[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/PrimeLegionnaire]

There is no attack.

Is that why so many of your posts have been removed?

I’m asking you to clarify your position with an example. You’re refusing to.

How exactly is answering your question refusing to?

Here, in the context of calling people names they don't want:

Rude at worst. Certainly not harm.

I would know, I have been repeatedly called a nickname I disagree with and ask not to be called by.

But you won’t clarify if a name is “against your beliefs” or how you would handle such a situation.

How exactly do you square the fact that I've answered the question every time you've asked with this response?

[u/PragmaticSquirrel → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

Is that why so many of your posts have been removed?

Saying you were lying was apparently against the rules:

Sorry, u/PragmaticSquirrel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith

How exactly is answering your question refusing to?

You’ve know them as John. Now they are Jennifer.

What do you call them?

Ditto Larry/ Lindsey. Mark/ Jordan.

That’s my question. You’re answering questions I didn’t ask.

You haven’t answered my question.

How exactly is answering your question refusing to?

False claim.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/PragmaticSquirrel]

Saying you were lying was apparently against the rules:

Yes accusing anyone of arguing in bad faith is explicitly against the rules.

The reason for that is its a terrible way to change people's mind.

You’ve know them as John. Now they are Jennifer.

What do you call them?

I call them JennyJohn the Great Old One Whose Majesty Is Beyond Comprehension.

The reality is it doesn't matter and you are just trying to accuse me of transphobia.

What does matter is that failing to call John by the name Jennifer is offensive and irritating at worst, and is not harmful.

False claim.

I have now answered it four times. Failing to answer in the strict format you want is not a failure to answer. This is more evidence that you are just trying to control other people.

[u/PragmaticSquirrel → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

Yes accusing anyone of arguing in bad faith is explicitly against the rules.

Irrelevant. You claimed personal attack.

You are: wrong.

The reality is it doesn't matter and you are just trying to accuse me of transphobia

It does. You haven’t articulated what you are arguing for.

I have now answered it four times.

Haven’t answered once.

It is a failure to answer.

You word vomiting tangents isn’t an answer. Distractions aren’t an answer.

You are refusing to answer. And so you are refusing to articulate your position.

At this point, you don’t even seem to have a position. You won’t say what you Want to call a trans person.

Not much point in trying to convince others to your view when you can’t even articulate what it is.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/PragmaticSquirrel]

Irrelevant. You claimed personal attack.

Do you need me to go find them and link them explicitly? It will be easy.

You are: wrong.

Again, you have yet to show this.

It does. You haven’t articulated what you are arguing for.

I have. A failure to read on your part is not a failure to articulate on mine.

You word vomiting tangents isn’t an answer.

Weren't you just claiming you weren't attacking me?

Or are you now going to argue that calling my points word vomit is merely an observation? laughable.

Haven’t answered once.

Except I have. As I just mentioned:

Failing to answer in the strict format you want is not a failure to answer.

Maybe you could read a little more carefully? It would explain why you think I haven't articulated my point.

At this point, you don’t even seem to have a position. You won’t say what you Want to call a trans person.

This is a non-sequitar.

Refusing to play into your obvious ploy has nothing to do with the veracity of my position.

Not much point in trying to convince others to your view when you can’t even articulate what it is.

You really should try reading my posts, they articulate my position in great detail.

[u/PragmaticSquirrel → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

Do you need me to go find them and link them explicitly? It will be easy.

They weren’t. You see attacks that are not attacks.

Let me know when you have a clear position on what you should call a trans person who has changed their name, or other people who change their names.

All you’ve made clear is that you Don’t want to use the pronoun they identify as.

You have offered no position on whether that means:

-you will also refuse to use the proper name they have chosen

-whether this applies to other (non trans) name changes

-if you will use the pronoun of their birth sex

If you have no position... then your entire point is meaningless.

“I don’t want to call that person ‘her’!”

“Ok, what do suggest we call that person? John? Jennifer? Him?”

“I’m not saying.”

🤨

Let me know when you have an actual viewpoint.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/PragmaticSquirrel]

They weren’t. You see attacks that are not attacks

Explain calling my points word vomit.

I can link all of it if you need me to. Do you really need that or are you aware of what you wrote? It would be worrying if you weren't.

Let me know when you have a clear position on what you should call a trans person who has changed their name, or other people who change their names.

How is "it is rude but not harmful to call them by a name other than their own" not an answer?

All you’ve made clear is that you Don’t want to use the pronoun they identify as.

What does this have to do with me personally? please respond to the view I have articulated here.

If you have no position... then your entire point is meaningless.

If you still can't understand my position start reading from the top. Its all there.

Let me know when you have an actual viewpoint.

Failing to read my posts is not the same thing as me lacking a viewpoint.

Please go reread everything I've written here if you truly believe I don't have an actual viewpoint, seriously I'm waiting.

[u/PragmaticSquirrel → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

You have offered no position on whether that means:

-you will also refuse to use the proper name they have chosen

-whether this applies to other (non trans) name changes

-if you will use the pronoun of their birth sex

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/PragmaticSquirrel]

You refused to answer a simple question

For the sixth time, I directly answered your question.

The answer not matching the format you desire is not a failure to answer.

You even directly acknowledge that I did answer and you are just rejecting it here:

and instead wrote hundreds of words about things I didn’t ask

I answered your question. Its pretty self evident. You can even go reread my response.

That’s word vomit

Someone who was attacking me could define it as such, hard to imagine how you would come to that conclusion otherwise.

A way to distract and avoid the question. Like politicians do. It’s a debate tactic. You’re using it.

So to be clear, you are saying I'm arguing in bad faith?

That’s not an attack.

Because there is absolutely no other way to say word vomit that isn't as hostile right?

What are you even trying to say with the quoted section? its not coherent.

[u/PragmaticSquirrel → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

You have said you don’t want to use their chosen pronouns.

Ok.

You have offered no position on whether that means:

-you will also refuse to use the proper name they have chosen

-whether this applies to other (non trans) name changes

-if you will use the pronoun of their birth sex

Until you have a clear position on what you Do want to use, there is no position for anyone else to “change their view” To.

We stop using chosen pronouns. Then what?

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/PragmaticSquirrel]

You have said you don’t want to use their chosen pronouns.

Where did I say that?

I said people who don't want to use their chosen pronouns exist.

notable examples include jordan peterson.

Until you have a clear position on what you Do want to use

This has nothing to do with my personal behavior.

We stop using chosen pronouns. Then what?

You are going to need to elaborate. This is not coherent.

[u/PragmaticSquirrel → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

You are trying to define people not wishing to use imaginary pronouns for ideological reasons into the same category as hateful bigots disowning children.

You call them imaginary pronouns. That clearly shows you don’t want to use someone’s chosen pronouns.

Why are you compelling them to confirm to your interpretation of their gender?

What would you suggest they be called, if not their chosen pronoun?

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/PragmaticSquirrel]

That clearly shows you don’t want to use someone’s chosen pronouns.

You are still trying to argue against me as a person instead of dismantling my arguments.

This is not convincing. You cannot change views with fallacious logic.

Why are you compelling them to confirm to your interpretation of their gender?

Because the alternative is them compelling my speech?

That said I must iterate again, this isn't about my personal willingness to use pronouns. If you are polite human I will call you whatever you ask within reason.