Please keep it civil.

    • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree that its ideal, but how would you even do that? Its so engrained into peoples’ brains that I doubt it could even happen unless the vast majority of people agreed to not teach the concept to their children.

      • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, that would be quack genetic modification. Not my area of expertise. Eliminating the social categorization of gender as a whole.

        • Swimming_Monitor@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          No need to call anybody a quack. I’m just trying to understand your controversial opinion.

          Social categorization is incredibly vague, so it’s still not clear to me what you feel should be abolished.

          • Shit@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think he is trying to say everyone should become a they/them and he wants to abolish he/she genders?

              • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                In an extremely blunt way, it’s correct. It obviously extends beyond grammar, and I have an entirely different stance on how 3rd person pronouns should be handled in English that described, but the premise is solid. Take where you would typically use gender, and, like, don’t. Obviously you would still have biological sex for things like medical records, but it wouldn’t be tied to who you are as a person, it would just be a letter on a paper somewhere.

                • Swimming_Monitor@sh.itjust.worksOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Okay, thanks for explaining.

                  If I understand correctly, you’re saying that a person’s sex should only be referenced when it is relevant, which is only in a narrow set of situations. Any reference in speech to a person should not invoke his sex.

                  • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Sure. Though I’m genuinely curious where you’re located that the start and end of gender is planted firmly in linguistics. Because in my experience, there’s a whole lot more stuff in society that’s intertwined with gender.

                • Shit@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Can you be more verbose? I’m still really confused what you are trying to say and why it makes both sides mad? Could you throw in some examples of dialogue?

                  • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Can you be more verbose?

                    Sure. I’ll give it a shot. Sorry in advance if this just ends up being word salad. This isn’t my strong suit.

                    To start out with the base that nearly everyone agrees on: “gender”, as defined by something (there’s disagreement on that part) exists in society.

                    The traditionalist perspective is (from a typical western perspective, at least) that gender and all the social expectations and baggage that come along with it are simply the natural order. This perspective uses biological sex as the defining trait of gender. I presume everyone here passed 6th grade biology to figure out how that works.

                    There’s also a sizable group of people who disagree with that definition of gender, and consider it separate to biological sex. This, broadly speaking, constitutes the transgender movement. Now there’s a lot of different perspectives on how gender should be defined among this group, especially so if you branch out beyond the typical western perspective, and i don’t care to go into every different perspective in detail, I’m sure you have an opinion on this topic as well.

                    But to sort of loop back to where I started, both groups tend to believe that gender is an important part of people identity-wise, and should, in whatever form they support, be upheld, maintained, and respected.

                    That right there is the point where I break from the mainstream views. While it’s indisputable that society currently places heavy emphasis on gender, I believe it to be neither essential nor beneficial to society at large, and we should work to remove it from society.

            • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Responding here since I didn’t know how to ping you in the other comment, in a sort of blunt way, you’re correct. Everyone would simply just be, not categorized into gender and the associated social expectations that come with it