Correct spelling of a name is also very different than spelling of generic pronouns.
Correct spelling of a name is also very different than spelling of generic pronouns.
As the writer has stated, the writer views any pronouns that are not capitalized as misgendering them, and stated the pronouns were chosen specifically to reflect the writer’s self-identified divine status as “goddess gender” (a term that, as far as I can tell, only exists on one wiki and the writer’s blog).
The choice of capitalized pronouns was specifically chosen to imitate reverential capitalization, indicating divine status. As part of the writer’s argument, this is intended to put the writer on the same level as the Abrahamic God. The writer also states in the article that “by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression,” which is a wild claim that I cannot agree with. The use of capitalized pronouns is therefore intended to strip the other party of their beliefs, either as a monotheist or atheist (as using reverential pronouns would also affirm a polytheist worldview that they disagree with).
I cannot use any pronouns that do not acknowledge the writer’s claimed divine status without the writer claiming I am misgendering them. This is the most respectful way I can refer to the writer without acknowledging divine status or actively misgendering the writer.
I am more than happy to use whichever (lowercase and grammatically correct) pronouns are requested, as I am more than happy to refer to you as they/them, (which is also the default I try to use, though I understand some people are frustrated with they/them as it can strip a chosen gender identity).
Divine status is not a gender identity. Words mean things, and language can evolve, but this is specifically appropriating a style of writing while disparaging the source of that style.
The writer has stated in other comments that the writer is non-binary, which is the closest I can get to an answer to the question, but the actual answer to this question doesn’t matter. We can apply gender identity to humans and non-humans (e.g. animals, fictional aliens, heck even ships) but divinity is not a gender, it’s a supernatural or spiritual status.
People are free to identify as whatever gender (or non-gender) they so choose but by telling me “you must accept that I am divine,” we’re having an entirely different discussion. By requesting capitalized pronouns, the writer is also requesting their spiritual beliefs to be affirmed, which is implicitly (and apparently intentionally) forcing the other party to change their spiritual beliefs.
But the form in which the writer affirms the writer’s divine identity (again, not gender) is using reverential capitalization, a form of worship. If the writer said “I am a kami and use ke/ker pronouns” there wouldn’t be a worship aspect (though again, identity as a divinity or other non-human is not a gender).
So, wait, just to be clear: the writer is claiming that the writer’s gender is not a gender but instead that the writer has some divine status?
M/F/NB/genderqueer/etc aside, human vs divine is not a gender question and this is no longer a discussion about pronouns showing respect and affirmation of gender identity, this is literally a demand for worship.
The least terrible option is not invading…
Holy crap this site is absolutely unbearable without an ad blocker.
Seriously though Mohdi, if you don’t want people to be suspicious about you arresting your political opponents then you probably shouldn’t make a fuss when people are concerned. “Normal criminal arrest here, nothing to see” is much less guilty than calling in a diplomat to yell “How dare you question me!” at them.
Recompiling my foundation and hoping it still holds the house up when I’m done.
I just want to respect my friend’s transition.
Ah, yes, I’m aware of Starfield, just not that there’s someone named Sarah Morgan in it. I legitimately just picked a generic first and last name.
Yeah, I didn’t want to write out an entire “so this is how my conversation went” at the start of the post because it’s mostly boring, but apparently not doing so makes me sound fishy.
I just wanted to make sure I could approach this situation the best way if it ever comes up again. Thank you.
I’m sure this is a very funny joke I don’t get. Yes, I know, I’m sure I’m great at parties too.
In case it was unclear: obviously both names are fake.
Apparently I require further clarification: two friends went to different colleges and moved to different parts of the country. They did not keep in contact with each other but I kept on contact with both of them. The content of the conversation was not the transition itself, it was sharing essentially a blog post related to the topic of conversation (e.g. “Oh yeah, did you see Sarah’s post about the new Wheel of Time show? Sarah Morgan? Used to go by Brett? Yeah, she came out as trans a couple years ago. Anyway, so what she was saying in this post was…”
If you define this as gossip then I honestly don’t know what wouldn’t be considered gossip any time any third party is brought into any conversation.
Regarding your first comment, please see my other reply. I understand not all transitions are straightforward regarding safety but this is not the case here.
Essentially, saying “Do you remember Sarah Morgan?” (negative response) “She used to go by Brett” would generally be acceptable?
To be clear, their transition has been quite public and there is no question of acceptance by this friend. It is simply a circumstance of lives going in different directions that these two people are not friends and there is not a safety question.
Edit: I see your edit and obviously this is am easy solution with infinite time. I know not all transitions are the same but is there a general rule for this sort of situation.
This entire situation has been bothering me for nearly 24 hours now and I think this is the best summary I’ve read of why the concept is bothering me so much.