I'm not sure, but perhaps that post is a parody? Since 'it' is so objectifying ('it rubs the lotion on its skin'), it's easy to think this is a joke. On the other hand, people are strange...

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.[1][2][3] — wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Just found this:

While some genderqueer people use it as a gender-neutral pronoun,[12] it is generally considered a slur against transgender people[13] and should not be used unless requested by a specific person. — wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(pronoun)#:~:text=In%20Modern%20English%2C%20it%20is,neuter%2C%20third%2Dperson%20pronoun.

So perhaps not a parody.

We're getting old, my friend.

I'm not sure, but perhaps that post is a parody? — j0e

No, this is the new generation of young adults in the US. They are deadly serious. A couple of people did mention that "it" is a slur against transgenders.

"We are the knights of ik. Bring us more... SHRUBBERY!!"

This previous post of mine was made in good humour, but not in jest or disrespect. It is very apropos to the conversation.

I find this interesting. First, it's not my "movement" so I won't tell others how to run their desires. And I kind of like the idea of putting homo sapiens on the same level as the rest of "creation." On the other hand, I'm too lazy to invest the thought it requires to consider the desires of each different individual I run into. This person want this, that person wants that. WTF? That presupposes I care, or that I should. Maybe I should, but I don't. 90% of the people I am introduced to, I don't remember their name two nano-seconds after it is told to me. If you have something I want, you have something about you that sets you apart, you are a really attractive woman, or something like that then, yeah, I *might* log your name in the back of my brain pan somewhere, but that's iffy. So for me to be told, and then to be expected to remember, that X want's to be called this or that, well, that's just too much for this old dog. If you give me shit for ignoring your desires, I'll just turn and walk away. I've got better things to do than to buy drama.

On the other hand, I'm too lazy to invest the thought it requires to consider the desires of each different individual I run into. This person want this, that person wants that. — James Riley

Back in post-feudal Hungary (and I suppose in all other post-feudal European countries; and would not be surprised to hear it is / was / has been the case in most cultures) as recently as the end of the second world war, there were something like 17 different ways of saying "you", depending on the social status of the person addressed, and in some cases, the relativity of the social status of the person addressed compared to the person addressing. Some of the "you"-s even commanded different persons (as in plural-singular, and second- or third person) in the conjugation of the verb in the address.

And you needed to know the status of your vis-a-vis before you could properly address them.

Now if you add non-binary sexual or gender definitions, the number of "you"-s could very easily reach three-digit counts.

They would have lopped my head off most ricky-tick. :death:

That's why we had the revolutions. To show the world, that rulers can be broken. "We avenged the suffering of millions. They did not have to die in vain because we bravely advanced, and did not let our swords rest, until... until...uh ... until..." "Idiom, Sire?" "Yes! Idiom!"

Question: Am I just too old to be on this planet anymore and might as well drown myself in the gene pool now? Or is this generation clinically insane? "Asking for a friend." — fishfry

Who fucking cares

My friend is mad because they say I don't get to make that decision for them and that it's not about my comfort.

A lot of the pronoun abusers are mad period, They can call themselves whatever they want, but I get to make the decision about what I call other people, and I prefer gender-conforming terms. If they don't like it, tough shit.

I'm opposed to using new and peculiar pronoun usages. I also opposed to a lot of the gender nonconforming drivel. Theirs isn't the cry of the oppressed, it's the buzz-speak of the very confused.

Theirs isn't the cry of the oppressed, it's the buzz-speak of the very confused. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. It's the cry of the entitled. Real oppression doesn't leave space for such pathetic concerns. You ever hear of a society suffering under a famine complain about gender pronouns? Only in the west could this phenomenon happen. Its an insult to people with real oppression.

And yeah maybe I'm just an old fart too

I recently took a course so that I could be certified as a mediator. What was unusual (for me) was that the trainers were academics at a local university and not lawyers. The first thing I learned when mediating a case is that I should ask everyone their pronouns so as not to offend. Everyone nodded in agreement that was proper, although I did wonder if they actually ever mediated a case outside the university setting. I would instantly lose credibility in the real world if I asked a middle aged man from suburbia if we wished to be called she, he, they, it, or whatever it may be.

In a professional environment, where I wish to remain professional, where I have no desire to push any agenda of any sort, I will call men he and women she unless asked otherwise. If a man is angered by my assumption that he be called he, then I'd apologize and move forward because I'd rather not pick a fight. I'd likely offer some self-deprecating comment that I'm out of touch with the times, that I'm still trying to figure out how to use my cell phone, so give me so leeway when it comes to all these changes. In short, I'd be giving the person a silent eye roll while trying to ignore what I found to be an entirely stupid situation. That's the bottom line here. No one is gaining any respect. We're all just navigating complicated social situations, without any real changes of heart and probably internally building bigger walls around us.

If a trans or gender fluid person is rich and powerful, people will adjust their language for them.

The poor downtrodden get the regular.

Imagine thinking you can pick and choose what pronouns you want to use but others are not allowed. But it’s more than just pronouns. There are a variety of odd demands that people make of others in order to satisfy their own personal wants and comforts. This sort of solipsism is regnant in some circles. I’m reminded of the Democratic Socialists of America conference that went viral a couple years ago and how tedious it all is.

Call them what you like — fishfry

I think it best to call them what they like. If people call you what they like you may not like what some of them call you.

It is a matter of civility and respect. If a student told me they had a preferred pronoun I would put aside my own opinion of the matter and honor the request.

It is a matter of civility and respect. If a student told me they had a preferred pronoun I would put aside my own opinion of the matter and honor the request. — Fooloso4

It's not as simple as that though. You presumably don't comply with any and all of your student's requests, just out of civility and respect do you? You deem some requests to be reasonable and others not. The question in the post was over whether the OP's discomfort at using such a de-humanising term as 'it' was sufficient reason to see the request as unreasonable. If a student asked me to refer to them a some offensive term I would refuse on the same grounds (my justifiable discomfort at using the term makes the request unreasonable).

The issue is whether the discomfort is well-justified. with 'she' (instead of he), or some new term like xe, it's very hard to make a case that they would reasonably make anyone uncomfortable since they're words with either harmless of absent connotations.

This is described in the OP as being clearly not the case with 'it' which, quite unarguably, has connotations attached to it.

You presumably don't comply with any and all of your student's requests, just out of civility and respect do you? You deem some requests to be reasonable and others not. — Isaac

If I think the request uncivil or disrespectful I would not comply. The meaning of words and their connotations change. Case in point, see the etymology of the term 'it':

Old English hit, neuter nominative and accusative of third person singular pronoun, from Proto-Germanic demonstrative base *khi- (source also of Old Frisian hit, Dutch het, Gothic hita "it"), from PIE *ko- "this" (see he). Used in place of any neuter noun, hence, as gender faded in Middle English, it took on the meaning "thing or animal spoken about before." — https://www.etymonline.com/word/it

The issue is whether the discomfort is well-justified. with 'she' (instead of he), or some new term like Xe, it's very hard to make a case that they would reasonably make anyone uncomfortable since they're words with either harmless of absent connotations. — Isaac

Many people would be uncomfortable referring to a male as 'she' instead of 'he'. What connotations that may accrue to 'Xe' is anyone's guess.

What is at issue here is gendered language. Some are in favor of preserving it, others of changing it. Agreed upon terminology does not yet exist. As we stumble forward I would take my lead from someone who wants to be referred to as 'it' and comply.

The meaning of words and their connotations change. — Fooloso4

Absolutely. But they normally do so gradually and by following use, not by dictat determining use.

Many people would be uncomfortable referring to a male as 'she' instead of 'he'. What connotations that may accrue to 'Xe' is anyone's guess.

What is at issue here is gendered language. Some are in favor of preserving it, others of changing it. Agreed upon terminology does not yet exist. — Fooloso4

I think that's begging the question. It would be uniquely obsequious to presume that someone's saying an issue is about gendered language is sufficient to demonstrate that it is, in fact, about gendered language. The mere existence of a serious issue doesn't purge all fadishness, capriciousness, and plain foolishness from the population experiencing it. I can't think of a reason to simply assume all such requests are about gendered language.

As we stumble forward I would take my lead from someone who wants to be referred to as 'it' and comply. — Fooloso4

Indeed, you might. But by advocating such a response for others too I think you're extending a default assumption of sincerity beyond what experience shows us is reasonable of new cultural movements in general.

Personally, I'm in favour of phasing out gendered language altogether (along, perhaps with the very concept of gender), but I have to say I quite detest this new hyper-individualism of the modern age where each and every person's individually tailored solution to the problem must be respected at the expense of any attempt to muddle through together, each giving a little to reach some jointly amicable solution.

I have a long first name (it's not really Isaac). My colleagues at work shortened it. The thought that I might deny them their convenience to insist on my preferred longer version didn't even cross my mind. We used to just get along and accept that not every aspect of the world can be tailored to our individual preference.

Anyway, enough rant, I'm already enough of a cliché of a retired academic as it is, without adding frequent coronach for the past.

As we stumble forward — Fooloso4

Your use of the preposition "forward" implies progress. It seems to me that what they are actually doing is just stumbling, possibly stumbling in circles. Suggesting that some people are stumblers is, of course, ableist and oppresses people who are not graceful on their feet -- but then there are people who don't have feet, so I just offended them/they/its.

This whole discussion is triggering so I demand you all stop immediately.

This whole discussion is triggering so I demand you all stop immediately. — Bitter Crank

Fine, but you must refer to me as "Your Majesty."

Did they accomplish anything at all in this conference?

Sort-of radical groups often hold highly ineffective meetings in which all sorts of irrelevant issues are processed to the exclusion of the stated agenda.

Minister: From the fury of spoiled privileged children, dissatisfied by the presence of their inconvenient gonads and enlarged egos, deliver us, O Lord.

Congregation: Hear our prayers, we beseech thee, O Lord.

you must refer to me as "Your Majesty." — James Riley

Which is OK, because 'majesty' can reference males, females, or God forbid, gender-liquified sovereigns or, for that matter, one's neutered cat.

But they normally do so gradually and by following use, not by dictat determining use. — Isaac

Whose use is one following if not that of those who request to be identified as such? It is a matter of frequency of use.

I can't think of a reason to simply assume all such requests are about gendered language. — Isaac

I won't speak for all cases but in this case the person making the Reddit post said:

I haven't done it and just avoid using pronouns or stick with they/them since it's the most neutral.

Indeed, you might. But by advocating such a response for others too... — Isaac

I have said nothing about what others should do. I am speaking about what I would do and why.

We used to just get along and accept that not every aspect of the world can be tailored to our individual preference. — Isaac

While I agree some people are excessively sensitive and too eager to take offense or become obsessive in their fear of not giving offense at every perceived 'micro-aggression", real or imagined, what you see as just getting along might mean for someone else keeping quiet and hidden their deep seated shame for not fitting in.

Which is OK, because 'majesty' can reference males, females, or God forbid, gender-liquified sovereigns or, for that matter, one's neutered cat. — Bitter Crank

That's okay, so long as you don't trigger me by pointing that out.

Your use of the preposition "forward" implies progress. — Bitter Crank

By forward I mean from today to tomorrow, as in, from this day forward. I do not mean progress but rather change. We do not live in a time of cohesive culture. How things will develop remains to be seen.

It seems to me that what they are actually doing is just stumbling, possibly stumbling in circles. — Bitter Crank

When I say "we" that includes them, both singular and plural as well as the rest of us.

Just don't call me 'late for dinner'.

You're all wankers, don't pretend otherwise. And don't go insane over being called what you are.

Whose use is one following if not that of those who request to be identified as such? It is a matter of frequency of use. — Fooloso4

Not just frequency. We share a language (or at least we used to - doesn't seem so much interest in shared enterprises any more). It's about being inclusive and constructive about the solution to the problems we face. 'He/She' was a community-shared distinction. I could see if you look like a man - you could see if you look like a man. We both had an equal part in the process which was judged by freely available standards.

That distinction causes serious problems for people who feel constrained by those freely available standards and being reminded of that every time they're referred to is clearly very distressing for them.

So we need another solution. But I don't see why it needn't be one which is also a community-shared term judge-able by freely available standards.

'Xe' would be a perfect example of such. The only judgement required is to distinguish that the subject of the sentence is a person (not an object) and one thereby knows that 'xe' is the correct pronoun to use. The information is shared, publicly available and easily judged.

I have said nothing about what others should do. I am speaking about what I would do and why. — Fooloso4

Not quite. You said...

It is a matter of civility and respect. — Fooloso4

What is and is not civil and respectful is something we agree on (or at least debate), not something we merely leave up to personal opinion. I'm arguing that calling them what they like is neither civil nor respectful. It's uncooperative, hyper-idividualistic (about as opposite of civil as you can get), and disadvantages the speaker before the conversation has even begun. I can't see how that qualifies as respectful.

what you see as just getting along might mean for someone else keeping quiet and hidden their deep seated shame for not fitting in. — Fooloso4

Yes, it might. And if it does then hopefully we'll solve that problem as a community too.

All that has emerged over the last few years is that some people are caused great distress by the action of gendered pronouns imposing gender identities on them that they struggle deeply with.

At the moment we've no reason at all to think that the gradual replacement of gendered pronouns with a gender-free pronoun won't solve that problem.

I can't see why a) we would take excessive precautions against a situation we've no evidence is going to cause any problems, and b)why, even if we were to do so the best approach would be to ask each individual what their preferred solution is and act on that.