Words/phrases I wish would go away

[Metalcat]

My take on this is that it’s simply a matter of respect to address or refer to someone with the pronoun they prefer.  It doesn’t cost me anything, and using he preferred pronoun shows I care enough about the person to be cognizant of their wishes.

As an analogy, imagine you were introduced to a new colleague, who’s official name is Dr. RObert Smith.  He might say “Call me Bob” or “Call me Robert” or even “I prefer to keep my business professional, so please refer to me as Dr. Smith”.  In every case I would call them by the name they prefer.  Likewise, I use a derivation of my birth name, and get annoyed when people repeatedly use my full name when I feel they should know better.

  If RObert/Bob/Dr. Smith instead told me “I prefer ‘they/them” — why should that be any than calling them Bob/Robert/Dr. Smith?

Because when you have a whole row of Dr. Whomever standing there, and  3 wish to be called them/they and one of them is “he” and the rest say they dont care...

Yeah you expect me to remember this shit?

I feel so sorry for college professors. Can I they use surnames?  Do they need TA’s to help them keep track of the pronouns now?

IDK, I treated thousands of patients and I didn't generally find it difficult to remember which ones requested non binary pronouns.

[nereo]

My take on this is that it’s simply a matter of respect to address or refer to someone with the pronoun they prefer.  It doesn’t cost me anything, and using he preferred pronoun shows I care enough about the person to be cognizant of their wishes.

As an analogy, imagine you were introduced to a new colleague, who’s official name is Dr. RObert Smith.  He might say “Call me Bob” or “Call me Robert” or even “I prefer to keep my business professional, so please refer to me as Dr. Smith”.  In every case I would call them by the name they prefer.  Likewise, I use a derivation of my birth name, and get annoyed when people repeatedly use my full name when I feel they should know better.

  If RObert/Bob/Dr. Smith instead told me “I prefer ‘they/them” — why should that be any than calling them Bob/Robert/Dr. Smith?

Because when you have a whole row of Dr. Whomever standing there, and  3 wish to be called them/they and one of them is “he” and the rest say they dont care...

Yeah you expect me to remember this shit?

I feel so sorry for college professors. Can I they use surnames?  Do they need TA’s to help them keep track of the pronouns now?

Well I do teach college, and I don't find it any more difficult.  Typically, the semester starts with "what do you wish to be called".  Most students and virtually all staff include in their email signature their preferred pronouns.  And of course, if you are ever not sure - just ask.

How is that substantially any different from decades ago? People change their last name, people change their first name, people gain titles, but don't always use them.  How is this any different?

[Kris]

My take on this is that it’s simply a matter of respect to address or refer to someone with the pronoun they prefer.  It doesn’t cost me anything, and using he preferred pronoun shows I care enough about the person to be cognizant of their wishes.

As an analogy, imagine you were introduced to a new colleague, who’s official name is Dr. RObert Smith.  He might say “Call me Bob” or “Call me Robert” or even “I prefer to keep my business professional, so please refer to me as Dr. Smith”.  In every case I would call them by the name they prefer.  Likewise, I use a derivation of my birth name, and get annoyed when people repeatedly use my full name when I feel they should know better.

  If RObert/Bob/Dr. Smith instead told me “I prefer ‘they/them” — why should that be any than calling them Bob/Robert/Dr. Smith?

Because when you have a whole row of Dr. Whomever standing there, and  3 wish to be called them/they and one of them is “he” and the rest say they dont care...

Yeah you expect me to remember this shit?

I feel so sorry for college professors. Can I they use surnames?  Do they need TA’s to help them keep track of the pronouns now?

Well I do teach college, and I don't find it any more difficult.  Typically, the semester starts with "what do you wish to be called".  Most students and virtually all staff include in their email signature their preferred pronouns.  And of course, if you are ever not sure - just ask.

How is that substantially any different from decades ago? People change their last name, people change their first name, people gain titles, but don't always use them.  How is this any different?

Exactly. Day one is when you mark down nicknames, pronunciations, etc. on the class roster. Teachers have been doing it for years.

[sui generis]

My take on this is that it’s simply a matter of respect to address or refer to someone with the pronoun they prefer.  It doesn’t cost me anything, and using he preferred pronoun shows I care enough about the person to be cognizant of their wishes.

As an analogy, imagine you were introduced to a new colleague, who’s official name is Dr. RObert Smith.  He might say “Call me Bob” or “Call me Robert” or even “I prefer to keep my business professional, so please refer to me as Dr. Smith”.  In every case I would call them by the name they prefer.  Likewise, I use a derivation of my birth name, and get annoyed when people repeatedly use my full name when I feel they should know better.

  If RObert/Bob/Dr. Smith instead told me “I prefer ‘they/them” — why should that be any than calling them Bob/Robert/Dr. Smith?

Because when you have a whole row of Dr. Whomever standing there, and  3 wish to be called them/they and one of them is “he” and the rest say they dont care...

Yeah you expect me to remember this shit?

I feel so sorry for college professors. Can I they use surnames?  Do they need TA’s to help them keep track of the pronouns now?

Well I do teach college, and I don't find it any more difficult.  Typically, the semester starts with "what do you wish to be called".  Most students and virtually all staff include in their email signature their preferred pronouns.  And of course, if you are ever not sure - just ask.

How is that substantially any different from decades ago? People change their last name, people change their first name, people gain titles, but don't always use them.  How is this any different?

Exactly. Day one is when you mark down nicknames, pronunciations, etc. on the class roster. Teachers have been doing it for years.

Exactly. I can't imagine someone pronouncing my name wrong (which everyone does) and then getting through a list of other people with undoubtedly a few other challenging pronunciations and just being like, "gah! How am I supposed to remember all that! I'm just going to pronounce all your names however I like!"

I saw a meme recently teasing about how when a woman gets married and decides to change her name, people not only go out of their way to remember but to take extra pains to use her new name when a name isn't even needed as a way of giving her extra plaudits (marriage=highest achievement unlocked for a human female!) so it should be no problem to remember someone's pronouns. It just shows who and what you care about, not what is actually difficult for the human memory.

In practice it can be a process, sure. My sister completely changed her first name about 20 years ago and it was hard (and some of us close family were not a little bit resentful) to keep correcting ourselves. But, you'll work on it if you care. If you don't, I guess you'll just dismiss it as if it is different than the ease with which you correct your usage of a new last name for a woman excited to have gotten married and that (say it with me) says more about you than it does about them.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Likewise the use of singular 'they' in place of 'his or her' or 'his' or 'her'

What would you use when speaking about someone who's gender is either unknown or non-binary? 
'They' is the only thing I can think of...

I use "his or her"

I don't know what the singular non-binary pronoun is but we should settle on one and then I can use "his, her or X"

They sounds jarring to me. I know there are plenty of precedents in literature etc

There are also places where singular 'they' makes sense, e.g. - "everybody has their own opinion" sounds more fluent than "everybody has his or her own opinion"

but mostly singular they jars

"Each person chooses for themselves"
(ugh) - or worse, "each person chooses for themself"

also i get annoyed by gender neutral pronouns when there is no need for gender neutrality

eg discussing members of a women's soccer team "The player will need to get their socks" no it's "her" it's an all female team

What about for a person who is not either who specifically asks you to use “them” as their pronouns?

Then I would follow that wish in that instance.

[John Galt incarnate!]

It only changes if people go along with it.  I’ve not yet been presented with this issue personally, but if/when I am, I will simply avoid using a pronoun in favour of the appropriate noun ( person’s name or the person’s relationship to whomever is speaking, as in “Anne” or “your wife/husband”.)  Both because it’s not grammatical and I refuse to be bullied.

As a free-speech absolutist  I resist  dogmatic imposition of woke vernacular but I am always willing to speak  to or of individuals using  their preferred identifier.

[iris lily]

My take on this is that it’s simply a matter of respect to address or refer to someone with the pronoun they prefer.  It doesn’t cost me anything, and using he preferred pronoun shows I care enough about the person to be cognizant of their wishes.

As an analogy, imagine you were introduced to a new colleague, who’s official name is Dr. RObert Smith.  He might say “Call me Bob” or “Call me Robert” or even “I prefer to keep my business professional, so please refer to me as Dr. Smith”.  In every case I would call them by the name they prefer.  Likewise, I use a derivation of my birth name, and get annoyed when people repeatedly use my full name when I feel they should know better.

  If RObert/Bob/Dr. Smith instead told me “I prefer ‘they/them” — why should that be any than calling them Bob/Robert/Dr. Smith?

Because when you have a whole row of Dr. Whomever standing there, and  3 wish to be called them/they and one of them is “he” and the rest say they dont care...

Yeah you expect me to remember this shit?

I feel so sorry for college professors. Can I they use surnames?  Do they need TA’s to help them keep track of the pronouns now?

Well I do teach college, and I don't find it any more difficult.  Typically, the semester starts with "what do you wish to be called".  Most students and virtually all staff include in their email signature their preferred pronouns.  And of course, if you are ever not sure - just ask.

How is that substantially any different from decades ago? People change their last name, people change their first name, people gain titles, but don't always use them.  How is this any different?

How’s it different from back in the day? Surnames were important,  the rest of it not. Some professors were still using Miss Ms and Mr.. Some of them used surname with no honorific, like the military. I liked the simplicity of that.

I say this as a student of course not as a professor. I’m sure there were plenty of professors who used our first names, likely most did, I just don’t remember them, Probably because that was the common thing.

[nereo]

My take on this is that it’s simply a matter of respect to address or refer to someone with the pronoun they prefer.  It doesn’t cost me anything, and using he preferred pronoun shows I care enough about the person to be cognizant of their wishes.

As an analogy, imagine you were introduced to a new colleague, who’s official name is Dr. RObert Smith.  He might say “Call me Bob” or “Call me Robert” or even “I prefer to keep my business professional, so please refer to me as Dr. Smith”.  In every case I would call them by the name they prefer.  Likewise, I use a derivation of my birth name, and get annoyed when people repeatedly use my full name when I feel they should know better.

  If RObert/Bob/Dr. Smith instead told me “I prefer ‘they/them” — why should that be any than calling them Bob/Robert/Dr. Smith?

Because when you have a whole row of Dr. Whomever standing there, and  3 wish to be called them/they and one of them is “he” and the rest say they dont care...

Yeah you expect me to remember this shit?

I feel so sorry for college professors. Can I they use surnames?  Do they need TA’s to help them keep track of the pronouns now?

Well I do teach college, and I don't find it any more difficult.  Typically, the semester starts with "what do you wish to be called".  Most students and virtually all staff include in their email signature their preferred pronouns.  And of course, if you are ever not sure - just ask.

How is that substantially any different from decades ago? People change their last name, people change their first name, people gain titles, but don't always use them.  How is this any different?

How’s it different from back in the day? Surnames were important,  the rest of it not. Some professors were still using Miss Ms and Mr.. Some of them used surname with no honorific, like the military. I liked the simplicity of that.

I say this as a student of course not as a professor. I’m sure there were plenty of professors who used our first names, likely most did, I just don’t remember them, Probably because that was the common thing.

I’m still not understanding where your objection is coming from.  If “back in the day” a student preferred NOT to be referred to as “Miss” (which even my mother found offensive as a university student circa 1970) - wouldn’t a reasonable person avoid using that pro-noun? 

In my experience there are two dominant reasons why people object to using gender-neutral pronouns when called to:

• It is grammatically incongruent, and often goes against what was taught in English class for decades
• They object to the person not conforming to their biological gender, or any gender.  [the “snowflake” insult]

The first one I understand in part, as I too was drilled by multiple English classes on the (then) proper use of “him/her and his/hers”.  However, no better alternative is accepted, and has been pointed out they/them has long been a part of the English language.

As for the second, I’m left wondering why someone would object to such a simple request.  To me it’s just common decency to address a person in a way that makes them comfortable, and I expect them to do the same for me.

[iris lily]

The profs  I am thinking of didnt ask how  we expected to be addressed. . Perhaps that is the core difference.

The ones who used Ms used Ms. Some who liked the honorific would make effort to find out if you were Miss or Mrs.

In some classes I was Iris, inother classes (granted, only one or two ) I was Ms Lilies or Lilies. Much of this depends  on size of the class and familiarity with teacher.

[nereo]

The profs  I am thinking of didnt ask how  we expected to be addressed. . Perhaps that is the core difference.

The ones who used Ms used Ms. Some who liked the honorific would make effort to find out if you were Miss or Mrs.

In some classes I was Iris, inother classes (granted, only one or two ) I was Ms Lilies or Lilies. Much of this depends  on size of the class and familiarity with teacher.

Ok, but I’m having trouble connecting this back to the conversation at hand.  Why not call someone by their preferred name or pronoun?

[Kris]

It only changes if people go along with it.  I’ve not yet been presented with this issue personally, but if/when I am, I will simply avoid using a pronoun in favour of the appropriate noun ( person’s name or the person’s relationship to whomever is speaking, as in “Anne” or “your wife/husband”.)  Both because it’s not grammatical and I refuse to be bullied.

As a free-speech absolutist  I resist  dogmatic imposition of woke vernacular but I am always willing to speak  to or of individuals using  their preferred identifier.

I fail to see how this is in any way a freedom of speech issue?

[LaineyAZ]

Can I flip this around for a minute?
I'm having trouble following threads on this or other forums, or regular emails, or text messages, which use many unfamiliar or more obscure acronyms.  There's an assumption that everyone knows all of the acronyms for the finance world, or medical arena, or government nomenclature, or many other parts of our everyday life when in fact these are not common and require insider knowledge. 

Usually I can eventually figure out the gist of what's being said, but I wish that writers would spell out the acronym when it's first used (which used to be a requirement in writing etiquette if I'm not mistaken).  So please spell out that word or phrase - it would make reading so much more enjoyable if we don't have to stop to decipher it.
Thanks!

[Paul der Krake]

Can I flip this around for a minute?
I'm having trouble following threads on this or other forums, or regular emails, or text messages, which use many unfamiliar or more obscure acronyms.  There's an assumption that everyone knows all of the acronyms for the finance world, or medical arena, or government nomenclature, or many other parts of our everyday life when in fact these are not common and require insider knowledge. 

Usually I can eventually figure out the gist of what's being said, but I wish that writers would spell out the acronym when it's first used (which used to be a requirement in writing etiquette if I'm not mistaken).  So please spell out that word or phrase - it would make reading so much more enjoyable if we don't have to stop to decipher it.
Thanks!

Have you ever worked for a large organization, say 20,000 employees or more? Acronyms are the law of the land over there. The first two months are spent learning why the CAPS system stopped serving DPO requests, but then BFAR came in to replace BTG and everything is better now.

[iris lily]

The profs  I am thinking of didnt ask how  we expected to be addressed. . Perhaps that is the core difference.

The ones who used Ms used Ms. Some who liked the honorific would make effort to find out if you were Miss or Mrs.

In some classes I was Iris, inother classes (granted, only one or two ) I was Ms Lilies or Lilies. Much of this depends  on size of the class and familiarity with teacher.

Ok, but I’m having trouble connecting this back to the conversation at hand.  Why not call someone by their preferred name or pronoun?

You win. If I can remember it I’ll do it. Please don’t take it personally if I forget which pronoun or name you want to be used for you.

[nereo]

The profs  I am thinking of didnt ask how  we expected to be addressed. . Perhaps that is the core difference.

The ones who used Ms used Ms. Some who liked the honorific would make effort to find out if you were Miss or Mrs.

In some classes I was Iris, inother classes (granted, only one or two ) I was Ms Lilies or Lilies. Much of this depends  on size of the class and familiarity with teacher.

Ok, but I’m having trouble connecting this back to the conversation at hand.  Why not call someone by their preferred name or pronoun?

You win. If I can remember it I’ll do it. Please don’t take it personally if I forget which pronoun or name you want to be used for you.

I have no interest in “winning” as this isn’t an argument. I’m trying to understand why one might object to calling someone by their preferred name or pronoun.

[LaineyAZ]

Can I flip this around for a minute?
I'm having trouble following threads on this or other forums, or regular emails, or text messages, which use many unfamiliar or more obscure acronyms.  There's an assumption that everyone knows all of the acronyms for the finance world, or medical arena, or government nomenclature, or many other parts of our everyday life when in fact these are not common and require insider knowledge. 

Usually I can eventually figure out the gist of what's being said, but I wish that writers would spell out the acronym when it's first used (which used to be a requirement in writing etiquette if I'm not mistaken).  So please spell out that word or phrase - it would make reading so much more enjoyable if we don't have to stop to decipher it.
Thanks!

Have you ever worked for a large organization, say 20,000 employees or more? Acronyms are the law of the land over there. The first two months are spent learning why the CAPS system stopped serving DPO requests, but then BFAR came in to replace BTG and everything is better now.

Ha, yes!  I retired from a MegaCorp and thankfully have forgotten most of those acronyms, but the first month I was there I was pleading my co-workers to "speak English!"  Of course I was assimilated, as they say, and it didn't take long though before I became one of them. 

And related to that, I think it's a reason that automated discovery for legal matters won't ever be totally workable - a computer program that is scanning a document or email looking for a certain word would skip over any phrase or in-house slang that it didn't realize is referring to the same thing. 

[John Galt incarnate!]

It only changes if people go along with it.  I’ve not yet been presented with this issue personally, but if/when I am, I will simply avoid using a pronoun in favour of the appropriate noun ( person’s name or the person’s relationship to whomever is speaking, as in “Anne” or “your wife/husband”.)  Both because it’s not grammatical and I refuse to be bullied.

As a free-speech absolutist  I resist  dogmatic imposition of woke vernacular but I am always willing to speak  to or of individuals using  their preferred identifier.

I fail to see how this is in any way a freedom of speech issue?

It isn't a free speech issue in terms of governmental censorship proscribed by the First Amendment  because speech that is spoken in civil society's zone of autonomy is beyond the reach of government.

Within this zone of autonomy every speaker has the right to be the  the arbiter of their speech. When they  speak their  speech doesn't have to conform to anyone else's standards and vice versa.

One's personal right to  speak as they please is the  quintessence  of free speech spoken in civil society. Speaking according to the dictates  of wokeness by using only gender-neutral pronouns  is optional.

[Paul der Krake]

It only changes if people go along with it.  I’ve not yet been presented with this issue personally, but if/when I am, I will simply avoid using a pronoun in favour of the appropriate noun ( person’s name or the person’s relationship to whomever is speaking, as in “Anne” or “your wife/husband”.)  Both because it’s not grammatical and I refuse to be bullied.

As a free-speech absolutist  I resist  dogmatic imposition of woke vernacular but I am always willing to speak  to or of individuals using  their preferred identifier.

I fail to see how this is in any way a freedom of speech issue?

It isn't a free speech issue in terms of governmental censorship proscribed by the First Amendment  because speech that is spoken in civil society's zone of autonomy is beyond the reach of government.

Within this zone of autonomy every speaker has the right to be the  the arbiter of their speech. When they  speak their  speech doesn't have to conform to anyone else's standards and vice versa.

One's personal right to  speak as they please is the  quintessence  of free speech spoken in civil society. Speaking according to the dictates  of wokeness by using only gender-neutral pronouns  is optional.

My free speech absolutism ends at people putting extra spaces between words for no reason.

[RetiredAt63]

It only changes if people go along with it.  I’ve not yet been presented with this issue personally, but if/when I am, I will simply avoid using a pronoun in favour of the appropriate noun ( person’s name or the person’s relationship to whomever is speaking, as in “Anne” or “your wife/husband”.)  Both because it’s not grammatical and I refuse to be bullied.

As a free-speech absolutist  I resist  dogmatic imposition of woke vernacular but I am always willing to speak  to or of individuals using  their preferred identifier.

I fail to see how this is in any way a freedom of speech issue?

It isn't a free speech issue in terms of governmental censorship proscribed by the First Amendment  because speech that is spoken in civil society's zone of autonomy is beyond the reach of government.

Within this zone of autonomy every speaker has the right to be the  the arbiter of their speech. When they  speak their  speech doesn't have to conform to anyone else's standards and vice versa.

One's personal right to  speak as they please is the  quintessence  of free speech spoken in civil society. Speaking according to the dictates  of wokeness by using only gender-neutral pronouns  is optional.

In general society, if someone is unhappy with someone else's way of speaking to them, they can object, they can walk away from the conversation, they can cut that person out of their life.  But in a situation where this is not possible*, it is politeness and a lubricant to civil society for the person with more power to address the person with less power the way they wish to be addressed.

For example: personally I love "Ms." for mail. "Ms." may seem standard to you, but it was part of the "woke" vocabulary of my young adulthood. I am formerly married so "Miss" doesn't fit, and am divorced so "Mrs". doesn't fit either.  If I ask a generic you to address me as "Ms." in correspondence and generic you uses either "Miss" or "Mrs." I will make a judgement on your character, and it will not be favourable.


*teacher:student, employer:employee, police/government official:/anyone

[Kris]

It only changes if people go along with it.  I’ve not yet been presented with this issue personally, but if/when I am, I will simply avoid using a pronoun in favour of the appropriate noun ( person’s name or the person’s relationship to whomever is speaking, as in “Anne” or “your wife/husband”.)  Both because it’s not grammatical and I refuse to be bullied.

As a free-speech absolutist  I resist  dogmatic imposition of woke vernacular but I am always willing to speak  to or of individuals using  their preferred identifier.

I fail to see how this is in any way a freedom of speech issue?

It isn't a free speech issue in terms of governmental censorship proscribed by the First Amendment  because speech that is spoken in civil society's zone of autonomy is beyond the reach of government.

Within this zone of autonomy every speaker has the right to be the  the arbiter of their speech. When they  speak their  speech doesn't have to conform to anyone else's standards and vice versa.

One's personal right to  speak as they please is the  quintessence  of free speech spoken in civil society. Speaking according to the dictates  of wokeness by using only gender-neutral pronouns  is optional.

In general society, if someone is unhappy with someone else's way of speaking to them, they can object, they can walk away from the conversation, they can cut that person out of their life.  But in a situation where this is not possible*, it is politeness and a lubricant to civil society for the person with more power to address the person with less power the way they wish to be addressed.

For example: personally I love "Ms." for mail. "Ms." may seem standard to you, but it was part of the "woke" vocabulary of my young adulthood. I am formerly married so "Miss" doesn't fit, and am divorced so "Mrs". doesn't fit either.  If I ask a generic you to address me as "Ms." in correspondence and generic you uses either "Miss" or "Mrs." I will make a judgement on your character, and it will not be favourable.


*teacher:student, employer:employee, police/government official:/anyone

And more than a few dudes were assholes about it back in the day and pointedly refused to call a woman “Ms.” For many of the same/similar arguments that people use today about pronouns.

[RetiredAt63]

It only changes if people go along with it.  I’ve not yet been presented with this issue personally, but if/when I am, I will simply avoid using a pronoun in favour of the appropriate noun ( person’s name or the person’s relationship to whomever is speaking, as in “Anne” or “your wife/husband”.)  Both because it’s not grammatical and I refuse to be bullied.

As a free-speech absolutist  I resist  dogmatic imposition of woke vernacular but I am always willing to speak  to or of individuals using  their preferred identifier.

I fail to see how this is in any way a freedom of speech issue?

It isn't a free speech issue in terms of governmental censorship proscribed by the First Amendment  because speech that is spoken in civil society's zone of autonomy is beyond the reach of government.

Within this zone of autonomy every speaker has the right to be the  the arbiter of their speech. When they  speak their  speech doesn't have to conform to anyone else's standards and vice versa.

One's personal right to  speak as they please is the  quintessence  of free speech spoken in civil society. Speaking according to the dictates  of wokeness by using only gender-neutral pronouns  is optional.

In general society, if someone is unhappy with someone else's way of speaking to them, they can object, they can walk away from the conversation, they can cut that person out of their life.  But in a situation where this is not possible*, it is politeness and a lubricant to civil society for the person with more power to address the person with less power the way they wish to be addressed.

For example: personally I love "Ms." for mail. "Ms." may seem standard to you, but it was part of the "woke" vocabulary of my young adulthood. I am formerly married so "Miss" doesn't fit, and am divorced so "Mrs". doesn't fit either.  If I ask a generic you to address me as "Ms." in correspondence and generic you uses either "Miss" or "Mrs." I will make a judgement on your character, and it will not be favourable.


*teacher:student, employer:employee, police/government official:/anyone

And more than a few dudes were assholes about it back in the day and pointedly refused to call a woman “Ms.” For many of the same/similar arguments that people use today about pronouns.

Exactly.  Which I hoped would make it a good example.

[Metalcat]

It only changes if people go along with it.  I’ve not yet been presented with this issue personally, but if/when I am, I will simply avoid using a pronoun in favour of the appropriate noun ( person’s name or the person’s relationship to whomever is speaking, as in “Anne” or “your wife/husband”.)  Both because it’s not grammatical and I refuse to be bullied.

As a free-speech absolutist  I resist  dogmatic imposition of woke vernacular but I am always willing to speak  to or of individuals using  their preferred identifier.

I fail to see how this is in any way a freedom of speech issue?

It isn't a free speech issue in terms of governmental censorship proscribed by the First Amendment  because speech that is spoken in civil society's zone of autonomy is beyond the reach of government.

Within this zone of autonomy every speaker has the right to be the  the arbiter of their speech. When they  speak their  speech doesn't have to conform to anyone else's standards and vice versa.

One's personal right to  speak as they please is the  quintessence  of free speech spoken in civil society. Speaking according to the dictates  of wokeness by using only gender-neutral pronouns  is optional.

In general society, if someone is unhappy with someone else's way of speaking to them, they can object, they can walk away from the conversation, they can cut that person out of their life.  But in a situation where this is not possible*, it is politeness and a lubricant to civil society for the person with more power to address the person with less power the way they wish to be addressed.

For example: personally I love "Ms." for mail. "Ms." may seem standard to you, but it was part of the "woke" vocabulary of my young adulthood. I am formerly married so "Miss" doesn't fit, and am divorced so "Mrs". doesn't fit either.  If I ask a generic you to address me as "Ms." in correspondence and generic you uses either "Miss" or "Mrs." I will make a judgement on your character, and it will not be favourable.


*teacher:student, employer:employee, police/government official:/anyone

And more than a few dudes were assholes about it back in the day and pointedly refused to call a woman “Ms.” For many of the same/similar arguments that people use today about pronouns.

Yup, plus all the rants about feminism going too far. Same.shit, different pile.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

This only captures the specific case where a specific person wants a specific pronoun.

I maintain that in a general case (when referring to a generic singular person) "he or she" is the way to go.

If it means a lot to people that we be gender inclusive perhaps we can think of more singular pronouns and then "he, she or X" will be the way to go.

Mandating "they" as an all-inclusive generic singular pronoun (to the detriment of any other pronoun) rather seems to overstep the mark, particularly for those of us who identify as a "he" or a "she" and not a "they".

[sui generis]

This only captures the specific case where a specific person wants a specific pronoun.

I maintain that in a general case (when referring to a generic singular person) "he or she" is the way to go.

If it means a lot to people that we be gender inclusive perhaps we can think of more singular pronouns and then "he, she or X" will be the way to go.

Mandating "they" as an all-inclusive generic singular pronoun (to the detriment of any other pronoun) rather seems to overstep the mark, particularly for those of us who identify as a "he" or a "she" and not a "they".

Well, nobody is mandating anything, of course.  It's just different customs arising.  But I will agree insofar as "they" is an actual pronoun some people choose so calling someone "they" because you don't know could be misgendering that person the same as calling someone a "he" because you don't know.  The challenge comes in that it may both be a preferred specific pronoun and is also customarily being used as a generic pronoun for "unknown", which seems...sloppy?  I don't know.  It's sort of the best we've got atm and I guess I should get kicked out of this thread for expressing this kind of flexibility, but I have generally been happy to just sort of go with the flow and see where things evolve and end up over the course of the next decade or so.

[Kris]

This only captures the specific case where a specific person wants a specific pronoun.

I maintain that in a general case (when referring to a generic singular person) "he or she" is the way to go.

If it means a lot to people that we be gender inclusive perhaps we can think of more singular pronouns and then "he, she or X" will be the way to go.

Mandating "they" as an all-inclusive generic singular pronoun (to the detriment of any other pronoun) rather seems to overstep the mark, particularly for those of us who identify as a "he" or a "she" and not a "they".

Imagine caring more about grammar than people.

[Metalcat]

This only captures the specific case where a specific person wants a specific pronoun.

I maintain that in a general case (when referring to a generic singular person) "he or she" is the way to go.

If it means a lot to people that we be gender inclusive perhaps we can think of more singular pronouns and then "he, she or X" will be the way to go.

Mandating "they" as an all-inclusive generic singular pronoun (to the detriment of any other pronoun) rather seems to overstep the mark, particularly for those of us who identify as a "he" or a "she" and not a "they".

Literally no one is mandating anything of the sort.

I personally *choose* to degender a lot of my language because I'm a medical professional also trained in psychology and clinical counselling and I happen to be tremendously aware first hand of how painful misgendering can be for people, especially misgendered adolescents. 

Misgendered adolescents are at enormous risk for suicide. I've also seen multiple cases of misgendered kids go from dark and completely unreachable, to open, flourishing, bright kids before my eyes once they've been appropriately gendered, including non-binary. And their pronouns *really* matter to them, it's the way the world finally acknowledges that they are worthy of existing as their true selves.

If I can easily modify my language to be non traumatizing to suicidal children, that's a very, very small inconvenience for me and has a surprisingly huge impact on them. It's not a minor thing, I've had kids hug me and cry on my shoulder because I'm the first non family adult who can just naturally address them as they've dreamed of being addressed, with no awkwardness or mistakes.

So yeah, I don't treat it as a personal preference, I treat it as a public health priority. That's just my personal/professional reasons.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

This only captures the specific case where a specific person wants a specific pronoun.

I maintain that in a general case (when referring to a generic singular person) "he or she" is the way to go.

If it means a lot to people that we be gender inclusive perhaps we can think of more singular pronouns and then "he, she or X" will be the way to go.

Mandating "they" as an all-inclusive generic singular pronoun (to the detriment of any other pronoun) rather seems to overstep the mark, particularly for those of us who identify as a "he" or a "she" and not a "they".

Imagine caring more about grammar than people.

I think this is a bad faith response. Sui generis put out a much better and fairer and more insightful response. I suppose if people really like the word "they" as a nominally singular nongendered pronoun we can just incorporate it into the "he, she, X, or they" formulation and I guess that would make everyone happy. Then we just have to remember each person's preference between "he", "she", "X (the non-gendered singular pronoun, whatever consensus is reached on that)" and "they" (the non-gendered plural but nominally singular in this context pronoun). And in that sense everyone can be happy.

[iris lily]

It only changes if people go along with it.  I’ve not yet been presented with this issue personally, but if/when I am, I will simply avoid using a pronoun in favour of the appropriate noun ( person’s name or the person’s relationship to whomever is speaking, as in “Anne” or “your wife/husband”.)  Both because it’s not grammatical and I refuse to be bullied.

As a free-speech absolutist  I resist  dogmatic imposition of woke vernacular but I am always willing to speak  to or of individuals using  their preferred identifier.

I fail to see how this is in any way a freedom of speech issue?

It isn't a free speech issue in terms of governmental censorship proscribed by the First Amendment  because speech that is spoken in civil society's zone of autonomy is beyond the reach of government.

Within this zone of autonomy every speaker has the right to be the  the arbiter of their speech. When they  speak their  speech doesn't have to conform to anyone else's standards and vice versa.

One's personal right to  speak as they please is the  quintessence  of free speech spoken in civil society. Speaking according to the dictates  of wokeness by using only gender-neutral pronouns  is optional.

In general society, if someone is unhappy with someone else's way of speaking to them, they can object, they can walk away from the conversation, they can cut that person out of their life.  But in a situation where this is not possible*, it is politeness and a lubricant to civil society for the person with more power to address the person with less power the way they wish to be addressed.

For example: personally I love "Ms." for mail. "Ms." may seem standard to you, but it was part of the "woke" vocabulary of my young adulthood. I am formerly married so "Miss" doesn't fit, and am divorced so "Mrs". doesn't fit either.  If I ask a generic you to address me as "Ms." in correspondence and generic you uses either "Miss" or "Mrs." I will make a judgement on your character, and it will not be favourable.


*teacher:student, employer:employee, police/government official:/anyone

I, too, I loved “MS “because every female person was a “MS. “. It is so damn easy. It appealed to me for the simplicity.

I would also go for referring to everyone as “ ze” and  be done with it.

[sui generis]

This only captures the specific case where a specific person wants a specific pronoun.

I maintain that in a general case (when referring to a generic singular person) "he or she" is the way to go.

If it means a lot to people that we be gender inclusive perhaps we can think of more singular pronouns and then "he, she or X" will be the way to go.

Mandating "they" as an all-inclusive generic singular pronoun (to the detriment of any other pronoun) rather seems to overstep the mark, particularly for those of us who identify as a "he" or a "she" and not a "they".

Imagine caring more about grammar than people.

I think this is a bad faith response. Sui generis put out a much better and fairer and more insightful response. I suppose if people really like the word "they" as a nominally singular nongendered pronoun we can just incorporate it into the "he, she, X, or they" formulation and I guess that would make everyone happy. Then we just have to remember each person's preference between "he", "she", "X (the non-gendered singular pronoun, whatever consensus is reached on that)" and just "they" (the non-gendered plural but nominally singular in this context pronoun). And in that sense everyone can be happy.

You may have liked my response more because I didn't outright disagree with you, but I have to agree with @Kris that in the end, it's about prioritizing people over grammar, as @Malcat's example shows.  I may have wondered about some of the mechanics and underlying principles, but wouldn't put that over people's comfort in practice.  In fact, I have to say, advocating using "he or she or [something] or they" in practice rather than "they" rings super hollow.  It sounds to me like a way to pretend to be providing a solution while making that solution so uncomfortable for everyone in order to try to get them to throw up their hands and just beg for the return of the patriarchy.

Hard pass on that.

[Watchmaker]

Mandating "they" as an all-inclusive generic singular pronoun (to the detriment of any other pronoun) rather seems to overstep the mark, particularly for those of us who identify as a "he" or a "she" and not a "they".

It doesn't really change anything for me, because I acknowledge language is always evolving and so being a historically used term doesn't make something right, but 'they' has been used as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun in English since at least 1375 AD.

Chaucer used it. Shakespeare did too. And Dickens, and Austin. You've certainly used it (as have I)--it's a part of normal speech.

Those that have objected to it (like the Chicago Manual of Style) have always been the minority. In my mind, that's why it has succeeded where newly invented terms like ze did not--because it was already familiar and in wide use.

[John Galt incarnate!]

In general society, if someone is unhappy with someone else's way of speaking to them, they can object, they can walk away from the conversation, they can cut that person out of their life.




Of course, this is as it should be so we are in agreement.

Civil society is that sphere of life which may be thought of as including "homelife ," "domestic life,"  "time off from work," and  "on vacation from school."

This civil-society sphere of life is separate from the world of business, everyday employment, governmental entities, and other institutions in which one's interactions do commend   the nicety of politeness' lubricity as  you  posted below.

Furthermore, even within the exclusive zone of civil society I agree that accommodative politeness is *almost always preferable to boorish behavior and unseemly utterances.

*In some situations such as confronting a brute politeness is unavailing so an impolite rejoinder may be appropriate.


 
 But in a situation where this is not possible*, it is politeness and a lubricant to civil society for the person with more power to address the person with less power the way they wish to be addressed.



*teacher:student, employer:employee, police/government official:/anyone

[RetiredAt63]

Just saw this on an otherwise good web site:
"bare with me"

NO, I do not plan to take any clothes off, it is cold outside.  Maybe the author meant "bear with me"?  As in "bear a burden" bear?   

[nereo]

Just saw this on an otherwise good web site:
"bare with me"

NO, I do not plan to take any clothes off, it is cold outside.  Maybe the author meant "bear with me"?  As in "bear a burden" bear?

I suppose it depends on who the person is...?

[RetiredAt63]

Just saw this on an otherwise good web site:
"bare with me"

NO, I do not plan to take any clothes off, it is cold outside.  Maybe the author meant "bear with me"?  As in "bear a burden" bear?

I suppose it depends on who the person is...?

Garden writer.  And context was clearly "bear with me".  But gardeners do bare a lot during high summer.   ;-)  just not now.

[nereo]

Just saw this on an otherwise good web site:
"bare with me"

NO, I do not plan to take any clothes off, it is cold outside.  Maybe the author meant "bear with me"?  As in "bear a burden" bear?

I suppose it depends on who the person is...?

Garden writer.  And context was clearly "bear with me".  But gardeners do bare a lot during high summer.   ;-)  just not now.

I meant, whether the listener wishes to take their clothes off ("bare with me") might depend on who the speaker is. 
Sorry, dumb joke.

[RetiredAt63]

Just saw this on an otherwise good web site:
"bare with me"

NO, I do not plan to take any clothes off, it is cold outside.  Maybe the author meant "bear with me"?  As in "bear a burden" bear?

I suppose it depends on who the person is...?

Garden writer.  And context was clearly "bear with me".  But gardeners do bare a lot during high summer.   ;-)  just not now.

I meant, whether the listener wishes to take their clothes off ("bare with me") might depend on who the speaker is. 
Sorry, dumb joke.

Mmm, I  got it.  Gardeners do bare a lot in high summer.  How much to bare would depend on who is the other gardener.

[GreenSheep]

"usually always" as in "I usually always have pasta in the pantry so I can make a quick meal."

"very sort of" as in "It was a very sort of gray day."

Well, which is it? Usually or always? Very or sort of? It can't be both!

[Morning Glory]

"usually always" as in "I usually always have pasta in the pantry so I can make a quick meal."

"very sort of" as in "It was a very sort of gray day."

Well, which is it? Usually or always? Very or sort of? It can't be both!

That is annoying.

[Morning Glory]

Not really a word or phrase, but I find it condescending when articles and ebooks give the amount of time they should take to read. Usually it is way overestimated, and I wonder if that is on purpose to make people feel better.

[Metalcat]

Not really a word or phrase, but I find it condescending when articles and ebooks give the amount of time they should take to read. Usually it is way overestimated, and I wonder if that is on purpose to make people feel better.

Most people read very, very slowly compared to avid readers.

[ixtap]

Not really a word or phrase, but I find it condescending when articles and ebooks give the amount of time they should take to read. Usually it is way overestimated, and I wonder if that is on purpose to make people feel better.

Most people read very, very slowly compared to avid readers.

I read three times as fast as my husband, with better comprehension. He makes spreadsheets 5 times as fast as me, with better functionality.

[iluvzbeach]

"usually always" as in "I usually always have pasta in the pantry so I can make a quick meal."

"very sort of" as in "It was a very sort of gray day."

Well, which is it? Usually or always? Very or sort of? It can't be both!

That is annoying.

I feel this way about the phrase “maybe could”. Can it be accomplished or is it just a possibility? It’s a phrase I’ve heard some friends from the southern part of the U.S. use.

[Taran Wanderer]

Trump.

[RetiredAt63]

Trump.

Gone.  T**** replaced it.  And now gone. 

[Taran Wanderer]

Trump.

Gone.  T**** replaced it.  And now gone.

Can a t**** card even be called a t**** card anymore? That would imply that it is a winner, and that’s just a big gigantic non sequiter.

[RetiredAt63]

Trump.

Gone.  T**** replaced it.  And now gone.

Can a t**** card even be called a t**** card anymore? That would imply that it is a winner, and that’s just a big gigantic non sequiter.

I know.  He has spoiled this but card games came before he did.  We will survive.  Remember Eisenhower jackets?   ;-)

[nereo]

Not really a word or phrase, but I find it condescending when articles and ebooks give the amount of time they should take to read. Usually it is way overestimated, and I wonder if that is on purpose to make people feel better.

Most people read very, very slowly compared to avid readers.

I just learned that fully half of the adults in my state can read at a sixth grade reading level or less.  Half. Many will not read a single book all year, and 40% report that they “never” or “rarely” read anything longer than a single page (usually online posts or news articles).

THis information was presented to state government employees in an effort to explain the obstacles with corresponding to the broader public.   

I read three times as fast as my husband, with better comprehension. He makes spreadsheets 5 times as fast as me, with better functionality.

[GreenSheep]

"usually always" as in "I usually always have pasta in the pantry so I can make a quick meal."

"very sort of" as in "It was a very sort of gray day."

Well, which is it? Usually or always? Very or sort of? It can't be both!

That is annoying.

I feel this way about the phrase “maybe could”. Can it be accomplished or is it just a possibility? It’s a phrase I’ve heard some friends from the southern part of the U.S. use.

Oh, that's interesting. I've heard "might could" and just chalked it up to a difference in... dialect or regional speech patterns, I guess you would call it? With "maybe could," it is a matter of changing the position of the subject and the verb? So instead of saying, "Maybe he could do it,"  a person would say, "He maybe could do it." The first one sounds correct to me, while the second one sounds wrong... but if I consider that it might just be a difference in the way the language developed in a different region, then maybe it's not wrong...? I really don't know!

On a somewhat related note, a friend in the Deep South was just telling me today that you can't necessarily differentiate "lower class" and "upper class" based on how "good" a person's English is. (We're talking about native English speakers in the South, here.) A person might use "ain't" and double negatives and have a very twangy Southern drawl, but they might still be considered very high society. The same friend also pointed me toward some YouTube videos that argue that American Southern English is actually a slowed-down version of British English, which makes sense because that's where it originally came from. Language is so interesting.

[GreenSheep]

I just learned that fully half of the adults in my state can read at a sixth grade reading level or less.  Half. Many will not read a single book all year, and 40% report that they “never” or “rarely” read anything longer than a single page (usually online posts or news articles).

Oh, I believe it. I remember many years ago when I did some online dating, I was shocked at how many profiles chose the answer that was something like, "I don't really read much" for that question. And these were people who were trying to impress each other! I guess I should be glad that at least they weren't lying.

I've also run into a lot of non-readers among people who otherwise seem intelligent and curious, like in a foreign language class I've been taking. People say they don't have time to read books... yet they have time for social media.

Even among my own friends and family, there are a handful don't hide the fact that they never, ever sit down and read a book. One almost seems proud of it; she blames it on her short attention span, as if that makes her cute and unique.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

It's funny because with all the fuss about treating your baby to the nicest pram, best daycare, nicest most bestest elite schooling, best diet, and all that tangential stuff, people seem to forget that the two best things you can do for your children are:

1. Not smoke or drink appreciable amounts during pregnancy

2. Read to them like their lives depend on it, as much as you can, until they're old enough to read by themselves. Then take them to the library and encourage them to read as much as they can.

It's not rocket surgery.