myata

I understand your sentiment but unfortunately in a binary political system this is only a placebo without any real effect (clean pure zero effect who you're "voting" for if it's not for one of the duo). The duo will rule and only one in the duo can, ever. This is how it works and it has no plans of changing anything about it. Obviously.

Do I have to repeat myself? OK. 1. There's exactly zero reason for me to care about the sex, at birth, physical or any other in my formal communications with my colleagues. 2. If someone is concerned and so on, with letting everybody know about their sex, upfront and out of the blue it's their decision, uniquely so and nobody else's. My issue is that if not controlled, these things were known to progress from "entirely voluntary goodness" to "desirable and expected" and even to "mandated". Yes we have seen precedents and that's why it's important, in such cases for each thinking and conscious individual to make their own, independent and rational choices and decisions and refrain from jumping on bandwagons even with claims of pure and distilled goodness. If it doesn't make sense it can be ideological agenda promoted by who knows why for what reasons and we will only feel it backfire on us if decide to participate and promote it.

Nothing to do with manners either. Don't begin to pretend that you're defining manners here. Politeness, courtesy have nothing to do with it. If someone decides to expose themselves in a public place, with no minors around polite people may pretend to not notice - definitely not repeat the act out of solidarity, bandwagon or any other cause. There's exactly zero reason for me to care about the sex, at birth, physical or any other in my formal communications with my colleagues. If it would concern me so greatly I should be able to satisfy my needs via private channels - no need to update everyone around. If someone is concerned and so on, with letting everybody know about their sex, upfront and out of the blue it's their decision, uniquely so and nobody else's. It doesn't mean that you have to do it too. No you don't have to imitate the act, out of solidarity or otherwise, see above. The bottom line is, when and if we decide to abandon reason and sanity, we shouldn't be expecting good news coming our way. Somehow those two seem to be mutually exclusive.

Is your reading fails you now Michael? It was shown and proven above that it has little or actually nothing to do with any rights and everything - with artificially created agendas likely and even probably not out of great love for same sex, trans etc but to secure a nice cozy place in a virtually or totally? unaccountable office. And I do hope that you will be proven wrong in "most of us" jumping on the first bandwagon whenever and whoever decides to wave another "liberation" flag. It wouldn't bode well for our collective fate... as the dinosaurs found out quite a while back.

There's next to zero chance that normal official/business communications would cause any issues for this matter. There's exactly zero possibility that it would cause any consequential issues. The reason tells us that there's next to zero rational cause for this practice, show whatever it is. It's all pure and 100% of it, about some artificially created agenda. That's fine for personal, private and individual spaces and spheres but folks who create them simply don't know how to stop and why. We absolutely shouldn't play into their games and agendas because it sure like the sunrise will come back to hit us. They just don't know where to stop, and why.

We talked about crazy conspiracy theories and how rightwing masterminds create and spread them. But who created this craziness? Who is spreading it, and why? What is one sane case to do that, where there was never a slightest rational point, before? None: that much is simple. The only point being made is this: yes, I'm on the bandwagon! Masks, vaccinations, same thing yes I've got to be on some bandwagon and here it goes. Should all official, business mail and communications now include a roll of issues I care about? Why shouldn't it? Wouldn't it so greatly facilitate understanding and communications? When did we agree to give up sanity?

Even worse would be imposing ridiculous entirely superficial pseudo virtues. There's nothing lighthearted about it. As we can't control our democracy and legal system anymore conscious citizens should find the will and courage to stay away from the obvious, totally useless stupidity. Or it will consume everything every place and aspect of our lives we'll end up having to stand on one foot in the correct pose and enjoy it, visibly. Why wouldn't it? There's the line, and boundary it wouldn't cross if allowed to do anything it likes? The sad state of our existence seems to be not that wrong decisions are made, but sanity goes, slips away everywhere. No one is safe anymore, make it sane.

Is it really entirely voluntary? Or could it be that someone somewhere is watching? Within a short stretch after literally decades I saw not one of these in academic correspondence. Just wondering would anyone deliberately and consciously think about that, then dig out out the setting go in and change it? Spend all this time for what, and to which end? Who is the beneficiary, of the brainless stupidity? Look I'm she/his in my first communication to you. Do you care, already? Could someone who did it or knows share the motivation and experience if only for the curiosity's sake?

Most people don't mind sheer, thought and brain-free nonsense? And where will it take us - presumably, or self appointed so, intelligent species? Not could.

You are writing a business letter to someone you never met, never seen, may never see, talk to or even write to again, ever and already waving the gender flag: look, you can call me this! Please do, really! No no you can't make a mistake it would be soooo unbearable or a crime When did we agree to give up our sanity? More importantly, where will it take us?

I worked in an office for close to two decades before moving to another setting. Not once back then, and not once since do I recall any issue, inconvenience or even minor lacking for the absence of the pronouns. So what are we being taught here? What is the exercise? And by who?

Having come across it on a more than a single occasion recently, I set myself a challenge: to find a plausible realistic case, scenario where the exercise could be useful or in fact of make any sense in the sense of carrying valuable information. Could be something like this: "Hey Linda you were such a great gal working on our last project kudos and the best for the next one" oops it was actually he/his. If one was clueless enough to send something of the kind to a colleague in a formal setting would correct thoughtful pronouns help? Or what are we trying to say here? What is the message in it, or was it the media, messenger? Why he/him for the h@ck's sake no really? Could it have been he/her, she/his to avoid confusion? Seriously, what am I missing? More importantly: who is doing this to us and why - often also, out of our pocket and without asking and as if they really have done everything else we tasked them to and with a perfect grade and quality too? If someone decided, personally and privately to do that for any reason or without such so be it - it's a personal private choice. But who makes the policies, the templates? Who brings your attention to non-compliance and suggest? Why are they paid for it? When did the policy first begin to contradict and then flew out free of the gravity span of the plain common sense? Or is it just political system that escaped the bounds of reason and reality and launched itself to (infinity and beyond) unknown and unexplored causes and ventures? Who would know? Anyone?

OK this is flowing into some abstract directions and dimensions. A closer one to the topic would be this: can a political system believe, pretend and try to convince the population that it had been created in a perfect and immutable form, from the outset and for all times, and for that reason doesn't and won't need any meaningful change, ever? How did this strategy work for the dinosaurs?

Let's remove the opinion part. When humans, in civilized form can prove that they could last even 1 million years (against the dinosaurs' 200) it can be taken as the beginning of the objective measure. Agree?

And I root for objectivity, the fact. Is it human who beats the fact. Or the reality that always, invariably and without any chances will catch up. Let's see.

Wait and we know it how, by what criterium? Dinosaurs existed for close to 200 million (sic) years. The modern, conscious period of humanity counts a few tens of thousand so far. Shall we wait, perhaps just a little while longer for the objective score?

"Can be" is a big if, the question. Evolution comes by with a question, wait maybe we can reform.. let's see, have a discussion. Will it work? Did it, for the dinosaurs?

No I mean, circuses was a thing in the 17-18th centuries so why now? Do we really believe that it's the top of the evolution and no further positive change is needed or possible? And paradoxically or ironically? why would they want to be doing that... rather than just dumping the whole useless lot somewhere where it wouldn't cause much further bother? Musk or H.G. Wells? Wanna make bets?

You want advanced democracy, now? OK. But of course, only: can you sort this?

And why would we need the circus then? Do we really need a circus, to administer democracy effectively, productively and efficiently?

But no framework can last forever, in the entropy world. And once the responsibility - with the privilege has been delegated, the message can take long to reach the tower. And the delivery, far from assured.

The formal process, formalities? Rome republic fell two millennia ago. Hitler's ascend to dictatorship, a century was not prevented by formal institutions. How many more examples needed to convince us that formal arrangement, paperwork is no guarantee of anything in real life?

That was the excuse he gave, but can we just take his word for it and dismiss the issue to the far shelf? No. Not a chance. He had the mandate and the opportunity. And he decided: willingly and deliberately, to not do it. That is the fact. Do we need any further adornments to it?

Oh but it will, like what's there to prevent it? Once we see that hot talking, by itself, doesn't solve (m)any problems there will need to be the guilty appointed, and scapegoats found. And so on and to the conclusion, the adage goes. Why not? What's there to prevent it?

The "delegation" was always the weak link. The technology changes, the weakness remains.