Oh sorry, I thought you was entirely generic (I am talking to her, she is listening, I asked “what do you want to do for lunch?” type stuff).
It uses pigs/swine/edible and a certain structure? I don’t know if I can exactly formalise it, one can’t exactly describe what one is doing when recognising a tone of voice or a face.
Identifying traits such as veganism and political alignment narrow possibilities massively. The there are capitalisation patterns, the way it uses questions /shrug.
Machines are really good at tracking internet users via their text doing magical classifier stuff so there’s something there. Human brains are really good at picking up on social cues and keeping track of individuals. I probably don’t have much insight into the actual process.
Oh right you had by two years ago encountered one of its swine names, okay, yes. it thought you had only known it as edible by that point.
As for you/your, it is generic in the same way they/them is generic, but it/its is what affirms its identity so you/your serves as degendering in the same way that they/them’ing transfems is. And because it’s often done punitively for transfems it can be intensely triggering to be you/your’d or they/them’d. In fact, a local Queers for Palestine chapter punitively degendered it and doubled down on it, which split the group into those who supported transmisogyny and those against it, just the other week (obviously with most members supporting transmisogyny). Such things are common enough in its life and often fresh that it’s a pretty fresh wound whenever it gets referred to with you/your or they/them, and in general it’s found that others who use it/its first and third person are anywhere from ambivalent to preferring second person it/its.
That seems to be a reasonable inference but one rather unfair thing it’s noticed with neopronouns is that inferences that we make naturally with traditional pronouns don’t really apply to neopronouns. A lot of folks who use fae/faer have noted how people make all kinds of bizarre assumptions about them on the basis of these pronouns, like that they’re deceptive. And then, we naturally infer that if someone uses she, they also use her, hers, herself, etc. But a similar kind of extrapolation is someone using certain first and third person pronouns to using a corresponding set of second person pronouns, like if someone refers to faerself as “this fae thinks…” then it seems like a reasonable inference that fae may want “would this fae like to…?”
You may have noticed some of this yourself, but these are some of its own observations of neopronouns and the current state of affairs over the past few years.
Oh sorry, I thought you was entirely generic (I am talking to her, she is listening, I asked “what do you want to do for lunch?” type stuff).
It uses pigs/swine/edible and a certain structure? I don’t know if I can exactly formalise it, one can’t exactly describe what one is doing when recognising a tone of voice or a face.
Identifying traits such as veganism and political alignment narrow possibilities massively. The there are capitalisation patterns, the way it uses questions /shrug.
Machines are really good at tracking internet users via their text doing magical classifier stuff so there’s something there. Human brains are really good at picking up on social cues and keeping track of individuals. I probably don’t have much insight into the actual process.
Oh right you had by two years ago encountered one of its swine names, okay, yes. it thought you had only known it as edible by that point.
As for you/your, it is generic in the same way they/them is generic, but it/its is what affirms its identity so you/your serves as degendering in the same way that they/them’ing transfems is. And because it’s often done punitively for transfems it can be intensely triggering to be you/your’d or they/them’d. In fact, a local Queers for Palestine chapter punitively degendered it and doubled down on it, which split the group into those who supported transmisogyny and those against it, just the other week (obviously with most members supporting transmisogyny). Such things are common enough in its life and often fresh that it’s a pretty fresh wound whenever it gets referred to with you/your or they/them, and in general it’s found that others who use it/its first and third person are anywhere from ambivalent to preferring second person it/its.
That seems to be a reasonable inference but one rather unfair thing it’s noticed with neopronouns is that inferences that we make naturally with traditional pronouns don’t really apply to neopronouns. A lot of folks who use fae/faer have noted how people make all kinds of bizarre assumptions about them on the basis of these pronouns, like that they’re deceptive. And then, we naturally infer that if someone uses she, they also use her, hers, herself, etc. But a similar kind of extrapolation is someone using certain first and third person pronouns to using a corresponding set of second person pronouns, like if someone refers to faerself as “this fae thinks…” then it seems like a reasonable inference that fae may want “would this fae like to…?”
You may have noticed some of this yourself, but these are some of its own observations of neopronouns and the current state of affairs over the past few years.