Well… except that it may NOT facilitate understanding. Remember, not everyone here speaks English as a first language and a foreign language can be challenging all by itself, add in slang, non-standard language forms, and so on and it can get really opaque. Even among the native speakers not everyone is up to date on the latest new words.
The new gender-neutral pronouns have not yet standardized, use at your own risk. And if someone states a preference of “old fashioned” gendered pronouns then it would be respectful to use those.
It’s no different than speculating that someone might be offended by other nongendered pronouns. It points out the silliness of the claim. Particularly when nongendered pronouns like the ones I’m using are specifically constructed to avoid all issues of offense—constructed to avoid gender preferences altogether.
And it is true that I find singular they aesthetically offensive. So it’s not entirely speculative. Language among other things is an exercise in aesthetic choices. I can’t make you use “E” if you don’t like it; I should be able to avoid using singular they if I don’t like it.
Well, I doubt I’m the only one who starts scrolling past your posts after about two pronouns. It feels like reading something full of spelling mistakes or a bad put on English accent.
You won’t be. It is too stressful for my injured brain to add more decoding pressure, it would be asking it to do simultaneous translation into a language it hasn’t learned and is being imposed on it.
Yes, and the Chicago Tribune used clew, iland, crum, and yern, et al. Col. McCormick was stubborn. But those “words” never caught on, and the 40 year experiment ended in 1975.
Please, who is trying to stop you? . I would rather you skip my posts than add to your stress. I know I scroll past posts for many reasons including stress avoidance. Although encountering occasional new words hasn’t usually been one of them. Something about learning to read made me accustomed to the concept.
Yeah, that’s what I want to clear up. I personally would advocate a policy on this board where ‘they’ is always okay on the SDMB. If someone is offended being called “they”, then that’s their problem to deal with. The nature of a public board with thousands of members means that no member can expect that everyone remembers what their pronouns are. The other pronouns like he/she/ze/te/sie/etc. can still be used for a specific person, but only if the writer has an obvious reason to believe that person is okay being referred to as that way. But I could also see the policy being that any gender-neutral pronoun is allowed and if you’re offended being referred to as ze, that’s your problem. But it needs to be consistent in terms of who is in the wrong when using gender-neutral pronouns.
E, Ey, and Em aren’t all that new. The first written reference seems to be in 1890.
Also, they don’t imply that the person referenced isn’t cis. They are intended to be suitable pronouns for anyone. I’ve been referred to as “e” by someone who knew perfectly well that I am a woman. E just didn’t think my gender was relevant for the anecdote e wanted to post on Facebook.
I’ll state this once and in large letters. We’re making no policy in this thread. So don’t expect answers.
I am trying to work with some others mods to make a presentation to the entire staff to make the Straight Dope a safer place for Trans people and their allies.
I don’t expect radical changes, but much like the board is now frowning on sexist jokes and misogyny; we will hopefully add a few more rules to the board that help. Also we’ll try to make it clear that some acts are indeed acting like a jerk and will be enforced.
Granted, you (MrDibbles) are on record as saying we need to drop the tagline. thorny_locustsuggests appending relevant links or rationale to the topic-restricting rules themselves. I agree with this latter suggestion, and I hope you do too. I think it would go a long way.
Well, yeah. It is on them, who else can it be on? They are the ones who are lacking knowledge.
You can lead a horse to water and all that…
There is a ton of material out there that one could peruse at one’s leisure. Demanding that someone who is actually a part of a marginalized minority explain things personally, before one is able to fight their own ignorance isn’t actually looking to fight one’s ignorance, it is someone wishing to display it.
There is. There have been links to “Ask me Anything threads.” And that’s just here, out in the “wild” there are literally shelves of books worth of information that, if one is truly committed to fighting their ignorance, are readily available.
I kinda feel bad, in that I really liked UnaPersona, but I hardly ever interacted with her. I learned a whole lot, without ever asking a question, as any question I could think of had already been answered.
There is a large difference between asking a question that one is truly confused about and taking a “prove me wrong” stance. At this point, all the questions that anyone could be truly confused about have been answered. If you can think of one that has not been covered, one that actually would allow you to understand and relate to transgendered persons better, then go right ahead.
But if the question is just a veiled attempt at making an assertion to which one wants others to have to refute, then that’s no longer fighting ignorance, that’s just fighting.
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. An example.
When What_Exit closes a topic like so,
Ideally, either his post should directly link to said material, or the rules which he links to should contain links to said material. Telling members, “we don’t debate that here, go educate yourself” and not indicating exactly where to find that education they seek, is bad form. Drawing up the reference lists is a one and done thing so it doesn’t put much of a burden on whatever group is offended by the debate to begin with. In my humble opinion.
Max, while that is not a bad idea, it probably won’t happen.
I won’t do the work involved but someone else could. We could basically do some footnote links to threads or maybe Wikipages and with the rule have footnotes kind of like this:
Scientific racism or any particular argument about why any particular group of humans is inherently better than any other group 1 2 3 4 5
I will happily update the rules with footnotes with permission from above. I’ve already fix formatting in a lot of the forum rules that the vB to Discourse conversion screwed up. That’s more my speed. Researching good links for Scientific Racism is not for me. I would leave that up to the actually teachers, professors and scientists we have on the Mod crew.
I’m more tech & admin assistant as a computer weenie.
But those “words” never caught on, and the 40 year experiment ended in 1975.