Active Users:1102 Time:22/11/2024 11:15:48 PM
Interesting.... Jeordam Send a noteboard - 13/11/2018 11:36:43 PM

View original post
View original postjust kind of pointing out the fact that we call people "It" all the time. I had one specific example that was applied to the two different mindsets of the speaker. One was used out of ambiguity, while the other was to dehumanize. The difference was the intent of the speaker.

To clarify, when I said, 'you don't refer to people by it', it wasn't so much a descriptive statement as a moral one. As in, you should not refer to (adult) people by 'it'. Because indeed it dehumanizes.

Why the adult qualifier? Is the age of the individual a factor in whether one is "humanized" or not?

~Jeordam

ex-Admin at wotmania (all things wot & art galleries)
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985
Reply to message
Aran'gar and the trans issue. - 13/11/2018 12:25:48 AM 698 Views
This is exactly why the knee-jerk response was so amusing. - 13/11/2018 01:18:28 AM 423 Views
I think you could argue it's surprisingly apt. - 13/11/2018 01:31:37 AM 449 Views
I don't know what's so hard to understand about this. You don't refer to people by 'it'. - 13/11/2018 08:09:34 AM 411 Views
People are refered to by "it" all the time.... - 13/11/2018 05:26:33 PM 409 Views
But remember, human fetuses aren't people. /s *NM* - 13/11/2018 05:42:00 PM 304 Views
Your second example rather proves my point, don't you think? - 13/11/2018 07:50:39 PM 392 Views
and those of us defending Cannoli maintain - 13/11/2018 07:59:08 PM 370 Views
I'm not really commenting on Cannoli's post.... - 13/11/2018 09:20:13 PM 386 Views
FWIW mine was concerning ambiguity - 13/11/2018 11:01:03 PM 421 Views
Okay, sure. - 13/11/2018 11:26:58 PM 420 Views
Interesting.... - 13/11/2018 11:36:43 PM 400 Views
Because it is just contempt - 13/11/2018 11:45:08 PM 537 Views
I think I mostly covered that above, but I can recap. - 14/11/2018 08:02:51 AM 398 Views
Who's on the phone? - 14/11/2018 01:53:14 AM 402 Views
Sure, I agree. - 14/11/2018 07:45:58 AM 415 Views
Aran'gar does not, and doesn't have to represent, trangender people for your usage to be wrong - 13/11/2018 03:21:42 PM 416 Views
Except that it isn't a person, it is a character in a book - 14/11/2018 02:57:12 PM 392 Views
So? - 14/11/2018 07:18:10 PM 406 Views
Re: So? - 17/11/2018 02:13:37 PM 375 Views
Upon reflection, I have edited the original post - 13/11/2018 08:02:17 PM 398 Views
Thank you. *NM* - 13/11/2018 11:31:41 PM 191 Views

Reply to Message