It would bother me a lot less if they just bit the bullet and made up NEW pronouns. Greg Egan wrote a book called "Diaspora" that used pronouns "ze/zis/zim" (as I recall). What's wrong with that, for those who TRULY cannot begin to come to grips with their birth genitalia?
It would bother me a lot less if they just bit the bullet and made up NEW pronouns. Greg Egan wrote a book called "Diaspora" that used pronouns "ze/zis/zim" (as I recall). What's wrong with that, for those who TRULY cannot begin to come to grips with their birth genitalia?
I understand your point but you can’t just invent new parts of speech like that and insert them in the language at will. We already have enough trouble with teaching people how to read and write and about grammar with language evolving organically without making it even harder by introducing these issues.
I agree 1000% and that gets to the REAL heart of the matter:
NOBODY should be FORCED to associate with people who make them feel uncomfortable.
Period.
On *either* side of the aisle.
... And that is why the 'Borg leftists are the enemy this time, and not the fundamentalist Christians. I did recently get into a discussion with a fundamentalist (Bible literalist) and discovered that, in fact, we share a very, VERY different worldview and spiritual track. However ... He only volunteered that information LONG after we were engaged in discussion. He did NOT try to push his views on me. We agreed to disagree, and that left us fine and dandy and well open to being pleasant business partners in future transactions and enjoying casual banter.
... Pretty sure the same could not be said if he had identified himself as a "trans-man" and I had told him that, as a fairly masculine biological woman, I don't believe that such a thing exists. (In reality, I'm open to friendly debate about the topic ... But I don't think that "they" are.)
Doctor Kitt, I see what you did there….nicely done…!
“In reality, I'm open to friendly debate about the topic ... But I don't think that "they" are”
You’re describing WOKE ideology. My biggest pet peeve on planet-earth is hypocrisy. Reality is, the most “hypocritical” humans are indeed the “wokesters.” With that in mind, what is the definition of Woke?
———————-
My friend Scott took a stab at the definition —
Those who impose a viewpoint upon & toward others that:
1. Magnifies (with self righteous overtones) particular concerns focused on the actions of others.
These focal points are singled out as preeminently more important than other concerns of equal validity.
2. The woke person ignores other valid issues/actions they might be guilty of conducting themselves. Even if those activities might be equally harming to to the end goal they claim to support.
As an example-
When Al Gore flies a private jet from a 2nd or 3rd home to a Climate-Change conference to meet w/other Climate Change warriors who also flew private jets to get there, who also have multiple homes.
The ol’- “Do as I say, not as I do” kinda thing…!
Anyone care to take a stab at the definition of WOKE?
Reality is, this whole “pronoun-gender-identification” crap is filled with Hypocrisy (Woke-Ideology).
I know that but it has to fit into the language and also be taken up by the people who use the language (and not just a fringe element). Ms” responded to a linguistic void or need and yet it still took decades for it to be adopted by a majority. Shakespeare also made up words or used linguistic innovations that *didn’t* make it into the lexicon. There have been many attempts to change the language (the French Revolution renaming months comes to mind) that were not a response to a practical need but an attempt to superimpose a political or ideological perspective on a language and because of people’s resistance to change and because they didn’t fit a communication or linguistic need, they didn’t last.
Plus neologisms work much better with things like nouns, adjectives and verbs than with other parts of speech such as prepositions, conjunctions or pronouns. But the new words generally catch on because they fit into the language well in a way that isn’t confusing, and they also meet a need (to name a new technology or concept for example). I’m not sure that these made up and imposed pronouns do that.
Creating new words is pandering (& possibly promoting) this trans phenomena.
Another commenter pointed out using anorexia as a parallel example that as a society or individuals we don’t “play along” with their distorted self-image. And we don’t construct any new words to make their anorexia palatable or more acceptable.
Maybe my analogy is off. But the more we cater to this the more youngsters will latch on. After all Tweens & Teens are followers & easily swayed.
It would bother me a lot less if they just bit the bullet and made up NEW pronouns. Greg Egan wrote a book called "Diaspora" that used pronouns "ze/zis/zim" (as I recall). What's wrong with that, for those who TRULY cannot begin to come to grips with their birth genitalia?
I understand your point but you can’t just invent new parts of speech like that and insert them in the language at will. We already have enough trouble with teaching people how to read and write and about grammar with language evolving organically without making it even harder by introducing these issues.
I agree 1000% and that gets to the REAL heart of the matter:
NOBODY should be FORCED to associate with people who make them feel uncomfortable.
Period.
On *either* side of the aisle.
... And that is why the 'Borg leftists are the enemy this time, and not the fundamentalist Christians. I did recently get into a discussion with a fundamentalist (Bible literalist) and discovered that, in fact, we share a very, VERY different worldview and spiritual track. However ... He only volunteered that information LONG after we were engaged in discussion. He did NOT try to push his views on me. We agreed to disagree, and that left us fine and dandy and well open to being pleasant business partners in future transactions and enjoying casual banter.
... Pretty sure the same could not be said if he had identified himself as a "trans-man" and I had told him that, as a fairly masculine biological woman, I don't believe that such a thing exists. (In reality, I'm open to friendly debate about the topic ... But I don't think that "they" are.)
Doctor Kitt, I see what you did there….nicely done…!
“In reality, I'm open to friendly debate about the topic ... But I don't think that "they" are”
You’re describing WOKE ideology. My biggest pet peeve on planet-earth is hypocrisy. Reality is, the most “hypocritical” humans are indeed the “wokesters.” With that in mind, what is the definition of Woke?
———————-
My friend Scott took a stab at the definition —
Those who impose a viewpoint upon & toward others that:
1. Magnifies (with self righteous overtones) particular concerns focused on the actions of others.
These focal points are singled out as preeminently more important than other concerns of equal validity.
2. The woke person ignores other valid issues/actions they might be guilty of conducting themselves. Even if those activities might be equally harming to to the end goal they claim to support.
As an example-
When Al Gore flies a private jet from a 2nd or 3rd home to a Climate-Change conference to meet w/other Climate Change warriors who also flew private jets to get there, who also have multiple homes.
The ol’- “Do as I say, not as I do” kinda thing…!
Anyone care to take a stab at the definition of WOKE?
Reality is, this whole “pronoun-gender-identification” crap is filled with Hypocrisy (Woke-Ideology).
Willfully Oblivious to Known Evil.
You can. That’s how we got “Ms.” And Shakespeare is well known for turning nouns into verbs
I know that but it has to fit into the language and also be taken up by the people who use the language (and not just a fringe element). Ms” responded to a linguistic void or need and yet it still took decades for it to be adopted by a majority. Shakespeare also made up words or used linguistic innovations that *didn’t* make it into the lexicon. There have been many attempts to change the language (the French Revolution renaming months comes to mind) that were not a response to a practical need but an attempt to superimpose a political or ideological perspective on a language and because of people’s resistance to change and because they didn’t fit a communication or linguistic need, they didn’t last.
Plus neologisms work much better with things like nouns, adjectives and verbs than with other parts of speech such as prepositions, conjunctions or pronouns. But the new words generally catch on because they fit into the language well in a way that isn’t confusing, and they also meet a need (to name a new technology or concept for example). I’m not sure that these made up and imposed pronouns do that.
Creating new words is pandering (& possibly promoting) this trans phenomena.
Another commenter pointed out using anorexia as a parallel example that as a society or individuals we don’t “play along” with their distorted self-image. And we don’t construct any new words to make their anorexia palatable or more acceptable.
Maybe my analogy is off. But the more we cater to this the more youngsters will latch on. After all Tweens & Teens are followers & easily swayed.