if you call everyone dude and a transfem person gets mad about it, don’t get defensive. just say like “sorry, i won’t do it again” and don’t argue “actually it’s gender neutral” or “i call everyone dude”. even if you do, i guarantee she’s heard that argument from someone who very much does not call people they see as women dude. i certainly have
same goes double for the word guy.
Alternative take that i dont necessarily beleive in but has been bouncing around in my head a while: In the dialect of the English language my sub-culture typically ascribes to, dude is gender neutral when used as an address, please don’t assume I am using language incorrectly because it doesn’t follow the rules of your dialect. Would you go to Australia and pear-clutch because someone called you a c*** (in the familiar/genial use of the word)
edit: https://hexbear.net/comment/4648973
This is just “devil’s advocate”.
If this isnt the space to have a discussion about this, that is fine and I apologize. What I was trying to say is: i am unsure if i agree with the opinion, but I thought of it and it seems solid, so i would like to have a discussion about it to see if it is, and hence if i should agree with it. intentional devils advocate isnt great, but also, if no one ever talks about opinions that might be wrong, they never learn those opinions are wrong.
Devil’s advocate is unpopular because it’s rhetorically dishonest - people with repugnant views often use it to abstract themselves from criticism for holding repugnant views while arguing for them.
I think you should be honest with yourself (and me): you’re arguing for this because you think it’s a good argument, but you’re (rightly) worried you’ll get banned by being honest about your views.
If you already know why it’s controversial enough to abstract yourself from the argument, then why are you arguing for it?
It’s not hard. Your vernacular doesn’t matter. You don’t have to understand the why in order to address people in a way that makes them feel respected as a person.
Yes I know the opinion is controversial, that’s why I’m unsure of on it, and hence want to start a discussion with knowledgeable and relevant people In order to either reject it or become less unsure on it. (and If you’ll look in some of the other threads my original comment has started, I have gotten some genuinely good information and perspectives in response)
I take mild offense to the implication I am being dishonest on this issue. I understand that some people using devils advocate are doing so to push their views while distancing themselves from them in case the discussion “fails”. I am not doing that. If you are unable to believe me on that, then I do not believe there is any more productive conversation for us to have. My views do not get any more “extreme” than that, and I wanted to make that clear by expressing that even this, a view that may be controversial, is something that I am debating with myself and not a strongly held belief.
because understanding that something is controversial is not the same as understanding if or why it is wrong. Communism is controversial, should we stop talking about that here?
I never said I would refuse to change how I address someone if they tell me how i do so makes them uncomfortable, I wanted to discuss whether the wholesale rejection of a new development in our language was good. Please see my other comment for a full description of my goals, As I outlined there, I could have approached the situation better, but I do dislike your reaction to my genuine attempt to clarify my goals and stance.
What I’m trying to communicate is that it’s still your opinion. It’s not an “Alternative take that i dont necessarily beleive in but has been bouncing around in my head a while.” It’s ok to be wrong about things, but you’re trying to put your “alternative take” into the conversation without ever having to accept criticism for having it.
Sure, I’m being (mildly) offensive, and I don’t really see much future for this is a productive conversation either.
this comment is redditor behavior
Yes yes sorry I forgot no one is allowed to be contrarian about anything ever
i mean you can be a contrarian but when i’m here complaining about transphobia and you come in to play devils advocate, that’s redditor behavior. and if you’re intentionally being contrarian people are going to be annoyed with you, so you should probably have thicker skin and not immediately start whining when someone gets mad at you
I appologise (un-ironically)
I admit I am still a little debatebro brained, and I did not realize this was the trans specific comm when I first posted, If this is not a space for disagreement, I apologize for inserting my opinion into it.
I do not support intentional or malicious use of bro/guys to misgender, And if anyone in particular were to ask me to stop referring to them as such, I would (and do) try my best to do so.
My goal was to start a productive discussion about the conflict between the take you posted and linguistic descriptivism, which I tend to align myself with and believe is a popular opinion in these circles. I feel justified to discuss this issue as I identify with groups that use bro and dude as a gender neutral form of address, and hence I feel justified to defend myself. once again, if this is not the space for that I apologize, and will remove myself from the discussion, however If anyone would like to have a productive discussion on the topic I am open to changing or refining my opinion.
I also used a poor tone for my goal, and to communicate my dissatisfaction in the response i received, reedit snark is a hard thing to get out of your system.
edit: forgot how formatting worked, broke up brick of text into pieces
i don’t think you don’t need to leave or anything, and i appreciate the genuine apology. i do think it’s important to note that a lot of times issues with microaggressions are difficult to parse when you’re on the other end, and as mentioned many people see themselves as using bro/dude as gender neutral but very much do not. linguistic descriptivism isn’t a bad way of looking at it but i think it’s important to try and put yourself in the shoes of the group actually being discussed here and imagine what it looks like from their perspective. very difficult to know what camp someone falls into when talking about it online
You know that’s entirely valid. I tend to over-empathize with groups I superficially fall into (such as people who use dude/bro as gender neutral) and assume that their intentions are as innocent as mine, which they may well not be, which leave me dying on the same hill as bigots.
Disagreement may be fine (idk, I don’t make the rules), but if you repeat the same arguments people have heard a million times from transphobes trying to excuse transphobic behavior in a trans meme community that’s an place for trans people to get away from such, doesn’t be surprised if you are treated as a nuisance and potentially banned. If someone doesn’t want to be called a cunt, buddy, dude, etc then don’t. Does not matter how you use the words with other people. Its not like people are suggesting we ban people from life for saying dude once.
Really? I thought approaching the dude/bro/buddy issue from a linguistic perscriptivism vs descriptivism perspective was at least a somewhat novel approach, and worth bringing up for discussion if anyone felt comfortable doing so with me.
When I started posting, I thought this was in a general comm, If i was aware I was inserting my opinion in a comm I am guest in as a non-trans person, I would have brought it up more delicately or considered saving it for a general comm. I appologise again if starting this kind of discussion is not welcome here, and if anyone wants me to shut up about it, I will.
I wholesale agree with you on this, as I said in the comment you replied to, I do not support intentional or malicious use of bro/guys to misgender, And if anyone in particular were to ask me to stop referring to them as such, I would (and do) try my best to do so. I am not and would never argue in favor of ignoring people’s direct wishes on what they want to referred to as.
After my discussions with users in other threads from this comment, I think my personal conclusion is that while from some perspectives the “dude is gender neutral” approach may have legs, the people who use it are usually doing so as an excuse to directly dismiss people’s wishes about what they want to be referred to, at best to cling to “being right” and at worst to invalidate people’s gender identity or validity as a person, which is cringe.
I personally have met transphobes that will make this argument so they don’t have to out themselves as transphobic in groups that might not accept them going mask off about it. I’m not saying you’re doing it, but it feels kinda similar to when transphobes go out of their way to use they/them pronouns for people when they’re talking to someone who is very obviously presenting in specific gendered ways. are they and them generally gender neutral? yeah, obviously but there’s certain contexts where it’s totally not the best way to talk to/about people.
No worries. Just wanted to provide some context. Given you didn’t realize where you were posting, its fine. But yeah, you’re basically saying the same things as lot of people have dealt with. Memes like this one are common because of how common people get it. The exact details or examples given might vary. This is a problem a lot of communities have to deal with. r/Fuck_cars is another community that had a constant influx of people spamming the same things and surprised when people are rude to them. Even if their arguments aren’t mainstream opinions, those types of communities tend to attract those types of people.
Personally, I don’t care about dude, but I think gendered language in general is kinda ick and would prefer if all language was gender neutral (but don’t push that only others - don’t want people thinking I’m one of those people who complain about trans people upholding traditional gender cause that’s another all too common argument).
You’re conflating is and ought. Descriptivism is only concerned with what a particular language is while everyone here is talking about what a language ought to be. Prescriptivism isn’t in opposition to descriptivism in the same exact way is isn’t in opposition to ought. When people shit on the Academie Francaise for prescribing some ridiculous word for “seat belt” that no one actually uses, people are actually shitting on a colonial institution that’s out of touch with European French speakers never mind Francophones not from Europe. But there are plenty of cases where prescriptivism is useful. The easiest case is on the topic of slurs. If the marginalized community believes a given word is a slur, it doesn’t matter if the majority of society doesn’t recognize the word as a slur. The word ought to be considered a slur and ought to not be used regardless of descriptivist arguments to the contrary.
deleted by creator
Fair enough, sorry for misrepresenting your culture. The point I was trying to get to was that, in general, prescribing use of language is bad. A word means what the person saying it intended it to mean (and of course, the other side of that blade means that calling anyone anything can be rude / hurtful if it has that intention behind it) and as English develops, in some dialects of it, words like “bro” and “dude” are not meant with the meaning of “man family member” and “man (gender)” in some applications, and choosing to resist that change because the words previous meanings could be harmful in some contexts might not be something I agree with.
If this is not the space for this discussion to be had I apologize, but it is one i would like to have
deleted by creator
Scar’non kant
deleted by creator