zapatos

You too! 😀

I'm not referring to the law, I'm referring to the fact that you want others to respect your preferences, but you refuse to grant them that same courtesy. It seems this is more of an emotional issue for you rather than one derived from reason. That has got to be the biggest red herring I've ever seen. Oh for God's sake...

So perhaps you can see the confusion that causes when you refuse to call others what they would be preferred to be called.

You continue to dodge questions. It is getting old.

So you don't care if I call you 'they', and you will call someone born female 'he' if requested? I've got to say that talking to you has become very difficult.

Did you not really mean the posts I quoted from you?

WTF are you talking about? When did I refer to you as "they"? I asked you a specific question and rather than answer you asked a non-sensical question in return.

No

I feel like I am debating with a child. If you don't want to take this seriously I have better things to do.

But then he specifically said he would respect the choice of the person to whom the pronoun would be applied. So again, what did he do that was hypocritical?

iNow did not refer to you as 'they'. He gave an example of how to use 'they' in a sentence for MigL.

As long as you are available koti, can you please answer my question to you? I'm just really curious. Don't mean to rush you.

What exactly was hypocritical?

Serious question. Who are these people you are referring to? And what I'm asking for is their names or other identifying information.

We all accept you have a strong desire to be a biological mother. This place is much more accepting of who you are biologically than most places you'll venture into. What we are telling you is that your educational background and your approach of teaching yourself will never lead to your goal of having a child. Perhaps you should instead focus your energies on finding scientists who are already doing the type of research you are interested in and ask them if they can help you. If I want a special type of aircraft that has never been created before I don't try to build it myself, I talk to people who specialize in aircraft research and design.

I think we can all agree on that point. You are in over your head and should move on to some other endeavor.

In what way?

That sounds to me a bit more like an honest mistake than any political correctness issue. In any case I agree there is no issue when something happens once. If the man had said 'please refer to my spouse as "he" and you continued to call the spouse "she", then that would have been the problem.

Which is what. Exactly. I'm getting rather tired of you telling me how bad I am then ignoring my requests for clarification. It is arguing in bad faith and simply trolling.

Har! Made me laugh out loud! 😆 I agree completely. It's simply a shortcut that leads to a preconceived conclusion.

Citation?

Evident to whom? Does the person you are claiming took things out of context agree with you? It looks to me as if society is having one of their many debates/conversations where we work out the new rules on a topic that had previously been ignored. These conversations tend to go better when we address each concern rather than saying "that is totally unfounded". If someone posts in the science forum about some crazy idea, the response they typically get is to point out flaws in their idea, or to ask pointed questions meant to allow the poster to recognize the flaws of their idea on their own. It is not considered good form to simply say 'we won't discuss your idea as it is evident to me that your idea is totally unfounded'. Sounds similar to how PC people are treated.

When you say "PC Brigade" that sounds like you are referring to a group of people who you believe are making unreasonable requests with respect to things they find objectionable, and that you are not taking them seriously. Did I misinterpret that? Because it certainly doesn't sound like you are grouping them together due to their outstanding work in shedding light on inappropriate language and behavior. Of course. No one is suggesting otherwise. The questions are 'who decides what the limit is', and 'how do you respond if you disagree with them'.

Yeah, that's pretty much the same thing as saying "don't be so sensitive". Completely disregards their thoughts on the matter. I imagine at some point in your life you might have said something like 'women managers are too emotional'. But (I hope) not anymore. And that is because women pushed back against men dismissing them as inferior in their thinking. Many people who have been marginalized all their lives finally feel they can push back against the slights they experience every day because of their ethnicity, religion, culture, etc. And you dismiss them as being part of the PC Brigade, or others say they are too sensitive. Mostly people don't say "women are too emotional at work" anymore but instead limit their comments on emotional instability to concrete example. Generalizations are no longer appropriate. I'm hopeful that in the near future people will quit dismissing those who feel a sign, or song, or Tomahawk Chop is something that makes them feel bad, and has the temerity to ask others to stop. Maybe then those who speak up against slights against them won't be pigeon-holed like blacks, women and other minorities were, until they finally said "ENOUGH". Using an example of an obvious overreach by someone objecting to a song as a reason to say "people are too sensitive" or "you are part of the PC brigade", is no more appropriate than using an example of a black man being lazy to say "blacks are lazy". Unless you understand the details of why a person is objecting to something, it is not fair to summarily dismiss their objection.