Comment by zer8k

5 days ago

[flagged]

The weirdest thing that I've run into wrt pronouns is when people object to the use of gender-neutral pronouns as "misgendering" - e.g. a person insists that you must not use "they" to refer to them but rather their preferred gendered pronoun, and if you don't, then that is "erasing their identity".

The argument that's usually made for this is that if someone's referred to as "they" while other people around them are "he" or "she", this makes them feel excluded etc. But if so, then using "they" uniformly would have been acceptable, and yet the same people insist that it is not.

  • Doug Hofstader in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamagical_Themas has a good essay on non-sexist language crica 1980 and how there was a very good case that English needed a gender-indeterminant pronoun for routine use where you did not know (or care) what the gender of a person who, say, was subject to a contract, was.

    Even though there was a precisionist case for it, people interested in language reform thought it was a complete non-starter and instead focused on other sorts of reforms.

    Then 10 years ago thoughtless people who thought it was OK to mislabel people with terms like "latinx" and "cisgender" suddenly thought they could engineer language (which we share) without anyone's consent and in a culture of bad faith of course you get some jackass like Musk say his pronouns are "prosecute/Fauci" because it is all in bad faith.

In cases of ambiguous gender presentation, they is common and accepted.

The idea is that yeah typically your pronouns should line up with your appearance or presentation, but sometimes it's a bit ambiguous. I've had people call me "ma'am" on the phone or in drive throughs because my voice tends higher. Or because I have long hair and from behind it tends to look feminine. It bugged me when I was younger and less used to it, at this point I don't really care. But I do appreciate it when people ask.

When it comes to common terms, they're usually pretty whatever. I've been doing a lot of work in a protocol where original terms were "master" and "slave", and while I don't really care reading it in docs I personally feel uncomfortable speaking in those terms because my brain always brings up the connotations. Especially when the pattern is just as effectively described with Client/Server.

My goal, ultimately, is just to keep the vibes positive and help people feel welcome and included and seen. Some reasonable changes to patterns of speech to support that isn't that crazy to me. It's no different than code switching when in a different country, or just talking to different groups in general.

> This type of policing is another iteration of doublespeak that we were warned about in 1984. Policing the language polices thoughts. It harms communication effectiveness. It makes it harder.

Jesus, it's really not that hard. I work full remote and I just ask people what they prefer. I'm not in office and a lot of people aren't on camera and it's a bad idea to generally assume shit based on their name anyways. If I forget I apologize and we move on.

I have literally never encountered any issues in my long career of working with people because I don't feel a need to fill my head with hot air and make a big deal about it.