who has lived her life as an intrinsically 'uncool' person. Pronouns don't fix that uncoolness - they exacerbate it.

That might be true for some or even most people and cases.

The issue is how to deal with people or cases where that’s not true.

For example, Chloe seems to feel that mouthing the wrong words can destabilise her belief, or at least cause distress. Others (including on this thread) feel similarly about how they use language.

Your position seems to be that: i) we should be liberal and that ii) liberalism requires that the latter group defer to the former.

I agree with you on i) but I don’t think you’ve made any convincing case for ii).

(I am multitasking though and haven’t read all your posts)

We’re back to the ‘you’re too stupid to understand’ argument. 🙄

Noooooooooooooooooo 😱

How can that be a thing? Way beyond a reasonable cognitive load.

My quote was: Someone's right to define themselves is lovely but it stops when I assert MY right to identify them by their sex and not some "gender" they imagine they are.

So I said precisely NOT what you have just asserted. Read my comment.

We both have rights. Someone can believe they are the opposite sex. I can SEE their actual sexed body and make a judgement. Women are hard-wired to do with instinctively and it can save their lives. Why? Because women know that male humans can hurt them easily. Women are extremely careful to be aware of the danger of strangers who are male.

I have no intention to lie and deceive in order to placate another, at my expense. Patriarchy? What nonsense.

Yes we know.

Pronouns are sex based in English as it has evolved naturally and how children still naturally learn to use them. And how most people use them daily.

Some people want us to use pronouns that match their gendered beliefs about themselves, and not their sex.

It is a niche usage.

The "they" for Bella grated on me every time, though I liked her.

It's all nonsense. "Gender nonconforming" - fine, though I don’t see why it’s necessary to announce it to everyone else. But the pronoun bit is just forcing other people to validate your choices and ideas whether they want to or not.
Third-person pronouns are about sex, not gender.

Yes it was a thing. Needless to say, didn't catch on!

They is the correct pronoun for more than one person. Anyone who argues otherwise is indeed a Philistine.

Indeed.

Hence the point some posters attempt to make that it is just a matter of respect etc, are usually very heavily invested in their own belief about this . Because the mental load to think about someone's demanded language when it is known or it is recognised what sex category the person you are referring to belongs to and the language demanded doesn't match is high.

It is not really acceptable to expect others to take on that burden of having to remember someone's expected language when it comes to remembering the ingrained sex category reference of the sex based language. That some people wish to take on that load is up to them. It is quite acceptable that others don't yet others will gaslight those who reject the language demand using language such as 'respect', 'kind' and that it 'has no negative impact'. Of course it does have a negative impact, but those who are overly heavily invested for any reason will simply deny it using gaslighting methods.

I actually have found both Chloe Petts and Mae Martin funny and entertaining on Taskmaster but I find the whole 'they' thing ridiculous and total nonsense. Especially when, as said above she describes herself as a lesbian! ie a woman who is attracted to women.

It's a shame when evidently intelligent and interesting young women feel the need to claim they aren't a woman.

Intellectual people can be the most credulous and stupid of all, they just don't know it . Hence the dreadful case of the fantasist professor at Cambridge who, because of his identity, was feted, lauded, loved, promoted and encouraged by those who should have known better. An absolute tragedy that should NEVER have happened . Thankfully there is now going to be a full independent enquiry into how it happened. Cambridge has blood on their hands imo.

Youre the er… second poster in 24 hours to use the term substantive argument in that way… or maybe just the first but in a different disguise. Like Hannibal Smith, only in a bad way.

I disagree. Affirming incorrect "gender" pronouns validates a lie and deceit. It a big deal. I reserve the right not to play the gender game. Reality for the win!

Language evolves naturally.

Using sex pronouns to mean “gendered belief about self” isn’t natural evolution, it is a usage dictated by social pressure from a few.

If there is no-one resent who buys into gendered beliefs, I can assure you that people revert with relief to sex based pronouns. Not if there is a member of the pronoun police present though.

Until we evolve to a place where it is no longer useful for us as mammals to be able to quickly identify the sex of someone else, language will never evolve so that pronouns do not identify the third party’s sex. .

When someone takes it upon themselves to use non-sex based pronouns because they aren't the sort of person they think their true sex pronouns label, they aren't just defining themselves, they are also defining everyone else.

If they expect, force or shame others to use "their" pronouns they are forcing that their definition of everyone else be the one that stands regardless of how other people may see their own selves.

When it comes to the pronouns that historically pertained to physical sex, the only neutral position is to continue use them as sex based pronouns.

If Genderists truly feel humans also need personality-based pronouns to fully self define, they are welcome to coin new ones.

It's the appropriation of pre-existing words that is causing all the problems here.

But I think I recognise your style enough to know this has kinda been said to you before.

Fucking hell! I would have assumed 34 at least. Gonna have to look at some photos of GM from that era with my old eyes and recalibrate 😂

If only the TRA-Team was that hard to find 😂