4
Pronouns and tribal affiliations are now forbidden in South Dakota public university employee emails (apnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@kbin.social
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A new South Dakota Board of Regents policy keeps employees from including their gender pronouns in school email signatures and other correspondence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Gross. You care more about preserving the delicate feelings of bigoted snowflakes than actual vulnerable people.

It's not misgendering if you use non-gendered language. Non-gendered language is not gendered. Grammatical gender is idiotic and we'd be better off without it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I completely agree. Gendered pronouns are not helpful and at this point only confuse things. I'm just glad English doesn't have gendered nouns, too, like Latin-based languages.

    Anyway, the fact is that they/them has become "gendered" in the sense that it's now a preferred pronoun for a lot of people, mostly androgynous enbies, so its implicit meaning has changed. Sure, it's still used as a non-gendered pronoun for hypothetical people, but when used for a real, known person, it has the same implication as he/him or she/her - that they appear to be a certain gender, enby in this case.

    I'm a clearly masculine person - I've got a beard and I wear masculine clothes. I personally wouldn't be offended, but I would think it very odd if someone saw me and thought they/them was an appropriate pronoun for me. If masculinity was as important to me as it is to most men, I could see myself getting offended at someone implying that I appear androgynous. Same as if an enby was referred to as he/him or she/her. Cisfolk's emotions are just as valid as valid as enbies'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent