CDZ Confused about gender politics, help!

[LogicIsMyFirstLanguage]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

 

[LogicIsMyFirstLanguage]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Yes, now that you see how retarded it is , you can understand why the left are as retarded as what they push for.

 

[LogicIsMyFirstLanguage]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Yes, now that you see how retarded it is , you can understand why the left are as retarded as what they push for.

View attachment 184955

Yep lmao I've noticed that liberals basically argue with themselves, they want all beliefs accepted yet try to shut down the beliefs that conflict with their own... Anyone see the irony?

 

[OldLady]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Here in Maine, I've been wondering what we could call lobster fishing people since lobsterman and fisherman both end in the dreaded "man," but the substitutes just sound weird. Last week I heard a female lobster fishing person say "I've been a lobsterman since I was 10." I gotta tell you,I was relieved. Some things can take substitutions without any problem--like "humankind" for "mankind." But lobsterperson and fisherperson sounds absolutely stupid.

 

[martybegan]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Here in Maine, I've been wondering what we could call lobster fishing people since lobsterman and fisherman both end in the dreaded "man," but the substitutes just sound weird. Last week I heard a female lobster fishing person say "I've been a lobsterman since I was 10." I gotta tell you,I was relieved. Some things can take substitutions without any problem--like "humankind" for "mankind." But lobsterperson and fisherperson sounds absolutely stupid.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that a losbter(wo)man has more to worry about than pronouns, things like catching enough lobster to make a living.

The pronoun wars are mostly a battlefield of the academic gentry, who have the time on their/zeir/xir/whatever hands to worry about such trivial things.

 

[LogicIsMyFirstLanguage]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Here in Maine, I've been wondering what we could call lobster fishing people since lobsterman and fisherman both end in the dreaded "man," but the substitutes just sound weird. Last week I heard a female lobster fishing person say "I've been a lobsterman since I was 10." I gotta tell you,I was relieved. Some things can take substitutions without any problem--like "humankind" for "mankind." But lobsterperson and fisherperson sounds absolutely stupid.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that a losbter(wo)man has more to worry about than pronouns, things like catching enough lobster to make a living.

The pronoun wars are mostly a battlefield of the academic gentry, who have the time on their/zeir/xir/whatever hands to worry about such trivial things.

True, generally the ones that complain the most are the ones who already have the most privilege. People who are actually under privileged generally don't have enough free time to be on twitter and Facebook all day every day...

 

[martybegan]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Here in Maine, I've been wondering what we could call lobster fishing people since lobsterman and fisherman both end in the dreaded "man," but the substitutes just sound weird. Last week I heard a female lobster fishing person say "I've been a lobsterman since I was 10." I gotta tell you,I was relieved. Some things can take substitutions without any problem--like "humankind" for "mankind." But lobsterperson and fisherperson sounds absolutely stupid.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that a losbter(wo)man has more to worry about than pronouns, things like catching enough lobster to make a living.

The pronoun wars are mostly a battlefield of the academic gentry, who have the time on their/zeir/xir/whatever hands to worry about such trivial things.

True, generally the ones that complain the most are the ones who already have the most privilege. People who are actually under privileged generally don't have enough free time to be on twitter and Facebook all day every day...

I truly hate the word "privilege". it's been abused as much as racist and sexist.

It really has to do with idle time combined with a belief that ones views are the only views, and everyone else is an "ist/ic/ism"

 

[LogicIsMyFirstLanguage]

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Here in Maine, I've been wondering what we could call lobster fishing people since lobsterman and fisherman both end in the dreaded "man," but the substitutes just sound weird. Last week I heard a female lobster fishing person say "I've been a lobsterman since I was 10." I gotta tell you,I was relieved. Some things can take substitutions without any problem--like "humankind" for "mankind." But lobsterperson and fisherperson sounds absolutely stupid.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that a losbter(wo)man has more to worry about than pronouns, things like catching enough lobster to make a living.

The pronoun wars are mostly a battlefield of the academic gentry, who have the time on their/zeir/xir/whatever hands to worry about such trivial things.

True, generally the ones that complain the most are the ones who already have the most privilege. People who are actually under privileged generally don't have enough free time to be on twitter and Facebook all day every day...

I truly hate the word "privilege". it's been abused as much as racist and sexist.

It really has to do with idle time combined with a belief that ones views are the only views, and everyone else is an "ist/ic/ism"

Ye that's the funniest part though, the left pushes these ideas of victimisation onto a race/gender yet in the same breath says everyone is equal... The left are the real racists/sexists.

 

[Toronado3800]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Yes, now that you see how retarded it is , you can understand why the left are as retarded as what they push for.

View attachment 184955

Am I still in the CDZ or the Romper Room?

In fairness that "Latest Threads" listing does not tell posters what areas they are entering.

 

[LogicIsMyFirstLanguage]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Yes, now that you see how retarded it is , you can understand why the left are as retarded as what they push for.

View attachment 184955

Am I still in the CDZ or the Romper Room?

In fairness that "Latest Threads" listing does not tell posters what areas they are entering.

Romper room? Does not sound remotely sexual

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

You've fallen prey to a rightwing strawman fallacy; There is no 'gender politics,' it's a lie contrived by the right.

 

[LogicIsMyFirstLanguage]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

You've fallen prey to a rightwing strawman fallacy; There is no 'gender politics,' it's a lie contrived by the right.

While I agree it's not worth political concern, it is a thing that is being debated by both sides for whatever reason. I would prefer politicians talk about actual issues but this society of self victimisation demands attention, they are getting it just not the kind they wanted.

 

[JoeMoma]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Since I live in Manassas Virginia, we are considering getting rid of Man because it is gender specific so my town will be called Assas Va. Boise Idaho, again is gender specific because of Boi, so can only call it Se Idaho. Manchester can only be called City, because Man and Chester are both male, so cant use either. See how easy it is?

Ok so the argument is completely idiotic. Thanks for clarification on that.

Here in Maine, I've been wondering what we could call lobster fishing people since lobsterman and fisherman both end in the dreaded "man," but the substitutes just sound weird. Last week I heard a female lobster fishing person say "I've been a lobsterman since I was 10." I gotta tell you,I was relieved. Some things can take substitutions without any problem--like "humankind" for "mankind." But lobsterperson and fisherperson sounds absolutely stupid.

Angler works for some people that fish.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights?

Nobody's making anyone use any damn pronouns. The use of a given pronoun, particularly a personal pronoun, is driven by the rules of grammar, and those rules exist to facilitate clear, efficient, and effective communication. Period. Chose the pronoun that doesn't confuse one's audience -- i.e., make rational and members of the audience who mastered the language in which one speaks/writes not wonder of whom one is speaking/writing -- and one be just fine.

I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Yes. You're missing the fact that pronoun choice is a matter of grammar not human rights. Stop trying to make pronoun choice be something it isn't (or stop paying any mind to folks who are, if it be that you aren't among the folks doing so), and you'll be just fine.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ok so I recently watched a lot of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Milo yiannopoulos and i watched some arguments from leftist perspectives. My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights? And actively goes against the argument for gender neutrality. Which from my understanding is that everyone's opinion and belief should be respected.

Am I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Before This Language Aggression, He Was Used for "He or She"

Practically all Netwits, even those who imagine themselves to be anti-PC, use the unisex "they" with a singular antecedent because they fail to recognize that they are under the control of these ignorant and dysfunctional language lords. These pseudo-intellectual fad-followers have even made up "Latinx" to solve this imaginary problem, which is that they believe that Latino can only refer to males.

 

[Zander]

Silly shit that nobody gives a fuck about except the lunatics.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights?

Nobody's making anyone use any damn pronouns. The use of a given pronoun, particularly a personal pronoun, is driven by the rules of grammar, and those rules exist to facilitate clear, efficient, and effective communication. Period. Chose the pronoun that doesn't confuse one's audience -- i.e., make rational and members of the audience who mastered the language in which one speaks/writes not wonder of whom one is speaking/writing -- and one be just fine.

I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Yes. You're missing the fact that pronoun choice is a matter of grammar not human rights. Stop trying to make pronoun choice be something it isn't (or stop paying any mind to folks who are, if it be that you aren't among the folks doing so), and you'll be just fine.

Insofar as I'm having an unusually beneficent moment, I'll even help you out OP-er....

• "She" and "her" are the personal pronouns used to refer to females. If you look at a person or their image and they look like a female to you, refer to them as "she" or "her" if you are not of a mind to refer to her by name.
• "He" and "him" are the personal pronouns used to refer to females. If you look at a person or their image and they look like a male to you, refer to them as "he" or "him" if you are not of a mind to refer to him by name. (A key thing to notice about the possessive versions of personal pronouns is that they don't take an apostrophe.)
• There are also possessive versions of the gender specific personal pronouns. They are "hers" and "his."
• Lastly, there are the non-gender specific personal pronouns. They are "you," "your," "yours," "I," "me," "my," "mine," "we," "us," "our," "ours," "they," "them," "their," and "theirs."
  

• When one is unsure whether the person under consideration/discussion is male or female, one may refer to them using descriptive phrases like "the person who...," "the individual with...," etc. There are, of course, other ways of handling uncertainty such as that which I've described, but insofar as you're struggling with basic personal pronoun choice and how and why one might choose one or the other personal pronoun, I think, for now, it's best that you go with the very simplest and most reliably accurate phrasings.

 

[LogicIsMyFirstLanguage]

My confusion is this, if we are made to use certain pronouns then surely that is an infringement on basic human rights?

Nobody's making anyone use any damn pronouns. The use of a given pronoun, particularly a personal pronoun, is driven by the rules of grammar, and those rules exist to facilitate clear, efficient, and effective communication. Period. Chose the pronoun that doesn't confuse one's audience -- i.e., make rational and members of the audience who mastered the language in which one speaks/writes not wonder of whom one is speaking/writing -- and one be just fine.

I missing the point or is the argument for neutrality genuinely that flawed?

Yes. You're missing the fact that pronoun choice is a matter of grammar not human rights. Stop trying to make pronoun choice be something it isn't (or stop paying any mind to folks who are, if it be that you aren't among the folks doing so), and you'll be just fine.

Insofar as I'm having an unusually beneficent moment, I'll even help you out OP-er....

• "She" and "her" are the personal pronouns used to refer to females. If you look at a person or their image and they look like a female to you, refer to them as "she" or "her" if you are not of a mind to refer to her by name.
• "He" and "him" are the personal pronouns used to refer to females. If you look at a person or their image and they look like a male to you, refer to them as "he" or "him" if you are not of a mind to refer to him by name. (A key thing to notice about the possessive versions of personal pronouns is that they don't take an apostrophe.)
• There are also possessive versions of the gender specific personal pronouns. They are "hers" and "his."
• Lastly, there are the non-gender specific personal pronouns. They are "you," "your," "yours," "I," "me," "my," "mine," "we," "us," "our," "ours," "they," "them," "their," and "theirs."

• When one is unsure whether the person under consideration/discussion is male or female, one may refer to them using descriptive phrases like "the person who...," "the individual with...," etc. There are, of course, other ways of handling uncertainty such as that which I've described, but insofar as you're struggling with basic personal pronoun choice and how and why one might choose one or the other personal pronoun, I think, for now, it's best that you go with the very simplest and most reliably accurate phrasings.

Ye that is officially retarded. Them and they can't be singular so that alone is enough to make me laugh.