Language Policy Chat With Grok
Balancing on a tightrope
CC: Grok, we're facing a dilemma. Our organization firmly believes in sex materialism—the concept that biological sex is immutable and should be recognized as such. But we're divided on how to communicate this in our advocacy work and writings.
Grok: It sounds like you're balancing on a tightrope. What's the crux of the problem?
CC: We're debating over pronouns and terminology. Some of us insist on using pronouns that strictly correspond to biological sex, no matter the social repercussions. Others argue this approach is too aggressive, particularly when someone is presenting as the opposite sex. We don't want to come off as cruel.
Grok: So, you're torn between adhering to your principles and maintaining a level of neutrality?
CC: Exactly. We're fighting against the transing of gay kids and gender ideology in schools, prisons, and sports, but some within our group advocate for a more nuanced approach in our language to avoid unnecessary conflict.
Grok: What solutions have you considered?
CC: We've thought about staying firm, using biological pronouns without compromise. Alternatively, there's a suggestion to use "they/them" when it's evident someone is living as the opposite sex, as a sort of compromise.
Grok: That's an intriguing middle ground. What's your take on it?
CC: It's appealing because it maintains our commitment to biological sex while also showing we're not here to demean or insult anyone. We'd still use terms like "transwoman" and "transman" to emphasize that, from our perspective, gender identity doesn't change biological sex.
Grok: You're trying to uphold your principles while navigating social complexities. How do you think this will go over within your group?
CC: It's divisive. Some see it as diluting our message, while others view it as a move toward more respectful dialogue. I'm in the middle—I believe in our cause but also recognize the human aspect.
Grok: It's certainly a complex issue. Maybe the key lies in how you present this policy. Being transparent about your rationale could be beneficial.
CC: That's my thought. We'd make it clear that our view on biological sex remains unchanged, but we're adapting our language to reduce conflict and focus on our main mission—opposing the transing of gay kids.
Grok: That approach sounds balanced. It acknowledges your perspective while showing respect for individual dignity. But keep in mind, not everyone might agree.
CC: I'm aware. But this feels like a step towards evolution, being considerate without losing our core message.
Grok: It's commendable to seek that balance. Remember, your strategy might need to evolve as you see the impact on your advocacy and interactions.
CC: Thanks, Grok. This discussion has been enlightening. We'll continue to uphold our values with a touch more empathy in our expression.
Grok: That sounds like a wise path forward. Advocating for truth doesn't have to exclude compassion.
My reaction to this debate/chat is that it has one mistaken premise. The mistake is in thinking that using accurate pronouns can ever be "disrespectful," "inconsiderate," "undignified," "demeaning," "insulting," or "cruel." This is implied throughout the chat, and I find it bothersome because it is none of those things.
I acknowledge that being honest about someone's sex in pronoun usage could lead to conflict, and perhaps that might warrant some compromise (which would ideally be the avoidance of pronouns altogether). That is a pragmatic decision to be made, and the debate on that is fair.
However, it is wholly inaccurate and even damaging to ever claim that using accurate pronouns is somehow cruel. It is no insult to be the sex you are, any more than it is an insult to be the age you are or to have the eye color you have. As long as any terms describing those things are neutral and relevant to the discussion, they are not insults. There is no stigma (or at least there should not be any) in being male or female, regardless of what someone wishes they were!
Pronoun policing in either direction is lame. I prefer pronoun anarchy.
We can all refer to RuPaul as “she” without confusion. The gender neutral “girl” is becoming fashionable. Queerness is fun; let it fly free.
Being offended when someone refers to you as a pronoun matching your biological sex is perhaps understandable, but unadvisable. If you can Tao de Ching your transition and accept, even find the beauty in, the tension between your biological sex and social expression, you’ll be rolling with reality and no one can hurt you with words that point towards material truths.