Gender Attribution

[RyukaTana]

Good point, Alex, except that 'gender-neutrality' is different. 'They' is appropriate to all genders. If that's how you feel, 'they' is more accurate. I'm not arguing that at all, so I'm not being hypocritical here. Use 'he' if that's most comfortable for you, and that's a perfectly fine reason to do it.

[crayzz]

Assuming non-gender until proven otherwise is just as unfair, unless you want to tell me that the non-gendered get less right to fairness than females or hermaphrodites. Either way there's unfairness, and I think that not presuming they'd prefer non-gendered pronouns is a better alternative.

Eh? You're not assuming no gender, you're acknowledging that the gender (or whether there even is one) is unknown to you. That's the point: make no assumptions by speaking inclusively.

Words like "they" and "xe" don't mean "that person with no gender", they mean "that person".

[Packbat]

Arguing against the argument again. Hence why my statements continue not to be for you and just to add to the discussion about my point with other people.

Are you saying that if I claimed your position was wrong because it failed to acknowledge the importance of Keith Jarrett's famous 1975 Kohn Concert, and you replied to the effect that virtuoso jazz piano performances had no bearing on the subject, I could ignore you because you were arguing against the argument?

Assuming non-gender until proven otherwise is just as unfair, unless you want to tell me that the non-gendered get less right to fairness than females or hermaphrodites. Either way there's unfairness, and I think that not presuming they'd prefer non-gendered pronouns is a better alternative.

Singular-they does not assume any gender. If you want to refer to agendered people (say), there are pronouns people have invented for the purpose. Singular-they makes no more assumptions about gender than plural-they does.

Pre-edit: i.e. what crayzz said.

[RyukaTana]

Are you saying that if I claimed your position was wrong because it failed to acknowledge the importance of Keith Jarrett's famous 1975 Kohn Concert, and you replied to the effect that virtuoso jazz piano performances had no bearing on the subject, I could ignore you because you were arguing against the argument?

You can ignore me because you can ignore me... Period. That's entirely the point of everything I've said, pretty much in all of my arguments...

However, if you mean to say that my argument about gender ignores jazz piano performances, and that was your argument against it... Then yes, I would ignore you, because that actively has no bearing on the topic. Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about, and not because I don't understand how it relates, but because I don't know what you're jazz argument would be an argument against.

[Tailsteak]

[RyukaTana]

That comic seems to have argued for points on both sides and come to the conclusion it's all a joke... Which I would consider a win on my side if you deem that a legitimate argument at all. So... I'm not sure what the point was... Legitimately, I'm not being condescending. I don't know what the point of that comic was, nor the intended point Tailsteak was making.

[crayzz]

Ryuka is wrong because some apples are mostly red in colour. The premise is true; my intent is civil. Prove me wrong without attacking the argument.

The problem in your reasoning is that a premise can be totally true and the argument still be false. You can't reject an argument against an argument because it didn't attack the premise.

That comic actually bugs me; thon is singular and T-Rex is using it as plural. It should be, "Thon enjoy(s) this."

[Alex Starkiller]

Another admission: I use "he" when I don't know but don't think I should use "they".

You guys could try reading what I wrote, you know. I usually use "They". On occasion, it either sounds wrong or I actually think I'm talking to a guy [online through text] so "he" seems better. And unless the tiny chance that the person I'm talking to even knows what "xe" is happens, it's not ever a problem.

[Packbat]

@RyukaTana: My point is that there is no rational justification for ruling out rebuttals of rebuttals. crayzz's claim has been that your argument failed to refute their* argument. If your argument failed to refute crayzz's argument, then crayzz's argument remains standing to refute your original position - so in order to defend your original position, you have to address crayzz's counterrebuttal.

* I know, I haven't been paying attention, and I should probably know your gender by this point. My apologies.

@Tailsteak: I personally prefer:



('alt'-text: Guys: while I was writing this, I accidentally swallowed a table-sized slab of drywall. I know! Wacky.)

[crayzz]

You guys could try reading what I wrote, you know. I usually use "They". On occasion, it either sounds wrong or I actually think I'm talking to a guy [online through text] so "he" seems better. And unless the tiny chance that the person I'm talking to even knows what "xe" is happens, it's not ever a problem.

Huh? Look:

Assuming non-gender until proven otherwise is just as unfair, unless you want to tell me that the non-gendered get less right to fairness than females or hermaphrodites.

We did.

I know, I haven't been paying attention, and I should probably know your gender by this point.

I don't see why I should expect you to know. Male, for what it's worth.