From a conversation I saw somewhere:
…it is not non-trans people’s place to decide if misgendering is acceptable or not. You don’t get to decide if I should be okay with being misgendered or not.
Is that a real principle? Is it workable? Can it be generalized? Can it be applied more broadly, ad infinitum?
I don’t think so. I don’t think it can be a genuine rule that we all must use opposite pronouns for people who tell us to. I don’t think it can be because it amounts to ordering us to lie, to override our own perceptions, to pretend to believe someone else’s fantasy – none of which seems to fit into a genuine social rule.
We may want to, some of the time or all the time, to avoid awkwardness, to avoid cruelty, and so on, but we also may not, and it doesn’t seem reasonable to make it mandatory. I do think it is “non-trans people’s place to decide” what words we are going to use, within reason. I think calling male people “he” is within reason.
“… if someone doesn’t share the view that gender is identity and/or that a male person can be a woman, you can’t describe sex-correct pronouns as “misgendering”.”
Yes you absolutely can. Your position on ontology of gender has nothing to do with whether you should adhere to basic norms of respectful speech. I don’t use ‘gender’ synonymously with ‘gender identity’ either and I don’t believe a male person can be a woman, but I wouldn’t call a trans woman ‘he’ because I have respect for the humanity of trans people.
Wait. A position on the ontology of gender does have something to do with whether or not one is willing to call a man “she.” Whether or not it is “a basic norm of respectful speech” that people can mandate special pronouns for themselves is just what is at issue, so it can’t be assumed as part of the argument for yes. Having respect for people’s humanity doesn’t require calling them by special pronouns. That’s a newly-invented “rule” and it’s contentious and we do get to contend over it, trans or not.
Comments
13 responses to “Basic norms of respectful speech”
Respect and courtesy are social norms, too. But someone who has behaved in an inappropriate and harmful manner does not get to demand respect and courtesy from those who find their conduct injurious. I claim the right to correctly sex Yaniv, Oger and McKinnon, for example. It’s my way of saying “Fuck you for being such a shit person.” Impolite? Yes. Offensive? Certainly.
But this is not a “norm”, it’s a political diktat, and a new one at that.
And if trans orthodoxy, with all its attendant dishonesty, were not so hellbound on silencing dissent, I might be more willing to sacrifice my perceptions and my principles and conform to this particular social lie.
And trans people’s humanity is not undermined by acknowledging their sex. It really isn’t. I understand their feelings might be hurt, but that is not the same thing.
Someone calling you a dog or an insect, undermines your humanity. Referring to you as “he” or “she” based on your sex, doesn’t.
I’m rather surprised and gratified to see an irate trans-person ask to be called by their preferred pronoun as a matter of courtesy. I don’t really have a problem with that, classifying it with using “Ms.” instead of “Mrs.” or the like. It’s seldom a mistake to be kind. That’s fair enough, I think.
I’m more disturbed when trans-people are positively enraged by the idea that it’s okay to do so out of politeness, since that’s condescending and their being a he or she is a matter of FACT and not preference. In this light being kind then is not just a mistake, but virulent ignorance and practically an act of violence. That’s when I might adopt YNNB’s strategy.
Or maybe just kill them with kindness.
It is most certainly not generalizable. It amounts to saying, “Out-group people cannot decide whether they will conform to speech patterns favored by the in-group.” So it’s not up to non-Mormons whether addressing a missionary without using “Elder” is acceptable or not.
Or non-Catholics whether to address a known rapey priest as “Father.”
Precisely! I was thinking up some more points where it doesn’t generalize while walking my hyperactive doberman. So in the below, [Y] is always in reference to the interlocutor, not the speaker. (It is not non-[X]’s place to decide if [Y] is acceptable or not. You don’t get to decide if I should be okay with [Y] or not.) For example:
Honestly, this one should be sufficient to show the problem with the rhetoric. When it can be used equally well to defend the opposite position, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do, Lucy. However, for funsies, let’s see how far we can take the form.
It is not non-Trumps’ place to decide if Alabama is in the path of a hurricane or not.
That doesn’t actually fit the pattern, but I felt like doing it anyway.
It’s not non-Presidents’ place to decide if a news story is acceptable (FAKE news) or not.
I agree 100% with this….but; I do get to decide whether I give a shiny shit if you’re ok with being misgendered. I do get to decide whether or not I think you’re being a hyperbolic, attention-seeking fake when you throw yet anotther strop.
AoS – and the other part of that is, the non-trans also get to have a say in whether the laws are rewritten to accommodate the feelings of the trans.
You don’t get to decide if I should be okay with lying on your behalf or not.
It’s not “disrespecting humanity” to use language according to traditional norms. I think that a case could be made that it IS disrespecting one’s interlocutor to demand that they conform to clearly untruthful uses of language, though.