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.

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.

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.

For something about which no fucks are given, this topic attracts a lot of posts. — Banno

Speaking for myself, I give a fuck about shit I don't understand, especially when I am, or might be held to account for it. I suppose someone imputing to me a motivation for my lack of consideration is not unlike me refusing to use their preferred pronoun: They are presuming I don't like them when that is not the case, and I'm presuming they are X when they are not X. We are both wrong. But they might pump the breaks on their assumptions if they expect everyone else to do likewise.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Just because someone doesn't use a preferred pronoun, even after they've been told repeatedly, does not mean they are fucking with you, or they don't like you, or they think you can't be that way. It could be that they just don't care enough about you to make a mental note. If the perpetrator of "genocide" wants to engage the person then the burden is on him to work some courtesy into his/her/it's communication. But if the "victim" is the one making contact, they should go some where else if they don't like what they are getting. When they go, they should not fall into the trap they eschew by speculating about motivation. If they want to know, ask.

There a generational differences, just like regional differences. Out west, lynching and nooses have exactly zero to do with race. It's usually related to horse theft or other vigilante justice. But nowadays, the southern connotations have to be considered everywhere. It's a mistake, however, for someone to impute racism every time they see a noose. If they want to know, ask.

But in the end, as someone who is ready, willing and able to turn over the reigns to AOC and younger generation, I don't like being out of the loop. I'm trying like hell to understand what would make a person think they are or should be so important to a stranger.

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? — Bradaction

I guess I'm just lucky in that I am happily lacking in social intercourse. I live in the sticks and rarely go to town. When I do, I don't engage much, especially when a pronoun would be called for. Don't worry, I'll be dead in 30 years or less and you all can hug each other while you piss on my grave. LOL!

But I take your question seriously and here's my answer: First, I would never intentionally offend. It sounds like I get a pass for the first innocent mistake. But neither will I spend an ounce of effort trying to please someone I don't care about. So if I'm called out, then, rather than offend, I'll walk away and won't have anything to do with you. If you kill yourself over that, I won't feel an ounce of guilt. You need thicker skin to live in this world.

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." — Bradaction

Hell, I didn't know I could use "they." I thought I might get strung up for using "they" if "they" wanted to be called "she" or "it" or "he" or L or G or B or T or Q or whatever. I use "they" all the time. And "you" and "people." But I can get in trouble for saying "you people." In boot camp I got in trouble for saying "you". "Private calling me 'ewe'? Do I look like a female sheep, Private?"

I think everyone should grow a fucking hide.

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. — Bradaction

It sounds cold, but unless I want something from you, I'd just avoid you. The burden is upon me if it is me seeking to engage. Otherwise, you can leave, or I'll send your saddle home.

If someone can decide for themselves if their essence is male or female or a combination, why can't they decide their own age?

Just saying

Curious that it is ok nowadays to choose your gender, must not your race...definitely not your race. Both these things are, however ambiguous, the products of nature.

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.

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.

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.

I think the use of “they” to refer to someone in the third person singular arose from two factors: firstly, it seemed rather clunky to say “he or she” when the gender was uncertain; secondly, though the English third person singular pronoun be different for all three genders (he, she, it), the plural of same (they) is totally gender-free...
...but a problem arises when “they” is used to refer to a singular subject of a verb. Consider this example: “they are going to the theater”. If the subject of this verb refers to a single individual person, grammar requires it concord in number with the verb. In that case we should have “they is going to the theater”, and that distinction would work admirably to show that the subject is singular rather than plural...
...except the language will not admit of it. The very language we share in common serves as a barrier to the effacing of gender in contemporary society...along with all the other barriers it faces.

Then it would also be Trumpian to simply call someone pronouns based on the way the appear. — Bradaction

No, it would not. Trump is a narcissist. Trumpian would be doing what the person wants, not how the person appears. So, Trump may want to be seen as a stud, but he's not. He's a slothenly POS. Should we call him "stud" because that is how he sees himself?

It has nothing to do with the importance of the person, — Bradaction

But it has everything to do with the person expecting others to find the import in them. That is presumptuous. X can see him/her/itself any way they want. That's cool. But if they expect everyone else to agree with them, that is Trumpian. And if someone does not respect their view of themselves, and they get depressed and kill themselves because some insensitive asshole doesn't give a shit about them, that's their problem.

Everyone is entitled to demand and receive respect. But respect does not constitute another agreeing with how you see your self. You can see yourself as the King of England. I'm not going to call you "Your Highness." Besides, if you do not identify as "she" are you saying there is something wrong with being a she? Are you misogynistic? Sexist? If you look like a woman and someone calls you "she" but you identify as a man, then the least you could do is try looking like a man. It's disconcerting and cognitively dissonant to call a person who looks like a woman "he". That's like trying to call Trump a stud. The brain doesn't work that way.

The interesting question ought to be not why people are resistant to pronoun change, but how you might change current practice. Your post seems to have annoyed people, driven them further from your wishes. I suppose that has to do with people not wanting to be told what to do, how to act, or being judged just for being themselves. Sound like a familiar battle cry?

My reaction was the same. Not sure how I might have responded if I was encouraged to take a moment and think about it, and if I could, please call you "they," that it would mean much to you, but would be understandable if I wasn't there just yet or if my old habits just weren't to be broken.

As others have said, the emergency of this situation is limited enough that we can take our time, accept as much as we're comfortable with, and slow down with the condemnation.

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.

:100: I try to not be an asshole I'm comfortable with it if that is the way someone wants to see me. Time for dinner.

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.

@Bradaction

If I refer to you in the third person, I’m not speaking to you. If I’m speaking to you, I refer to you with the pronoun “you”, which is genderless. How, therefore, is it insulting to you if I call you “he”or “she” when talking to others? Is it because those others might relate that back to you? Wouldn’t those others, your friends, correct me in that moment and say, “they don’t like to be referred to as a he or she, but rather as a they”?

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. — Bradaction

It's an interesting matter. I agree age does not equal wisdom. Dumb young people often grow up to be dumb old people. It's true that we should all aim to improve the future. The hard part is getting agreement about what 'improve' actually means and how it would look. One person's idea of improvement is another person's idea of a catastrophe. And both sides generally think it's obvious what the result will be.

My own view is that we should be able to choose our own identity, and, of course, we live in a social world of bodies, but we may justify our identity rather than simply being told who we are, and who we may become. — Jack Cummins

I think this is a naive view. There are certainly aspects of our identity we can't choose. We can't choose to be an adult or a minor. We can't characterize ourselves as someone who needs particular qualifications unless we have them. You can't change your identity if it is done for fraudulent reasons or to deceive someone. If you want to legally change your name, at least in my state, you have to petition the court. As long as women are treated differently than men are legally or socially, society has a legitimate interest in a person's sexual identity.

For example, it is reasonable for parents to object to their girl child having to use a bathroom also used by biological males.

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.

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. — Bradaction

Adults make decisions for minors all the time. That's the way it's supposed to be. The underlying assumption is that parents are the best people to make those decisions until a minor is old enough to make them for themselves. At exactly what age majority begins is open to discussion. Eighteen years old makes sense to me, at least for society as it is now. That's the age at which people go out on their own to work or college. People before a certain age are not mature or cognitively developed enough to control their own lives. Fourteen is definitely too young.

If you want to legally change your name, at least in my state, you have to petition the court. — T Clark

In this forum, all I had to do to get my name changed was to petition the mods. It was an extemporaneous act of mine that so persuaded them...but it was in my better interest. For my former user name was also my real one (which might have led to eventual difficulties...like if I decided to run for President), and now I have become at least half of a famous cartoon chicken.

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. — Bradaction

This is an inaccurate definition of what "political" means.

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. — Bradaction

The things you describe are definitely political in nature. If you are planning action to change society, that's politics. It's not just you making a change for your own personal satisfaction. As you note, you're trying to change people's attitudes and beliefs. That is politics, pure and simple. There's nothing wrong with politics, but that's not what's at stake. You have not made a moral argument that society is obligated to make the changes you desire.

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.

In this forum, all I had to do to get my name changed was to petition the mods. It was an extemporaneous act of mine that so persuaded them...but it was in my better interest. — Leghorn

Yes, well, it is probably appropriate that the forum has less stringent standards than society at large.

For my former user name was also my real one (which might have led to eventual difficulties...like if I decided to run for President), — Leghorn

As far as I know, Hanover is still looking for a running mate.

I have become at least half of a famous cartoon chicken. — Leghorn

As you probably know, a leghorn is a type of full-sized real chicken.

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. — Bradaction

I know humans are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Yes, we can probably try to execute more than one improvement. But some might think we should prioritize. Some might also think this pronoun issue is a navel-gazing, self-centered first world problem. After all, starvation, war, global warming and all that. I suppose one could view the pronoun issue not as a navel-gazing, self-centered issue, but an issue of trying to get us to think about and be more sensitive to others. However, we just aren't used to people self-advocating. It's much easier to have you, Bradaction, ask me to care about this or that person over there than, say, to have you ask me to think about you; or to have that kid over there demand I think about him.

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.

Gender Orientation and Sexual Orientation are different topics, — Bradaction

Whatever positive changes have taken place in the status of transgender and genderqueer people in recent years are completely and absolutely tied to the improvements in status that gay people have fought for for decades. For you not to know that proves my point.

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.