News

1751 readers

1 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 1 year ago

Pronouns and tribal affiliations are now forbidden in South Dakota public university employee emails (apnews.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months 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'.