Oh, I thought Sue was female.

Whatever, this seems like a tongue in cheek way to correct that misunderstanding.

Might Sue be a hermaphrodite? After all what evidence do we have? Mostly just some fossilized bones. Not a lot of details to work with there.

Might Sue be a hermaphrodite? After all what evidence do we have? Mostly just some fossilized bones. Not a lot of details to work with there.

I'll turn it over to Johnny Cash: https://youtu.be/ZR5XGTpophI

A dinosaur of indeterminate gender named Sue?

I feel a Shel Silverstein song coming on.

Let me be clear: I have no problem using those pronouns with humans. There is clear linguistic precedent for this, as articulated in this excellent Boston Globe article. I find it a bit cumbersome, but so what?

May I add that I would do the same for someone I know well, but not for someone I know in passing (a clerk, someone I met at a conference, etc.)? There's no need for me to know "your pronouns" unless we're well-acquainted.

If we're meeting for the first time and you say "I'm Lee and my pronouns are them/they," I'd smile politely and move on to someone else lest I inadvertently cause offense — because it's clearly of paramount importance to you and because I couldn't give less of a shit.

I find the mixing of gender dysphoria with in-group signalling to be as hilarious as the trip that has been skin color.

I remember long enough back when it was about skin color. I remember after that, when the claims were it wasn't about skin color. And now, happy day, we are back into the place where it is only about skin color again.

It must be fun for you Jews to be reclassified by skin tone again. It's a shame they can't establish a scale-tone hierarchy for these dinosaurs to really teach the kids to hate learning and their lives.

Sorry Advice Goddess but I completely disagree about calling single people "them." This is a bullying power move, period. We've always had people who identify as transsexual, as an entrenched, deeply-important facet of their essential being. Thus, if my co-worker Dave becomes my co-worker Danielle and wants to present to the world as a woman, of course I'm going to adjust my thinking and call her "she." What we have NOT always had are people who identify as non-male/female, as an entrenched, deeply important facet of their essential being. People were not killing themselves because they weren't being called "they." This rocket-zoom imposition on our society of the classification "non-binary" and the immediate demand that the clear, necessary plural pronoun "they" be repurposed is unfair, wrong, dishonest, dangerous etc etc. At best it's a fad; at worst it's just another way to try and undermine science and the basis of society. It's not innocent and it's not necessary. Cultural changes are supposed to evolve organically, not be imposed from on high without debate and with vicious punishment imposed on those who do not get with the program. I don't personally believe that people are truly in distress and must identify as non-binary--but if non-binary identities are indeed real/true, then it's incumbent on THEM (no pun intended) to take the time to make their case, with a generous spirit, with intent only to educate and not to destroy, and to allow the use of some other pronoun to more naturally enter our language. They can make a new pronoun up, or, they can use something like the word "one," which already exists and is non-plural.

"Of course" nothing. If "Danielle" shows up and whips out his dick in the locker room, I don't want to be required to pretend jack shit.

"Of course" nothing. If "Danielle" shows up and whips out his dick in the locker room, I don't want to be required to pretend jack shit.}}}

I get it....it's "of course" for me. For me, if someone is presenting as a woman or as a man, that's how I will treat them. There are caveats. For starters, if they want me to address them as he or she then they should look the role so I don't have to guess, and there should never be any penalty for guessing wrong. I'm also not cool with the "It's MA'AM!!" kind of dude who is obviously still totally a dude if such person were to invade the women's locker room. I read a version of the Planet Fitness story where the woman who was kicked out explained that the supposed "woman" didn't look or act anything like a woman and was also not acting like a person who was just using the locker room and gym to work out. Instead, some dude-looking-dude just comes into the locker room and stands around for a long time, not changing, not showering etc. The woman and her kid even left the locker room for a while to wait out the strange man, but when they went back in he was still there, lurking about. Then when the woman went to the front desk to ask what was up with the dude in the woman's area, she was treated as though she had just announced that she had a duffel bag full of bed bugs that she would like to let loose in the gym.

If "Danielle" shows up and whips out his dick in the locker room, I don't want to be required to pretend jack shit.

Dishonest people are getting away with the deception that separating men's and women's bathrooms and locker rooms, and dividing sports into men's and women's divisions, is based on gender identity. It isn't. It's based on biological sex for the obvious reason that there are profound physical differences between male bodies and female bodies that are relevant to issues of personal privacy, comfort, safety and moral values, and especially relevant to performance in competitive sports.

Basing the divisions on biological sex isn't discriminatory against transgender people. They are, and always have been, entitled to use the facilities and participate in the sports that correspond to their biological sex, just like everyone else, regardless of their gender identity, sexual orientation, or whatever.

In the past the terms male, female, man and woman were understood to refer to a person's biological sex; and rules, customs and practices evolved based on that understanding. This nonsense of redefining the terms to mean something completely different, and then imposing the new definitions on people whose long established customs and practices are based on the previous, completely different understanding is fraudulent and offensive.

El Verde comments that it must be fun for jews to be classified by skin color again but sadly it is not true. They are both "white" for purposes of identifying an oppressor group and "other" for purposes of defining an out-group. sad

Besides the obvious problem with made up pronouns that it is claimed that they can change from day to day (do they wear a sign?) and are artificial, it assumes knowledge that people do not have. In Canada it was going to be a serious human rights violation to not use the proper pronoun, but in a big university or corp who knows enough about all the 50,000 people around you to use the proper pronoun? I do not even know who is married or single, can rarely guess who is gay, and certainly do not have special info on pronouns.

I have gotten so fed up with zoos and museums going SJW. It isn't enough to learn about gorillas, you must endure a long lecture about proper ecology and conservation--much of it not true. For example, if you really want to help gorillas you would help get electricity to villages in Africa, not ban hunting.

Poaching is like prostitution... when other options are available it suddenly becomes less desirable as a career choice.