Gendered nouns, nonstandard and otherwise

[TanaNari]

Why wouldn't "he" be able to be both gender-neutral and for guys depending on the situation?

Click to shrink...

The militant feminists will tell you it's because bad men used the words to do bad things to women, and therefor using the words is bad and wrong.

Sometimes they'll also use "he is a man word, it leaves women out and that is bad".

Or that's the best I can figure. I've heard this argument many times before, and I've never been able to puzzle it out past this point. I find both arguments utterly nonsensical and circular by definition.

 

[pepperjack]

Why wouldn't "he" be able to be both gender-neutral and for guys depending on the situation? Homonyms are a thing.

Click to shrink...

This is one of the hypotheses under discussion, yes. I don't think it holds up.

One of the many difficulties we're having in this thread is that I have yet to see a clear consensus on what "gender-neutral" actually means. I suspect different people are going with different definitions. For example, to me, a pronoun that can't be used for a genderless referent, or for a referent whose gender cannot be known, can not be a gender neutral pronoun. (That's not a definition, it's just an example of a single property that I don't think everyone here agrees on.)

To my mind, the question of whether 'he' can be used with an intended gender-neutral meaning is distinct from the question of whether 'he' has the property of gender-neutrality. It is possible that it is a gendered (masculine) pronoun that is commonly used in contexts that call for a gender-neutral pronoun, used in that way because no suitable gender-neutral pronoun exists for that speaker. Under this hypothesis, 'he' would not actually have a gender-neutral homophone; rather, it would be a masculine pronoun which the speaker expects the listener to realize, from context, does not necessarily indicate a masculine referent (usually because the context makes clear that the gender of the referent is not or cannot be known).

My only remaining interest in this thread is the acquisition and analysis of data that might help distinguish which of these hypotheses (if either) is correct.

For example:

TanaNari

I'm curious about your take on the following utterance.

"I introduced two of my internet friends to each other last week. As soon as the first one found out the second was a Star Trek: Voyager fan, he proposed to him on the spot."

 

[TanaNari]

pepperjack

Yeah, that works fine. Although most people won't immediately make the connection that 'internet friend' might mean 'don't know their respective genders'... I mean, I at least know the *claimed* genders of all my internet friends. They may be lying. And a couple of my friends I know are legitimately transgendered (as opposed to only playing one on the internet). Either way, I know the genders they want me to know them as, and that's fine for me.

And personally, I always hate 'one pronoun followed by the same pronoun used to refer to a different person' thing. Gender specificness or lack thereof is not a factor... saying "She's talking to her" or many, many other things like it just irritates me. But it's still technically correct (best kind of correct, my hairy white ass). Yet another of the many flaws in this language called English.

But those points aside? Yes. Everything in that phrase holds together perfectly well. Or at least better than anything else you could have used, without actually knowing genders.

Or. They may very well be male. After all, there's such a thing as being gay. Or just making jokes along the lines of being gay. Hell, I've been flirted with by hetero men in a completely nonserious manner before. This one joker in highschool used to flirt with basically everyone of both sexes. Teachers and other students' parents included.

He was very much straight.

 

[pepperjack]

I mean, I at least know the *claimed* genders of all my internet friends.

Click to shrink...

Suppose the context made it clear (or that the utterence were somehow altered to make it clear - I can do so upon request) that the speaker does not know the gender of at least one of the friends.

 

[TanaNari]

Suppose the context made it clear (or that the utterence were somehow altered to make it clear - I can do so upon request) that the speaker does not know the gender of at least one of the friends.

Click to shrink...

Thought I made that clear in the prior post.

Yes. Everything in that phrase holds together perfectly well.

Click to shrink...

 

[pepperjack]

Thought I made that clear in the prior post.

Click to shrink...

Ah. Well, you went on to say that you know the (claimed) genders of all your internet friends, so I wasn't sure.

(Personally, I'm not in the habit of asking folks their genders, and I don't often see people volunteer them. Just by way of example, so far as I'm aware I haven't made any statement at all on QQ concerning my own gender, if any.)


There was another step after asking your opinion of that sentence, but it's late enough at night that I think the sun's coming up again and I've forgotten it.

 

[Heaven Canceler]

Well, I think it is a bit of a Problem yeah. The definitions seem wildly different.

Valette seems to think, and this is just as far as I understand so please don't take this as truth, that a gender neutral pronoun shouldn't have an association with anyone gender (Or maybe alternatively, I guess it could be associated with all equally?) and can be used to describe any of them without confusing the Reader.

Say, a theoretical pronoun which we call "whir". In this case, using whir to talk about a woman would make equally sense as talking about a man or a Person whose sex/gender we don't know at all.

On the other Hand, TanaNari, from what I understand from you, your Definition seems to be "something that can be used to talk about uncertainty", about a Situation where you don't know the sex/gender and not much else. Because if you know the sex/gender/nature of the being, then of course you will start using him/he/it, so there is no reason for a word to encompass all genders/sex.

And with Pepperjack giving his Definition, this opens another direction.

It is quite the interesting Dilemma, two People talking about the same, but also different things.

 

[TanaNari]

so far as I'm aware I haven't made any statement at all on QQ concerning my own gender

Click to shrink...

You're a cheese. How many possible genders do you have to choose from?

That being said, in the verbal language I'd refer to you as a 'he'. In writing, I'll generally type s/he- which is entire unpronounceable as a word and I know it- but is an easy shorthand for saying "I do not know this person's gender". It's not that I believe "he" is somehow invalid or wrong. All evidence I've ever seen suggests it is not. But, well, I guess I'm not utterly immune to the disease that is political correctness.

Either that, or I use s/he because it's the fastest and laziest possible way to say "I dunno". Text makes it really hard to convey concepts (like sarcasm) most of the time, so we have to improvise. S/he is one of my improvisations.

It's hardly unprecedented. Emoticons aren't grammatically correct by any possible stretch of the imagination short of a minor stroke... and we use those for the same function.

 

[pepperjack]

Fair warning, I've stopped trying to structure my posts. At this point it's just a collection of things I thought about saying. Rest and food will likely restore my motivation to

um

write... things. Organize. That's the verb.

Or. They may very well be male. After all, there's such a thing as being gay. Or just making jokes along the lines of being gay. Hell, I've been flirted with by hetero men in a completely nonserious manner before.

Click to shrink...

If this possibility was no more prominent in the average English-speaking listener's mind than the possibility that they were both female, I'd take that as evidence supporting the existence of a gender-neutral he.

S/he is one of my improvisations.

Click to shrink...

So long as we're discussing behavior, rather than theory... in practice, I tend to avoid using a singular pronoun at all when gender is unknown. I'll use a name if I can get away with it, or restructure the sentence to avoid the need for a gendered pronoun. If that would create more clunkiness than it solves, I tend to default to "they." In those situations, I feel the number ambiguity of singular vs. plural 'they' is easier to resolve than the gender ambiguity (or, potentially, outright gender inaccuracy) of attempting to use 'he' for a subject of unknown or unknowable gender.

 

[TanaNari]

If this possibility was no more prominent in the average English-speaking listener's mind than the possibility that they were both female, I'd take that as evidence supporting the existence of a gender-neutral he.

Click to shrink...

I would argue that one person proposing to another after discovering a shared love of Star Trek Voyager on the internet basically eliminates all possibility of anyone believing either of these individuals are female.

Which says a lot of awkward things about our culture, if you start thinking about it. I'm not dismissing that there are gender and equality issues in our society. But 'generic he' as a gender neutral is neither symptom nor cause of any of them.

Also. The stereotype about Star Trek fans is in full effect.

So long as we're discussing behavior, rather than theory... in practice, I tend to avoid using a singular pronoun at all when gender is unknown. I'll use a name if I can get away with it, or restructure the sentence to avoid the need for a gendered pronoun. If that would create more clunkiness than it solves, I tend to default to "they." In those situations, I feel the number ambiguity of singular vs. plural 'they' is easier to resolve than the gender ambiguity (or, potentially, outright gender inaccuracy) of attempting to use 'he' for a subject of unknown or unknowable gender.

Click to shrink...

And as far as I'm concerned, nothing short of the threat of physical pain will force me to use singular they.

I feel quite strongly about how awful it is. But not strongly enough to prefer literal torture. Generic 'he' is perfectly functional most of the time. Or, at least as often as any other nongendered option is. Which is admittedly rarely in this language known as English. The vast majority of the time, nongendered terms which refer to humans are never appropriate.

 

[pepperjack]

Again, not even trying for a comprehensive response. It's not because I don't have things to say.

The vast majority of the time, nongendered terms which refer to humans are never appropriate.

Click to shrink...

I find that "person" is non-gendered. It works quite well for me with remarkable frequency.

 

[pepperjack]

I would argue that one person proposing to another after discovering a shared love of Star Trek Voyager on the internet basically eliminates all possibility of anyone believing either of these individuals are female.

Click to shrink...

Interesting. Let's compare.

"I introduced two people to each other over the internet last week. As soon as they found out they were both Star Trek: Voyager fans, one proposed to the other on the spot."

 

[TanaNari]

Yeah. Reads the same either way. Although it is cleaner and reads nicer for the lack of using the same pronoun back to back without distinguishing between the two people.

The comment about no one believing either was female... was said for comedy. Don't take it seriously. One of those "there are no girls on the internet" things. Exactly no one ever believes it's literally true. But it still gets said.


Although if we *are* being serious, the one doing the proposing is at least going to be assumed as male based on the whole proposal thing. It's culturally fairly taboo for women to do that, even (possibly especially) in a joking manner. And our society hammers into women that they don't want to make such comments as that toward men... because things can get very creepy, very quickly. Or they might "scare off" a man. Or whatever, lots of reasons, point is it's a thing that isn't considered normal.

So, yeah, all cultural expectations subliminally hint that the one proposing is a man. Gender pronouns are nothing compared to the behavioral hints.

And the expectation of learning he's actually a woman... would lead people to immediately be certain that the other is also a woman. Making it a sort of silly comment.

And if the first is a man and the second a woman... then many people would be of the opinion that the guy is being creepy as fuck.

If they're both guys... then it's just a 'harmless gay joke'.

And if it's a girl (fake) proposing to a guy she doesn't know... then she's clearly got something wrong with her.


All of these are the first things most people will think once you start assigning gender in this example. People will, if left without context, likely default to the 'guy on guy' thought first, if only because that's the most 'innocent' and least 'strange' of all possible combinations. But that depends on larger context (if you're telling this story as something funny to laugh at or something that made you uncomfortable plays a massive role) and whether or not they interpret you in as someone they approve of or disapprove of. People who don't like you will of course immediately default to the least favorable phrasing.

 

[Valette-Serafina]

Why wouldn't "he" be able to be both gender-neutral and for guys depending on the situation? Homonyms are a thing.

Click to shrink...

Association. "He" is the primary masculine pronoun, and cannot be divorced from that meaning.

The homonym is used for exactly the same purpose, with one difference. It has an implication of gender.

In order to be gender-neutral, it'd need to be usable as a female pronoun or usable as neither.

 

[truebeasts]

Thing is though, none of that matters simply because of the fact that well, English is a fucking weird language that constantly breaks rules and shit, and it's basically crept into common convention over the centuries that he was considered the default gender neutral noun. Over time this may change, but trying to ignore the past is only going to make you look like an idiot.

Click to shrink...

I wonder if this is a differing-usage thing, because to me, the use of "he" as default sounds tremendously old-fashioned. It's simply not used that way anymore in either modern speech or writing. Even some of the most militant people on this thread arguing that "he" is a neutral pronoun have used "they" when referring to people of unspecified gender in the same thread, and at a school level, students are generally taught to avoid using "he" as the default in formal writing. Possibly this is a generational divide?

My original point in the original thread was that "he," when used as the default, conveys "presumably male unless otherwise specified," rather than, "this person is equally likely to be of any gender," which seems, from a both a historical and a linguistic perspective, to be true. Obviously it was used as the default for a long time regardless--this doesn't make it neutral.

I retract my previous statement. He is not gender-neutral.

Nevertheless, I urge to find some other alternative pronoun to use, instead of shi and whatnot. Maybe use they?

Click to shrink...

Well, this is what most people do, in practice.

Why wouldn't "he" be able to be both gender-neutral and for guys depending on the situation? Homonyms are a thing.

Like, "Gun Control" was difficult for me to translate to Swedish because "gun" can mean "pistol", "rifle", "cannon" amongst other things and which one should I use then? Because gun control isn't just about pistols or rifles, it's generally about both. And I don't think even pro-gun people generally argues that people should be allowed to have cannons (and now that I thought about it I used google translate which tells me it's "vapenkontroll", which I'd thought about but didn't think it'd be right. Well, show how much I know )

Click to shrink...

Well, homonyms are a thing, but the issue here is that 'he' doesn't really function as one. A sentence that uses 'he' for a person of unspecified gender is generally going to be read as implying that person is male--there's really no way to signal otherwise. If you think of other homonyms, like "bark" or "bear" or "barge," their alternate meanings are usually used in disparate enough contexts that they create no confusion.

Also, there's the whole issue from earlier, where 'he' used in contexts that explicitly indicate that the speaker is potentially or probably (but not definitely) female sounds wrong to most native speakers. Which strongly suggests that it's not actually a homonym, but just a word that implies that, in the absence of other evidence, it's safe to assume the person being spoken about is male.

My only remaining interest in this thread is the acquisition and analysis of data that might help distinguish which of these hypotheses (if either) is correct.

Click to shrink...

Did you look at that study Xilph linked? The full text isn't available for free, but it looks interesting.

 

[pepperjack]

Did you look at that study Xilph linked? The full text isn't available for free, but it looks interesting.

Click to shrink...

I did not, thank you. I'd missed it. I'll be sure to look at that later.

 

[Legend of Ruina]

I personally tend toward he for singular people I've got no clue on (random people on the internet mostly) as that's what I was taught. Meanwhile I tend toward singular they for trans or similar (or characters who have been established to have no clear gender). Basically while I consider he the default I also consider it rude to use it when the person has made it clear they aren't male. Meanwhile improvised pronouns I usually tend to avoid if possible, mostly because there's so many variants floating around that it frequently tends to become a headache to keep track of who uses which form of them. I'm willing to use it for Valette for example because they include it in zeir signature so there's no digging or guesswork required.

Now for extra bonus hate there's one particular fic I came across that has a hermaphordite who clearly states he identifies as male but the instant the reveal is made the author starts using some set of z based pronouns. That particular case I found amusing and worthy of scorn because it's the author steamrolling over a character's gender identity in order to attempt to appear more openminded.

 

[abyssmal_kismet]

TanaNari, it's a question of information relayed. Is "he" grammatically correct as a gender-unknown pronoun? Yes. Does it really function all that well for conveying a neutral gender? No. Is it appropriate for gender-neutral people that don't feel comfortable identifying as any gender at all? Hell the fuck no. What pronoun would you suggest to use for such a person?

 

[skaro]

I don't know this pronounce is pretty confuse for me,Are "you" is not enough to address person that we want to talk to?.

 

[abyssmal_kismet]

I don't know this pronounce is pretty confuse for me,Are "you" is not enough to address person that we want to talk to?.

Click to shrink...

What if you aren't talking to them? Do you simply refer to them as "that person"?

Yes, I do personally default to "them/they." I find context makes it easy to tell that you mean it to be gender-neutral singular, whereas "he" carries an inherent association with being a masculine pronoun that makes it unsuited for being gender-neutral. It's far easier to passively tell singular versus plural without thinking about it than gender. That being said, it would still be better for there to be a set set of gender-neutral pronouns.

"Ze/Zeir" works for this, but, in my opinion, are unwieldy to pronounce, as well as simply not being in the public conscious enough to just passively use in a conversation without thinking about it. I suppose the pronunciation might just be because I'm not used to it, though.

 

[skaro]

What if you aren't talking to them? Do you simply refer to them as "that person"?

Yes, I do personally default to "them/they." I find context makes it easy to tell that you mean it to be gender-neutral singular, whereas "he" carries an inherent association with being a masculine pronoun that makes it unsuited for being gender-neutral. It's far easier to passively tell singular versus plural without thinking about it than gender. That being said, it would still be better for there to be a set set of gender-neutral pronouns.

"Ze/Zeir" works for this, but, in my opinion, are unwieldy to pronounce, as well as simply not being in the public conscious enough to just passively use in a conversation without thinking about it. I suppose the pronunciation might just be because I'm not used to it, though.

Click to shrink...

Like I said them/they imply racism and more harsh consequence in the eye of public if use wrong.
I prefer to test the water and use name if I want to address someone instead.

 

[TanaNari]

Does it really function all that well for conveying a neutral gender? No.

Click to shrink...

But, then, nothing in English- or the vast majority of languages out there- does. 'He' is existent and valid and melds seamlessly into the language structure, which is better than anything else can claim under most circumstances. India's Hijra- the best we've got to work with as far as nonbinary gender systems go- falls the fuck apart under even the slightest of pressure.

Is it appropriate for gender-neutral people that don't feel comfortable identifying as any gender at all? Hell the fuck no.

Click to shrink...

If he's gender neutral, then feeling uncomfortable about either gender pronoun is generally unlikely. Not having a gender identity means not caring. Kinda in the same camp as asexuals. I'll grant you, it's pretty rare to identify people based on their sexual preference, so the analogy falls apart when it comes to pronouns... but, still... a lack of emotional or psychological association with either (any) gender makes it pretty simple to just not worry about it.

And they can always borrow from other languages. Hijra is such a pretty sounding word. And even in India, there's male and female pronouns... well, male and female suffixes that function much like pronouns... "a" for males, generally... and "i" for females. A structure that applies even to first person. I'm by no means an expert in the language, but like most suffix heavy languages (Spanish is another) you can convey the same details as a full (if short) English sentence. Gender and activity all at once (he is working, she's going to dance). As long as that word's a verb. Granted, a native Hindi speaker will grammar Nazi the fuck out of you for it, but it can be understood.


It's the gender other that gets to be problematic. The ones that claim that they are neither male, nor female, nor some balance between the two (and nongendered IS a balance between). And since this is the personality bubble that tends to include people who believe they're really the reincarnations of dragons... well... that's a whole other conversation entirely...

What pronoun would you suggest to use for such a person?

Click to shrink...

Honestly? As someone who actually qualifies as gender neutral (or fluid, specifically). The people who imagine the word matters really need to lighten up. Gendered words- or for that matter the very concept of gender- are inelegant, sloppy, and more often wrong than right even for the most baseline of the cisgendered. It is quite literally impossible to have a gendered word that's truly accurate for even a single member of our species. There's only "close enough" and "not quite close enough".

But being all confrontational and in your face about it is just annoying and self absorbed as fuck. People like that make people like me ashamed to be any kind of gender queer. Much like most homosexuals feel about campy gays. They're a painful stereotype that perpetuates painful stereotypes, and most people who are the real deal wish they would stop embarrassing the rest of us.

They (not singular they, plural) could easily just pick what they prefer, or pick none and let those people use whatever they think fits better. Either way, it's best just to accept that most people honestly don't give a rat's ass one way or the other.


The most logical solution, honestly, would be to eliminate gendered words entirely. Pronoun or otherwise. It's well and utterly impossible, but it's the most logical solution.

Do you simply refer to them as "that person"?

Click to shrink...

I tend to default to closest standing personality relation to gender. Sometimes, for the sake of edumucation, I'll let the people I'm talking to know that the 'he' or 'she' in this case is nongendered. But that's rarely something that comes up. And for the transgendered, I just refer to them as their preferred option.

 

[truebeasts]

Hijra...is not a pronoun, and I'm not sure why you're suggesting it is?

(Hijra, for anyone who has no idea what I'm on about, is a Hindi word for a biologically male person who wears women's clothes, performs a female role in some other ways, etc. They often leave their families and live in their own communities, and are legally recognized as a third gender in India. The word used to be translated in English as "eunuch" and now is frequently translated as "trans woman," but neither is totally accurate. I'm also not sure why Tananari thinks it's "the best we have to work with as far as NB gender systems go," seeing as dozens of other cultures, including, you know, modern American culture, have their own ways of thinking about non binary gender. And this stuff isn't static anyway).

Also, further Hindi grammar lesson! So, basically, all Hindi pronouns are gender neutral. Instead of being conveyed by a pronoun, the gender of the subject of the sentence is conveyed by a suffix to the verb (which means that gender is conveyed even if the pronoun used is "I" or "you". Except for certain tenses, where the verb agrees with the direct object, and thus no info about the subject's gender is conveyed.

Also:

But being all confrontational and in your face about it is just annoying and self absorbed as fuck. People like that make people like me ashamed to be any kind of gender queer. Much like most homosexuals feel about campy gays. They're a painful stereotype that perpetuates painful stereotypes, and most people who are the real deal wish they would stop embarrassing the rest of us.

Click to shrink...

Wow. "Like most homosexuals feel about campy gays," are you fucking kidding me?

As if the real problem isn't that people are assholes to femme gay men, but instead they ought to just, you know, stop embarrassing themselves (and all the rest of the nice gender-conforming queers!) by, you know, acting girlish and being interested in music theatre and shit. Wow.

 

[tomio]

Wow. "Like most homosexuals feel about campy gays," are you fucking kidding me?

As if the real problem isn't that people are assholes to femme gay men, but instead they ought to just, you know, stop embarrassing themselves (and all the rest of the nice gender-conforming queers!) by, you know, acting girlish and being interested in music theatre and shit. Wow.

Click to shrink...

I've got no problem with people being gay. I've got no problem with people being interested in "girly" things. I've got a problem with people cramming "I'm a gay guy and therefore I'm speshul and still normal" down my throat.

I'm against (yes, you read that correctly. Against.) non-standard pronouns, but I am against them for personal reasons and won't bother you with them.

 

[Korburss]

Like I said them/they imply racism and more harsh consequence in the eye of public if use wrong.
I prefer to test the water and use name if I want to address someone instead.

Click to shrink...

"Them" and "those" are used more often, with "they" heavily depending on the situational context.

It's well accepted that when you say something like: "Oh, them", "Them", or "Those people" you're dancing around something nastier at the very least, however even in this case it requires tone and context to cement the meaning. Meanwhile both are perfectly acceptable when devoid of nastier context, even being the quickest way to acknowledge a group in many situations. Although, I personally wouldn't use "them" to refer to a single person, instead would defaulting to they as it doesn't sound right to me.

"They" is a bit different. For instance: "They are different", is a sentence that could well be any number of "ism's", however it isn't the "they" alone that makes it so and this is true many sentence which involve "they". I can't say that "they" can not be used in a bad way, however I can't think of any where "they" alone is enough without a further modifier unlike "them" and "those".

 

[TanaNari]

femme

Click to shrink...

There's a difference between "femme" and "camp". Namely, no self respecting woman acts that way, either. They act like caricatures- like they're mocking women- and it's humiliating to watch.

Everything else? I refuse to believe you're that stupid, so I'm running on the belief that you're deliberately misreading everything I said. If I'm wrong about that, do please correct me.

 

[skaro]

"Them" and "those" are used more often, with "they" heavily depending on the situational context.

It's well accepted that when you say something like: "Oh, them", "Them", or "Those people" you're dancing around something nastier at the very least, however even in this case it requires tone and context to cement the meaning. Meanwhile both are perfectly acceptable when devoid of nastier context, even being the quickest way to acknowledge a group in many situations. Although, I personally wouldn't use "them" to refer to a single person, instead would defaulting to they as it doesn't sound right to me.

"They" is a bit different. For instance: "They are different", is a sentence that could well be any number of "ism's", however it isn't the "they" alone that makes it so and this is true many sentence which involve "they". I can't say that "they" can not be used in a bad way, however I can't think of any where "they" alone is enough without a further modifier unlike "them" and "those".

Click to shrink...

Well ,we are on internet,the tone of the sentence is easy to misunderstood,and label of racism is not something easy to apologize or ignore.

For example,I try to learn english language form some old novel,that made I think word "Negro" is acceptable,I am pretty avoid the bullet that the current stituation prefer "African -American " instead.

Public opinion is pretty firckle,I try to avoid do some questionable word as much as possible.

 

[TanaNari]

Well ,we are on internet,the tone of the sentence is easy to misunderstood,and label of racism is not something easy to apologize or ignore.

For example,I try to learn english language form some old novel,that made I think word "Negro" is acceptable,I am pretty avoid the bullet that the current stituation prefer "African -American " instead.

Public opinion is pretty firckle,I try to avoid do some questionable word as much as possible.

Click to shrink...

No, they is a perfectly non offensive word to use that has no objectionable moral questions. You can go out of your way to make it objectionable, but that takes time and effort and a conscious will on the part of the speaker.

It is, however, still slang and rather poor grammar.

 

[truebeasts]

There's a difference between "femme" and "camp". Namely, no self respecting woman acts that way, either. They act like caricatures- like they're mocking women- and it's humiliating to watch.

Everything else? I refuse to believe you're that stupid, so I'm running on the belief that you're deliberately misreading everything I said. If I'm wrong about that, do please correct me.

Click to shrink...

Well, I'm afraid you're confused about the definition of "camp." You realize that there is an entire Wikipedia page just a Google away, right? So, in two sentences, camp means, basically, behavior that's flamboyant, ostentatious, deliberately theatrical, etc. As performance, it's usually kitschy parody, the art of taking serious things and making them frivolous or even ludicrous, and, haha, there are definitely women who are campy. Bette Midler is a famous example and right at the top of that Wikipedia page. Notably, she's sort of famous for being brash and bawdy and commanding. But sure, "no self-respecting woman," etc.

I substituted "femme" in my last comment because when people want a legitimate-sounding excuse to rag on girly gay men, they often, in my experience, use "camp" as a synonym for "effeminate, but, like, in a way that I dislike and find silly." Which is basically...what you just said, although you added a veneer of, "No, but really the problem is that it's insulting to real women." Sure, there are gay men who are sexist, but camp culture isn't the problem.

Also, I know I've said this half a million times, but your habit of insisting that everyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot is rude and makes you look insecure.

I've got no problem with people being gay. I've got no problem with people being interested in "girly" things. I've got a problem with people cramming "I'm a gay guy and therefore I'm speshul and still normal" down my throat.

I'm against (yes, you read that correctly. Against.) non-standard pronouns, but I am against them for personal reasons and won't bother you with them.

Click to shrink...

I'm really not sure what "cramming it down my throat" means in this context. Want to elaborate? I swear I'm just being rude to TanaNari because he's been so insistent about being rude to me.

 

[TanaNari]

I don't insult people who disagree with me. I insult people who seemingly deliberately ignore my points and misquote me. You, for example. And you just keep doing it, so I just keep treating you as the moron you're choosing to be. Quit that behavior, and you'll find I have no reason to be so dismissive of you.

People who disagree, but do so in an intelligent fashion that indicates they're at least paying attention? They're some of my favorite people. I love and cherish them, always, because they're some of the few sources of intelligent conversation I can count on.


Not that I'm lacking in Intelligent and reasoned people who agree with me... but they're honestly kinda hard to strike up a good debate with.


"I feel this way about things for intelligent and logical reasons!"
"I feel the same way and my reasons are also intelligent and logical!"

... Yeah... it's about as boring as it sounds... and you can only play Devil's Advocate so far without it going into strawman territory.