Well you have a chance to practice they/them now, I haven't had the opportunity yet.
Overall it's a big nothing burger, people can sign their emails however they want.

I agree. Just he, she, or they should suffice. I don't know how the standard became what it is, and why the possessive pronouns aren't given too.

Reality is you should be able to list your pronouns if you choose and also not to .
Though common sense has left society

Mostly this. Just to add one note which is that in the cases where I do share pronouns, I'm not doing it because I think people are going to confuse my gender, but I'm doing it in solidarity with my graduate students a number of whom are either trans or non-binary and use things like she/they, so it doesn't have the feeling like they are the odd ones out if they want to share those. Not everyone does that, and that is fine too imo, but I've heard that trans and non-binary people can be appreciative of this so in the right situation I'm happy to do the small gesture.

Could you explain exactly what "she/they" means? I still don't get that one.

Also, I think the idea of everyone doing something unnecessary just so others don't stand out and feel "different" is not a good one.

This is going to sound silly, but...

Some people, especially young children, get bullied for wearing glasses. If all children were made to wear glasses, it would almost certainly make those children feel better and stop the bullying (they could be non - Rx for those who don't need them). Do you think that would be a good policy?

It means that t he person is happy to be referred to as either she/her or they/their pronouns. If someone says they/she it usually indicates a preference for they/their but ok if people use she/her too. The sense I have is something this is because the person actually doesn't care which they go by, and sometimes because they are just trying to be nice and make it easy for those around them and so whichever you're comfortable with is totally fine.

At one point in my life I would have described my personality by saying i'm a male bimbo, which I resented. Because I knew the real meaning of the word bimbo, and exactly how it was meant to be applied because of my experiences in NYC.

The word bimbo originally referred to a male, a male who was like me, focused on sex and trivial things.

Then it was appropriated by businessmen to describe blonde playmates they met that were dumb and fun. I am the real bimbo, not the kardashians or barbie.

But I still say "male bimbo" rather than "bimbo" because language evolves and it's more clear what I mean.
Language evolves. I don't believe in political correctness, but use language effectively for the here and now- not how you imagine language should be used or the way it was used 50 years ago.

One thing uke said that was quite poignant was that we should believe transgender people. You wouldn't trivialize transgender and intersex peoples experience ( it's like wearing glasses!) if you believed them.

I know because a lot of people basically don't even believe in lesbians or gays. That's part of the idea behind conversion therapy; people who are attracted to the same sex are not really attracted to the same sex, they are just unwell.

Everyone is better off (me, my friends, everyone) by me being openly gay. but especially me. The same thing is true of the 1%-2% of people who are transgender, they are more mentally healthy if they are allowed to be themselves.

But you don't really believe they are transgender because you don't understand it. If you did, you'd see the monstrous evil that is occurring right now, and wouldn't trivialize it.

By "doing something necessary" you mean anything besides "granting basic courtesies?"

Thanks, Mr. Literal. You know what I meant Just replace "address" with "refer to".

Someone at a work meeting the other day introduced herself as "she/ella."

Did you recognize immediately that ella was trolling?

Most people here believe that the vast majority of gays and lesbians are attracted to the same sex based at least to a large extent on nature, or inherent genetic disposition, as opposed to nurture, or environmental factors. Generally, I believe that those who don't think that gays and lesbians are in fact attracted to the opposite sex, and are just unwell, as you put it, are likely to concede the possibility they are truly homosexual if you limit that to the realm of nurture, or environmental factors. They just don't think there is a genetic basis to it, a large subset of those people likely attributing that conviction to the idea that homosexuals are made by God, who doesn't have it in mind to make them that way, just as with everybody else.

Uke recently, at least by my interpretation, seemed to concede the possibility that in some cases transgender people might be transgender because of nurture factors. That basis for belief might not pass the threshold of acceptability required for gays and lesbians by their community or any of their advocates, seeing as believing in nature as a influential factor in their sexual orientation is a sort of mandatory criterion. Therefore, from a strictly logical perspective at least, I can't say that your comparison of believing transgender people with believing gays and lesbians is apt without touching upon such a discrepancy, when referencing Uke's advice.

The possibility of nurture being nearly exclusively the basis for a transgender person's gender certainly lends some merit to the concerns of people who might object to medically imposed physical alterations, seeing as nurture aspects are obviously going to be more malleable than nature ones, whereas with gay conversion therapy, concerns over homosexuality don't have that credibility if you think that homosexuality is almost exclusively nature based.

Generally, I think that many transgender(noun) advocates will dance around nature/nurture contemplation or discussion, since the possibility of exclusively nurture based forces gives merit to the possibility of a transgender person renouncing transgender identity basically any time going forward under the right circumstances. Note that that doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't have been a gender in opposition to that consistent with their assigned sex nearly their entire lives, since I don't see why nurture based transgender identity couldn't have been formed very early on.

I did know what you meant, but I think the distinction is important, because as someone else just noted, you're only using those pronouns when the person isn't with you. So when you give your pronouns, you're not only telling someone what to say, you're telling them what to say when you won't even be there to hear it.

I considered that, but if you really wanted to make it easy for others, it seems like you just would not give pronouns at all.

Do you think it would be considered offensive for me to list my pronouns as he/she?

Not necessarily. It wouldn't uncommon for me to cc Mr. X on an email to someone else, and to say in that email, "I talked to Mr. X, and he said . . . ."

Tbf there are times when you need to refer to someone in the third person when they are around and in earshot.

14cobster, I find that whole line of thinking bizarre and obsessive. Mostly because it's been so long since i've argued with someone who would suggest the possibility that gay/ lesbians aren't real because it's so ridiculous.
I would hope everyone reading this in 2023 understands that gays and lesbians are real. The similarity I was suggesting is a "broad brush stroke" similarity where the current transgender panic reminds me of lgbt issues when I was in high school in the early 2000's in Kansas. or in America in the 1990's and I assume earlier, I wasn't alive then.

It's a mishmash of misinformation, ridiculous lines of questioning, misunderstanding basic human sexuality and psychology mixed with an incredible amount of hate. The ultimate purpose of the transgender panic is the same as it has always been by these deranged individuals- they are natural authoritarians who want to control what people do.


As for uke I wouldn't be hyper critical of the exact details of what he says because although I'm aware of specific details that he is not from first hand experience, the times are very troubling, and he's an ally who is largely correct.

I don't think people think that trans people aren't "real". They just think they're gay people who hate themselves.

That's word for word what someone would say in the 1990's about gay guys. I don't think they aren't "real" I just think they are confused. And with conversion therapy they could start getting turned on by the same pin up girls in hustler magazine that turn me on like a normal person.

What do you think all the trans people were doing in the 1990s or earlier when medical procedures weren't available and social acceptance was much less than it is now? Living their lives as straight people?

How is "you can have a dead kid or a trans kid" a thing now and not then?

How were trans people treated in Ancient Rome?

Huh? Being transgender doesn't on its own have anything to do with being non straight. I don't understand the nature of the trap, but on surface level -this kind of grifting seems confused to me.

I dunno, I wasn't there. I know a lot of emperors were hooking up with some boys . You tell me.