Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Upchurch]

Emily's Cat's response was reasonable even in context, given that you were straw manning your opponents.

Yikes. It's amazing how wrong you can be.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You aren't being asked at all, if you can lose your job as a teacher or professor for failing to use the correct pronouns. You are being given orders.

Orders to get along with your students politely by accepting their stated preferences without insisting on investigation into matters which are not your business.

Have you never had a job where professionalism meant not treating everybody you encounter like they're arguing against you on an internet messageboard? You don't actually have to challenge every statement you hear in real life, even if you think they're quite silly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Orders to get along with your students politely by accepting their stated preferences without insisting on investigation into matters which are not your business.

Have you never had a job where professionalism meant not treating everybody you encounter like they're arguing against you on an internet messageboard? You don't actually have to challenge every statement you hear in real life, even if you think they're quite silly.

1. Seconded for truth, louder for those in the back, and all that.
2. And people aren't obligated to notice which things you choose to fortify a hill about.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yikes. It's amazing how wrong you can be.

You claimed people were denying something happened that nobody denied happened. That was your error, not mine.

 

[mumblethrax]

For me it follows that it is reasonable to use masculine pronouns to refer to them, if they still code as male to you; and that it is unreasonable to demand that other pronouns be used in place of the usual sex-referencing ones.

Pronouns are not sex-referencing. They are literally called gendered pronouns.

I'm not sure what you mean by "code as male", but in my view it's reasonable to assume someone's gender on the basis of appearance, and unreasonably obstinate to reject any attempts at correction without notarization. There's just nothing at stake for you.

It would also be unreasonable to assume that there would be no social consequences for you if you do this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've been thinking about the conversation about calling people titles in light of this thread. If someone introduces themselves as "Dr Jones" who among us immediately challenges that? "Doctor, eh? Show me your diploma! What is your degree type, and in what subject? I have to assess your major to decide if it's legitimate or not! What was your GPA? Your certifications? I am a warrior of the truth and you can't make me call you 'doctor'!!!!" I'm hoping very few people would be like that. There are indeed situations where such investigation and challenge is warranted: if you're hiring someone for your faculty, if you're considering having them do your surgery, if they're proposing marriage to you, or attempting to borrow money. But in the vast majority of casual situations it's perfectly normal -- indeed, pretty much required by courtesy-- to take people's declared titles on faith and use them. It's not an endorsement. It doesn't mean "oh my god, if I call him 'Dr Jones' and it turns out he's two credits shy of graduating I could be sued for misleading potential patients!" It just means "he says he's 'Dr Jones' and Short Round wants him invited to the wedding so I'll put 'Dr Jones' on the invitation and seat him far away from the German cousins."

Why aren't pronouns the same? I'll call Sherry 'she' because she goes by it, my doing so isn't a papal imprimatur on Sherry's theories of sex and gender, nor is it a legal testament, nor is it a medical exam result. I may not give a fig what Sherry's got in her underpants, or what she thinks about her own body. I don't have to. I'm not being asked to judge her, I'm just being asked to get along politely in society, like a mature individual who can mind his own business. Why is that so hard?

If someone is introduced as "Dr. Jones", and you call them "Mr. Jones"... do you think they are justified in viewing your affront as being violence toward them?

It's not about politeness and courtesy. Nearly every single person in this thread takes the position that in most cases, we would be polite because that's how courtesy works.

The problem is in claiming that failure to be polite is tantamount to actual violence. It's in the coercive demand that we are OBLIGATED to someone else's preferred language - especially when their preference is at odds with both historical knowledge and with our own perception.

Look, if I were to meet Buck Angel out in public, I would refer to them as a "man". It has nothing to do with their preference, it has to do with my perception. It wouldn't even be difficult, because Angel passes fairly well. Not so much when they are in the presence of a lot of males - at that point the difference is a lot more notable than when they're seen in isolation. On the other hand, were I to meet Elliot Page in public... it would be a serious struggle. They do NOT pass well, they still look entirely female to me. It would require significant effort to remember to use male terminology... and I feel absolutely zero obligation to use male terminology when talking about them to someone else when they aren't in earshot.

If I were to meet Laverne Cox out in public, well "She's a damned tall woman". They pass pretty well, they successfully mimic female. Eddie Izzard, on the other hand... does not pass as female in any way - they look entirely like a transvestite. I do not perceive Izzard as being female, or even feminine in any way. They simply are not, and they read as male.

If a person passes well, it's not hard. If a person is personally known to me, it's less hard. If I care personally about them, it's less difficult. If it's a complete stranger that I'm not directly interacting with and with whom I have no relationship... there is no good reason for me to be required to affirm their internal feelings about themself.

 

[mumblethrax]

That's not what I was asking. Do you literally perceive them as female? If a male has long hair, wears make-up, and wears a dress... are you unable to tell that they are male?

Sometimes they pass, sometimes they don't. Sometimes I'm not sure. I just about never care.

I'm still unclear on the relevance.

 

[d4m10n]

Orders to get along with your students politely by accepting their stated preferences without insisting on investigation into matters which are not your business.

There are two possible sets of preferences in tension here.

1) Professor or teacher prefers to use pronouns to refer to sex rather than gender, e.g. "He shouldn't be setting women's records, because he went through male puberty."

2) Student prefers for instructors to use pronouns to refer to gender rather than sex, e.g. "My name is Lia and I go by she/her pronouns."

You are arguing that whenever these two sets of stated preferences come into conflict, gender must win out over sex, even when sex is perfectly obvious or a matter of public record. You are in good company here, since that is the policy in most institutions. What you have yet to articulate is why the instructor ought to be required (by law or policy) to submit to the preferences of the student. Why not let them each use their own words, without compelling anyone to adopt language prescribed by another?

You don't actually have to challenge every statement you hear in real life, even if you think they're quite silly.

I let silly stuff slide all the time in real life, but here on the internet I feel free to ask difficult questions. Is it your stated preference that I refrain from doing so?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Pronouns are not sex-referencing. They are literally called gendered pronouns.

This is retroactive redefinitions.

They aren't called "gendered pronouns" because they've always referred to people's internal feelings about which set of social stereotypes best fit their personality. They are called "gendered pronouns" because historically, the term "gender" was used synonymously with sex, and was considered the more polite term.

Pronouns have been sex-based since they first evolved. Don't try to foist a modern meaning (that isn't even fully accepted at that) into a historical use.

 

[mumblethrax]

Why not let them each use their own words, without compelling anyone to adopt the language prescribed by another?

Because of the clear possibility of using this 'preference' as a means of harassment.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's really not the same. In a professional setting, such titles are vetted, and there is an objective standard by which such titles are granted. You cannot simply decide that you're going to be Dr. Jones because you feel like it.

Is it your duty to act as policeman and ensure all titles are in keeping with your notion of their legitimacy?

In a nonprofessional setting, if you introduce yourself as Dr. Jones, you likely won't get challenged, but neither is anyone obliged to refer to you as Dr. Jones. If you take offense because someone refers to you as Mr. Jones, you're the *******.

Nobody's obliged to behave themselves. But they're not immune from consequences for not doing so. You want to set out to be offensive to people they're quite within their rights to take the offense you're giving them, and respond accordingly.

To start with, because there's no objective standard for pronoun choice other than sex, and that's specifically being rejected.

Neither grammar nor manners are scientific principles and do not require objective standards. X says X goes by "she", what standing do you have to challenge that?

And to end with, because you're the ******* if you get your panties in a bunch when people call you Mr. instead of Dr.

Sounds to me like you're saying "you can't make me be nice to people". Indeed, I can't. Each of us can control only his or her own actions, not the actions of others. I merely wonder what purpose there is in being discourteous to other people when there is no benefit to yourself in doing so.

 

[lobosrul5]

If someone is introduced as "Dr. Jones", and you call them "Mr. Jones"... do you think they are justified in viewing your affront as being violence toward them?

It's not about politeness and courtesy. Nearly every single person in this thread takes the position that in most cases, we would be polite because that's how courtesy works.

The problem is in claiming that failure to be polite is tantamount to actual violence. It's in the coercive demand that we are OBLIGATED to someone else's preferred language - especially when their preference is at odds with both historical knowledge and with our own perception.

Look, if I were to meet Buck Angel out in public, I would refer to them as a "man". It has nothing to do with their preference, it has to do with my perception. It wouldn't even be difficult, because Angel passes fairly well. Not so much when they are in the presence of a lot of males - at that point the difference is a lot more notable than when they're seen in isolation. On the other hand, were I to meet Elliot Page in public... it would be a serious struggle. They do NOT pass well, they still look entirely female to me. It would require significant effort to remember to use male terminology... and I feel absolutely zero obligation to use male terminology when talking about them to someone else when they aren't in earshot.

If I were to meet Laverne Cox out in public, well "She's a damned tall woman". They pass pretty well, they successfully mimic female. Eddie Izzard, on the other hand... does not pass as female in any way - they look entirely like a transvestite. I do not perceive Izzard as being female, or even feminine in any way. They simply are not, and they read as male.

If a person passes well, it's not hard. If a person is personally known to me, it's less hard. If I care personally about them, it's less difficult. If it's a complete stranger that I'm not directly interacting with and with whom I have no relationship... there is no good reason for me to be required to affirm their internal feelings about themself.

Now I'm wondering... (and I'm being genuine here)

Is it actually offensive to you, to refer to someone as "he" when you are confident that person is female, or vice versa. Should the feelings of the person addressing someone else take equal precedence to the person being addressed?

If I called someone "he" and they corrected me with: "she" actually, I would be embarrassed, apologize and carry on with my life. And as it happens, I'm not being hypothetical, its happened before. I guess, thats not the same for everyone

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sometimes they pass, sometimes they don't. Sometimes I'm not sure. I just about never care.

I'm still unclear on the relevance.

You claimed that apparent sex is culturally laden:

"Apparent sex" is culturally-laden in obvious ways, meaning that pronouns must refer to gender rather than sex per se.

Apparent sex is the sex that a person is assumed to be, based on how they are perceived by the observer.

There are culturally imposed constraints on how a person presents, and which are generally sex-linked in the eyes of the society that imposed them. In islamic countries, that's going to be more extreme. In most developed nations, those constraints of presentation are much more lax. In the 80s in the US, lots and lots of male singers and bands wore a lot of makeup and had some fantastic hair.

But their apparent sex was still male. They were still perceived by observers as being male.

Pronouns have historically referred to apparent sex - the sex that the observer perceives the person to be.

 

[d4m10n]

Because of the clear possibility of using this 'preference' as a means of harassment.

If using pronouns to refer to sex rather than gender is defined as harassment in the relevant school policies, then of course it will be treated as such. It strikes me as an appeal to authority to say that the policies are right because they are the policies in place.

Pronouns have historically referred to apparent sex - the sex that the observer perceives the person to be.

Went through about half a dozen dictionaries this morning and most of them have yet to catch up; typically they use terms like "female" in the primary definition of "she," for example.

 

[Upchurch]

You claimed people were denying something happened that nobody denied happened. That was your error, not mine.

Zig. Did I ever declare that domestic violence against females is only words, never physical or that abused females are only being called names? Would that misconception be cleared up by reviewing not only the conversation but, in particular, the article I linked to?

Which, by the way, makes the idea of laughing in the faces of women who have been the victims of domestic abuse ...problematic, to put it lightly.

Maybe if you took a moment to understand something before merely reacting, you'd avoid these easy mistakes.

 

[mumblethrax]

This is retroactive redefinitions.

No, they are competent definitions.

They aren't called "gendered pronouns" because they've always referred to people's internal feelings about which set of social stereotypes best fit their personality. They are called "gendered pronouns" because historically, the term "gender" was used synonymously with sex, and was considered the more polite term.

This is completely wrong. The 'gender' in 'gendered pronouns' refers to grammatical gender, which is nothing more than a way of classifying nouns. In a masculine-feminine-(neuter) gender system, gender is often remarkably untethered from sex. The Irish word for girl, cailín, is masculine. It's also generally untethered from gender in the sociological sense. French people do not literally believe la table is feminine in any real sense. Some languages, including the earliest forms of Proto Indo-European (it is thought), have gendering systems that don't even have anything to do with either, such as animate-inanimate gender system.

Because English no longer has grammatical gender, our gendered pronouns are left floating in the wind. We usually classify people on the basis of perceived sex, but we make all sorts of assumptions that have no real basis in reality, such as our general tendency to view dogs as masculine irrespective of their sex.

Pronouns have been sex-based since they first evolved. Don't try to foist a modern meaning (that isn't even fully accepted at that) into a historical use.

You are asserting that the earliest human languages had gendered pronouns on the basis of...what, exactly?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Now I'm wondering... (and I'm being genuine here)

Is it actually offensive to you, to refer to someone as "he" when you are confident that person is female, or vice versa. Should the feelings of the person addressing someone else take equal precedence to the person being addressed?

It depends a whole lot on the situation and the person. If I perceive Alex to be female, based on the wealth of visual indicators available to me... but it's obvious that they're trying really, really, really hard to pass as male, I'm probably going to be courteous when I'm interacting with them or with someone close to them. If they're being a pushy prat about it, I'm a lot less inclined to be courteous - I don't respond well to being forced to be "nice" to someone who is not being nice in the first place. Reciprocity is a valuable element of human interaction when it comes to respect, courtesy, and politeness.

On the other hand... I genuinely have no qualms at all referring to Elliot Page as "she". I don't know them personally, I'm not interacting with people who know them, and I'm a nobody to them. The fact that I - a complete stranger - do not perceive her as male should not have any impact on her at all.

At the end of the day, some people's behavior does not incentivize me to make special accommodations for them.

If I called someone "he" and they corrected me with: "she" actually, I would be embarrassed, apologize and carry on with my life. And as it happens, I'm not being hypothetical, its happened before. I guess, thats not the same for everyone

I recall once that this happened, but I wasn't overly embarrassed. Since I was very young, it's been hammered into my head that you don't talk about people when they're present.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There are two possible sets of preferences in tension here.

1) Professor or teacher prefers to use pronouns to refer to sex rather than gender, e.g. "He shouldn't be setting women's records, because he went through male puberty."

2) Student prefers for instructors to use pronouns to refer to gender rather than sex, e.g. "My name is Lia and I go by she/her pronouns."

You are arguing that whenever these two sets of stated preferences come into conflict, gender must win out over sex, even when sex is perfectly obvious or a matter of public record.

No, I'm not. I don't care about your whole gender/sex pseudo-social-science. I don't care what sex "really is, scientifically" any more than I care what the ancient Hebrew god thought sex really is. I don't need to have Truth Absolute beamed into my brain by the Platonic Form of Gender in order to simply be polite to people. Sherry goes by "she", it doesn't cost me a thing to oblige her, even if I personally and privately think she resembles a male bulldog in a Dorothy Hamill wig.

You are in good company here, since that is the policy in most institutions. What you have yet to articulate is why the instructor ought to be required (by law or policy) to submit to the preferences of the student.

Professionalism. It's not the teacher's place to be challenging the sex of their students. It's certainly not the teacher's place to investigate or demand evidence. They're there to do a job. The teachers are employees, the school is the employer, and the employer has set standards on how the employees are to treat the customers. Why on earth would you ever think the situation is other than that? That somehow teachers can appoint themselves Sex Inquisitors? Teachers are among the very last professions that should be thinking too hard about their customers and sex.

Why not let them each use their own words, without compelling anyone to adopt the language prescribed by another?

Because neither student nor teacher is there to wage battle over the philosophy and science of sex, they're there to teach a subject and learn a subject. Unless the subject really is the Philosophy And Science Of Sex: Students Vs Teacher Debate 401. In which case, have at it.

I let silly stuff slide all the time in real life, but here on the internet I feel free to ask difficult questions.

I'm glad to know you don't run up to people in real life and challenge their pronoun preferences. But I don't think you're "asking difficult questions".

Is it your stated preference that I refrain from doing so?

If you must know, and you did ask, I'd say you could reduce your post count on sex and gender by about 75% and it wouldn't be a huge loss.

 

[d4m10n]

Professionalism. It's not the teacher's place to be challenging the sex of their students. It's certainly not the teacher's place to investigate or demand evidence.

They don't need to investigate or demand any evidence when they already know sex at at birth and are being asked to participate in the process of social transition, as was the case in the first post (not the original first post).

The teachers are employees, the school is the employer, and the employer has set standards on how the employees are to treat the customers.

This is all true, but it doesn't tell us why teachers ought to be compelled to help their students change sex.

Teachers are among the very last professions that should be thinking too hard about their customers and sex.

And yet you want them to be required (by law or policy) to aid in the process of transition from female to male, or vice-versa.

Because neither student nor teacher is there to wage battle over the philosophy and science of sex, they're there to teach a subject and learn a subject.

It's only a battle is you assume someone has to prevail, as you clearly do.

 

[mumblethrax]

If using pronouns to refer to sex rather than gender is defined as harassment in the relevant school policies, then of course it will be treated as such. It strikes me as an appeal to authority to say that the policies are right because they are the policies in place.

I'm not talking about 'relevant school policies'.

If you consistently refer to a colleague as 'Jew' as in "Good morning, Jew. Here are those reports you asked for, Jew" i'm going to be fantastically unimpressed by the idea that you cannot be harrassing him if he is, in fact, Jewish.

Went through about half a dozen dictionaries this morning and most of them have yet to catch up; typically they use terms like "female" in the primary definition of "she," for example.

You should probably not be looking to dictionaries but to scholarship if you actually want to get a real handle on any of this.