Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Upchurch]

See below:

Yes. I believe they're both a little wrong by thinking it could only be one or the other.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I believe those might be legally protected terms of address, so no.

But not addressing him that way would be very HRHtful.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I'm using Duolingo, so I speak with zero authority. Also, I'm notoriously bad at gendered nouns. I looked back and I swear it was telling me that Ei was male. *shrug*. I double checked that "salad" is (I hope) male, because reasons. I'm not sure one could argue that der Salat has male sexual attributes.

My favorite example of the wonkiness of German genders is silverware.

Fork is feminine.
Spoon is masculine.
Knife is neuter.

The last one is appropriate in a black humor sort of way, I guess.

 

[Ziggurat]

Deliberately using the wrong pronoun, using someone's deadname, or otherwise misgendering them because you refuse to accept their identity is, or at least can be, an act of aggression, if not violence.

It cannot be violence, ever. The fact that it may be aggression doesn't make it violence. That's not a hard call to make, yet still you equivocate.

 

[d4m10n]

The point is that it has never been sex based in the way we've been using the term. It's always been gender based.

I think we just disagree on this. Gender in linguistics is only vaguely analogous to gender in gender studies programs, but dictionaries of English usage nearly always reference the two sexes when describing "he" and "she," as applied to animals rather than ships.

Do you care that CU Boulder cares?

Not them in particular, so much as universities more generally. Knowledge production requires a certain leeway to use your own words and argue things out.

 

[arthwollipot]

It cannot be violence, ever. The fact that it may be aggression doesn't make it violence. That's not a hard call to make, yet still you equivocate.

"Violence" can mean more than just physical violence. It can also be mental or emotional violence. Someone posted something upthread to support this notion - it is commonly understood in the mental health industry to be more broadly defined than what you appear to assume is common usage.

 

[Olmstead]

The thread title asks if it constitutes violence. Persisting in misgendering someone certainly constitutes harassment IMV. Nothing here has convinced me that it rises to the level of violence. Harassment and violence are not equivalent or interchangeable.

I'd again like to point out that "psychological violence" has been a term for at least half a century, if not longer. You can take it up with psychologists from the 70s on that one.

And "psychological violence" can definitely have equivalent or worse effects than regular violence.

 

[dirtywick]

No, I am a man, so it would be "His royal highness".

oh, didn't realize you have a preferred set of pronouns. hate to offend you.

 

[Upchurch]

I think we just disagree on this. Gender in linguistics is only vaguely analogous to gender in gender studies programs, but dictionaries of English usage nearly always reference the two sexes when describing "he" and "she," as applied to animals rather than ships.

This is where skepticism and critical thinking come in. What are you basing that declaration on? Do you consider the "she" used to reference a person walking down the street to be a homonym to the "she" used to reference a ship and, if so, based on what?

Not them in particular, so much as universities more generally. Knowledge production requires a certain leeway to use your own words and argue things out.

Do you think that there is room in these academic discussions for intimidation and intimidation of minorities, not as topics of discussion but as behaviors between the people arguing things out?

For that matter, I didn't see anything in that article that prohibited the academic discussion of the pros and cons of using preferred pronouns.

 

[arthwollipot]

For the record: there is no such thing as a "preferred" pronoun. There's just the right one, and the wrong one.

ETA: actually scratch that. I've known some people say things like "well, I prefer she/her, but they/them is also okay". In general though it's better to refer to correct pronouns since for many people it's not a preference.

 

[Upchurch]

It cannot be violence, ever. The fact that it may be aggression doesn't make it violence. That's not a hard call to make, yet still you equivocate.

It was a few pages ago, so maybe it bares repeating:

Well, let's put the "E" in ISF: https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/faqs/types-of-violence

 

[d4m10n]

What are you basing that declaration on?

OED or Webster, mostly. Look up any definition of "he" prior to Gen Z.

Do you consider the "she" used to reference a person walking down the street to be a homonym to the "she" used to reference a ship and, if so, based on what?

I do not consider linguistic gender relevant here, since it is assigned arbitrarily. "Fatherland" and "motherland" evoke different feelings, but neither one is rooted in observable reality.

Do you think that there is room in these academic discussions for...intimidation of minorities.

Using "he" pronouns to refer to males doesn't strike me as particularly intimidating, but then I had to deal with actual hazing in college.

 

[Steve]

Would it be polite for trans people to jump back into the closet whenever someone else deems it convenient? No, it wouldn't. It would be pandering to bigots.

Hyperbole does not advance the cause. If people want to be recognized in a certain way by strangers in casual encounters they should make some effort to present themselves in the way they wish to be recognized. If they do not do that they should not expect people to view them as anything other than what their outward appearance suggests. Humans are very visual creatures and a person's appearance creates a very vivid first impression.

To use gay people as an example, specifically the large gay community in Vancouver BC that I am familiar with. A large majority of "out" gay people do not, in their normal daily lives, make any effort to display the fact that they are gay in a recognized manner to the world. They dress and otherwise present themselves much the same as the public at large. They seldom if ever begin a casual conversation by advising the other person that they are gay and wish to be recognized as such. Merely being gay does not require them to have any expectations from people beyond simple human respect. This does not in any way make them "jump back in the closet". They just live normal lives as the normal people they are. With this in mind I think the somewhat pronoun obsessed trans persons being discussed here, assuming such persons actually exist, would find their lives much easier if they were to lower their expectations from the public at large and turn their efforts to educating those who have a somewhat more significant role to play in their lives - coworkers, fellow students and the like. In the vast majority of casual encounters the fact they they are trans is totally irrelevant.

And to cut short any potential further hyperbolic accusations I will repeat what I said upthread. If I was ever to be introduced, in a social, business or similar situation, to a trans person who had certain preferences regarding names, pronouns, etc. I would willingly accede to their wishes and use their preferred terms without hesitation.

 

[Steve]

I'd again like to point out that "psychological violence" has been a term for at least half a century, if not longer. You can take it up with psychologists from the 70s on that one.

And "psychological violence" can definitely have equivalent or worse effects than regular violence.

Personal experience has taught me that psychologists as a profession are not the most reliable or reality based group. I put little stock in their beliefs.

 

[arthwollipot]

Hyperbole does not advance the cause. If people want to be recognized in a certain way by strangers in casual encounters they should make some effort to present themselves in the way they wish to be recognized. If they do not do that they should not expect people to view them as anything other than what their outward appearance suggests. Humans are very visual creatures and a person's appearance creates a very vivid first impression.

Sure, on first impression. If, however, you have known someone for a while, it is simple politeness and courtesy to address them in the form they request of you.

To use gay people as an example...

Not to devalue your example, but gay people are not asking for a particular standard of address. A gay man is generally referred to as he/him. A gay woman as she/her. There is no ambiguity or confusion.

If you meet for the first time someone who presents as a man, it is understandable and justifiable to refer to he/him. If they then say "no, actually, my pronouns are they/them", it is not justifiable to deliberately continue to refer to them incorrectly. If done persistently and with malice, this can be a form of violence.

And just to repeat, in case anyone is still unclear what I am saying, misgendering someone is not always a necessarily violent act. But when done persistently despite the other person's stated wishes, and with malice in order to deny their identity, it can be.

 

[Steve]

Would it be polite for trans people to jump back into the closet whenever someone else deems it convenient? No, it wouldn't. It would be pandering to bigots.

Deleted. Became irrelevant in light of arth's post while I was writing this.

 

[Upchurch]

OED or Webster, mostly. Look up any definition of "he" prior to Gen Z.

What does "prior to Gen Z" mean? Can you cite your source?

I do not consider linguistic gender relevant here, since it is assigned arbitrarily. "Fatherland" and "motherland" evoke different feelings, but neither one is rooted in observable reality.

Handwaving is not very convincing. The fact that it is a linguistic gender is does not help your argument that "she" is necessarily homonyms, where one refers to gender and one, without any reason other than it fits an anti-trans argument, refers to sex.

Using "he" pronouns to refer to males doesn't strike me as particularly intimidating, but then I had to deal with actual hazing in college.

I assume you are cis-gendered? If so, do you often tell minorities in society what they are and are not allowed to feel intimidated about?

 

[Steve]

Sure, on first impression. If, however, you have known someone for a while, it is simple politeness and courtesy to address them in the form they request of you.

Not to devalue your example, but gay people are not asking for a particular standard of address. A gay man is generally referred to as he/him. A gay woman as she/her. There is no ambiguity or confusion.

If you meet for the first time someone who presents as a man, it is understandable and justifiable to refer to he/him. If they then say "no, actually, my pronouns are they/them", it is not justifiable to deliberately continue to refer to them incorrectly. If done persistently and with malice, this can be a form of violence.

And just to repeat, in case anyone is still unclear what I am saying, misgendering someone is not always a necessarily violent act. But when done persistently despite the other person's stated wishes, and with malice in order to deny their identity, it can be.

Much clearer, thanks. We seem largely in agreement.

 

[arthwollipot]

Much clearer, thanks. We seem largely in agreement.

I believe so, yes.

 

[d4m10n]

Can you cite your source?

I already did, but here you go:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/she

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/she

Don't think I can share OED links that work outside of the library portal.

Have you seen an argument that we ought to stop using "female" in these definitions, in favor of some other relevant quality?

(ETA: Referring to mammals here, not boats.)

I assume you are cis-gendered?

Even cisgendered people can be misgendered. Do you find it intimidating when that happens?