Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Hercules56]

Oh goody, Michigan wants to make it a crime punishable with prison, to repeatedly use the wrong gender pronoun to someone.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigan-house-passes-bill-wrong-pronouns-felony-fineable-10000

 

[Upchurch]

Oh goody, Michigan wants to make it a crime punishable with prison, to repeatedly use the wrong gender pronoun to someone.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigan-house-passes-bill-wrong-pronouns-felony-fineable-10000

IANAL, but I also don't take Fox News reporting at face value.

Here is the summary of the bill from the Michigan House page on the bill.

If I'm reading this correctly, it does not make repeated misgendering a crime punishable with prison. It designates it, along with a bunch of other non-gender related things, as a hate-crime which can be used to enhance penalties from other crimes the person has been convicted of.

Again, IANAL, but beating up someone comes with a punishment, but beating someone up because they are a protected class minority makes the crime into a hate crime and allows for more punishment.

 

[Upchurch]

Making a claim (an estimate, even) about someone's sex based on how they appear, in light of gender norms, is not conflating socially constructed gender and sex.

It's only conflating gender and sex if you are making the claim that their gender is their sex. That is often the case, but not always, and it is important to understand the distinction and what we're really talking about.

It's using gender to point toward sex. That estimate may be wrong or correct, but it's an estimate of sex using gender.

Says who? When we meet someone, all we can evaluate is their consistency with gender norms and their self-identification. That's gender. One could assume it is also their sex, but cliches are cliches for a reason and what happens when you assume is often true.

That's correct. But my point was about how, through the period of time in which "he" mean that male which was previously mentioned, calling someone "he" that one didn't know well was based on reading gender signs and was a claim/estimate, right or wrong, about that person's sex.

...because the differences between sex and gender were not well understood by the general public. That has greatly improved in the last few decades, although, admittedly, there is currently a push in conservative circles back to more willful ignorance.

Which is better?

I grant that, with emphasis on "really." But my reading of how "he" was used was as I've stated above.

Then your use of "he" as a sexed pronoun is a non-sequitur guess based on personal biases. In non-intimate relationships, it is unlikely you will ever have actual information about another person's sex. And there is still a non-zero chance that, even if you do, you, and the person, might actually be wrong.

That's not what I'm insisting. See above. Plus, I'm only saying what was going on when people said "he." They were referring to what they thought the person's sex was.

And what I'm saying is that you, and they, are wrong and have always been wrong about that. There may have once been an legitimate reason for that ignorance, it's becoming harder and harder to justify that ignorance being anything other than willful.

On further reflection, allow me to edit "promoted for political purposes" with "promoted for deliberate purposes" (as distinct from an organic, grassroots situation).

I'm not following you here. Describing the dissemination of better information about sex, gender, orientation, etc, into the greater public sphere as "promotion for deliberate purposes" seems odd. Deliberate in the sense that LGBTQA+ folks want to live their lives and not be beaten up on the regular for who they are? I mean, sure, okay. That is definitely a kind of agenda.

 

[Paul2]

It's only conflating gender and sex if you are making the claim that their gender is their sex. That is often the case, but not always, and it is important to understand the distinction and what we're really talking about.

I think the distinction between gender and sex is very useful.

Says who? When we meet someone, all we can evaluate is their consistency with gender norms and their self-identification. That's gender. One could assume it is also their sex, but cliches are cliches for a reason and what happens when you assume is often true.

The time period I've been talking about is the long period of time during which "he" had the stable meaning of the male just mentioned.

...because the differences between sex and gender were not well understood by the general public. That has greatly improved in the last few decades, although, admittedly, there is currently a push in conservative circles back to more willful ignorance.

Well, "he" has been used to refer to a male for longer than the word gender entered general usage (beyond usage in linguistics) as a polite synonym for "sex" (referencing the differences between the sexes without the implication of sexual acts themselves).

Which is better?

I agree with you about what's better, but "now" is not the issue I've been talking about.

Then your use of "he" as a sexed pronoun is a non-sequitur guess based on personal biases. In non-intimate relationships, it is unlikely you will ever have actual information about another person's sex. And there is still a non-zero chance that, even if you do, you, and the person, might actually be wrong.

Statistically, determining sex through gender as well as visual cues has a high degree of success but will eventually fail for some cases. But haven't I already acknowledged that? I'm not arguing for it here and now, I'm merely saying that that is what was behind the word "he" for a long time.

And what I'm saying is that you, and they, are wrong and have always been wrong about that. There may have once been a legitimate reason for that ignorance, it's becoming harder and harder to justify that ignorance being anything other than willful.

This sounds like you're making a prescriptive judgment, but I've been speaking descriptively.

I'm not following you here. Describing the dissemination of better information about sex, gender, orientation, etc, into the greater public sphere as "promotion for deliberate purposes" seems odd. Deliberate in the sense that LGBTQA+ folks want to live their lives and not be beaten up on the regular for who they are? I mean, sure, okay. That is definitely a kind of agenda.

That's what I meant. Communication happened! Yea!

However, I've seen some people defend new pronoun usages on the basis that language is an ever-shifting and changing social construction (which it is), except that it's a different thing to accept new word usages as they bubble up organically and spontaneously and statistically often and it's a different thing to accept them because they serve an agenda. I'm merely saying that that argument - hey, language changes, look at the word "cool," etc., look at slang, so why are you against new pronoun usages, it's just language changing - doesn't work, even while one can be in favor of new pronoun usages for different reasons (namely, being in favor of the agenda that's behind them).

 

[Emily's Cat]

I confess to being extremely confused about where you get the idea that pronouns are about someone's apparent sex - or to use a more appropriate term, their gender presentation. I honestly do not understand how you have come to this conclusion. It goes against everything I know about not only gender issues, but the English language and the definition of the word itself, and I have never heard someone express that (to me) bizarre concept before this thread. Not even in our earlier threads about pronouns do I recall anyone making that claim. So congratulations, I guess. I've been around the block a few times and you've sprung a new one on me.

Pronouns are personal, and closely tied to a person's gender identity, regardless of how they present. It wouldn't be at all inaccurate to say that a person's name and pronoun is just as important to them as their presentation. It is an important part of the social transition, and resisting it denies a person this important psychological and social aspect of their transition.

Regardless, when someone says "I don't want you to call me she, can you please call me they instead?" why do you think it's acceptable to refuse? Isn't that just rude?

I think you're being a bit cagey here, arthwollipot.

I'm under the impression that you're a heterosexual male. When you see a female-shaped person walking down the street ahead of you, do you actually stop and ponder what gender identity that person has adopted?

Because I'm willing to bet that - just like the rest of the human race - you think "she's attractive" and go on about your day.

The idea of pronouns - as used by a third party - as something deeply personal is a very recent concept.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've looked in vain for any resource that says that the person using the pronoun gets to choose the pronoun they use to refer to another person. It may be because my google search results are biased by my previous activity, but if anyone can show me a reliable source that says that pronouns refer to gender presentation and are chosen by the speaker, I'd appreciate it.

You're approaching the entire concept of pronouns solely and exclusively from the perspective of transgender identity.

When you were in middle school, and little Sally threw a rock at you, did you ask Sally what pronoun they wanted you to use when you told the teacher on them? Or did you tell the teacher "She threw a rock at me" because you had observed that Sally was apparently female?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay, for those who are still missing the point, in the context of European languages, articles and pronouns, when they are not neuter, are based on gender, not biological sex. German "dog" is masculine. German "cat" is feminine. It has nothing to do with biological sex and pointing to 40 year old dictionaries doesn't change that historical foundation.

This is revisionist rationalization of language.

The application of gendered terms in Romance languages is influenced by the characteristics associated with the objects of the terms. Those objects of sentences were deemed to be male of female on the basis of figurative similarities to the characteristics deemed to be those of either a male or a female person or animal. Dogs being male and cats being female is a very, very long running commentary on the personality aspects of male and female humans.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. and is "dog" masculine because of it's DNA or because it was socially assigned a gender?

In english, dog is male and bitch is female; collectively they're called dogs - they inherit the male figuratively.

In english, cow is female and bull is male; collectively they're called cows - they inherit the female figuratively.

In english, doe is female and buck is male; collectively they're called deer - they inherit a neutral figuratively.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, let's try this from a different angle. If someone tells you they have a stallion... do you know what sex their horse is? What if they tell you they just got a filly? Do you know what differentiates a colt from a mare?

How do you tell what inner sense of self a horse has?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about cases where someone has requested that you use a particular pronoun, and the reasons for refusing to comply.

Actually... we're talking about whether a person's request for alternate pronouns obligates you to use them when that person isn't around to hear them.

We're talking about whether or not it's linguistic violence to call Demi Lovato "she" when Lovato isn't party to the conversation at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are conflating transvestitism - a sexual fetish - with being transgender. Your friend's correct pronouns are he/him. I once worked with a drag queen who regularly came to work in clothes traditionally worn by women. I asked because I wasn't sure and he confirmed that he/him were correct. Neither your friend nor my work colleague are transgender.

Alright. Does that mean that I can refer to Eddie Izzard as "he"? They have a long and well documented history of being an open transvestite. Izzard's shift to "girl mode" is a very recent thing.

If a person is a known transvestite, and then begins to claim that they are transgender... are we obligated to disregard their prior claims?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not sure what you are arguing.

See the part about the "thing inferred to be male"

In order for that gender to be inferred, it must be implied. By stating our pronouns, we are explicitly implying )) a gender. Don't leave the implication to be too mild and make sure it is understood and inferred directly.

I see nothing in your definition from 1983 that contradicts the modern usage.

If nothing else, it is very clear that the proper pronoun for someone who presents as male would be he. That would include trans males. It doesn't require a penis.

The highlighted is incorrect. It's quite common for things to be incorrectly inferred, without ever having been implied as such.

And in the context of this thread, it's entirely possible and not uncommon for a person to be inferred to be male (because they are actually male) even if they are wearing female-typical clothing and make-up. Dwayne Johnson in a dress and heels is still going to be inferred to be male. In that case, it's an accurate inference, but it's also because no amount of makeup is going to make The Rock look like a female human. On the other hand, Buck Angel in a dress and heels is going to be inferred to be male, even though they are actually female - because they look male.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Short of a genetic screening, MRI, and/or physical check (which can be misleading), gendered pronouns are almost always applied based on conformity to current social gender norms and self-identification.

Disagree. They're almost always applied based on what the speaker perceived the person's sex to be, with some exceptions for people who are known to be transgender or when we can tell that they're really, really, really trying hard to be seen as the opposite sex.

But if you see a female in trousers, work boots, a flannel shirt, carrying an axe... I bet you still use "she" when describing the incident to your neighbor three days later - because you can tell that their body is that of a female human being.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Same for my work colleague, and that's typical of drag queens. They get addressed as their character when they are in character, and their character is female, so she/her is correct. When they are not in character, they are referred to by their correct pronouns.

Okay. Let's take your premise and the context of this thread.

Are you taking the position that Sherkeu is obligated to refer to their transvestite friend as "she" when Sherkeu knows for a fact that doing so sexually arouses their friend? Are you taking the position that Sherkeu is obligated to actively take part in providing sexual arousal and gratification to their friend?

 

[Doubt]

IANAL, but I also don't take Fox News reporting at face value.

Here is the summary of the bill from the Michigan House page on the bill.

If I'm reading this correctly, it does not make repeated misgendering a crime punishable with prison. It designates it, along with a bunch of other non-gender related things, as a hate-crime which can be used to enhance penalties from other crimes the person has been convicted of.

Again, IANAL, but beating up someone comes with a punishment, but beating someone up because they are a protected class minority makes the crime into a hate crime and allows for more punishment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBBVN06hljo&t=604s

Local lawyer Steve Lehto was a law prof here in Michigan.

The Fox news story is BS. In the video Steve points out that he went through the bill and not only does it not make wrong pronoun use illegal, the bill does not even have the word "pronoun" in it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Wow, a lot of responses coming.

I'm under the impression that you're a heterosexual male.

Your impression is irrelevant. I've told you what pronouns are correct. Right up there under my name and avatar. That's all that matters.

When you see a female-shaped person walking down the street ahead of you, do you actually stop and ponder what gender identity that person has adopted?

Because I'm willing to bet that - just like the rest of the human race - you think "she's attractive" and go on about your day.

Random strangers? No. I don't spend any effort on random strangers in the street. Why should I?

The idea of pronouns - as used by a third party - as something deeply personal is a very recent concept.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong.

You're approaching the entire concept of pronouns solely and exclusively from the perspective of transgender identity.

Yes, because transgender people are the ones to whom it is important.

When you were in middle school, and little Sally threw a rock at you, did you ask Sally what pronoun they wanted you to use when you told the teacher on them? Or did you tell the teacher "She threw a rock at me" because you had observed that Sally was apparently female?

For a start, there's no such thing in "middle" school in this country. Second, that was forty years ago and things, as you have noted, are different now. Third, if that happened today I would absolutely be concerned that I am referring to them correctly.

Actually... we're talking about whether a person's request for alternate pronouns obligates you to use them when that person isn't around to hear them.

We're talking about whether or not it's linguistic violence to call Demi Lovato "she" when Lovato isn't party to the conversation at all.

If you use the wrong pronouns when they're not around, how are you going to learn not to use the wrong pronoun when they are around? Consistency is key in learning and remembering. And as has been already noted, sometimes it can be hard to remember.

Finally (not really) I would repeat my contention that accidental misgendering is not violence - deliberate and repeated misgendering is, because it is a form of harassment and bullying.

Alright. Does that mean that I can refer to Eddie Izzard as "he"? They have a long and well documented history of being an open transvestite. Izzard's shift to "girl mode" is a very recent thing.

Recent doesn't mean invalid. Before 2020, "he" would have been appropriate. After 2023, it's equally appropriate to refer to her by her additional name Suzy. I probably would, if I ever had the privilege of meeting her in person.

If a person is a known transvestite, and then begins to claim that they are transgender... are we obligated to disregard their prior claims?

Um, no? Why would we be obligated to do that? People change. You refer to them in the way that is appropriate now. That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to erase their history, though to be fair there are some people for whom their deadname and old pronouns elicit traumatic memories of abuse and mistreatment. In those cases it would be mean to dwell on it, and abuse to insist on it.

Okay. Let's take your premise and the context of this thread.

Are you taking the position that Sherkeu is obligated to refer to their transvestite friend as "she" when Sherkeu knows for a fact that doing so sexually arouses their friend? Are you taking the position that Sherkeu is obligated to actively take part in providing sexual arousal and gratification to their friend?

I would suggest that Sherkeu ask how their friend would like to be addressed. Personally, if it is clear from an open and frank discussion that that person is asking to be referred to with a particular pronoun solely for the purposes of sexual gratification, then I think the conversation would then kind of need to be about whether sexual gratification in public is necessarily appropriate.

So many issues can be solved by honest and open communication. I don't know why more people don't do it.

(That having been said, neither you nor I, not knowing the person under discussion, should be making any kind of assumptions about their identity or sexual preferences.)

 

[Sherkeu]

arthwollipot-

I want the discretion to address a person however I want to address them and if that happens to be their sex-at-birth reality - do their feelings come before my free speech. ???. Do you think I should be liable for some harm to that person? Do i need a 'good' reason' where I ask and do research on every person I meet?

This isnt really a real life problem for me as no one I address as a male has ever told me I HAD to address them as female, even if they prefer it from the general public. My (few) trans friends are all cool about that so far.
I have one new trans (male) friend who just came out back in May and I have not yet used their new name/pronoun though in conversation those dont get used much. He hasnt made it an issue or corrected me at all. He seems happy that I am accepting of his change and he could confide in me about it. For now, addressing him as an actual woman would feel like I am playing 'pretend' games with an adult man I have known for 10 years.

Those are 'my' feelings. My feelings matter too. If they dont like it, they can tell me themselves.

 

[Mojo]

In english, cow is female and bull is male; collectively they're called cows - they inherit the female figuratively.

Cattle. "Cows" are female cattle.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you use the wrong pronouns when they're not around, how are you going to learn not to use the wrong pronoun when they are around? Consistency is key in learning and remembering. And as has been already noted, sometimes it can be hard to remember.

Quite frankly, because in my view, they aren't "wrong" pronouns in the first place. Or more specifically, the demand that I use a pronoun based on personal internal subjective belief in opposition of observable material reality is the wrong pronoun.

If I refer to a male person with the pronoun "he" when they are not around, I'm doing so because I accurately observe them to be male, and "he" is the pronoun used for males. If I politely refer to a male person with the pronoun "she" while they are around, I'm making a concession to their delicate feelings by using the wrong pronoun for them out of compassion.

 

[arthwollipot]

arthwollipot-

I want the discretion to address a person however I want to address them and if that happens to be their sex-at-birth reality - do their feelings come before my free speech. ???. Do you think I should be liable for some harm to that person? Do i need a 'good' reason' where I ask and do research on every person I meet?

No, you do not have the discretion to address a person however you want - or rather, if you address them in a way that they do not like, they have the discretion to punch you in the face.

This isnt really a real life problem for me as no one I address as a male has ever told me I HAD to address them as female, even if they prefer it from the general public. My (few) trans friends are all cool about that so far.

Cool.

I have one new trans (male) friend who just came out back in May and I have not yet used their new name/pronoun though in conversation those dont get used much. He hasnt made it an issue or corrected me at all. He seems happy that I am accepting of his change and he could confide in me about it. For now, addressing him as an actual woman would feel like I am playing 'pretend' games with an adult man I have known for 10 years.

You'll get used to it eventually. Like I said, sometimes it can be hard to remember. But it's worth making the effort. If it doesn't matter to them, that's fine too. Pronouns aren't important to everybody. But they are important to some.

Those are 'my' feelings. My feelings matter too. If they dont like it, they can tell me themselves.

Yes, like I said, honest and open communication is the key. If someone has a problem with the way you are referring to them, they will let you know.

My contention, as it always has been, but which I feel I need to repeat again because it seems to be frequently missed, is that there is no reason to refuse someone's request when they have asked you to refer to them in a particular way. For someone to persistently and deliberately ignore a person's request in this manner is not only rude, it could escalate to the level of harassment and abuse.

 

[Sherkeu]

No, you do not have the discretion to address a person however you want - or rather, if you address them in a way that they do not like, they have the discretion to punch you in the face.

Are you joking? or are you actually saying discretion to my right to free speech as to what I am comfortable speaking might involve violence to my female body?