I'm gonna have to agree with Battalion here.

The simplest solution to this is just use the neutral "they" unless otherwise specified. Or just use the country name.

If you're not a man, other players just taking for granted that you are can definitely make you feel like you don't belong here.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcpFHhiWkAIri1O.png

https://www.mypokecard.com/my/galery/nhTdCv9H31mR.jpg

That's not fake though

Battalion, I'm sorry if reading too much and thinking too much hirts your head. Perhaps if you wrote more, or thought more you'd convey the point that you're trying to make. I've explained my position already. You just disagree with it, and have no valid rebittal to offer. However, I'll repeat myself since you're asking and struggling.

I dont want to use the word "they" as a singular pronoun because it is improper grammar. The driver behind this movement to do so is woke politics. And for many the objection to the proposed change is not that actual change, but the overarching intent to tear down tradition and structure of society. That may not be the motive for all advocating the change, but it is the drive of those who originated the call for change. So to that end I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else here is an instagator of wokeness. Perhaps some are, and perhaps some are merely sympathetic to the feeling of others. However, resiting this unreasonable change does not make one unsympathetic to the feelings of others. And the best change of this sort evolves naturally as part of the evolving culture. Mandates asking people to immediately discard decades if not centuries or precedent to suit to contemporary whimisical preferences of a extreme minority of the population is going to meet resistance. True change will occur over time if it's as widely embraced as many suggest this is or should be.

I did not bring this topic here. So suggestions that anyone labling this behavior as woke is inserting politics is illogicagal. The woke movement is political. Preferred pronouns is woke politics.

No one is looking to mock players here because of their sex. If someone is doing this, that behavior such be condemed, discouraged, and ultimately stopped. But suggesting that proper use of language is insulting another person is absurd.

The simplest solution here is to do nothing. If a player make it known to us that said player prefers to be known as he or she, then that solves almost all scenarios. This can be done already in the profile page each player has by registering witht he site. No special fields are necessary. If a person asked to be referred to as "they" in a singular context, that's asking us to use improper grammar. I will not do this. No one else should be forced to do this either, regardless of anyone's preferences. In such a situation I would use that player's user name or nation played in lieu of a pronoun.

Apologies, I had overlooked the grammatical argument because I thought it had been debunked already. I'm afraid it's simply false to assert it's incorrect grammar to use "they" to refer to a person whose gender or sex is unknown. Take the Cambridge dictionary, point B1 here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/they

In contrast, the use of "he" to refer to someone of unknown sex is considered "old-fashioned": https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/he

Just to ensure I'm not cherry-picking my dictionaries, I thought I should also check out el classico, the OED. It states:
"Until relatively recently he was used to refer to a person of unspecified sex, as in every child needs to know that he is loved, but this is now generally regarded as old-fashioned or sexist. Since the 18th century they has been an alternative to he in this sense (everyone needs to feel that they matter), where it occurs after an indefinite pronoun such as everyone or someone. It is becoming more and more accepted both in speech and in writing, and is used as the norm in this dictionary. Another alternative is he or she, though this can become tiresomely long-winded when used frequently." [https://www.lexico.com/definition/he]

Language evolves and it changes. I'm afraid your above assertions are simply no longer true.

Ruffhaus, why hast thou a problem with language evolving?

Also, I am far from being a competent writer, and would never think of correcting anyone (you wouldn’t want me correcting you!), but for someone who bemoans ungrammatical speech, you make an awful lot of typos and spelling errors.

I'm sorry but is Ruffhaus arguing that using they/them to refer to people they don't know is going to "destroy the structure of society"? No body else is talking about this, this is why people are saying you're forcing your politics into this conversation, you're being very silly.

I mean by that logic since there are more older women than older men in the US, that if I meet a stranger who is over the age of 60 I assume they are a woman, and must prove otherwise unless the "woke police" come and nuke society and bring about the revolution (for whatever system you fear the most) when I just want to grill.

The simplest and most logical solution here is use gender-neutral language that doesn't assume everyone is a guy. That's they/them. Since there's a forum here, i also think we should do what forums have done since their inceptions. Provide a place for pronouns should people want to include them.

In my experience, he/his as neutral pronouns are generally used when referring to a generic person where gender is indeterminate and undefined (like in legal language). In the context of online diplomacy, we are dealing with people who do have a gender, only the gender is unknown rather than indeterminate, so there is a possibility for confusion in one-on-one communication.

There's nothing woke about using singular they. It's been used for centuries. Use of as a neutral is just an arbitrary rule. Using they is much more practical. I've never run into miscommunication or confusion when using they. There's enough female players here that I've run into of issues of confusion when defaulting to he on multiple occasions. I've talked about women players I didn't know as "he" and they have to correct me, which adds unnecessary awkwardness. Someone else who knows that the player is a woman will wonder if I'm confused and talking about the right person. Or people assume that, since I called the player a he, that the player is a he, which can cause more miscommunication down the line. Using he just doesn't make as much sense from a practicality standpoint.

Everyone is free to use English as they want, but I don't understand why someone would want to have these issues potentially come up when they don't have to, just for the sake of formal grammar or resisting woke culture. But, again, if people don't want to use they, you can just say if you're male or female in your profile quote and that would get rid of those issues, too, at least in the forums and non-anon games.

RUFFHAUS 8 is perfectly able to defend himself and does not need anyone's help to do so, but I would like to point out these three things :

1° SimonPeterWatson wrote :
"for someone who bemoans ungrammatical speech, you make an awful lot of typos and spelling errors."

This is an argumentum ad hominem, which is the level zero of argumentation.

2° ironGilligan wrote :
"you're being very silly"

This is an argumentum ad personam, which is the lowest level, below zero, of argumentation.

3° ironGilligan wrote :
"I'm sorry but is Ruffhaus arguing that using they/them to refer to people they don't know is going to "destroy the structure of society"? No body else is talking about this"

That is false : I am talking about it too.
Also, several persons gave a +1 to each of RUFFHAUS 8's comments, so he's far from being alone to think what he writes.

@ Battalion :

Yes, languages evolve, that is a natural process.
But making a language evolve on purpose is a political weapon : control, manipulation and transformation of a language is a major vector of soft power. It has been so for centuries, but that practice has now reached an unprecedented level.

@ Retillion - that is not an ad hominem attack, it is recognizing a contradiction in an argument. If an argument has proper English use as a key point, then many spelling errors within that argument is contradictory.

@ SimonPeterWatson :

It is an argumentum ad hominem.

"The argumentum ad hominem moves away from the purely objective object of the debate to focus on what the adversary has said or conceded about it".
For example, to claim that a person should not discuss a specific topic because he made mistakes about that topic.

Arthur Schopenhauer gave a precise definition of the argumentum ad hominem in his book "Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten" (1831). In English : "Eristic Dialectic: The Art of Winning an Argument" (the title of that book has also other English translations like, for example, "The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument").

I own a French edition of that book : the argumentum ad hominem is the 16th stratagem described in it.

A precise definition of argumentum ad hominem is given in that book (Schopenhauer, L'art d'avoir toujours raison ou Dialectisue éristique, Circé/Poche, 1999, p. 59) :

« L'argumentum ad hominem s'écarte de l'objet purement objectif du débat pour s'attacher à ce que l'adversaire en a dit ou concédé. »

Which means in English :

"The argumentum ad hominem moves away from the purely objective object of the debate to focus on what the adversary has said or conceded about it".

@ Retillion

Imagine responding to the comment "you're being very silly" on an internet discussion with the line "This is an argumentum ad personam, which is the lowest level, below zero, of argumentation. It says so on page 59 of my French Edition of The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument"

Ruffhaus's whole argument is that he despises using anything but "proper grammar". But his posts have typos and errors galore. Obvious contradiction, and Simon is right to call out the bs. Not an "ad hominem".

I'd like to jump in and note _why_ this isn't merely ad hominem attack.

A key point of stating that you despise the use of anything but "proper grammar" inherently carries the conviction that the author understands grammar. The statement, in the context of an argument about grammar, is otherwise pointless; it aims to impress upon others that the author's knowledge of grammar is complete and accurate.

If the same author goes on to make grammatical mistakes, they (yes, they, given we are speaking of a hypothetical author, not Ruffhaus specifically; and the gender of the hypothetical author is not known) undermine this claim in their own writing through these mistakes. The assertion of the author's skill is contradicted by the actions of the author, and in turn, it is reasonable to highlight this contradiction due to the central debate being about grammar.

Also, Retillion, gender identity "wokeness" began long after the use of the singular they became a part of proper English grammar; it cannot possibly have happened under political duress unless you mean to suggest that those willing to adjust a language for political aims have developed time machines, and also have incredibly limited imaginations when it comes to employing those time machines.

On a further note, from your description of ad hominem and relying on Schopenhauer as an authority therein, you assert the accuracy of the title of Schopenhauer's work; thus, by describing ad hominem as a strategem listed, without other comment, you assert that it is a valid way to win an argument.

Is there really a need for all of this? I guess I didn’t know we had such a problem on vdip with offending people and keeping people from wanting to join based on the chance they may be mislabeled. If someone has been mislabeled can’t they fix this right away during “ they’re” conversation?
Are we looking for something to be offended by here?

1.) I feel like saying something is silly after being called a liar and a "nitwit" is a huge step down in severity and tone. Very odd that you called out the response to something you disagree with, and not post you agree with. We're all biased, and I understand that, I certainly am more amicable towards people who agree with me, everyone is, but there's a point where it goes into hypocrisy.

2.) The idea and obsession with people being "offended" is very odd to me. I've seen this line of logic a lot and like, not everyone has the same tolerance for everything. Just because you feel a way, doesn't mean everyone else has to.
But at the same time it's just missing the point of the conversation (something that is entirely reasonable considering the forceful yank from talking about using gender neutral language to the destruction of society) but it's a good conversation to have just because it makes communication easier, faster, and more including for more people. Leaving diplomacy simply to those we consider "default" by insisting that be the language instead of neutral terms just seems odd to me. You can guess about problems all you want, for all we know there are thousands of people don't pick up diplomacy because it's a "boy's game" there might be 2. Whatever it is is, I don't care. None of my arguments are effected in the slightest by this not being an issue or it being an issue. Simply freeing up the game time to actually do diplomacy instead of correcting people's pronouns is entirely fixable. And the simplest solution is just to encourage using neutral terms when referring to people.

I do regret that the conversations gotten so political, but it really just seems like that's the personal issue of the people who are super adamantly opposed to using more explicitly neutral language

Fox, I'd suggest that the original intent of this was to suggest the merits of what is, functionally, a very minor change; not for "all of this" in terms of the threadnought this has become.

But frankly, what made this a threadnought, what made this "all of this", isn't actually the discussion of that potential change (the actual discussion of "can we just put stuff in bios" and "eh this is a bad idea in anon games" is pretty short); but instead the derailment by those who have run in and turned their nose up at what they consider to be bad grammar.

vDip isn't ever going to be a place where the singular they is, somehow, invalidated; we will not come to agreement here and the change to the English grammar structure will not then ripple out across the universe. The discussion of the validity thereof is, for the topic at hand, actually irrelevant; the complaints against singular they aren't even tangential, they are retrograde to the course of the conversation. Frankly, the only people looking to be offended here are those bringing up their objections to a portion of established grammar they simply disagree with.

@ Tepes :

Yes, of course there is a contradiction. And

@ Tepes :

Yes, of course there is a contradiction. And contradiction is a constitutive element of what makes an argumentum ad hominem.

Obviously, many people here do not know the definition of that expression.

In our current discussion, that contradiction does not invalidate at all RUFFHAUS 8's point :

1° Those who know him know that he has already written walls of elaborate text without one single mistake. Obviously, he masters the writing of the English language.

2° A person can post a text with mistakes for many reasons that have nothing to do with his mastery of the language : for example, he could not find his glasses and has trouble seeing correctly what he writes, or he is exhausted, or he sent his message accidentally before he had the time to reread it for potential mistakes.
What's more, here at vdiplomacy, it is not possible to correct a message after is is posted.

3° And anyway, a person who is not able to write properly still has the right to have the desire to write properly, or to ask that people write properly. Even if that may seem contradictory.

@ a_mercurial_git :

You wrote :

"from your description of ad hominem and relying on Schopenhauer as an authority therein, you assert the accuracy of the title of Schopenhauer's work; thus, by describing ad hominem as a strategem listed, without other comment, you assert that it is a valid way to win an argument."

There is one word too many in your sentence : the word "valid".
In his book, Schopenhauer does not say that the described techniques are valid, he says that they could work.
For example, what Schopenhauer calls "the ultimate stratagem" is to be rude, insulting, offending : that's the argumentum ad personam¹. Obviously, you wouldn't call that technique valid, would you ? Even if you know that it comes from a book called "The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument", isn't it ? But that ultimate stratagem could help win an argument.

And after describing that ultimate stratagem, Schopenhauer gives the only infallible parade against it by reminding us Aristotle's advice :
One should not argue with just anyone.

¹It seems that some persons confuse ad hominem with ad personam.

@The Desert Fox

I don't think there's any need for all this either. I think it's a common courtesy not to presume a feature of someone you don't know, but if someone does mislabel you you can usually just solve this in your own conversation. Happens all the time. I don't think we need to list pronouns or anything, but if you want to sure go for it.

This is less about 'being offended' and more about finding a way to refer to a player without straight-up taking for granted that they're a dude. Everyone seems to agree that just using the country or player's name works fine. The only people who seem strongly offended are the few repulsed by the idea of using "they" (and seem to have a weird complex about being forced by mandate to do so, even though we're just shooting the sh*t and talking about it). This is because it will contribute to the "destruction of tradition and structure". A very normal and not-deranged idea.

@ ironGillan :

You wrote :

"I feel like saying something is silly after being called a liar and a "nitwit" is a huge step down in severity and tone."

That sentence is of course true but it does not reflect at all what has been written !


You did not say "something is silly", you wrote : "you're being very silly."

RUFFHAUS 8 did not call you a liar nor a nitwit, he wrote "Suggesting that this pronoun nitwittery is not woke politics is the epidome of intellectual dishonesty" and "it's easier to just dismiss that with the lies and false claims of [...]"

→ There is a huge difference between qualifying a person (that's what you did) and qualifying a fact or a behaviour (that's what RUFFHAUS 8 did).

So there is no hypocrisy.

@ a_mercurial_git

This. Hit the nail on the head.

The whole thread has been massively derailed to a spat over "bad grammar". It's a shame, because the original discussion was well-meaning. I doubt any minds are being changed today.

To assert, without evidence, that 99%+ of the players are male (and therefore would prefer he as their pronoun) in order to justify using 'he' by default seems very sus.

Firstly, it is entirely possible, and likely even, that greater than <1% of the player base would prefer a pronoun other than he.

Even if the true number is 1%, a community where non men are cisgendered by default isn't being very welcoming.

It's also false that we have no neutral pronoun in our language. We do! English speakers have collectively decided that we do, and I am afraid anyone who does not agree is, ahem, going the way of Shakespeare.

Is this a 'woke' position? Honestly not really! I mean I think the position of "called people what they want to be called full stop" is great, but even a person who doesn't believe that trans people exist hopefully still believes that *women* exist.

So try using 'they', and if you happen to learn someone's pronoun, switch to that! If you cisgender someone by mistake, just correct your mistake!

It's not some devious marxist plot to destroy America, I promise. :)

@Retillion: It is telling that you react to an aside, most minor, and one explicitly signposted so; and yet neglect the meat of the argument. You undermine your credibility in the eyes of anyone keeping track of this discourse in even the most cursory of manners.

Oh god frozen dog now that you mentioned the scary words there's going to be a thousand word long essay about why vdip is being invaded by the "woke police" and society is collapsing.

Either way, I'm reminded of an earlier to comment by Drano to hopefully bring this back. "That's not to say that there will be an "official" policy saying everyone has to comply, but I see no reason we shouldn't all make a good-faith effort to be inclusive and welcoming when it costs us literally nothing to do so."
I want to be very clear, I don't remember anyone (this doesn't mean it didn't happen just that I'm stupid if it did) saying this will be something that will negatively effect people if they choose to continue to use he/him. I can understand people who come from a language where gender isn't like what it is in english, but baked into the language. Changing the spelling and even structure of a sentence instead of "he" or "she" And I can try and understand the mindset of someone who doesn't want to use it because it's "bad grammer." The problem I have, is that even with a mindset of thinking they/them is improper, I still can't understand not using them when vdip, as a website, isn't like a job interview or a formal debate. It's a digital board game. Communication is important, and I feel like someone would be more confused about a "he" not being a he, than a single person being referred to as a "them" It just generally saves us 1.) the trouble of changing down the line. and 2.) grinding the game down to halt to figure everybody's pronouns out.

Frozen Dog - just noting, you use 'cisgendered' in a couple of instances where it looks like you meant 'misgendered'?