Conditioning
There’s a big internecine war over The Pronoun Issue at the moment. I’m staying out of it, partly because it’s too volatile and partly because I see what the “It’s ok to be polite/kind to individuals” side means.
But. If someone grabbed me by the throat and insisted on knowing what I think about it, I would say I continue to think we shouldn’t use luxury pronouns for anyone.
(I’m so ancient I remember gay friends calling each other “she” in a jokey camp way. See also: Nathan Lane in The Birdcage. An innocent time.)
Here’s why I continue to think that: it’s because the luxury pronouns nudge us into thinking of the luxury people just the way they want us to think. They trick us. That’s how language works. The effect isn’t nullifed just because we know that men aren’t women; the nudging goes on at a level outside our conscious control.
That’s why such a point is made of the luxury pronoun use. It’s not (only) because trans people like to hear it, it’s because it manipulates how all of us think.
If women and men were treated as equals it wouldn’t matter, but they’re not, so it does.
Ideology aside, messing with pronouns impairs communication, as many news articles that have been quoted on this site demonstrate.
Languages naturally evolve towards an efficient encoding of ideas into words. A typical sentence in a language has just enough words to convey the desired information. With fewer words, the sentence becomes cryptic or ungrammatical; with more, it will be perceived as prolix; verbose; tedious.
If you take a proper sentence and then collapse the pronouns (e.g. he/her -> xir), or substitute incorrect pronouns (e.g. she for a man), then the information content of the sentence falls below the threshold necessary to convey its meaning, and listeners will have difficulty understanding you.
Languages differ, and languages change over time. Not all languages make the same distinctions in their grammar. English could evolve into a language where the pronouns are not gendered. But if that happened, other language features would evolve to carry the information that gendered pronouns currently convey. You can’t just delete a language feature by fiat and expect the language to still function.
“Staying out of it” — I was accosted by a staff person of a group I volunteer with after he heard that I had referred to him as “him” and not his preferred “they/them” or “she” (he flits back and forth). I said, “I consider that a personal matter and I don’t wish to discuss it with you.” That did not go over well, however no discussion ever did place, nor will it!
I certainly agree that discussion about pronouns is important and valid, but I think the gender critical movement has to recognize the difference between issues to do with defending individuals’ rights and freedoms, and issues to do with convincing other people to embrace their views. It’s one thing to defend our own right to use sex-based pronouns; it’s another thing to criticize other people expressing their right not to.
We should demand the right to use whichever pronouns we want, but I think we should persuade others to exercise their right to use sex-based pronouns, rather than trying to take away their right not to.
By analogy, arguments in defence of people’s right to not be religious are different, and I would argue more fundamental, than arguments to criticize other people’s religious beliefs.
I don’t think it’s wrong to criticize other people’s use of preferred pronouns, of course. But I do think it’s wrong when that criticism shades into harassment and abuse, which I believe Andrew Doyle was on the receiving end of, for slipping up once and accidentally referring to a transwoman as “she” while reading off a teleprompter.
And I also think it’s just bad strategy to aggressively hound people over pronouns. The carrot seems more appropriate than the stick when trying to persuade people on a matter of choice, especially when that choice can put people’s careers and relationships in peril. The analogy with religion comes in here, too: harassing individual people for having religious beliefs isn’t likely to convince them to walk away from them.
You say that as if it were a bad thing….
And that’s the whole point. It’s the thin edge of the wedge, after which much more unpleasantness is likely to follow.
For those who have not read it, or those who would like a refresher:
Pronouns are Rohypnol – by Barra Kerr https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
Again, this is the point. News stories that do this are deliberately withholding information which prevents a complete, accurate understanding of the storey which is ostensibly being told. It inverts meaning itself. It distorts, conceals and subverts the truth. The truth is a different story altogether, and suggests questions that are not being asked. No, the assailant was not a woman, he was a man. “Then why is he being held in a women’s prison? Why are his crimes being added to female crime statistics?” No, that swimmer was not a woman, he was a man. “Then what is he doing in the women’s locker room? Why are the sporting authorities letting him compete against women?” The writers and/or editors who do this have decided that repeating and reinforcing gender ideology is more important than truthfully informing its audience. That distortion and withholding of information prevents an open and honest examination of the direction taken by law and public policy, and is a part of the unexamined, extra-legal, back-room incorporation of trans ideology into public institutions and corporate governance.
The closer you look, the more you see, the scarier it gets. Government departments at all levels, from the federal to the municipal; political parties; the police, judiciary, corrections services, and victim services; health care and hospitals; workplace standards and practices; union bylaws; educational policies; school curricula and sports. And yes, even bathrooms. None of these have been left untouched by the influence, interference, and demands of trans activists. It sounds paranoid and delusional when it’s put this way, but it’s all happening. We’ve all read examples here, and come across examples in our daily lives. How many news stories about these issues have you had to translate from “genderspeak” today? Who would have guessed that such danger lurked in the apparently bland, anodyne recommendations on pronoun use in editorial “style guides?”
When you tell me your pronouns and I go “uh huh”, I’ve been nice to you. When you encourage children to think they will kill themselves unless they cut off their body parts and I don’t punch you in the face, I’ve been nice to you. When you tell me you are a lesbian with your dress and hardon and I don’t laugh in your face, I’ve been nice to you.
So don’t dare tell me that I have to be nice to you! I don’t laugh in your face, I don’t punch you and I don’t tell you to fuck off BECAUSE I’M ALREADY a nice person who doesn’t want to do those things.
Regarding pronouns, for me it depends of if they’re a demand or not. I have a friend I’ve known for over twenty years who is trans and she doesn’t demand others use she/her pronouns. It doesn’t hurt that her appearance is fairly modest and her mannerisms the same. Contrast that with TIMs who dress immodestly and are clearly wanting to shock and press their demand to be called women on you. This is also why I find the use of pronouns on things like email and even introductions in real life to be a demand, because I also have a choice in the matter to believe what my own eyes and ears are telling me about you.
I do agree that pronouns are roofies in that they’re being used to help advance an ideology of gender that seeks to subsume sex to performative gender. That’s what leads to things like pregnant women who are pretending to be men and taking testosterone and then not caring whether that affects the fetus, or men pretending they can have periods because TWAW, that’s why. It would be better to not deny the reality of sex and recognize that we’re not bound by that biological fact to behave in certain ways, aka being masculine or being feminine, because it’s generally better for one’s mental health to be reality-based.
As to why for my friend feels she’s a woman, it does seem to be a genuine longing for wanting to have been born a female. She’s otherwise quite normal in her behavior, unlike some TIMs we know. For her it’s not about being queer and rebellious, unlike some in the LBGTQ2SL+++ who wear their kink on their sleeve and have made it a movement. The fact is though that this gender ideology is in conflict with the sex-based rights of women, and that is wrong because it does harm women. So be kind? No. But I won’t make it an issue with my friend either.
I try to avoid pronouns in social situation where contrary pronouns are expected, for the same reason that I don’t fall into the trap of arguing religion where it’s not an appropriate situation. I don’t use “they” and when my daughter refers to a co-worker who expresses as NB, it’s a bit confusing when she talks about an incident at work. There is a situation in which I do give in, and that’s very specific. And no, it’s not in reference to David (Debbie) Hayton.
My daughter has been in a tough situation regarding their guardianship, and it’s due to the pressure and control her mother has over her to direct her life. My daughter’s supervisor has been tremendously supportive. And is trans. I don’t want to drive any sort of wedge between daughter and boss, and so when I refer to him in the presence of my daughter I concede to his desire for feminine pronouns. It’s important to daughter to have that support, and she knows what I think about the whole pronoun issue.
re: #6
Doh!