• blady_blah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’d even go simpler than that. “If calling people by their preferred pronouns is one of the hundred biggest challenges…” Inserting “correct” into the statement just begs to get into an argument with a conservative and feels like you’re trying to force them to accept a different reality than they want to.

    IMHO it’s simply a personal preference thing. Let people live how they want to live. You don’t have to convince everyone that Sally is really a woman trapped in the body of a man, you just have to say that it’s her preference you call her as a “she”. People should have the freedom to define themselves. That’s it. End of story.

    My conservative neighbor brought up trans stuff thinking he’d use all the conservative media talking points and my answer was simply “it doesn’t really bother me. I’m a live and let live kind of guy. If they want me to use a different pronoun I’ll do my best to switch to that pronoun.” If you spin it as a freedom instead of a reality then it’s easier to accept.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I agree with most of the sentiment, but we don’t let children go around saying things (especially wrong things) that offend people just because they believe them. Why should we accept when an adult does it?

    • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      There IS a correct answer, though. If someone says, “My name is John”, you don’t get to tell them, “Well you look like a James to me, so I’m only going to call you James”. That would be incorrect. You don’t get to define other people’s existence like that.

      Same thing. ‘John’ isn’t a preferred name. It’s his name. Calling him a different name would be incorrect just like using different pronouns.

      • gjoel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        We had a temp receptionist called Joyce at my job. She said that at her old job they called her Mama J, and indicated that she would like to be called that here as well. I guess we were all assholes who defined her existence by calling her Joyce.

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Nicknames aren’t pronouns, they’re nicknames. If her legal name was Mama J and you didn’t call her that, yeah, that would probably constitute harassment over time and her asking you to call her by her legal name.

          What would actually be comparable is if you addressed her with male pronouns. Since the discussion was about pronouns, not nicknames.

    • vinaya@api.clubsall.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Isn’t using \they\ is just better all around because

      • Not everyone identifies as binary, so they makes it better for everyone

      • Not everyone is willing to come out and reveal their identity, especially at workplace, so why only use correct term with those who reveal themselves. It is not relevant at work, in fact it may lead to biases

      • Specific pronouns do increase cognitive overload for everyone. Imagine trying to remember not only names but also pronouns of 100s of colleagues and friends. Linkedin has started adding pronouns? If you forget, someone will get offended.

      • Now even conferences are manufacturing pronouns pins. These pins get discarded and this just causes more waste

      \They\ is just simpler and better for everyone. I think we can even start to eliminate \he\ and \she\ to make more inclusive society.

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        that’s what tolerance is. not tolerating them is being intolerant, and self-defeating ultimately.

        sorry, should we go an extirpate the Amish because they don’t accept lgbt+ people in their community? or another community that disagrees with lgbt identities? are we going to bomb the middle east in the name of trans rights? those are utter ridiculous ideas, so is the idea of being ‘stamping out intolerance’. all that tells me is you think others should conform to your beliefs or be removed.

        no, we’re not. because that’s insane. we tolerate the intolerate all the time. just like you don’t scream at your annoying co-worker who bores you to tears about sports or wahtever shit they try to chat you up about.

        • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Look up the paradox of tolerance. In order to be tolerant, you must be intolerant of intolerance.

          • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            ok. lets just round up all the intolerant people and re-educate them until they are tolerant like we are.

            because it’s totally cool fo us tolerant people to be fascists, as long as we are eliminating fascism!

            • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Hey man, I’m just sharing the philosophical concept of what happens when a society is tolerant of everyone.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

              No one is suggesting that only fascism can prevent fascism. It’s the ‘right to refuse service’ when people are being an asshole, and you have to exercise that right when people go too far. There have to be some consequences for being intolerant in order to maintain a tolerant society.

              • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                No one where? Here?

                Where I live in liberal leftie land… people are 100% often totally for facism, as long as it’s targeted at the ‘right’ people. And ironically, also they all bend over backwards to accommodate assholes as long as have a minority identity, because you know, it’s perfectly ok to treat people like shit because you’re categorically oppressed.

                And in the few spaces that are generally open to everyone… they get shit on by these same supposed tolerant people, becuse these spaces are not ‘safe’ if the evil bad majority is allowed into them.

                It’s pure insanity. Largely fueled by nitwits who have no experience with genuine oppression and tell me I’m an asshole when I tell them my stories of genuine racist and sexism, because it makes them ‘uncomfortable’. lol

        • spiderwort@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I do not dress to suit the amish. And I do not speak to suit these gender-obsessives. Towards that sort of dictation, no, I do not practice tolerance.

          But I do tolerate those who think (dress, live etc ) differently from me to peacefully do their thing.

          (To clear up your equivocation there.)

          This seems sane to me. How about you?

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s an inherently anti conservative thing, funny enough. At least with how some conservative voters think – Keep government out of it and let people live how they want to. Respect how they want to live, as a good neighbor.

      I agree with you that spinning it as freedom is a good way to do it. You could probably put a Christian tilt on it as well.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s a fair point. When I said “choose” I meant that they did not necessarily go with what they were assigned at birth. So it was “choose” in the sense of choose to be honest about who you are. I guess saying coming out of the closet would be more accurate. Sorry for the confusion.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      My conservative neighbor brought up trans stuff thinking he’d use all the conservative media talking points and my answer was simply “it doesn’t really bother me. I’m a live and let live kind of guy. If they want me to use a different pronoun I’ll do my best to switch to that pronoun.” If you spin it as a freedom instead of a reality then it’s easier to accept.

      That sounds to me like he realized he couldn’t have the argument he wanted to have, not that he accepted anything. Edit - but I generally agree with your overall point.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yeah, let people live. But also, let me live. Let me define myself the way I want. Stop telling me what the fuck to say and do and think and labeling anything that is ‘different’ than your way of thinking ‘bad and wrong’.