Hm. Interesting argument, but I kinda disagree with the premise that "if we have anything exposing gender metadata, the rest of the language around it in a sentence must be pulled into referencing that to be more correct".

It's a coherent thing to argue for, I'll give you that, but it's also.. kinda arbitrary? And one can make an equally convincing case for statelessness in the sense that just because one word carries metadata, doesn't mean that the other words around it must react to it.

▲

dakom a day ago | parent [-]

You're making a straw-man argument with "anything exposing gender metadata". It's not like I dug up some obscure article - it's literally his chosen brand name. There's nothing arbitrary to use "he" for somebody who calls himself "mr".

Is it possible that you have a good point about inclusive writing in general, but you just happened to hop on the wrong case to make your stand, didn't realize that we're talking about an explicit "mr"?

▲

hypfer a day ago | parent [-]

Huh?

Isn't a strawman something I would make up that you would have said to then attack it?

▲

pseidemann a day ago | parent [-]

It doesn't need to be said or made up. Just arguing against a distorted or substituted version of the position of the other party as if it were their actual argument is enough.

▲

hypfer a day ago | parent [-]

Uh, okay, but, how do you just disagree with an idea then?

The idea being

> it's stylistically incorrect to choose a more ambiguous pronoun

And my disagreement being with the assessment that it is "incorrect". It's not. That's an arbitrary choice and pointing to "authorities" there changes nothing about the arbitrary-ness.

In fact, I went all in on good faith there by validating that idea as one coherent way to see this topic.

I just fundamentally disagree with it and brought forward my equally valid and coherent way to see this topic.

Which got countered with a "this is just a strawman" (which is false, as that is not how strawmans work) followed by a direct attack

> but you just happened to hop on the wrong case to make your stand, didn't realize that we're talking about an explicit "mr"?

And now you show up and.. uh.

Yeah anyway. The direct attack there alone is enough to lose any moral highground. So even if I had been doing what I was accused of (which I clearly did not), that would be a less worse offense?

Idk.

	▲	boxed 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> And my disagreement being with the assessment that it is "incorrect". It's not. That's an arbitrary choice and pointing to "authorities" there changes nothing about the arbitrary-ness. I don't see why de-gendering people would be less upsetting than gendering them correctly, and THAT is clearly seen as absolutely unacceptable by many. One can't claim a moral high ground if one is just as obnoxious as ones opponents.