As I've said many times, I'd be for probably 90% of Denmark/Sweden policy basically copy/pasted to the US so whatever you wanna interpret that to be, go ahead. I don't really care for labels and I'm for whatever makes the most sense (sometimes that is left, sometimes that is right).
"The main definition"? You mean the informal summary that Google presented you with?
That's the #1 definition of "he" whether using some "informal" Oxford definition, which it isn't. Or you can go to Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Collins, Britannica, etc. It's almost what you'd call a "scientific consensus" that sex is the main definition for pronouns.
A) It's weird how proud you are of your own words imposed upon me.
Firstly, uhrm no, dictionaries do not provide a "scientific consensus". Just absolute lol to that.
You voluntarily agreeing with a position is me "imposing" it on you? You didn't have to say that, you know, nobody made you.
Recall that after being presented with a half dozen definitions that emphasised the sense of self & characteristics, you then tried to weakly argue that "little more than X" leaves room for significant stuff other than X.
Yeah, but spending time overanalyzing the words that you strung together is a little funny, isn't it? Like, you're not getting any insight into me or what I think by nitpicking the exact particular sentence you formulated yourself.
It does. If you care to go back way before you said that thing I agreed to without you understanding why, my precise words on the topic were: "Sense of self and identity are slightly different concepts." Those are the words from my mind, not anything about sense of self not mattering.
The back-and-forth would be quite unnecessary if you'd have just said that's not what you meant/believe. Instead you've defended that specific position to the absolute hilt.
Yes, I'm quite aware you've taken several quite different positions throughout the thread. Or made statements that are "strongly suggestive" of contradictory positions, if you'd prefer.
How odd, then, that you objected so strenuously when I said one's characteristics are the most reliable basis for comparisons and observations-- considering that's pretty much the position you've now come to!
Really? So, say someone transitions, and takes on the appearance of the opposite sex-- in informal terms, they "pass". Without them specifically mentioning they're trans, observers see their adopted sex anyway.
That's why I put it in quotes... You love saying this and that is scientific consensus when it's not (and only consensus in your echo chamber). But when literally every of the 5+ main dictionaries say pronouns are sex-based as the main definition, that doesn't meet the guidelines for consensus in your world somehow. You can't use both definitions because they are contradictory so you have to choose. If someone uses pronouns based on sex (the main definition), they can't also use pronouns based on gender at the same time and vice verse. Let people use pronouns how they want (whether sex or gender based) and stop acting like people who use sex-based pronouns are ascribing identity onto others (aka your bullshit caveat).
"Main definition", "have to choose"... wait, are you seriously under the impression that the earlier definition in a dictionary is somehow more legitimate or 'main' than the others? That's not how dictionaries work. At all.
My objection was that external observation is the most reliable way to assess objective characteristics. Your point only makes sense if you can magically know objective truth.
First, I'm questioning whether you've ever interacted with people if you think that's how people think.
You think word definitions are just in some random order? How did the sex-based definition of pronouns come first in every dictionary? It's like how the main definition of diet doesn't mean what people usually refer to as "going on a diet"; your diet is just what you eat.
Frequently, yes. Although it varies, some do it chronologically (i.e. first established use of the word historically). Defnitions may also be arranged in meaning clusters where related definitions are placed together, even though some of the individual meanings within that cluster may be rarer (/ newer) than successive definitions which are in other clusters.
Really? External observation is a better way to judge (for instance) someone's orientation, or gender identity, than their own mind?
This is an extremely muddled paragraph that seems to essentially boil down to concession that external perception divorced from actual characteristics and self-image ain't worth much.
K. I mean, I think most people would agree that things like gender, orientation, career/ aspiration, etc are more significant to one's identity than the clothes they happen to be wearing or where they happen to be standing.
Dictionaries rank their definitions by how commonly they come up in day to day life. That doesn't mean an earlier definition somehow trumps the definitions below or has more validity. They're all valid usages.
Alright, so you're just not discussing anymore and are down to snipes. Nice talk.
It's better than if I just asked "so, you're saying you sniff your own farts?" Every post, ad infinitum.
You've strawmanned me into oblivion for several pages now, so not that far off.
