Phil/Émile changed name, but did not change pronouns. A Facebook post I saw indicated that the name change was to avoid confusion with a different Phil Torres, who is an entomologist. While their Twitter profile specifies they/them pronouns, their Facebook profile says he/him (both profiles have the updated name). I think under any reasonable etiquette standard, that means either pronoun is acceptable unless they directly say otherwise.
Their twitter profile, which is what is being posted here, uses they/them. I see absolutely no reason to not err on the side of caution, do you? This OP also used their deadname in place of their name and continues to use their deadname in a “formerly” known as context, which is generally not acceptable, unless explicitly noted as such. And I corrected the OP on this too, they haven’t changed it.
PS, I am queer, nonbinary. If someone with a greater personal experience wants to chime in here, please go ahead I would love to defer. I had zero expectation that I’d have to have these discussions on a forum for altruists nor that I would basically be cyber bullied for correcting people with directness (this is so dumb)...
Erring in the direction of they/them is fine, but I object to pronoun-policing when it’s done on another person’s behalf, and the pronoun that was used is one that the person is currently advertising as correct in any prominent place (such as at the bottom of this page).
The person in question is banned from this forum, is what I gather, is that not correct? So they are completely unable to chime in as we all so graciously debate what is or isn’t allowed for them. I mean, we could literally write a text book on the concept of other while we’re at it I suppose, or we could just err on the side of caution as we should do in all circumstances concerning how we choose to exert power or others or not, no?
Frankly, with the absolute dismissiveness this issue of misgendering and misnaming and deadnaming is being handle by people here and the straight up cyberbullying and thought policing happening here around what should be an incredibly simple issue for supposed altruists to deal with, I highly doubt they’d come back here. This is not how good people deal with things that are literally matters of life and death for others. The complete lack of empathy in this thread is astounding.
Which comments are cyberbullying? I don’t think definition-gerrymandering to sort out “downvotes” from “thought policing” is useful, but I’d like to know where the cyberbullying is.
I mean, you can rationalize it all you want, but its a subjective rationalizing exercise and therefore, well, not meaningfully rational at all—except to you. The participants here are actively downvoting things they don’t want to hear or disagree with and you’d be completely dishonest if you claimed that was done without malice and you know it. This is not some forum populated by Mentats and you’d also be dishonest if you claimed this forum was devoid of active bigots.
For instance, after having been notified twice, the OP still has this person’s deadname in the post. Want to hear a story about a 13 year old I know that started cutting their face to quiet the bullies who insisted on using their deadname to taunt them?
That’s it, that’s the story. Now tell me it’s irrelevant to change language for altruists—an act and choice that literally costs people nothing. Go ahead and tell me the OP is just not quite properly updated.
Goodbye, this is so incredibly the opposite of altruism.
I’ve been trying to write a good response to everything in this post for an hour or so; it’s not easy to write well. Regarding the ban, I thought I’d at least post something that I know.
Phil/Émile changed name, but did not change pronouns. A Facebook post I saw indicated that the name change was to avoid confusion with a different Phil Torres, who is an entomologist. While their Twitter profile specifies they/them pronouns, their Facebook profile says he/him (both profiles have the updated name). I think under any reasonable etiquette standard, that means either pronoun is acceptable unless they directly say otherwise.
Their twitter profile, which is what is being posted here, uses they/them. I see absolutely no reason to not err on the side of caution, do you? This OP also used their deadname in place of their name and continues to use their deadname in a “formerly” known as context, which is generally not acceptable, unless explicitly noted as such. And I corrected the OP on this too, they haven’t changed it.
PS, I am queer, nonbinary. If someone with a greater personal experience wants to chime in here, please go ahead I would love to defer. I had zero expectation that I’d have to have these discussions on a forum for altruists nor that I would basically be cyber bullied for correcting people with directness (this is so dumb)...
Erring in the direction of they/them is fine, but I object to pronoun-policing when it’s done on another person’s behalf, and the pronoun that was used is one that the person is currently advertising as correct in any prominent place (such as at the bottom of this page).
The person in question is banned from this forum, is what I gather, is that not correct? So they are completely unable to chime in as we all so graciously debate what is or isn’t allowed for them. I mean, we could literally write a text book on the concept of other while we’re at it I suppose, or we could just err on the side of caution as we should do in all circumstances concerning how we choose to exert power or others or not, no?
The ban on Emile P. Torres, which lasted one year, expired on 12 May 2022, per the ban note.
Frankly, with the absolute dismissiveness this issue of misgendering and misnaming and deadnaming is being handle by people here and the straight up cyberbullying and thought policing happening here around what should be an incredibly simple issue for supposed altruists to deal with, I highly doubt they’d come back here. This is not how good people deal with things that are literally matters of life and death for others. The complete lack of empathy in this thread is astounding.
Which comments are cyberbullying? I don’t think definition-gerrymandering to sort out “downvotes” from “thought policing” is useful, but I’d like to know where the cyberbullying is.
I literally opened my first comment with “avoiding deadnaming is important”, idk if you saw.
I mean, you can rationalize it all you want, but its a subjective rationalizing exercise and therefore, well, not meaningfully rational at all—except to you. The participants here are actively downvoting things they don’t want to hear or disagree with and you’d be completely dishonest if you claimed that was done without malice and you know it. This is not some forum populated by Mentats and you’d also be dishonest if you claimed this forum was devoid of active bigots.
For instance, after having been notified twice, the OP still has this person’s deadname in the post. Want to hear a story about a 13 year old I know that started cutting their face to quiet the bullies who insisted on using their deadname to taunt them?
That’s it, that’s the story. Now tell me it’s irrelevant to change language for altruists—an act and choice that literally costs people nothing. Go ahead and tell me the OP is just not quite properly updated.
Goodbye, this is so incredibly the opposite of altruism.
I’ve been trying to write a good response to everything in this post for an hour or so; it’s not easy to write well. Regarding the ban, I thought I’d at least post something that I know.