WARNING SUBJECTIVE OPINION AHEAD!!!
the following text is about a controversial opinion regarding the debate of pronouns. you have been warned
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"i don't think you get to choose whether someone else can refer to you with they/them"
welcome to my ted talk about my own opinion, beheadings are asked to wait until after the show
i have seen various takes on the pronoun debate, and i have heard various conflicting arguments, made by various conflicting people. while i agree with some, and disagree with others, i feel that i may have at long last found an opinion that pisses everyone off, so here goes my defense:
the original debate regarding pronouns, originated in the application of third-person pronouns in regards to non-conventionally gendered* people. in this category, i would argue that everything that is not cis falls. including trans, agender, neo-pronouns, and the like. the arguments made — as to my ability to perceive and understand them — were that: because gendered pronouns imply information about a person, using them without regard to whether that information is correct, is disrespectful, and disregards an amount of autonomy on the subjects behalf. this, does however come into the purview of the english language, which is notably wobbly, misunderstood, and weird. which — in accordance with the nature or language — means that any definition or meaning derived from it, is subject to change.
when talking about pronouns in the context of personal pronouns, it is generally regarded as being exclusive to third person pronouns, as first- and second person pronouns do not infer notable information regarding the subject, other than — in some contexts — quantity(put a pin in that). the other piece of — situationally — notable information is the personhood of the subject(put another pin in that).
the debate on whether one is obliged to use a person's chosen pronouns is notably fucky-wucky, as it has led pronouns to be regarded as both a descriptive, and a property; it both describes an aspect of a person, as well as being a standalone aspect of their character. before the debate can continue, we must decide which of these two we seek to adhere to. i believe that this is most easily settled in the context of pronouns and gender. if pronouns are exclusively a descriptive, then ones gender must align with one's pronouns. whilst an argument could be made for a rigid definition where pronouns directly infer ones gender without room for individual choice, that is neither an argument i seek to make at the moment, nor one i wholly agree with. therefore, i will propose that: "pronouns are suggestive, but not axiomatically indicative of a person's gender" which is a fancy way of saying "well they often match, but they don't have to".
when talking about 'the pronoun debate' it is common to forgo the existence of first and second person pronouns. i would however argue that they cary significance in creating a system of definition and cohesion. i would argue that the first person pronoun of "me" implies information of quantity and personhood, but not gender, as me is to be used when referring to a singular, and a person**.
now, going back to the rather controversial thesis. i am of the opinion that one cannot disallow the english language to function regarding oneself. what my gender and identity is, is something which can be inferred based on select choices of language. therein, i argue that any word which does not infer — as per the discussion; relevant — information about the person, is hence not within the reach of subjective opinion. this, i exemplify with the usage of first and second person pronouns, as "i, me, us, we, you[...]" do not infer information about a person, other than the two aforementioned variables of 'personhood' and 'quantity'. the first person pronoun "i" infers personhood, and a singular. the second person pronoun of "you" infers personhood, but not quantity, as "you" refers to an undefined quantity of people — see usage of "you; david" compared to "you; my friends" — which unless the aforementioned outlying variables are subject to personal opinion and change, means that one cannot opt out of a person using "you".
second to last. i wish to address the matter of personhood in pronouns. as denoted previously(the dual asterisks), the notion of communicating these complex topics, is sufficient — in my opinion — to denote something as having sufficient personhood t'where said pronouns would be applicable. heeding this, the only remaining possible place for a pronoun which does not imply personhood, is that of a third person pronoun. notably, this exists in "it", as 'it' is a third person and quantified pronoun which denotes the absence of personhood. -but also as "them" in contexts of multiple items
lastly, i wish to tie this back to my rather controversial statement above. i am of the opinion, that: 'because "them" does not imply information it is not in an individuals purview to affect it's usage'. a pronoun can imply information, and in that there is the choice to contradict the information as false, if no information is implied, then there are no grounds to contradict the information
the above can also be phrased in a less tasteful manner: someone who argues that they can chose whether someone else can refer to them using "they/them" pronouns is fundamentally misunderstanding what pronouns are, how they function, their role in language, and basic tolerance of discomfort. herein, i've used "they", "them", and "their". this is because said words no not infer any personal information regarding identity, hence it would to me be as ludicrous as someone being offended at me referring to you — the reader — with "you" because of a personal preference. one is subject to their own choices of pronouns, in the case of identifying information. someone who uses "xe/xim" is wholly justified in asking someone to refer to them as such. they are however not at liberty to condemn someone for referring to them using the english language. every single thing and person can be referred to with these pronouns, and they are not up for debate. if you have pronouns you prefer or dislike, then those who talk about you are subject to the basic rules of decency to use said pronouns, however if they choose to refer to you with only the notion of your existence, then they are fully in the right to do so
simply put. pronouns are subject to personal choice because some are objectively false, in the same manner as a name being objectively false. these are personal things which are ones own to choose. "they/them" are not personal words, as every single thing shares their usage. the argument that one can choose away from being referred to — while conceptually humerus — is one i have as of yet never seen an argument made for which i could agree with, regardless of my own opinions on the matter.
if you have an argument, opinion, suggestion, or complaint, i would greatly enjoy taking part in said discussion, but i ask that it is done in a civil and structured manner. thank you for your attention and patience, i hope my thoughts on the matter stand fair
*Footnote 1: "Gender" will for this text be referring to the societal and cultural concept of gender, not a biological one. it will not be synonymous with 'sex', nor adherent to a specific set of chromosome sets
**Footnote 2: in the context of using "me" whilst writing from the perspective of something which is not inherently a person — such as a robot or non-human animal —, it is therein implied that the perspective of communication is granted sufficient personhood to communicate with such thoughts; an animal which is described as thinking or communicating with that level of conscience, is therein designated as sufficiently 'a person' to where it would logically apply
[no this text was not written by AI, i pressed every key manually and then had to redo half of it because i forgot to save the draft when making food]
baratheonpilled
areudirty
2087
titsay
turnnoffyourmind
kianamaiart
tangentwithtanner
pixelskylines
