Pronouns are not biological constructs. They don't have chromosomes, genitals, or secondary sex characteristics. They are, by definition, tied to gender.
How would life work if pronouns were determined biologically? For example, how would you figure out what pronouns to use to describe me, if we met in person?
You'd have to ask me to drop trou immediately after we met, which would generally be considered socially unacceptable, or at least a bit forward. But if I did it anyway, how would you know my genitalia hadn't been surgically altered? You could try to cross-reference my secondary sex characteristics, but even those could have been modified hormonally. Really, you'd have to ask for a DNA sample to determine which chromosomes I have, and even that might turn out not to align with the sex I was assigned at birth, much less the one I present today. And what pronouns do you choose if it turns out I have a combination other than XX or XY? It all seems like a lot of trouble and expense for pronouns anyway.
What I'm getting at is that people who make that sort of argument aren't actually saying, "the pronouns I'm using for you are based on your biology". That's just disingenuous, or at the very least shows that they haven't given it any actual thought. What they're really saying is, "the pronouns I'm using for you are what I think you look like, even if it's the opposite of what you tell me you are". I don't see how there's a well-intentioned way to interpret that.
It's so much safer (and easier!) just to take people at their word when they tell you their pronouns, just as you would when they tell you their name.
Or maybe they are thoughtful, caring people that are generally kind but have a different take than you do.
At any rate, your arguments in this thread do not settle the question, even if they were irrefutable. Point being, you just replied to "the issue isn't settled" with an impromptu attempt to finally settle things.
do you think trans people want to be passable because its just fun to do? why else would they care about passing?
I (as someone who has no horse in this race) would suggest to put basic empathy and courtesy above "refusing to concede" on some more or less immaterial question, at least where there is no other reason not to. The ideological high horse isn't very high if one knowingly goes about hurting people to stay on it.
Pronouns are no different - if you want me to refer to you as her, and I don't, then you and I will have a problem, not you, me, the mods, my boss, the government, etc.
> The ideological high horse isn't very high if one knowingly goes about hurting people to stay on it.
I have heard this time and time again. If misgendering someone is hurting them in any way, I'm suspecting the solution is for that person to disengage from society, not for society to cater to that person's needs, because they will be misgendered day in and day out for the rest of their life. If someone believes they are being gangstalked, society doesn't modify itself to ensure no one within 500 meters of them has a predictable schedule.
That's no good reason to go out of your way to misgender someone or pretend to stalk someone who has that phobia. Yes, there will be problems interacting with society overall, I have no good answer for that. But I do know that knowingly and actively hurting people "because society does it too" when you could trivially avoid it is reprehensible.
My argument isn't "do it because society does it too", it's we already have systems in place to give people the therapeutic treatment they need to get past issues like this, which are issues, because it is unfeasible to expect society to shape itself around coddling that person's beliefs.
- You meet Gabrielle, and call her Gabbi.
- She says "I don't like that nickname, could you use Bree?"
- You say, "No, I'm going to call you Gabbi, because you should not expect society to shape itself around coddling your beliefs, GABBI."
Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? I mean, maybe you would, but it'd... kind of make you a jerk. It would be a stupid, stupid hill to die on.
So why is it different with pronouns?
Of late I've been saying not the mole hill I'd choose to die on. Also the question what's in it for me if I'm right? If the answer is 'nothing' we're done here.
No, and I never said I would, and that example does nothing for or against my argument. So making up a scenario, saying it'd make me <some negative term nobody wants to be associated with>, and asking me "If you wouldn't do X, why would you do Y?" does not sound like it will progress this discussion whatsoever
Names, on the other hand, are really quite arbitrary and independent of physical attributes. So yes, there's an important difference.
[0] I believe these kinds of correlation are what people intuitively mean when they talk of biological gender and the like, which make most of the responses against this argument miss the point...
Part of the movement to get people to use the correct pronouns to refer to someone is really just the movement against the epistemic authority of some forms of intuition.
As an aside, in Western society names are generally not independent of physical attributes, and most names are gendered as well. I know very few people with unisex names.
Yes. Exactly. That's what's being asked of them. To follow someone's request out of courtesy. Again: why is this difficult?
Let me put it another way. Person X asks person Y to take person Z's feelings into account. Sounds reasonable, right? But what if, in doing so, person X doesn't take person Y's feelings into account?
I'd say that'd make person X a hypocrite. There are different goods that need to be weighed against each other here, and person X pretends that this isn't the case.
This is what's happening here. Z = (some) transgender people, Y = (some of) the people expressing concern about pronoun enforcement, X = people taking your current position in this discussion.
In the weighing of different goods against each other, you can reasonably come to the conclusion that person Y should just suck it up because person Z's feelings are simply more important in this case. That's fine, stuff like that happens all the time in society, though you'd be wise to use more reconciliatory language when talking to an actual person Y.
You need to be honest about what you're doing. What isn't fine is to essentially "erase" Y's feelings by pretending that you aren't overriding them for Z's benefit. Because that is what you're doing. (Or maybe you aren't even aware of person Y's feelings. I'm not sure what to consider worse...)
(And yes, the hypocrisy is genuinely what I find most grating about the position you're taking here: the position is often taken by people who claim to champion diversity, inclusiveness, and the equal validity of people's subjective experiences -- but then turn around and selectively decide to not take into account others' subjective experiences when they happen to be inconvenient, and in doing so essentially exclude those others.)
(1) Bob suffers cognitive dissonance when he calls Angela, a transgender woman, "she".
(2) Angela, who has suffered the cognitive dissonance of gender dysphoria for years, has that revisited on her by Bob's insistence on calling her "he".
So, yeah. I'm privileging Angela over Bob here, because it is his mild discomfort versus her lived-in experience.
Bluntly, nobody has been driven into lifelong therapy and suicidal depression by having to refer to someone by a different set of pronouns. If you want to insist I'm a jerk for denying that these two experiences of "cognitive dissonance" are equivalent, you know, so be it.
I'd also point out that your example is rather uncharitable. I personally do think Alice is quite justified in asking Bob not to use "he" as a pronoun, but I also think it's acceptable for Bob to prefer using a gender-neutral pronoun such as singular "they". If that had been the example (which it might well have been, especially given the context of this thread overall), your point would be quite a bit weaker, and you ought to feel quite a bit less righteous indignation. After all, if somebody has a problem because of non-neutral pronouns, it'd be rather reasonable to expect them to accept it when people contribute to reducing their use overall -- especially when that also helps to reduce the discomfort of those other people.
Anyway, thank you for acknowledging that other people's feelings exist. Maybe next time you can even use that reconciliatory language I've mentioned.
this isnt a case about a specific person wanting a different pronoun. its about changing ALL language in the site to be gender neutral. that part is dumb. we dont need to worry about using she and he to talk about alice and bob because "they might be trans"
second, yea pronouns are different. they are actual nouns in the language used to describe people by what they are. theyre exactly the opposite of names which are completely random things you can claim
third, you know most people use pronouns that match a name and looks? so if you change gender and change your name then people are probably gonna be using the right pronoun anyway
What indication do you have that a majority of the "society" in question (Stack Overflow) has a problem with addressing people in the manner they prefer?
In other words, have you considered the possibility that you are the one with an opinion or belief that runs contrary to what this "society" expects of its members?
If so, are you expecting to be coddled?
You know, it's possible to support the pronoun policy while still being against how the moderator was treated.
It seems to be an opportunistic vocal minority that is trying to make this political.
I thought not calling people nicknames they dislike had something to do with courtesy and empathy. (I'll also note that you picked very mild nicknames for your example)
> if you want me to refer to you as her, and I don't, then you and I will have a problem, not you, me, the mods, my boss, the government, etc.
Insisting on some level of courtesy is the moderators and the bosses job. As is enforcement if insistence isn't enough. What that level is, and what's appropriate enforcement, that's the tricky part.
But I simply don't buy the "hurt and suffering" argument. Just because someone has a different opinion and expresses it doesn't mean the hearer is hurt and suffering to any degree that has a snowball's chance in hell of overwhelming the right to have and express a different opinion. The right to express opinions is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than the supposed right to not temporarily feel bad.
Also, I find it odd to describe lack of empathy and courtesy as “civil discussion.” If anything, it is the opposite of civility.
The very definition of "civil" is "courteous and polite" (Oxford).
>The right to express opinions is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than the supposed right to not temporarily feel bad
For better or worse, there is no such thing as a "right to express opinions" on a privately owned internet site.