of her/she.

That's not making an argument for using a person's preferred pronouns, that's making the case for not using gendered pronouns at all.

My point is that there is a cultural bias in this conversation and we should take into consideration people's background and their intent and how such language is received (i.e., if everyone in the conversation is fine with it, who are we to judge?)

The response to that point is condescendingly calling me conservative, out of touch and stuck to old ideas for no other reason than that's how I was raised.

So in an effort to argue about being more inclusive, bearfield is being condescending and judgemental...that's the opposite of inclusive. So to answer your question I would say bearfield is putting the surface level language above deeper ideas and notions of what inclusivity looks like.


>>You are doing all this work to change the language you use
>but
>>let me ask you this, can you explain to me why I shouldn't
>>refer to a woman as she if she prefers to be referred to as
>>"she" and would not want to be referred to as "they"?
>
>You're talking about a single person, addressing their
>preferred pronoun.
>
>Seems to me, they're referring circumstances where they're
>addressing an entire group at once, and choosing a more
>inclusive term.
>
>>I will say that the older I get the more skeptical I get on
>a
>>lot of progressive quick-fix ideas that try to solve complex
>>topics with changes in language. "females", "he/she" or
>other
>>quick word fixes aren't the problem, but the language is
>often
>>used to condescend towards others to feel superior.
>
>Why do you think these are seen as "quick fixes to solve
>complex topics with a change in language"?
>
>Who, exactly, is saying that simply changing the terminology
>is the fix? These are mere pieces of the puzzle, and among the
>simplest things we can correct.
>
>Who is saying pronouns are "the" problem?
>
>It's "a" problem, which is generally symptomatic of greater,
>far deeper problems, but that doesn't mean it's not worth
>addressing on it's own.
>
>The situation with the woman at work is a great example of ass
>backward "progressives", so I'm in no way saying that doesn't
>exist. It is very much a problem, but the fact that people are
>only dealing wit the surface level issues doesn't mean that
>everyone who deals with those surface issues likewise makes
>that the stopping point.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"