The Slow DeCentis

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Why do we even have gendered pronouns?
Coming up with a better form of singular "they" would help.

Because not everyone is non-binary. Though there is no harm to using "they" singularly when one does not know someone's gender.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Why do we even have gendered pronouns?
Coming up with a better form of singular "they" would help.

they make sentences easier to understand in some cases

[The Serendipitous]

On my phone on a bus, so formatting is secondary here.

If we’re discussing the use of the gerrymander to disenfranchise voters, DeSantis and Florida is actually a fantastic example of malicious redistricting. Last year, massive overhauls were made to the district map which split up democrat districts and, more offensively, historically black districts. It’s very clearly racist and is an attempt to make votes by black people inherently worth less.

DeSantis was the first governor in Florida’s history to make their own districting lines and then push it onto the legislature. Why is that? It’s because he wants control, and he likes the power that his job gives him. It’s the same reason that so much of this past legislative session was controlled by bills originated by him. It’s despicable.

I’m all for healthy debate, but this thread is ridiculously missing the point; whether you call him a fascist or not, what he is pushing is wrong and harmful.

[La Xinga]

Darn! Us Conservatives, stuck in the past!

To the first point, while that does seem to be a grave danger, it doesn't look like any state will use it to disenfranchise voters.
To the second, I know Michael Knowles wasn't calling for the eradication of Transgenders, rather the eradication of Transgenderism, like you wrote in the URL. You're not going to claim that everyone who opposes Transgenderism is a Fascist and should be deprived of the right to vote, right?

This is a distinction without difference. It's like saying you don't want to eradicate gay people, just homosexuality. It makes no goddamn sense.

Why not? Take the Seleucid Greeks and the Jews: They wished to eliminate Judaism, not the Jewish people themselves. It is possible to eliminate an "ism" without murdering the people who practice said "ism".

Also, who decides who's a Fascist and who's not? The actual people who fought Fascists with their blood almost certainly would have been opposed to Transgenderism.

Well, about that...

Perhaps those times were when this thing began, but that doesn't mean the majority of people, including the soldiery, supported it. For example, your first example was denied a marriage license. Your first example's "spouse" also lost his job when it was found out what happened. Your second example was arrested for cross-dressing. Your third example had a mob of students attack the institute in which your third example stayed.

Would I be forever disenfranchised? I don't seek to kill any LGBTers. I could imagine any system that attempts to enforce a ban on Fascists voting being immediately hijacked and being used to prevent any Right-Winger who opposes Transgenderism and anything else the Left pushes from voting.

"LGBTers," that's a new one.
And sure, maybe you don't wish death. Maybe that's a step too far, for you. Abject misery, however... that's not a dealbreaker for your support of those that DO wish us death.

I don't know, that's the term I use to encompass the whole movement.
And what's this "step too far"? You seem to be suggesting that I do want to kill them, which I denied. And will any person really be in "abject misery" for people denying that he is the opposite sex/gender? The other alternative is people being forced to lie to themselves, or at least what they believe is lying to themselves. Seems to be as equally painful.

Darn! Us Conservatives, stuck in the past!

To the first point, while that does seem to be a grave danger, it doesn't look like any state will use it to disenfranchise voters.
To the second, I know Michael Knowles wasn't calling for the eradication of Transgenders, rather the eradication of Transgenderism, like you wrote in the URL. You're not going to claim that everyone who opposes Transgenderism is a Fascist and should be deprived of the right to vote, right?
Also, who decides who's a Fascist and who's not? The actual people who fought Fascists with their blood almost certainly would have been opposed to Transgenderism. Would I be forever disenfranchised? I don't seek to kill any LGBTers. I could imagine any system that attempts to enforce a ban on Fascists voting being immediately hijacked and being used to prevent any Right-Winger who opposes Transgenderism and anything else the Left pushes from voting.

The people who fought the fascists with their own blood were also largely opposed racial integration.


If transgenderism is an ideology than straightisim is also an ideology.
If you don’t want to eradicate the nazi ideology, why should any other ideology be eradicated.



A tolerant society has to be intolerant of intolerance.

The only intolerance allowed in a tolerant society.

I'm fine with someone being opposed to racial integration not being ladled a Fascist. I undoubtedly believe it's wrong, but it's not Fascist. It's pointless labeling everything which you don't like "Fascist", like Hispida did.

Darn! Us Conservatives, stuck in the past!

To the first point, while that does seem to be a grave danger, it doesn't look like any state will use it to disenfranchise voters.
To the second, I know Michael Knowles wasn't calling for the eradication of Transgenders, rather the eradication of Transgenderism, like you wrote in the URL. You're not going to claim that everyone who opposes Transgenderism is a Fascist and should be deprived of the right to vote, right?
Also, who decides who's a Fascist and who's not? The actual people who fought Fascists with their blood almost certainly would have been opposed to Transgenderism. Would I be forever disenfranchised? I don't seek to kill any LGBTers. I could imagine any system that attempts to enforce a ban on Fascists voting being immediately hijacked and being used to prevent any Right-Winger who opposes Transgenderism and anything else the Left pushes from voting.

Oh you know EXACTLY what he meant by saying he wants to eradicate transgenderism. That goes hand in hand with being transgender. Also, the OG fascists, the nazis, literally targeted trans people. They burnt books on trans healthcare, since the Weimar Republic was pretty tolerant of trans people, even for the 20s and 30s. The first ever bottom surgery occurred during the Weimar Republic. Also, it's pretty obvious the type of rhetoric fascists use.

It's always funny how, "the left calls everyone a fascist" is now being used for people who are out and about fascists. Like they can deny it(simply because everyone knows the nazis are bad, even nazis who want a platform know they can't openly declare themselves as nazis). This discussion is also about Desantis, and there is gearing up of genocide against trans people.

Genocide didn't start out by immediately throwing people in camps. It started through the process of dehumanization, laws making it illegal to own property or to be in public, etc. Like professors and researchers of the subject of genocide or the holocaust always state how there's 10 steps of genocide and how each process goes further and further. It's a pretty well known thing.

What is this "equating denial with death"? If I disagree that a man could become a woman, the person who wants to do that will kill himself/herself/whatever, heaven forbid. If you knew someone who is White but claims to be Taiwanese, would you engage in the lie to make him feel comfortable? How about a thirty year old who claims to be seventy? What if any of these two people would commit suicide if not recognized by every single person that they are what they claimed to be? Should the latter person receive retirement benefits for the amount he worked?

I also fail to see how, by not referring to the students by their preferred pronouns, DeSantis is murdering these students.

To the first point, while that does seem to be a grave danger, it doesn't look like any state will use it to disenfranchise voters.

I 'unno man, you look at that district and tell me that's not an attempt to disenfranchise voters *right now*. God only knows what they'll do once they get to do whatever they want with no judicial oversight. And yes, it's a active SCOTUS case as we speak.

You're not going to claim that this is a Republican-only thing, right? Have you seen the Maryland districts from the last decade?

To the second, I know Michael Knowles wasn't calling for the eradication of Transgenders, rather the eradication of Transgenderism, like you wrote in the URL.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhhhhhhhtttttttttttttt. Sure. Definitely. We can toooooootaaaallllyyyyy split the difference between "I think that we need to prevent people from transitioning and being who they are" and "I want to kill them all," because we definitely don't have research showing that 40%+ of transgender individuals have had suicidal ideation at least once in their lives and that appropriate care (allowing them to transition) reduces the risk of suicide by 70-80%. Definitely. Totally not "let's have them kill themselves" dressed up.

Some obvious words-in-mouth up there.
And what's the source for that? It better not be the Trevor Project or anything of the sort.
And furthermore, although I obviously do not want these people to kill themselves, to what extent must I lie to make people not commit suicide? Do I have to recognize someone as a fish if he claims that he will kill himself if he's not recognized as a fish?

No. Everyone who opposes trans rights is a rectangle. Fascists are a square.

I think your metaphor is suggesting that there are no Fascists who do not oppose trans rights; am I correct?

Also, who decides who's a Fascist and who's not? The actual people who fought Fascists with their blood almost certainly would have been opposed to Transgenderism. Would I be forever disenfranchised? I don't seek to kill any LGBTers. I could imagine any system that attempts to enforce a ban on Fascists voting being immediately hijacked and being used to prevent any Right-Winger who opposes Transgenderism and anything else the Left pushes from voting.

I've attempted to phrase this in the best way I can for the last bit. The paradox of tolerance states that in order to have a tolerant society, we must be intolerant of intolerance. Whenever I have a conversation with conservative people, I always wind up having to discuss this, so I've kind of got a spiel at this point. I fundamentally believe that conservative politics are bad for society. We do nothing but cause harm through regression and an attempt to "return to the good old days," because the "good old days" were never actually that good, it's just that the people who were harmed couldn't speak up about it. So yes, if your hypothetical were to happen and right-wingers were to be barred from voting because they wished to suppress the rights of minorities to exist, I doubt I would shed a single tear at their loss. If you happen to fall into that group because you don't like "the gays," or have a problem with trans people existing beyond what their AGAB allows, I will shed no tears for your loss either.

I have nothing wrong with those people who identify themselves as transgender existing. You still have not defined who the Fascists will be who you will disenfranchise, and I have a feeling it will be something along the lines of "people I disagree with".

[Necroghastia]

This is a distinction without difference. It's like saying you don't want to eradicate gay people, just homosexuality. It makes no goddamn sense.

Why not? Take the Seleucid Greeks and the Jews: They wished to eliminate Judaism, not the Jewish people themselves. It is possible to eliminate an "ism" without murdering the people who practice said "ism".

Cool story. Still genocidal.

Well, about that...

Perhaps those times were when this thing began, but that doesn't mean the majority of people, including the soldiery, supported it. For example, your first example was denied a marriage license. Your first example's "spouse" also lost his job when it was found out what happened.

So? The government was run by conservative loons. Besides:

Jorgensen was an instant celebrity when she returned to New York in February 1953. A large crowd of journalists met her as she came off her flight, and despite the Danish royal family being on the same flight, the audience largely ignored them in favor of Jorgensen.[18] Soon after her arrival, she launched a successful nightclub act and appeared on television, radio, and theatrical productions. The first five-part authorized account of her story was written by herself in a February 1953 issue of The American Weekly, titled "The Story of My Life." In 1967, she published her autobiography, Christine Jorgensen: A Personal Autobiography, which sold almost 450,000 copies

And in case you missed it, she was literally in the military in WW2.

Your second example was arrested for cross-dressing. Your third example had a mob of students attack the institute in which your third example stayed.

You mean literal goddamn Nazis. A mob of students composed of honest to god, no bones about it, Nazis.

"LGBTers," that's a new one.
And sure, maybe you don't wish death. Maybe that's a step too far, for you. Abject misery, however... that's not a dealbreaker for your support of those that DO wish us death.

I don't know, that's the term I use to encompass the whole movement.

Well, it's fucking stupid. Like, what does it even mean? How does the suffix "-er" which means "does [x] thing" make sense connected to an acronym like that?

And what's this "step too far"? You seem to be suggesting that I do want to kill them, which I denied.

No, I'm suggesting that you care so little for LGBT people that supporting people that do want them eliminated is not a dealbreaker, at least as long as they don't say the quiet part out loud.

And will any person really be in "abject misery" for people denying that he is the opposite sex/gender?

Jesus Christ, YES. Fucking obviously. Do you know anything of psychology?

The other alternative is people being forced to lie to themselves, or at least what they believe is lying to themselves. Seems to be as equally painful.

How the fuck do you get that? Do you think flat-earthers or antivaxxers are as valid, despite them being grounded in reality as much as transphobes? ANd what part of that would be fundamentally denying a part of their own goddamn identity? How in the hell do you think that that is at ALL equivalent?

The people who fought the fascists with their own blood were also largely opposed racial integration.


If transgenderism is an ideology than straightisim is also an ideology.
If you don’t want to eradicate the nazi ideology, why should any other ideology be eradicated.



A tolerant society has to be intolerant of intolerance.

The only intolerance allowed in a tolerant society.

I'm fine with someone being opposed to racial integration not being ladled a Fascist. I undoubtedly believe it's wrong, but it's not Fascist. It's pointless labeling everything which you don't like "Fascist", like Hispida did.

Well shoot dang, it's good that we're not doing that.

What is this "equating denial with death"? If I disagree that a man could become a woman, the person who wants to do that will kill himself/herself/whatever, heaven forbid. If you knew someone who is White but claims to be Taiwanese, would you engage in the lie to make him feel comfortable? How about a thirty year old who claims to be seventy? What if any of these two people would commit suicide if not recognized by every single person that they are what they claimed to be? Should the latter person receive retirement benefits for the amount he worked?

Again, you are doing nothing but demonstrating that you know nothing of the actual science of being trans, if you think these are remotely good equivalences.

I also fail to see how, by not referring to the students by their preferred pronouns, DeSantis is murdering these students.

DeSantis is doing a hell of a lot more than that, which you would know if you bothered to actually pay attention to anything. Also, again, denial of a fundamental part of their identity, etc etc.

You're not going to claim that this is a Republican-only thing, right? Have you seen the Maryland districts from the last decade?

Some obvious words-in-mouth up there.
And what's the source for that? It better not be the Trevor Project or anything of the sort.

Oh, great. What do you have against them of all people?

And furthermore, although I obviously do not want these people to kill themselves, to what extent must I lie to make people not commit suicide? Do I have to recognize someone as a fish if he claims that he will kill himself if he's not recognized as a fish?

Who said anything about lying? By acknowledging a trans person's gender you are only acknowledging reality.

I think your metaphor is suggesting that there are no Fascists who do not oppose trans rights; am I correct?

I have nothing wrong with those people who identify themselves as transgender existing.

Your whole post demonstrates this to be a lie. Ironic, since you have whined so much about "being forced to lie to yourself."

[Urkennalaid]

Very interesting you conveniently ignore the part where we say how fascists, like the literal nazis held the same views on trans people and some of the first books burned in nazi germany was books relating to trans medical research. Also, gotta love the same argument every transphobic right-winger brings up, "oh, you can change your gender but what happens when someone changes their race?"

Almost like ethnicity is a biological factor and gender is a societal construct which has changed throughout history.

[Necroghastia]

Very interesting you conveniently ignore the part where we say how fascists, like the literal nazis held the same views on trans people and some of the first books burned in nazi germany was books relating to trans medical research. Also, gotta love the same argument every transphobic right-winger brings up, "oh, you can change your gender but what happens when someone changes their race?"

Almost like ethnicity is a biological factor and gender is a societal construct which has changed throughout history.

When the "muh transracial/transage" people have actual studies on biology, maybe they might have a glimmer of a point. As it stands, they are only showing their ignorance.

[Ifreann]

Why not? Take the Seleucid Greeks and the Jews: They wished to eliminate Judaism, not the Jewish people themselves. It is possible to eliminate an "ism" without murdering the people who practice said "ism".

Cool story. Still genocidal.

Perhaps those times were when this thing began, but that doesn't mean the majority of people, including the soldiery, supported it. For example, your first example was denied a marriage license. Your first example's "spouse" also lost his job when it was found out what happened.

So? The government was run by conservative loons. Besides:

Jorgensen was an instant celebrity when she returned to New York in February 1953. A large crowd of journalists met her as she came off her flight, and despite the Danish royal family being on the same flight, the audience largely ignored them in favor of Jorgensen.[18] Soon after her arrival, she launched a successful nightclub act and appeared on television, radio, and theatrical productions. The first five-part authorized account of her story was written by herself in a February 1953 issue of The American Weekly, titled "The Story of My Life." In 1967, she published her autobiography, Christine Jorgensen: A Personal Autobiography, which sold almost 450,000 copies

And in case you missed it, she was literally in the military in WW2.

Damn, America used to be a whole ass chaser nation.

[Vrbo]

Why do we even have gendered pronouns?
Coming up with a better form of singular "they" would help.

I don't primarily use they unless requested because that's just how language functions to me, in the same way others do not use they when referring to a singular person. Before 2010 I scorn to remember anyone using they or them for a person and not a group.

[Neutraligon]

Why do we even have gendered pronouns?
Coming up with a better form of singular "they" would help.

I don't primarily use they unless requested because that's just how language functions to me, in the same way others do not use they when referring to a singular person. Before 2010 I scorn to remember anyone using they or them for a person and not a group.

I remember a great many people using they when the gender/sex of the person was unknown.

[Necroghastia]

I don't primarily use they unless requested because that's just how language functions to me, in the same way others do not use they when referring to a singular person. Before 2010 I scorn to remember anyone using they or them for a person and not a group.

I remember a great many people using they when the gender/sex of the person was unknown.

Or when referring to a generic, abstracted idea of a person.

[Vrbo]

I don't primarily use they unless requested because that's just how language functions to me, in the same way others do not use they when referring to a singular person. Before 2010 I scorn to remember anyone using they or them for a person and not a group.

I remember a great many people using they when the gender/sex of the person was unknown.

It appears I am suffering from a mild case of memory loss.

Jokes aside usually I remember people automatically assuming male if the gender was unknown and the name was unknown as well.

[Existential Cats]

Why do we even have gendered pronouns?
Coming up with a better form of singular "they" would help.

I don't primarily use they unless requested because that's just how language functions to me, in the same way others do not use they when referring to a singular person. Before 2010 I scorn to remember anyone using they or them for a person and not a group.

Singular "they" has been in usage since at least 1375.

[The Black Forrest]

I don't primarily use they unless requested because that's just how language functions to me, in the same way others do not use they when referring to a singular person. Before 2010 I scorn to remember anyone using they or them for a person and not a group.

Singular "they" has been in usage since at least 1375.

That maybe the first recorded use; it doesn’t mean it’s always been that way. The word they was taught to me as a reference to multiple people.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't primarily use they unless requested because that's just how language functions to me, in the same way others do not use they when referring to a singular person. Before 2010 I scorn to remember anyone using they or them for a person and not a group.

Singular "they" has been in usage since at least 1375.

That can be very dependent on language too. In Spanish (which is governed by gendered pronouns and words) I always assume someone is male online. In English? I assume the same but I use the neutral they.

[Vrbo]

I don't primarily use they unless requested because that's just how language functions to me, in the same way others do not use they when referring to a singular person. Before 2010 I scorn to remember anyone using they or them for a person and not a group.

Singular "they" has been in usage since at least 1375.

That is fine but even your article states that the use of the singular "they" is not commonly agreed upon:

The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects the singular they for formal writing.

While it is in use, I still do not use they specifically when referring to the singular if I know their name, or know them in general. When discussing someone in the third person then perhaps, but gendered pronouns typically dominated speech in my experience before 2010.

[Existential Cats]

Singular "they" has been in usage since at least 1375.

That maybe the first recorded use; it doesn’t mean it’s always been that way. The word they was taught to me as a reference to multiple people.

Singular "they" has been in usage since at least 1375.

That is fine but even your article states that the use of the singular "they" is not commonly agreed upon:

The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects the singular they for formal writing.

While it is in use, I still do not use they specifically when referring to the singular if I know their name, or know them in general. When discussing someone in the third person then perhaps, but gendered pronouns typically dominated speech in my experience before 2010.

Well of course, but the point is singular "they" was historically common currency and the backlash against the word only began in the 18th century, but in spite of that, singular "they" has persisted, even if you personally didn't encounter it until recently.

[Vrbo]

That maybe the first recorded use; it doesn’t mean it’s always been that way. The word they was taught to me as a reference to multiple people.

That is fine but even your article states that the use of the singular "they" is not commonly agreed upon:



While it is in use, I still do not use they specifically when referring to the singular if I know their name, or know them in general. When discussing someone in the third person then perhaps, but gendered pronouns typically dominated speech in my experience before 2010.

Well of course, but the point is singular "they" was historically common currency and the backlash against the word only began in the 18th century, but in spite of that, singular "they" has persisted, even if you personally didn't encounter it until recently.

Okay? It's mere usage to refer to the singular was never in question, its frequency in usage to refer to the singular was.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Well of course, but the point is singular "they" was historically common currency and the backlash against the word only began in the 18th century, but in spite of that, singular "they" has persisted, even if you personally didn't encounter it until recently.

Okay? It's mere usage to refer to the singular was never in question, its frequency in usage to refer to the singular was.

The neutrality in speech is pretty much a recent thing.

[Farnhamia]

Well of course, but the point is singular "they" was historically common currency and the backlash against the word only began in the 18th century, but in spite of that, singular "they" has persisted, even if you personally didn't encounter it until recently.

Okay? It's mere usage to refer to the singular was never in question, its frequency in usage to refer to the singular was.

Sort of.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

You know what I meant.

No, I don't.

Fascism is not a singular ideology. It can take many different shapes. Just like Communism can.

Strasserists were Fascists. Hell, they were even Nazis, but the main Nazi faction purged them due to massive ideological disagreements.

In the stupefied arena of American politics, comes forth a uniquely stupid form of fascism.

The Strasserists were not fascists. They held economically socialist (Marxist) principles, believed in abolishing private property, establishing a planned economy under the prospect of organizing this via guild socialism. The only thing the Strasserists shared in common with the Nazis was their antisemitism, which even then was based on economic standpoints rather than an idea of a "racial hierarchy".

[The Astral Mandate]

No, I don't.

Fascism is not a singular ideology. It can take many different shapes. Just like Communism can.

Strasserists were Fascists. Hell, they were even Nazis, but the main Nazi faction purged them due to massive ideological disagreements.

In the stupefied arena of American politics, comes forth a uniquely stupid form of fascism.

The Strasserists were not fascists. They held economically socialist (Marxist) principles, believed in abolishing private property, establishing a planned economy under the prospect of organizing this via guild socialism. The only thing the Strasserists shared in common with the Nazis was their antisemitism, which even then was based on economic standpoints rather than an idea of a "racial hierarchy".

If they aren't fascists, then neither are the socdems.
*Ba dum tss*

[El Lazaro]

No, I don't.

Fascism is not a singular ideology. It can take many different shapes. Just like Communism can.

Strasserists were Fascists. Hell, they were even Nazis, but the main Nazi faction purged them due to massive ideological disagreements.

In the stupefied arena of American politics, comes forth a uniquely stupid form of fascism.

The Strasserists were not fascists. They held economically socialist (Marxist) principles, believed in abolishing private property, establishing a planned economy under the prospect of organizing this via guild socialism. The only thing the Strasserists shared in common with the Nazis was their antisemitism, which even then was based on economic standpoints rather than an idea of a "racial hierarchy".

“Nazis are not fascists”
“Liberals are fascists”

Defending your comrades, eh?

[Nazi Flower Power]

Why do we even have gendered pronouns?
Coming up with a better form of singular "they" would help.

I don't primarily use they unless requested because that's just how language functions to me, in the same way others do not use they when referring to a singular person. Before 2010 I scorn to remember anyone using they or them for a person and not a group.

I'm almost 40 and I can't remember a time when singular "they" was not in common use. When I was in school I had a couple of teachers that specifically told us not to use it -- because most people were using it unless they made a conscious effort to avoid it.

Objecting to singular they is one of those snotty pretentious things like telling people to say "children" instead of "kids" because a kid is a baby goat.

[Republic of Europia United]

Not at all surprising coming from DeSantis. The guy has been latching into the culture war since he got into office. All because he hopes to become Trump 2.0. and get the presidential nomination but it remains to get seen whether that'll work.