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

And so many fucking likes!!

Back when I was growing up, into my teens, one considered oneself lucky to be considered a person at all. Also, when adults would speak about a child they perceived as "problematic", even in the child's presence, they would refer to the child as "it", so that the child could hear it.
"It has no feelings."
"It doesn't understand."

- - -

Oh I definitely give a fuck about the loss of focus. The shift in the 'big issues' of the day from third-world poverty to first-world individualism is literally killing people. I just don't give a fuck about being misgendered. — Isaac

I suppose people need to use their time and energy somehow. And since they don't spend their days toiling under the sun (literally), they focus on other things. And living packed together like sardines like they do, they focus on things like correct gender pronouns ...

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. — James Riley

The thing is that what the OP is talking about is just one way, one-sided.

The LGBT+ person walks in, tells everyone how they want to be addressed, but they don't afford the same courtesy to others. Or the LGBT+ person doesn't even say anything, but expects others to get the pronouns right.

No, the LGBT+ person wants to be treated as speshal, so fucking speshal.

One of the reasons "boomers" ignore you is that we have been around the block a few times and find many of you "gender specialists" inordinately self-involved. "Sexual identity" is a new issue for you, but is not a new issue historically. Lots of people have dealt with it more and less productively over the last century. — Bitter Crank

:up:

In fact, most of the PC issues smack of this kind of self-involvement. I think that choosing your own pronoun is like choosing your own name and I fully support anyone's right to do so. Just don't try to enforce a general modification of the language. From the statistics I could find, non-binary individuals comprise approximately one-third of one percent of the population. So tell me if you need to be referred to as they, heck, even remind me, I'll respect that. But expecting 99.7% of everyone else to just jump in line and adopt radical linguistic changes is a tall order. And I could see where it would offend some people. I was educated when even using "they" as an impersonal singular pronoun was incorrect, and I regularly still do use "his or her" when I am training people. And I intend to go on doing so, and maintain that style in my writing. If someone complains, I'll acknowledge it, but it is my language, it is part of who I am, so I would expect that to be respected for the same reason that non-binary folks expect their wishes to be respected.

Yes, exactly this. And it's not just a case of remembering to use different words in the right places, but of replacing generic language rules with person-specific ones which is an unreasonable demand for the sake of a tiny minority.

That said, fully in favour of a switch to generic genderless pronouns, which has been pushed for for decades and affects a much higher percentage of people. I tend to oscillate between "they", "he or she", or just "she" as a counter. "They" is clearly superior; I should stick with that. No doubt it'll annoy a tiny minority of people again who either want a personal pronoun or are militantly cis, but I object to the assertion that I should care.

That said, fully in favour of a switch to generic genderless pronouns, which has been pushed for for decades and affects a much higher percentage of people. I tend to oscillate between "they", "he or she", or just "she" as a counter. "They" is clearly superior; I should stick with that. No doubt it'll annoy a tiny minority of people again who either want a personal pronoun or are militantly cis, but I object to the assertion that I should care. — Kenosha Kid

Quite. Language should determine its own usage.

One of the heights of this political correctness was this:

/.../
This meant, that for the first time, legally male prisoners with fully intact male bodies could be allowed to live freely alongside female prisoners in one of the 12 women’s prisons in England.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-review/
/.../

What happened? Women in prison were raped by men who identified themselves as women.

What happened? Women in prison were raped by men who identified themselves as women — baker

Not sure how this example applies. Sexual predators rape indiscriminately, especially in prison.

An intact male convict was allowed into a female prison, simply because he claimed to identify as a woman.

Oh, you mean it was all a scam?

So this is specifically about those "people who claim to be in support of the LGBTQIA+", but who don't get the pronouns right? — baker

I think I have simply mis phrased this section of my op, when I awaken I shall edit it to be more reflective of both the discussion and of my original intention.

At this point, we can't know if it was a scam. He had a history of pedophilia and sexual assault, so this should be cause for alarm. But some politically correct government officials thought it so important to respect his particular self-declared gender identity to put it first.

It's a cautionary tale of what can happen if people's own ideas about their gender identity are given primacy.

It's a cautionary tale of what can happen if people's own ideas about their gender identity are given primacy. — baker

Yeah, I guess certain peoples' claims need to be considered in context....Hmmm.

Again, comparing this to proper names is comparing apples to oranges. Its more like you're white but tell people you're black and you get annoyed that they keep calling you white. — Harry Hindu

Actually it's closer to proper names considering they often carry an implied gender. You might be right , but not for this reason. — Cheshire

You have no idea what you're talking about. Names are given at birth, or even before, when the sex of the baby is known. Only after the sex of the baby is known is when it is genderized (ways of expecting and enforcing certain behaviors) - based on the sex.

So, is gender something that is chosen and arbitrary, like a name, or something that is inherent, like your race, or species? I thought it was a sexist social construction. This is part of the problem. You have to define what you mean by "gender" and how it is different from "sex" for others to have clear idea of what pronouns to use and in which context.

If gender and sex are different things then how do you know if others are referring to your sex or gender when using pronouns?
— Harry Hindu
Context. If you are trying to stack people neatly then it's sex. — Cheshire

So why should a transgender get annoyed if someone uses pronouns referring to their sex and not their gender?

The entire issue simply makes conservative men uncomfortable and is being leveraged politically to divide society. No one cared until they legalized gay marriage and needed a new point of leverage. The whole matter is under false context of causing anyone confusion or the sudden importance of women's sports. You know what they make in the WNBA? — Cheshire

This is exaclty the type of comment one would expect from those that see this issue through the prism of politics and not metaphysics. The metaphysics of this issue needs to be resolved and asking questions about how a man can claim to be a woman, and vice versa, and what that really means, etc. is how we go about that. Most people here just want to treat transgenders like the prophets of a new religion and simply accept whatever they say at face value. I thought part of practicing philosophy is asking valid questions and not simply accepting claims because it would offend the claimant if you did question their claim.

Can we philosophers perhaps disentangle some concepts?

There are facts about a person; either they have Jewish ancestry/ heritage, or they do not. But this does not amount to an identity. Identity is not a matter of fact, but of judgement. As such it is always debatable always an intersection between individual and society. Louis may claim to be the King of France, but we all think he's a loony. Similarly, there is little point in claiming to be Jewish if the relevant authorities refuse to recognise the claim, and let you into whatever club or privilege is associated. Or conversely, there is little point in claiming not to be Jewish if the SS are telling you to 'get on the cattle truck, vermin!'

There is the fact of what one is, one's social identity and one's personal identity and always there is a negotiation between them or there is intransigence and a power conflict. And always there is the judgement of social and personal identities, such that one might be shamed by others for what one is proud to be, or vice versa, one might be ashamed of what one is while it is lauded by others.

With this in mind, it can be seen that some answers here are simply judgements with a veneer of misplaced facticity; some answers are claims of social convenience along the lines of it is better to draw lines and keep things simple for bureaucratic reasons - either you are employed or unemployed, and gardening doesn't count unless you get paid.

This rigidity of boundaries is reassuring for many, particularly in personal, bodily matters to the extent that any questioning of categories is felt as threatening to both personal identity and 'the fabric of society'. Thus to be a gay man is to be attracted to men, and that is a feminine attribute; therefore it is an offence and a threat against nature, god, society, and me personally.

This is exaclty the type of comment one would expect from those that see this issue through the prism of politics and not metaphysics. The metaphysics of this issue needs to be resolved and asking questions about how a man can claim to be a woman, and vice versa, and what that really means, etc. is how we go about that. — Harry Hindu

The question is whether this issue is a metaphysical or political one. There is talk of LGBTQ “rights”, for example; are rights in the realm of metaphysics, or politics? There is an LGBTQ “movement”, but I am unaware of any metaphysical movements.

The fact is that all these social-awareness phenomena are particularly distinguished by their political rhetoric: gay “rights”, the LGBTQ “movement”, the sexual “revolution”, etc, and the language and words used often betrays this...

...consider the term “gay”, which apparently replaced “homosexual” in the vernacular. This replacement occurred precisely because opponents of homosexuality used “homosexual” in a derogatory way—only remember Jesse Helms’ use of it in publicly condemning the practice—and the proponents of it found themselves in need of a new term to promote it. “Homosexual” and its derivatives therefore came to be used only clinically, in science journals and the like, and “gay” generally took its place in a society becoming ever more acceptant of—if not the practice itself, at least its prominence as a social issue with a force that had to be dealt with.

It was probably in a similar manner that “negro” was jettisoned in favor of “black”. “Black power”, “black is beautiful”, “black lives matter”, are all political phrases.

There are facts about a person; either they have Jewish ancestry/ heritage, or they do not. But this does not amount to an identity. Identity is not a matter of fact, but of judgement. — unenlightened

I disagree. The racial heritage/ancestry of ppl is universally felt as identity by them...or at least was so felt, back when it mattered, before the idea of the classless genderless individual whose racial makeup was of no importance in his role as citizen came to the fore.

Similarly, there is little point in claiming to be Jewish if the relevant authorities refuse to recognise the claim, and let you into whatever club or privilege is associated. — unenlightened

The point is everything, if indeed I am Jewish. Just because I am not allowed to join the Jew clubs or receive Jewish privileges says nothing about what I feel my identity to be. If I am not granted these privileges, but know in my heart I am Jewish, then I will feel slighted, and either accept that I am not accepted and live with it, or fight against it, or both...

...but I will never deny that I am a Jew.

Is there a legitimate, philosophical reason for one to use the incorrect pronouns? (Excluding cases where someone's safety may be in danger.) — Bradaction

My answer: I am an individual (I am a particular entity). I am my own person (no one lives my life for me). As an individual who is his own person, I think I get to choose the way I live my life (if there is any true free choice); this includes the way I behave, the decisions I make, the words I speak. No one can force me (better said, no one should force me) to do something I do not want to (whatever the reason I do not want to do such thing).

As a particular entity who is conscious of his own existence, I think I should have the right to address a person any way I want; of course, there are always consequences. That said, I do not think you, or anyone, have the right to tell me how to speak; the way I speak (or behave or do anything I choose to do) should be my choice and my choice only; this applies to every individual.

In summary, a legitimate, philosophical reason for one to use the incorrect pronouns is one (for whatever reason) not wanting to use the "correct" ones (and I put the word "correct" in quotation marks simply because I do not think there is an individual in this universe, or any other if there are more, who can say with exactitude what is correct).