I'm pretty sure that you can refer to people using their preferred pronouns and also not insult people based on their looks.
some people might feel that's way too politically correct though...
Music Sam Smith (Singer)
- Thread starter Dan-Utd
- Start date
some people might feel that's way too politically correct though...
Half the people in this thread aren't respecting Sam Smith, why would they act any different for posters?
It's nonsense to say that "ugly" people get it worse than non-binary people. Mocking people for their looks is horrible and it is definitely a problem and it has led to young people struggling with themselves and making drastic changes to their looks which they may later regret.
But for non-binary people it would've been a struggle with their identity and who they are as a person. So to mock them or use the wrong pronouns or make it like it's a decision they just make, you are ultimately saying that you don't accept/respect who/what they identify as. That's a lot more damaging than calling someone "rat face" or similar, I don't think that should even be up for debate.
This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read, I love it.
yea who gives af about gender identity and respecting some of the most marginalised people in the world, putting a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence on an internet message board, nOw tHATS iMPORTANT
Maybe. But I mean we literally had a 16 year old trans girl stabbed to death this week in what is almost certainly a hate crime so I’m not sure it’s fun to play bigotry Olympics. Transphobia is sick and absolutely rife in this country right now and how it specifically compares to homophobia in the 80s is kinda irrelevant. It’s dangerous no matter what.
and yeah this thread is a prime example of Sam smith having their pronouns taken the piss out of by some quarters, irrespective of the quality of their music.
It's actually quite ridiculous how you take that for a fact, when both me and you met far more not good looking people who have struggles with how they look and can't cope with it in life than we've met non binary people who are mocked for their gender. Actually I haven't me single non binary people in my life except few celebrities that I heard about, and I am pretty sure you didn't either.
But for some reason you obviously care more about non binary people feelings than you do about other people who are exactly the same which proves my point.
That’s a whole new level of false equivalence.
He doesn't use capital letters ever at start of any sentence, yet every time he used "they" for Sam Smith which says he pays attention a lot to one detail but doesn't care at all about other details, which is bit weird considering he should care about his image more than someone else's, especially considering that Sam Smith can't read general forum, so I found it weird.
For example, I am totally fine with calling Sam Smith as "they" but I have mistakenly used "he" at least two times despite editing my posts couple of times, I simply thought Sam Smith is a male before I read this thread and it's not easy to get used to that quickly.
It’s not about Sam Smith. It’s about being polite and accommodating to people who are non-binary or another gender and being a respectful human being. You don’t have to agree with it, but being a decent human being who can at least acknowledge it and be respectful of their choice and cater to it by doing one tiny thing like using they instead of he goes a long way in making others feel accepted in a world which they largely do not.
How so? Without the gender context, it clearly refers to plural in english language right?
I've been following this thread closely as I still can't wrap my head around this topic. For example, polish language doesn't have neutral "they/them", it's always "them males/ them females (single word "oni/one"). So it's basically impossible not to call those people non-binary pronouns.
I've found census result for non-binary people, and there are 26 variants used - but 24 of those are just made up words. There's no chance people will learn to use it (pretty sure the list is growing still). I think it's easier in English.
To make this even more complicated, I learned today about deadnaming.
Last edited:
The Smiths
This isn't really very complicated. Person changes name, person does not want to be called by previous name. Pretty simple.
And it’s something that’s completely normal even outside of transgender people or anything like that. If someone marries, we call them differently. We also do so with artists. At least I’ve never read about anyone complaining that they must call Marshall Mathers Eminem.
Well, yes, because some details are different than others. If you misgender Sam Smith on purpose, or anyone else, then you're disrespecting their gender identity. I could start calling you a girl, but you're not, so why would I? I don't have to pay a lot of attention to not call you a girl, because I know you're not. On the other hand, if you don't use capital letters, then ... nothing. I do use capital letters myself, but I don't pay attention so I make plenty of spelling and grammatical mistakes that would be mostly avoided if I spent just a little more time. I don't see any connection between that and knowing and respecting your gender identity.
I wasn't joking or exaggerating when I said I found it bizarre. This is some of the strangest reasoning I've ever come across.
Singular they is 6-700 years old. Chaucer used it, Shakespeare used it to refer to people with known gender. It became unfashionable due to snobbish perscriptivists and school teachers for a couple hundred years, now it's back.
Regarding neopronouns, I don't think that is something you'll have to worry about long term. We're now in a new situation where at least a small portion of society gives a shit about non-binary people, so they are in a position where if they ask to not be called 'he' or 'she' someone will respect that. Since this is new, we'll have to find a way to do that, which means that people will come up with suggestions. Likely one or a few will "win" and become the standard, I've already noticed in English how different neopronouns are becoming relatively less popular because 'they/them' is increasingly becoming the norm. In Norwegian it might be 'hen', in Polish I don't know.
Deadnaming is super simple. Call people by their names, not what they used to be called in the past.
Nope plural and singular. Take this as an example...
Me: "Hey @Borys someones on the phone for you."
You: "what do they want"
Me: "no idea!"
You: "tell them im busy."
As its plural and singular I am not left confused as to why you're talking to me about multiple people.
Calling them queer would be a safe bet, although gay seems to be coming back as an umbrella term lately — this is according to this paper, which is very informative on the matter. The real answer is… it’s complicated and the language haven’t quite caught up with it yet. You can just read the closing argument if you don’t have the time.
https://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/insep/article/download/35952/30731
This is inappropriate, the police have said specifically not to speculate, and seen many people online, including Jeremy Corbyn deleting their tweets. The fact that one "side" of this debate wants to try and use a child being stabbed to make some sort of point is abhorrent. I've seen people literally saying J.K Rowling has blood on her hands and she is responsible for this awful crime. It's insane.
Last edited:
Not sure tbh, I have seen a fair few gay people (homosexual) have issues with people identifying in and out of it. I would imagine they might be more "pan-secual"
I think it's way more natural saying 'they' in speech, like your example. When written it is more weird and can confuse, particularly in an article quoting multiple people, but it's easy enough to get round that for the author of the piece.Nope plural and singular. Take this as an example...
Me: "Hey @Borys someones on the phone for you."
You: "what do they want"
Me: "no idea!"
You: "tell them im busy."
As its plural and singular I am not left confused as to why you're talking to me about multiple people.
I think a lot of people, certainly straight folk in the UK, are very wary of using the word 'queer' and in what circumstances it would be appropriate, given it was for so long primarily used as an unpleasant slur.
And a fair few gay people have very bad experiences with the word too.
I agree with that, but ironically on forums like here it should be natural as we don't know each others genders.
Yeah, fair enough. It’s a linguistic minefield — unsurprisingly, considering the history of discrimination. I’d imagine that it may be one of the reasons behind the push for the word “gay” to become a new umbrella term?
Yeah it makes a lot of sense to call non-binary people "them/they". Not only it's a natural part of (english) language, but it's also one pronoun that covers all people who don't identify as male/female. The problem is in my language there is no neutral them so I always "think" of either him or her (the same problem is with "gender" and "sex" being the same word in polish language, new terms have been implemented recently but not so common in common use yet).Nope plural and singular. Take this as an example...
Me: "Hey @Borys someones on the phone for you."
You: "what do they want"
Me: "no idea!"
You: "tell them im busy."
As its plural and singular I am not left confused as to why you're talking to me about multiple people.
In polish language the neopronouns are becoming more popular, some people are changing words (suffix) to make it sound "neutral" but it sounds completely ridiculous. I don't think that is the way to go but this will be a problem since there is no "neutral" alternative hence people are coming up with new words. Don't know what is the solution here, just trying to explain why I will always think of Sam as "he" what makes it a bit difficult to read some articles where the author is using "them/they", especially when there's a lot of people mentioned (eg. group of artists). It's something that creates some confusion, no big deal, just have to get used to it. I don't give a damn, I can call people whatever they want to be called, just doesn't make me think of them this way as my natural language isn't ready for that.
About deadnaming it's pretty obvious, but what I was surprised that apparently once someone decides he's non-binary then using his birth name is as offensive as using the wrong gender, and I assumed that was the safe way to address people until it's very clear what name they have taken. I did know this term before but the concept is pretty clear.
The killing itself isn't known to have been motivated by transphobia and blaming Rowling and her shower at this point is certainly inappropriate - at best it's ill-informed and speculative and at worst it's cynical and opportunistic.
However, the deadnaming of Brianna in national media and the fact that her death certificate will call her male for the rest of time is absolutely a consequence of the likes of Rowling and other high profile bigots spreading their bile, and it's not inappropriate to point that out.
It sounds like we have a similar thing in Norwegian. It's a germanic language, so all words are gendered, and we don't really have a neutral pronoun that works for people. This is why I mentioned hen; masculine is han and feminime is hun, so hen has been offered as a neutral alternative. It's not widely popular, but I think it's spreading. Or, maybe it will end up as something else.
As for they/them potentially being confusing at times, I'm sure that's true, but we don't have much trouble dealing with the fact that 'you' can be both singular and plural so I'm sure we'll be ok.
I am fairly online and I could not tell you the deadname of Brianna, all I have seen is "Brianna" and people claiming the press are using their dead name. I literally haven't seen it and have no idea what it is. So this seems wildly inaccurate and more of a social media storm that apparently the entire press is deadnaming this person.
The birth certificate thing has zero to do with Rowling, that's just codswallop. What on earth does Rowling have to do with legislation enabling a GRC for minors? Children can get a GRC - it's on p.18 of the GRC Gov guidelines.
Which national media has called her by her male name? Most of the news on TV/online has only called her Brianna.
I also think it’s a stretch to suggest Rowling is in some way to blame. Teens stabbings in London and further afield has been rife for a good few years. I'm not saying this wasn't a hate crime btw - as it may prove to be, but it's definitely a stretch to say it's down to Rowling. The fact that it's teens stabbing teens makes me think it's going to be some school dispute or issue that took a horrible tragic turn.
He doesn't identify as a grammarian
I'm not surprised that @rimaldo was the ultimate cause of the fall of civilization, but I wouldn't have guessed that not pressing the shift key was what doomed us.
It's just an attention seeking phase, there is no way he was really born with that disregard for morphology.
Not to mention that the "literacy" dig backfired spectacularly. The structure of that sentence is incredibly bad for someone who feels they are in a position to mock other posters' "literacy".
that’s cos my grammar isn’t a very nice woman and if she wasn’t family i wouldn’t speak to her.
bono once told me that a child dies every time someone presses the shift key.
Whether you know the name or not, it's been published in the Mail and the Times amongst others. @The Corinthian - tagging you here as this answers your question. Obviously it's fantastic that you're not reading outlets which are doing this, but the fact remains that they are doing it.
On the bolded - I'd be interested if you could link to this document, because it directly contradicts the very first line of the relevant legislation, which reads (bolding mine): "A person of either gender who is aged at least 18 may make an application for a gender recognition certificate...". And then of course, it takes about 4-5 years to get the consultation with a specialist required to qualify for one. Most of the people I know who have been through the process finally got it all sorted in their mid-late 20s. Getting the GRC allows you to apply to change the gender on your birth certificate, which in turn allows the proper gender to be published on other official documentation (e.g - death certificate).
Is it possible you're confusing the GRC with the doctor's sign-off required to get one? You can start that process before you're 18, but the waiting lists are even longer as there was only ever the one clinic providing a service for minors. I've heard that people who apply are often told they will get seen quicker if they wait until they're 18 and go through the adult route.
Rowling's role as a willing figurehead for a movement which pushes anti-trans narratives and campaigns against trans rights is obviously relevant to the above. One of the main reasons this law remains in place is because Rowling (amongst others) has tirelessly and loudly campaigned against loosening the rules. The anti-trans lobby is small, but it's loud, well-funded and well-connected and it's rise over the last few years (not least due to Rowling's involvement) is one of the main reasons self-ID went from being a policy goal for the Conservative government in 2017 to something the Labour Party are scared to touch in 2023. Rowling was vocally opposed to Scotland lowering the age limit to 16 and, more recently, very vocally opposed to their introduction of self-ID which would have eliminated the need to wait years for a doctor's note.
So yeah, it's entirely fair to say that Brianna's death certificate saying male on it lies at the door of the anti-trans activists. This is the cost of what they want.
Edit - frankly, I think a lot of this conversation (transphobia, pronouns etc.) would he better off in the dedicated trans thread rather than in here.
Last edited:
This is where I think it gets a bit strange.
I'm not clued up on this discussion as well as yourself, so forgive me for some of my ignorance on the matter.
Why would / should a birth certificate mention the transitioned gender? Birth certificates mention the biological sex of the baby. Whether an individual changes their gender in later years shouldn't alter what sex they are when they are born? With death certificates, it makes more sense that if an individual has transitioned in life then to record the new sex (if they've gone that far for example). But for those that haven't, an easier solution would be to just have two separate fields - one for sex and one for gender, so that a medical professional or otherwise is able to distinguish between what they biologically are and what gender they lived as.
The idea that public record, or official documentation is being weaponised by anti (or pro) trans is poor. If anything, the idea that death certificates can have separate fields for Sex and Gender will mean that we're able to understand how many people are transitioning in the UK, if it's MTF or FTM, what the cause of death is etc etc.
Can you link to the Times because I saw their coverage and it was "Brianna"? The Mail, what else do you expect from that toxic rag?
No, p.18 of the document discusses the process for under 18's to get a GRC.
As with an adult application, medical confirmation and change of name evidence will be needed (see Names - change of name passport applications) although it is likely to be different to the evidence for an adult. You must deal with a change of gender application for a child or young adult (16 to 17 years old) sensitively. HM Passport Office will apply discretion to how we deal with each individual case and there are some exceptions we can apply if a young adult cannot get consent. These exceptions only apply to young adults and do not apply to children under the age of 16. If you have any doubts about the customer’s evidence or if an exception is acceptable (in the case of a young adult), you must ask your operational team leader (OTL) for advice. You, the OTL, may ask for advice from the Quality and Examination Support team and the Child Protection and Safeguarding team (CPSt). Change of gender: consent for child and young adult applications You must ask for written consent from everyone with parental responsibility (or legal guardianship) if the intended passport holder has asked for a change of gender and they are under 18 years old. This may be from 1 or more people. This means we need to get consent from everyone that we can. However, we may not need the consent from specific people with parental responsibility (or legal guardianship), if: • there is a court order with the application that explains we do not need their consent to change the gender on the customer’s passport • the application is for a child or young adult and there are safeguarding concerns that mean we cannot get their consent (see Consent for child and young adult applications: safeguarding concerns) • the application is for a young adult and they meet one of the consent exceptions
So it is clear that there are provisions in place for minors to get a GRC.
Again, I hear this a lot and it's usually made up of conjecture and tweets from random posters on Twitter.
There is no "anti-trans movement" that Rowling is the figurehead of. It's imaginary. People point to her open letter, again usually without actually reading it. To think that a domestic violence campaigner, campaigning for single-sex spaces and raising concerns about self-ID legislation change is in any way "anti-trans" really shows how skewed all of this is and why the vehement reaction has become so loud.
It was highlighted early on the risks that this legislation could pose to defined, protected areas for vulnerable women. Now the clever bait and switch/strawman comes fast, which is - if you want to highlight these potential concerns, you are a) a bigot and b) must want to eradicate trans people. It's a huge leap. Likewise, the goalposts are moved and it is made out that by raising this issue, at all, Rowling is endorsing the view that all trans people are predators. Which is incorrect (they're not and she isn't) obscene and, in my opinion, sometimes used by the opposing side to whip up a frenzy to show that people are under attack. Now while trans people certainly do experience huge hardships and abuse, a continued deluge of content expressing to you that you are about to be murdered is sickening, and irresponsible and just furthers the feeling of fear of a vulnerable group.
Rowling and others campaigners who have highlighted the difficulty of this issue (and it is complex, as balancing rights between groups in society are), receive death threats and monumental abuse (I'll be clear here both sides are guilty of this), it then shines a huge spotlight on something that shouldn't be so controversial, making this a powder keg style cultural issue, when it never needed to be. The intransigence of both sides has effectively opened pandora's box meaning every cretin with an axe to grind (far right who hates women, far left who hates women) gets to leap onto this subject and make this debate so toxic, inaccurate and horrible.
It shouldn't be controversial to discuss; how do we allow trans women to have access to vulnerable, protected spaces they require in line with their gender identity WHILE still maintaining the integrity of these spaces for cis women needing space away from biological males. It isn't about eradicating trans people or some nefarious, Nazi-adjacent plot, it's a big challenge we have currently as a society and we need to get it right for all parties so we maintain safeguarding for vulnerable people and maintain dignity in these moments/areas.
What doesn't help is any and all concerns raised be labelled as bigotry or evil. Because what happens is a concern is raised, the response can be "this would never happen/doesn't happen", it is then shown to have happened/be happening then the response quickly changes to "well it's not happening often/it isn't that big a deal". This then creates distrust in the other parties' motives and makes any collaboration (needed to solve these issues) is neigh on impossible.
But anyway I am going into the weeds a bit on the wider issue of this topic best served by another thread etc.
You should definitely consider getting a job.
Why is RedCafe hiring?
clearly you are hard of hearing because i literally told you a few pages ago the self id legislation has nothing to do with access to women's spaces. again, this is already covered under the Equality Act.
i'm not even going to touch your misguided opinion of J.K. Rowling. there is no conjecture - anyone who can read her tweets can see you're talking absolute nonsense.