When Did it Become Acceptable to Bring Politic of Hate into SL?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

That depends on how many different people demand their own sets of pronouns, and how they react when you inadvertently use the wrong one.  I have a hard enough time remembering names in RL.  If I knew 10 different people with 5 different preferred sets of pronouns, it becomes a bit much.  And if someone who looks like a guy and sounds like a guy and has a 5 o'clock shadow at 1:00 PM goes off on me because the first time I meet that person my psychic powers fail me and I call that person "sir" and (insert that person's pronoun here) goes off total diva (insert word for female dog here) on me, it's not going to go well.

My soon to be stepson was born female and is beginning to transition, and if you met him on the street you'd assume he was a fairly small guy.  His own family occasionally screws up and refers to him as "she" because, well, they've know "him" as "her" since he was born.  He doesn't bat an eye, they may correct themselves or apologize or just move on, no drama at all.  Of course, he's Canadian, and Canadians don't get all self righteously offended at inadvertent mistakes.  Just another reason I prefer the company of Canadians in general to that of my fellow Americans.

I also understand Alwin's point of view.  "They" is plural.  Those of us with stern taskmasters/taskmistresses for English classes growing up were strongly conditioned not to use "they" to refer to a single person.   Demanding to be called "they" isn't quite the same as asking to be called "he or she".

We should come up with a new, completely non-gendered set of pronouns.  Rather than "sir" or "ma'am" or whatever, everyone is "bub", for instance.

Most of what you say here is very good sense, Tolya, and I can't disagree with it, except perhaps to note that people have coined new pronouns to indicate non-binary identities, and that approach runs across as much or maybe even more resistance as the other. Maybe it's a question of time: after all, "Ms" is a very recent linguistic phenomenon that was much resisted at first, and is now, I think, standard English. Certainly, it would be helpful if we had a standardized approach to this. That will probably come, with time, whether it's the reassignment of existing pronouns, or the acceptance of new ones.

As regards "hissy fits," as Seicher terms them -- agreed (with both you and her). I work in a university: I meet and engage with probably a larger number of people who identify as gender neutral than most people generally do. I do my very best to use the pronouns I've been asked to use, but quite frequently I forget. I apologize, and move on. I haven't experienced hissy fits over it (although maybe a few rolled eyes), perhaps because I'm in a position of authority -- but obviously those who wish to be addressed in particular terms need to demonstrate some patience, especially towards those of us who are older and still learning. (My students themselves seem not to have this problem.)

I'm not, really, much interested in legislative or policy initiatives around this question. To me, this is very personal: it's about my one-on-one engagement with people. It's about courtesy, and respect, and showing support to those who too frequently find themselves the subjects of abuse. And there is, of course, an enormous difference between opposing attempts to compel certain kinds of language, and one's own personal decision to be courteous, generous, and supportive to those who are trans or non-binary: it's not at all inconsistent to both oppose laws or policies that compel language use, and to still choose, personally, to comply with people's personal preferences upon request.

With regard to my remarks to @Alwin Alcott -- he's not very clear on what exactly he means, or why he has said what he says.

If I have in any way misjudged him, I will not only happily apologize -- I will be relieved, because I very much want to think he is, as I've always thought he was, generous and kind (if occasionally a bit grumpy). I hope that I am wrong in the way I read his comment.

Having said that . . . what we say in public has a particular kind of impact and meaning, and the implications of suggesting that, for whatever reason, one is not going to recognize the particular identity of trans and/or non-gendered people go beyond the kind of personal relationship I described above. Whether we intend them to, or not, they become part of, and contribute to, a larger and deeply hurtful public discourse that is often abusive and insulting, and that can even make the world a slightly more dangerous place for trans and non-binary people. That may not be our intention, as I say -- but it can be an unintended effect, because there already is so much of this kind of abuse floating around the public sphere. (And this may, of course, be a reason that some people get particularly frustrated when we forget their pronouns of preference: it's a constant struggle for such people to establish control over their own identity.)

At the risk of sounding a bit Pollyanna-ish, if we apply, in our personal lives, more care to be kind and respectful to the individuals with whom we engage, an awful lot of the rest just follows.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Ted McGregor]

31 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

With regard to my remarks to @Alwin Alcott -- he's not very clear on what exactly he means, or why he has said what he says.

In all seriousness : let me help you. Alwin can correct me if I'm completely mistaken.

The point of reference and framework to be discussed in is hard when an individual has a choice of identity unclear to others. The insistance to singular identify oneself as plural is linguistically impossible maintainable straining in discourse and conversation.

I'd ask of you to write down an answer to SeikariTheMierianShadow with the identity preference they prefer, but literally answering to them complicates communication to a level where many simply shut down in response.

I find that is an aspect to be seriously considered.

Edited January 12, 2020 by TDD123
what i actually meant speeling

[Qie Niangao]

2 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Gender in English ≠ gender neutrality and for those wishing for gender neutrality pronouns, English already has one 'the' so why make up more. 

I don't think the Lexicon Valley episode was particularly interested in anybody's prescriptive views of how pronouns should be used. I'm certainly not. The point was that pronouns are among the things that have been most fluid over the history of English, and that they've undergone dramatic simplification in the course of the language's evolution. I came away thinking that further simplification is most likely, so not adding pronouns (and after all, "they" is no new introduction) but rather dropping others. Perhaps the entire gender distinction will disappear along with plural/singular (both "he" and "she" become "they") which might be a natural progression anyway. Originally (and still in many familiar languages) gender-distinguishing pronouns most often got used for inanimate objects: nouns sorted into utterly arbitrary "male" and "female" categories. It's true that the (almost) complete erosion of those categories in English is not the same as losing the ability to make the gender distinction when referring to creatures of known gender (nor is that the objective of the pronoun-preference folks), it wouldn't be a very surprising development. Indeed, young usage currently favors "they" on many occasions with no consideration of preference, but just to avoid the whole question.

I remember ages ago working on my thesis I faced a then-topical decision: when referring to unknown gender, in place of the previously default male pronouns, whether to use

• "s/he", "him or her", "hers or his" (but in which order, those disjunctions?)
• all female pronouns 
• randomly half male and half female

What wasn't considered an option was to abandon the cardinality distinction and use a singular "they"+"them"+"their" -- it would have read as a simple error back then. It sure is an option now and I think most writers would choose it -- not because they "should" but rather because it's simpler. Simplicity is to English as entropy is to thermodynamics.

[Ted McGregor]

Wth? We're all gonna be talking like Yoda ?

[Drayke Newall]

2 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

I don't think the Lexicon Valley episode was particularly interested in anybody's prescriptive views of how pronouns should be used. I'm certainly not. The point was that pronouns are among the things that have been most fluid over the history of English, and that they've undergone dramatic simplification in the course of the language's evolution. I came away thinking that further simplification is most likely, so not adding pronouns (and after all, "they" is no new introduction) but rather dropping others. Perhaps the entire gender distinction will disappear along with plural/singular (both "he" and "she" become "they") which might be a natural progression anyway. Originally (and still in many familiar languages) gender-distinguishing pronouns most often got used for inanimate objects: nouns sorted into utterly arbitrary "male" and "female" categories. It's true that the (almost) complete erosion of those categories in English is not the same as losing the ability to make the gender distinction when referring to creatures of known gender (nor is that the objective of the pronoun-preference folks), it wouldn't be a very surprising development. Indeed, young usage currently favors "they" on many occasions with no consideration of preference, but just to avoid the whole question.

I remember ages ago working on my thesis I faced a then-topical decision: when referring to unknown gender, in place of the previously default male pronouns, whether to use

• "s/he", "him or her", "hers or his" (but in which order, those disjunctions?)
• all female pronouns 
• randomly half male and half female

What wasn't considered an option was to abandon the cardinality distinction and use a singular "they"+"them"+"their" -- it would have read as a simple error back then. It sure is an option now and I think most writers would choose it -- not because they "should" but rather because it's simpler. Simplicity is to English as entropy is to thermodynamics.

I have no issue with the evolution of language or even if there is an evolution of language to insert new words, it happens all the time, every year. I do object however, to the evolution of a word that has been and is used in a different pretence. This is where it would be confusing. As far as your thesis was concerned to refer to an unknown gender you would use the singular they. It is the correct way and always has been.

I mentioned in my post that 'the' is the encompass all gender within the English language. When the four words 'they', 'them', 'their' and 'there' are broken down to their primary form the word 'the' is apparent as bolded. Any change introduced to accommodate these new ideals of gender pronouns must also apply to these as this is how language works. Presently those words can be used singularly to show an unknown gender in the English language as 'the' is the encompass all pronoun created centuries ago i.e. "do they have a dog?", "is it them?", "perhaps its their dog?" and "there is a body". This is not gender neutrality of any sort in modern pretence, never has been. It is the equivalent of someone coming to me and saying "Francis did that" and given Francis/es verbally has the same sound of the female or male name varient I would reply "did they?" seeing as I don't know Francis and have never seen them to visualise their gender. That is singular they/them/their in its true definition. It is not 'gender neutrality' as implied by advocates but 'gender unknown'

If one was to link those four words to a specific gender as gender neutrality/pronouns implies then the use of they would become confusing. With regards to your thesis as an example the reader would have to interpret whether you are talking about an unknown gender hypothetically or as in the Francis analogy before mentioned or, are you  implying that Francis has decided to have no/both gender as modern gender pronouns advocates desire. In certain circumstances depending what your thesis was about either of these interpretations could alter the reasoning or conclusion of your thesis' meaning.

I am perfectly fine with people make up pronouns, go for it, but don't change the meaning of a word to then make it mean 2 things that are interpreted entirely different depending on how they are read and don't force (or abuse/hate) people to change when they have been taught a certain way all their life.

EDIT:

Also apologies I made a mistake in my previous post (the line you quoted) the gender neutral pronoun we have in English is 'it' not 'the'. But 'it' as a general neutral pronoun is apparently demeaning despite it specifically meaning of something that has no gender. "go read it (implying a book)" the book having no gender. This is the difference between singular 'they' meaning unknown and 'it' meaning no gender. But even here there would lie a problem how do you interpret "it read it". Or "they read him like a book" instead of "She read him like a book". The first would imply plural they but if changed to modern gender neutrality could also imply a single person.

I'm also not trying to be demeaning or mean no offence when I wrote this just trying to explain the complexities of such a change.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Drayke Newall

[Blaise Glendevon]

People have been colloquially using 'they' as a single person pronoun for about 500 years. Quit acting brand new. 

[Drayke Newall]

2 hours ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

People have been colloquially using 'they' as a single person pronoun for about 500 years. Quit acting brand new. 

😩 That form of 'they' is not how you are implying it. Did you actually read what singular they means in my post above? If I have seen a person and know he is male I would say he. If I hadn't met the person and didn't know their gender I would use they. Why do people think that this isn't how it has always been. They in the use of identifying a person as a gender was majorly first proposed in the 80's as part of a certain movement and it is only since around 5 years that it is being proposed  again as a pronoun to identify a specific gender.

So no it isn't brand new, however the meaning implied or wanting to be implied now is. Just because someone 'colloquially' (read as grammatically incorrect) says it doesn't mean it is correct. Just as, many Americans use 'then' instead of 'than' doesn't mean they are correct or doing it 'colloquially'.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Drayke Newall
Capitlisation of that after smiley

[Blaise Glendevon]

14 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

 as part of a certain movement

Say what you mean.

[Drayke Newall]

46 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

Say what you mean.

Feminist movement. This was the main time period of actual looking into it. There were some people (mainly women) that proposed it in the 1880's to use 'they' as gender neutral however, was never accepted as grammatically correct as the prominent grammarians of the time stated exactly what I wrote in my post that it was to awkward in conjunction with its use with they/them/their etc., as plural and its accepted singular form referring to specifically an unknown gender.

When that fell flat it wasn't until the 1970-80's that another push for gender neutrality and pronouns were looked into as I mentioned before and 'they' was once again proposed to a far larger audience. It is also from this period that I would say is the reason there is today a huge backlash against gender pronouns today as during that period over 80 were suggested and many of these 80 are used as scare tactics for them not to be accepted. For example when gender pronouns were suggested a few years ago there were many debates and articles about how it means learning over 100 pronouns etc. Gender neutrality even began to enter into politics and writings by certain influential feminist writers.

That said, even from then it was only used in small circles until the 2010's when there was a large push for LGBT rights. It was during this period that more and more people pushed for gender neutrality and pronouns and work began to establish which ones to use. The problem that is still present however, is that a clear definition of what pronouns to use hasn't been made or approved as people keep making up new ones. Due to this I would dare say it will be still debated for quite a while until the LGBT group can specify a single pronoun set to encompass all.

If you want to go back even further around the mid 1700's there was a desire from a few prominent persons (even some men) to have 'he' as gender neutral, however, when the 14th amendment was established there was a realisation that this was not going to be the case as to counteract this for the first time the word male was specifically used in the document rather than the usual he.

The problem that has always been with the pronoun movement is that no specific single set of pronouns can be agreed upon. One singular set would be far easier to implement into English and remember than the 3 or 4 that keep being thrown about, changed etc., or the change of use of pre-existing words like 'they' that have grammatical complications as I posted about.

As an aside if your interested in what pronouns have been suggested and why one set can never be agreed upon refer to this archived website. https://web.archive.org/web/20120215101445/http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/epicene.htm

Edited January 12, 2020 by Drayke Newall

[Blaise Glendevon]

Ah. Neckbeard away. I'm not engaging with your grievances against women and queer folks. 

[Drayke Newall]

2 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

Ah. Neckbeard away. I'm not engaging with your grievances against women and queer folks. 

Where on earth did you come to the conclusion I have grievances against women and queer folks? You asked which movement I meant and I specifically told you the feminist movement and explained the history of gender pronouns. All of what I posted is fact and can be researched by yourself.

To imply through what I wrote that I am a misogynist or against LGBT (despite not even knowing my gender or my lifestyle), reinforces my previous point I made that some people do exactly what I wrote, that is "don't force (or abuse/hate) people to change when they have been taught a certain way all their life."

[Ted McGregor]

I rather engage a person presenting themselves as "I'm (not) okay with how you adress me and ( if needed ) I tell you my preference gladly while I know who I am for myself." instead of "You HAVE to adress me and others the way I want or I will not engage with  you at all until you do. "

 

ETA  : Regardless which identity they bear.

Edited January 12, 2020 by TDD123
Regardless

[FairreLilette]

On 1/6/2020 at 10:58 AM, Samie Bagley said:

In these last two days, I had encounters with Trump supporters who filled their profiles with hateful messages. Specifically, profile pictures showing gun violence, groups promoting lies that were discredit by US and UK intelligence, and groups promoting violence toward others. All were reported to LL.

As a result of these encounter and awareness of LL's permissible attitude toward the introduction of politics of hate in SL, I am no longer a premium member. I refuse to financially support an organization that allows the spewing of hate as evidenced by my encounters with MAGATS.

I am deeply disappointed at LL's lack of action in the insertion of politics into SL, and even more disappointed with the LL's inaction toward the infusion of politics of hate in SL.  I am wondering of anyone else has had similar experiences and how people have handled/reacted/felt in these situations. 

 

Best regards,

 

-Pebbles

From my understanding Pebbles, hate speech is not allowed according to the TOS BUT that may be for the forum only.  I remember reading that hate speech was against the TOS when I signed up. 

Sorry, it's morning, I just woke up, had one sip of coffee and I'm not awake enough to read the TOS at the moment but YOU COULD look up the TOS to see what it says.  

Edited January 12, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Desiree Moonwinder]

I am the first to admit that I can't stay completely up to date on luxury belief systems; doubtless I'll err in some detail.  My understanding is that the new definition of "hate speech" is anything that the political right says.  Likewise, the new definition of "violence" includes "hate speech."  This too will pass.  Luxury belief systems must evolve when the masses adopt them.  If the term "luxury belief" isn't familiar, use your search engine for keywords such as: "luxury beliefs" 

[Luna Bliss]

It never ceases to amaze me how those who are asked to change behaviors which contribute to violence against disadvantaged members of society manage to make the issue all about their inconvenience.

[FairreLilette]

I looked up the TOS.  Yes, hate speech is against the TOS.  It's part of the "community standards" we all agree too.  Here is part of it:

(v) Post, display, or transmit Content that is obscene, hateful, involves terrorism, or is racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; or

 

But to the OP:  I don't think quitting premium is the answer.  Reporting and then blocking and moving to a different scene for a while may be beneficial for anything in SL that is upsetting to you.  

I have read a few (not too many) profiles that had hate speech in them about women.  What can I do?  The person is looking for attention most likely like a polemic perhaps.  I choose to ignore it and I felt sorry for the person.

Edited January 12, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, TDD123 said:

I rather engage a person presenting themselves as "I'm (not) okay with how you adress me and ( if needed ) I tell you my preference gladly while I know who I am for myself." instead of "You HAVE to adress me and others the way I want or I will not engage with  you at all until you do. "

 

ETA  : Regardless which identity they bear.

I'd rather experience the encounter that way too. But are you strong enough to cope with some defensiveness on their part if they are irritated when at first you don't address them in the way they prefer?  Can you absorb a bit of their anger, knowing the disdain and violence they generally must deal with in society for simply being who they are? 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[FairreLilette]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'd rather experience the encounter that way too. But are you strong enough to cope with some defensiveness on their part if they are irritated when you at first don't address them in the way they prefer?  Can you absorb a bit of their anger, knowing the disdain and violence they generally have to deal with in society for simply being who they are? 

It's difficult to always address a person the correct way IF you have not been introduced first.

Just yesterday, a person addressed me as "Miss"....I'm not a Miss, I'm a Mrs. even though divorced because I did not change back to my Maiden name.

Duck's back sometimes.  There are real serious issues to worry about.  If it's a hateful word, then be on guard and report it.  

[Ted McGregor]

@Luna Bliss : C'est la tone qui fait la musique, n'est ce pas ?

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

@Luna Bliss : C'est la tone qui fait la musique, n'est ce pas ?

Yes, it is the tone that makes the music.  But if you understand and empathize with where the other is coming from you can function as a conductor and easily change the tone.

[Ted McGregor]

Tell me, Luna .. did you check up on Jordan Peterson yet ?

[Qie Niangao]

4 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

As far as your thesis was concerned to refer to an unknown gender you would use the singular they. It is the correct way and always has been.

I'm just too old. When I was writing my thesis (in 1980, god help me), no style guide for formal writing would condone something like "... the subject made their selection..." -- it had to be "his", "her", or "his or her" because the pronoun's plural/singular cardinality was required agree with the noun's. You're certainly right that it's absolutely correct now. (My thesis had nothing whatsoever to do with any of this, incidentally, it's just one of those traumatic memory landmarks for me, like 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination, where one remembers all sorts of contemporaneous ephemera.)

I had to look it up to check, but the history of "the" is a little different in English than students of German etymology may expect. It actually was part of Old English before the Norse invasions, so it's related to "that" but not the similarly-spelled "they", "them" or "their" which came from Old Norse "þeim". (In Old English, "heom" was used in the place "them" would assume.)

[Luna Bliss]

12 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

18 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'd rather experience the encounter that way too. But are you strong enough to cope with some defensiveness on their part if they are irritated when you at first don't address them in the way they prefer?  Can you absorb a bit of their anger, knowing the disdain and violence they generally have to deal with in society for simply being who they are? 

It's difficult to always address a person the correct way IF you have not been introduced first.

Just yesterday, a person addressed me as "Miss"....I'm not a Miss, I'm a Mrs. even though divorced because I did not change back to my Maiden name.

Duck's back sometimes.  There are real serious issues to worry about.  If it's a hateful word, then be on guard and report it.  

It is difficult to address another correctly in some instances, yes. Ideally, the transgender individual would respond graciously (and generally a transgender person is gracious when others misgender them).  But if I DO encounter anger from them, I consider it my responsibility to let them know I understand their anger and it's okay with me.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Qie Niangao]

5 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Tell me, Luna .. did you check up on Jordan Peterson yet ?

I'll save her the trouble: Unlike Francisco Franco, Jordan Peterson is not still dead.

[Luna Bliss]

7 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Tell me, Luna .. did you check up on Jordan Peterson yet ?

Yes, extensively....and I consider him to have major mental health issues that need work.