- Joined
- Jul 18, 2016
- Messages
- 7,085
How do you feel about men identifying as female and participating in Female sporting events ?
( not hypothetical )
Was that for Frideswide or for me ?
How do you feel about men identifying as female and participating in Female sporting events ?
( not hypothetical )
Was that for Frideswide or for me ?
I won’t discriminate.
Sexist !
That is gender. Which is flexible. There is no scientific basis to gender being unchanging because it is defined otherwise. You are talking about which country? It's not as monolithic as you think.
Given the changeability of law, it isn't a good basis for issuing ineffective wee fiats either
I think that this couple can probably manage very well to organise and run their own lives without you attempting to ride shotgun to smooth out every difficulty for them. It's very sweet you want to infantilise them (what am I saying, no it isn't) but this is there problem. By the way, I celebrate my 30th wedding anniversary later this year. Neither of us changed names. It's never been an issue, even in 1990 in super rural greece with crucifixes and icons in three corners of each room. For most of my married life I had two passports - legitimately and without problem - one that said I was married and one that said I was single. It made travelling on business on my own much easier sometimes, depending on where you were going. A friend had two, one of which had he married name and the kids, the other didn't - again for business.
The world manages very well without you trying to me its moral guardian. Relax, take a deep breath. Repeat to yourself "this is not my business."
What whole thing? Imagining hypothetical situations and then getting all hot under the collar about them?
No, men and women are constructed differently and have different strengths.
I should imagine
You seem be be getting very he't up about this. Odd for something you consider to not be important.
It's too bad that you would lose a longtime friendship over titles. Though referring to someone with their name is fine. But why would you expect your friend to give you the exception and not extend the same to him/her?So, let's take it back to what started this (post #196), and get back to Peterson.
If the person in question were to request that I refer to him as Mrs, I would have to decline.
I would explain this along the lines of (particularly if he was a friend) 'I'm sorry, but I can't do that. It is against by understanding of the meaning of the title 'Mrs'. Can I just carry on referring to you by your first name ? After all, we have known each other for years.'
If the response was 'No, I wish to be called 'Mrs (x)' then I would, probably with some sadness, have to say 'Well, it that case we will have co consider this friendship over. I hope you have a happy future'.
And why would I do this ?
Well, I have my own view on how titles should be used.
And to refer to Peterson, you have to stand up for what you believe, even if the results are sometimes unpleasant.
If the person valued the friendship then they would consider making an exception. If not, well, so be it.
Seems reasonable to me.
If the person valued the friendship then they would consider making an exception. If not, well, so be it.
Seems reasonable to me.
Reverse it. This is something intimate and important to them. It's not intimate to you and it shouldn't challenge your sense of identity.
Weird thing to end a friendship over - possibly you weren't friends and the person would realise that. Please god let no one in reality have to deal with such callous friendship.
It's too bad that you would lose a longtime friendship over titles. Though referring to someone with their name is fine. But why would you expect your friend to give you the exception and not extend the same to him/her?
At one time it was tradition to refer to females as Mrs. or Miss which was only to address marriage status, but for males there was not any such expectation.
I don't adhere to these titles and actually like that on some questionnaires or surveys (and on my profile here) I can answer "prefer not to answer".
Some of my husband's friends had more trouble with me keeping my surname than his family did. C'est la vie. That's their problem, not mine.
You are going in circles with some of your reasoning.
I do get the idea that you are playing devil's advocate. You are only referring to certain people by certain titles because you believe that "we (assuming English) have...language that has served us well for hundreds of years'. Just over one hundred years, Canadian women got legal rights to vote. Legal language changed.Actually, no circles.
But we have a form of language that has served us well for hundreds of years. One where everyone knew what meant what. Bastardising the language just because it is trendy should not allowed...
One needs to know which side one's bread is buttered.
I do get the idea that you are playing devil's advocate. You are only referring to certain people by certain titles because you believe that "we (assuming English) have...language that has served us well for hundreds of years'.
I again ask why you don't extend the same exceptions to people that you expect them to give you.
.
Just that you would not address a friend as they wish (your hypothetical example), but I'm sure that you expect them to address you as you wish, even if it is by your name only. I actually prefer my name only as my gender doesn't matter to many people that I deal with (especially addressing mail or invitations).I don't recall mentioning that anyone should make any exceptions for me. If you point out some examples I will address them.
.
Just that you would not address a friend as they wish (your hypothetical example), but I'm sure that you expect them to address you as you wish, even if it is by your name only. I actually prefer my name only as my gender doesn't matter to many people that I deal with (especially addressing mail or invitations).
My gender may or may not matter to me. I cannot really tell as I have not had to question it.
I understand what you are saying, but to some people, referring to the wrong gender intentionally can be offensive to them. I think that this is what most of the use of pronouns, or not, is getting twisted around. I have a friend who is bi (sexual) and her partner is gender neutral. I don't personally understand either one of these predispositions, but I don't intentionally insult either one of them by using language they see as offensive to them. But do I slip up? Sometimes.I agree that it would be a compromise to settle for using names. And I did mention this in the original post.
But I extended this to 'what if the person insisted in me using the Female title'. ?
That to me is unreasonable.
I can't think of a situation where someone would refer to me as Mrs. Unless they were deliberately trying to be offensive. Then it could lead to trouble.
I understand what you are saying, but to some people, referring to the wrong gender intentionally can be offensive to them.
And you are lucky that most people guess as to how you'd like to be addressed. But you even said that if someone misstated you as Mrs. intentionally then there would be trouble. Kind of quoting Peter Sellers: "You looka lika man."
Proscribed speech is an issue. It should not be up to anyone to force anyone else to speak in a certain way or using certain words.Gender pronouns are not the full issue.
I thought that that was kind of what I was saying when I said that making a law without questioning if it really addresses the issue should be questioned.Proscribed speech is an issue. It should not be up to anyone to force anyone else to speak in a certain way or using certain words.
.
I was actually joking. Peter Sellers came into my mind. lolAs for 'you kinda look like a man, again, that is possible for a lot of people who have an androgynous appearance. But one corrected it shouldn't happen again.
And what if people deliberately misquote and misrepresent your words for their own malicious agenda. (which ironically is exactly what is happening to Jordan Peterson over this very issue.)I think that trying to make using certain words into a law does put people in fear of "what if I make a mistake?" I am only supposing, as I have not seen anything other than one documentary about JP, that this may have been what Peterson might have been trying to say to begin with. That making something into law without fully understanding what the real issue is, should be questioned to make sure that the real issue is addressed. Gender pronouns are not the full issue.
That was a late pm post after a generous measure or two... :sorry:I thought that that was kind of what I was saying when I said that making a law without questioning if it really addresses the issue should be questioned.
I was actually joking. Peter Sellers came into my mind. lol
There are a lot of people around that make you wonder if they are biological male of female.
Proscribed speech is an issue. It should not be up to anyone to force anyone else to speak in a certain way or using certain words.
It may not be good manners to address people in a way they do not like, and possibly offensive, but the answer is not to dictate what words and phrases are allowed and what are not.
In any event, I literally don't care what gender folk are or what their sexual orientation is or how they identify (today). I just don't give a rat's arse, it's utterly irrelevant.
But; are you honest? Reasonable? Kind to people? Work hard? Have integrity?
Those things matter to me and generally make the world a better place.
Whatever the answers to those questions are, I don't care if you're the Omnipotent Deity almighty, no one gets to tell me how I must speak, act or address them. They just don't. Not ever.
It's just petty tyranny.
There is no good tyranny.
They almost certainly are.