I think people often overestimate the cost of plurality ambiguity with singular “they”. Most people don’t even bat an eyelid at the “you” plurality ambiguity. One can imagine how people would react to somebody trying to reintroduce “thou” to make the plurality ambiguity go away. I would expect that people would find it bothersome with too little upside. Agreeing to a strict upgrade is easy but balancing tradeoffs is less straightforward. The situation could be that those that gender dysphoria touches care a lot and those that it doens’t don’t care. Then having a situation that overall or on average would be less harmful is blocked because some party would go from no harm to slight harm.
As a speaker of a native language that has only genderneutral pronouns and no gendered ones, I often stumble and misgender people out of disregard of that info because that is just not how referring works in my brain. I suspect that natives don’t have this property and the self-reports are about them.
For crime related stuff, there is atleast some specialised vocabulary that needs finer lines. I don’t know whether enliglish has it but, “astalo”, a thing that could be a melee weapon or a firearm, which has uses in that an investigator can communicate that an implement capable of “grievious bodily harm” is involved while still benefitting from people having additional detail on which specific kind of weapon is involved (“Did they find the pistol?” could out you for knowing a firearm is involved). Similarly, appearances are way more appropriate to define even if they cut close to ethnicities. In that sense it is way more justified to have corresponding thing going for sex and gender. So defaulting to “they” makes more sense and steering away from he as “assumed male might be either” is justified.
I would believe a competent laywer would object that “It is not prejudicial to refer with ‘he’ to a person in an event that in that event was gendered man.”. Referring to the party in the court room with such would be bad form, but in the past that is not so. The education cap between wittness and lawyer is addressed in that both sides are represented with a competent lawyer. The other side is oblicated to to counterobject. So its lawyer vs lawyer rather than vs wittness (and with sufficient gap in the skills of the laywers would be grounds to mistrial because of incompetent advocate).
Since writing this post I have connected that then-unnamed-to-me-thing which is contrasted to pareto improvement is probably Kaldor-Hicks improvement .
Reflecting on the post topic and wikipedia criticisms section (quoted so it can’t be changed underneath)
Perhaps the most common criticism of the Kaldor-Hicks criteria is that it is unclear why the capacity of the winners to compensate the losers should matter, or have moral or political significance as a decision criteria, if the compensation is not actually paid.
If everybody keeps doing Kaldor-Hicks improvements then over different issues everybody racks minor losses and major wins. This is a little like a milder form of acausal trade. Its challenge is similarly to keep the modelling of the other honest and accurate. To actually compensate we might need to communicate consent and move causal goods etc. Taking personal damage in order to provide an anonymous unconsented gift with no (specified) expectation of reciprocity can be psychologically demanding. And in causing personal gain while costing others it would be tempting to downplay the effect on others. But if you can collectively do that you can pick up more money than pareto-efficiency and get stuck in fewer local optima. If the analysis fails it actually is a “everybody-for-themselfs” world while everybody deludes themselfs that they are prosocial or a world of martyrs burning down the world. The middle zone of this and pareto-efficiency is paretists lamenting a tragedy of coordination failure of lacking reassurances.
As a speaker of a native language that has only genderneutral pronouns and no gendered ones, I often stumble and misgender people out of disregard of that info because that is just not how referring works in my brain. I suspect that natives don’t have this property and the self-reports are about them.
(I am keeping my identity small by not needlessly invoking national identities)
I seemed to also have a misunderstanding about the word. It is rather something used as a melee weapon that is not a melee weapon as an object. Something that in DnD terms would be an “improvised weapon”. But it seems that affordance of ranged weapon is not included in that, the “melee” there is essential (and even that blunt damage is in and slashing and piercing are out). Still a term that is deliberately very wide, but as the function is also to mean very specific things getting it wrong is kinda bad.
I think people often overestimate the cost of plurality ambiguity with singular “they”. Most people don’t even bat an eyelid at the “you” plurality ambiguity. One can imagine how people would react to somebody trying to reintroduce “thou” to make the plurality ambiguity go away. I would expect that people would find it bothersome with too little upside. Agreeing to a strict upgrade is easy but balancing tradeoffs is less straightforward. The situation could be that those that gender dysphoria touches care a lot and those that it doens’t don’t care. Then having a situation that overall or on average would be less harmful is blocked because some party would go from no harm to slight harm.
As a speaker of a native language that has only genderneutral pronouns and no gendered ones, I often stumble and misgender people out of disregard of that info because that is just not how referring works in my brain. I suspect that natives don’t have this property and the self-reports are about them.
For crime related stuff, there is atleast some specialised vocabulary that needs finer lines. I don’t know whether enliglish has it but, “astalo”, a thing that could be a melee weapon or a firearm, which has uses in that an investigator can communicate that an implement capable of “grievious bodily harm” is involved while still benefitting from people having additional detail on which specific kind of weapon is involved (“Did they find the pistol?” could out you for knowing a firearm is involved). Similarly, appearances are way more appropriate to define even if they cut close to ethnicities. In that sense it is way more justified to have corresponding thing going for sex and gender. So defaulting to “they” makes more sense and steering away from he as “assumed male might be either” is justified.
I would believe a competent laywer would object that “It is not prejudicial to refer with ‘he’ to a person in an event that in that event was gendered man.”. Referring to the party in the court room with such would be bad form, but in the past that is not so. The education cap between wittness and lawyer is addressed in that both sides are represented with a competent lawyer. The other side is oblicated to to counterobject. So its lawyer vs lawyer rather than vs wittness (and with sufficient gap in the skills of the laywers would be grounds to mistrial because of incompetent advocate).
Since writing this post I have connected that then-unnamed-to-me-thing which is contrasted to pareto improvement is probably Kaldor-Hicks improvement .
Reflecting on the post topic and wikipedia criticisms section (quoted so it can’t be changed underneath)
If everybody keeps doing Kaldor-Hicks improvements then over different issues everybody racks minor losses and major wins. This is a little like a milder form of acausal trade. Its challenge is similarly to keep the modelling of the other honest and accurate. To actually compensate we might need to communicate consent and move causal goods etc. Taking personal damage in order to provide an anonymous unconsented gift with no (specified) expectation of reciprocity can be psychologically demanding. And in causing personal gain while costing others it would be tempting to downplay the effect on others. But if you can collectively do that you can pick up more money than pareto-efficiency and get stuck in fewer local optima. If the analysis fails it actually is a “everybody-for-themselfs” world while everybody deludes themselfs that they are prosocial or a world of martyrs burning down the world. The middle zone of this and pareto-efficiency is paretists lamenting a tragedy of coordination failure of lacking reassurances.
What language is this?
The one that has the word “astalo”.
(I am keeping my identity small by not needlessly invoking national identities)
I seemed to also have a misunderstanding about the word. It is rather something used as a melee weapon that is not a melee weapon as an object. Something that in DnD terms would be an “improvised weapon”. But it seems that affordance of ranged weapon is not included in that, the “melee” there is essential (and even that blunt damage is in and slashing and piercing are out). Still a term that is deliberately very wide, but as the function is also to mean very specific things getting it wrong is kinda bad.