I have an ongoing problem with coming across in text as hostile when I do not intend to and do not know what in my behavior is being so interpreted. Thanks for bearing with me.
Pedantic I understand, I agree I have a problem with that, and I'm working on it. If you could point to what it is I'm doing that turns 'pedantic' into 'belligerent', I'd appreciate it.
You write that Metahacker's response to my question of what a sentient non-person was answered it. In my response to him (I *think* "him", not really sure) I point out the pronoun issue -- Metahacker's response talks about "the person who needs convincing" believing in them. It seems to me that the "they" in his response refers to the "person who needs convincing", not the sentient non-person. Both sentience and personhood are undefined in this conversation.
If I understand *your* response correctly, the problem is that the convincee believes in sentient non-people, but sentient non-people do not in fact exist. Is that what you mean to convey?
If it is, any further quibbles I have I will fully agree are pedantic and not worthy of pursuit, unless I can find a sentient non-person with whom to discuss the topic.
I have no idea if I am "entitled" to condemn Boylan; I did not have any intention of doing so and if I did it's not clear to me how I did so. If you think I did, could you please point out how?
Since I don't know Boylan, and the subject of discussion is trans acceptance, I was deliberately using the gender-neutral 'they' pronouns because I didn't know. If you are more informed than I and know her to be a woman, I'm happy to take your word for it.
Accidental belligerence
I have an ongoing problem with coming across in text as hostile when I do not intend to and do not know what in my behavior is being so interpreted. Thanks for bearing with me.
Pedantic I understand, I agree I have a problem with that, and I'm working on it. If you could point to what it is I'm doing that turns 'pedantic' into 'belligerent', I'd appreciate it.
You write that Metahacker's response to my question of what a sentient non-person was answered it. In my response to him (I *think* "him", not really sure) I point out the pronoun issue -- Metahacker's response talks about "the person who needs convincing" believing in them. It seems to me that the "they" in his response refers to the "person who needs convincing", not the sentient non-person. Both sentience and personhood are undefined in this conversation.
If I understand *your* response correctly, the problem is that the convincee believes in sentient non-people, but sentient non-people do not in fact exist. Is that what you mean to convey?
If it is, any further quibbles I have I will fully agree are pedantic and not worthy of pursuit, unless I can find a sentient non-person with whom to discuss the topic.
I have no idea if I am "entitled" to condemn Boylan; I did not have any intention of doing so and if I did it's not clear to me how I did so. If you think I did, could you please point out how?
Since I don't know Boylan, and the subject of discussion is trans acceptance, I was deliberately using the gender-neutral 'they' pronouns because I didn't know. If you are more informed than I and know her to be a woman, I'm happy to take your word for it.
best,
Joel