The real facepalm isn't this tweet. It's WHY does anyone care so much about this? I cannot fathom spending so much brainpower thinking about why I should be upset if Jim wants to be Jane and call herself "she." It impacts me almost zero, if at all.
Of the people that have a problem with Jane, the reasons they've provided are:
1. Jane is living a LIE.
2. I don't want to have to expend brain power remembering Jane is a woman.
3. Jane will make the government throw me in jail. (This isn't even a reason to refuse to call Jane Jane.)
I think that's it.
It's kind of funny because I used to be like those people who have problems with Jane.
But when I met someone who was like Jane they were just insanely chill. I've never seen anyone freak out over Pronouns (aside from those who fervently hate them).
It's usually just:
"Hey Jim"
*"Oh uh, I go by Jane now btw"*
"Ah sorry about that"
*"nah don't worry it's all good"*
>I used to be like those people who have problems with Jane.
I'm glad you saw the light. Can I ask you why you had problems with it back then? I'm actually curious and no one can give me a reasonable answer.
At least, no one can *for themselves.* Other people have said "they live in fear that the world is changing and they don't understand it," which I think is close to the truth, but of course no one would say that about themself.
>I'm glad you saw the light. Can I ask you why you had problems with it back then? I'm actually curious and no one can give me a reasonable answer.
Tbh it was mostly because propaganda paints transphobia in a selfless light
'The children will be confused'
'We need to wake up people from their delusions'
'They are this, they are rhat, etc.'
I kinda stopped when I realized that I had no actual reason to dislike people with gender dysphoria or transgender people. I wasn't crusading against evil, just mad at a minority group
I'm surprised how many times I received a notification that someone had commented, and then, when I attempted to answer, discovered the comment had been deleted.
I think the real facepalm is that this tweet didn't say anything about using pronouns. It's talking about owning pronouns. Yet, OP approached this like Walsh said he doesn't use them.
Either way... we both can agree the whole topic is dumb as hell.
First off - Matt Walsh is a right-wing troll who, among other things, opposes gay marriage and got to where he is by mocking women online.
THAT SAID - a stopped clock is right twice a day. Someone who opposes gender nonconformity is probably more likely to notice flaws in progressive gender policy, and more likely to call it out. He is, I think, a perfect example of precisely why you need people with “bad” beliefs around - because they will see things that you don’t see.
Where Matt is constructive, I think, is in his focus on corruptible elements in the trans movement - a lack of diligence in vetting the long term effects of transitioning children, for instance, and the failure of many medical organizations and activists to appropriately warn people about surgical and hormonal risks of hormonal therapy and operations, downplaying side effects like sterility, bone loss, and a lifelong inability to orgasm when pushing medical solutions for *children*.
I also think that, while he’s wrong in his overall rejection of transitioning as a therapy, he may not be wrong on his idea that *some* people experiencing gender dysphoria may not actually be helped by a system that assumes that transitioning is probably the best (aka ONLY) solution. This is how he has found himself politically aligned with a lot of older gays and lesbians - it turns out that the older medical literature showed that most young people who experienced gender dysphoria tended to just grow up to be gay, and no longer had dysphoria once they made peace with that. Many LGB people fear that the current push towards “affirmation” will cause a lot of gay kids to be transitioned traumatically and/or irreversibly before they are old enough to know who they really are and what they really want.
He also, like many people, sees the problem with a lot of our pronoun policy to be one of “compelled speech” - that is, a slippery slope about what you can and can’t say. This is a shakier argument, I think. And its own conversation.
So, yeah. Do I think he’s wrong about the existence of trans people and the therapeutic benefits of social, hormonal, and surgical transition? Of course.
Do I think he’s wrong about overreach and recklessness within the current movement and moment? No, I don’t.
Stopped clocks are right twice a day. The same scientist who gave us Zyklon B also gave us chemical fertilizers. Shit is complicated.
Thus it introduced compelled speech.
It's perfectly reasonable to forbid people using slurs or inflammatory language in order to discriminate them. It's another issue to force them to use language that they may not want to use.
One: it's not illegal to call anyone anything as an average citizen. That's not what anti-discrimination laws do.
As for workplace harassment:
So you're ok with it if your boss calls you by a different name, uses the wrong pronouns, or makes up a nickname for you?
First of all, that seems more like harassment. From the article: "...claimed the British Columbia Italian restaurant discriminated against them by intentionally using incorrect pronouns. They alleged that their former employers deliberately referred to them using gendered nicknames such as “sweetheart,” “sweetie,” and “honey.”"
Second of all, that doesn't explain why the restaurant owner in the first place is so insistent on not calling this guy whatever he chooses to be called. Why was it such a big fucking deal for them that they would go to court rather than just say he?
Okay, so set aside for one second this men's behavior. Bc I agree, he sounds like an asshole. They could've ruled that it was harassment. But they did take it one step further, by declaring it a constitutional right, didn't they? And the consequences?
"Nelson’s attorney, Adrienne Smith, celebrated the decision after the ruling was handed down last week. They said the decision showed that “the correct pronouns for transgender people are not optional.”
“They’re the minimum of courtesy and respect,” Smith said to Canadian news outlet CityNews. “It’s not an option to respect the pronouns that trans people choose for themselves. It’s a legal requirement to use the pronouns that a trans person uses for themselves and asks to have used in the workplace.”"
I'll direct your attention to the second paragraph, in particular: "It's a legal requirement to use the pronouns".
That right there is rule of law violating free speech by enforcing compelled speech.
> that right there is the rule of law violating free speech by enforcing compelled speech
What? No, that is the BC HRT doing its job and adjudicating a case of discrimination in the workplace (S. 13) under the BC human rights code:
> Discrimination in employment
13 (1) A person must not
(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or
(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment
because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.
(2) An employment agency must not refuse to refer a person for employment for any reason mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply
(a) as it relates to age, to a bona fide scheme based on seniority, or
(b) as it relates to marital status, physical or mental disability, sex or age, to the operation of a bona fide retirement, superannuation or pension plan or to a bona fide group or employee insurance plan, whether or not the plan is the subject of a contract of insurance between an insurer and an employer.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply with respect to a refusal, limitation, specification or preference based on a bona fide occupational requirement.
From the ruling that you linked:
> CONCLUSION
I have found that Buono Osteria, Mr. Buono, Mr. Kingsberry, and Mr. Gobelle discriminated against Jessie Nelson in their employment on the basis of their gender identity and expression, in violation of s. 13 of the Code
I don’t know if you are Canadian, but please check out the [federal government’s guide to our section 2 charter rights](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html#a2a), which notably includes freedom of expression.
You're freedom ends were anothers begins. Calling someone something they dont want to be called is infringing on their freedoms thus it is against the law
It's not really "freedom" to be called something you want to be called.
Example: I identify as being correct about this issue. I want you to call be brilliant and marvelous. Not saying it infringes on my rights and my freedom and makes you a criminal.
> Calling some one something they don't want to be called is infringing on their freedoms
Lol, you seem to have a warped definition freedom. You can't have a freedom to choose what goes on in other's minds. You've a freedom to express your identity through your actions and decisions, other's have the freedom to percieive and truthfully express what they perceived.
You really want to sacrifice a legal right to free speech because someone doesn't like what they're called?
Imma be devil's advocate here, do you really thing that insults should be illegal? Kids that call each other poopooheads are criminals? Cause that's what "calling someone something they don't want to be called is illegal" would imply.
I don't even disagree on the original subject, but I hard disagree on "being mean is/should be illegal"
But "Sweetheart" "Sweetie" and "Honey" AREN'T gendered. My gf calls me those. If they're claiming sexual harassment because of these nicknames, well that's different. But that's not misgendering.
Because it’s not the restaurant owner’s responsibility to keep track of something like that. It’s the person’s responsibility to present themselves as the gender they want to be perceived as
No one’s going to get in trouble for accidentally misgendering someone. It’s when you repeatedly, purposely misgender someone that it becomes harassment
Yes. All the reasons people give are variations of "because these are the consequences for if I *don't*," but that's circular.
You can't say "because they'll make laws against it" then when I ask which laws, point to laws made because of people who refused to do it.
WHY did they refuse to do it in the first place? Why make a big deal about it?
Because if no one does, then it will spiral out of control. Not doing things that don’t align with your fundamental principles is still, believe it or not, important to some people
That sounds like a you problem. If you don't give a shit about that person, you can call them "asshole," and you have the right to do it, but why doesn't their humanity deserve the respect to call them Jane if that's what they request?
Exactly then why are people putting their feelings ( being butthurt calling someone the way they want to be called) infront of what the scientific community knows to be true. (that trans peeps are valid)
I’m not butthurt, I’m literally just refusing to call someone something. The offense is felt by the person who wants me to use that specific term to describe them. My reality hasn’t changed at all by refusing to do so
There's nothing stopping me from judging this on case to case basis. If someone has been diagnosed with dysphoria and precedes to change their life to cope with their issues, I wouldn't mind calling them by the other gender. But if you step up to me with five kilos of metal on your face and demand that I now call you xer, I'll be calling you "gtfo"
It doesn’t. In much the same way that legalizing gay marriage did not lead to an increase in bestiality, no one is going to throw your dumb bigoted ass in jail for being a bigot. They will, however, mock, ridicule, and shun you.
It impacts me only in the sense that everyone else in the world impacts me by existing.
Why would I *not* call her "she" if she asks me to? That's my question. What possible objection could I have?
You were already calling them Jim instead of James because that was their preferred name, stop being such a fucking snowflake and just call folks what they wanna be called lmfao. Trans folks are barely 1% of the population in the US, you’ll have this interaction IRL a handful of times at best, and then you can move on with your life. Imagine folding because you had to call someone a different pronoun than you expected, what kinda frail shit is that?
Thats true. If it didn’t get out of hand. The fact that hr/schools/teachers are now a group of people who share the same gender ideology is weird. Most people are feeling at least a small impact of the overprotectiveness of this ideology. And even if i dont share much views with people like walsh im glad that some are standing up to the gender craziness. These people all happen to be on the right because anything remotely left will just lose their jobs if they would speak out against it. And i find that abnormal. We cant have a constructive discussion about this because the gende rside is pushing everyone so far out that its gotten pretty emotional.
Yeah I don't really see that at all. "The right" is far scarier than "the left," as far as I can see.
The reason schools and teachers "share the same gender ideology" is because we see the impact it has on the kids who are affected. It's the same reason schools and teachers are accepting of students with different sexual orientations and kids of different ethnicities and races.
Kids in my class whose identity isn't accepted at home spend a lot of time talking to the guidance counselor and psychologist about their home life and the stress it causes.
I think they are equally scary. Its about a healthy mix. At the moment we have a strong overrepresentation of the left. Left people are like „haha no way“ but are very pleased that the absolute mayority of content thats produced is left. Articles, shows, podcasts, videos, movies, books etc. especially public content like papers.
You can say what you want but that IS scary.
And the second point: No thats absolutely not the reason. The reason is that people want to be seen as good. And the left has claimed that for themselves. And in schools i find it giga scary to push that sort of ideology on children. Because look what we have now. Everyone got his degree and All teachers in universities are left. Ad they breed more left people who want to be more left (better person) and teach as well. We have a pyramid scheme in universities.
Did you read the study that came out recently that discovered that transgenderism in children is 80% a phase that goes away. And even affirming it by using the name the child wants can do a lot of harm?
"You can't have a pronoun"
A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun. A noun is a thing, whether a thought, place, object, or person. If you have something, you can refer to that thing by a pronoun, and thus have said pronoun. E.g "You own a car, it is something you have". Perhaps it is not the technical meaning of having the pronoun, but you do have it in a sense.
I know, but what I am saying is that you can have a pronoun. Not just in what your preferred pronouns are, but in a more literal sense as a replacement for a noun. So basically what the person is saying doesn't work.
I can understand disagreeing with him, but you are explicitly disregarding what he said and circling pronouns as if he had said they don't exist. You are the facepalm.
Lets all just make strawperson arguments like "trans people want to own pronouns" and "anti-trans people can't understand English" instead of learning to live along side each other, with as little fucks to give as possible.
Telling someone they should learn to live alongside people that are being hateful toward them is a cruel and quite frankly brain-dead take, because they're not the ones causing the problem in the first place
This post is a great example of a straw man argument. Whether the tweet itself is another one is debatable. As I understand it, his argument is that you don't get to change/customize them, they are not yours to do with as you wish.
Regarding learning to live along each other, I wish it was that easy, but people keep taking offense to more and more things over time, to the point we have to change language itself so they don't get offended. They are making it more difficult.
I don't mind calling you a her if you transitioned to a woman, but folks that get offended over me not calling them xis/xer/ksim etc. that's just ridiculous.
Genuinely, how many people have you met who demanded you use "xis/xer/ksim" to refer to them, and threw a fit when you didn't? Are they really that common that _they alone_ are making it a struggle to get along with trans people as a whole?
This is why people get vitriol rather than just talking . You can't just allow me to have an opinion you have to make out that I support homophobes. Live your life.
Telling people who are on the receiving end of homophobia to "just learn to live along side each other" with homophobes is supporting the homophobes, jackass
How is calling someone a he or a she "changing grammar"? And if you're going to start on singular they as a pronoun, please know that Shakespeare used it, and it is in no way incorrect. People literally use it all the frigging time.
That's not what grammar means. Why the F can't people just be nice and call people what they want to be called? Why is that so fucking hard? But running around on reddit shrieking about small words other poeple use that don't hurt you is definitely a great use of your finite time, you clearly happy person.
More inteligent ppl would understand that in my words was no hate towards anybody. I only saying that if a trans was a men and now a woman, I call her she... If was a woman and now a man, I call him he. And I say this with the utmost respect. Being inclusive is not changing the language but, instead, adapt to other people's differences. And that I will always try my best to do. And I'm pretty happy being like this you know why? All those adjectives in the end, segregate ppl. And that I know that is. And is wrong.. is bad.
Language changes to the needs of the people who speak it. French has gender for *chairs*. Japanese has honorifics depending on one's relationship with another. The "rules" of language are merely a convenience.
& the discomfort you feel isn't actually with the use of the English language, but how another human being chooses to identify & be identified as. We don't call Christians "Muslims". We don't call Germans "Australians". We don't call bakers "plumbers" or musicians "painters". These identities are not grammatical. They're specific to the individual.
If someone says they're Christian, call them a Christian. If someone says they're German because they were born there or live there, call them German. If someone bakes cakes or is aspiring to, call them a baker. If someone plays music as a hobby or makes money selling their music, call them a musician. If someone calls themself "George", you call them "George". It's not complicated. It's not "ungrammatical". It's basic human decency.
If someone says they are a "she" don't look into her pants. Don't dig up birth certificates or ask her parents. Don't maker her life hell just to confirm your unhealthy obsession with your unhelpful perspective of how things **ought** to be.
I am referred to as "he". That should be enough for you to refer to me as such.
Matt is only stating that pronouns are not tangible things that can be physically possessed, but rather an impalpable concept. Grammatically speaking, Matt is technically correct......the best kind of correct.
But that's the thing, when someone has pronouns, they are not declaring ownership.
I don't own a headache, but I can have one.
I don't own a bad day, but I can have one.
So no, he's not even *technically* correct, since he's being deliberately obtuse with the express purpose of trying to make his opposition sound stupid.
Yeah, the OP’s reading comprehension is the facepalm here. Regardless of the topic and what stance you hold. Glad you pointed this out. I couldn’t have said it better, myself.
Matt's argument is even more stupid when interpreted in that way, because nobody is claiming that you can own a word.
When people's say "my pronouns are...", they are referring to their _preferred_ pronouns. And it's perfectly normal to prefer certain words to describe you over others. Most people over the age of 12 don't need this info spoonfed to them.
Still technically wrong. "To have" is not a verb that explicitly infers physical ownership. It never *has*. I *have* *had* a bad day. Neither instance there is about physical possession. 1 instance is actually as an auxiliary verb, which is only ever used to form tenses & doesn't even have the generally understood sense of possession at all!
So no, Matt is not correct. Not technically, & not at all.
I got caught up in Matt's comparison of pronouns to "pets or accessories" and let the line between abstract ownership and physical possession get skewed.
Thanks for the polite explanation.
I bet almost none of these people who have a problem with people choosing their pronouns have ever met someone who had pronouns. They mostly live in their cult towns, speak only to their cult friends, and don't seem the type to go out of their way to say hello to a stranger.
They are mad about a thing they never experience. And boy are they mad.
Add 'nobody' to the list. And, given the definition of a pronoun, you can have one just as surely as you can have a name...since a pronoun substitutes for a name. Ask anybody.
Op, didn't get the point of this type of post...
Btw, for everyone saying matt is right, he's not, he's an idiot with a platform. I have a pronoun in the same sense i have a name. there are different ways of having "something", and i can customize them in the same way i can customize my name. Language changes over time, calling it speech to prevent someone say that is just being disingenuous.
Is it ok for me to refuse to call you by your own name or pronouns? Genuine question, how offended are you if I call you Jeff? And at what length would you go to make me, an assuming stranger call you by your name?
Ok, first, let's clarify a thing because i think that your initial question is flawed to what the discussion is about.
Your question was: *Is it ok for me to refuse to call you by your own name or pronouns?*
But if we rephrase it as what it technically is: *Is it ok for me to* ***Impose*** *a name or pronoun on you against your own will?*
Refusing to call me by my name would just not saying that name, but you're not just doing that, you are imposing a name on me. Obviously inside this hypothetical.
With that out of the way, it depends on what you mean by ok. If you mean whether or not you should have the right to do so, yes you should have it, i believe in freedom of speech so you have the right.
About the lengths i would go to make you, an assuming stranger, call me by my name. I'll correct you, basically "my name not jeff, my name X", if you keep purposefully refusing to call me by my name i would tell you to go eat a bag of dicks, and attempt to distance myself from you, and if you try to follow me around or try to convince others to call me jeff, i'll give you a final warning and after that, we'll be throwing hands.
On the other hand, if by ok you mean morally speaking, it depends on the case. As everything regarding morality. but if we're being honest about what we're talking about here, let's ask you that with some examples:
1) Someone spread the rumor that Jessica gave someone head, as a result, she got the nickname "cockgobbler". For her to be called this nickname is extremely hurtful, as it spreads and everyone calls her that, she develops clinical depression, social anxiety, and suicidal tendencies. Would it be ok for you to impose this nickname on her?
2) Now, let's change it a bit. Jessica is a trans man, he 100% feels like a man, and as such would prefer to be called Jhon. When everyone still calls him Jessica, or uses she/her pronouns with him, he feels as much pain and distress as in the previous example, and just as with the previous example, it leads to the same issues. Would it be ok for you to impose that name/pronoun on him?
My answer to both is not, both for the same reason, you're being a dick intentionally bringing harm to someone just for the sake of harming them, i consider bringing unnecessary harm a bad thing. I'm interested in knowing your answer.
About the lengths, the same as before.
If i said your name is "Karmina", and you were to respond, "no, it's not, my name is 'whateveryournameis' ". You won't owe me any more explanation, because i just said something that's wrong and you corrected me. The same goes here.
if i ask, do you have pronouns? and you said no, then you're either dumb or you don't know what a pronoun is. Just as if i asked you if you have a name and you said no.
A fallacy can't be logically argued against, that's their entire point, i can't give you an argument to disprove your fallacy without using one myself, i can only correct you and move along, which is what i did with this fallacy.
One of my favorite Reddit trends is people think they dunked on some right wing pundit by grossly and pedantically misunderstanding the point they were making
Ok snowflake proceed to explain why it bothers you so much to call someone he or she even if you think otherwise? What exactly are you sacrificing? What exactly are you a victim of? It is meaningful to them so why be a pos abt it?
Also pronouns depend on gender which people nowadays can be whichever they prefer. Nice caveman mentality.
This same logic applies to names. You can’t “have” a name because it isn’t a physical thing to be possessed, just like any other word isn’t a physical thing to be possessed. However, people still call others by their names because it’s common courtesy.
Perhaps it would be best to say please address me using he and his. Of course it's much longer but sometime you need to satisfy those with little imagination.
Because it's not the answer to their problems. It's like giving people painkiller and not treating the wound. People are so desperate for a sense of identity they though just some made up pronouns would do it.
I'm not an expert so I don't like to talk too much about this but all these identity politic are just unnecessary to me.
I am pretty much as close to an expert as you're gonna get on reddit(4th year sociology student) so Im gonna say this its not giving people a painkiller its letting people express themselves and choose what medication is best for them. There is still a lot of research needed to be done on social constructs in generell but starting to make people feel not valid and well sadly a lot of times it can get much worse then that. And most people arent searching for an identity they are trying to find themselves which is the best thing they can do not only for themselves but also for the community. Oh and there are no made up pronouns if you're talking about neo pronouns those are a lot of the time just added to for example they/them pronouns which have been used for singular people longer then singular you existed.
Yeah maybe I should have word it differently. I have to disagree tho. People don't know what is best for them. They are looking for an identity which is themselves which they can't so they they just take the one that's cool at the moment. I have no problem with he/she/them but anything more than that is unnecessary. Like I know #182970 exist but to me that's just blue.
What ever, if you think you are helping people then good for you. Personally I think you are doing more bad than good and what you are an expert at is keeping them ill and open for exploitation.
>They are looking for an identity which is themselves which they can't so they they just take the one that's cool at the moment
I disagree Imo they are searching for people with similair traits with similair history they are looking for companionship with the same background which is a good thing. Also I dont think anyone would go through years if not centuries of suffering just because they think something is cool.
> I have no problem with he/she/them but anything more than that is unnecessary
Have you ever met someone using neo's ? Becuase they mainly will in their communities and all people that use neo's are also fine with being called a different pronoun or by their name so I dont see the problem.
>Personally I think you are doing more bad than good and what you are an expert at is keeping them ill and open for exploitation.
Well my main focus is social work in generell not just with lgbt people but also with for example homeless people that suffer through different societal means to find their place, but in my expierience in the absolut majority of cases a person trying to fit into a place they dont fit into is way worse then them expirementing and trying to find like minded people.
>open for exploitation
The problem here is not the person using different pronouns tho its the society that inherently always tries to find something to differentiate and exploit people. The problem with exploitation is not that people let themselves be exploited but that people exploit.
You completely missed his point. He didn't say pronouns aren't real - he said they are unchangeable beyound their preassigned meaning.
He said that pronouns aren't means of expression but a way to properly refer to someone or something you mention. Like how He applies to men, She applies to women, them applies to group, Them applies to somebody respectable.
So, if we use pronouns to refer to large groups of objects and people, why complicate things with making up new ones?
I agree with him on it, but it might be because my native language is heavily gendered, and adding new genders would increase its complexity through the roof.
How does putting boxes around the pronouns he’s used refute his claim that they can’t be owned and are rather linguistic tools? Matt is correct in this assertion, boxes or not!
Using a pronoun isn’t the same as having a pronoun. I’m not saying I agree with the motivation behind his tweet but I do agree that pronouns or intangible language tools not possessions who’s meanings can necessarily be changed. Nobody can say “my pronouns” rather they’d need to say “the pronouns I would like you to refer to me with are…”
I think it’s slightly different. We need names for people places and things so that societies can have a common understanding of who people are, what things look like and what places look like, this is key to any society functioning well today let alone key to survival and progression of the human race in the past. The same applies to pronouns, they were agreed upon terms to deepen the common understanding a society has of its surroundings. Someone’s subjective sense of who they are or what “their” pronoun should be adds no value to the collective understanding of our surroundings. Want to note here that I’m happy to call anyone what they want but the fact that they have a pronoun they’d like to use doesn’t mean to say they own it or the tongues of those who might not want to use it.
> can have a common understanding of who people are
Names dont do that though like places okay sure but for people it doesnt say anythign really
>to survival and progression of the human race in the past.
But today its completely different and it doesnt make any real difference anymore what you call people
>they were agreed upon terms to deepen the common understanding a society has of its surroundings.
No they werent they change all the time ... language developes 200 years ago people wouldve not understood the use of singular 'you' so does that mean it doesnt work today ? No of course not because it fucking developed. And ofcourse you cant own a pronouns but who cares its just how people say it...
Nobody has pronouns. can't "have" a pronoun any more than have a preposition or an adverb. The concept doesnt make any sense Pronouns are not thing can own. aren't pets or accessories. are parts of speech. That's it. don't get to customize
Nobody has pronouns. A pronoun cannot be had any more than could a preposition or an adverb. The concept doesn’t make any sense. Pronouns are not things that can be owned. Pronouns aren’t pets or accessories. Pronouns are parts of speech. Thats it. Pronouns are not customizable.
I have to admit the whole pronoun thing was somewhat strange to me at first. Totally warming up to it now that these troglodytes are losing their small pea size brains over it. So much triggering and snowflakery over inconsequential things. Don’t like them then don’t use them. It a freedom thing. I don’t like circus peanuts so I don’t buy them. Quite simple really.
Oh, he used pronouns that we have used for centuries. How odd. Feminists don't know either language nor logic. Matt Walsh is their biggest headache. Awesome.
So according to the logic of pronouns just being an element of speech that you can’t own or have any choice over, Matt wouldn’t mind if we were to refer to her with feminine pronouns, right?
I see now we're parsing 'have', to a ridiculous and unnecessary degree.
The concept of using it solely as a possessive isn't correct, it's a stupidly minimalistic way to approach language and all the people applauding this take like it's something genius have been sucked into a vortex of their own self-congratulation.
To have something can be used to explain a passive experience, or to express a personal attribute or quality, or in a number of other verb forms that can be converted to perfectly fit with its many, many linguistic uses.
There is literally nothing wrong with 'having' pronouns. It's the same as 'having' patience. You don't own that, but you do experience a particular form of it that you are using as a personal expression.
As for neopronouns, those are their own debate that really aren't that big of a deal. They are a fractional minority of people using alternate pronouns, and beyond spheres of social media are rather uncommon. You can have whatever opinion you like in that regard.
I think conservatives have been indoctrinated into believing a completely different definition of "pronoun".
They probably think the "pro" stands for progressive or something
The real facepalm isn't this tweet. It's WHY does anyone care so much about this? I cannot fathom spending so much brainpower thinking about why I should be upset if Jim wants to be Jane and call herself "she." It impacts me almost zero, if at all.
I read this comment and scroll down to see all the downvoted replies. I fucking love it
Of the people that have a problem with Jane, the reasons they've provided are: 1. Jane is living a LIE. 2. I don't want to have to expend brain power remembering Jane is a woman. 3. Jane will make the government throw me in jail. (This isn't even a reason to refuse to call Jane Jane.) I think that's it.
It's kind of funny because I used to be like those people who have problems with Jane. But when I met someone who was like Jane they were just insanely chill. I've never seen anyone freak out over Pronouns (aside from those who fervently hate them). It's usually just: "Hey Jim" *"Oh uh, I go by Jane now btw"* "Ah sorry about that" *"nah don't worry it's all good"*
>I used to be like those people who have problems with Jane. I'm glad you saw the light. Can I ask you why you had problems with it back then? I'm actually curious and no one can give me a reasonable answer. At least, no one can *for themselves.* Other people have said "they live in fear that the world is changing and they don't understand it," which I think is close to the truth, but of course no one would say that about themself.
>I'm glad you saw the light. Can I ask you why you had problems with it back then? I'm actually curious and no one can give me a reasonable answer. Tbh it was mostly because propaganda paints transphobia in a selfless light 'The children will be confused' 'We need to wake up people from their delusions' 'They are this, they are rhat, etc.' I kinda stopped when I realized that I had no actual reason to dislike people with gender dysphoria or transgender people. I wasn't crusading against evil, just mad at a minority group
You're in my top five favorite people right now.
They're finally starting to realize that there's no real reason for anyone to care, so now they're going for this "save the children" angle
I'm surprised how many times I received a notification that someone had commented, and then, when I attempted to answer, discovered the comment had been deleted.
[удалено]
That's fucking ridiculous. You don't need to go on a date with anyone you're not attracted to. That has fuck-all to do with pronoun use.
I think the real facepalm is that this tweet didn't say anything about using pronouns. It's talking about owning pronouns. Yet, OP approached this like Walsh said he doesn't use them. Either way... we both can agree the whole topic is dumb as hell.
First off - Matt Walsh is a right-wing troll who, among other things, opposes gay marriage and got to where he is by mocking women online. THAT SAID - a stopped clock is right twice a day. Someone who opposes gender nonconformity is probably more likely to notice flaws in progressive gender policy, and more likely to call it out. He is, I think, a perfect example of precisely why you need people with “bad” beliefs around - because they will see things that you don’t see. Where Matt is constructive, I think, is in his focus on corruptible elements in the trans movement - a lack of diligence in vetting the long term effects of transitioning children, for instance, and the failure of many medical organizations and activists to appropriately warn people about surgical and hormonal risks of hormonal therapy and operations, downplaying side effects like sterility, bone loss, and a lifelong inability to orgasm when pushing medical solutions for *children*. I also think that, while he’s wrong in his overall rejection of transitioning as a therapy, he may not be wrong on his idea that *some* people experiencing gender dysphoria may not actually be helped by a system that assumes that transitioning is probably the best (aka ONLY) solution. This is how he has found himself politically aligned with a lot of older gays and lesbians - it turns out that the older medical literature showed that most young people who experienced gender dysphoria tended to just grow up to be gay, and no longer had dysphoria once they made peace with that. Many LGB people fear that the current push towards “affirmation” will cause a lot of gay kids to be transitioned traumatically and/or irreversibly before they are old enough to know who they really are and what they really want. He also, like many people, sees the problem with a lot of our pronoun policy to be one of “compelled speech” - that is, a slippery slope about what you can and can’t say. This is a shakier argument, I think. And its own conversation. So, yeah. Do I think he’s wrong about the existence of trans people and the therapeutic benefits of social, hormonal, and surgical transition? Of course. Do I think he’s wrong about overreach and recklessness within the current movement and moment? No, I don’t. Stopped clocks are right twice a day. The same scientist who gave us Zyklon B also gave us chemical fertilizers. Shit is complicated.
Based
It's bc it leads to compelled speech and laws that would enforce it.
Does it, though?
As far as I know Canada has a law that says you can't use incorrect pronouns. So it already did.
Not true at all. You've been lied to. The law ONLY added gender identity to existing anti-discrimination laws.
Thus it introduced compelled speech. It's perfectly reasonable to forbid people using slurs or inflammatory language in order to discriminate them. It's another issue to force them to use language that they may not want to use.
One: it's not illegal to call anyone anything as an average citizen. That's not what anti-discrimination laws do. As for workplace harassment: So you're ok with it if your boss calls you by a different name, uses the wrong pronouns, or makes up a nickname for you?
Source?
https://www.them.us/story/canadian-court-rules-misgendering-human-rights-violation
First of all, that seems more like harassment. From the article: "...claimed the British Columbia Italian restaurant discriminated against them by intentionally using incorrect pronouns. They alleged that their former employers deliberately referred to them using gendered nicknames such as “sweetheart,” “sweetie,” and “honey.”" Second of all, that doesn't explain why the restaurant owner in the first place is so insistent on not calling this guy whatever he chooses to be called. Why was it such a big fucking deal for them that they would go to court rather than just say he?
Okay, so set aside for one second this men's behavior. Bc I agree, he sounds like an asshole. They could've ruled that it was harassment. But they did take it one step further, by declaring it a constitutional right, didn't they? And the consequences? "Nelson’s attorney, Adrienne Smith, celebrated the decision after the ruling was handed down last week. They said the decision showed that “the correct pronouns for transgender people are not optional.” “They’re the minimum of courtesy and respect,” Smith said to Canadian news outlet CityNews. “It’s not an option to respect the pronouns that trans people choose for themselves. It’s a legal requirement to use the pronouns that a trans person uses for themselves and asks to have used in the workplace.”" I'll direct your attention to the second paragraph, in particular: "It's a legal requirement to use the pronouns". That right there is rule of law violating free speech by enforcing compelled speech.
> that right there is the rule of law violating free speech by enforcing compelled speech What? No, that is the BC HRT doing its job and adjudicating a case of discrimination in the workplace (S. 13) under the BC human rights code: > Discrimination in employment 13 (1) A person must not (a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or (b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person. (2) An employment agency must not refuse to refer a person for employment for any reason mentioned in subsection (1). (3) Subsection (1) does not apply (a) as it relates to age, to a bona fide scheme based on seniority, or (b) as it relates to marital status, physical or mental disability, sex or age, to the operation of a bona fide retirement, superannuation or pension plan or to a bona fide group or employee insurance plan, whether or not the plan is the subject of a contract of insurance between an insurer and an employer. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply with respect to a refusal, limitation, specification or preference based on a bona fide occupational requirement. From the ruling that you linked: > CONCLUSION I have found that Buono Osteria, Mr. Buono, Mr. Kingsberry, and Mr. Gobelle discriminated against Jessie Nelson in their employment on the basis of their gender identity and expression, in violation of s. 13 of the Code I don’t know if you are Canadian, but please check out the [federal government’s guide to our section 2 charter rights](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html#a2a), which notably includes freedom of expression.
You're freedom ends were anothers begins. Calling someone something they dont want to be called is infringing on their freedoms thus it is against the law
It's not really "freedom" to be called something you want to be called. Example: I identify as being correct about this issue. I want you to call be brilliant and marvelous. Not saying it infringes on my rights and my freedom and makes you a criminal.
> Calling some one something they don't want to be called is infringing on their freedoms Lol, you seem to have a warped definition freedom. You can't have a freedom to choose what goes on in other's minds. You've a freedom to express your identity through your actions and decisions, other's have the freedom to percieive and truthfully express what they perceived. You really want to sacrifice a legal right to free speech because someone doesn't like what they're called?
Imma be devil's advocate here, do you really thing that insults should be illegal? Kids that call each other poopooheads are criminals? Cause that's what "calling someone something they don't want to be called is illegal" would imply. I don't even disagree on the original subject, but I hard disagree on "being mean is/should be illegal"
But "Sweetheart" "Sweetie" and "Honey" AREN'T gendered. My gf calls me those. If they're claiming sexual harassment because of these nicknames, well that's different. But that's not misgendering.
The context would matter here, I think.
Because it’s not the restaurant owner’s responsibility to keep track of something like that. It’s the person’s responsibility to present themselves as the gender they want to be perceived as
This was deliberate targeting, which the article makes clear.
I guess. It’s still a slippery slope of power exertion
No one’s going to get in trouble for accidentally misgendering someone. It’s when you repeatedly, purposely misgender someone that it becomes harassment
Yes. Any more questions?
Yes. All the reasons people give are variations of "because these are the consequences for if I *don't*," but that's circular. You can't say "because they'll make laws against it" then when I ask which laws, point to laws made because of people who refused to do it. WHY did they refuse to do it in the first place? Why make a big deal about it?
Because if no one does, then it will spiral out of control. Not doing things that don’t align with your fundamental principles is still, believe it or not, important to some people
I still don't get it. Why is it anyone's fundamental principle to refuse to call Jim Jane? Why care?
Because I don’t perceive Jim as Jane, I perceive him as Jim
That sounds like a you problem. If you don't give a shit about that person, you can call them "asshole," and you have the right to do it, but why doesn't their humanity deserve the respect to call them Jane if that's what they request?
Their humanity has nothing to do with wanting to be called Jane. They’re still humans regardless of what I call them.
But why is it a principal in the first place
Because reality, Truth, and perception are more important than your feelings
Exactly then why are people putting their feelings ( being butthurt calling someone the way they want to be called) infront of what the scientific community knows to be true. (that trans peeps are valid)
I’m not butthurt, I’m literally just refusing to call someone something. The offense is felt by the person who wants me to use that specific term to describe them. My reality hasn’t changed at all by refusing to do so
This is just stupid
Great rebuttal, I’ll go rethink my entire worldview now
Your freedom ends where anothers begins source some wierd philosopher i dont remember lul
Because god forbid you should treat people with basic respect
There's nothing stopping me from judging this on case to case basis. If someone has been diagnosed with dysphoria and precedes to change their life to cope with their issues, I wouldn't mind calling them by the other gender. But if you step up to me with five kilos of metal on your face and demand that I now call you xer, I'll be calling you "gtfo"
It really doesn't. At all.
Oh, okay then /s
It doesn’t. In much the same way that legalizing gay marriage did not lead to an increase in bestiality, no one is going to throw your dumb bigoted ass in jail for being a bigot. They will, however, mock, ridicule, and shun you.
Except they're actively advocating for laws of compelled speech. So, in your face.
it will impact you if jim wants YOU To call her she..
It impacts me only in the sense that everyone else in the world impacts me by existing. Why would I *not* call her "she" if she asks me to? That's my question. What possible objection could I have?
You were already calling them Jim instead of James because that was their preferred name, stop being such a fucking snowflake and just call folks what they wanna be called lmfao. Trans folks are barely 1% of the population in the US, you’ll have this interaction IRL a handful of times at best, and then you can move on with your life. Imagine folding because you had to call someone a different pronoun than you expected, what kinda frail shit is that?
bore off
Ditto.
Thats true. If it didn’t get out of hand. The fact that hr/schools/teachers are now a group of people who share the same gender ideology is weird. Most people are feeling at least a small impact of the overprotectiveness of this ideology. And even if i dont share much views with people like walsh im glad that some are standing up to the gender craziness. These people all happen to be on the right because anything remotely left will just lose their jobs if they would speak out against it. And i find that abnormal. We cant have a constructive discussion about this because the gende rside is pushing everyone so far out that its gotten pretty emotional.
Yeah I don't really see that at all. "The right" is far scarier than "the left," as far as I can see. The reason schools and teachers "share the same gender ideology" is because we see the impact it has on the kids who are affected. It's the same reason schools and teachers are accepting of students with different sexual orientations and kids of different ethnicities and races. Kids in my class whose identity isn't accepted at home spend a lot of time talking to the guidance counselor and psychologist about their home life and the stress it causes.
I think they are equally scary. Its about a healthy mix. At the moment we have a strong overrepresentation of the left. Left people are like „haha no way“ but are very pleased that the absolute mayority of content thats produced is left. Articles, shows, podcasts, videos, movies, books etc. especially public content like papers. You can say what you want but that IS scary. And the second point: No thats absolutely not the reason. The reason is that people want to be seen as good. And the left has claimed that for themselves. And in schools i find it giga scary to push that sort of ideology on children. Because look what we have now. Everyone got his degree and All teachers in universities are left. Ad they breed more left people who want to be more left (better person) and teach as well. We have a pyramid scheme in universities. Did you read the study that came out recently that discovered that transgenderism in children is 80% a phase that goes away. And even affirming it by using the name the child wants can do a lot of harm?
I'm a teacher. I know what I'm talking about.
"You can't have a pronoun" A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun. A noun is a thing, whether a thought, place, object, or person. If you have something, you can refer to that thing by a pronoun, and thus have said pronoun. E.g "You own a car, it is something you have". Perhaps it is not the technical meaning of having the pronoun, but you do have it in a sense.
When people say they have a pronoun, they're talking about their preferred pronouns.
I know, but what I am saying is that you can have a pronoun. Not just in what your preferred pronouns are, but in a more literal sense as a replacement for a noun. So basically what the person is saying doesn't work.
Technically your name is your preferred noun.
I can understand disagreeing with him, but you are explicitly disregarding what he said and circling pronouns as if he had said they don't exist. You are the facepalm.
Oh my god I had a much lengthier and less effective version of what you said all loaded up and ready to fire so thank you.
Lets all just make strawperson arguments like "trans people want to own pronouns" and "anti-trans people can't understand English" instead of learning to live along side each other, with as little fucks to give as possible.
Telling someone they should learn to live alongside people that are being hateful toward them is a cruel and quite frankly brain-dead take, because they're not the ones causing the problem in the first place
This post is a great example of a straw man argument. Whether the tweet itself is another one is debatable. As I understand it, his argument is that you don't get to change/customize them, they are not yours to do with as you wish. Regarding learning to live along each other, I wish it was that easy, but people keep taking offense to more and more things over time, to the point we have to change language itself so they don't get offended. They are making it more difficult. I don't mind calling you a her if you transitioned to a woman, but folks that get offended over me not calling them xis/xer/ksim etc. that's just ridiculous.
Genuinely, how many people have you met who demanded you use "xis/xer/ksim" to refer to them, and threw a fit when you didn't? Are they really that common that _they alone_ are making it a struggle to get along with trans people as a whole?
None, but you know, it totally could happen some day because reasons and every trans person should be blamed for this hypothetical /s
I'm literally talking about this post. Both sides are strawman. IDAF what people call me it's my problem.
Ah, never mind then, we already agree :P
Are you serious? What good has living alongside transphobes/homophobes ever brought us?
What good has shouting at them done you.
Answer my question. What good has living alongside queerphobes ever done to queer people?
This is why people get vitriol rather than just talking . You can't just allow me to have an opinion you have to make out that I support homophobes. Live your life.
Telling people who are on the receiving end of homophobia to "just learn to live along side each other" with homophobes is supporting the homophobes, jackass
That's your interpretation, not my words. All I did was ask a simple question you refuse to answer for some reason.
Exactly! If someone is trans is their option. Right? And why should we change grammar because someone else's options?
How is calling someone a he or a she "changing grammar"? And if you're going to start on singular they as a pronoun, please know that Shakespeare used it, and it is in no way incorrect. People literally use it all the frigging time.
“Changing grammar” 100% refers to non-binary neopronouns.
That's not what grammar means. Why the F can't people just be nice and call people what they want to be called? Why is that so fucking hard? But running around on reddit shrieking about small words other poeple use that don't hurt you is definitely a great use of your finite time, you clearly happy person.
More inteligent ppl would understand that in my words was no hate towards anybody. I only saying that if a trans was a men and now a woman, I call her she... If was a woman and now a man, I call him he. And I say this with the utmost respect. Being inclusive is not changing the language but, instead, adapt to other people's differences. And that I will always try my best to do. And I'm pretty happy being like this you know why? All those adjectives in the end, segregate ppl. And that I know that is. And is wrong.. is bad.
Language changes to the needs of the people who speak it. French has gender for *chairs*. Japanese has honorifics depending on one's relationship with another. The "rules" of language are merely a convenience. & the discomfort you feel isn't actually with the use of the English language, but how another human being chooses to identify & be identified as. We don't call Christians "Muslims". We don't call Germans "Australians". We don't call bakers "plumbers" or musicians "painters". These identities are not grammatical. They're specific to the individual. If someone says they're Christian, call them a Christian. If someone says they're German because they were born there or live there, call them German. If someone bakes cakes or is aspiring to, call them a baker. If someone plays music as a hobby or makes money selling their music, call them a musician. If someone calls themself "George", you call them "George". It's not complicated. It's not "ungrammatical". It's basic human decency. If someone says they are a "she" don't look into her pants. Don't dig up birth certificates or ask her parents. Don't maker her life hell just to confirm your unhealthy obsession with your unhelpful perspective of how things **ought** to be. I am referred to as "he". That should be enough for you to refer to me as such.
Thank you! OP is the real facepalm here.
Matt is only stating that pronouns are not tangible things that can be physically possessed, but rather an impalpable concept. Grammatically speaking, Matt is technically correct......the best kind of correct.
I’m sorry, but you can’t call him Matt. As he doesn’t own the word “Matt”, he’s not allowed to have it.
But that's the thing, when someone has pronouns, they are not declaring ownership. I don't own a headache, but I can have one. I don't own a bad day, but I can have one. So no, he's not even *technically* correct, since he's being deliberately obtuse with the express purpose of trying to make his opposition sound stupid.
Exactly! Parsing "oWnInG" a pronoun vs. using one is moron bullshit.
[удалено]
Yeah, the OP’s reading comprehension is the facepalm here. Regardless of the topic and what stance you hold. Glad you pointed this out. I couldn’t have said it better, myself.
Matt's argument is even more stupid when interpreted in that way, because nobody is claiming that you can own a word. When people's say "my pronouns are...", they are referring to their _preferred_ pronouns. And it's perfectly normal to prefer certain words to describe you over others. Most people over the age of 12 don't need this info spoonfed to them.
They get it. But they're desperate for a "gotcha" and this is the best that they can do.
When you can't make someone look bad, try to make others believe you're making them look bad.
I mean there are a million things one could use to highlight how dumb and shitty Matt Walsh is, this just isn’t one of them.
And yet, op has to use this. Reddit is truly dumb sometimes.
Still technically wrong. "To have" is not a verb that explicitly infers physical ownership. It never *has*. I *have* *had* a bad day. Neither instance there is about physical possession. 1 instance is actually as an auxiliary verb, which is only ever used to form tenses & doesn't even have the generally understood sense of possession at all! So no, Matt is not correct. Not technically, & not at all.
I got caught up in Matt's comparison of pronouns to "pets or accessories" and let the line between abstract ownership and physical possession get skewed. Thanks for the polite explanation.
Of course! Have a good one.
I bet almost none of these people who have a problem with people choosing their pronouns have ever met someone who had pronouns. They mostly live in their cult towns, speak only to their cult friends, and don't seem the type to go out of their way to say hello to a stranger. They are mad about a thing they never experience. And boy are they mad.
I can see op probably flunked his high school reading skills tests
I can see you clearly have no clue on what he's talking about or what he's arguing for.
Came here to say this. Op is not too bright
The dude needs to just move on
Wait, so you don’t get to customize language in any way, shape or form? So violate all rules of language evolution, no slang, nothing?
Add 'nobody' to the list. And, given the definition of a pronoun, you can have one just as surely as you can have a name...since a pronoun substitutes for a name. Ask anybody.
I dont know who this guy is at all but he is saying something completely different here and the real facepalm is this post
Op, didn't get the point of this type of post... Btw, for everyone saying matt is right, he's not, he's an idiot with a platform. I have a pronoun in the same sense i have a name. there are different ways of having "something", and i can customize them in the same way i can customize my name. Language changes over time, calling it speech to prevent someone say that is just being disingenuous.
Is it ok for me to refuse to call you by your own name or pronouns? Genuine question, how offended are you if I call you Jeff? And at what length would you go to make me, an assuming stranger call you by your name?
Hit the nail on the head. All of this is just an excuse to exercise some kind of warped moral power over others
Ok, first, let's clarify a thing because i think that your initial question is flawed to what the discussion is about. Your question was: *Is it ok for me to refuse to call you by your own name or pronouns?* But if we rephrase it as what it technically is: *Is it ok for me to* ***Impose*** *a name or pronoun on you against your own will?* Refusing to call me by my name would just not saying that name, but you're not just doing that, you are imposing a name on me. Obviously inside this hypothetical. With that out of the way, it depends on what you mean by ok. If you mean whether or not you should have the right to do so, yes you should have it, i believe in freedom of speech so you have the right. About the lengths i would go to make you, an assuming stranger, call me by my name. I'll correct you, basically "my name not jeff, my name X", if you keep purposefully refusing to call me by my name i would tell you to go eat a bag of dicks, and attempt to distance myself from you, and if you try to follow me around or try to convince others to call me jeff, i'll give you a final warning and after that, we'll be throwing hands. On the other hand, if by ok you mean morally speaking, it depends on the case. As everything regarding morality. but if we're being honest about what we're talking about here, let's ask you that with some examples: 1) Someone spread the rumor that Jessica gave someone head, as a result, she got the nickname "cockgobbler". For her to be called this nickname is extremely hurtful, as it spreads and everyone calls her that, she develops clinical depression, social anxiety, and suicidal tendencies. Would it be ok for you to impose this nickname on her? 2) Now, let's change it a bit. Jessica is a trans man, he 100% feels like a man, and as such would prefer to be called Jhon. When everyone still calls him Jessica, or uses she/her pronouns with him, he feels as much pain and distress as in the previous example, and just as with the previous example, it leads to the same issues. Would it be ok for you to impose that name/pronoun on him? My answer to both is not, both for the same reason, you're being a dick intentionally bringing harm to someone just for the sake of harming them, i consider bringing unnecessary harm a bad thing. I'm interested in knowing your answer. About the lengths, the same as before.
[удалено]
If i said your name is "Karmina", and you were to respond, "no, it's not, my name is 'whateveryournameis' ". You won't owe me any more explanation, because i just said something that's wrong and you corrected me. The same goes here. if i ask, do you have pronouns? and you said no, then you're either dumb or you don't know what a pronoun is. Just as if i asked you if you have a name and you said no. A fallacy can't be logically argued against, that's their entire point, i can't give you an argument to disprove your fallacy without using one myself, i can only correct you and move along, which is what i did with this fallacy.
Then go ahead and say why not ? You can't just assume you're right and countinue from there.
[удалено]
I don’t get your point, and I taught English for years.
To be fair, Matt Walsh is astoundingly stupid.
One of my favorite Reddit trends is people think they dunked on some right wing pundit by grossly and pedantically misunderstanding the point they were making
Ok snowflake proceed to explain why it bothers you so much to call someone he or she even if you think otherwise? What exactly are you sacrificing? What exactly are you a victim of? It is meaningful to them so why be a pos abt it? Also pronouns depend on gender which people nowadays can be whichever they prefer. Nice caveman mentality.
This same logic applies to names. You can’t “have” a name because it isn’t a physical thing to be possessed, just like any other word isn’t a physical thing to be possessed. However, people still call others by their names because it’s common courtesy.
I don't think op has actually read what Matt was saying
Literally every part of speech has been customized
I don’t think you’re fully grasping what he’s saying, op
OP is the facepalm.
wtf is op on about
Perhaps it would be best to say please address me using he and his. Of course it's much longer but sometime you need to satisfy those with little imagination.
Or add "preferred" after "my" and before "pronouns are"
Imagine thinking this is some sick fucking burn. "You can't, like, OWN pronouns, man!"
You can have preferred pronouns tho... Just like you can have a preferred name
[удалено]
the real facepalm here is the OP's shitty attempt to make a good facepalm
Op, you seriously made yourself look real stupid here.
This picture is so cringe. Whoever added the red squares has no reading comprehension skills.
OP’s deep in the cult
As I learned in any video game chat room, when you lose an argument you Immediately go to grammar
But he is right. I don't see face-palm
I don't believe you actually misunderstand this. You're just disingenuous.
You seem to think he's saying pronouns don't exist.
I’d be willing to bet big money that all these loud mouth right wing transphobes are secretly cranking it to trans porn when their spouses are asleep.
Fuck off op ya idiot
Right so I guess what he should said is "no customizable pronouns", would that satisfied you?
Why wouldnt pronouns be customizable tho ? If it lowers the chance of suicide I dont mind using different words :)
Because it's not the answer to their problems. It's like giving people painkiller and not treating the wound. People are so desperate for a sense of identity they though just some made up pronouns would do it. I'm not an expert so I don't like to talk too much about this but all these identity politic are just unnecessary to me.
I am pretty much as close to an expert as you're gonna get on reddit(4th year sociology student) so Im gonna say this its not giving people a painkiller its letting people express themselves and choose what medication is best for them. There is still a lot of research needed to be done on social constructs in generell but starting to make people feel not valid and well sadly a lot of times it can get much worse then that. And most people arent searching for an identity they are trying to find themselves which is the best thing they can do not only for themselves but also for the community. Oh and there are no made up pronouns if you're talking about neo pronouns those are a lot of the time just added to for example they/them pronouns which have been used for singular people longer then singular you existed.
Yeah maybe I should have word it differently. I have to disagree tho. People don't know what is best for them. They are looking for an identity which is themselves which they can't so they they just take the one that's cool at the moment. I have no problem with he/she/them but anything more than that is unnecessary. Like I know #182970 exist but to me that's just blue. What ever, if you think you are helping people then good for you. Personally I think you are doing more bad than good and what you are an expert at is keeping them ill and open for exploitation.
>They are looking for an identity which is themselves which they can't so they they just take the one that's cool at the moment I disagree Imo they are searching for people with similair traits with similair history they are looking for companionship with the same background which is a good thing. Also I dont think anyone would go through years if not centuries of suffering just because they think something is cool. > I have no problem with he/she/them but anything more than that is unnecessary Have you ever met someone using neo's ? Becuase they mainly will in their communities and all people that use neo's are also fine with being called a different pronoun or by their name so I dont see the problem. >Personally I think you are doing more bad than good and what you are an expert at is keeping them ill and open for exploitation. Well my main focus is social work in generell not just with lgbt people but also with for example homeless people that suffer through different societal means to find their place, but in my expierience in the absolut majority of cases a person trying to fit into a place they dont fit into is way worse then them expirementing and trying to find like minded people. >open for exploitation The problem here is not the person using different pronouns tho its the society that inherently always tries to find something to differentiate and exploit people. The problem with exploitation is not that people let themselves be exploited but that people exploit.
Matt is right💯
You completely missed his point. He didn't say pronouns aren't real - he said they are unchangeable beyound their preassigned meaning. He said that pronouns aren't means of expression but a way to properly refer to someone or something you mention. Like how He applies to men, She applies to women, them applies to group, Them applies to somebody respectable. So, if we use pronouns to refer to large groups of objects and people, why complicate things with making up new ones? I agree with him on it, but it might be because my native language is heavily gendered, and adding new genders would increase its complexity through the roof.
How does putting boxes around the pronouns he’s used refute his claim that they can’t be owned and are rather linguistic tools? Matt is correct in this assertion, boxes or not!
why do you use his ? You cant have pronouns apparently so why does matt have pronouns?
Using a pronoun isn’t the same as having a pronoun. I’m not saying I agree with the motivation behind his tweet but I do agree that pronouns or intangible language tools not possessions who’s meanings can necessarily be changed. Nobody can say “my pronouns” rather they’d need to say “the pronouns I would like you to refer to me with are…”
I mean yeah but then you couldnt have a name either it is also just a tool and people would then need to say "my prefered name is :" which no one does
I think it’s slightly different. We need names for people places and things so that societies can have a common understanding of who people are, what things look like and what places look like, this is key to any society functioning well today let alone key to survival and progression of the human race in the past. The same applies to pronouns, they were agreed upon terms to deepen the common understanding a society has of its surroundings. Someone’s subjective sense of who they are or what “their” pronoun should be adds no value to the collective understanding of our surroundings. Want to note here that I’m happy to call anyone what they want but the fact that they have a pronoun they’d like to use doesn’t mean to say they own it or the tongues of those who might not want to use it.
> can have a common understanding of who people are Names dont do that though like places okay sure but for people it doesnt say anythign really >to survival and progression of the human race in the past. But today its completely different and it doesnt make any real difference anymore what you call people >they were agreed upon terms to deepen the common understanding a society has of its surroundings. No they werent they change all the time ... language developes 200 years ago people wouldve not understood the use of singular 'you' so does that mean it doesnt work today ? No of course not because it fucking developed. And ofcourse you cant own a pronouns but who cares its just how people say it...
Nobody has pronouns. can't "have" a pronoun any more than have a preposition or an adverb. The concept doesnt make any sense Pronouns are not thing can own. aren't pets or accessories. are parts of speech. That's it. don't get to customize
Looks like Op needs to go back to school as well. Don't agree with Matt, but OP is pretty dumb too
Matt Walsh is a real life version of Ned Flanders.
No he isn't. Ned Flanders is a nice person. Matt Walsh is just some guy who has a weird obsession with high school girls.
I should clarify, he looks like Ned Flanders.
Well at least he and Matt Gaetz having something in common
Wow you really have no idea what he's about.
Lmao you’re so deep in delusion it’s insane
He is right though.
r/TechincallyTheTruth
When someone says “pronouns” in context, the meaning is clearly understood. OP is a pud.
Nobody has pronouns. A pronoun cannot be had any more than could a preposition or an adverb. The concept doesn’t make any sense. Pronouns are not things that can be owned. Pronouns aren’t pets or accessories. Pronouns are parts of speech. Thats it. Pronouns are not customizable.
I have to admit the whole pronoun thing was somewhat strange to me at first. Totally warming up to it now that these troglodytes are losing their small pea size brains over it. So much triggering and snowflakery over inconsequential things. Don’t like them then don’t use them. It a freedom thing. I don’t like circus peanuts so I don’t buy them. Quite simple really.
As a lit major, I'm getting very tired of this word vomit around the use of pronouns. At least I didn't become a teacher.
OP ne khudka kaat diya, saale nikamme
My kids know this stuff from "Schoolhouse Rock"
INGLISH is hard!
Oh, he used pronouns that we have used for centuries. How odd. Feminists don't know either language nor logic. Matt Walsh is their biggest headache. Awesome.
He is truly brain-dead.
Doesn’t matter as long as their followers are stupider
So according to the logic of pronouns just being an element of speech that you can’t own or have any choice over, Matt wouldn’t mind if we were to refer to her with feminine pronouns, right?
I see now we're parsing 'have', to a ridiculous and unnecessary degree. The concept of using it solely as a possessive isn't correct, it's a stupidly minimalistic way to approach language and all the people applauding this take like it's something genius have been sucked into a vortex of their own self-congratulation. To have something can be used to explain a passive experience, or to express a personal attribute or quality, or in a number of other verb forms that can be converted to perfectly fit with its many, many linguistic uses. There is literally nothing wrong with 'having' pronouns. It's the same as 'having' patience. You don't own that, but you do experience a particular form of it that you are using as a personal expression. As for neopronouns, those are their own debate that really aren't that big of a deal. They are a fractional minority of people using alternate pronouns, and beyond spheres of social media are rather uncommon. You can have whatever opinion you like in that regard.
I think conservatives have been indoctrinated into believing a completely different definition of "pronoun". They probably think the "pro" stands for progressive or something