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

Remove this Banner Ad

Just in case you're wondering...


Chief what is BigFooty's stance on neopronouns?

Noun-self pronouns can refer to animals - so your pronouns can be "bun/bunself" and "kitten/kittenself". Others refer to fantasy characters - "vamp/vampself", "prin/cess/princesself", "fae/faer/faeself" - or even just common slang, like "Innit/Innits/Innitself".

My preferred noun-self pronoun is Jesus/Jesusself.

Do the BigFooty rules and regulations reflect this new orthodoxy? If someone refuses to use my preferred pronouns, would you sanction them for it?

It's important. Neopronouns give people who feel different from the rest of the world a way to avoid all its boxes at once.


Get a hobby.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Just in case you're wondering...


Chief what is BigFooty's stance on neopronouns?

Noun-self pronouns can refer to animals - so your pronouns can be "bun/bunself" and "kitten/kittenself". Others refer to fantasy characters - "vamp/vampself", "prin/cess/princesself", "fae/faer/faeself" - or even just common slang, like "Innit/Innits/Innitself".

My preferred noun-self pronoun is Jesus/Jesusself.

Do the BigFooty rules and regulations reflect this new orthodoxy? If someone refuses to use my preferred pronouns, would you sanction them for it?

It's important. Neopronouns give people who feel different from the rest of the world a way to avoid all its boxes at once.

As a simplistic answer I would say I am against sanctioning someone for "failure to use neopronoun". If you are someone who wants neopronooun use beyond the common he/him, she/her or they/them (like the example given bun/bunself) its on the individual to represent themself as wanting that but not get upset if hide bound traditionalists don't conform. Afterall, the bunself person is only one person, why must the feelings of one person force a change on the majority when there is no measurable impact by the non use of the pronoun.

Note I am comfortable with the use of they/them for non binary (I believe this is the preferred term) although have seen some sci fi writers use Zim/zer. If theres a standard convention happy to use.
 
As a simplistic answer I would say I am against sanctioning someone for "failure to use neopronoun". If you are someone who wants neopronooun use beyond the common he/him, she/her or they/them (like the example given bun/bunself) its on the individual to represent themself as wanting that but not get upset if hide bound traditionalists don't conform. Afterall, the bunself person is only one person, why must the feelings of one person force a change on the majority when there is no measurable impact by the non use of the pronoun.
Hate speech!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweet Jesus
To condense a lengthy post down some, seeing as you objected to my 'tortured analogies' (after making an analogy between someone wanting to identify as a moon and school shooters, but anyway):
And yet you want me to sign on for validating these delusions? And for society at large to be linguistically reshaped to accommodate them? No, I don't think so.
No. I want you to give me a reason as to why I shouldn't.

I can think of reasons for, and negligable reasons against. I want something more tangible than 'It's absurd, I shouldn't have to accomodate it'; either tell me why you shouldn't have to accomodate it without using the circular argument that it's absurd. All of us are absurd. You're absurd. I'm absurd.

We're on a sports website, arguing about neo-pronouns. It genuinely doesn't get much more absurd than this.

You don't have to give a reason (even if you're prompting the discussion) but at some point - if those opposing it want any measure of mainstream support - someone probably should if they want to get others on board.
 
Sweet Jesus
To condense a lengthy post down some, seeing as you objected to my 'tortured analogies' (after making an analogy between someone wanting to identify as a moon and school shooters, but anyway):
To make an entirely straightforward point that you needn't be directly affected by something to criticise it. I'm sure you grasped that.

No. I want you to give me a reason as to why I shouldn't.
Why? You should do as you please. If you're happy to accommodate someone who identifies as a cat, who am I to talk you out of it?

As I've said, you may be willing to participate in these absurdities. I'm not.

I can think of reasons for, and negligable reasons against. I want something more tangible than 'It's absurd, I shouldn't have to accomodate it'; either tell me why you shouldn't have to accomodate it without using the circular argument that it's absurd. All of us are absurd. You're absurd. I'm absurd.

We're on a sports website, arguing about neo-pronouns. It genuinely doesn't get much more absurd than this.

You don't have to give a reason (even if you're prompting the discussion) but at some point - if those opposing it want any measure of mainstream support- someone probably should if they want to get others on board.
I've told you at length why I'm unwilling to accommodate it. A person is not a cat or a moon, regardless of whether they identify as such. I am unwilling to pretend otherwise.

I don't know how to state it more clearly than that.
 
Gethelred check this out...

Kat told Barcroft TV: “I have always been different. I just always had a fascination with cats and I felt myself, I'm a cat. I go through life being a cat – it's just who I am.”

So in your mind, she's a cat? That's how she identifies and that's the bottom line?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top