Pronoun Usage

girltrombonist · by **girltrombonist** » 2021-06-03 3:57 p.m.

[quote="robcat2075"]Looks clever!

But some hipster is going to get his ponytail caught in there and that will be the end of it.[/quote]

^female trombonists and nonbinary trombonists exist. I wasn't aware that the length of your hair excluded you from playing trombone.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2021-06-03 4:02 p.m.

[quote="girltrombonist"]<QUOTE author="robcat2075" post_id="149589" time="1622473271" user_id="3697">
Looks clever!

But some hipster is going to get his ponytail caught in there and that will be the end of it.[/quote]

^female trombonists and nonbinary trombonists exist. I wasn't aware that the length of your hair excluded you from playing trombone.
</QUOTE>

The comment was not meant to denigrate female trombonists (or male trombonists with pony tails like me). It's just that a hairstyle that flops over the mechanism could get caught. Or maybe not. The designer is looking at something to keep hair off the mechanism.

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2021-06-03 5:32 p.m.

As a matter of fact, one of my favorite YouTube clips happens to be the chorale from Mahler 2 from the New York Philharmonic and David Finlayson is sporting quite the pony tail! And of course Amanda Stewart right next to him, also sporting one:

<YOUTUBE id="EkkSpqzEnSM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkkSpqzEnSM</YOUTUBE>

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2021-06-04 10:33 a.m.

intent doesn't always equal outcome. if you use he/him for trombonists as a matter of fact, just think about it for a minute. one can understand why it would be annoying to run into the same assumption thousands of times

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2021-06-04 10:58 a.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]intent doesn't always equal outcome. if you use he/him for trombonists as a matter of fact, just think about it for a minute. one can understand why it would be annoying to run into the same assumption thousands of times[/quote]

Rightly or wrongly, the assumption of the male pronoun when the gender of the subject is unknown has been a part of the English language for at least the past 1000 years. I know the Feminists have been railing about this at least since the "woke" 1960s but there has been no official or accepted way to introduce gender neutral pronouns for unknown genders.

When a more gender neutral form is standardized, I will be happy to accept it. But I also realize that the male bias has been with us for generations.

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2021-06-04 11:10 a.m.

Hi all, moved this here.

I was always taught that proper English necessitated the use of the pronoun of the author when referring to an anonymous or pseudononymous 3rd party, which makes that sentence proper. If the author identified differently, it would be incorrect. That way, it is less confusing and verbose than specifying all of the possible options or mixing the use case. In either case, nobody is implicitly saying that trombonists must be male; if there ever was a group of people who wish that weren't the case, it's low brass players.

Kdanielsen · by **Kdanielsen** » 2021-06-04 11:30 a.m.

Their

Them

They

What’s so hard about this??

People treated disease with leaches and piss for thousands of years too but we grew.

Grow.

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2021-06-04 12:10 p.m.

Well, that they are plural. So it creates ambiguity. That's the problem with languages that developed naturally. They served one purpose and then kept getting added onto until you have two mutually exclusive scenario: do you choose to be vague/ambiguous or inclusive? There's probably a better way of doing it. I would personally have no problem with something like "xe" for those situations but now that too is reserved specifically for people who identify thusly as far as I can tell.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-04 12:19 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]Rightly or wrongly, the assumption of the male pronoun when the gender of the subject is unknown has been a part of the English language for at least the past 1000 years. I know the Feminists have been railing about this at least since the "woke" 1960s but there has been no official or accepted way to introduce gender neutral pronouns for unknown genders.

When a more gender neutral form is standardized, I will be happy to accept it. But I also realize that the male bias has been with us for generations.[/quote]

there actually are a lot of accepted ways. there's been a lot of standardized ways in academic writing for a while. those have changed a bit over time as, mostly, men have just chosen to ignore them. just because a bunch of dudes ignore them and claim there's no standardized way, doesn't mean they don't exist. it means y'all are refusing to accept new practices and that undermines them and then using that undermining as a way to point out that it's not standardized.

it's really not that hard. y'all are willing to learn every trombone valve innovation in the last 100 years....they/them ain't that hard.

depressing that there's an overlap with people complaining about pronouns and bringing sexual predators into LGBTQ threads. <EMOJI seq="1f937-1f3fb-2640" tseq="1f937-1f3fb-200d-2640-fe0f">🤷🏻‍♀️</EMOJI>

olivegreenink · by **olivegreenink** » 2021-06-04 12:22 p.m.

I’m glad we are having this discussion because - and I’m truly not saying this to be snarky - it appears to be news to some folks here that established gender neutral terms abound.

When in doubt, super duper simple to just get in the habit of using they/them/their as mentioned above.

Language is living. We were all taught countless “unbreakable” grammar mandates in school that evolved. Starting sentences with preposition. Using contractions. Even the meaning of the word “literal” is morphing into meaning both literal and figurative. It happens to thouest. :)

Using they to refer to one human may seem strange to you at first based on decades old info on singular vs plural. Or saying y’all even if you are not southern, rather than saying guys to refer to a group. And as mentioned as well, you can just say the trombonist, horn player, musician, etc.

Glad to hear that at least one person here is immediately going to use this method now that it’s existence has been made known. :)

Cheers

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2021-06-04 12:25 p.m.

[quote="Kdanielsen"]Their

Them

They

What’s so hard about this??[/quote]

Yup. Costs me nothing; makes someone else's life easier.

'Singular they' has been standard in many contexts for centuries; expanding its use is not difficult.

(Regardless of the merits of the quote that sparked this discussion, now's as good a time as any to consider general usage.)

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2021-06-04 12:25 p.m.

[quote="Kdanielsen"]Their

Them

They

What’s so hard about this??

People treated disease with leaches and piss for thousands of years too but we grew.

Grow.[/quote]

This.

I would add: when in doubt, ask.

mbarbier · 2021-06-04 12:29 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]<QUOTE author="Kdanielsen" post_id="149895" time="1622820635" user_id="7231">
Their

Them

They

What’s so hard about this??

People treated disease with leaches and piss for thousands of years too but we grew.

Grow.[/quote]

This.

I would add: when in doubt, ask.
</QUOTE>

But please do so discreetly or provide space for everyone to provide them in a non verbal way (for example I send all new students a form before the first class that asks everyone for their pronouns). As well meaning as asking can be, it can also unintentionally out people who aren't out in all situations, so it's important to be conscious of the situation and space when doing so.

email signatures are a super helpful way, especially if one is a cis person and has them in their own email- its a subtle, but very noticeable way to show that one is aware that pronouns are important and is checking to be respectful of the person.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-04 12:30 p.m.

[quote="ithinknot"]

'Singular they' has been standard in many contexts for centuries; expanding its use is not difficult.

[/quote]

yupppppp. it's pretty normal in the english language already. it's a fairly slight linguistic expansion of something that's already there.

Kbiggs · 2021-06-04 12:31 p.m.

But please do so discreetly or provide space for everyone to provide them in a non verbal way (for example I send all new students a form before the first class that asks everyone for their pronouns). As well meaning as asking can be, it can also unintentionally out people who aren't out in all situations, so it's important to be conscious of the situation and space when doing so.

:good:

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2021-06-04 12:32 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]When a more gender neutral form is standardized, I will be happy to accept it.[/quote]

Well, over here, New Hart's Rules (Oxford University Press) and the Cambridge Guide to English Usage both recommend singular they, so you may enjoy the imprimatur of both our bastions of snobbery (linguistic and otherwise) :good:

olivegreenink · 2021-06-04 12:34 p.m.

[quote="Matt K"]Well, that they are plural. So it creates ambiguity.[/quote]

Having ambiguity that instead of talking about only you (not specifically you Matt) and that they might be talking about you as part of a group is a lot less problematic for a lot of folks than as one of many possible example….if every single day a man is called a woman dozens of times.

Cheers

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-04 12:44 p.m.

[quote="Matt K"]Well, that they are plural. So it creates ambiguity.[/quote]

and that ambiguity is welcome as it allows a non-binary person, such as myself, to exist on a spectrum that is neither male nor female and move in a natural way for the individual. which is different than the earlier "hier", which was often mean as a pronoun used in transition rather than a place to stay. they/them embraces one's gender a spectrum.

ithinknot · by **ithinknot** » 2021-06-04 12:46 p.m.

[quote="mbarbier"]<QUOTE author="Kbiggs" post_id="149903" time="1622823935" user_id="172">
I would add: when in doubt, ask.[/quote]

But please do so discreetly or provide space for everyone to provide them in a non verbal way (for example I send all new students a form before the first class that asks everyone for their pronouns). As well meaning as asking can be, it can also unintentionally out people who aren't out in all situations, so it's important to be conscious of the situation and space when doing so.

email signatures are a super helpful way, especially if one is a cis person and has them in their own email- its a subtle, but very noticeable way to show that one is aware that pronouns are important and is checking to be respectful of the person.
</QUOTE>

Yes. But (or rather, And) where this isn't possible, I've never come across a single instance where any difficulty would arise from defaulting to someone's name + 'they/their'.

olivegreenink · by **olivegreenink** » 2021-06-04 12:53 p.m.

+1

Plus I suspect nearly every single person here uses singular they already whether they realize it or not. For instance if you see something incredible you might say, “I don’t know how they did it, but somebody just XYZ….”

Cheers

Bach5G · by **Bach5G** » 2021-06-04 12:53 p.m.

I was reading a medical report which stated “they attended their physician”. It took me a few re-readings before I sorted out how many people went to the doctor (one).

Still: “Costs me nothing; makes someone else's life easier.” I went on a rant a la Jordan P but a friend, more enlightened than I, made exactly that point and she was right. (Although the new usage rather brings attention to the issue, which, I thought, was the opposite of what was intended).

I recall an opinion (Strunk? Fowler?) that the rules of grammar are largely folklore.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-04 1:03 p.m.

[quote="ithinknot"]

Yes. But (or rather, And) where this isn't possible, I've never come across a single instance where any difficulty would arise from defaulting to someone's name + 'they/their'.[/quote]

fully agree.

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2021-06-04 1:05 p.m.

Strunk.

But like I said, I have no problem personally using such a word, and if you'll notice my writing I typically do resort to the singular-plural even though it adds ambiguity. I just wish there was a word we could settle on, because I can't keep up with what I'm supposed to say. I've been yelled at for not remembering (I am a forgetful person) and resorting to "they" when it was otherwise specified and I've been yelled at for using first-person nouns as a default, and obviously I've been yelled at for misgendering as I reiterate that I am, above all else, forgetful. I would love a "safe" pronoun to use that I can just call everyone and have it be socially acceptable and grammatically acceptable in all situations.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2021-06-04 1:11 p.m.

I admit to being a bit of a dinosaur, having gone to school in the Late Pre-Cambrian Era ;) We did have one big grammar change during my youth where we combined Miss and Mrs. into the marriage-neutral Ms. It was even more discriminatory in the Bad Old Days for women who had to show their marital status when being addressed.

If the consensus is to use "they" for gender indistinct pronouns, I can live with that.

Still, the original complaint was that having a pony tail discriminated against female trombone players. It wasn't meant to be so.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-04 1:45 p.m.

[quote="Matt K"]Strunk.

But like I said, I have no problem personally using such a word, and if you'll notice my writing I typically do resort to the singular-plural even though it adds ambiguity. I just wish there was a word we could settle on, because I can't keep up with what I'm supposed to say. I've been yelled at for not remembering (I am a forgetful person) and resorting to "they" when it was otherwise specified and I've been yelled at for using first-person nouns as a default, and obviously I've been yelled at for misgendering as I reiterate that I am, above all else, forgetful. I would love a "safe" pronoun to use that I can just call everyone and have it be socially acceptable and grammatically acceptable in all situations.[/quote]

the forgetfulness is really tough (said as a person who forgets everything) because it's totally legitimate, but also comes across to people as not caring because we tend to remember the things that are important to us. when someone consistently misgenders you, regardless of why is comes across as "this person doesn't view my gender and self as mattering". I'm not at all meaning that that's what you're doing, but that's often how it's taken (which leads to yelling). I've found a really effective strategy in this situations is, after I'm corrected or informed, to consciously use said pronoun with that person three times in the conversation. It seems simple but really helps you make a habit and shows that person that you're consciously trying to adjust and form a new habit.

Its also super effective to not make a big deal about it- just give a direct and honest "sorry" and then move forward in the conversation (and try the above). It shows the person you heard but that you're not going to make their gender all you see about them. I've found those two things helpful for myself and with helping other, mostly, older faculty members.

sungfw · by **sungfw** » 2021-06-04 1:47 p.m.

[quote="Matt K"]Well, that they are plural.[/quote]

Words and their meanings evolve. The fact that grammarians have classified "they/their/them" as plurals doesn't make them ontologically plural, forever and ever. Amen. Contemporary usus loquendi trumps historical usage.

Oh ... and ~~[url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they]~~"they" has been used consistently as a singular pronoun since the fourteenth century.

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2021-06-04 2:27 p.m.

[quote="mbarbier"]

the forgetfulness is really tough (said as a person who forgets everything) because it's totally legitimate, but also comes across to people as not caring because we tend to remember the things that are important to us. when someone consistently misgenders you, regardless of why is comes across as "this person doesn't view my gender and self as mattering". I'm not at all meaning that that's what you're doing, but that's often how it's taken (which leads to yelling). I've found a really effective strategy in this situations is, after I'm corrected or informed, to consciously use said pronoun with that person three times in the conversation. It seems simple but really helps you make a habit and shows that person that you're consciously trying to adjust and form a new habit.

Its also super effective to not make a big deal about it- just give a direct and honest "sorry" and then move forward in the conversation (and try the above). It shows the person you heard but that you're not going to make their gender all you see about them. I've found those two things helpful for myself and with helping other, mostly, older faculty members.[/quote]

For me it's a learning disability. People's names are hard enough, I routinely forget family members names even. The solution I was taught to cope in gradeschool was to use pronouns. Now that too is something I can't infer or even use generically, which makes verbal communication quite difficult for me. Thank goodness that everything is remote now. I have people's information all in an address book that I can use on Zoom calls and whatnot which makes that way easier.

But I still also wish that generically we could come up with a word for a "generic person" who, by definition, can't be offended by misuse, but which isn't plural because - again with the learning disability - those types of sentences are really hard for me to figure out.

Elow · by **Elow** » 2021-06-04 3:07 p.m.

In a high school environment, you just ask what pronouns they prefer and call them that. Using they/them in sentences has become more natural than he/she, no person is ever confused because they could be plural. Also using their name is pretty easy, “Alex wants to go to the beach with us, can they come?” and “Alex wants to go to the beach with us, can alex come?” has the same effect.

harrisonreed · 2021-06-04 5:56 p.m.

Please call me "he"

I might have been living under a rock, but this is a very strange discussion. I haven't heard about any of this stuff in here. As far as I knew, if someone looked like a woman, even if you suspect they might be transgender, you called them "she" and everyone seemed to be happy. But that was the consensus back in 2009, the last time I was involved in academia.

*Corrected spelling

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2021-06-04 6:59 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]Please call me "he"

I might have been living under a rock, but this is a very strange discussion. I haven't heard about any of this stuff in here. As far as I knew, if someone looked like a woman, even if you suspects they might be transgender, you called them "she" and everyone seemed to be happy. But that was the consensus back in 2009, the last time I was involved in academia.[/quote]

The question here is what kind of pronoun to use when you don't know the gender of the subject. Ask a trombonist if [he? she? it?] practices 2 or more hours in a day. We have not established whether the subject is male, female, neuter, gelded, trans, etc. There is apparently a trend starting that the sentence I placed should read "Ask a trombonist if they practices 2 or more hours in a day." In this case we are using "they" as a singular pronoun for someone of indeterminate gender.

Note that this whole thing sprang from someone taking offense at a comment about pony tails getting caught up in a piece of trombone mechanism. I haven't had that problem in spite of having a pony tail, but I have had problems with my beard being pulled by my trigger thumb (and it hurts!).

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-04 7:18 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]

The question here is what kind of pronoun to use when you don't know the gender of the subject. Ask a trombonist if [he? she? it?] practices 2 or more hours in a day. We have not established whether the subject is male, female, neuter, gelded, trans, etc. There is apparently a trend starting that the sentence I placed should read "Ask a trombonist if they practices 2 or more hours in a day." In this case we are using "they" as a singular pronoun for someone of indeterminate gender.
[/quote]

they/them is a gender neutral, generally used for non binary people.

please please don't use "it" or words like "gelded" in these discussions. using that as an aside to refer to gender queer people is unbelievably disrespectful and dehumanizing. i really encourage you to consider how you think/talk about this stuff cause you've brought some crazy problematic stuff to this and the other thread. i'm not trying to be a jerk, but some of what you've associated with the LGBTQ community reallllllllly needs to be unpacked.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2021-06-04 9:04 p.m.

Gelded is a term to describe a horse that is "castrato". No association with LGBTQ. "It" is a gender neutral pronoun. I think you are being hypersensitive about these things. I'd never refer to an LGBTQ person as "it" or "gelded". I might call a Lesbian a "she" and a Gay Guy "he". Unless you want to take offense at these as well.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-04 9:12 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]Gelded is a term to describe a horse that is "castrato". No association with LGBTQ. "It" is a gender neutral pronoun. I think you are being hypersensitive about these things. I'd never refer to an LGBTQ person as "it" or "gelded". I might call a Lesbian a "she" and a Gay Guy "he". Unless you want to take offense at these as well.[/quote]

you literally just used "it" to refer to a person in your last post. also why TF are you bringing horse terms into this discussion? you brought sexual predators into the last one, like really?

what kind of good faith are you engaging in any of these discussions in? so far this is the only criticism you've responded to and you missed the point by about twenty miles. call me oversensitive all you want, I'd rather come across as overly sensitive than a willfully ignorant a**hole like you are.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-04 9:28 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]Gelded is a term to describe a horse that is "castrato". No association with LGBTQ. "It" is a gender neutral pronoun. I think you are being hypersensitive about these things. I'd never refer to an LGBTQ person as "it" or "gelded". I might call a Lesbian a "she" and a Gay Guy "he". Unless you want to take offense at these as well.[/quote]

Bruce, please understand that you don't get to decide for another person if they are being hypersensitive. Use your empathy and make small changes to your own behavior because it's the right thing to do.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-04 11:00 p.m.

Likewise another person doesn't get to dictate what standard language (pronouns) you use to describe the people you see or conceptualize in your own head.

I have seen many positive social changes in the last thirty years, and I think society is going in the right direction. Trying to change the base language ("gender" is originally a linguistic term) ain't it. Sorry. It's a fundamental change to the entire language, and brings up images of newspeak.

This stemmed from someone taking offense to a hypothetical "hipster with (his) ponytail". Sorry, but that phrase contains a lot of linguistic data that is part of the English language. The only possible offensive word in there is "hipster", not the pronoun that was used. It is perfectly fine for someone, in their own speech or writing, to hypothetically generate the image of a male hipster with a ponytail getting caught in the valveless F attachment. No one should be offended by someone else assigning a gender to a concept or person that they fictionally created as an example. Like textbooks that arbitrarily assign "she" as the pronoun used in all examples, or confusingly alternate between the two. Gendered pronouns are inherent to my native language, and help you keep the story straight and help the listener visualize what you are communicating.

I see people ganging up on Bruce, but I have to at least defend this situation a bit here. It's a two way street:

1. Getting offended at someone for not using "they" in their own hypothetical story is unreasonable. A reasonable person who speaks English would not be offended by this.

2. Insisting on calling someone "he" after they ask you to call them "she" is unreasonable. Common courtesy.

3. Calling a human being "it" is highly offensive because that is used for inanimate objects and animals that tend to be assumed to be genderless units you know the animal. Saying "he" or "she" is built into the language as a more respectful term because it assigns a lot of useful data to what you're talking about. "Them" had been used for a long time as neutral gender, but honestly it's a distancing term. Reading literature, "they" always is a bigger wall between the reader and the subject than a gendered pronoun.

4. Calling someone's pet "it" after being corrected can be offensive because the owner expects you to increase the level of respect by using a pronoun. You're going to call your friend's male dog "he". Am I wrong? The gendered pronoun is much less offensive and highly appropriate, especially for an animal that has no concept of anything in this discussion. I call every cat I see "him" because I own male cats, and I want to feel close to an animal I like. I switch if I figure out the gender though.

Anyways, yeah. I think it's highly unreasonable to not allow someone to conceptualize a scenario and not assign a gender in their own story.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-04 11:26 p.m.

[quote="girltrombonist"]<QUOTE author="robcat2075" post_id="149589" time="1622473271" user_id="3697">
Looks clever!

But some hipster is going to get his ponytail caught in there and that will be the end of it.[/quote]

^female trombonists and nonbinary trombonists exist. I wasn't aware that the length of your hair excluded you from playing trombone.
</QUOTE>

See, here it is. This is an unreasonable response to someone's constructed story.

Assuming you know that the author only thinks trombonists are male and attacking that author is even more offensive, in the actual meaning of that word.

Offensive - for the purpose of attack rather than defense

Bach5G · by **Bach5G** » 2021-06-05 12:12 a.m.

Are all hipsters male?

olivegreenink · by **olivegreenink** » 2021-06-05 12:32 a.m.

Food for thought: Many (many, many) texts books use only “he” in all their examples. Why is using only “she” arbitrary? Perhaps “she” may seem noteworthy because “anything other than he” is a departure.

With regard to Bruce, I think there is a massive opportunity here to listen to the feedback. Ive been dumbstruck by your posts on two different threads in two days by what at best are unfathomably poor choices of words and topic associations. Twice by your own explanation terrible analogies/scenarios have been introduced that you say are unrelated yet you were the one who brought them into the very specific context/discussion. If this was an honest mistake, maybe reassess a bit. I’ve enjoyed your insights on countless other topics in my year on this board - you are often very funny and witty. But this week was not a good look.

I say from personal experience I didn’t realize how often I defaulted to calling my class “you guys” until a student pointed it out about 8 years ago. I listened and changed on account of knowing I’d offended just one person who spoke up and realizing in reality it was likely dozens more who didn’t raise the point.

Folks are straight up saying here there a super easy way to make some additional friends and neighbors feel more like part of the community. So let’s all do that :)

Cheers

harrisonreed · 2021-06-05 1:10 a.m.

Did you change "you guys" to "you people"? That sounds loads more friendly....

That's another one I don't understand. How many times have I been addressed as "you guys" by a female or sometime from the LGBTQ community? Lots and lots of times. But if you aren't in that community or aren't female and say it someone is taking offense.

To a reasonable, average English speaker, "You guys" is not an offensive term to address a group of people with. There is absolutely nothing charged or derogatory about it. If you change it to the friendly "hey gang!" , now you're calling someone a criminal.

There is at least one term inside the LGBTQ acronym that is offensive. An honest to god offensive term as far as I'm concerned, especially in MA spoken with a Boston accent. But somehow now that is an OK term to use (at least some people can use it) when you're talking about people. It's not fair for one group to dictate what is offensive or inoffensive to say in purely linguistic terms, especially when they flipflop and suddenly make an actual offensive term legitimate.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 1:16 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]

To a reasonable, average English speaker, "You guys" is not an offensive term to address a group of people with.
[/quote]

*to you

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 1:20 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149972" time="1622869852" user_id="3642">

To a reasonable, average English speaker, "You guys" is not an offensive term to address a group of people with.
[/quote]

*to you
</QUOTE>

No, I'd argue against you, having been called "you guys" by men, women, boys, girls, and people of all sorts of orientations. In my experience, interacting with thousands of people in my life around the planet, that form of address is 100% acceptable and has become built into the language as a standard form of address.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 1:30 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]

In my experience, interacting with thousands of people in my life around the planet, that form of address is 100% acceptable and has become built into the language as a standard form of address.[/quote]

:idk:

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 1:31 a.m.

[quote="girltrombonist"]<QUOTE author="robcat2075" post_id="149589" time="1622473271" user_id="3697">
Looks clever!

But some hipster is going to get his ponytail caught in there and that will be the end of it.[/quote]

^female trombonists and nonbinary trombonists exist. I wasn't aware that the length of your hair excluded you from playing trombone.
</QUOTE>

Ponytails aren't a defining characteristic of hipster-ism, so I'm confused already.

A more fitting comment might have been, "But some hipster is going to get his long, well-groomed and manicured beard or the collar of his flannel shirt caught in there and have to cut it out with the straight razor that he stropes every morning on an old leather strap from his grandpa so he can make it to the brick oven pizza restaurant on time before they close and throw away all the leftover artisanal bread that he collects each night and brings home in his leather satchel while riding on his brand-less dark gray cargo bike that somehow has 17 speeds."

But even then, I don't think hipsters are generally associated with playing trombone anyway, so the whole is just confusing... and actually offensive. A trombone-playing hipster with a ponytail?! Bruce, just try harder with the stereotypes please. Soccer players have ponytails. Hipsters have beards. Pirates have both. Get it right next time.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 1:38 a.m.

[quote="olivegreenink"]Food for thought: Many (many, many) texts books use only “he” in all their examples. Why is using only “she” arbitrary? Perhaps “she” may seem noteworthy because “anything other than he” is a departure.
[/quote]

Arbitrate- to make a judgment in an argument,

Arbitrary - subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:

Since we're talking about language here, and not actual offensive terms, you've answered the question yourself once you know the definition of the word arbitrary.

It's a known fact that most writing in English defaults to male gendered pronouns in technical writing. One must make a decision to use all female pronouns. Note that there is nothing wrong with an author choosing to do so.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 1:43 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149974" time="1622870408" user_id="3642">

In my experience, interacting with thousands of people in my life around the planet, that form of address is 100% acceptable and has become built into the language as a standard form of address.[/quote]

:idk:
</QUOTE>

Are we really at the point in our society where "you guys" is where we need everyone to conform and mend the "errors" of their ways? If so, looking at the news and the mass shootings, and horrible racially charged violence... If that is all fine and we're hung up on "hey you guys" because this is the month we should be concerned about that issue, this isn't the world I want to be in.

If I had a whole month celebrating me and how awesome and different I am, I'd give it up to stop mass shootings, racism, and domestic violence. Because at the end of the day that is way more important than my own ego.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 1:47 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]

Are we really at the point in our society where "you guys" is where we need everyone to conform and mend the "errors" of their ways? If so, looking at the news and the mass shootings, and horrible racially charged violence... If that is all fine and we're hung up on "hey you guys" because this is the month we should be concerned about that issue, this isn't the world I want to be in.

If I had a whole month celebrating me I'd give it up to stop mass shootings, racism, and violence against women.[/quote]

We're at the point where you can change a small thing in your speaking and writing to help a part of the population out. Just like how we don't use a whole number of ethnic slurs in normal speech that were acceptable recently.

Language changes, don't be afraid to change a bit with it.

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 1:48 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="149973" time="1622870165" user_id="3131">

*to you[/quote]

No, I'd argue against you, having been called "you guys" by men, women, boys, girls, and people of all sorts of orientations. In my experience, interacting with thousands of people in my life around the planet, that form of address is 100% acceptable and has become built into the language as a standard form of address.
</QUOTE>

I mean, I got no dog in this fight, but clearly you gotta knock that 100% back a little on account of some people here are telling you they don't like it.

Or you could just amend it and say 100% of "reasonable" people find it acceptable :biggrin:

I myself have taken to saying "y'alls". My friend from Kentucky says it, and I like the redundant pluralism. Previously, I would address groups of people as "you idiots," but those idiots didn't like it for some reason.

harrisonreed · 2021-06-05 1:52 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149978" time="1622871781" user_id="3642">

Are we really at the point in our society where "you guys" is where we need everyone to conform and mend the "errors" of their ways? If so, looking at the news and the mass shootings, and horrible racially charged violence... If that is all fine and we're hung up on "hey you guys" because this is the month we should be concerned about that issue, this isn't the world I want to be in.

If I had a whole month celebrating me I'd give it up to stop mass shootings, racism, and violence against women.[/quote]

We're at the point where you can change a small thing in your speaking and writing to help a part of the population out. Just like how we don't use a whole number of ethnic slurs in normal speech that were acceptable recently.

Language changes, don't be afraid to change a bit with it.
</QUOTE>

But ethnic slurs and horrible offensive terms are not built into the very grammar of our language. Gendered pronouns are. They have been since at least 550BC, as latin is a major component of English. It's an actual linguistic feature.

It's interesting that the concept of "gender" as someone's sexual identity and a term that means someone's biological sex is actually very recent. In the 1800s and earlier that word only referred to linguistic gender.

Are people upset in Spain than inanimate objects are assigned a linguistic gender? That'd be interesting to hear about.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 1:57 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]

But ethnic slurs are not built into the very grammar of our language. Gendered pronouns are. They have been since at least 550BC, as latin is a major component of English. It's an actual linguistic feature.

It's interesting that the concept of "gender" as someone's sexual identity and a term that means someone's biological sex is actually very recent. In the 1800s and earlier that word only referred to linguistic gender.[/quote]

Why does the time matter? Plenty of words have been created and dropped in the last century, and plenty have changed meanings entirely. Why choose this hill to fight on?

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 2:01 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149981" time="1622872336" user_id="3642">

But ethnic slurs are not built into the very grammar of our language. Gendered pronouns are. They have been since at least 550BC, as latin is a major component of English. It's an actual linguistic feature.

It's interesting that the concept of "gender" as someone's sexual identity and a term that means someone's biological sex is actually very recent. In the 1800s and earlier that word only referred to linguistic gender.[/quote]

Why does the time matter? Plenty of words have been created and dropped in the last century, and plenty have changed meanings entirely. Why choose this hill to fight on?
</QUOTE>

Well I'll bring up the Spanish argument. Are people in Spain upset that nouns for inanimate objects are assigned a linguistic gender?

Language is a hill with dying on, and having someone decide that other people are being offensive (when they are just saying "his hair might get caught in the trombone") is an attack on language, and communication. It's Newspeak.

I take very seriously any time someone starts telling people what they can or can't say. Especially if it truly is a reasonable, normal statement.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 2:05 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]

Well I'll bring up the Spanish argument. Are people in Spain upset that nouns for inanimate objects are assigned a linguistic gender?

Language is a hill with dying on, and having someone decide that other people are being offensive (when they are just saying "his hair might get caught in the trombone") is an attack on language, and communication. It's Newspeak.

I take very seriously any time someone starts telling people what they can or can't say. Especially if it truly is a reasonable, normal statement.[/quote]

You're not being forced to do this. Hopefully you're not getting this sentiment from the lobster king Jordan Peterson, it sounds very much in that vein.

It's just a nice thing to do.

You change your speech in uniform, I presume, or when you're in front of a mic, or with your parents... why is this any different?

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 2:08 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="149982" time="1622872654" user_id="3131">

Why does the time matter? Plenty of words have been created and dropped in the last century, and plenty have changed meanings entirely. Why choose this hill to fight on?[/quote]

Well I'll bring up the Spanish argument. Are people in Spain upset that nouns for inanimate objects are assigned a linguistic gender?

Language is a hill with dying on, and having someone decide that other people are being offensive (when they are just saying "his hair might get caught in the trombone") is an attack on language, and communication. It's Newspeak.

I take very seriously any time someone starts telling people what they can or can't say. Especially if it truly is a reasonable, normal statement.
</QUOTE>

In fact, it appears they are:

<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ttle-spain">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/19/gender-neutral-language-battle-spain</LINK_TEXT>

You can also see it with the rise of the term Latinx to be a gender-neutral reaction to Latina/Latino.

Whether or you not you agree with it, the answer is yes, Spanish-speakers are dealing with it too. Of course, their language has both syntactic gender and semantic gender to deal with, whereas English only has semantic gender, so it likely gets more complex for them in a way that's difficult for us non-Spanish speakers to understand.

You're in Japan. Haven't you noticed in recent years people saying 彼女ら to refer to a group of women whereas previously the plural for any combination of sexes in a group, including all female, was 彼ら？ We noticed this for the first time on Japanese TV the other day. My wife said she'd never heard it growing up in Japan, and I'd never heard it when I lived there back in the day.

A lot of languages are going through this change, and they all have to deal with it in their way.

harrisonreed · 2021-06-05 2:20 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]You're not being forced to do this. Hopefully you're not getting this sentiment from the lobster king Jordan Peterson, it sounds very much in that vein.

It's just a nice thing to do.

You change your speech in uniform, I presume, or when you're in front of a mic, or with your parents... why is this any different?[/quote]

I don't think I do, honestly. I use gendered and neutered pronouns as required by English. I say "yes Ma'am" to a female officer. I say "yes sir" to a male officer. If I'm talking about the order that just came from the female general, I say "her orders are". If I'm talking about a group of soldiers moving in the open I say "they are out in the open". If I want you to only arrest the female in a group I say "detain her". Precise, clear language.

This discussion stemmed from someone creating a story, and choosing to gender the person in that story. Someone took offense to that in an unreasonable way. It wasn't her (girltrombonist's) story to rewrite, though.

What change are you even talking about here? I'm not going to start changing all my hypotheticals to gender neutral, when I know exactly the gender of the hypothetical character in my own example as I say it. Why should I accommodate and blur out my message with imprecise pronouns when I might actually mean "I'm picturing a fat, bearded man with a ponytail getting his hair caught in this device as he uses it". It's a precise image. And I might be of the persuasion that no female trombonist would be dumb enough to get her hair caught in the trombone, so I want to make the image extra clear.

"I'm picturing a differently weighted humanoid with facial hair and a ponytail getting their hair caught in this device as they use it" is less precise, for no reason. It's not the story I wanted to tell.

In the same way I wouldn't take offense to a female author defaulting to "she" in hypotheticals. As a female, her experiences will be through a different perspective and she will project her own ego on the world. That's her voice. Taking offense to that would be taking away a very important linguistic feature that allows her to let you know she is picturing herself or someone like her in a hypothetical.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 2:30 a.m.

Oof.

I'd just examine why you think this is such a big deal to you.

I think you'd find most of the posters here have gone through the same thing- "why should I have to change??" and come to their own conclusions.

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 2:32 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="Burgerbob" post_id="149984" time="1622873153" user_id="3131">
You're not being forced to do this. Hopefully you're not getting this sentiment from the lobster king Jordan Peterson, it sounds very much in that vein.

It's just a nice thing to do.

You change your speech in uniform, I presume, or when you're in front of a mic, or with your parents... why is this any different?[/quote]

I don't think I do, honestly. I use gendered and neutered pronouns as required by English. I say "yes Ma'am" to a female officer. I say "yes sir" to a male officer. If I'm talking about the order that just came from the female general, I say "her orders are". If I'm talking about a group of soldiers moving in the open I say "they are out in the open". If I want you to only arrest the female in a group I say "detain her". Precise, clear language.

This discussion stemmed from someone creating a story, and choosing to gender the person in that story. Someone took offense to that in an unreasonable way. It wasn't her (girltrombonist's) story to rewrite, though.

What change are you even talking about here? I'm not going to start changing all my hypotheticals to gender neutral, when I know exactly the gender of the hypothetical character in my own example as I say it. Why should I accommodate and blur out my message with imprecise pronouns when I might actually mean "I'm picturing a fat, bearded man with a ponytail getting his hair caught in this device as he uses it". It's a precise image. And I might be of the persuasion that no female trombonist would be dumb enough to get her hair caught in the trombone, so I want to make the image extra clear.

"I'm picturing a differently weighted humanoid with facial hair and a ponytail getting their hair caught in this device as they use it" is less precise, for no reason. It's not the story I wanted to tell.

In the same way I wouldn't take offense to a female author defaulting to "she" in hypotheticals. As a female, her experiences will be through a different perspective and she will project her own ego on the world. That's her voice.
</QUOTE>

Keep editing your post. I enjoy seeing the evolution of this oddly-shaped creature as you modify it.

harrisonreed · 2021-06-05 2:34 a.m.

I'm only adding to it, not taking away. Please let me know what's offensive though. I haven't heard of this new concept

It's been acceptable for a speaker to gender their hypothetical story/examples for the entire history of the English language

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 2:34 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]Oof.

I'd just examine why you think this is such a big deal to you.

I think you'd find most of the posters here have gone through the same thing- "why should I have to change??" and come to their own conclusions.[/quote]

I think he's examined pretty well why he thinks it's such a big deal and explained it well. If you don't agree with it, that's one thing, but he appears to have given it some thought.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 2:36 a.m.

[quote="quiethorn"]

I think he's examined pretty well why he thinks it's such a big deal and explained it well. If you don't agree with it, that's one thing, but he appears to have given it some thought.[/quote]

I guess you're right. :idk:

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 2:36 a.m.

Yeah sorry about the edits, I promise I was only fixing spelling or adding extra lines to the end as I thought of them. Very active topic right now

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 2:39 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]I'm only adding to it, not taking away. Please let me know what's offensive though. I haven't heard of this new concept[/quote]

I didn't say it's offensive. It went from being a fat guy to a "differently weighted humanoid," which is funnier. I said keep going 'cause I wanted to see more of the funny.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 2:40 a.m.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what the "oof" was in that post I wrote. I remember the "oof" when the guy was defending racism last year. If something I wrote is the same thing, I gotta know what it is.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 2:47 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]I'd be genuinely interested to know what the "oof" was in that post I wrote. I remember the "oof" when the guy was defending racism last year. If something I wrote is the same thing, I gotta know what it is.[/quote]

To me, it seems like you're having a real emotional, personal response to this topic. You're coming at it from a place of reason (even if I don't agree with those reasons). But I think you need to examine why you feel the need to do that. Like I said, I've done the same thing.

This happens pretty often. Progressive movement seem like they are attacking something (white culture, men, language, what have you) and it's easy to take that personally. That's been me several times, as a white boy from Wyoming.

My purpose here is always to try and let the other person discover those changes themselves.

I could be reading too much into this and you are just super duper into defending the lexicon, but that's my read.

harrisonreed · 2021-06-05 2:53 a.m.

I love language though. It's powerful. I studied linguistics and Japanese in college. I'm imagining a gender neutral Romeo and Juliet. I don't like it.

To take away the precise image that an author wants to protray, and chip away at something that is not offensive (sorry, "I'm imagining a (guy) with a ponytail getting his hair caught in it" is not offensive) to try and change a language -- that is horrifying to me.

Also the premise - "how dare you not imagine it was a female trombonist" is scary. It really is. If only because there is nothing funny about a girl getting her hair caught in a valve, but something intrinsically hilarious about a hipster dude getting his hair caught in it.

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 2:53 a.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149995" time="1622875244" user_id="3642">
I'd be genuinely interested to know what the "oof" was in that post I wrote. I remember the "oof" when the guy was defending racism last year. If something I wrote is the same thing, I gotta know what it is.[/quote]

To me, it seems like you're having a real emotional, personal response to this topic. You're coming at it from a place of reason (even if I don't agree with those reasons). But I think you need to examine why you feel the need to do that. Like I said, I've done the same thing.

This happens pretty often. Progressive movement seem like they are attacking something (white culture, men, language, what have you) and it's easy to take that personally. That's been me several times, as a white boy from Wyoming.

My purpose here is always to try and let the other person discover those changes themselves.

I could be reading too much into this and you are just super duper into defending the lexicon, but that's my read.
</QUOTE>

Yeesh.... don't let the progressives hear you calling yourself a "boy." You're a white man from Wyoming.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 2:56 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]I love language though. It's powerful. I studied linguistics and Japanese in college. I'm imagining a gender neutral Romeo and Juliet. I don't like it.

[/quote]

Well, that's just it... that's not what's happening. This is a typical slippery slope argument. Romeo or Juliet aren't real people that are asking to be called their preferred pronouns.

You're right, language is powerful, and when you use it the way you think is right even though it makes someone else's life worse, that's using that power in perhaps the wrong way.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-05 3:03 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"][

If I had a whole month celebrating me and how awesome and different I am, I'd give it up to stop mass shootings, racism, and domestic violence. Because at the end of the day that is way more important than my own ego.[/quote]

there's a lot in this thread that I'm not going to deal with but this is one I wanna address. has pride been co-oped into a giant party by white gay men and corporations? absolutely. but that's not what pride is about. it's about Stonewall. Queer people, and especially queer Black people were being horribly abusedvin ways that both humiliated and opened them up to extreme violence by outing them by the police in new York and the Stonewall Riot is when they fought back. The first brick was throw by a Black drag queen and it was a huge touch point that started the push for LGBTQ rights. The Blackness and Queerness of those who fought for those rights has been consciously erased by white gay men to create a more "acceptable" gay person to the main stream, there's a ton there to unpack that's kinda out of the scope of this, but suffice to say Pride month came out of celebraating that initial event and, unfortunately, commemorating them as most died young. The average life expectancy for a Black trans person in America is less than 30. You think they wouldn't happily give up Pride to solve the issues that you brought up? They're much much much more likely to be the victims in these cases than the white men debating all this. It's not about the ego of queer people, it's literally about survival and equal rights. And that's been co-oped, which sucks, but don't then throw all these other issues on people who are already getting shit on.

There are bathroom bills and all sorts of other awful and discriminatory laws being passed right now against queer people. My old roommate is trans, people used to follow her home from work most every week, our neighbor would stand outside our door and make violent, vieled threats about her all the time, she was fired from her job for being trans (which is perfectly legal). Pride month doesn't celebrate those struggles or the very very real dangers that exist, so please don't use it as a way to degrade a bunch of people and their "egos" cause most of them would happily trade it to solve those issues. Also like....we don't have to trade solving one issue for another...it's not a zero sum game.

Like all this verbage stuff sounds academic sometimes and it's easy for a bunch of men to debate whether or not it's ok and how far back pronouns go in our language, but that's missing the fundamental point. People get actively discriminated against, attacked, r*ped, and murdered everyday for being queer and these things are generally ignored and sometimes even legal. The least, and I mean the very very least, we can do is speak and write in ways that makes space that's a bit more inclusive in an exhausting fucking world rather than adding one more stress and grating experience to the day. It seems small but trust me from personal experience when I saw it makes a huge difference to my feelings of safety (and I exist in the world with a crazy amount of privilege). But like words have a lot of power, so try and consider why they might matter to people who are less safe than oneself and the massive privledge allowed in debating them.

anyway.... that was a lot... I'm going to go back to playing animal crossing with my partner.

also... as a person. who is probably a hipster.... the trombone and hipster connection is hilarious. I don't know why it exists, but that nytimes thing was funny as shit.

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 3:04 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]I love language though. It's powerful. I studied linguistics and Japanese in college. I'm imagining a gender neutral Romeo and Juliet. I don't like it.

To take away the precise image that an author wants to protray, and chip away at something that is not offensive (sorry, "I'm imagining a (guy) with a ponytail getting his hair caught in it" is not offensive) to try and change a language -- that is horrifying to me.

Also the premise - "how dare you not imagine it was a female trombonist" is scary. It really is. If only because there is nothing funny about a girl getting her hair caught in a valve, but something intrinsically hilarious about a hipster dude getting his hair caught in it.[/quote]

Man... with all the mass shootings and racially charged violence, you're worrying about Romex and Juliex?

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 3:07 a.m.

[quote="mbarbier"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149978" time="1622871781" user_id="3642">
[

If I had a whole month celebrating me and how awesome and different I am, I'd give it up to stop mass shootings, racism, and domestic violence. Because at the end of the day that is way more important than my own ego.[/quote]

there's a lot in this thread that I'm not going to deal with but this is one I wanna address. has pride been co-oped into a giant party by white gay men and corporations? absolutely. but that's not what pride is about. it's about Stonewall. Queer people, and especially queer Black people were being horribly abusedvin ways that both humiliated and opened them up to extreme violence by outing them by the police in new York and the Stonewall Riot is when they fought back. The first brick was throw by a Black drag queen and it was a huge touch point that started the push for LGBTQ rights. The Blackness and Queerness of those who fought for those rights has been consciously erased by white gay men to create a more "acceptable" gay person to the main stream, there's a ton there to unpack that's kinda out of the scope of this, but suffice to say Pride month came out of celebraating that initial event and, unfortunately, commemorating them as most died young. The average life expectancy for a Black trans person in America is less than 30. You think they wouldn't happily give up Pride to solve the issues that you brought up? They're much much much more likely to be the victims in these cases than the white men debating all this. It's not about the ego of queer people, it's literally about survival and equal rights. And that's been co-oped, which sucks, but don't then throw all these other issues on people who are already getting shit on.

There are bathroom bills and all sorts of other awful and discriminatory laws being passed right now against queer people. My old roommate is trans, people used to follow her home from work most every week, our neighbor would stand outside our door and make violent, vieled threats about her all the time, she was fired from her job for being trans (which is perfectly legal). Pride month doesn't celebrate those struggles or the very very real dangers that exist, so please don't use it as a way to degrade a bunch of people and their "egos" cause most of them would happily trade it to solve those issues. Also like....we don't have to trade solving one issue for another...it's not a zero sum game.

Like all this verbage stuff sounds academic sometimes and it's easy for a bunch of men to debate whether or not it's ok and how far back pronouns go in our language, but that's missing the fundamental point. People get actively discriminated against, attacked, r*ped, and murdered everyday for being queer and these things are generally ignored and sometimes even legal. The least, and I mean the very very least, we can do is speak and write in ways that makes space that's a bit more inclusive in an exhausting fucking world rather than adding one more stress and grating experience to the day. It seems small but trust me from personal experience when I saw it makes a huge difference to my feelings of safety (and I exist in the world with a crazy amount of privilege). But like words have a lot of power, so try and consider why they might matter to people who are less safe than oneself and the massive privledge allowed in debating them.

anyway.... that was a lot... I'm going to go back to playing animal crossing with my partner.

also... as a person. who is probably a hipster.... the trombone and hipster connection is hilarious. I don't know why it exists, but that nytimes thing was funny as shit.
</QUOTE>

They did Stonewall on Drunk History.

<YOUTUBE id="nLEOK_i5X00">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLEOK_i5X00</YOUTUBE>

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-05 3:26 a.m.

[quote="quiethorn"][

They did Stonewall on Drunk History.

<YOUTUBE id="nLEOK_i5X00">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLEOK_i5X00</YOUTUBE>[/quote]

it's a really really good place to start learning about Stonewall- thank you so much for including it!

Also the YouTube channel Contrapoints has a lot of great videos about a lot of things being discussed here that are super informative, incredibly well made, and also super fucking funny.

~~[url]~~https://youtube.com/c/ContraPoints

quiethorn · by **quiethorn** » 2021-06-05 3:40 a.m.

[quote="mbarbier"]<QUOTE author="quiethorn" post_id="150002" time="1622876834" user_id="177">
[

They did Stonewall on Drunk History.

<YOUTUBE id="nLEOK_i5X00">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLEOK_i5X00</YOUTUBE>[/quote]

it's a really really good place to start learning about Stonewall- thank you so much for including it!

Also the YouTube channel Contrapoints has a lot of great videos about a lot of things being discussed here that are super informative, incredibly well made, and also super fucking funny.

~~[url]~~https://youtube.com/c/ContraPoints
</QUOTE>

Started watching ContraPoints and they're good so far but sweet Jesus these are long. I don't have time for this in my life.

I gotta go. I'm watching all the Harry Potters tonight. Man that J.K. Rowling is something. Is she on social media? I bet she has some fascinating tidbits about the films that her fans just eat up on Twitter and stuff.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-05 3:47 a.m.

[quote="quiethorn"]

Started watching ContraPoints and they're good so far but sweet Jesus these are long. I don't have time for this in my life.

I gotta go. I'm watching all the Harry Potters tonight. Man that J.K. Rowling is something. Is she on social media? I bet she has some fascinating tidbits about the films that her fans just eat up on Twitter and stuff.[/quote]

hahah yes, the news especially are getting longer and longer. some of the older ones, like the ones on pronouns and men aren't quite so heavy timewise.

the JK one is... intense. I won't go into the twitter stuff, but she's sadly got some... complicated views on gender (that the contra video is about)

SimmonsTrombone · by **SimmonsTrombone** » 2021-06-05 6:19 a.m.

I’m beginning to think I’ll refer to everything as “it” and be done with it. That’s probably offensive, too.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 8:03 a.m.

[quote="mbarbier"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149978" time="1622871781" user_id="3642">
[

If I had a whole month celebrating me and how awesome and different I am, I'd give it up to stop mass shootings, racism, and domestic violence. Because at the end of the day that is way more important than my own ego.[/quote]

You think they wouldn't happily give up Pride to solve the issues that you brought up? They're much much much more likely to be the victims in these cases than the white men debating all this. It's not about the ego of queer people, it's literally about survival and equal rights. And that's been co-oped, which sucks, but don't then throw all these other issues on people who are already getting shit on.
</QUOTE>

Well we can add those real issues to the pot! None of what you posted in your excellent post that I'm quoting was even remotely similar to the issue brought up in this thread, which is a forum member attacking robcat for not using a gender neutral example in his story, but imagining a male trombonist getting his hair caught in the rotorless valve.

How can you compare the two, is right! Real issues, and non-issues. People getting treated as subhuman and discarded by society and potentially dying early because of it is a real issue. Let's solve that as humanity.

I feel, unequivocally, that it is extremely hostile to take your own ego issues (how dare someone assign a gender to a person in their own made up story when I'm not that gender) and project them on completely harmless statements. It's terrifying if that is acceptable to go unchecked. Imagine if the reverse happened.

Taking offense to something that is truly not offensive is a personal, ego-based, problem. I would never take the same stance on someone else's words or writing, where they choose some other gender in a hypothetical story to express their own thoughts about a subject. That is their voice. If someone took offense to a female writer choosing to use the pronoun "she" in their textbook, that would be sexist. The same must be true for offense taken against a male choosing so to the same. It's how we view our world, and it's interesting, not offensive.

Kdanielsen · by **Kdanielsen** » 2021-06-05 8:16 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]I love language though. It's powerful.[/quote]

It is powerful, and that’s why we should choose our words to empower a group (LGBTQ+) that has been the victim of horrendous violence throughout much of history. Yes, some cultures have been more accepting, but for the most part throughout history being LGBTQ+ was something you had to hide or you would be ostracized, beaten, or murdered. It’s still happening today all over the world.

No one is asking you to stop using he/she when that’s the correct pronoun. Just use they when it’s ambiguous. It’s not hard. It’s kind.

Assuming the language is pure and doesn’t contain inherent bias in favor of men is naive and shows privilege. Using they is a small way to start to unravel that.

“We’ve done it this way for hundreds of years” is the same. We did slavery for a long time too. Using that argument is privilege. If you are a straight white male the past was good to you, therefore it seems good to continue it and grant authority to it. If you aren’t a straight white male you had a very different experience.

What’s more important to you: defending linguistic habits steeped in sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, or being inclusive and trying to deal with your own inherent bias?

The language changes constantly. So can you. It IS powerful.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 8:18 a.m.

[quote="quiethorn"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149983" time="1622872907" user_id="3642">

Well I'll bring up the Spanish argument. Are people in Spain upset that nouns for inanimate objects are assigned a linguistic gender?

Language is a hill with dying on, and having someone decide that other people are being offensive (when they are just saying "his hair might get caught in the trombone") is an attack on language, and communication. It's Newspeak.

I take very seriously any time someone starts telling people what they can or can't say. Especially if it truly is a reasonable, normal statement.[/quote]

You're in Japan. Haven't you noticed in recent years people saying 彼女ら to refer to a group of women whereas previously the plural for any combination of sexes in a group, including all female, was 彼ら？ We noticed this for the first time on Japanese TV the other day. My wife said she'd never heard it growing up in Japan, and I'd never heard it when I lived there back in the day.

</QUOTE>

I haven't heard 彼女ら but I have heard あの子達　

(あの娘達) used to refer to a group of women, which is borderline as it is. That term not only genders the group but assigns a childlike characteristic to them as well. Sort of like saying "those babies". I must admit as an English speaker, and someone who knows that Japanese prefers to use ungendered pronouns in polite speech (あの方 or あの人 being completely acceptable), あの娘達 is jarring.

彼 is weird because it doesn't really have gender assigned to it, grammatically. It really does mean "that person". Otherwise 彼女 which DOES have a gender would translate as He-She, which it doesn't.

So the shift your describe is Japan actually moving AWAY from a gender neutral term (which defaults to male) to gender specific terms. The opposite of the change you describe.

harrisonreed · 2021-06-05 8:20 a.m.

[quote="Kdanielsen"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149997" time="1622875995" user_id="3642">
I love language though. It's powerful.[/quote]

It is powerful, and that’s why we should choose our words to empower a group (LGBTQ+) that has been the victim of horrendous violence throughout much of history. Yes, some cultures have been more accepting, but for the most part throughout history being LGBTQ+ was something you had to hide or you would be ostracized, beaten, or murdered. It’s still happening today all over the world.

No one is asking you to stop using he/she when that’s the correct pronoun. Just use they when it’s ambiguous. It’s not hard. It’s kind.

</QUOTE>

But they were asking robcat to change his pronoun when it wasn't ambiguous. He had a very vivid image he wanted to express. You can't twist my words away from this really simple point I'm trying to make.

People are taking offense to something that is really not offensive, unless you're not allowed to imagine a scene and describe it using accurate gendered pronouns anymore.

Kdanielsen · by **Kdanielsen** » 2021-06-05 8:22 a.m.

[quote="SimmonsTrombone"]I’m beginning to think I’ll refer to everything as “it” and be done with it. That’s probably offensive, too.[/quote]

Yes it is. It is for inanimate objects, not people.

Kdanielsen · by **Kdanielsen** » 2021-06-05 8:38 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="Kdanielsen" post_id="150012" time="1622895403" user_id="7231">

It is powerful, and that’s why we should choose our words to empower a group (LGBTQ+) that has been the victim of horrendous violence throughout much of history. Yes, some cultures have been more accepting, but for the most part throughout history being LGBTQ+ was something you had to hide or you would be ostracized, beaten, or murdered. It’s still happening today all over the world.

No one is asking you to stop using he/she when that’s the correct pronoun. Just use they when it’s ambiguous. It’s not hard. It’s kind.
[/quote]

But they were asking robcat to change his pronoun when it wasn't ambiguous. He had a very vivid image he wanted to express. You can't twist my words away from this really simple point I'm trying to make.

People are taking offense to something that is really not offensive, unless you're not allowed to imagine a scene and describe it using accurate gendered pronouns anymore.
</QUOTE>

Of course he can create that specific imagery. Did he use he on purpose or as a habit? I don’t know. That’s lawyer ball.

It’s a bigger point than that. The real problem is people attacking the use of they as an ambiguous pronoun that can be singular vs. continuing to use the masculine all the time. That’s the problem. That’s the destructive habit. I’m getting sick of this phrase, but why die on this hill? It’s a shitty, oppressive, biased, privileged hill.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 8:43 a.m.

[quote="Kdanielsen"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="150014" time="1622895642" user_id="3642">

But they were asking robcat to change his pronoun when it wasn't ambiguous. He had a very vivid image he wanted to express. You can't twist my words away from this really simple point I'm trying to make.

People are taking offense to something that is really not offensive, unless you're not allowed to imagine a scene and describe it using accurate gendered pronouns anymore.[/quote]

Of course he can create that specific imagery. Did he use he on purpose or as a habit? I don’t know. That’s lawyer ball.
</QUOTE>

Okay, so it is wrong to attack him for it then; the source of this woeful thread. Thanks.

~~[Quote]~~
why die on this hill? It’s a shitty, oppressive, biased, privileged hill.

See above. A 100% contradiction. Doctor, my head.

I am for social justice. My own language needs social justice and saving, it seems.

Kdanielsen · by **Kdanielsen** » 2021-06-05 8:48 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="Kdanielsen" post_id="150019" time="1622896719" user_id="7231">

Of course he can create that specific imagery. Did he use he on purpose or as a habit? I don’t know. That’s lawyer ball.
[/quote]

Okay, so it is wrong to attack him for it then; the source of this woeful thread. Thanks.

~~[Quote]~~
why die on this hill? It’s a shitty, oppressive, biased, privileged hill.

See above. A 100% contradiction. Doctor, my head.

I am for social justice. My own language needs social justice and saving, it seems.
</QUOTE>

You’re going to keep hearing this, and hopefully someday it clicks. It’s not newspeak. Good luck.

“Your” language doesn’t need social justice, oppressed people do.

I’m out.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 8:56 a.m.

[quote="Kdanielsen"]

You’re going to keep hearing this, and hopefully someday it clicks. It’s not newspeak. Good luck.

“Your” language doesn’t need social justice, oppressed people do.

I’m out.[/quote]

Literally no one was oppressed by what Robcat wrote, though. Somehow what he wrote was twisted into an attack on people he didn't even mention. At least it should be an attack on hipsters. It's cool to look out into the big picture but I'm trying to keep it very simple and focus on what the original offending post was, and the response.

It's unfair, a poor assessment, egotistical, and shocking. So far I haven't seen a real argument against that, just stories about real social injustice that are completely unrelated to a hypothetical story about a hipster getting his ponytail caught in a trombone.

Kdanielsen · by **Kdanielsen** » 2021-06-05 9:15 a.m.

To pretend this discussion is ONLY about that one original post is preposterous.

Lawyer ball.

I’m done, and i mean it this time.

mbarbier · 2021-06-05 9:27 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"][

Well we can add those real issues to the pot! None of what you posted in your excellent post that I'm quoting was even remotely similar to the issue brought up in this thread, which is a forum member attacking robcat for not using a gender neutral example in his story, but imagining a male trombonist getting his hair caught in the rotorless valve.

How can you compare the two, is right! Real issues, and non-issues. People getting treated as subhuman and discarded by society and potentially dying early because of it is a real issue. Let's solve that as humanity.

I feel, unequivocally, that it is extremely hostile to take your own ego issues (how dare someone assign a gender to a person in their own made up story when I'm not that gender) and project them on completely harmless statements. It's terrifying if that is acceptable to go unchecked. Imagine if the reverse happened.

Taking offense to something that is truly not offensive is a personal, ego-based, problem. I would never take the same stance on someone else's words or writing, where they choose some other gender in a hypothetical story to express their own thoughts about a subject. That is their voice. If someone took offense to a female writer choosing to use the pronoun "she" in their textbook, that would be sexist. The same must be true for offense taken against a male choosing so to the same. It's how we view our world, and it's interesting, not offensive.[/quote]

I think you're kinda of missing small but kind of important part of this though. It's not about that initial post (tbh I didn't read the original thread and don't care about it cause it's not about that thread), it's not about one single use of he vs she or they. It's about the constant, presumptive assumption of a default to he vs the anything else and the way those issues exist on a spectrum. What I mean by that is that that always assumption of he, let's take with trombone for example, does two things. For everyone just subtly reinforces that men play trombone and non men don't, it's really really really far on one end of the spectrum and does, for all intense and purposes, seem harmless. However that small subtle thing exists on the same spectrum as some much much bigger issues with sexism in the brass community. A spectrum that eventually leads to people using their gendered power in a situation like Massimo La Rosa did. I know that that sounds insane and I'm not saying that just using he makes you a racist or anything like that, but when the predominant cultural assumption is that the gender of what you do is different that your own, the constant drip of it overtime becomes two things. 1. it's just exhausting to hear an assumption that this isn't for you in a way that's so small that a thread this big will go just because someone pointed out that is doesn't ALWAYS have to be he, with the only people not being the point being "he's" who have no reason to notice it or ever feel unwelcome. 2. Small things like that and the reactions to them being brought up, overtime, become a tell as to who is safe in the community and who is not inways that white men, who are basically always safe in the community don't notice.

I know it seems like this subtle and nitpicky thing, but that's because it's a subtle and nitpicking thing that doesn't effect you so you have no reason to ever notice or be bothered by it. BUT making that small, yet supportive shift in language when you don't have to makes a huge difference when it comes to, you've deemed it "real" issues. "Real" issues don't exist in a vacuum. They grow ever so slowly out of small issues. Tiny small issues of making people feel unnoticeably unwelcome, overtime, really affect big issues and when big issues happen you start to notice the little ones afterwards cause they tell you who pays attention and who gives a shit. Cause of course you view this as "taking offense to something that is truly not offensive" because if you're a cis male you've literally never been truly unwelcome in a trombone related space and most likely in any other, so you're not in a position to deem something like this offensive. Not cause you don't have the right, but because you have no experience in the matter. It's like telling a Black person what's racist as a white person. I have zero experience being Black, whereas the the Black person. has experienced that racism their entire life, so when they say something it's time to listen, not gatekeep what is or isn't offensive.

If you take the time to make subtle changes when there's no reason for you to, that has a huge effect on how welcome people feel in spaces, but it also says to the people that this effects that you're an engaged human and, if the chips are ever down, you're a safe person to turn to. I've learned from personal issues that I'm not going to get into related to sexual harassment, that you start to notice after.

In a lot of ways the pronoun thing is like the trope of misgendering someone and they "yell" at you for it. It's not cause of the once, it's because of the constant drip of it happening everyday and then getting misgendered by another person who just isn't paying attention because none of it effects them. I know this thread seems out of proportion, but just sit with how it would feel if you weren't a man and literally everything in your job/community is male and just trying to draw attention to it brings up this thread (and the one from the other day) where people are coming out of the woodwork to bring associate you with it's and geldings and sexual predators. It reinforces that subtle message very very clearly because the debate seems comically academic to men because it's like trying to explain water to fish, whereas it's not academic to the people who is very subtly erodes their feeling of being a part of the community (if they were lucky enough to ever feel that way given how much they were told it's a boy instrument when they go started). These things genuinely aren't academic and exist on the same spectrum of a serious forms of discrimination and violence, or "real issues."

If you want a specific, first hand example, I teach a lot of younger kids. Im a privy who keeps their gender to themselves. When parents find out I'm non binary either they're cool about it or the lessons suddenly stop for some "reason". I regularly lose students not cause of behavior but because of words in my email signature/zoom profile. Not defaulting to he all the time normalizing having different pronouns, it makes them less unfamiliar, and it makes that kind of backdoor firing over "words" happen at a lot less.

re the sexism of taking issue with someone using "she" instead of he and all that, that's the same basic category as reverse racism, like he and she and they aren't on equal footing so, while saying it would be sexist would be true in an ideal world, it's not in ours. Only using he in a writing is a presumptive norm of a patriarchal system and so using it reinforces that. Frustratingly, using she or they instead is a radical departure that is taken as a statement rather than just a use of language. They aren't equivalent because there's different weights behind them- language isn't a vacuum. Also, once again, it's not academic. When I wrote my book I just freely switched between he and she and they. No big deal, just a small preference that I was considerate about how I used it to make sure it always read smoothly and didn't effect the readability. I've had dudes write me and be super fucking angry that I brought that "snowflake shit" into a technical book. I know other people who've had that same issue. none of the complaints have come from anyone other than white cis men. it's all an academic language debate until you depart from it and people take e a big issue with you doing you, cause you doing you applies to men and their comfort and stops when it runs into that.

Speaking of existing in a world that jsut assumed you're comfortable and you being welcome at all times...@SimmonsTrombone....wtf? REALLY? after everything in this thread you bust in with that? Lemme guess....you didn't read the thread, you saw someone was "offended", and decided you to bust right in with a term that's very regularly used as a precursor to dehumanizing violence. Way to go. <EMOJI seq="1f926-1f3fb-2640" tseq="1f926-1f3fb-200d-2640-fe0f">🤦🏻‍♀️</EMOJI> you sound like the student I had this semester who never once brought his book or did the assignment but felt the need to dominate every disçussion. Like maybe read the thread before just busting in with a term that not only people take offense to, but is intentionally used as a dehumanizing term towards a group that suffers a ton of violence. Way to go.

olivegreenink · by **olivegreenink** » 2021-06-05 9:29 a.m.

What I see is several folks are explaining how making a small change with help other folks feel more part of the team. In some cases this is much more severe and the consequences are more about dignity, feeling humanized, and being safer. All these little things like not defaulting to male are drops in the sea of change.

In light of knowing that history has defaulted to male in English, yet around half the worlds population in the history of time does not identify as male, i feel like it would be clear to most folks why that might have gotten grating…especially in light of the length of time it’s been happening. I just am not sure why the response to “this is an issue with impacts for a lot people” is “I’ve never seen it in my whole life so it’s not an issue - y’all must not be reasonable people.” That’s like someone saying “I love Asparagus” and my responding “that’s not possible, I don’t like asparagus and I’ve never met anyone who does.”

So, yes, we are at a point that enough awareness has been made that we know calling a group of folks with different genders or unknown genders “guys” isn’t the best thing to do. If you are taking to a group of friend who you all know are make, there is nothing wrong with calling them guys. They are guys.

If you’re on the fence about “hey guys” not having meaning, next time you are in a group, just say “hey gals” instead and note the reaction.

As said above so much of this is not a zero sum game. You don’t have a maximum number slots in our minds for new words or number of new ideas or things to change to be a better neighbor.

(MattK as a dyslexic who also is terrible with names myself [to the point it’s kind of a reputation that precedes me], I didn’t want to just gloss over what you said. I recognize this can in fact be very difficult :) )

100% never ok to call people it.

Totally fine to call Romeo “he”

Also fine to call Romeo they, even knowing Romeo’s gender. And if you meet someone in person named Romeo it’s still a good idea to not assume they are male.

To answer the question I address my classes as “everyone” “everybody” “class” and “y’all” most of the time.

I know that above there was an attempt to be absurd to prove a point about calling a class “hey gang” could be offensive because you’d be calling them criminals. Well, probably not the case. However, if I said “hey gang” and I learned that bothered one of my students it’s so easy for me to just use any of the other billion words available to us instead of saying I should be able to say what I want. Of course, we can all say whatever we want! It just depends on whether you’re cool with knowingly saying something that bothers someone else.

Real-world example is that at work (teaching is my side gig, I work at a tech firm by day) - I have worked hard to create a culture on my team that is respectful and collaborative and feels like family. I’ve been doing and saying that for going on 20 years. But one of my employees let me know they really don’t like the word family in a work setting. I didn’t understand it - honestly still don’t fully get it. But I listened. I talked it through with her with open ears and together we figured out some slightly modified ways of phrasing it that resonate with her. It took a lot of mental effort to change this oft-repeated slogan of mine. But its now part of my routine to use other phrases. Again, did I have to do that? No. But I have at least an average sized vocabulary and I cannot imagine for myself not wanting to find a solution. She feels heard and valued and we came out the other side a bit more bonded.

This is a discussion. It’s ok that we have wound up discussing things beyond the ponytail comment. Clearly some other meaningful topics have come to light.

Plus - and this is important - this may have come up in June. These conditions exist in all 12 months. People are people in all 12 months. This feedback is not something to be thought about in only June in the US. We can totally work on improving multiple things at once. Great news is we arent limited to just one thing per month and/or only given the narrow window of one month a year to solve (as as been pointed out) things that date back 100s/1000s/infinity years.

Cheers

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 9:48 a.m.

[quote="mbarbier"]I think you're kinda of missing small but kind of important part of this though. It's not about that initial post (tbh I didn't read the original thread and don't care about it cause it's not about that thread), it's not about one single use of he vs she or they. It's about the constant, presumptive assumption of a default to he vs the anything else and the way those issues exist on a spectrum.[/quote]

Not quoting everything you wrote, because it was long, but it's a great post. I think I personally already do use gender neutral terms most of the time in this forum, when talking about non-descript examples of people. I might go back and look to confirm that. I agree that doing so might make the place more welcoming.

Anyone who has been around the forum knows I love to play devil's advocate. I will never side with a viewpoint that I believe it's morally wrong, but if you read the first post and the response again, I don't think my devil's advocate here is unreasonable. I swear the only point I argued was in regards to the initial first post, someone stating a fact about what they imagined.

Your post, at least, was the first that directly answered my playing devil's advocate, and I'll take a look at changing up my pronouns in what I write here. It will be interesting to see what I actually use here, so I'll look back through now.

olivegreenink · by **olivegreenink** » 2021-06-05 9:56 a.m.

Realized I was still looking at page 1 lol. We’ve moved past my comment :)

Thanks all

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 10:19 a.m.

I'll add that I can actually resonate with the constant drip of implied language that doesn't apply to me. Not on the same level as an assumed gender, but dealing with interests that I'm automatically assumed to have because I'm male. It can be draining at times.

Gears are turning here, in my head. Lots to think about.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-06-05 10:51 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]

Not quoting everything you wrote, because it was long, but it's a great post. I think I personally already do use gender neutral terms most of the time in this forum, when talking about non-descript examples of people. I might go back and look to confirm that. I agree that doing so might make the place more welcoming.

Anyone who has been around the forum knows I love to play devil's advocate. I will never side with a viewpoint that I believe it's morally wrong, but if you read the first post and the response again, I don't think my devil's advocate here is unreasonable. I swear the only point I argued was in regards to the initial first post, someone stating a fact about what they imagined.

Your post, at least, was the first that directly answered my playing devil's advocate, and I'll take a look at changing up my pronouns in what I write here. It will be interesting to see what I actually use here, so I'll look back through now.[/quote]

<EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>I kinda write a freaking novel- thank you for reading it! I genuinely appreciate the good faith engagement and honesty you bring to the conversations in on the forum. I think a big part of the difficulty with these kind of conversations on a forum is that it gets so easy to just get caught up in the linguistics (which I really love to do in a lot of areas) when issues are being discussed that feel based in linguistics because there real world parts of them don't relate/effect the everyday life of most of the people having it. and so its so easy to get removed from the real life part of it.

And I think a big thing is that the thing isn't about having totally equal language or such,but just small ways that show people they're being considered. So like 80/20 or even 90/10 male/female pronouns can mean a lot cause it shows an effort and that's what most people want cause it gives everything a place to start to grow, ya know?

Also totally about that slow drip and maleness. Like maleness can be really limiting and it's exhausting when you just wanna live your life and there's resistance to just like doing your thing.I feel like that's a thing that gets left out much too much in discussions about feminism and the patriarchy- it benefits men, but it also really limits them too.

I can imagine it has a lot of overlap with how it's gotta feel as an American in Japan. I went and stayed with one of my sisters for a while when she was stationed there. It was super eye opening about who a lot of spaces and practices are for (and how they're not for you). Not that anyone was anything less than really kind, welcoming, and totally lovely and I really look forward to returning, but it was one of this first times I really experienced being in a place that I realized didn't exist for my cultural perspective, if that makes sense? It was only like a month, but I can imagine being there for a few years really tunes ones umbrella towards those things. That might be a huge assumption on my end, but it was a pretty eye opening experience when I went.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 11:15 a.m.

You're right. Non Japanese people trying to infiltrate into Japanese culture is a futile effort. I respect why that is the case. If you become a part of it, you're no longer outside of it, appreciating it for what it is, and it is no longer what it is

boneberg · by **boneberg** » 2021-06-05 11:20 a.m.

This thread is yet another example of someone coming out of nowhere, throwing in a comment and disappearing. The OP surely had no intention of seeing things head in this direction.

olivegreenink · by **olivegreenink** » 2021-06-05 11:29 a.m.

[quote="boneberg"]This thread is yet another example of someone coming out of nowhere, throwing in a comment and disappearing. The OP surely had no intention of seeing things head in this direction.[/quote]

And that’s the beauty of having a message board :) Conversations aren’t limited to one direction. So glad the OP knowingly or unknowingly sparked such an enlightening conversation.

Cheers

boneberg · by **boneberg** » 2021-06-05 11:34 a.m.

It seems like there are a predictable few who always have the same axe to grind. Why not concentrate on trombone issues and topics on a TromboneChat?

olivegreenink · by **olivegreenink** » 2021-06-05 11:35 a.m.

And FWIW, Harrison - I also definitely appreciate as well your thoughtfulness in your responses. There was a lot of room here for this to collectively go off the rails and it didn’t. So thank you for having a major part in the bulk of the convo staying productive and civil.

And, so glad we we’re able to meet virtually Mattie. :)

Have a wonderful weekend everyone.

Cheers

olivegreenink · by **olivegreenink** » 2021-06-05 11:38 a.m.

[quote="boneberg"]It seems like there are a predictable few who always have the same axe to grind. Why not concentrate on trombone issues and topics on a TromboneChat?[/quote]

This is trombone related (because human interaction relates to EVERY topic. That’s kind of the entire point :)

Cheers

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2021-06-05 12:07 p.m.

I’ve read this thread, and tried to follow the back-and-forth and sub-threads. Lots of interesting and respectful exchanges.

My view, which is open to question, is that calling people what or how they want to be called is a matter of respect and care. Why not do so? It will take some adjustment, and you will make mistakes. Some people will be offended when you make a mistake, but that’s on them. (See what I did there?) Just do your best, be sincere, and most people will understand. It doesn’t cost you anything, and it helps the other person.

Example: My full name is Kenneth, but almost everyone knows me as Ken. When I was a child I was called Kenny, but no one (other than my mother, my aunt, and a few select friends) calls me that. When people call me Kenneth, I simply say, “Ken, please.”

Another example: I work as a drug and alcohol counselor. The. LGBTQ+ community is over-represented in the population I serve. I’d heard about the trend for a little while, and when “they/them” was first introduced in my agency a few years ago, my initial reaction was, “Is this really necessary?” After a brief discussion with other counselors, and a few interactions with some of my clients during group therapy, I decided to change. I adjusted. It cost me nothing other than attention and time. I made the change out of respect and care. Yes, I made mistakes, but I learned.

Another way to think of it: How important is it to you to call people by what you believe they should be called, rather than what they preferred to be called? Is it really the hill you want to die on?

Language changes over time. People change over time. Fashions come and go. It’s called history. Roll with it.

***

An aside: I’m reminded of the line in the absurd Monty Python sketch: “It’s Raymond Luxury-Yacht, but it’s pronounced, ‘Throat Warbler Mangrove.’” Just another way to say it’s no skin off my nose—and you’ll have to watch the skit to understand that reference.

<VIMEO id="453489053">https://vimeo.com/453489053</VIMEO>

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-06-05 12:18 p.m.

I wished I could find a clip of the scene in "The Jerk" where he tries to explain that you can call "a gang a she" to get out of the fact that he was referring to some other relationship.

<LINK_TEXT text="https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b7f221cc-6 ... play=false">https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b7f221cc-6f2e-4604-a69e-2a692d19255d/embed?autoplay=false</LINK_TEXT>

Peters goes "....or a girl...?"

"Yes, a girl is just one of the many things you can call a she..."

A crass movie, but somehow that scene seemed to fit somewhere in here.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2021-06-05 5:46 p.m.

<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arc ... ew/619092/">https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/06/gender-neutral-pronouns-arent-new/619092/</LINK_TEXT>

greenbean · 2021-06-05 6:28 p.m.

My 5 cents...

This thread turned out better than I initially thought it would. Some things to think about.

<Deleted comments on incorrect post. Sorry!>

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2021-06-05 11:00 p.m.

[quote="greenbean"]My 5 cents...

This thread turned out better than I initially thought it would. Some things to think about.

I do, though, wonder about the motives of "girltrombonist" who joined TC a few days ago and started this thread 20 minutes later. And has not logged in since. Are they strictly a troll? Maybe. And "girl" is part of their username?... Are we supposed to assume something? Is this to reveal their biological sex? Or gender?...[/quote]
Easy there, she didn’t start a thread, a mod split it off from the source material.

Related, some other things from the above pages… I don’t think that her post has to be read as an attack on Robcat or taking great offense, either. It was pretty soft and even, just noting that they exist. If their simple existence is an attack, that’s a different interpretation that I’m not seeing.

That said, if I had been quick enough on the draw before it spun out, I would have replied something to the effect of “we do know that they exist, we just assume that they would be smart enough NOT to get their hair caught in it.” But, alas, sometimes you don’t show up quick enough to get in a poor joke.

Cheers,

Andy

greenbean · by **greenbean** » 2021-06-06 12:18 a.m.

Andy, I think I was suffering from COVID brain fog when I typed my post above. I was confused about the start of this thread. I take back all my suspicians about 'girltrombonist".

I do that quite a bit - maybe I am getting old... :horror:

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2021-06-06 12:52 a.m.

In any case, girltrombonist does exist.

Not everybody signs on when they visit here.

PosauneCat · 2021-07-17 12:58 p.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="149972" time="1622869852" user_id="3642">

To a reasonable, average English speaker, "You guys" is not an offensive term to address a group of people with.
[/quote]

*to you
</QUOTE>

Right! My best friend’s wife goes ballistic when someone includes her in “you guys.” At first I thought it was funny and unnecessarily sensitive. Then, I THOUGHT ABOUT IT! Of course it’s inappropriate and offense to many people. I’ve stopped saying it entirely. We cannot dictate what should and should not offend another person. When someone says they’re offended by something you just can’t tell them to “stop being over sensitive.” We’re living in a time where we are being asked to think beyond ourselves and make everyone feel welcomed and let them know their feelings and their being matter. That’s a great thing!

Doubler · by **Doubler** » 2021-07-17 2:21 p.m.

Just for the record, I'm cool with being referred to as "Your Incomparable Superior Sublime Imperial Majesty" or "His Incomparable Superior Sublime Imperial Majesty", as appropriate to the situation.

SimmonsTrombone · by **SimmonsTrombone** » 2021-07-18 6:46 a.m.

There’s a reason y’all was conceived. And, it’s always plural.

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2021-07-19 7:49 a.m.

To some extent I live in the same world harrison does, heavily male dominated with an excess of testosterone.

Curiously the "you guys" issue came up this week to mixed responses. Some thought being called out on it was persecution.

I do try to be sensitive to these nuances. At the same time, I would have advocated a middle ground, except for some unfortunate recent events where middle ground is anathema to both sides.

So here's my question. (I think I know the answer.) Is it possible to say that on one hand, we have a responsibility to be sensitive to even the milder discriminations, and when we realize it's just as easy to avoid a gender specific term, to do so? but at the same time think that over reacting is also something to avoid? that we need to avoid snowflakeyness too, where possible?

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-07-19 8:01 a.m.

Hey [beings], I found some of the (now) most offensive videos of all time:

<YOUTUBE id="rV61t021SxQ">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/rV61t021SxQ</YOUTUBE>

<YOUTUBE id="A1kFkmEMLrY">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/A1kFkmEMLrY</YOUTUBE>

<YOUTUBE id="VCtQFKfeRvw">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/VCtQFKfeRvw</YOUTUBE>

Pre59 · by **Pre59** » 2021-07-19 8:45 a.m.

I seem to remember that it was women that started calling each other "guys" back in the day..

But anyway, here's the BBC's way of being inclusive on a magazine format TV show.

<YOUTUBE id="VEqnoFJF-Bo" t="1">https://youtu.be/VEqnoFJF-Bo?t=1</YOUTUBE>

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2021-07-19 9:35 a.m.

but at the same time think that over reacting is also something to avoid? that we need to avoid snowflakeyness too, where possible?

The general idea is that there isn't an overreaction per se because in any individual case, there is only a very marginal offense but on the whole, the aggregate of these slight offenses is enough to warrant. So there's a catch-22; on the one hand, "society" or whatever level of granularity you are looking at is shfited towards a particular direction but any one of these "offenses" isn't worth - in and of itself - being reacted to. So "overreaction" in this case is in the eye of the offended because of the pervasiveness of the actions taken against the marginalized group.

On the other hand, if we're at the point where "literally" can also mean "not literally" or "data" can be singular and plural due to shifts in the common vernacular, perhaps it should be okay to use a hitherto masculine to describe people generically.

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2021-07-19 10:41 a.m.

[quote="Matt K"]So "overreaction" in this case is in the eye of the offended because of the pervasiveness of the actions taken against the marginalized group.[/quote]

I can see that point.

But do you think maybe there's an interaction with something else? We have a sizable segment of the population, partly along generational lines, that feels entitled to never be confronted with anything uncomfortable. Witness "safe zones" in colleges, where you can retreat to if someone has an opinion or data that is threatening. (I thought that was a myth but recently read iGen that had some actual references to it.)

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-07-19 11:56 a.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]

I can see that point.

But do you think maybe there's an interaction with something else? We have a sizable segment of the population, partly along generational lines, that feels entitled to never be confronted with anything uncomfortable. Witness "safe zones" in colleges, where you can retreat to if someone has an opinion or data that is threatening. (I thought that was a myth but recently read iGen that had some actual references to it.)[/quote]

my joy at this thread coming back is.... overwhelming, especially seeing a joke appear right off the bat <EMOJI seq="1f644" tseq="1f644">🙄</EMOJI><EMOJI seq="1f937-1f3fb-2640" tseq="1f937-1f3fb-200d-2640-fe0f">🤷🏻‍♀️</EMOJI>

so that's not what a safe space is- that's what they get described as on places like fox news. It's space for, for example, trans or non-binary people where they can go be together and have a break from having to explain why pronouns matter (like I've done a million times in this thread) or can discuss issues that are specific to their community (like safe ways to bind without having to explain what binding is) without having people enter and make jokes (like the one above about wanting to be identified as "incomparable"). It's a space for a break from that shit cause it, like this thread, is genuinely exhausting. It's the same idea, and likely drawn from, Black only spaces where they are a place to be away from the oppressive and exhausting parts of life. Its not about avoiding things that are uncomfortable, because that isn't possible.

Also, as a college teacher, college students don't shy away from data and facts. They just seem to have zero patience for people who are disrespectful, want to debate other people's rights that have no effect on their own lives, or people who use "facts" removed from the context to try a prove points that the context disproves. College kids don't seem to have any issue in hiding from the truth, generally speaking they just don't seem to have a lot of patience for disingenuous debate. Ain't a bad thing.

y'all is super popular in the queer community because of its gender neutral flexibility. as a person raised in the deep south, I'm a fan of seeing it become so popular!

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2021-07-19 3:00 p.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]<QUOTE author="Matt K" post_id="153094" time="1626701748" user_id="48">
So "overreaction" in this case is in the eye of the offended because of the pervasiveness of the actions taken against the marginalized group.[/quote]

I can see that point.

But do you think maybe there's an interaction with something else? We have a sizable segment of the population, partly along generational lines, that feels entitled to never be confronted with anything uncomfortable. Witness "safe zones" in colleges, where you can retreat to if someone has an opinion or data that is threatening. (I thought that was a myth but recently read iGen that had some actual references to it.)
</QUOTE>

As noted, I don't think its solely a matter of being uncomfortable. In many ways, you could call TBC a "safe space" because we largely eliminate political and other contentious discussions. That was largely done to keep things focused on trombones generally and in my opinion has done a lot to eliminate almost all of the hostility that was encountered against politics, religion, and the great pumpkin that was pervasive on TBC and indeed, many if not most other forums of a similar nature. That isn't because I feel threatened by others political opinions. Its because I want to talk about trombones with trombonists. Similarly in college, I always felt like I wanted to talk about industry, course work, etc. and leave the off-topic stuff out, personally. I have friends who like to talk politics so they call me up and we talk politics. There are endless groups specifically dedicated to talking politics, etc. There are fewer places for certain marginalized communities, though with the internet that is less of a problem, particularly in the west.

The problem with this topic, and indeed the reason I branched off of the original topic from which this originated, is that this has to do with language. Well, there are other aspects of it too but nobody here will be able to fix that. Well beyond my paygrade, that's for sure. But if I can change my language to make people feel not-excluded, I'll certainly try if given the chance. I want more trombonists in the world, regardless of who they happen to be personally. So if that means switching to slightly more inclusive language, that's fine with me. But also indicating when perhaps someone or something is too sensitive because of missing context... after all the whole topic started with someone who was joking about progressive men which is, as far as I can tell, possibly the most dominant group of trombonists in 2021.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2021-07-19 5:34 p.m.

[quote="SimmonsTrombone"]There’s a reason y’all was conceived. And, it’s always plural.[/quote]

As someone from MA, "y'all" has always seemed offensive to me. I know I'm wrong, and it's got no base in reality. I know that it's supposed to be a really welcoming thing to say.

It's only mildly annoying and sort of endearing if I'm in a group of people, and we get called "y'all". For example "y'all are welcome here any time!"

If I'm by myself and someone calls me "y'all", I feel distanced, disrespected, and "othered". No idea why. Like "what are y'all doing here?" I feel like a suspect.

I tried saying it once, and felt sick and sort of gagged on the "yyyuh" sound.

Doubler · by **Doubler** » 2021-07-19 8:36 p.m.

Just a couple of questions:

What's wrong with "guys 'n' gals"?

If safe spaces serve the purpose of respite from unsolicited influences, why are men's clubs outlawed?

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2021-07-19 8:48 p.m.

some people don't identify by either guys or gals. but that's not the worst option.

men's clubs are not outlawed.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2021-07-19 9:28 p.m.

There’s a long history of using “they” and “them” in the singular. There are a number of places with brief historical summaries. Here’s just a couple I found through a quick google search:

<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arc ... ew/619092/">https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/06/gender-neutral-pronouns-arent-new/619092/</LINK_TEXT>

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49754930

English is probably the most changed and changeable language in modern use. This is simply another change.

If the difficulty is due to some inherent bias, then get over it. LGBTQ+ people are out now, and they now have a voice in public discourse.

Frankly, I do not see why some people (including some here on TC) have difficulty using pronouns. If you make a mistake referring to someone—as we all will—then that person will state what their preference is. Wouldn’t you want to be called what you want rather than what someone else calls you? The Golden Rule applies here.

Doubler · by **Doubler** » 2021-07-19 11:02 p.m.

[quote="WilliamLang"]

men's clubs are not outlawed.[/quote]

You are correct. My misunderstanding based upon a time when this was a controversial subject.

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2021-07-20 7:16 a.m.

If the difficulty is due to some inherent bias, then get over it. LGBTQ+ people are out now, and they now have a voice in public discourse

Yeah, but you understand that isn't an argument right? You could just as easily say:

Get over it, people don't want to change the language and they have a voice in public discourse.

And a lack of understanding why people have difficulty with new language paradigms is little different than the lack of understanding of why someone would want to change language thusly. Really the only difference is that one has enormous historical and cultural backing, so the former is going to be an uphill struggle merely by dint of lack of inertia.

Doubler · by **Doubler** » 2021-07-20 9:07 a.m.

This is more than a strictly linguistic problem. If a "he" wants to be called a "she", and vice versa, isn't it dishonest to acknowledge their preference, since the only true change would involve returning to the moment before conception and exchanging the fertilizing sperm for one with the desired chromosome( an obvious impossibility)? And isn't asking/expecting/demanding others to agree to their self-image (which conflicts with biological reality) offensively presumptuous? People can fantasize all they want about anything they want, and even act their fantasies out to a certain degree, but what's the rationale for imposing them on others and for others to reassure them that their fantasies are real? And isn't that fundamentally harmful to the fantasizer and the enabler(s)? Wouldn't counseling that helps the conflicted person deal with their deviant behavior be helpful and appropriate?

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2021-07-20 9:16 a.m.

Sort of reminds me of an "adage" we learned in Business Communications: "Do unto others as they would have done to you". I.e., if they want to be called "her" then call "her". Regardless of what is in front of you.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2021-07-20 10:29 a.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]Sort of reminds me of an "adage" we learned in Business Communications: "Do unto others as they would have done to you". I.e., if they want to be called "her" then call "her". Regardless of what is in front of you.[/quote]

Regardless of "what"!?!?!?!

yikes.

[quote="Doubler"]This is more than a strictly linguistic problem. If a "he" wants to be called a "she", and vice versa, isn't it dishonest to acknowledge their preference, since the only true change would involve returning to the moment before conception and exchanging the fertilizing sperm for one with the desired chromosome( an obvious impossibility)? And isn't asking/expecting/demanding others to agree to their self-image (which conflicts with biological reality) offensively presumptuous? People can fantasize all they want about anything they want, and even act their fantasies out to a certain degree, but what's the rationale for imposing them on others and for others to reassure them that their fantasies are real? And isn't that fundamentally harmful to the fantasizer and the enabler(s)? Wouldn't counseling that helps the conflicted person deal with their deviant behavior be helpful and appropriate?[/quote]

Wow. Just wow. The ignorance...Maybe go read a book or something.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-07-20 10:43 a.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]<QUOTE author="BGuttman" post_id="153138" time="1626786995" user_id="53">
Sort of reminds me of an "adage" we learned in Business Communications: "Do unto others as they would have done to you". I.e., if they want to be called "her" then call "her". Regardless of what is in front of you.[/quote]

Regardless of "what"!?!?!?!

yikes.

[quote="Doubler"]This is more than a strictly linguistic problem. If a "he" wants to be called a "she", and vice versa, isn't it dishonest to acknowledge their preference, since the only true change would involve returning to the moment before conception and exchanging the fertilizing sperm for one with the desired chromosome( an obvious impossibility)? And isn't asking/expecting/demanding others to agree to their self-image (which conflicts with biological reality) offensively presumptuous? People can fantasize all they want about anything they want, and even act their fantasies out to a certain degree, but what's the rationale for imposing them on others and for others to reassure them that their fantasies are real? And isn't that fundamentally harmful to the fantasizer and the enabler(s)? Wouldn't counseling that helps the conflicted person deal with their deviant behavior be helpful and appropriate?[/quote]

Wow. Just wow. The ignorance...Maybe go read a book or something.
</QUOTE>

Hi Bruce, really wish you jumping back on this thread would've been to show you learned anything the last time this was active. Guess not.

As to @Doubler. JFC. really? Thanks for letting me know I'm in a fantasy That's being enabled. That's some seriously fucked up and ignorant shit. There was a lot of time spent on this thread trying to unpack a lot of ignorance, but is any point with a post like the one you made?

This all tracks for the kind of things the two of you have posted to this thread, unfortunately. It might time to lock this before it devolves into further bigotry.

One point for people who are actually trying to learn things, please don't refer to pronouns as "preferred". Someone's pronouns are their pronouns. Preferred implies that another is ok. Unfortunately phrases like that open the door for people like the above to post things like the above.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2021-07-20 11:30 a.m.

Barbier, I don't know what is making you so prickly. i would call you whatever pronoun you want. I'm old enough that we still use "he" when the gender of the subject is unknown, though. I don't care about sexual preference or sexual identity except as you want it to apply to you. I work fine with gay and lesbian folks and don't let that affect my interactions.

My comment was that the old adage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not necessarily the right road. You should do unto others as they want you to do. Right now I don't know what you want me to do.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-07-20 11:46 a.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]Barbier, I don't know what is making you so prickly. i would call you whatever pronoun you want. I'm old enough that we still use "he" when the gender of the subject is unknown, though. I don't care about sexual preference or sexual identity except as you want it to apply to you. I work fine with gay and lesbian folks and don't let that affect my interactions.

My comment was that the old adage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not necessarily the right road. You should do unto others as they want you to do. Right now I don't know what you want me to do.[/quote]

I'm prickly because as a non binary person it's thread full of people debating a core part of myself as some sort of academic curiousity. I'm prickly cause throughout this thread, and the other, you've come in with some seriously messed up views and really intense microagressions then just completely ignored all critiques. then you return to add this to the discourse which, given that you didn't respond to anything of the mountains of constructive things you were presented with by a lot of people, really seems to show that you added the singular they to your vocabulary, which I appreciate, but not much else.

[quote="BGuttman"]I.e., if they want to be called "her" then call "her". Regardless of what is in front of you.[/quote]

there's some....stuff in that statement, so yeah, I'm prickly.

mbarbier · by **mbarbier** » 2021-07-20 11:53 a.m.

I'm also going to suggest again that it seems like it's time to lock this thread. It had really great and encouraging results last time, but it doesn't quite seem like this iteration is trending in the same way.

PosauneCat · by **PosauneCat** » 2021-07-20 12:10 p.m.

[quote="mbarbier"]I'm also going to suggest again that it seems like it's time to lock this thread. It had really great and encouraging results last time, but it doesn't quite seem like this iteration is trending in the same way.[/quote]

I’m very disappointed that this thread has gone where it has. Matt, I just want you to know I completely get what you’re saying and agree with you, for what it’s worth. I’m sure many people here understand the issues pretty well. But it is a public forum after all, so everyone has the right to express him/her/themselves. However, I think your right that it’s time to lock this down. It’s way beyond the scope of the forum.

Mike

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2021-07-20 12:20 p.m.

+1 to locking

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2021-07-20 1:35 p.m.

[quote="Matt K"]<QUOTE>If the difficulty is due to some inherent bias, then get over it. LGBTQ+ people are out now, and they now have a voice in public discourse[/quote]

Yeah, but you understand that isn't an argument right? You could just as easily say:

Get over it, people don't want to change the language and they have a voice in public discourse.

And a lack of understanding why people have difficulty with new language paradigms is little different than the lack of understanding of why someone would want to change language thusly. Really the only difference is that one has enormous historical and cultural backing, so the former is going to be an uphill struggle merely by dint of lack of inertia.
</QUOTE>

My “get over it” was a short-hand and—I apologize for this—rude way of saying that the “argument” train has left the station, the bell has been rung, the penny has dropped, etc. That is, there is history to support this language; the change has already been made in the English language by a (vocal) minority; and it is up to the rest of the English-speaking world to adopt or not, as the case may be.

There will always be people who resist change, whether it is in language, sex, social relations, race, religion, law, etc.

Another part of my statement implies, “Why not?” This very small change in the use of English harms no one. All it takes is a willingness to acknowledge and accept the presence of people who wish to be called by particular idioms and pronouns in English. (Note that we haven’t even touched on other languages in this thread.)

It’s no different that calling a Native Alaskan or Canadian an “Eskimo” or Esquimaux” or any other variation. Many of these view it is offensive, racist, etc. Some ask to be called Inuit, Aleut, or Yupik, while others ask that they be called by their particular language.

When someone tells me they are offended by something, it means that they are offended by my speech or behavior. The other person cannot change my speech or behavior, but they can ask me to do so. Thus, the change must come from me, the speaker or actor.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2021-07-20 2:00 p.m.

[quote="girltrombonist"]<QUOTE author="robcat2075" post_id="149589" time="1622473271" user_id="3697">
Looks clever!

But some hipster is going to get his ponytail caught in there and that will be the end of it.[/quote]

^female trombonists and nonbinary trombonists exist. I wasn't aware that the length of your hair excluded you from playing trombone.
</QUOTE>

Why, of course there have been female trombonists! I have seen pictures of female trombonists in 19th Century journals.

Female trombonists were deployed to great effect to to call attention to social upsets and Temperance League meetings.

(image from Will Kimball's ~~[url=http://kimballtrombone.com/trombone-history-timeline/19th-century-second-half/]~~Trombone Timeline)

But you're saying there are still female trombonists today? In the 21st Century?

No, I'm sure that's not the case.

Next you'll be trying to tell me they've brought back whalebone corsets and foot-binding!

To the rest of you, I think you have spent way too much time litigating a comment by someone who made up a screen name five minutes before he or she posted and has never never returned to engage on the forum for anything with that name since.

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2021-07-20 2:18 p.m.

[quote="Kbiggs"]

When someone tells me they are offended by something, it means that they are offended by my speech or behavior. The other person cannot change my speech or behavior, but they can ask me to do so. Thus, the change must come from me, the speaker or actor.[/quote]

I think there's a nuance there I wouldn't agree with but in general I think you're on track. My view of the term microaggression is maybe not mainstream.

I don't knowingly offend, and if something is pointed out I'm willing to adjust.

Certainly there are people who resist adjusting, or even deliberately use offensive language.

Matt_K · by **Matt_K** » 2021-07-20 5:45 p.m.

Kbiggs, you don't need to apologize to me for sure. I was mostly stating that just as a way of pointing out that it wasn't particularly effective rhetoric, or at least in my opinion. I certainly didn't take offense at it.

At request of many, am closing.

Quick Links

Instruments

Marketplace

Pronoun Usage