Laurens
New Member
Sparhafoc said:My assumption is that there is either no real agenda to legally oblige people to use contrived pronouns, nor is there any way in which this could occur. We're not legally obliged to refer to males as 'he' or females as 'she', so I doubt very much that laws will be made compelling people to use other pronouns.
Personally, I am fond of the British 'they' to refer to someone whose gender is either unknown or irrelevant.
But if a person born a man decides to become a woman or vice-versa, I have absolutely no problem referring to them with a pronoun that suits their respective genders and I can't see why anyone would.
The other issue is that using someones appearance to determine which pronoun to use is always going to result in error.
For instance I take issue with certain aspects of masculinity. I've not actually considered this, but I might in some parallel universe have decided that this was good enough reason to no longer identify as a man. I might have no signs of this so far as my appearance goes. I could not possibly be offended if someone referred to me as a man, or called me Sir.
So do we have a world in which people are afraid to speak in case their choice of words offends someone?
Also its automatically divisive. Once you legislate the pronouns to use to refer to trans people there will be a divide between those who accept it and those who would rather be refered to by how they appear. This is only the initial fracturing it would cause, as far as I can tell it would just continue until everyone is afraid to speak freely.
I think demand for reasonable rights is fair. But the idea that language needs to be regulated is untenable.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk