The Culture War

[Leo]

no in general where I live ppl would be quite confused by that I think

most people include a link to explain, usually looks like this:

Pronouns: she / her (what's this?)

 

[Benny Bunter]

This womxn thing is exactly the same issue as the cervix havers thing from a few pages back - it's a double standard, and it's actually exclusive, not inclusive.

 

[Mr. Tea]

do you guys see much of the "he/him", "she/her" and "they/them" in email signatures over there? still a minority here, but a fair number of my work contacts have started doing it this summer.

I've only ever seen it on Twitter, but in my line of work it'd be bloody useful in emails since loads of my colleagues at the big plant in China have names like Echo and Crystal and Destiny and whatnot - names which, in a Westerner, you'd assume indicated a woman (probably one with hippy parents, or leanings that way herself), but in this case they're just as likely to be a bloke.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Best one I've seen is Magic Wang.

 

[Leo]

I sometimes work with a woman in a client's Beijing office named Season.

 

[linebaugh]

Ive always felt the angle that should be pushed is the normalization of 'they'- not in self identification, but in reference to everyone else. Feels like alot of the more tedious bits could be circumvented this way, and has plenty of practical use, see Teas scenario. But I go by what I look like so its not really a conversation for me

 

[constant escape]

Yeah "they" seems, to me, to ultimately be a safe catch-all term. Resisting that, seemingly, would mean resisting standards for the sake of resisting standards - which I would advocate in a general intellectual manner, but I don't think fares well socially or politically.

 

[sus]

naw fuck they

"zir" is tight, "zir" is verymuch dope, I want "zir"

welcome in the future, you know?

 

[sus]

New Oscars standards say best picture contenders must be inclusive to compete

Starting in 2024, movies will need to meet specific inclusion standards in order to be eligible for the best picture Oscar.

www.latimes.com

 

[constant escape]

Well the good thing about that, is that it might actually inspire the newly-included demographics to advance their cinematic voice to a point where they would actually qualify for pre-inclusion Oscars. The trick is to know when this point is reached.

 

[constant escape]

Something like this might work in a way that affirmative action (allegedly) falls short. Where the latter seems to primarily enable those with the wherewithal to take advantage of it, this could actually affect people at all socio-economic levels, at least in theory. Especially if more and more content from streaming services is nominated.

 

[sus]

"at least in theory"

 

[constant escape]

Although maybe not. Would it only affect those who really care about the Oscars, which is already a bit of a class indicator? Or would it just primarily affect them, and then trickle down to affect most everyone else? That is, if more Oscar cred leads to more bankable directors/producers, that could lead to more blockbuster opportunities, and that would surely have a wider impact socio-economically, no?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I don't mean to put anyone on the spot, but can anyone attest to the impact of these words? Can it really amount to something larger than a shift in letters?

well, speaking as someone (tbc, a cisgendered man) who has had transgender and/or non-binary etc work colleagues, romantic and sexual partners, and friends for my entire adult life - including before the recent wave of cultural awareness - I feel pretty comfortable saying yes, the language matters. not as much as ensuring people's physical safety, ability to seek employment without discrimination, etc, of course, but it matters. which isn't to say every instance and every word is equally meaningful. I don't really see how "womxn" is more inclusive than "women" in this case, or how it sheds new light on "prejudice, discrimination, and institutional barriers" faced by cisgendered women or transgendered women or anyone else. I suppose it gets away from woman as derivation of man - Adam's rib style - as implied by the original spelling (the literal etymology in Old English is approximately "wife-human"), as people have been spelling it "wimmin" "womyn" etc for a long time with anti-patriarchal intent, but it doesn't do what they say it does.

without actually knowing motives, comes across like a well-intentioned but clumsy effort

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

but yes, in a general sense, words matter to people who are effected by them

@Linebaugh is correct that "they/them" is the gold standard, or when in doubt

"yall" is another excellent gender-netural plural pronoun, albeit not one Europeans may be inclined to use

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

It's not organic though. Who decides? And why do they think they can impose it on us?

language or thought leading to language may originate in academia but even when it does it wouldn't stick irl if there was not an organic need for it

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

it's so draining that whole trans thing

I know bro, imagine the horror of having to make a minimal effort to respect people's identities. so draining.

this fucking attitude, I swear

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

and glad to see @Benny B show up like clockwork to take the TERF line, always a joy

 

[constant escape]

Solid points, as usual. What do you think about criticism of these new terms, especially when they come from people to whom the terms do not apply?

 

[constant escape]

I'm inclined to believe that respecting people means critiquing them as much as anyone else, and that there is some critical difference between providing platforms and providing pedestals - but when is enough enough, in terms of voicing this criticism?