So what's up with "gender inclusive language"?

Originally posted by cdtm
They're monsters, is the reason.

Unfortunately, the truth is this isn't unique to one religion. For example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2011/12/15/news/u-s-paedophilia-scandal-among-orthodox-jews-in-brooklyn-1.36914054/amp/

And heck, it isn't even unique to religion, period. Not even the part where certain religions covered up for their members, that kind of thing happens in secular settings all the time, like Hollywood, Corporate, or tight knit communities full of people who know one another.

Originally posted by cdtm
Is it true house rules say you can't use the term "father", "son", "mother", "daughter"?

Why? I mean, I'm supportive of inclusiveness and diversity, and being sensitive to other people, but the fact is most of us identify as a binary. I totally call my "baba" my father, and wouldn't be comfortable doing anything else.

I don't do this to make one who identifes as non binary uncomfortable. That's simply who I am. I identify as man, use gended pronouns in my family, I'm comfortable with that, and have no desire to change this.

So again, why? Why does everyone else need to adopt a language that is ultimately forcing them into a behavior they likely aren't comfortable with?

Feel free to use "father", "son", "mother", "daughter", "him", "her" etc. as you have been.

If someone request you refer to them as a "she" and "her" and they were born male, but they're transgender, it's just a polite thing to do and it cost you nothing. Just like if some guy born with the name "Alexander", but they prefer to go by "Noah" for whatever reason, it cost you nothing to call them Noah.

Don't let the extreme minority, who has the loudest voices most times dictate things for everyone.

Originally posted by Robtard
Feel free to use "father", "son", "mother", "daughter", "him", "her" etc. as you have been.

If someone request you refer to them as a "she" and "her" and they were born male, but they're transgender, it's just a polite thing to do and it cost you nothing. Just like if some guy born with the name "Alexander", but they prefer to go by "Noah" for whatever reason, it cost you nothing to call them Noah.

Don't let the extreme minority, who has the loudest voices most times dictate things for everyone.

Agree with that, too. 👆

If the house rules thing is only about drafting official documents in an inclusive language, that's fine. To hear people talk about it, one would get the impression a senator can't use the term daughter for his own kid.

I'm thinking thaf isn't the cass.

Originally posted by cdtm
Agree with that, too. 👆

If the house rules thing is only about drafting official documents in an inclusive language, that's fine. To hear people talk about it, one would get the impression a senator can't use the term daughter for his own kid.

I'm thinking thaf isn't the cass.

Doesn't seem to be the case, probably just fearmongering from one side:

"If approved by vote, the rules package would not prevent the use of gendered language, but would rename certain official language. Included in the changes, the Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman would become the Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds." -snip

Seems like it's renaming certain things, but in regards to government. Like "manhole" to "service entrance" or similar.

Originally posted by Insane Titan
I understand all that and that everything you named are scum. The point for me that’s laughably hypercritical is they are so big on homosexuality and despise it yet it’s so rife among them and turn a blind eye to it even covering it up.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
I didn't know Satan was giving out books? 😑

God does not give out books either. That is why Christians are retards for believing it.

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
Those are terrible people yes, but they do not speak for the religion as a whole. That is not a logical assumption.

Originally posted by cdtm
Agree with that, too. 👆

If the house rules thing is only about drafting official documents in an inclusive language, that's fine. To hear people talk about it, one would get the impression a senator can't use the term daughter for his own kid.

I'm thinking thaf isn't the cass.

Inclusive language is for groups. Exclusive language is for individuals.

It is perfectly fine to use an exclusive term to refer to an individual, because it excludes the other terms that do not apply to him.

But when you use an exclusive term to refer to a mixed group, it excludes everyone to which that term does not apply.

Refer to an individual member of law enforcement as a policeman, but refer to members of law enforcement in aggregate as police officers.

It is really not that hard, and some people are making it out to be way more than it actually is.

Originally posted by Insane Titan
They do speak for the religion, in fact it’s more prominent figures from the cult who are the worst offenders. You believe in liars and hypocrites.

Priests and pastors are not above my rank at all. They just preach the Word of God.

God is my prominent figure. 🙂

Originally posted by cdtm
Is it true house rules say you can't use the term "father", "son", "mother", "daughter"?

Why? I mean, I'm supportive of inclusiveness and diversity, and being sensitive to other people, but the fact is most of us identify as a binary. I totally call my "baba" my father, and wouldn't be comfortable doing anything else.

I don't do this to make one who identifes as non binary uncomfortable. That's simply who I am. I identify as man, use gended pronouns in my family, I'm comfortable with that, and have no desire to change this.

So again, why? Why does everyone else need to adopt a language that is ultimately forcing them into a behavior they likely aren't comfortable with?

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
That is wrong actually.

Priests and pastors are not above my rank at all. They just preach the Word of God.

God is my prominent figure. 🙂

Originally posted by Insane Titan
Along with being a liar you’re also a delusional sheep

Originally posted by victreebelvictr
Alright. 😂

Originally posted by cdtm
And that would be fine. But reading through the house rules, it looks like they're saying to replace binary descriptors in all cases, regardless. Which doesn't make much sense to me.

Unless there's an a narrow way these rules get applied that I'm not seeing.

Incidentally and slightly off topic, have you read the rules? I was going down the list, and some of them were raising flags.. The one where you can't table talks of declaring war, for example. That sounds unnecessary and potentially harmful..

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is really not that hard, and some people are making it out to be way more than it actually is.

Some deliberately misrepresent the issue just to stir up shit though. They're fully aware they can call their cisgendered, female sibling "sister", but pretend like people are asking otherwise. They're the types that recoil at anything that even remotely resembles compassion or inclusivity because of the SJW stigma.

I mean, maybe someone on Twitter said you can't call your dad "father" anymore I guess. They're either morons or don't understand the topic though.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I didn't realize until later you meant the House of Representatives when you said "house rules." I thought you meant that in the colloquial sense. Robtard summed up my thoughts there though.

Yep. I think there are some well-meaning people who just overthink things.

Some deliberately misrepresent the issue just to stir up shit though. They're fully aware they can call their cisgendered, female sibling "sister", but pretend like people are asking otherwise. They're the types that recoil at anything that even remotely resembles compassion or inclusivity because of the SJW stigma.

I mean, maybe someone on Twitter said you can't call your dad "father" anymore I guess. They're either morons or don't understand the topic though.

Tbh, I have a very narrow concern about politics.

Mainly, that rules aren't being made to keep "the money" happy. I mean, I absolutely want to see inclusion of the sort we're talking about. I just don't want it to take the form of "Hey, such and such group donated a lot of bank to our campaign. We gotta throw them a bone.".

Because that means if you got a wealthy group of kitten kickers, why not make a law redefining kittens as a football?

I mean, whats even the point having these political discussions, if it will always come down to money or connections? Our opinion literally does not matter, in that case.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Inclusive language is for groups. Exclusive language is for individuals.

It is perfectly fine to use an exclusive term to refer to an individual, because it excludes the other terms that do not apply to him.

But when you use an exclusive term to refer to a mixed group, it excludes everyone to which that term does not apply.

Refer to an individual member of law enforcement as a policeman, but refer to members of law enforcement in aggregate as police officers.

It is really not that hard, and some people are making it out to be way more than it actually is.

Sounds retarded.

^

😂

I think a lot of this shit is weird but I don't really care and call people whatever they want to be called. Acting like this is some fringe thing though isn't being entirely honest, it's growing and could get out of control at some point.

There are prominent twitter accounts calling pregnant women "birthing people" now so as to include people that aren't women who give birth, etc. It's a little ridiculous, let's be honest here. "Amen and awomen" lmao. "Latinx". We're a little crazy.

It is all a bunch of imaginary made up bullshit.

Originally posted by cdtm
Tbh, I have a very narrow concern about politics.

Mainly, that rules aren't being made to keep "the money" happy. I mean, I absolutely want to see inclusion of the sort we're talking about. I just don't want it to take the form of "Hey, such and such group donated a lot of bank to our campaign. We gotta throw them a bone.".

Because that means if you got a wealthy group of kitten kickers, why not make a law redefining kittens as a football?

I mean, whats even the point having these political discussions, if it will always come down to money or connections? Our opinion literally does not matter, in that case.

It's more that I see a disproportionate response from the "but the SJW's!!" crowd. Anyone could look up their state governments and find more egregious transgressions from elected officials. From human rights abuses and sexual assault to stealing COVID relief money to line their own pockets when it was intended for small business to stay afloat.

Instead of looking at stuff like that, people lose their minds because they were asked to be less dick-ish to LGBT people? 😕

Is this really a worthwhile issue?

Originally posted by Trocity
I think a lot of this shit is weird but I don't really care and call people whatever they want to be called. Acting like this is some fringe thing though isn't being entirely honest, it's growing and could get out of control at some point.

There are prominent twitter accounts calling pregnant women "birthing people" now so as to include people that aren't women who give birth, etc. It's a little ridiculous, let's be honest here. "Amen and awomen" lmao. "Latinx". We're a little crazy.

Latinx and such are perfectly reasonable though. As we said, they're referring to mixed groups where you don't know specifics. "Birthing people" sounds clumsy as hell, but even cisgendered woman aren't necessarily able to give birth. It's actually a more accurate statement, but it sounds weird because you didn't grow up with it.

The "Amen and awomen" struck me as ridiculous for other reasons though. It was well intentioned, as the prayer was made to all gods but....

Why exactly are we holding public prayer in Congress at all? Religion should have phuck all to do with policy making, aside from protecting freedom to practice. It again feels like people are upset he tried not to be a dick, as if showing any compassion or sensitivity is losing to the PC boogeyman....instead of pointing out Congress shouldn't even be doing this. Pray on your personal time.