@Cerberus Yes, but if you have a friend name Xi and don't even try to pronounce it with a nativized approximation, at some point they'll assume you don't much care for them.

@Laurel Well, I think he and she are in themselves manageable (though often one might forget to use the right one). That applies less to others.

How often in conversation do you use 3rd person pronouns so that the referent hears it? They're right there so you address them in the second person.

@Cerberus As I recall, a survey showed that something like 99% of non-binary people found they/them acceptable, even if they might also accept those invented "neopronouns."

@alphabet I would say it depends. Many people adjust the pronunciation of their name to suit the language of their environment.

@Mitch I mean, if you're talking to more than one person...

@alphabet But what if the phonology were so different that you just can't pronounce it well. It's putting a large burden on everyone else who'll only meet you for a moment.

@Mitch Yeah, it's very impolite to use pronouns of the third person!

In writing it's more common because you don't expect that the referent is one of the readers (unless you're writing directly to them).

My first name is commonly mispronounced (confused with a similar but different name). Of course I don't really care. But both names are well known, so that's different.

@Mitch Indeed; there should be a "within reason" requirement there. And the small number of people who insist on some custom-made set of neopronouns might be pushing things.

@alphabet Watch out, you might be punished for saying such a thing...

So is there a safer form of crystal meth that has similar main effects but does not have the side effects?

@Cerberus Of course, you certainly can tell people you prefer such a set of pronouns, but you also can't blame them too much if they slip up. That doesn't really apply to they/them which are already established in the language (even though people often do find it difficult to remember to use them).

@Mitch Good question.

@Cerberus On the other hand, note all those people who intentionally mispronounce Kamala just to be edgy and disrespectful.

@Mitch Literally what Adderall is.

@alphabet this morning I discovered that neither her supporters nor her detractors can pronounce her name.

@alphabet I think it is impolite to demand very specific language from others that they would otherwise not use or strongly dislike using.

@alphabet I'm not surprised.

@Cerberus Surely you can demand that people pronounce your name correctly, even if they otherwise "wouldn't use" that pronunciation or "strongly dislike" it?

Harris's name is pronounced like Atatürk's but with a schwa at the end?

Thirdly, a personal name is not like all other words in a language.

@Cerberus But nobody has any trouble referring to someone as he/him or she/her, and referring to someone as they/them isn't unreasonably difficult either.

@Cerberus "comma" - "la"

@alphabet I disagree.

And you know I do.

Like many others.

@MetaEd I saw something about Brits debating if it was pronounced "comma-la" or "karma-la."

/ˈkɑːmələ/

I would never use they to refer to a singular person without feeling like I made an error.

@Cerberus Have whatever opinions you want. But don't be surprised if people get offended when you consistently refer to them in a way that they strongly dislike.

@alphabet They're the same picture.

@alphabet A different point.

@Cerberus You still use it, though:

Note the them in that sentence.

Whether you feel like you've made an error isn't particularly relevant.

If someone told me wants to be called neither man nor woman (although in reality I imagine most of those people feel like they are both, not neither), I would probably do my best not to do so. I would avoid referring to this person.

@MetaEd Not for most speakers of BrE they're not!

And I would be sad to feel all the embarrassment and avoidance and problems introduced by it.

@alphabet That's why I said error.

Am I the only one insisting to write "they is" upon singular?

Though I think it is a very minor error when referring to another, indeterminate pronoun.

@Cerberus At a certain point, trying not to refer to someone using any pronouns will make you sound so awkward and forced that you'll come across quite strangely to them.

@DannyuNDos No, many people in rural England might say the same.

@alphabet Thanks. And Metadate.

That's a relief.

And to some extent caffeine.

@alphabet They did that themselves, make everything awkward.

@DannyuNDos "They" is just like "you"; it behaves grammatically like a plural NP (as shown by subject/verb agreement) but can have either a singular or a plural referent.

Many people do not feel that way.

Thou shalt-

Incidentally, "singular you" was widely condemned by grammarians as "illogical" for the exact same reasons when it started displacing thou.

So it was not resisted strongly enough.

Singular we in Latin literature is also very annoying.

Not to mention the polite plural...

Was English you inspired by French vous?

Vous êtes-

@alphabet It is unreasonable difficult for someone speaking another way their whole (long) life.

Or alternately put, 您是-

@Cerberus If you want to feel awkward, that's up to you. They probably made themselves feel that they were living more authentically or some such, and they probably don't care that you might decide to feel awkward about it.

@DannyuNDos That sounds much better.

You know Mandarin?

@alphabet If is great if they stop caring.

@DannyuNDos Alas, no.

So it was a little joke.

@DannyuNDos Do you spend a lot of time conversing with people in rural England? Nobody else does that.

No

@Mitch Depends. I think most people can get used to it eventually, if they're around someone non-binary often enough to get into the habit.

@Cerberus Heck, what about Spanish usted?

@alphabet But almost nobody is.

@DannyuNDos I don't even know its etymology!

@Cerberus They won't, and they have reasons why they won't, so give up. If they were demanding that you sign a contract agreeing with them on the true actual nature of gender identity, sure, you could object. But they're not.

@Cerberus Yes, it does seem like a lot of effort for very little practical significance. Tolerance is great n all, and signaling tolerance is also great (so people get used to it) but it is an effort.

But anyway, back to meth.

I didn't think adderall is -that- great, is it?

It's also a lot easier to consistently follow preferred pronouns in writing than in everyday speech, I think.

@alphabet I might sign the contract.

or caffeine for that matter (which is not a chemical analog of anything amphetamine, I think)

I would rather sign it than feel forced to change my basic grammar.

@Mitch And cannot one be allowed to choose one's own ways of conveying the same tolerance? Isn't the tolerance itself the goal, rather than its exact form?

@alphabet It's a mental stumbling block for those not used to doing it. (which is a fancy indirect way of saying I know someone who went through a process, changed their name, changed their pronouns, it was always an effort when talking to remember 'oh they've changed things' and then do the scan of appropriate words to use before speaking.

And then they switched back.

Thanks.

Just like shoveling the snow on my driveway, all that labor just melted away.

@Mitch You mean the drug? O_o

@DannyuNDos I accept all the meths.

Fun fact: Meth is called 冰毒 in Mandarin, which would roughly translate into "icy poison".

@Cerberus Nobody's "forcing" you to do anything. When people get offended by you saying something, they're just having a (reasonable or not) reaction to it; you're not being coerced.

@DannyuNDos The icy part is the best

@Cerberus I would say the opposite. Expecting someone to share all your political, social, and cultural views is not reasonable if they're just engaging you in unrelated conversation. It's far more reasonable to expect that people call you the way they'd prefer.

@Mitch Indeed. I think most non-binary people are used to people getting it wrong a fair amount of the time; they aren't watching like a hawk and getting outraged at every mistake.

I actually think the main problem on SE is that, if you're a cis woman, everyone will constantly refer to you as he/him unless you instruct them that they've assumed wrongly. It kinda makes sense, given the site's demographics, but it also explains why those demographics don't change.

Anyway, I spent the afternoon listening to the Gang of Four oeuvre (the British music group, not the de facto 70's PRC leaders).

At first it was like being an angry active cynical teenager again.

But then it kept getting more and more cynicaller and I got a very tiny hint of nausea.

So I stopped.

And the queasy feeling went away.

Then I heard a Rolling Stones song on the radio (you can't get away from that stuff) and I was like are all songs from the 70's self-loathing misogyny covering up for when the girl broke up with them?

@Mitch Nor the people who wrote that "design patterns" programming book everyone hates.

@Mitch Listen to some Simple Plan songs if you want it to descend into borderline self-parody.

@alphabet Tired of OOP? Try FP!

Ungrammatical coordination of the day: * "You don't know what it's like to be like me: [...] to be on the edge of breakin' down and no one's there to save you."

You don't notice the mistake because you're distracted by how incredibly annoying the song is.

Actually: are they saying "and" or "when"? Discuss.

@Cerberus It's more common than you think. I'm close with someone who no longer identifies as a man, but doesn't feel particularly like a woman at this point either (goes by they/them pronouns)

@alphabet Using no pronouns for someone is also a strategy that bigots use when they think trans women aren't woman (or deserving) enough for she/her (or with he/him for trans men)

@alphabet "Feel forced" need not be interpreted in the way you do.

@alphabet Sharing views is quite different from tolerating or respecting them.

@Laurel I was curious earlier about how conservative news outlets were referring to trans people. With Caitlyn Jenner, the split seemed to be something like: 50% used she/her, 45% just kept using "Jenner" instead of a pronoun, 5% made a very deliberate point of using he/him in order to be provocative.

Also, I think how many people who only have they/them pronouns is something that's going to vary based on where you are, what circles you're in, and how comfortable people feel around you. I actually know quite a few, and I think in my new job I'll also be working with someone like that

@alphabet For conservative news, that's actually pretty progressive, especially considering the other views these types of people tend to have

@Laurel Pew has a poll saying only 20% of adults know anyone who's non-binary, so yes you are in a bubble.

@Mitch you keep going back to that question ya know

@Laurel I don't think it does reflect their views; those sites are quite vitriolic toward trans people, sometimes in the very same articles where they refer to Caitlyn Jenner as she/her. Hence my conviction that using preferred pronouns really doesn't commit you to any particular ideological viewpoint.

Oh coincidentally we're also discussing transgenderism in the tavern. Though less maturely.

@alphabet yeah, I'm definitely not normal in that regard, though I'm sure some of those 80% know a closeted NB

@Laurel What is more common?

@Cerberus identifying as neither man nor woman

But is that really "neither" rather than "a bit of both so I can't decide"?

@alphabet It doesn't, but it's like they clearly chose to be slightly less hateful than they could've

Oh this sort of thing gives me headaches

@Cerberus All we have about this would be anecdotes I reckon.

No reliable data

@Cerberus In the case of my friend, yes, though I think they might find a different identity as they explore themselves (not that I have a horse in that race lol)

Maybe if we gather data by activating the chip in vacci-uh I said too much

@Laurel I think it may just be instinctive; it'd be hard to remember to avoid referring to someone named "Caitlyn" as a "she."

@Mitch no, you have a Ship of Theseus problem here. If a drug has affinity for opioid receptors, given their wide range of actions in the body and the brain, it will do things we don't want it to do, hence side effects. If you change up the molecule until it's so specific it would only cause mild euphoria and nothing else, would that really be "safe meth" anymore, or rather just its own thing?

Assuming such a thing is possible for a small-molecule drug. I'm not so sure.

Human body imposes very unfair limits on what can and can't be a drug.

Most importantly, you can't just add more functional groups like pieces of LEGO until it's super specific. The molecule has to remain small and non-polar enough to be absorbed orally.

@Laurel I mean, the classical categories are neuter and androgynous. When people call themselves neuter/non-binary/etc., do they really mean it that way? Or do they usually rather mean androgynous?

I mean, if you have a penis but you don't consider yourself a man, are you then really "not masculine or feminine at all", or rather "a bit of both" aka androgynous?

@Cerberus I vaguely recall reading somewhere that said there could be additional spectra to consider other than the one whose extremes are "man" and "woman".

Take this anti-trans screed from RedState, which calls Jenner a "man pretending to be a woman."

Then note this line: "Jenner told Breitbart she’s all-in with the new PAC."

I don't really wanna go digging it up. Just food for thought. I don't wanna read a whole bunch of -phobic comments after Cheeto The Great is back in power, it's a bad start

They try to avoid giving her any pronouns, but they always fall back on she at least sometimes.

Or this article from those evil woke wokies at Brietbart, agreeing with Jenner about "grooming" allegations. "The former California gubernatorial aspirant and Olympic athlete, 72, shared her views on Fox News’ Hannity." Again, they try avoiding any pronouns, but when they need to they use she/her.

@M.A.R. Hmm like what?

@alphabet That book. So much promise from the title. So abstract and nebulous inside. Led to the 'phyllo' meta-pattern, where patterns were layered one on top of the other and baked intoa a mille feullie thick pastry with a a thousand barely distinguishable layers.

@alphabet People just CANNOT do pronouns right even if they really set their minds to it, not even for hatred's sake...

I think fondly of that title and try to imagine what -actual- patterns people would want that are not 'FlyweightAbstractFactoryBuilderFactoryFilter'

Those are the only pattern names I can remember.

Pretty cool stuff if you're into that sort of thing.

If I had a million lives, I'd devote one of them to that.

Alas, I have under a million to play with.

Poor.

@M.A.R. Maybe I should go back to the question about dementia meds.

But I keep forgetting.

haha

easy shot

@M.A.R. Meth is that small? as small as caffeine?

He introduced his "Kaleidoscope Hypothesis," which suggests that while the world seems infinitely complex, it's actually made up of simpler patterns that repeat and combine in different ways. True intelligence, he argues, involves identifying these basic patterns and using them to understand new situations.

@M.A.R. Even our national newspaper of record carries material today which you probably would not relish reading: A Party of Prigs and Pontificators Suffers a Humiliating Defeat.