Women's World Cup 2023

Except that is effectively de-facto gendering them against their express wishes?

Surely a non-gendered person, should by definition be (self) excluded from a gendered sport classification?

For the record I am entirely supportive of people wanting to be judged as individuals, and not automatically objectified. In my simplistic boomer head this is a big part of the problem here. I can't help but think that if we all had a healthier and more civilised reaction and response to each other, rather than differentiating our behaviour based on perceived gender...which is actually a codex for institutionalised sexualization, then an individuals view of themselves would be less important...because nobody would assume otherwise, or treat anyone differently. So once again an onerous oblique framework is constructed to avoid addressing the actual problem.

Of course this is muddied by the natural tendency (and actual useful behavioural coping mechanism) towards generalisation, versus embracing individuality. Shorthand: We don't have a natural lifespan sufficient to treat everyone we meet as individuals. Success as a species and as individuals relies, to some great part, in making broadly good (working) decisions, quickly and frequently. So while I celebrate your right to see yourself as you wish to think of yourself....I can't afford you to compel me to invest in you, and your silly (or otherwise) ideas. I have a life to live, and you have not sought my consent to consume me as a resource, nor are you going to recompense me for pointless and tediously irretrievably wasted time as I hurtle towards an inevitable and ever more imminent death.

This demands a requirement of me to put them on a list, and remember. I'm not very good at such things, and consider it an onerous imposition.

I'm not. I, as I have explained, am quite happy for people to think of themselves however they want to, and behave however they wish (within a context within the boundaries deemed acceptable within societies rules). I expect the courtesy to be extended to me in return.

In the dilemma between generalisation versus individualisation, if someone actively participates in a general classification group, in this case 'womens football', without investing in them as an individual, I am likely to think of them in that context. Unless I keep a list of exceptions. Which i really can't be arsed to do on the basis of a bunch of strangers preferences.

Nothing personal. Literally.

Should you assume that you don't know the gender of someone, if they specifically include themselves in a gender specified classification. Like the women's world cup?

Quite so. I don't recall ever having had recourse to call someone by a pronoun to their face, and what I'm calling them behind their back is none of their business.

I don't get what they are trying to achieve by insisting on making a point of telling me. When I'm really not at all interested*. If I was, I'd make some sort of charming effort to find out.

* There are 8 billion people in the world. With a minuscule, almost unmeasurable, percentage of error, I'm not interested in 8 billion of them.

We are talking, I believe, about the contradiction in an individual saying on the one hand "I do not see myself as gendered, and I do not want you to talk to me as is if I'm gendered", while also saying "I'll have a bit of this thing exclusively for the female gendered".

Now I can understand what's got us all to this position, but that's definitely something that really needs sorting out.

We are just discussing the merits of 8 billion people accommodating the illogical behavior of an individual, versus perhaps that one person not worrying about it, and negotiating their place and treatment in the world, and with people that they know, on a need to know basis when it comes up, as has been customary throughout the entire history to date of the species.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. It says to me that "I don't want to be considered as female, except in this thing where I need to be female to participate. Don't speak to me with the assumption that I'm a woman though.". That feels contradictory. I accept that I might have a thoroughly incomplete and incorrect understanding of the world. As do we all.

I'm discussing it, because we are discussing it. You will notice that I have not posted in the "things that I think about too much" thread on this particular topic. I don't. I just shuffle people that I don't know, who tell me how I should express myself, and the form in which I should speak to them, and by implication what it's okay for me to think - irrespective of their behaviours, very much to the bottom of the pack.

So no, not really bothered about pronouns at all. Quite the opposite. Nor do I particularly expect the world to re-orientate itself to accommodate the funny ideas in my head, and nor am I likely to request you to speak to me only as if you have agreed to accommodate such. I encourage all discussion, even if it's not really something that I want to hear. In such a way is true understanding and consensus built. Rather than by prohibition and dictat.