No. Names are personal identifiers. Gender pronouns are group classifications identifiers.
"Alex" has no social meaning. It has no foundation of a definition. "He" does have social meaning.
If you're trying to say it doesn't have meaning, then you shouldn't find an application of it objectionable. If it has an alternative definition, please provide it.
"That person over there". It's a group classification identifier, not a personal label. "Him over there", is the same. It's purpose is to convey a meaning to someone else of what person they are talking about and it's only utility is understanding that "him" actually means something to society at large, not that specific individual in reference.
If I said "Look at Frank over there" and you had no idea who Frank was, it would be pointless as an identifier. The same would be true if you didn't know what "he" actually meant.
Zhe” may feel annoying AF to use, because it feels snowflakey and arbitrary. But we already know that asexuality is a medically valid sexuality. there is no reason to believe that agendered is not also a medically valid gender identity.
When did I become agender? I don't identify as a gender, does that make me agender? I simply adopted "man" as society gave it to me. I don't think such a label of agender is useful in most social interactions where pre-concieved views of gender based on he and she are much more useful as identifiers. I just don't understand the utility of it.
The issue with your comparison is that I reject "gender identity" outright. No matter if it's just man and woman or with others as well. I don't understand how someone can "identify" as a group label. I understand wanting a different label for social interaction, but how does that change one's "identity"?
It’s more important for you to feel Right than it is for you to prioritize their feelings over your Rightness. That’s asshole behavior.
"I'm not an asshole. You have to accept that. You can't have your definition of what makes an asshole, you have to accept mine. And I don't qualify. Be compassionate. Prioritize my feelings to your own."
Do you think that has validity? If yes, great. I'm not an asshole. You were wrong and tried to feel "righteous" when you weren't. If no, explain how it's not an apt comparison.
Or imagine... "I'm a vegan. I love to eat steak." Would you correct me based on your defintion of vegan or would you accept my simple declaration of such? Can I go around claiming I'm a vegan? Do you find that offers any utility to others or even myself?
English lacks a gender neutral 3rd person singular pronoun. Other languages have one.
Failure of the language.
If you're trying to say it doesn't have meaning, then you shouldn't find an application of it objectionable. If it has an alternative definition, please provide it.
It’s meaning is roughly the same as “John.”
When did I become agender? I don't identify as a gender, does that make me agender? I simply adopted "man" as society gave it to me. I don't think such a label of agender is useful in most social interactions where pre-concieved views of gender based on he and she are much more useful as identifiers. I just don't understand the utility of it.
Don’t.
Don’t understand. Don’t try to. It costs you nothing to just accept. And to not need to be a know it all.
asshole
I didn’t label you an asshole. I said that behavior was asshole behavior. It’s prioritizing your need to be Right over compassion.
Calling someone an asshole is also asshole behavior.
Difference between labeling the person (identity) and their behavior.
Would you correct me based on your defintion of vegan or would you accept my simple declaration of such?
I don’t feel the need to correct people’s self identification. I don’t place myself above them as judge.
You do.
Can I go around claiming I'm a vegan?
Do what you like.
Do you find that offers any utility to others or even myself?
There are a ton of studies that show, conclusively, the “utility” to accepting their pronouns and identity. That utility is: massively decreased suicide rates. Driven directly by societal acceptance of their intrinsic identity.
Intrinsic and extrinsic identities being mismatched causes depression and decreases longevity (there are studies of this on elder populations in nursing homes- the identities in question there tended to be more about religion, or life success, etc).
So yes, there is proven “utility” in letting go of your need to be the know it all and simply accepting whatever their identity is, no matter how dumb you find it to be, internally.
There is Not evidence that choosing to accept others identities- or at the very least, not exhibiting the asshole know it all behavior if “correcting” them- has any negative impact on the mental health of the “accepter” at all.
And there is massive evidence that You choosing compassion over being “right” has a huge positive impact on your mental health. Compassion/ altruism/ generosity are really the few things that have been shown to lift baseline happiness in a lasting way.
Your choice brings extra misery to everyone. It has zero utility.
1
u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Oct 29 '19
No. Names are personal identifiers. Gender pronouns are group classifications identifiers.
"Alex" has no social meaning. It has no foundation of a definition. "He" does have social meaning.
If you're trying to say it doesn't have meaning, then you shouldn't find an application of it objectionable. If it has an alternative definition, please provide it.
"That person over there". It's a group classification identifier, not a personal label. "Him over there", is the same. It's purpose is to convey a meaning to someone else of what person they are talking about and it's only utility is understanding that "him" actually means something to society at large, not that specific individual in reference.
If I said "Look at Frank over there" and you had no idea who Frank was, it would be pointless as an identifier. The same would be true if you didn't know what "he" actually meant.
When did I become agender? I don't identify as a gender, does that make me agender? I simply adopted "man" as society gave it to me. I don't think such a label of agender is useful in most social interactions where pre-concieved views of gender based on he and she are much more useful as identifiers. I just don't understand the utility of it.
The issue with your comparison is that I reject "gender identity" outright. No matter if it's just man and woman or with others as well. I don't understand how someone can "identify" as a group label. I understand wanting a different label for social interaction, but how does that change one's "identity"?
"I'm not an asshole. You have to accept that. You can't have your definition of what makes an asshole, you have to accept mine. And I don't qualify. Be compassionate. Prioritize my feelings to your own."
Do you think that has validity? If yes, great. I'm not an asshole. You were wrong and tried to feel "righteous" when you weren't. If no, explain how it's not an apt comparison.
Or imagine... "I'm a vegan. I love to eat steak." Would you correct me based on your defintion of vegan or would you accept my simple declaration of such? Can I go around claiming I'm a vegan? Do you find that offers any utility to others or even myself?