Should I use someone’s preferred pronouns if it is not their gender?

[Lambano]

Should I use someone’s preferred pronouns if it is not their gender?

I've seen email signatures that state that the sender prefers to be referred to as "they". (Really!) I draw the line at supporting Multiple Personality Disorder.

We are not amused.

 

[Taken]

Should I use someone’s preferred pronouns if it is not their gender?

Like it or not, human have genders.
They are not assigned genders at birth.
Their genders are revealed and recorded.

Should I use someone’s preferred pronouns if it is not their gender?

No.

Matt: 6:8a
[8] Be not ye therefore like unto them:

 

[Lambano]

If you're not sure, better ask them to drop their pants.

 

[Taken]

If you're not sure, better ask them to drop their pants.

Rather absurd expecting complete strangers to be psychic.

 

[Lambano]

Rather absurd expecting complete strangers to be psychic.

Exactly. I have had the embarrassment of calling a "sir" a "ma'am" and a "ma'am" a "sir". I think I'll just stick with "Hey, you!"

 

[TonyChanYT]

So give us your definition.

What is the formal process of argumentation?

 

[TonyChanYT]

I've seen email signatures that state that the sender prefers to be referred to as "they".

I also find it strange. However, such a person (P1) does not see themself (himself, herself) as binary male or female. If I wish to communicate with P1, I would try to see things from their point of view and accept their pronoun. Otherwise, communication is impossible.

 

[Taken]

Exactly. I have had the embarrassment of calling a "sir" a "ma'am" and a "ma'am" a "sir". I think I'll just stick with "Hey, you!"

Can you imagine in these days of the pretense of normalizing fake and lies trying to date…?

 

[TonyChanYT]

Can you imagine in these days of the pretense of normalizing fake and lies trying to date…?

Can you imagine putting yourself in another person's shoes like a mature and objective human being?

 

[Lambano]

I also find it strange. However, such a person (P1) does not see themself (himself, herself) as binary male or female. If I wish to communicate with P1, I would try to see things from their point of view and accept their pronoun. Otherwise, communication is impossible.

My objection was based on "they" being a 3rd-person-plural pronoun. However, I note that the English language allows the use "they" to refer to a 3rd-person-singular person when the gender of that person is unknown or undefined, or when the speaker prefers not to indicate the gender of person being referred to. So I may have to withdraw the objection.

 

[TonyChanYT]

My objection was based on "they" being a 3rd-person-plural pronoun. However, I note that the English language allows the use "they" to refer to a 3rd-person-singular person when the gender of that person is unknown or undefined, or when the speaker prefers not to indicate the gender of person being referred to. So I may have to withdraw the objection.

In terms of the formal process of argumentation, I can assume their definition without believing it. I do it for the sake of efficient communication.

 

[Taken]

Can you imagine putting yourself in another person's shoes like a mature and objective human being?

Actually I am mature and am quite comfortable walking in my own shoes without feeling the need to walk in an other’s shoes, in order to speak to an other human as a human.

There are people who have surgically changed their appearance to look like an animal, a Cat for example. I do not care their gender, nor would I speak to them in….meows, growls, or roars…to show my approval or advocation of their nonsense.

 

[Lambano]

In terms of the formal process of argumentation, I can assume their definition without believing it. I do it for the sake of efficient communication.

I represent my company on several industry standards committees, and when we write a spec, we spend considerable time up front defining key terms in order to make communication more efficient. If each person has their own idiosyncratic "spec" of key words that have to be defined at each interaction, that adds additional complexity which makes communication more inefficient, not more efficient.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Actually I am mature and am quite comfortable walking in my own shoes without feeling the need to walk in an other’s shoes, in order to speak to an other human as a human.

There are people who have surgically changed their appearance to look like an animal, a Cat for example. I do not care their gender, nor would I speak to them in….meows, growls, or roars…to show my approval or advocation of their nonsense.

Can you imagine putting yourself in another person's shoes like a mature and objective human being?

This is the 2nd time I have asked. Please focus on my question instead of sidestepping as your usual habit.

 

[Lambano]

Actually I am mature and am quite comfortable walking in my own shoes without feeling the need to walk in an other’s shoes, in order to speak to an other human as a human.

Can you imagine putting yourself in another person's shoes like a mature and objective human being?

"Screw everyone else" IS a very human attitude. And don't assume every human has empathy, or needs to have empathy. There are situations where empathy can be counter-productive.

 

[TonyChanYT]

I represent my company on several industry standards committees, and when we write a spec, we spend considerable time up front defining key terms in order to make communication more efficient. If each person has their own idiosyncratic "spec" of key words that have to be defined at each interaction, that adds additional complexity which makes communication more inefficient, not more efficient.

Right, it is easier to communicate when all parties already have identical definitions. Nevertheless, you need agreed definitions for different parties to communicate. Otherwise, miscommunication ensues.

 

[Lambano]

Right, it is easier to communicate when all parties already have identical definitions. Nevertheless, you need agreed definitions for different parties to communicate. Otherwise, miscommunication ensues.

That is true, and part of the problem is that we're at a point in history where certainly commonly accepted definitions are no longer valid. Hence, miscommunication is inevitable.

 

[TonyChanYT]

"Screw everyone else" IS a very human attitude. And don't assume every human has empathy, or needs to have empathy. There are situations where empathy can be counter-productive.

Right. I am just a little surprised that an openly unempathetic person like Taken could be a staff member of this Christian platform.

 

[TonyChanYT]

That is true, and part of the problem is that we're at a point in history where certainly commonly accepted definitions are no longer valid. Hence, miscommunication is inevitable.

Right. I think it is a sign of the time. It may indicate the decline of the Western civilization, which has ruled the world for the last centuries.

 

[Lambano]

Right. I think it is a sign of the time. It may indicate the decline of the Western civilization, which has ruled the world for the last centuries.

Not necessarily. Languages evolve.