I wonder if we're assuming different definitions of "prejudices".
What I mean is having reached a conclusion without consideration of all the relevant details. I.e., deciding a matter prematurely. I think this lines up pretty well with the MW definition [0].
I don't see how that's related to the particular opposing stances in your example. Can you elaborate?
The person who refuses to use another person's preferred pronouns is obvious dictionary definition prejudice. It is someone prejudging the proper pronouns without the relevant details from the individual they are referencing. It is almost literally the person saying "I am deciding your gender without consulting you."
What are the relevant details when choosing your own preferred pronouns? Wouldn't all the relevant details be known by the person making the decision? I don't see how that can be prejudice.
Thanks for clarifying! I can see now how that could be an example of prejudice.
I had a different scenario in mind: person A indicates their preferred pronouns to person B, but person B refuses to use those pronouns for well-considered reasons and with a full understanding of the situation. It's this scenario that I was arguing to not be a case of bigotry nor prejudice.
Oh, I thought lostcolony had already eliminated that specific scenario as not being bigoted. It can be biased, but it wouldn't be bigoted if there are justifiable reasons for not making the switch. That isn't prejudice as it is a decision made after the relevant details are known.
Just to be clear, for the parent, 'person B refuses to use those pronouns for well-considered reasons and with a full understanding of the situation' may apply when we're talking about systems, but there are plenty of people who would use that sort of reasoning to be why they refuse to use someone's pronouns in conversation. No one doing so believes their reasons are poorly considered and/or that they have an incomplete understanding of the situation, after all.
So, yes, "justifiable", as in, "to change that in the system would be a lot of cost and risk and we simply can't justify it, but I agree it sucks that it's that way", not as in "You were assigned male at birth and I refuse to use anything other than he/him when referring to you, because I believe I understand the science, and your personal situation, better than you".
Comments
I wonder if we're assuming different definitions of "prejudices".
What I mean is having reached a conclusion without consideration of all the relevant details. I.e., deciding a matter prematurely. I think this lines up pretty well with the MW definition [0].
I don't see how that's related to the particular opposing stances in your example. Can you elaborate?
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
The person who refuses to use another person's preferred pronouns is obvious dictionary definition prejudice. It is someone prejudging the proper pronouns without the relevant details from the individual they are referencing. It is almost literally the person saying "I am deciding your gender without consulting you."
What are the relevant details when choosing your own preferred pronouns? Wouldn't all the relevant details be known by the person making the decision? I don't see how that can be prejudice.
Thanks for clarifying! I can see now how that could be an example of prejudice.
I had a different scenario in mind: person A indicates their preferred pronouns to person B, but person B refuses to use those pronouns for well-considered reasons and with a full understanding of the situation. It's this scenario that I was arguing to not be a case of bigotry nor prejudice.
Oh, I thought lostcolony had already eliminated that specific scenario as not being bigoted. It can be biased, but it wouldn't be bigoted if there are justifiable reasons for not making the switch. That isn't prejudice as it is a decision made after the relevant details are known.
Just to be clear, for the parent, 'person B refuses to use those pronouns for well-considered reasons and with a full understanding of the situation' may apply when we're talking about systems, but there are plenty of people who would use that sort of reasoning to be why they refuse to use someone's pronouns in conversation. No one doing so believes their reasons are poorly considered and/or that they have an incomplete understanding of the situation, after all.
So, yes, "justifiable", as in, "to change that in the system would be a lot of cost and risk and we simply can't justify it, but I agree it sucks that it's that way", not as in "You were assigned male at birth and I refuse to use anything other than he/him when referring to you, because I believe I understand the science, and your personal situation, better than you".
Not sure if "for the parent" was directed at me or the parent of my comment, but you and I are in complete agreement.