#21

This is what I would prefer. The Foucault thing is more of a meta sociological view as well, power structures. Not so much on an individual level.

It’s about division. Like Russia’s apparent involvement in propaganda on social media. They don’ t propogate a view, they propogate division. With whatever cultural divide they can find they stoke the fire on social media. Say between conservative religious right and socialy progressive people. Leveraging the distinctions. As most countries do, or have done

So Foucault’s view would be about the people in power thriving by division. Being that they can marginalize people by creating or reinforcing the margin in the first place.

For example you might find it strange if people were categorized by which position they prefer in bed. Like, this person is a missionary that person is a… And so on.

He looked at civilizations like Japan or Rome, where this distinction of sexual preference as a personal identifier did not exist in the same way.

I’m sure this was born out of personal pain, being discriminated against. But his idea was basicaly a Marxist, anarchist view. I think it’s interesting tot think about.

But an open conversation like this one is what is most important.

1 Like
#22

Took a lot of talking through things with a therapist to get past the point of feeling guilty about various aspects of my own coming out process and comfort around being out publicly, so just a note that everyone processes things differently and has different situations in terms of coming out.

7 Likes
#23

I saw this on an email I received from a work contact, and wondered what it was for; now I have been enlightened. Thanks for this.

3 Likes
#24

i appreciate you bringing your perspective in a fairly respectful way, and any foucault is good to have in the mix :slight_smile:

i do think your argument here in your latest comment is a bit of a strawman if I understand it correctly. Perhaps you are coming from the perspective that pronouns align with gender identity - this is not always the case. I am not interested in outing or categorizing people. Only in referring to them as they want to be referred and creating a culture where checking in on preferences is done before use of a pronouns. “No pronouns” is a completely valid pronoun preference. I understand the sexual preference comparison is just a comparative example but I don’t think its valid as a comparison and it implies theres something potentially deviant or hidden about pronouns.

in daily life my pronouns are he/ they with only my close family and friends aware of the fluid identity. I have not posted my pronouns in my social media because i’m not comfortable putting cis pronouns out there, but I’m also not sure about identifying so publicly as queer (which “they” would imply – also I’m overthinking it – also there’s some “am I queer enough” stuff to take to a therapist). if it was more normal for people to put their pronouns it might encourage use of a neutral they, it might make it easier by forcing cis people to pause and think about pronouns. i don’t mind “he” always, but here it’s very easy to say “i prefer they” because I don’t know y’all personally. just an example of how pronouns can be fluid too!

pronouns =/= gender identity =/= identity (in general)
these things can be related or correlated but you cannot assume one from any other.

6 Likes
#25

i’m sorry if this comes off as pedantic but i want to make sure i understand the format

i thought in general one states preferences for singular third person subjective/objective. you just listed two different subjective pronouns. i don’t understand if you prefer “he/him” or “they/them” or if this is maybe an order of preference.

fwiw my preference is they/them. i am in the habit of using this by default but concur that it would probably be more polite to avoid pronouns instead. (not always easy.)

2 Likes
#26

yea in that context I meant he/him or they/them pronouns and figured the objective was implied :stuck_out_tongue: i assume when people list multiple pronouns they list them in order of preference but not sure if that’s just assumed or if that’s the implication. in this situation i’m listing them in order of how common they are – most people in my offline life refer to me as he/him although I’m trying to move towards adopting they/them pronouns. Here I have my preference listed only as “they”.

#27

I have a different view, on certain points. But my goal is the same. For people to have the room to be who they are on the inside.

I’m not implying that :slightly_smiling_face:

Yes I agree about the distinction between sexual preference, gender and personal identity. I support the adding of pronouns and will use them.

Looking forward to reading other peoples comments. :ear: :ear: :ear:

1 Like
#29

With Discourse, is it possible to annotate the way the username displays, or is it limited to just the username? On the Slack at my work, we shoehorn user metadata into the “last name” field (pronoun, location, etc.) so that it shows up whenever we post. It’s been very helpful for making that information more visible and normalizing pronoun-sharing.

I’m not seeing a setting for that display and a cursory plugin search didn’t show anything, but I may have missed it.

2 Likes
#31

Oxford traces first citation of singular they back to 1375. Interesting read anyway.

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

ETA: specifically it points out that “are” is already used with singular 2nd person, and that this is one of those cases where English changed (thou was singular, you was plural, but also formal singular - cf. French tu, vous; Spanish tu, vos, usted; etc)

9 Likes
#32

FWIW, I often hear people say “that person” when referring to someone when pronouns are not known. Peep seems nice, too.

It’s entirely up to you whether you respect someone’s wishes or not – this is actually why I’m not bothered by “he” – I have low expectations for people’s willingness to alter their world view just because I express a preference. For me it’s not a rule, nor will I stop being friends with people. But if, in the course of further discussion, I realize that someone has no interest in my well-being, or is not acknowledging my dignity, that’s a larger issue for me.

Also, it’s cliche, but language is a vast agreement between all speakers and is constantly being negotiated and revised in all manner of different ways. Forgiveness, flexibility, and adaptation are all part of being fluent, in my view.

In this case, if you are interested in being courteous or respectful, yet not interested in changing up your semantics, I would invite further discussion on alternative solutions - afaik “they” is where the world of gender studies, and the communities that are working on this issue, have landed for now. I know people were using “Ze/Zey” for a while, neither poetic nor relatable, but rather “zany.” I learned “they” but I’m happy to use another pronoun if one comes up that better suits semantics while serving its main purpose, which is to designate a human as more than their assigned gender expectations.

Did you mean to say “it actually thinks?” :slight_smile:

In all cases, I personally welcome your perspective even if I disagree – I’m generally very stubborn about certain things and I can relate to what you’ve expressed in your post. I just hope that outside of the semantics you mean well for the people who are trying to expand the culture and its associated language.

EDIT: Upon further review of my post, I realize I may have come off as pedantic. I also generally prefer to avoid second person unless I’m directly addressing someone, which is how this post started but eventually became more about me/my opinions. Apologies and supplications for not being more articulate.

4 Likes
#33

I encountered this usage on Barbelith, but didn’t realise that it was in use widely elsewhere. I thought it was a good attempt at tackling the issue.

2 Likes
#34

First I want to say I don’t disagree with this proposal at all. But, I want to add, that as a Finnish person often writing on international, english speaking forums I find pronouns not difficult from the perspective of gender but from the perspective of me using foreign language. Finnish language has no gendered pronouns, so it’s not natural to me to notice someones gender when addressing them, and I often mix up he/she while speaking to someone which often raises some eyebrows. I’m not the one to judge myself, but I like to think that I’m not ignorant of the issue when I often forget to pay attention to pronouns, it’s an issue of me using a foreign language and making mistakes with pronouns is no different to making mistakes on grammar or spelling. And I really hope no one judges me on my grammar or spelling.

15 Likes
#35

Japanese and Chinese also don’t use gendered pronouns with anywhere near the frequency English does!

My impression was that “they” is not a consensus, catch-all solution for being respectful to someone you do not know well. This is already mentioned in @renegog’s comment above.

Personally I find quibbling about semantics in response to someone sharing a personal fact about them and hoping that you’ll respect their desires… rude? near-sighted? In any case, I totally welcome this discussion in the abstract, but I hope we all remember to lead with respect both on Lines and in our in-person interactions :slight_smile:

19 Likes
#36

to refer directly to a specific singular entity of indefinite gender with a plural pronoun is incorrect

most linguists and experts in grammar would disagree with you, so use of the word “incorrect” here is highly subjective and suspect. there’s already a link to the OED above (what higher source is there? want me to find some shakespeare quotes lol? feel free to do your own research if this is of interest – there are many resources available)

I don’t want to get hung up on the “grammar” argument because for everyone this is just a matter of learning grammatical blindspots (to reiterate, it’s not a matter of changing the language in this case, it’s already grammatically correct) and adjusting to new norms of behavior (asking peoples pronouns before assuming). if you are making this comment in good faith (which does not seem safe to assume, but here i go ~ internetting ~ ) I would encourage you to examine why a small inconsequential step of referring to someone as they prefer to be referred to is a sticking point or makes you feel censored. If someone tells you their name is Fred, you do not insist on calling them Ted. When they gently remind you it’s actually Fred do you claim it’s censorship and refuse to adjust your behavior? This is not comparative: a pronoun is a shorthand for someone’s name – if you do not want to deal with pronouns because it feels weird to say “they” or change pronouns for someone you’ve known a long time under one pronoun, feel free to just use their name. If you want to be friends with someone, there’s no reason to call them by the wrong name.

(general comment here, not at you bera) pronouns are not always easy - people will often make mistakes. If it’s someone close to you in your personal life I would encourage you to actually practice using their preferred pronoun when you’re alone to help adjust your behavior. I heard a story of a couple who’s adult child began using they/them pronouns, and they decided they would treat their cat as gender neutral – so that every day they would have practice using neutral pronouns!

5 Likes
#39

Could you describe the kind of technical information you’d be interested to see on this topic (singular ‘they’, the link in question)?

Here is how this forum function operates, I believe this is an automatic action the forum software takes when any 3 users have marked a post as warranting moderator attention.

1 Like
#40

Let’s not go overboard with the word censorship (a community can decide to dismiss, hide, or reject any item it deems not necessary or healthy to it’s safety, well being whatever, lines isn’t a state or a worldwide company or a bank it’s a gathering of people) but I would still like to know why this post was flagged and hidden instead of discussed? I thought the content, if expressed maybe a bit brutally (which I could understand because these topics are very intimate and the honesty and integrity of the person writing had already been questioned which is also a violent thing to suggest, and I’m also ok with allowing this kind of violence I guess) was raising questions I thought we should be able to answer or at least put in perspective as a community, even if only to prove them wrong, whatever? I felt the poster was clear as to the agressiveness stemming from a very heartfelt reaction to some of the remarks and I understood that as neither insulting nor gratuitous.

Then again, feel free to flag and delete whatever but I would like to know why deeper on this matter.

4 Likes
#43

i wouldnt have flagged but i dont think we should disparage people who feel threatened by bad faith arguments against treating people with basic respect.

I cant post a longer reply at the moment, but I will say grammar is not subjective thing that you get to decide individually. and even if you could decide single handedly, i question your priorities.

1 Like
#44

I’m also not sure why this discussion has devolved into an argument about semantics and grammar - I don’t think it’s particularly useful to the spirit of said discussion.

I personally don’t care if someone finds the use of singular “they” inappropriate grammatically…if you can’t put your pedantry aside to address someone as they’ve asked, then I wonder about your sense of priorities.

19 Likes
#45

Hi @bera. I’m sorry, I did not mean to suggest that you are rude or near-sighted; notice that I was not replying to you. I will hold on to the word “quibbling,” though. Personally I find talking about whether it is correct to use ‘they’ to refer to a person you know… just kind of boring?

I’m sorry, I haven’t read your full comment. As a moderator, I can confirm that it was hidden automatically. In any case, I think it’s a bit quick to call this “censorship.”

7 Likes
#46

We should never forget we’re on topic that’s trying to adress, one way or another, traumas, we should also not forget @bera might be on the list of people with traumas related to the way grammar / vocabulary / consensus assign a genre, a box, a space to a person, because it’s a long and terrible list. So I don’t know.

Still @bera I urge you to NOT use the word censorship this lightly, censorship suggest a power structure way stronger, not only than 3 flag buttons pressed, but even stronger than the added power of all LGBTQI+ communities around the world. Echo bubbles, like mindedness in certain social spaces, self censorship, there are lots of critics you can adress to a community that doesn’t want to keep certain kinds of attitude in its walls without using the word “censorship” which I feel is too big, too dramatic, too historically marked in a way that has nothing to do with what’s happening here (your human rights haven’t been threatened in the least I think) and don’t do justice to whatever you could try to articulate.

Then again I don’t want to be pedantic and tell you what to do, it’s just, in the spirit of keeping discussion alive, I prefer to tell you where I think lays a trap…

I hope we can all discuss it out and apease the pain and misunderstandings, and even leave the discussion if we feel so inclined with our disagrements standing without feeling resentful or pushed aside. I didn’t talk on this topic precisely to avoid hurting other people’s feeling because it’s a topic that makes it very hard to be critical without being somewhat involuntarily cruel on a personnal level because it’s at the junction of the body the mind and the society as a whole and I don’t want to hurt anyone just because I’ve got a problem with a powerstructure.

But I admire you all for trying to formulate ideas and define concepts.

Edit : Oh and for the grammar part stuff, I really don’t care much about it nor have an informed opinion but I feel it’s not where the negativity originated and there’s been kind of a misunderstanding but maybe I’m misunderstanding too? In any case discussing the point of topic “is it ok to use a plural to define a singular” should neither be a priority nor a reason to all feel terrible about eachother…

1 Like