Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
As someone who identifies as non-binary, and understands that Gender is separate to Sex, it is astounding to me how people who claim to be in support of the LGBTQIA+ community continue to misgender and use incorrect pronouns. What is most concerning about this, is that it seems to be a systematic denial and refusal to accept Gender non-conforming people into society.
I provide the following example
Person A goes by they/them
Person B goes by he/him
Person B and A are in a group setting
Person B refers to A as he or she, on countless occasions.
There are several explanations for this type of behaviour the first being quite simply a mistake, or error which is understandable. The issue comes from when Person B is consistently informed of the correct pronouns and continues making the same error.
Is this then a person continuously making the same mistake over a short time period?
What about when people, through ignorance, intentionally ignore someone's preferred pronouns, despite having knowledge of their gender non-conformity. Is this still a mistake of fact?
Finally we come to the most important question.
Intentional mis gendering and the usage of incorrect pronouns is assumed as a weapon by those who wish to showcase that they don't believe in the existence of GenderQueer people. For example Person C may 'non maliciously' refer to Person A as he/him, simply because there is a belief against the existence of, or whether or not Pronouns should be used. This is of course on it's own discriminatory, yet, often these people will justify it as, 'basic biology.'
Questions
Is there a legitimate, philosophical reason for one to use the incorrect pronouns? (Excluding cases where someone's safety may be in danger.)
Should people simply refer people to their correct pronouns regardless of their belief on the matter, given how little the usage of pronouns affect other people?
How much does the continuous usage of the incorrect pronouns suggest a large amount of transphobia and xenophobia within society, even if the circumstance, is unintentional, but continuous?
1. There is not legitimate philosophical reason to use someone's incorrect pronouns, as whether or not someone can debate someone with pronouns that don't conform to general society, does not matter at all on the pronouns of that person. Whereas is many other philosophical debates, this would be important. For example, in religion, the question of God cannot be asked without literally questioning God, and often people arguing for the non-existence of God are non-believers.
2.Yes, referring to people by their correct pronouns is simple, and easy to do, it should be done in order to help foster positive relationship, discourse and debate.
3.The continuous use of incorrect pronouns, regardless of intention, showcases a large amount of xenophobia and transphobia exists within society, even when these are found to be unintentional, repeated cases of unintentional mis-gendering are still problematic.
I provide the following example
Person A goes by they/them
Person B goes by he/him
Person B and A are in a group setting
Person B refers to A as he or she, on countless occasions.
There are several explanations for this type of behaviour the first being quite simply a mistake, or error which is understandable. The issue comes from when Person B is consistently informed of the correct pronouns and continues making the same error.
Is this then a person continuously making the same mistake over a short time period?
What about when people, through ignorance, intentionally ignore someone's preferred pronouns, despite having knowledge of their gender non-conformity. Is this still a mistake of fact?
Finally we come to the most important question.
Intentional mis gendering and the usage of incorrect pronouns is assumed as a weapon by those who wish to showcase that they don't believe in the existence of GenderQueer people. For example Person C may 'non maliciously' refer to Person A as he/him, simply because there is a belief against the existence of, or whether or not Pronouns should be used. This is of course on it's own discriminatory, yet, often these people will justify it as, 'basic biology.'
Questions
Is there a legitimate, philosophical reason for one to use the incorrect pronouns? (Excluding cases where someone's safety may be in danger.)
Should people simply refer people to their correct pronouns regardless of their belief on the matter, given how little the usage of pronouns affect other people?
How much does the continuous usage of the incorrect pronouns suggest a large amount of transphobia and xenophobia within society, even if the circumstance, is unintentional, but continuous?
1. There is not legitimate philosophical reason to use someone's incorrect pronouns, as whether or not someone can debate someone with pronouns that don't conform to general society, does not matter at all on the pronouns of that person. Whereas is many other philosophical debates, this would be important. For example, in religion, the question of God cannot be asked without literally questioning God, and often people arguing for the non-existence of God are non-believers.
2.Yes, referring to people by their correct pronouns is simple, and easy to do, it should be done in order to help foster positive relationship, discourse and debate.
3.The continuous use of incorrect pronouns, regardless of intention, showcases a large amount of xenophobia and transphobia exists within society, even when these are found to be unintentional, repeated cases of unintentional mis-gendering are still problematic.
Comments (168)
The habits of a long life. For you the issue is gender. For me, beverages.
I stopped there and did not read the rest of your post. My wife and son and I were just talking about this the other day. I'm sure you and they are right, and I am wrong, but when it boils down to it, I'm just lazy and I don't give a shit.
For me to use the proper pronouns makes the improper assumption that I care about you more than I care about anyone else. Unless and until you do something that really makes me want to remember you, then we'll all be lucky if I remember your name two nano-seconds after you tell me as I look you in the eye and shake your hand. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would expect anyone to give more than two shits about their name, much less pronoun preference.
I've always been astounded (and looked up to and admired and respected) people who remembered other people's names without having really developed any kind of relationship with them.
But that doesn't mean I don't support people's rights to swing any damn way they want.
Now maybe I'll go back and read the rest of what you wrote to see if it changes my position any.
How do you distinguish between philosophy and politics?
Would you say that we use philosophical worldviews to guide our political choices? Quoting Bradaction
Haven’t you answered you own question? There are many who don’t understand the philosophical-empirical underpinnings of gender as a separate category from sex. Thus, they justify their political decisions on the basis of this philosophical limitation.
Quoting Bradaction
In order to answer the question of how to get people to use correct pronouns, you first have to deal with how to get people to understand the concept of psychological gender. Even when you achieve this , it will still
be a slow process to get the language to evolve. Edicts, pressure , cajoling and threats arent enough. Language changes on the basis of pragmatic usefulness. As people see for themselves the various advantages of changing pronouns , they will go along.
I completely agree with you, but from what I saw on the thread on changing sex, there are individuals on this site who have their own agenda, and for their own wishes, would like to rule out any individual definitions of gender identification. I believe that we have the right to choose our identity, and I hope that you are not bombarded with replies which tell you that we should only define ourselves accordingly to chromosomes and other so called aspects of essential gender. My own view is that we should be able to choose our own identity, and, of course, we live in a social world of bodies, but we may justify our identity rather than simply being told who we are, and who we may become.
Yep. Nail on the head. This is an issue many people won't be able to understand and, even if sympathetic, will struggle to practice.
For the vast majority of people, there is no distinction between sex and gender. For you, the pronoun denotes gender roles and identities, not birth sex, while for most that distinction doesn't really exist. I agree that people who deliberately use the wrong pronoun are prejudiced people, but then I don't think accusing people of using pronouns in the way they've been taught as weapons when there are more obvious and realistic reasons why someone might not care to make pronouns an individualist concept is any better.
Sometimes a little pressure and ostracism goes a long way: How long would it take you to notice the issue if people started referring to you as a different pronoun when you misgendered someone? People learn quickly when the feedback is quick and direct. First offenses may be forgivable, but beyond that it's becoming egregious.
It's because dumb boomers don't care - even the leftist ones. Misgendering is cruel and unusual and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I'm sorry you're around those types of people and hopefully as the new generation comes of age they spread their message and norms and the older generation dies off.
Water off a duck. Call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner.
Quoting K Turner
Bingo!
This is a serious issue @James Riley, the younger generation is suffering and the Boomers ignore their cries of pain/calls for reform. Denying someone's identity is tantamount to genocide.
Gay people have come to be accepted in society by most of us. That's a very good thing. Although I have a lot of sympathy for some people who suffer from gender dysphoria and similar conditions, society as a whole has not come to accept those conditions. If an adult biological man identifies as a women in a committed fashion, I'm willing to refer to her as a female using female pronouns.
It is my understanding that people who refer to themselves as "genderqueer" don't consider themselves either males or females. Is that correct? Many, including myself, don't consider that a legitimate social distinction. It seems much more like a political statement than a social one. Perhaps over time it will come to be accepted. You're really young. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of what gay people have had to go through to get where they are today, it would give you a better perspective.
You should refer to me as "Your Majesty."
That would work if there were a strong consensus in favor of the new pronouns, but this is not the case society-wide yet. It is currently concentrated in academia , some larger corporations and among younger populations. Conservative and rural communities are not applying any peer pressure or ‘ ostracism’ in this direction. Most likely the opposite is the case. Neither is the senior population likely to go along quickly.
You're treating the issue as if it were a matter of naming, it's not, it's a matter of method. Old folk like me have had upwards of fifty years practicing the method of choosing a pronoun on the basis of visual cues (or things like names if those fail us). What we're being asked to do now is not just learn the correct term, it's to change the entire method by which we've spent the last fifty years determining the right term. It's not easy, even for those of us willing to give it a try, not too hard either, we'll get there in the end. It's one thing to re-invent an aspect of language - language changes all the time - but it's another entirely to treat those still trying to catch up with very fast moving changes as if they were the enemy.
The fact of the matter is that people, back in my younger days, were misgendered all the time. It was the fashion for boys to have long hair (as I did), and I, along with many others, were frequently referred to as she, using the say-what-you-see method which did for us back then. No one gave a fuck. We knew we were boys, we knew why they'd used 'she', there was nothing more to it.
I don't question why language and gender concepts are changing, they always do, and what you now think of as progressive will itself be seen as stubbornly conservative one day. What I do question is why there's such a strong desire to make enemies of anyone not waiving the flag for your chosen cause. To use the infamous but apposite cliche - there are children dying from poverty by the millions, who gives a fuck if pronoun evolution isn't happening quite as fast as you'd like.
No. This is what young people suffering looks like.
It may be cruel but hardly unusual. It is still the norm in many places. Until only a decade ago it was the new pronouns that were unusual. I wouldn’t be surprised if i. another few decades a fresh set of pronouns become ‘correct’ and the ones you are using are considered cruel and unusual.
Are you comparing someone who fails to call a non-binary person "they" to a guard at Auschwitz locking a Jew in a gas chamber in the 1940s?
As with the thread on climate change, staying calm and sticking to facts is more convincing than excessive hyperbole.
Just my opinion.
:100: :up:
I think that your post raises the important point that people can be misgendered even if they are not gender dysphoric or transgender at all. We live in a world in which people are perceived in gender categories and mistakes will occur. I have a gender dysphoric friend who used to get into arguments if they were not perceived in the chosen gender, but the truth of the matter is that we are all referred to as he or she on the basis of appearance most of the time, and this is more a matter of convenience rather than on any basis of philosophies about gender choice. But, in some cases, people are requesting that this framework is cast aside entirely. Some people find this easier than others.
I agree with your empirical assessment, but this can be changed with social action. As the population ages the elderly conservative population dies out. Additionally, if we can make it a norm through social action to e.g. yell at people who misgender others, I believe we can bring about meaningful change especially if we organize.
Also I agree with your point re: "cruel and unusual" punishment. Only cruel, not unusual. :up:
Shouldn't the person still make an effort to use and refer to the person as the correct pronouns however, regardless of the focus? And of course, if the focus means that the person unintentionally uses the wrong pronoun, should they still apologise?
So what Isaac -- is poverty in the US not a problem because poverty in Africa is more severe? Suffering is suffering.
Do you want the coffee or not?
This seems like it is quite ignorant, you may not give a shit, but when it has been proven that using the correct pronouns can reduce the chance of that person becoming depressed and committing suicide, would you still claim that you have no moral responsibility if one of these actions are committed? Regardless of this, is it still right to not give a shit when these actions do affect the potentially safety of an individual?
When you talk about not giving a shit, are you implying that you would make no effort whatsoever to use the correct pronoun, and would not apologise for using the incorrect pronoun, or that where possible you would use the correct pronoun(i.e. remembering that pronouns)?
Also it does not seem accurate to imply that it is too difficult to refer to someone as 'they'. This is because they is very commonly used in place of a gender pronoun, when one does not have any knowledge of the gender of the person they are referring to. I.e. Whose phone is that? 'I don't know, they left in a hurry."
Would prefer a hot chocolate thanks!
Think so, or don't think so?
Using the correct pronoun is simply commonplace regardless of the gender of the person. A woman misgendered as a 'he' would be immediately apologised to and the statement of incorrect genders would be retracted.
Oh I definitely give a fuck about the loss of focus. The shift in the 'big issues' of the day from third-world poverty to first-world individualism is literally killing people. I just don't give a fuck about being misgendered.
I would say that philosophy is a fundamental feature of politics, given that philosophy is theoretically attempting to understand the things that humanity doesn't entirely understand.
But is this philosophical limitation therefore not legitimate? As most science suggests a difference between sex and gender? Isn't the argument taken from these people just an argument from ignorance?
'I don't understand the difference between sex and gender, therefore there is no difference.'
(Please inform me if this is not what you mean.)
I don't think philosophy would justify this argument.
But, the existence of the pronoun 'they' and 'them', being extremely prevalent within society suggests that this evolution has already happened, and we should just direct these now to people who choose to identify as such.
Speaking for myself, I give a fuck about shit I don't understand, especially when I am, or might be held to account for it. I suppose someone imputing to me a motivation for my lack of consideration is not unlike me refusing to use their preferred pronoun: They are presuming I don't like them when that is not the case, and I'm presuming they are X when they are not X. We are both wrong. But they might pump the breaks on their assumptions if they expect everyone else to do likewise.
The simple fact of the matter is this: Just because someone doesn't use a preferred pronoun, even after they've been told repeatedly, does not mean they are fucking with you, or they don't like you, or they think you can't be that way. It could be that they just don't care enough about you to make a mental note. If the perpetrator of "genocide" wants to engage the person then the burden is on him to work some courtesy into his/her/it's communication. But if the "victim" is the one making contact, they should go some where else if they don't like what they are getting. When they go, they should not fall into the trap they eschew by speculating about motivation. If they want to know, ask.
There a generational differences, just like regional differences. Out west, lynching and nooses have exactly zero to do with race. It's usually related to horse theft or other vigilante justice. But nowadays, the southern connotations have to be considered everywhere. It's a mistake, however, for someone to impute racism every time they see a noose. If they want to know, ask.
But in the end, as someone who is ready, willing and able to turn over the reigns to AOC and younger generation, I don't like being out of the loop. I'm trying like hell to understand what would make a person think they are or should be so important to a stranger.
I guess I'm just lucky in that I am happily lacking in social intercourse. I live in the sticks and rarely go to town. When I do, I don't engage much, especially when a pronoun would be called for. Don't worry, I'll be dead in 30 years or less and you all can hug each other while you piss on my grave. LOL!
But I take your question seriously and here's my answer: First, I would never intentionally offend. It sounds like I get a pass for the first innocent mistake. But neither will I spend an ounce of effort trying to please someone I don't care about. So if I'm called out, then, rather than offend, I'll walk away and won't have anything to do with you. If you kill yourself over that, I won't feel an ounce of guilt. You need thicker skin to live in this world.
Quoting Bradaction
Hell, I didn't know I could use "they." I thought I might get strung up for using "they" if "they" wanted to be called "she" or "it" or "he" or L or G or B or T or Q or whatever. I use "they" all the time. And "you" and "people." But I can get in trouble for saying "you people." In boot camp I got in trouble for saying "you". "Private calling me 'ewe'? Do I look like a female sheep, Private?"
I think everyone should grow a fucking hide.
It sounds cold, but unless I want something from you, I'd just avoid you. The burden is upon me if it is me seeking to engage. Otherwise, you can leave, or I'll send your saddle home.
Just saying
This is a vitally important aspect of society that we must not forget, and I completely agree with your interpretation. The ability to find individualism through identity is what prevents major conformity throughout the world.
I think the most important here is that it becomes an issue that people at the least attempt to practise, and its not exactly something overly difficulty to grasp given a small amount of time.
Then it would also be Trumpian to simply call someone pronouns based on the way the appear. There is also no existence of narcissistic ideals to believe one is important enough to remember pronouns. Meeting someone of a one off occasion is easy to correct when the incorrect pronouns are used, and also understandable. However, when this spills over into continuous incorrect use of pronouns, despite being informed on countless occasions the correct pronouns, is borderline bullying.
It has nothing to do with the importance of the person, it has to do with respecting their identity, most people would automatically correct someone who calls someone who goes by she/her, he/him, however if the person makes no effort to correct this, despite knowing the answer, it is bullying.
...but a problem arises when “they” is used to refer to a singular subject of a verb. Consider this example: “they are going to the theater”. If the subject of this verb refers to a single individual person, grammar requires it concord in number with the verb. In that case we should have “they is going to the theater”, and that distinction would work admirably to show that the subject is singular rather than plural...
...except the language will not admit of it. The very language we share in common serves as a barrier to the effacing of gender in contemporary society...along with all the other barriers it faces.
No, it would not. Trump is a narcissist. Trumpian would be doing what the person wants, not how the person appears. So, Trump may want to be seen as a stud, but he's not. He's a slothenly POS. Should we call him "stud" because that is how he sees himself?
Quoting Bradaction
But it has everything to do with the person expecting others to find the import in them. That is presumptuous. X can see him/her/itself any way they want. That's cool. But if they expect everyone else to agree with them, that is Trumpian. And if someone does not respect their view of themselves, and they get depressed and kill themselves because some insensitive asshole doesn't give a shit about them, that's their problem.
Everyone is entitled to demand and receive respect. But respect does not constitute another agreeing with how you see your self. You can see yourself as the King of England. I'm not going to call you "Your Highness." Besides, if you do not identify as "she" are you saying there is something wrong with being a she? Are you misogynistic? Sexist? If you look like a woman and someone calls you "she" but you identify as a man, then the least you could do is try looking like a man. It's disconcerting and cognitively dissonant to call a person who looks like a woman "he". That's like trying to call Trump a stud. The brain doesn't work that way.
My reaction was the same. Not sure how I might have responded if I was encouraged to take a moment and think about it, and if I could, please call you "they," that it would mean much to you, but would be understandable if I wasn't there just yet or if my old habits just weren't to be broken.
As others have said, the emergency of this situation is limited enough that we can take our time, accept as much as we're comfortable with, and slow down with the condemnation.
I think that quick and direct feedback is definitely a necessity, and that if there is a continued and careless is unnecessary.
Furthermore, I think the evidence supports this viewpoint, with Google Ngrams suggesting very sudden drops of derogatory slurs around times that happen to coincide with civil rights movements relating to the term.
:100: I try to not be an asshole I'm comfortable with it if that is the way someone wants to see me. Time for dinner.
It's a slight irony that the future for humanity has little say is the systems that run it, people can only vote when they turn 18, meaning that there could be up to a 4 year electoral gap in issues not deemed worthy by people who are older. Age does not equal wisdom, and it would be fair to suggests that issues that the younger cohorts of people find troubling should be an issue for the older in society to find troubling, as the goal of society should be to improve it's future, not its present. Improving the future does require improving the present, but improving the present does not require improving the future.
If I refer to you in the third person, I’m not speaking to you. If I’m speaking to you, I refer to you with the pronoun “you”, which is genderless. How, therefore, is it insulting to you if I call you “he”or “she” when talking to others? Is it because those others might relate that back to you? Wouldn’t those others, your friends, correct me in that moment and say, “they don’t like to be referred to as a he or she, but rather as a they”?
It's an interesting matter. I agree age does not equal wisdom. Dumb young people often grow up to be dumb old people. It's true that we should all aim to improve the future. The hard part is getting agreement about what 'improve' actually means and how it would look. One person's idea of improvement is another person's idea of a catastrophe. And both sides generally think it's obvious what the result will be.
I think this is a naive view. There are certainly aspects of our identity we can't choose. We can't choose to be an adult or a minor. We can't characterize ourselves as someone who needs particular qualifications unless we have them. You can't change your identity if it is done for fraudulent reasons or to deceive someone. If you want to legally change your name, at least in my state, you have to petition the court. As long as women are treated differently than men are legally or socially, society has a legitimate interest in a person's sexual identity.
For example, it is reasonable for parents to object to their girl child having to use a bathroom also used by biological males.
Genderqueer is an umbrella term provided which elaborates on people who do not fit within the social constraints of either male or female, so I would say you are correct here.
Quoting T Clark
A political statement is a term used to describe any act or non-verbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision made for or by a political group. I don't believe considering oneself as neither male nor female is a political statement. There is no decision to be influenced by identifying as such, other then the recognition of their gender-identity, of course simply identifying something with the sole purpose of receiving recognition for people like you seems silly, if not counter-intuitive. It would be like joining a political party whose only policy is to allow you to vote for the political party on the ballot.
Furthermore, identifying as genderqueer, has a much larger impact on society, and is thus a social distinction. For example, identifying as genderqueer actively challenges that social understanding of gender, which is a social construct. It also challenges Religious beliefs, which in the modern day, is mostly social, and not political. Atheists may even argue that religion too, is a social construct. On top of that gender non-conformity actively challenges family values and other values that are mainly political.
Yes, they/them may have a political statement, but it is secondary to it's social distinction, and the only political statement, is recognition of the status of gender queer. Other aspects that may be influenced politically by gender non-conformity, is the roles of gender in laws, the relationships between people, family, etcetera. Ironically, these are also things advocated for by other important movements such as feminism, equality, civil rights, libertarianism.
Adults make decisions for minors all the time. That's the way it's supposed to be. The underlying assumption is that parents are the best people to make those decisions until a minor is old enough to make them for themselves. At exactly what age majority begins is open to discussion. Eighteen years old makes sense to me, at least for society as it is now. That's the age at which people go out on their own to work or college. People before a certain age are not mature or cognitively developed enough to control their own lives. Fourteen is definitely too young.
In this forum, all I had to do to get my name changed was to petition the mods. It was an extemporaneous act of mine that so persuaded them...but it was in my better interest. For my former user name was also my real one (which might have led to eventual difficulties...like if I decided to run for President), and now I have become at least half of a famous cartoon chicken.
This is an inaccurate definition of what "political" means.
Quoting Bradaction
The things you describe are definitely political in nature. If you are planning action to change society, that's politics. It's not just you making a change for your own personal satisfaction. As you note, you're trying to change people's attitudes and beliefs. That is politics, pure and simple. There's nothing wrong with politics, but that's not what's at stake. You have not made a moral argument that society is obligated to make the changes you desire.
This is fallacious thinking, and Ad Hominem, suggesting that because I am young, I couldn't possible understand. Furthermore, this is an irrelevant conclusion, the conclusion of What Gay people had to go through to get where they are today is completely irrelevant when considering questions about pronouns in modern day society. Gender Orientation and Sexual Orientation are different topics,
Saying that someone is really young is completely irrelevant, philosophy is about analysing ideas, not the people behind them.
Yes, well, it is probably appropriate that the forum has less stringent standards than society at large.
Quoting Leghorn
As far as I know, Hanover is still looking for a running mate.
Quoting Leghorn
As you probably know, a leghorn is a type of full-sized real chicken.
I know humans are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Yes, we can probably try to execute more than one improvement. But some might think we should prioritize. Some might also think this pronoun issue is a navel-gazing, self-centered first world problem. After all, starvation, war, global warming and all that. I suppose one could view the pronoun issue not as a navel-gazing, self-centered issue, but an issue of trying to get us to think about and be more sensitive to others. However, we just aren't used to people self-advocating. It's much easier to have you, Bradaction, ask me to care about this or that person over there than, say, to have you ask me to think about you; or to have that kid over there demand I think about him.
Often, these three things can be vital enough to change the future, and create major and sudden change within the structure and make up of society, as in the case of slurs and Ngram viewer, it shows a sudden drop, followed by a more minor decrease.
Whatever positive changes have taken place in the status of transgender and genderqueer people in recent years are completely and absolutely tied to the improvements in status that gay people have fought for for decades. For you not to know that proves my point.
Hyperbole can be useful, but I think the link to genocide is maybe false. An act tantamount to genocide would be the mass killing of non-binary people, which is technically not genocide itself, because of the fact that genocide is the mass killing of an ethnic or racial group.
There would be a clear difference between a legitimate effort to use the correct pronouns, and someone who simply doesn't care. Someone who doesn't care, and continually makes the mistake is an issue. Someone who continually makes a mistake, while legitimately trying is not.
There is always the issue of intention, and I believe that intention is paramount to the discussion.
I am actually. I'm probably going to pick whoever has the most up votes. That'd make sense.
This is a really good point.
I'd give you an upvote, but you're at 69 and I'm unwilling to change that.
gendering people based on how they look is the norm
anyone that goes againts the norm has a hidden agenda
if you look like a girl im calling you a girl
if you look like a guy im calling you a guy
i dont care what genitals you have
if i cant guess your gender im asking for your name
This is an irrelevant conclusion, Gender Identity is not Sexual Orientation, and I don't know any person who asks for different pronouns based on Sexual Orientation. Instead differing pronouns are asked for because, of someone identifying as neither female or male.
they need to accommodate the majority
I agree, things could easily become social norms, if we gave enough effort to arguing the morality of using the correct pronouns.
I don't think so. Pronouns are not simply gendered, pronouns such as, I, we, they, them, provide no information to the person of gender, as these pronouns do not inherently possess a gender. On contrary, he, she, her do possess an inherent gendered description. As such, removing gender-neutral terms in a gender-neutral society seems like it would only increase the difficulty of communication, without any seeming benefit to the idea of a gender neutral society.
Gender-Neutrality is the lack of gendered terms, and given that these terms aren't gendered they would not need to be removed.
A lot of people would not take any offence to be called they or them, in fact most people will politely correct someone when they are mis gendered. There is no need to call someone who goes by 'they' as 'she', at it's best its just disrespectful. It's simple to ask, and even if you get it wrong, most people won't be too frustrated by this as long as you show a willingness to be open to change, and attempt it. That's all that's being asked.
Isn't that the ideology of most people, most people don't seek others out without wanting something from them, even if that something is something they don't 'want', it's still something they may have to do, such as receiving a punishment. People seek out people for reasons, and there is never no reason to seek someone out, regardless of how small that reason is.
Because age is fact, and gender is a social construct.
Furthermore, people don't 'choose' their gender identity. Do you choose to be whatever gender you are? No, you believe you are born like that. Many non-binary people feel the same.
Because it denies the existence of my gender identity, and questions the validity of my identity.
It would be like me calling you an alien to your friends.
Not at all, only that you don't identify with the gender. It would be like me saying that I'm not an Australian National Party Supporter, this doesn't mean I hate Australian National Party Supporters, merely that I don't identify with the group
This is very true. I guess I have a very serious flaw where my philosophical pursuits comes from attempting to understand the world around me, and I often forget that it is also the job of the philosopher to try and find a way forward. Perhaps this is an area of my thinking that I need to fix, and remember that understanding is just as important as the future.
I'm disappointed that I did not have the foresight to put such a question into my original post, and I admire you for allowing me to opening my mind and change my way of thinking permanently about philosophy.
I guess I just also considered understanding the most important part of philosophy, and forgot as to why we want to understand.
Right. If I seek something from someone who wants me to do something I don't want to do, I won't deal with them. I'll go elsewhere. If they come to me, they take me as they find me. If Salma Hayek wants me to call her "him" then that will probably be the end of it. I George Clooney wants me to call him "her", likewise.
But if you are flying their flag, don't blame someone for figuring you are one of them, even if you have told them you are not. Likewise, don't go looking like a man unless you plan on getting treated like one.
Truth doesn't care about what you feel. I know that I am male because my soul is male. A person either has a male soul or a female soul. That is reality and no construction can make it otherwise
its not the soul, its the brain, or hormones or something
there is no soul
or how about i call you whatever the heck i want to call you
because its a free country
if you dont like it you can go cry in the corner
i dont identify as a human
im god
call me god from now on
lets argue the morality of trying to force others to say certain things
The soul is the identity of the whole biological organism of a human
The soul is not something you can pinpoint with science. With Hegel's logic, for example, two terms of a dialectic sublate each other, which just means something new EMERGES that is greater than the parts. Our identifies are greater than the parts of the body and you have, for whatever reason there may be, either a male soul or a female soul. You can't change this latter in life. If your body is male you soul likely is too, and so on for the female form
I agree that truth doesn't care what you feel. But I know I am neither male nor female because I don't have an either male nor female soul. Furthermore, this is not even reality.
Where is your evidence that a person either has a male soul or a female? Where are your evidence that there are different types of souls? What defines a soul? What suggests that there is a strictly female or male soul? What about societies in Africa where they traditionally believe in a third gender? How do we even know that souls exist?
Most importantly where is your evidence for these assertations. You cannot claim that something is reality, without providing any evidence as to why that is reality, especially if that belief is contested, and would defeat the entire purpose of reality in general.
You may believe that there is only a male or female soul, but you cannot prove this, thus you cannot claim it to be the unquestionable reality.
Souls cannot be proven to exist, and even they could, it would be impossible to define whether souls are female or male, just as a person's eye colour can't tell you how many crimes they have committed.
You are asking me to prove something obvious. It's not my fault you have a psychological disorder. Maybe you'll start claiming you are a gorilla and ask for proof your not. Read my last post on souls above
Also, I can tell one someone has committed a crime. You got a problem if you can't
Except for the fact that this is the basis of philosophy? To question the 'facts' and 'truths' around us. Philosophy is the interpretation of the rules of nature.
Furthermore, this is extremely patronising, the fact that someone belongs to a generation that holds different beliefs does not justify your beliefs nor mean that theirs are wrong. It opens a door for debate, which again is the point of philosophy. Bringing up the age of someone you debate against is a fallacy on principle.
People claim now that their inner animal is their identity. What's your argument against them?
This is a false equivalence. One cannot identify as God, because God is a defined term that does not exist on a spectrum. God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. You are neither of these things, and it can be proven that you are neither of these things, because it is a fixed, set definition, Gender is know to exist on a spectrum, or even a plane, this means that there are many different gender stances and identities that could be taken.
Again this is a false equivalence, age is deterministic, and is based solely on your date of birth. Age is not a social construct, it is factual and provable. Gender is a social construct.
Just because there are different ways the male and female form can be does not mean that there is not truly two forms and it certainly doesn't there are more then two gender identities
This is fundamentally not true. Adults do not know certain things instinctively, and age does not define how much someone knows.
For example, in 5 months time i shall turn 18 and become an adult. Does this mean that when I turn 18 I shall suddenly rejected everything that I've said in this thread? No!
Finally, I have to stress this again, age does not mean that someone can't hold an opinion, belief, or opinion that is correct. Adulthood does not imply an all-knowing understanding of the world, or philosophy wouldn't exist.
How do you know what adults know?
Where is your argument for this conclusion. This is circular reasoning.
[list]
[*] I believe there are only two genders
[*] This is because I believe there are only two genders
[list]
Your argument doesn't prove anything, and isn't actually relevant to the original questions.
If they draft you will you go with the men or women battalions?
I do not. But I do know that Adults are not all knowing (unless this entire website is a sham meant to deceive me until I reach adulthood), And I do know that no one possesses intelligence simply due to reaching a certain age- Ideas should be debated on due to their merit as an idea, not as the age of their creators.
If I was a 70 year old person, would you still say that my arguments are flawed due to my age? What if I was 40? 18? I'm 18 in 5 months, do my views suddenly become reasonable?
I believe that using the correct pronouns is not an imposition but a social norm, or at least when referring to all other members of society.
Usually there's a reason someone says one pronoun or another. Usually that's based on certain aesthetics.
It's usually fairly automatic for a person to decide what pronoun to use.
Is it an imposition to correct someone who would rather not comply?
What about with an identity like Orthodoxy, asking women to cover themselves, sometimes head to toe?
Some people think one is a more fair ask than the other. Usually for moral reasons.
If they're operating under entirely different moral frameworks, are they even perceiving the same reality? Do the aesthetics of gender overlap? Or do they contradict reality?
I think in an instance when someone chooses not to comply it's more likely that any reasonable discourse between the two figures would break down. This argument could also be extended to someone who is racist, or sexist though.
Quoting Lil
I would say that the willingness to use a certain term after being corrected would then make this fine. It's easy to make a mistake of fact. as long as the mistake is corrected when informed of their incorrect usage.
Yeah, you can go around offending people if you want. In my experience the gender variant crowd isn't usually the most physically intimidating. Maybe, run by the old folks home afterward and slap pudding out of the hands of the elderly. Or upon learning of a deep seated character flaw it would be advisable not to act on it. It makes it harder for your primate brain to reverse course in the future. But, I imagine corrective action in this case is like pouring perfume in a sewer grate. Make my day and tell me you aren't from the US.
Sorry, late boomer here. Why is it such a big offence to call a he a she, or a them a he? Like, you guys think she are bad?
For someone with gender dysphoria the mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity is a cause of distress for them, which coupled with the discrimination they often face makes for the way others think and talk about their gender a matter of significance for them.
Rejecting those labels can be like opening Pandora's box, where the individual is confronted with the fact they have not (yet) developed a real identity.
Inner turmoil and insecurity predictably ensue, and the subsequent obsession with new genders and gender labels is the confused individual trying to claw their way back into the comfort of the land of masks and artificial identities.
To put the genie back into the bottle, the individual must reinstate a new artificial identity; an act of self-deceit for which they require all of society's affirmation (just like the artificial identities of traditional gender labels).
If you keep telling me that your name is Olivier and I keep calling you Oliver or Amy then it won't surprise me if you get annoyed by it.
Story of my life.
What I think is a problem with some of this thread is that it is ignoring the position of the person who created the thread discussion speaking about their own dysphoria. Also, in the 'about' section the person is saying that they are 17 years old, and if this is true, then it may be an extremely difficult time. Of course, this is a philosophy forum and not a psychology self-help resource, but at the same time, I think that some sensitivity is important here and I am just hoping that Bradaction has not set him/herself up to receive a garbage can of opinions about transgender issues.
Quoting Cuthbert
Trying to resist the urge of using this one...
Again, comparing this to proper names is comparing apples to oranges. Its more like you're white but tell people you're black and you get annoyed that they keep calling you white.
If gender and sex are different things then how do you know if others are referring to your sex or gender when using pronouns?
Upvote for the image.
I mean this as a serious question. Would a genderqueer person be diagnosed with gender dysphoria? It seems to me they wouldn't.
Context. If you are trying to stack people neatly then it's sex.
Quoting Bradaction
...then how come...
Quoting Bradaction
...?
How can one be born as a particular social construct? If a baby is born as a particular social construct then it ceases to be be only by their say that they are he/she/they/xe... If you're claiming that you simply are X, not that you chose to be X, then it must be possible for a third party to judge your gender. Someone could validly disagree with you about it.
The entire issue simply makes conservative men uncomfortable and is being leveraged politically to divide society. No one cared until they legalized gay marriage and needed a new point of leverage. The whole matter is under false context of causing anyone confusion or the sudden importance of women's sports. You know what they make in the WNBA?
Well that's reassuring. Pretty damning of my own intellect (or morals, depending on how charitable you're feeling), but at least everyone else is fine.
Nope. Could not make head nor tail of any of that. If English is your second language we could try to draw out what you're trying to say, if not, it's probably too late by now.
Fair enough, I miss identified you as the OP and assumed the perspective was different, but made no indication of it. A lot of it is faking confusion for the sake of controversy. You are genuinely unable to grasp multiple genders across binary sexes?
No. I'm unable to grasp the the position I quoted in the actual post you seemed to be responding to.
Quoting Cheshire
Yeah, except for the subject who may be themselves experiencing it. The burden on society is negligible relative to the contrived controversy manufactured from conservative social views. It's a position.
I agree with that sentiment, but I can't even understand the desire for others to refer to me in a manner of my choosing. How other's talk about me is none of my business. I think many, if not most people have always had that concern, but it is definitely more prevalent today, with social media and whatnot. For the life of me, I could never understand how on-line bullying was a real thing.
To what is 'the subject' the exception? It's as if you're responding to someone else's posts. I haven't said anything to which "...except for the subject who may be themselves experiencing it." would make any grammatical sense as a reply.
Quoting Cheshire
The burden of what? I've not mentioned anything at all which would require society to take any action whatsoever, so I can't understand what burden you might be referring to here.
If you're not going to respond to the actual posts I'm writing, but rather just to the general issue of gendered pronouns, it might make your contributions easier to follow if you didn't use the reply function at the opening of your posts.
I think it's a generational thing. There's a strong trend these days toward individualism and controlling one's identity in society is part of that, the Facebook page, the modified Instagram images....it's all toward creating a society of easily -defined individuals rather than of connections. In my day we got nicknames at school, we didn't ask for them, they were assigned to us. Shortenings of names at work too. We didn't even control our own name, let alone our pronoun, it was a reflection of the connection we had with our social group rather than an avatar of individual identity. Times change I suppose.
No problem, I thought something must have got mixed up somewhere along the line. It happens.
I agree with you. It is strange, though, that a strong trend toward individualism is based upon making sure others perceive us as individuals. Back in the day, a strong trend toward individualism was manifest in not giving a shit what others thought of us. Either that, or standing out in some way, good or bad. Being perceived as an individual was earned, not demanded.
You have gotten carried away. Going off the deep end doesn't strengthen your case. Disagreeing with screwy ideas is not genocide.
One of the reasons "boomers" ignore you is that we have been around the block a few times and find many of you "gender specialists" inordinately self-involved. "Sexual identity" is a new issue for you, but is not a new issue historically. Lots of people have dealt with it more and less productively over the last century.
There is this mantra that "You can be anything you want to be." President of the United States; as rich as Bill Gates; a self-designed new gender. Dream on.
I once specializing in being a liberated homosexual, politically radical, a rebel. Fine for me, but when I ran it up the flag pole I expected everyone to salute. Guess what: Outside of a small circle of friends there were no salutes. You can be as far out as you want, but there are costs. A lot, maybe most people are going to flat out reject you. Get used to it.
From now on I want you to address me a "@#$#@!#$#". Oh, you don't know how to pronounce that? That is your problem, not mine. )(()((()((()( over there wants you to kneel when you address )(()((()((()(. You don't mind, do you?
It just isn't.
Yes, I suspect it's just more commercially benficial to give the impression that individuality can be built through social media conducive symbols rather than real world activity. Sometimes the blind actions of commercial interests have odd knock on effects.
It makes me a bit leary, but this is why, I think, there's often an unholy confluence of old school socialists and right-leaning Hoover style rugged-individualists... Neither make good consumers.
:blush: :100:
Case in point, when I was at an early age, we grammared gender in that gender wasn't a verb, but a noun.
Communication would be less confusing. The absence of pronouns will increase clarity of expression as clarity will be required for communication. Also, it would reduce the potential for mistakes. For example, "How does the person in a leather coat feel?" would make it clear that the person in a leather coat is the object of the inquiry, not someone nearby. "It's the birthday of the person wearing tweed" would do the same at an office party, as would "Tweed-wearer says loafers-wearer should be fired" when actual names are unknown.
I think I understand your argument here a lot better given your further explanation in the other thread. but I'll ask to make doubly sure.
Is this argument stating that I believe something should just 'happen', without much of a fight, and that acceptance should be inherent, unlike what gay people had to go through to get their rights recognised?
If so, here is my response.
I truly believe the opposite of this, as nice as it would be for it to just 'happen', and for 'acceptance' to be automatic, I know that this is absurd and impossible. The previous experiences of the Gay and Lesbian communities showcase this beyond a doubt, respect is not inherent, and respect of ideas, even less so. It needs to be earned and fought for.
I believe this, more then anything (that's an exaggeration). So I don't expect, nor desire this to happen overnight, overweek, overyear, overdecade. This post was to gauge and ask for explanation, as to why the world is the way it is. If we don't question then how can we possibly seek to change the social norms?
I understand the Civil Rights movement, and how long it took and how much effort it took and how much muching it took. I willing to do the same for this movement. And besides, the past is also the past, it may influence the future but it does not always become the future, and history doesn't always repeat. Or maybe it does.
Abusing language doesn't help make your case.
I disagree. Candour is an important part of philosophy, people's true beliefs and feeling should not be suppressed or diminished simply due to having to remain sensitive. Subjectively, philosophy is the search for truth, in a world filled with lies. As such, offence is to be expected, much in the way theists are to be offended by atheists. What I believe is subjective to me, likewise with all others. Debate is the way in which we collectively pool our ideas with the intention to create a better world.
Debate should not be positive, nor negative, it should be conducted with the neutral aim of providing a greater understanding of the world around us.
I believe the understanding adopted by sociologist is that a person whom identifies as genderqueer may or may not suffer from gender dysphoria
Do you believe that some ppl are born with the soul of a race different from the one they are identified with, just as some are born with one different from the gender they are identified with?
For example, are certain white ppl born with black souls, so to speak, and certain black ppl with white ones, or Asian ones, etc?
Consider Eminem. He took to the world of rap music, dominated by blacks, and rose to the top...but not without a lot of resistance by the black community. This happened before you were born, but I was 40yo, and I remember it well. I was attracted to his music before I even knew he was white (I’m white), and began listening to black radio stations just to hear “Slim Shady”. The black djs didn’t want to play it, ostensibly simply because he was white, but were forced to, because it was the top hit in their genre.
I bring this up because it seems to me that the problems of gender and racial identity are rather similar, yet are approached very differently by society. In particular, I have seen all sorts of “white” ppl in media, entertainment, politics, etc, get into trouble for trying to identify with an ethnic group different from the one they have been labeled with.
But there is no political movement by any group of a certain racial identity to identify themselves with one of another, as there is with LGBTQ, where certain groups with a particular binary DNA assert their right to be identified differently from it. Why do you think this is? Why is there not a “born white, identify as black!” call to arms? Or, “born with eyes slanted, but see straight!”
Interesting question. It brings to mind the people who charge others with appropriation. Whites charged with appropriating black culture, Indian culture, etc. I reckon a group of people of one physical/biological/birth sex could get all verklempt about the pronoun proponents horning in on their territory: "Hey, I'm a woman and I don't like you trying to identify as a woman! Typical man! Trying to take over everything!"
So this is specifically about those "people who claim to be in support of the LGBTQIA+", but who don't get the pronouns right?
And so many fucking likes!!
Back when I was growing up, into my teens, one considered oneself lucky to be considered a person at all. Also, when adults would speak about a child they perceived as "problematic", even in the child's presence, they would refer to the child as "it", so that the child could hear it.
"It has no feelings."
"It doesn't understand."
- - -
Quoting Isaac
I suppose people need to use their time and energy somehow. And since they don't spend their days toiling under the sun (literally), they focus on other things. And living packed together like sardines like they do, they focus on things like correct gender pronouns ...
The thing is that what the OP is talking about is just one way, one-sided.
The LGBT+ person walks in, tells everyone how they want to be addressed, but they don't afford the same courtesy to others. Or the LGBT+ person doesn't even say anything, but expects others to get the pronouns right.
No, the LGBT+ person wants to be treated as speshal, so fucking speshal.
:up:
In fact, most of the PC issues smack of this kind of self-involvement. I think that choosing your own pronoun is like choosing your own name and I fully support anyone's right to do so. Just don't try to enforce a general modification of the language. From the statistics I could find, non-binary individuals comprise approximately one-third of one percent of the population. So tell me if you need to be referred to as they, heck, even remind me, I'll respect that. But expecting 99.7% of everyone else to just jump in line and adopt radical linguistic changes is a tall order. And I could see where it would offend some people. I was educated when even using "they" as an impersonal singular pronoun was incorrect, and I regularly still do use "his or her" when I am training people. And I intend to go on doing so, and maintain that style in my writing. If someone complains, I'll acknowledge it, but it is my language, it is part of who I am, so I would expect that to be respected for the same reason that non-binary folks expect their wishes to be respected.
That said, fully in favour of a switch to generic genderless pronouns, which has been pushed for for decades and affects a much higher percentage of people. I tend to oscillate between "they", "he or she", or just "she" as a counter. "They" is clearly superior; I should stick with that. No doubt it'll annoy a tiny minority of people again who either want a personal pronoun or are militantly cis, but I object to the assertion that I should care.
Quite. Language should determine its own usage.
/.../
This meant, that for the first time, legally male prisoners with fully intact male bodies could be allowed to live freely alongside female prisoners in one of the 12 women’s prisons in England.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-review/
/.../
What happened? Women in prison were raped by men who identified themselves as women.
Not sure how this example applies. Sexual predators rape indiscriminately, especially in prison.
I think I have simply mis phrased this section of my op, when I awaken I shall edit it to be more reflective of both the discussion and of my original intention.
It's a cautionary tale of what can happen if people's own ideas about their gender identity are given primacy.
Yeah, I guess certain peoples' claims need to be considered in context....Hmmm.
Quoting Cheshire
You have no idea what you're talking about. Names are given at birth, or even before, when the sex of the baby is known. Only after the sex of the baby is known is when it is genderized (ways of expecting and enforcing certain behaviors) - based on the sex.
So, is gender something that is chosen and arbitrary, like a name, or something that is inherent, like your race, or species? I thought it was a sexist social construction. This is part of the problem. You have to define what you mean by "gender" and how it is different from "sex" for others to have clear idea of what pronouns to use and in which context.
Quoting Cheshire
So why should a transgender get annoyed if someone uses pronouns referring to their sex and not their gender?
This is exaclty the type of comment one would expect from those that see this issue through the prism of politics and not metaphysics. The metaphysics of this issue needs to be resolved and asking questions about how a man can claim to be a woman, and vice versa, and what that really means, etc. is how we go about that. Most people here just want to treat transgenders like the prophets of a new religion and simply accept whatever they say at face value. I thought part of practicing philosophy is asking valid questions and not simply accepting claims because it would offend the claimant if you did question their claim.
There are facts about a person; either they have Jewish ancestry/ heritage, or they do not. But this does not amount to an identity. Identity is not a matter of fact, but of judgement. As such it is always debatable always an intersection between individual and society. Louis may claim to be the King of France, but we all think he's a loony. Similarly, there is little point in claiming to be Jewish if the relevant authorities refuse to recognise the claim, and let you into whatever club or privilege is associated. Or conversely, there is little point in claiming not to be Jewish if the SS are telling you to 'get on the cattle truck, vermin!'
There is the fact of what one is, one's social identity and one's personal identity and always there is a negotiation between them or there is intransigence and a power conflict. And always there is the judgement of social and personal identities, such that one might be shamed by others for what one is proud to be, or vice versa, one might be ashamed of what one is while it is lauded by others.
With this in mind, it can be seen that some answers here are simply judgements with a veneer of misplaced facticity; some answers are claims of social convenience along the lines of it is better to draw lines and keep things simple for bureaucratic reasons - either you are employed or unemployed, and gardening doesn't count unless you get paid.
This rigidity of boundaries is reassuring for many, particularly in personal, bodily matters to the extent that any questioning of categories is felt as threatening to both personal identity and 'the fabric of society'. Thus to be a gay man is to be attracted to men, and that is a feminine attribute; therefore it is an offence and a threat against nature, god, society, and me personally.
The question is whether this issue is a metaphysical or political one. There is talk of LGBTQ “rights”, for example; are rights in the realm of metaphysics, or politics? There is an LGBTQ “movement”, but I am unaware of any metaphysical movements.
The fact is that all these social-awareness phenomena are particularly distinguished by their political rhetoric: gay “rights”, the LGBTQ “movement”, the sexual “revolution”, etc, and the language and words used often betrays this...
...consider the term “gay”, which apparently replaced “homosexual” in the vernacular. This replacement occurred precisely because opponents of homosexuality used “homosexual” in a derogatory way—only remember Jesse Helms’ use of it in publicly condemning the practice—and the proponents of it found themselves in need of a new term to promote it. “Homosexual” and its derivatives therefore came to be used only clinically, in science journals and the like, and “gay” generally took its place in a society becoming ever more acceptant of—if not the practice itself, at least its prominence as a social issue with a force that had to be dealt with.
It was probably in a similar manner that “negro” was jettisoned in favor of “black”. “Black power”, “black is beautiful”, “black lives matter”, are all political phrases.
I disagree. The racial heritage/ancestry of ppl is universally felt as identity by them...or at least was so felt, back when it mattered, before the idea of the classless genderless individual whose racial makeup was of no importance in his role as citizen came to the fore.
Quoting unenlightened
The point is everything, if indeed I am Jewish. Just because I am not allowed to join the Jew clubs or receive Jewish privileges says nothing about what I feel my identity to be. If I am not granted these privileges, but know in my heart I am Jewish, then I will feel slighted, and either accept that I am not accepted and live with it, or fight against it, or both...
...but I will never deny that I am a Jew.
Quoting Bradaction
My answer: I am an individual (I am a particular entity). I am my own person (no one lives my life for me). As an individual who is his own person, I think I get to choose the way I live my life (if there is any true free choice); this includes the way I behave, the decisions I make, the words I speak. No one can force me (better said, no one should force me) to do something I do not want to (whatever the reason I do not want to do such thing).
As a particular entity who is conscious of his own existence, I think I should have the right to address a person any way I want; of course, there are always consequences. That said, I do not think you, or anyone, have the right to tell me how to speak; the way I speak (or behave or do anything I choose to do) should be my choice and my choice only; this applies to every individual.
In summary, a legitimate, philosophical reason for one to use the incorrect pronouns is one (for whatever reason) not wanting to use the "correct" ones (and I put the word "correct" in quotation marks simply because I do not think there is an individual in this universe, or any other if there are more, who can say with exactitude what is correct).