Society/Culture Do you understand and accept the importance of neopronouns?

Remove this Banner Ad

ChampRevesby

Brownlow Medallist
May 8, 2012
18,870
23,927
AFL Club
West Coast
An alternative suggestion: if someone identifies as a cat, everyone is free to disregard that, and they probably should, because that person is a headcase.

Why should I "respect" something that is obviously nonsense?

I don't do it with religion. I don't "respect" Scientology. Why should I "respect" the nuttier neopronouns?
You can respect the human, you don't have to accept the language. There is a middle ground as I said.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
You can respect the human, you don't have to accept the language. There is a middle ground as I said.
I think that's sleight of hand.

Everyone has basic human rights. We should all respect those. Trans folks have the same rights as everyone else and should be protected from violence, vilification and discrimination. That is a basic liberal principal regarding the treatment of minorities.

That doesn't mean anyone has to "respect" irrational arguments. I don't. I respect arguments that can be demonstrated and substantiated. Anything short of that is quackery and superstition.
 

hiking

Rookie
Nov 13, 2021
41
12
AFL Club
GWS
What do you mean by somebody being offended from calling them "mate"?

It's a very broad, very friendly term that as long as it's not said in a clearly sarcastic way, then I can't see any reason for offence.

If somebody does get offended by that term, then you could make a case they are looking/wanting to be offended whatever the situation.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ChampRevesby

Brownlow Medallist
May 8, 2012
18,870
23,927
AFL Club
West Coast
What do you mean by somebody being offended from calling them "mate"?

It's a very broad, very friendly term that as long as it's not said in a clearly sarcastic way, then I can't see any reason for offence.

If somebody does get offended by that term, then you could make a case they are looking/wanting to be offended whatever the situation.
Never had an issue with mate, guys, folks.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,288
17,435
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Or at face to face you could just "Hi I'm a sicko what's your name?"

This is what I was hoping to get around to, we shouldn't need to go around asking mates or work colleagues or even worse tip toe around the subject of how to address someone for fear of reprisal.

At my work place or even in public I'll address someone, including strangers by "hey mate", there is no intent to offend. And even though .00000000000000000000001% of the population would be offended, that does not validate any punishment just because I addressed someone with no ill intent.

IF one day I happen to run into this person who takes offence, I'll know my conscience is clear and fk that person! I'll call out the absurdity it is.
Yeah, I don't think there should be any punishment for honest mistakes with no ill-intent. Once you know the truth though, if you continue to call them by their former gender I'd call that malicious rather than mistake and I'd say the situation needs to be rectified.
 

hiking

Rookie
Nov 13, 2021
41
12
AFL Club
GWS
Never had an issue with mate, guys, folks.
I can see some (especially women) people maybe preferring not to be called a guy (guys), but I agree overall.

Somebody may loathe it when they are called "fella" as it reminds them of what a vile school teacher used to call them for example. But "offended" is the wrong word until done purposefully and maliciously. Nothing to do with gender, just a preference. Just about being decent to one another I suppose.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Yeah, I don't think there should be any punishment for honest mistakes with no ill-intent.
Very generous of you.

Once you know the truth though, if you continue to call them by their former gender I'd call that malicious rather than mistake and I'd say the situation needs to be rectified.
What do you mean by "the truth"? Do you mean "how someone identifies"?

What if you simply don't accept that a biological male identifying as a female is, ipso facto, female.

That's malicious, in your view?

You might comply with their preferred pronouns as a matter of courtesy but look at how you freight any decision to the contrary. Misgendering is vilification, in your view?
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,381
8,152
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
What do you mean by somebody being offended from calling them "mate"?
Due to the high likelihood that someone somewhere will be offended by what someone else somewhere else has said or done, not to mention 'mate' is a colloquial term among men and their mates - traditionally anyway, now more broadly used by everyone. So a person who would not want to addressed as a 'mate' may take offence. Like I said probably .000000000000001% of the population.

It's a very broad, very friendly term that as long as it's not said in a clearly sarcastic way, then I can't see any reason for offence.

If somebody does get offended by that term, then you could make a case they are looking/wanting to be offended whatever the situation.
Yes, agreed, and it would be absurd to take offence but there is someone(s) out there that would.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,381
8,152
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Yeah, I don't think there should be any punishment for honest mistakes with no ill-intent. Once you know the truth though, if you continue to call them by their former gender I'd call that malicious rather than mistake and I'd say the situation needs to be rectified.
Obviously.
 

ChampRevesby

Brownlow Medallist
May 8, 2012
18,870
23,927
AFL Club
West Coast
I can see some (especially women) people maybe preferring not to be called a guy (guys), but I agree overall.

Somebody may loathe it when they are called "fella" as it reminds them of what a vile teacher used to call them for example. But "offended" is the wrong word until done purposefully and maliciously. Nothing to do with gender, just a preference. Just about being decent to one another I suppose.
Fellas is typically uttered around a group of guys, typically when you are trying to get the groups attention on what case of beer to buy :)
 

hiking

Rookie
Nov 13, 2021
41
12
AFL Club
GWS
Fellas is typically uttered around a group of guys, typically when you are trying to get the groups attention on what case of beer to buy :)
Yeah, that's true.

But what I trying to get at was if it was just a straight male, who just hated being called that term due to an old school teacher he loathed calling the pupils that term. It shouldn't matter what reason, gender or not, if being called something you don't identify as (or just really irritates you) then you should feel alright to request that change. I'm not saying you should expect that others aleays refer to you as your preference, but at least making in known in a respectful way is a good start.

But that isn't the root of the discussion of respecting neo-pronouns, I guess.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,381
8,152
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Very generous of you.

What do you mean by "the truth"? Do you mean "how someone identifies"?

What if you simply don't accept that a biological male identifying as a female is, ipso facto, female.

That's malicious, in your view?

You might comply with their preferred pronouns as a matter of courtesy but look at how you freight any decision to the contrary. Misgendering is vilification, in your view?
That all depends on the person doesn't it.

If it is clear that one knows how another wishes to be addressed then as you state that courtesy should be conveyed.

Misgendering by intent i:e you know how they wish to be addressed but intend to address them against their wish then yes that would be vilification IMO.

I'd stop at the point of broader society being compelled to instill impractical measures to accommodate an obvious unreality. i:e biological males playing in competition against biological females. But that's just me, I'm certain there are varying degrees of opinion of 'how far'.
 

hiking

Rookie
Nov 13, 2021
41
12
AFL Club
GWS
What if you simply don't accept that a biological male identifying as a female is, ipso facto, female.
So not even a neo-pronoun, just that straightforward as in male/female?

Hmm, I suppose some may go along with using the pronoun they disagree with through gritted teeth. But if they have their beliefs, and prefer not to show the courtesy asked of them, then it's their choice.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
That all depends on the person doesn't it.
No. We should have standards that don't "depend on the person". That's why we have laws.

If it is clear that one knows how another wishes to be addressed then as you state that courtesy should be conveyed.

Misgendering by intent i:e you know how they wish to be addressed but intend to address them against their wish then yes that would be vilification IMO.
The first paragraph suggests it's a matter of courtesy.

How do you get from that to "vilification"?

We have laws against vilification. If it's a matter of courtesy, should it be a legal requirement?

These phrases have different meanings.
 
Last edited:

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
So not even a neo-pronoun, just that straightforward as in male/female?
As a matter of courtesy, sure.

Hmm, I suppose some may go along with using the pronoun they disagree with through gritted teeth. But if they have their beliefs, and prefer not to show the courtesy asked of them, then it's their choice.
I'm not sure what that means.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,381
8,152
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
No. We shpuld have standards that don't "depend on the person".
What I was stating: it depends on how that individual person receives an address. Wasn't suggesting that we should have standards to appease individuals from one to the next. I did make my position clear on that.

How do you get from that to "vilification"?

We have laws against vilification. If it's a matter of courtesy, should it be a legal requirement?
Again, if one intends to offend by how they address another, then that would be a form of vilification no?

No it shouldn't be a legal requirement, it would be ludicrous to legislate such a thing (like Canada if I am correct). However courtesy is and should be widely accepted, making it a legal requirement is not required.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
What I was stating: it depends on how that individual person receives an address. Wasn't suggesting that we should have standards to appease individuals from one to the next. I did make my position clear on that.



Again, if one intends to offend by how they address another, then that would be a form of vilification no?

No it shouldn't be a legal requirement, it would be ludicrous to legislate such a thing (like Canada if I am correct). However courtesy is and should be widely accepted, making it a legal requirement is not required.
You conflate terms carelessly.
 

hiking

Rookie
Nov 13, 2021
41
12
AFL Club
GWS
As a matter of courtesy, sure.

I'm not sure what that means.
Sorry. When referring to this quote.
What if you simply don't accept that a biological male identifying as a female is, ipso facto, female.
I was trying to say that if you didn't accept the situation you brought up, you may still use the pronouns you disagree with through gritted teeth just to keep peace (in the family, workplace, etc). But, if you can't bring yourself to use pronouns you disagree with, then you choose not to. That may be hard in certain places or jobs without causing drama.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I was trying to say that if you didn't accept it, you may still use the pronouns you disagree with through gritted teeth just to keep peace (in the family, workplace, etc). But, if you can't bring yourself to use pronouns you disagree with, then you choose not to. That may be hard in certain places or jobs without causing drama.
But crucially, the burden is on the person to use the pronoun, not on trans folks to demonstrate that people should use it?
 

hiking

Rookie
Nov 13, 2021
41
12
AFL Club
GWS
Why is that ideal?

See above.
Sorry again if I'm not being concise. But ideally if somebody is male, female, or transitioned to either biological sex, then I think it's reasonable to expect your preffered pronoun to be used when being addressed.

That is what I meant by "ideally".

If still, after it being known, then you're in a position to communicate with such a person, and you use the pronoun they have made it clear they don't accept... Then I still think it's the person's choice to not use that pronoun. But depending on the situation, shall probably have consequences if certain rules are regulated in their work for example. And obviously drama in most family/social situations.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,434
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Sorry again if I'm not being concise. But ideally if somebody is male, female, or transitioned to either biological sex, then I think it's reasonable to expect your preffered pronoun to be used when being addressed.

That is what I meant by "ideally".
Why is it reasonable to expect that?

Some folks might do it as a matter of courtesy, but other folks might simply disagree with the idea that identifying as male/female makes the case that you are in fact that gender.

If still, after it being known, then you're in a position to communicate with such a person, and you use the pronoun they have made it clear they don't accept... Then I still think it's the person's choice to not use that pronoun. But depending on the situation, shall probably have consequences if certain rules are regulated in their work for example. And obviously drama in most family/social situations.
That doesn't really address the question.

Why is it "ideal" that everyone accepts self ID?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad