Preferred Pronouns

[BuzzH]

Calling yourself anything you want doesn't make it true. Common biology doesn't agree so don't expect me to.

Is that right? So, you're saying biology doesn't also get it wrong?

I think you need a few more courses in biology...just sayin'.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It is possible to treat individuals with respect and dignity without affirming practices that are nonsensical in origin and actually demeaning. Words have meaning.

If someone chooses to base their identity on sexual preferences or whatever they think defines them, I will treat them with dignity and respect. However, I will also (respectfully) decline to participate in language that is intended to clearly imply that I affirm behavior/identity outside the parameters of biological reality and God’s moral laws.

What people choose to do privately has very limited affect on me personally. However, a demand/request/expectation that I use language that has the clear implication that my usage of it publicly affirms nonsense or immorality is not something I choose to do.

There are all kinds of examples of where society has no problems with giving clear communication that certain identity scenarios are unacceptable. If I choose to identify as a multi-millionaire and expect a bank to affirm “my reality” without the financial resources to back my claims, I can expect rejection.

If I remove all parameters around how I choose to behave as a self-identified heterosexual man, I can expect divorce or legal consequences dependent on the choices I make.

Just because certain beliefs or behaviors are currently trendy doesn’t mean they should be affirmed or promoted.

In fact, I would hope that if I ever engage in financial fantasy or move towards heterosexual infidelity that people who love me would firmly and clearly articulate that those chosen behaviors/identity are going to devastate me and the people who depend on me.

What about referring to a married woman as Ms. instead of Mrs.? One of my grandfathers refused - his view was you are either married or you are not - a simple legal fact. Yet somehow society evolved and now we don't expect married women to be Mrs. Steve Peterson. While he was technically correct by the vernacular of the day, it sends the wrong message to young woman taking their full place in our society (after centuries of second class status).

Similarly here, understanding that concepts of humanity and personal identity are different than scientific concepts of reproductive biology is an emerging thing. Who knows where we will end up, but it is not about self-identifying as a millionaire - that is not a very productive analogy.

I am not sure how we navigate this (and do have concerns about medicating the under 18 folks), but when I find myself in times of turmoil and change, I prefer to focus on empathy and understanding rather than dogma - dogma is the easy way out of struggling with complex subjects.

 

[2rocky]

I've come to learn there are just some people who will not be happy with any thing I do so I'm not gonna worry about pleasing them...

 

[fowladdict]

So from your post here I would say your preferred pronoun for yourself would be clown? I don't want to offend your choice of pronoun if you could clarify, for the record.

You've given so few (sarcasm) options over the years...dipchit, clown, a$$hat etc. I like it when my wife calls me babe or honey. You sir can call me honey the clown.

 

[HuntTalk Freak]

The uber tolerant @BuzzH has entered the chat...

Bluebird skies in WY today; no clouds to yell at.

 

[BackofBeyond]

Taking bets for how long this thread lasts before locked.

Step one to a locked thread is Hunt Talk Man…

 

[VikingsGuy]

Step one to a locked thread is Hunt Talk Non-Birthing Person…

FIFY

 

[ignorethefringes]

The biggest trouble I see is that the definition for the word "tolerance" seems to have been changed from something along the lines of, "ability or willingness to allow, or endure, something, even if you disagree" to something along the lines of, "willingness to not only allow, but support and/or affirm, something, even if you disagree."

I am perfectly happy to treat people with respect and dignity and will not go out of my way to harm them physically, emotionally, or mentally. But I will also not go out of my way to affirm or support that with which I disagree. Particularly so when, for me personally, it conflicts with my religious beliefs. Quite simply, affirming that a biological man is, or can be, a woman is in direct conflict with my religious beliefs. If nothing else, it is a lie and a lie is a sin in the eyes of my God. I am not willing to sin to appease any person.

The following example is not meant to persuade any secular person, or really even any other religious person. It is merely insight into how I, and maybe others, feel about this situation.

Jesus modeled how we are treat sinners (by the Biblical definition) many times throughout his life. In particular, there was a woman which was caught in the act of adultery which was brought before Jesus for judgement. However, instead of persecuting the woman, He instead turned to crowd and reminded them of their own humanity and past mistakes. Then, He refused to condemn the woman but urged her to cease sinning going forward. It's important to note that He did not excuse or ignore the fact that she sinned. He also did not approve or support her choice to sin (since He urged her to cease sinning). But He did show compassion on her and her situation.

Similarly, I'm more than willing to show compassion and love for those in the midst of sin today. But I refuse to insinuate that I condone or support their sin. I love people, no matter their particular circumstances. But I will not be forced to commit sin (per my personal understanding of scripture and personal beliefs) but affirming or supporting sinful acts. I also will not provide my personal opinion on their sin, or lack thereof, without expressed request on behalf of the other person as my personal beliefs for myself are irrelevant in regards to other people. It is perfectly easy to use the name of an individual rather than any particular pronoun.

Outside of the religious component, what happened to, "Your rights end where my rights begin?" As Buzz noted, one is welcome to call himself/herself/themself absolutely anything he/she/they prefer. However, they are not welcome to require me to use the same terminology. Similarly, he/she/they are welcome to call me any number of things (intolerant, selfish, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant, racist, zealot, etc.) that he/she/they prefer. I can get upset if I want, or I can move on confident that I am none of those things. I cannot require that person use my personal choice of descriptors of myself (handsome, charming, always hammering, luscious, well groomed, full head of hair-ed, etc.).

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

5 pages of tough dudes being offended at being asked to be kind.

Snowflakes.

Is it being kind enabling their mental illness?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is it being kind enabling their mental illness?

People enable yours.

It wasn't that long ago that we were charging people with felonies for being gay. Alan Turing, the man who literally cracked the enigma code, killed himself rather than be forced to go through chemical castration.

The folks who go through this transition are already ostracized by their family and former friends. They're pushed to the margins of society for being different or weird. As a Christian, I'm told to love them regardless and to be kind to them. None of that means I have to think they're doing the best thing for them, but it does mean my thoughts don't need to drive their place in this world.

Christ tells us that love conquers all - so just be nice, use the name that person wants and don't be a jerk.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Calling yourself anything you want doesn't make it true. Common biology doesn't agree so don't expect me to.

I work with someone who was born a man and went through a transition to woman. If you worked with this person, would you refuse to address them by her/she because she was born a male?

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

People enable yours.

Tou'che

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Tou'che

Its spelled Dou'che and the boss around here doesn't like us insulting others.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Its spelled Dou'che and the boss around here doesn't like us insulting others.

That's Il Dou'che to you, sir.

 

[gouch]

The biggest trouble I see is that the definition for the word "tolerance" seems to have been changed from something along the lines of, "ability or willingness to allow, or endure, something, even if you disagree" to something along the lines of, "willingness to not only allow, but support and/or affirm, something, even if you disagree."

I am perfectly happy to treat people with respect and dignity and will not go out of my way to harm them physically, emotionally, or mentally. But I will also not go out of my way to affirm or support that with which I disagree. Particularly so when, for me personally, it conflicts with my religious beliefs. Quite simply, affirming that a biological man is, or can be, a woman is in direct conflict with my religious beliefs. If nothing else, it is a lie and a lie is a sin in the eyes of my God. I am not willing to sin to appease any person.

The following example is not meant to persuade any secular person, or really even any other religious person. It is merely insight into how I, and maybe others, feel about this situation.

Jesus modeled how we are treat sinners (by the Biblical definition) many times throughout his life. In particular, there was a woman which was caught in the act of adultery which was brought before Jesus for judgement. However, instead of persecuting the woman, He instead turned to crowd and reminded them of their own humanity and past mistakes. Then, He refused to condemn the woman but urged her to cease sinning going forward. It's important to note that He did not excuse or ignore the fact that she sinned. He also did not approve or support her choice to sin (since He urged her to cease sinning). But He did show compassion on her and her situation.

Similarly, I'm more than willing to show compassion and love for those in the midst of sin today. But I refuse to insinuate that I condone or support their sin. I love people, no matter their particular circumstances. But I will not be forced to commit sin (per my personal understanding of scripture and personal beliefs) but affirming or supporting sinful acts. I also will not provide my personal opinion on their sin, or lack thereof, without expressed request on behalf of the other person as my personal beliefs for myself are irrelevant in regards to other people. It is perfectly easy to use the name of an individual rather than any particular pronoun.

Outside of the religious component, what happened to, "Your rights end where my rights begin?" As Buzz noted, one is welcome to call himself/herself/themself absolutely anything he/she/they prefer. However, they are not welcome to require me to use the same terminology. Similarly, he/she/they are welcome to call me any number of things (intolerant, selfish, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant, racist, zealot, etc.) that he/she/they prefer. I can get upset if I want, or I can move on confident that I am none of those things. I cannot require that person use my personal choice of descriptors of myself (handsome, charming, always hammering, luscious, well groomed, full head of hair-ed, etc.).

It isn't really about your rights or anyone else's rights. It's about common courtesy and respect. I know that can be hard for some folks, but we could sure use a little more of it these days.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Calling yourself anything you want doesn't make it true. Common biology doesn't agree so don't expect me to.

I was reading the other day about people who identify as another race. It's hard to keep up with all these new identities.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It is possible to treat individuals with respect and dignity without affirming practices that are nonsensical in origin and actually demeaning. Words have meaning.

Gerald, there is little doubt in my mind that you could spend an afternoon with just about anyone and they would say you were one of kindest, down to earth folks they had met. Conversely I know I offend people on a constant basis.

After reading 5 years of your posts I think we have a similar outlook on how we try and treat people. I think those outlooks are underpinned by similar understandings that were conveyed to us and were based in scripture.

A lot of my beliefs about race/gender/ inclusivity came from my grandfather, he was a minister in Arkansas. At 18 he was very socially conservative served in the Navy in WWII, saw some pretty heavy fighting, came back and his views evolved a lot.

During the early part of the civil rights era he was on the fence about what his specific roll should be, BBC actually did a piece on him and I have video of him dithering about getting involved. Eventually after Selma he said enough, and joined Dr. King for the second march. Pissed off a lot of folks in his congregation, he lost a lot of his flock.

Anyway, he always told me he regretted not being more decisive sooner. I think Galatians 3:28 would sum up the flavor of Christian values he taught me:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

End of the day we are all human.

All that being said my grand father was a product of his era and said "oriental" till the day he died, and one time when I was in college we had a cringeworthy experience together where he mis-gendered someone repeatedly, so he probably would have been cancelled today.

We are all a work in progress, none of us get it right, I think mutual forgiveness and understanding is important.

Longwinded way of saying I respect your beliefs and you trying to live them.

 

[Randi]

What about referring to a married woman as Ms. instead of Mrs.? One of my grandfathers refused - his view was you are either married or you are not - a simple legal fact. Yet somehow society evolved and now we don't expect married women to be Mrs. Steve Peterson. While he was technically correct by the vernacular of the day, it sends the wrong message to young woman taking their full place in our society (after centuries of second class status).

Similarly here, understanding that concepts of humanity and personal identity are different than scientific concepts of reproductive biology is an emerging thing. Who knows where we will end up, but it is not about self-identifying as a millionaire - that is not a very productive analogy.

I am not sure how we navigate this (and do have concerns about medicating the under 18 folks), but when I find myself in times of turmoil and change, I prefer to focus on empathy and understanding rather than dogma - dogma is the easy way out of struggling with complex subjects.

I can not disagree . As always, your thoughts and posts are very well written and stated.

However; if I may. When in college, and subjects like, "origin of species vs the bible", conservative politics vs liberal politics, feminist/race/gender issues, and even the "pronoun" discussion, never ended without those on the "WOK" side of the issue shouting, threatening our rooms, sororities, employment, family and even bodily harm to myself and friends, if we didn't agree with them.

If anyone disagrees with them, they didn't continue to discuss the issue or even politely agree that we was never going to agree and shake hands and move on. It had to be their way or no way. Does their shouting and threatening, make them right ?

Abortion after the first trimester and no men in girls sports were both things that were important to me, but I not once threatened bodily harm to anyone who disagreed with me, but I was not only threatened but accosted, tires slashed, friends threatened, paint ball thrown at me, which did not make me change my mind, but strengthened my will, to continue to speak out about those issues I believed in. My father brought my car home and got me a "beater" to drive, but he not once said--"why dont you just go along, to get along"

When I get married, why is it not alright to be "Mrs" if that is what I chose ? I know you dont care, but their are feminist out there that do and will not be happy until every female is walking in lock step with them. I will not

My grandfather still use's the word "honey" a lot when speaking to a female person he dont know. He still opens doors for women, even me. I admit, I did not understand why he insisted on walking on the street side of me when walking down the street. I respect him, love him, thank him and appreciate him although I dont agree with him on every issue. but we are still able to fish together without even mentioning our differences

 

[BucksnDucks]

What about referring to a married woman as Ms. instead of Mrs.? One of my grandfathers refused - his view was you are either married or you are not - a simple legal fact. Yet somehow society evolved and now we don't expect married women to be Mrs. Steve Peterson. While he was technically correct by the vernacular of the day, it sends the wrong message to young woman taking their full place in our society (after centuries of second class status).

Similarly here, understanding that concepts of humanity and personal identity are different than scientific concepts of reproductive biology is an emerging thing. Who knows where we will end up, but it is not about self-identifying as a millionaire - that is not a very productive analogy.

I am not sure how we navigate this (and do have concerns about medicating the under 18 folks), but when I find myself in times of turmoil and change, I prefer to focus on empathy and understanding rather than dogma - dogma is the easy way out of struggling with complex subjects.

As usual I appreciate the thoughtful reply. What I am trying to express here is the empathy and understanding needs to go both ways.
People can have the freedom to their own way of using language. For example using we to describe a singular person or made up terms like Zir. People should not be forbidden from using these words or discriminated against for it.
If I choose not to participate in this new use of the English language, I should also enjoy that freedom. I expect the same respect and freedom to use or not use the language I see as appropriate.
This has nothing to do with addressing someone individually, it is in broad context of being compelled to play the new pronoun game.

 

[Bigjay73]

For the vast majority of us, I imagine we run into someone that uses they/them vary rarely, is it really even an issue? I've honestly only seen it used in news stories.