As with the thread on climate change, staying calm and sticking to facts is more convincing than excessive hyperbole. — jgill

Hyperbole can be useful, but I think the link to genocide is maybe false. An act tantamount to genocide would be the mass killing of non-binary people, which is technically not genocide itself, because of the fact that genocide is the mass killing of an ethnic or racial group.

That would work if there were a strong consensus in favor of the new pronouns, but this is not the case society-wide yet. It is currently concentrated in academia , some larger corporations and among younger populations. — Joshs

Often, these three things can be vital enough to change the future, and create major and sudden change within the structure and make up of society, as in the case of slurs and Ngram viewer, it shows a sudden drop, followed by a more minor decrease.

You're really young. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of what gay people have had to go through to get where they are today, it would give you a better perspective. — T Clark

This is fallacious thinking, and Ad Hominem, suggesting that because I am young, I couldn't possible understand. Furthermore, this is an irrelevant conclusion, the conclusion of What Gay people had to go through to get where they are today is completely irrelevant when considering questions about pronouns in modern day society. Gender Orientation and Sexual Orientation are different topics,

Saying that someone is really young is completely irrelevant, philosophy is about analysing ideas, not the people behind them.

It is my understanding that people who refer to themselves as "genderqueer" don't consider themselves either males or females. Is that correct? — T Clark

Genderqueer is an umbrella term provided which elaborates on people who do not fit within the social constraints of either male or female, so I would say you are correct here.

Many, including myself, don't consider that a legitimate social distinction. It seems much more like a political statement than a social one. — T Clark

A political statement is a term used to describe any act or non-verbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision made for or by a political group. I don't believe considering oneself as neither male nor female is a political statement. There is no decision to be influenced by identifying as such, other then the recognition of their gender-identity, of course simply identifying something with the sole purpose of receiving recognition for people like you seems silly, if not counter-intuitive. It would be like joining a political party whose only policy is to allow you to vote for the political party on the ballot.

Furthermore, identifying as genderqueer, has a much larger impact on society, and is thus a social distinction. For example, identifying as genderqueer actively challenges that social understanding of gender, which is a social construct. It also challenges Religious beliefs, which in the modern day, is mostly social, and not political. Atheists may even argue that religion too, is a social construct. On top of that gender non-conformity actively challenges family values and other values that are mainly political.

Yes, they/them may have a political statement, but it is secondary to it's social distinction, and the only political statement, is recognition of the status of gender queer. Other aspects that may be influenced politically by gender non-conformity, is the roles of gender in laws, the relationships between people, family, etcetera. Ironically, these are also things advocated for by other important movements such as feminism, equality, civil rights, libertarianism.

This is a serious issue James Riley, the younger generation is suffering and the Boomers ignore their cries of pain/calls for reform. Denying someone's identity is tantamount to genocide. — K Turner

It's a slight irony that the future for humanity has little say is the systems that run it, people can only vote when they turn 18, meaning that there could be up to a 4 year electoral gap in issues not deemed worthy by people who are older. Age does not equal wisdom, and it would be fair to suggests that issues that the younger cohorts of people find troubling should be an issue for the older in society to find troubling, as the goal of society should be to improve it's future, not its present. Improving the future does require improving the present, but improving the present does not require improving the future.

Sometimes a little pressure and ostracism goes a long way: How long would it take you to notice the issue if people started referring to you as a different pronoun when you misgendered someone? People learn quickly when the feedback is quick and direct. — K Turner

I think that quick and direct feedback is definitely a necessity, and that if there is a continued and careless is unnecessary.

Furthermore, I think the evidence supports this viewpoint, with Google Ngrams suggesting very sudden drops of derogatory slurs around times that happen to coincide with civil rights movements relating to the term.

It's almost Trumpian, to me, for someone to assume they are important enough for others to remember their name, much less their preferred pronouns. — James Riley

Then it would also be Trumpian to simply call someone pronouns based on the way the appear. There is also no existence of narcissistic ideals to believe one is important enough to remember pronouns. Meeting someone of a one off occasion is easy to correct when the incorrect pronouns are used, and also understandable. However, when this spills over into continuous incorrect use of pronouns, despite being informed on countless occasions the correct pronouns, is borderline bullying.

It has nothing to do with the importance of the person, it has to do with respecting their identity, most people would automatically correct someone who calls someone who goes by she/her, he/him, however if the person makes no effort to correct this, despite knowing the answer, it is bullying.

This is an issue many people won't be able to understand and, even if sympathetic, will struggle to practice. — Tom Storm

I think the most important here is that it becomes an issue that people at the least attempt to practise, and its not exactly something overly difficulty to grasp given a small amount of time.

but we may justify our identity rather than simply being told who we are, and who we may become. — Jack Cummins

This is a vitally important aspect of society that we must not forget, and I completely agree with your interpretation. The ability to find individualism through identity is what prevents major conformity throughout the world.

Even when you achieve this , it will still
be a slow process to get the language to evolve. — Joshs

But, the existence of the pronoun 'they' and 'them', being extremely prevalent within society suggests that this evolution has already happened, and we should just direct these now to people who choose to identify as such.

There are many who don’t understand the philosophical-empirical underpinnings of gender as a separate category from sex. Thus, they justify their political decisions on the basis of this philosophical limitation. — Joshs

But is this philosophical limitation therefore not legitimate? As most science suggests a difference between sex and gender? Isn't the argument taken from these people just an argument from ignorance?

'I don't understand the difference between sex and gender, therefore there is no difference.'
(Please inform me if this is not what you mean.)

I don't think philosophy would justify this argument.

How do you distinguish between philosophy and politics?
Would you say that we use philosophical worldviews to guide our political choices? — Joshs

I would say that philosophy is a fundamental feature of politics, given that philosophy is theoretically attempting to understand the things that humanity doesn't entirely understand.

For me to use the proper pronouns makes the improper assumption that I care about you more than I care about anyone else. — James Riley

Using the correct pronoun is simply commonplace regardless of the gender of the person. A woman misgendered as a 'he' would be immediately apologised to and the statement of incorrect genders would be retracted.

Do you want the coffee or not? — Banno

Would prefer a hot chocolate thanks!

\but when it boils down to it, I'm just lazy and I don't give a shit — James Riley

This seems like it is quite ignorant, you may not give a shit, but when it has been proven that using the correct pronouns can reduce the chance of that person becoming depressed and committing suicide, would you still claim that you have no moral responsibility if one of these actions are committed? Regardless of this, is it still right to not give a shit when these actions do affect the potentially safety of an individual?

When you talk about not giving a shit, are you implying that you would make no effort whatsoever to use the correct pronoun, and would not apologise for using the incorrect pronoun, or that where possible you would use the correct pronoun(i.e. remembering that pronouns)?

Also it does not seem accurate to imply that it is too difficult to refer to someone as 'they'. This is because they is very commonly used in place of a gender pronoun, when one does not have any knowledge of the gender of the person they are referring to. I.e. Whose phone is that? 'I don't know, they left in a hurry."

The habits of a long life. For you the issue is gender. For me, beverages. — Banno

Shouldn't the person still make an effort to use and refer to the person as the correct pronouns however, regardless of the focus? And of course, if the focus means that the person unintentionally uses the wrong pronoun, should they still apologise?

But if we had one, and we took a drop from it, the ocean would still be infinite. — Banno

Where would one put the drop of water? Who would take it. Of course, is an infinitely expanding ocean fundamentally the same as an infinite ocean?

then an infinite ocean is impossible and would never exist — MikeListeral

I agree that an infinite ocean would be impossible

Morality is whatever the current society believes is acceptable.

What is the benefit or justification for assuming a proposition is false — Yohan

Because science discredits the idea of a God, and many take this as the 'proof' in question.

if the ocean was truly infinite there would be no way to take a cup of water from it

cups would not even exist, nor would any space outside of the ocean to move it to — MikeListeral

I disagree, an ocean is an expanse of salt water essentially, which would contain of all the facets of an ocean on earth, given that the terms of the ocean was not specified in the question, it would be an ocean similar in all parts to the ocean on earth, given that that is the defining feature of the ocean. Thus, cups could be found in shipwrecks, and perhaps in garbage patches.

Potentially the controlling of reality? As in lucid dreaming, while technically not reality could be considered similar to this. If one is to believe that reality shifting (merely for the use of a hypothetical example), is possible, that would definitely constitute a higher level of reality I believe.

Or perhaps a higher level of reality is just dissasotiation?

Atheism is potentially better due to The God Hypothesis idea. Which suggests that the Existence of God, should be treated as a scientific hypothesis, and thus can be proven or disproven by science (regardless of whether this is possible to do with the technologies of humans), thus the burden of proof lies on the theist to provide the evidence for the existence of Gods. Meaning that is is safe to assume a position of atheism until such proof is brought forward. Science does not suggest the existence of any higher being at this point, and thus the status quo should be that 'Gods do not Exist,' until proven otherwise. While it could be argued that this is agnosticism, I believe it is not, as it is the belief in there not being a God. Some people (myself included) argue that the sheer lack of scientific evidence when relating to the existence of a God, is strong evidence for a lack of Gods in the natural world.

It should be held that all ideas and reasonings should be subject to criticism, as criticism helps to promote critical thinking. Many argue that theism, is outdated and supernatural, thus somewhat of a way to control the populace and demote the idea of critical thinking.

Furthermore, stating that God is real has inherent implications for not just you, but all people, regardless of the context of your belief. This is particularly true in Abrahamic Religions where the Bible explicitly states that non-believers, along with other groups should be 'stoned and put to death.' Along with other dehumanising features.

ThereminTrees on YouTube proposed an excellent thought-experiment relating to this.

Take for example a person stating that their partner/s is beautiful. There is an implied shorthand of 'my partner/s is beautiful (to me).' TherminTrees says that this does not require a response from you, as it doesn't implicate you. Yet, when the question, 'They're beautiful, aren't they?' Is asked, it does require a response as it is directly is relevant to you.

The same reason can be applied to religion, the statement, 'God is real to me.' Is different to 'They're beautiful, to me.' Because whereas the second statement does not impact you, the first one does. This is seen in a variety of real world applications where people whom may or may not believe in a God or Practise the way they have been taught, have become victims of religion. LGBTQIA+, Women, Slaves, Worshippers of other religions among other groups have been victims of religion. This is why some atheists believe the question of God to be important.

Furthermore religion is increasingly being used as a tool to manipulate groups of people into conformity, and several philosophers argue that instead of increasing morals, religion can actually do the opposite, benefiting the rich and powerful.

Also there is the argument that religions indoctrinate children, which is technically true. Children are taught from a very young age that God exist, Is benevolent, and Omnipotent. These are taught even in the public schooling system. It doesn't matter whether God is real or not at this point, it's about whether or not children have the right to be allowed to make an informed decision on the existence of a God.

Finally the idea that Atheists merely ask the question to express stereotyping and discriminatory views is both flawed and hypocritical.

Your argument exists as the following.

• Atheists ask questions, which questions Religion
• Religious people are religious because it makes them happy
• Thus, questioning religion is unnecessary
• Therefore the only reason Atheists are asking this question are because they are discriminatory.

(Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your argument)

This reasoning is flawed because the third premise is incorrect, and the conclusion is only one possible explanation of several, for example.

A asks a question to B, which challenges B's beliefs. B holds their beliefs because it makes them happy, thus A's questioning of B is unnecessary. Thus A is discriminatory towards B.

A asks B, 'Why do you believe vaccination is bad?' To which B responds 'Because it makes me happy.' A then states, 'But there is no scientific evidence to support your claims.' According to your reasoning, A is now being discriminatory.

Note: It doesn't matter whether what B or A is saying is correct in this scenario.

Critical reasoning and questioning of our environment is vital, and without these tools life can become dangerous and we can become easily manipulated. Religion potentially reduces critical thinking, and this is why many atheists can feel the need to question God.

Furthermore, this sounds like an ideology of suppression and dictatorial. Freedom of speech is a vital tenant, an yet in a world where Abrahamic Religions can literally be taught in schools, and in some places become law, speaking out against these religions can be considered as 'discrimination' is absurd. In countries where religion is law and taught in school, (indoctrination essentially) why would questioning that be a problem. Why is it a problem for opening question Christianity and make their views public, when that is precisely what Christianity did, but to a more extreme extent (through colonisation and missionaries.).

Also Atheists do care about the existence of God, otherwise the questioned wouldn't be asked. Philosophy is about understanding everything that around us, and if a God was proven to exist that would have major, major implications on philosophy, so the question of God is vital to all.

Finally your comment on Atheists using the questioning of God as a way to hide discrimination and stereotyping is wrong. Also very hypocritical. Religion is one of the biggest persecutors in the world, and Atheists, particularly those with theistic families, can suffer long-term abuse due to coming out as such. There are so many stories of families being destroyed by atheism and religious people dehumanising atheists, and other groups, like LGBTQIA+ that to blatantly ignore the danger that some people put themselves in by identifying as such is silly.

Also as I've proven above, the question of God has nothing to do with discriminating against religious people, it's about trying to understand the truth of the world around us, because understanding, is greatest way for us to move forward. Sometimes that requires asking difficult questions.

Therefore time is not moving. — hypericin

This is such a fantastic statement. Time itself is stagnant and its passing is really illusionary, and merely the name we give for the board of the sequence of passing events

one need not be 'religious' to speculate that it's plausible that even "permanent" nonexistence and obliivion are impermanent ... if you wait a few eons.

Would you need to wait at all? Wouldn't the feeling of non-existence pass as though no time had passed at all?

The "checking" is not determinative of an objects existence.

Yes this does make a lot of sense. I suppose that regardless of whether or not the exitance of an object can be "checked" or not, doesn't change the fact that it did exist.

Even if none can check the existence of something, it still exists. I think your argument is very valid, and refutes mine with ease. :)

Just as billions of humans are born, live and die, billions of Big Bangs have been, and will continue to occur and re-occur throughout an infinite space

I never considered that this was a possibility, but it sounds very interesting, and now I want to do some research on the Universe!

Unless perhaps there is an "information dimension"?

I suppose the existence of an information dimension would indeed mean that memory of previous events is stored by space/time.

However, I do not believe that an information dimension would affect the future of other dimensions, and given that other dimensions cannot access this information dimension, would the universe only exist within the information dimension, failing to exist in other dimensions. This is still of course only relevant if it can be proven that a hypothetical object could be removed in the questioned circumstances hypothetically, and whether this would mean that it had ceased to exist in the past, future and present.

I suppose this scenario is similar to the tree falling in a forest question.

I am not overly knowledgeable in information theory, I will admit, so please correct me if I am wrong :).

every event "shapes" subsequent reality, so nothing is ever really "forgotten" by the universe as a whole

This is also something I considered in writing this post, as its an extremely strong argument. It appears then that the only situation in which this occur would be the end of the universe itself, in which the universe would be unable to retain any memory of the past.

The problem with my response, however, comes from the fact that, as you say,

every event shapes subsequent reality.

Perhaps upon reaching the end of the universe, a fate which is pre-determined, that any previous event did not shape that reality, a reality in which the universe does not exist, and thus all previous events are forgotten.

As for the book, I will definitely check it out. Sounds like a great read :).

'No Comment,' can also be used in a certain context as a very obvious indicator that the person being asked has a definitive answer, but the answer is negative, or contrary to what the asker wishes to hear. Its quite situation specific, but 'no comment', can be used in place of a negative answer to the question.

For example:

Person A: Did you finish the homework?
Person B: No Comment.

This is quite an interesting angle that is becoming more commonplace, within online and real life contexts, due perhaps to an increase in ironic humour, given that the use of the term in this context is in fact, ironic.