Pronouns

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Putting pronouns in your signature isn't being 'decent' to anyone. Not sure who you think you are fooling with that one, maybe yourself.

Ignorance displayed and exposed.

Job done

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Russ

Why does any of this matter?

After all, names are just noises we use to identify each other.

My OH is Polish and although she’s been here 15+ years and speaks English better than many British people I’ve met she still hasn’t got a complete grasp on British customs, nuances etc.

For example she finds it unusual that someone called William may want to be referred to as Bill. It doesn’t bother her in any way, just that they seem like unconnected names to her.

So if someone wants to use an apparently unconnected name or pronoun, WGAS?

On my email signature at work I have “(he/him)” after my name. Virtue signalling? Do me a favour. I do it so anyone I correspond with (in my workplace or externally) who feels unsure about revealing their chosen pronoun (hopefully) will feel a little more open and relaxed whilst dealing with me.

Is there a problem with this?

Not really, but why don't you simply use 'Mr'?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not really, but why don't you simply use 'Mr'?

Because that would make me sound too far up my own @rse.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Russ

Because that would make me sound too far up my own @rse.

Well if you use the name Russ, I don't think you need to announce what you are. If you use 'R. Whatever', then Mr wouldn't be out of place at all. It might be fine for internal emails for those within your group or company. But if you use he/him in your signature for outside emails then it could look like you're even more up your own @rse than using Mr.

As for the 'showing ignorance' comment, is that because you don't agree with someone thereby you call someone ignorant? Isn't that how all this has started in the first place?

[Russ]

Where did I say I do it because I think “need to”?

I do it because I want to. Big difference.

And no, the “showing ignorance” comment was because he was showing ignorance with his comments.

Originally Posted by Chris

As our dear friend Graham used to love saying in his posts on here, when discussing personal freedom: your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with someone putting pronouns on their emails if that’s what they want to do.

OTOH, compelling me to use manufactured language in order to comply with an ideology to which I do not subscribe - that is not OK. Nor is requiring my acquiescence to a world view that is, frankly, alien to human society throughout history.

The real problem here is not what someone puts in their email signature, it is that the loudest campaigners in this area are shrilly insisting that this issue defines their humanity and demanding others therefore acquiesce. Leaving aside the shaky philosophical basis for defining your entire humanity on the basis of whether you feel you’re a man, a woman, or something else, the simple fact is, compelled speech is unlawful. What these campaigners are demanding is intolerable in an open, liberal and democratic society.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Russ

Where did I say I do it because I think “need to”?

I do it because I want to. Big difference.

And no, the “showing ignorance” comment was because he was showing ignorance with his comments.

I think it's more about trying to understand the reasoning as to why etc. As for the 'need to' it was why do you need to, it's not like your name is Sam, Charlie or some other unisex name.

Originally Posted by Qtx

The pronouns stuff makes me sick too!

My point was a small marginalised group can make a lot of fuss and then everyone is jumping through hoops for them, well above and beyond what is acceptable.

That statement reminds me of almost exactly the same arguments being used against the decriminalisation of homosexuality and when marriage equality was first proposed…

[Russ]

Originally Posted by peanut

I think it's more about trying to understand the reasoning as to why etc. As for the 'need to' it was why do you need to, it's not like your name is Sam, Charlie or some other unisex name.

I’ve already given my reasoning. Call it an act of goodwill if that makes more senses.

Nowhere have I said I need to do anything. I work with a colleague called Joel who now asks to be referred to as “they” and “them”.

Why should I be a dick and deliberately ignore Joel’s reasonable request?

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That statement reminds me of almost exactly the same arguments being used against the decriminalisation of homosexuality and when marriage equality was first proposed…

People may have had positive or negative views on same sex marriage but the difference is no one changed their own actions based on that. It didn't lead to twits putting pronouns in their social media profiles or shops and police cars virtue signalling with rainbows and similar stuff which is everywhere these days.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That statement reminds me of almost exactly the same arguments being used against the decriminalisation of homosexuality and when marriage equality was first proposed…

Oh dear - there you go conflating the freedom of gender choice available to people with the free-for-all brought about by the artificial pronouns question. It gets totally ridiculous to get caught up in ambiguous meanings through the equally total violation of grammatical rules.



---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

People may have had positive or negative views on same sex marriage but the difference is no one changed their own actions based on that. It didn't lead to twits putting pronouns in their social media profiles or shops and police cars virtue signalling with rainbows and similar stuff which is everywhere these days.

Much as I find this rainbow stuff irritating because of the virtue signalling, I’d point out that the Ukranian flag falls into a similar category of showing sympathy with a cause - though I’d not see that case as virtue signalling. Thete’s no grammar in a coloured flag!

[Russ]

I think Hugh was referring to the principle behind it…

Originally Posted by Russ

I think Hugh was referring to the principle behind it…

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Russ

I think Hugh was referring to the principle behind it…

The principle behind what? As I said, Hugh has conflated teo separate issues. The OP has centred his position around pronouns that screw up the English language.

I can see the argument that the language follows the cause, but the cause is not in question. The language is.


.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Russ

I think Hugh was referring to the principle behind it…

And I pointed out how they were different. One was people having views on something, the other is people doing something.

I understand at what Hugh was getting at with the minority group but his statement ignored what I said about people jumping through hoops over this particular subject. He missed the nuances obviously....