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!
Very good points, Hippiesq. I was bothered by that implication, too, though I hadn’t quite put my finger on it. You’ve explained the issue here really well. Thanks.
We wouldn't think it cruel or unnecessarily divisive to *not* call an anorexic woman "fatty" just because she *sincerely believes* she's fat. And arguably, our impulse to "just be polite" got us into this reality-denying disaster to begin with.
Having said that, I do get the conflict, and I think a better solution than playing into the even more ridiculous non-binary they/them thing is to use s/he for all TIP. THAT actually captures the reality that this person is one sex but for whatever reasons can't deal with that reality.
Accurate IS sometimes at odds with polite or kind. As an obvious example, if someone is morbidly obese, or even wearing an unattractive color, we generally let their physician or loved ones choose whether it is productive to communicate that to them. We know that it isn’t useful for the general public to confront them with every social interaction.
Very good points, Hippiesq. I was bothered by that implication, too, though I hadn’t quite put my finger on it. You’ve explained the issue here really well. Thanks.
Very good points, Hippiesq. I was bothered by that implication, too, though I hadn’t quite put my finger on it. You’ve explained the issue here really well. Thanks.
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.
It is demeaning and insulting for people who are estranged from their biological sex to expect everyone in society to go along with it. Moreover, it is outrageous of them to use the coercive powers of government and organizations to enforce compliance with their beliefs.
The only reason I would compromise my principles would be to avoid a public scene or private confrontation. It is hard to imagine a situation in which I could express my gender-critical views in person to a trans-identified individual that would not be fraught with risk to me. The last thing I would want is for the other person to turn violent and/or seek to have me punished.
My thoughts-those who expect others to accommodate a delusion are demanding too much and bending to them is bending your morals and allowing the erosion of your own self and your own morality. You can be kind without allowing speech to be coerced.
I think one thing to consider is whether the communication is public or private. In public-facing communications, clarity is of utmost importance so that readers/listeners understand who you are talking about. So, for example, if you are talking about the issue of sports, “trans woman” takes an extra cognitive step to realize the person referenced is male, as does using wrong-sex pronouns. For that reason, in all public-facing communications, I would use correct-sex language, eg, in the sports example here, trans-identified male and male pronouns. Private communications are a different matter. If you are a professional counseling a troubled young person who thinks she is the opposite sex, while it is important not to lie to her, it is also important to help her, stepwise, gain confidence that she is in good, caring hands. That may well take a more delicate approach. In that case, I would hope pronouns could be avoided, as the person is in front of you. So, basically, in public-facing communications, clarity is paramount. Private situations may require a bit of nuance to reach the desired outcome.
Interesting conversation. One point I want to make is more of a concern that only just occurred to me about the term "trans man" or 'trans woman". My initial reaction is to approve of this language change, but I have a teen who was brainwashed at the age of 12. She is still working her way through this three years later and I worry that in her mind she can accept that she can never be a man, but she can be a trans man. It is a slight nuance that I think is really slippery when trying to help these kids walk out of this ideology. She went from a girly-girl, no gender issues, to discovering trans at a vulnerable time. I think one of my best arguments is that it doesn't really serve us to pretend to be something we can never be (a man), but I can see it being easier for her to say "I don't think I can be a man, I'm a "trans man," than it is for her to do the work she needs to do to walk away from this. Any thoughts on this?
My thoughts, there is no such thing as trans. There is no such thing as being sort of a woman or sort of a man. Clarity is important. I use people’s proper pronouns, or, if I’m feeling generous, their name. I would sooner refer to a man by his name, than associate him with womanhood in any way at all. I will not dilute womanhood, by associating it with A man who chooses to present in ways that women have been expected to present
I agree, language and terminology are so important. I'm battling with the "trans woman" term. And with "trans-identified man". For me, then, I think the term I can most 'comfortably' use is "'trans'-identifying man" (and vice versa). This helps with the 'no such thing as trans' assertion (which I agree with), and 'identifying' fits with the 'trans' person doing the identifying. 'Identified' seems to suggest that the identification is widely/universally accepted/acknowledged, as something real that has happened.
I agree with you ,Kilye drone. Men are not women and women are not men ,however they " "identify". Manipulation of language was a clever tactic by the tras ,and that's how we got into this mess in the first place. Telling us to " be kind " worked against us and THAT was deliberate !!
In my own comment here, distinguishing between public-facing communications and private ones, I had your situation as you describe it here very much in mind. I, for one, would not presume to know better how to handle this than you do as a clearly caring and worried mom. It's very hard to figure out the best path, but for sure it is going to have to be step-by-baby-step. Your own intuition and smarts about your child and her situation are the best of guides. I send you very best wishes in your loving efforts to guide your daughter safely past this period.
I myself will occasionally (and ONLY) shift usage when a trans identifying person a) passes very well and b) they affirm their actual sex and advocate publicly for women's sex-based rights.
If at the same time we are firm in reclaiming truth by saying 'trans-identified male' instead of 'transwoman' the trade-off results in a bit of a win-win, no?
Start calling transsexual women “they/them” and you’ll lose all of us. Debating biological vs. brain sex vs. gender is fair game, but bringing in designer genders with infantile language games? Associating trans women with Sam Brinton? Don’t go there, even if an AI thinks it’s sensible.
Compelled speech is icky. I think the "they/them" policy is sensible. I understand that within the organization, nobody compels or polices other people's speech, but that when you put out content as an organization, you have to use this or that pronoun, this or that term... In English, one uses "they" when the sex of a person is unknown (for instance, when referring to, say, a historian, or an author, whose sex one does not know), and using it when the sex is known but there is a "preferred" sexual identity that does not match that sex, does not seem far-fetched. It is a compromise position that acknowledges that the end goal is the most important thing, and that differences and discontent regarding certain policies are inevitable.
This is the middle ground I tried taking with my child. It has not gone well. It is a huge source of conflct between us, and my child is convinced that I am transphobic and have "antiquated beliefs" because I belive biological sex is real.
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!
Very good points, Hippiesq. I was bothered by that implication, too, though I hadn’t quite put my finger on it. You’ve explained the issue here really well. Thanks.
^This.^
We wouldn't think it cruel or unnecessarily divisive to *not* call an anorexic woman "fatty" just because she *sincerely believes* she's fat. And arguably, our impulse to "just be polite" got us into this reality-denying disaster to begin with.
Having said that, I do get the conflict, and I think a better solution than playing into the even more ridiculous non-binary they/them thing is to use s/he for all TIP. THAT actually captures the reality that this person is one sex but for whatever reasons can't deal with that reality.
I agree. Anything less is pandering and promotes only delusions. There are a myriad of feelings, but truth is a dish best eaten cold.
Accurate IS sometimes at odds with polite or kind. As an obvious example, if someone is morbidly obese, or even wearing an unattractive color, we generally let their physician or loved ones choose whether it is productive to communicate that to them. We know that it isn’t useful for the general public to confront them with every social interaction.
Very good points, Hippiesq. I was bothered by that implication, too, though I hadn’t quite put my finger on it. You’ve explained the issue here really well. Thanks.
Very good points, Hippiesq. I was bothered by that implication, too, though I hadn’t quite put my finger on it. You’ve explained the issue here really well. Thanks.
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.
It is demeaning and insulting for people who are estranged from their biological sex to expect everyone in society to go along with it. Moreover, it is outrageous of them to use the coercive powers of government and organizations to enforce compliance with their beliefs.
The only reason I would compromise my principles would be to avoid a public scene or private confrontation. It is hard to imagine a situation in which I could express my gender-critical views in person to a trans-identified individual that would not be fraught with risk to me. The last thing I would want is for the other person to turn violent and/or seek to have me punished.
The trouble with 'be kind' is that by doing so you are giving away the main point, which is: that no one can change sex.
My thoughts-those who expect others to accommodate a delusion are demanding too much and bending to them is bending your morals and allowing the erosion of your own self and your own morality. You can be kind without allowing speech to be coerced.
I think one thing to consider is whether the communication is public or private. In public-facing communications, clarity is of utmost importance so that readers/listeners understand who you are talking about. So, for example, if you are talking about the issue of sports, “trans woman” takes an extra cognitive step to realize the person referenced is male, as does using wrong-sex pronouns. For that reason, in all public-facing communications, I would use correct-sex language, eg, in the sports example here, trans-identified male and male pronouns. Private communications are a different matter. If you are a professional counseling a troubled young person who thinks she is the opposite sex, while it is important not to lie to her, it is also important to help her, stepwise, gain confidence that she is in good, caring hands. That may well take a more delicate approach. In that case, I would hope pronouns could be avoided, as the person is in front of you. So, basically, in public-facing communications, clarity is paramount. Private situations may require a bit of nuance to reach the desired outcome.
Interesting conversation. One point I want to make is more of a concern that only just occurred to me about the term "trans man" or 'trans woman". My initial reaction is to approve of this language change, but I have a teen who was brainwashed at the age of 12. She is still working her way through this three years later and I worry that in her mind she can accept that she can never be a man, but she can be a trans man. It is a slight nuance that I think is really slippery when trying to help these kids walk out of this ideology. She went from a girly-girl, no gender issues, to discovering trans at a vulnerable time. I think one of my best arguments is that it doesn't really serve us to pretend to be something we can never be (a man), but I can see it being easier for her to say "I don't think I can be a man, I'm a "trans man," than it is for her to do the work she needs to do to walk away from this. Any thoughts on this?
My thoughts, there is no such thing as trans. There is no such thing as being sort of a woman or sort of a man. Clarity is important. I use people’s proper pronouns, or, if I’m feeling generous, their name. I would sooner refer to a man by his name, than associate him with womanhood in any way at all. I will not dilute womanhood, by associating it with A man who chooses to present in ways that women have been expected to present
I agree, language and terminology are so important. I'm battling with the "trans woman" term. And with "trans-identified man". For me, then, I think the term I can most 'comfortably' use is "'trans'-identifying man" (and vice versa). This helps with the 'no such thing as trans' assertion (which I agree with), and 'identifying' fits with the 'trans' person doing the identifying. 'Identified' seems to suggest that the identification is widely/universally accepted/acknowledged, as something real that has happened.
I agree with you ,Kilye drone. Men are not women and women are not men ,however they " "identify". Manipulation of language was a clever tactic by the tras ,and that's how we got into this mess in the first place. Telling us to " be kind " worked against us and THAT was deliberate !!
In my own comment here, distinguishing between public-facing communications and private ones, I had your situation as you describe it here very much in mind. I, for one, would not presume to know better how to handle this than you do as a clearly caring and worried mom. It's very hard to figure out the best path, but for sure it is going to have to be step-by-baby-step. Your own intuition and smarts about your child and her situation are the best of guides. I send you very best wishes in your loving efforts to guide your daughter safely past this period.
I myself will occasionally (and ONLY) shift usage when a trans identifying person a) passes very well and b) they affirm their actual sex and advocate publicly for women's sex-based rights.
If at the same time we are firm in reclaiming truth by saying 'trans-identified male' instead of 'transwoman' the trade-off results in a bit of a win-win, no?
I guess I just call 'em like I see 'em.
Start calling transsexual women “they/them” and you’ll lose all of us. Debating biological vs. brain sex vs. gender is fair game, but bringing in designer genders with infantile language games? Associating trans women with Sam Brinton? Don’t go there, even if an AI thinks it’s sensible.
Always nice to have a chat with a friend. 😜 I once read, “Pronouns are just a shitty implementation of a local variable,” and that stuck with me.
Compelled speech is icky. I think the "they/them" policy is sensible. I understand that within the organization, nobody compels or polices other people's speech, but that when you put out content as an organization, you have to use this or that pronoun, this or that term... In English, one uses "they" when the sex of a person is unknown (for instance, when referring to, say, a historian, or an author, whose sex one does not know), and using it when the sex is known but there is a "preferred" sexual identity that does not match that sex, does not seem far-fetched. It is a compromise position that acknowledges that the end goal is the most important thing, and that differences and discontent regarding certain policies are inevitable.
Have you tried removing pronouns? Use the person’s name instead of a pronoun.
This is playing out here, big time:
https://open.substack.com/pub/grahamlinehan/p/its-a-man-man?r=37ww3t&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
This is the middle ground I tried taking with my child. It has not gone well. It is a huge source of conflct between us, and my child is convinced that I am transphobic and have "antiquated beliefs" because I belive biological sex is real.
Oh well!!!!
Does this "dialogue" actually say anything? Sounds like pablum to me.