agonyaunt | (no subject)

(no subject)

I am a supporter of trans rights and refer to trans or nonbinary persons by their preferred pronouns. Recently, however, a family member stated that everyone must use the pronoun ‘‘they’’ with her even though she does not identify as trans or nonbinary. When I asked her why, she said she chooses to use ‘‘they’’ in solidarity with trans and nonbinary persons.

I am having trouble with this because it seems to require that I, and everyone else, join her in her particular form of activism, rather than a request that I respect her identity. If I hung a poster saying ‘‘Black Lives Matter’’ in my window, I would not be within my rights to demand that everyone else do so as well. But I am torn, because I have a general policy of calling people what they ask to be called, whether that is using particular pronouns, nicknames or titles. — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

When we respect the pronouns used by trans or nonbinary people, we’re doing something they reasonably ask us to do as an acknowledgment of their gender identity. Using pronouns properly is a matter of not misgendering people. It isn’t part of a general policy of calling people whatever they want to be called; someone’s wish to be referred to as ‘‘your holiness’’ does not require others to comply.

In fact, I worry that your family member’s idea of solidarity could prove self-undermining. In the account you’ve given, your relative is not trying to critique or withdraw from the sex-gender system or challenge the practice of having gendered designations, all intelligible reasons for rejecting female pronouns. Rather, your relative evidently identifies as cisgender and is motivated simply by allyship, which means treating these pronouns as a choice, detached from identity. This kind of stance could be taken as disrespectful of those who have fought to have their gender identities acknowledged and accommodated. By deploying nonbinary pronouns merely as a political badge, your relative, however well intentioned, seems misaligned with the very people she is in solidarity with — those who have asked to be recognized for who they are. As the N.A.A.C.P. activist Rachel Dolezal notoriously failed to grasp, solidarity with a group does not grant you membership within it. Many will find the notion that you support people by appropriating their markers of identity to be passing strange.

Link

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I guess neither the writer nor the columnist thought that maybe this is how this young person is trying out the idea of being non-binary without having to commit in case it turns out family, friends, and/or work can't be trusted.

The columnist also doesn't seem to realize that going by they/them while identifying as cisgender is not forcing your way into a group you don't belong in.

It’s like referring to your legally- and religiously-approved opposite-sex spouse(1) as your partner: it’s accurate, it normalizes the term, and who does it hurt?

(1) An arrangement, incidentally, that still isn’t ipso facto cishet.

Right? Like, sure, both race and gender are more or less immutable (except that as they're both social constructs they are potentially flexible if you enter a different social environment with different rules) but that does not mean they are analogous to each other. He could've - should have - asked some trans people.

Yeah, the "Ethicist" is really way out of their lane here. Talking about being respectful of trans and nonbinary people while othering the hell out of us and not actually consulting anyone about the bullshit in this advice. Every sentence of it is clueless nonsense - which puts them right at the same level of presumptuous idiocy as LW, who claims to be a "supporter of trans rights" but thinks this means gatekeeping and policing gender expression.

Because we really need more cis people making authoritative pronouncements about other people's pronouns and deliberating over who counts as sufficiently oppressed by gender norms to get pronoun-changing privileges. Those sure are supportive things to do. 🙄

This occurred to me, too.

Just address them as they have asked — it’s not like there’s a limited pool of pronouns and you’re somehow taking one away from a trans or non-binary person!

Edited 2024-07-24 19:45 (UTC)

Sorry I see you have some they left, were you going to finish that? I could use it if you're not.

Oh hmm, idk, I was going to box it up for later...

Appropriate icon!

And I know someone whose actual path into non-binary gender was through solidarity like this.

As a nonbinary person who is a “they/them” user, I am 100% here for cis folks helping to normalize “they/them” by using it themselves. It does not hurt me a single iota if more people use they/them, and if it gets others used to it, then it helps me and others who need the general population to be okay with using they/them. The columnist should have asked a variety of trans folks before assuming it’s a Dolezal situation.

Also LW is assuming that, because their relative has presented as cis up until now, they’re cis. Many people do things “in solidarity” with LGBTQ folks and gradually realize it wasn’t solidarity - they are LGBTQ themselves..

Gratuituous Parent Joke:

Q. Why are there so many nonbinary prospectors?

A. Because there’s gold in them/their hills.

That’s cute!

You call people by the name that they want*.
You call people by the pronouns that they want.
If you mess up, you apologise briefly and change.

You don't need to endlessly critique whether someone is 'allowed' to use something as basic as a pronoun.

*I have two exceptions to this due to being a petty bitch - Twitter is not X and Prince Charles is not King Charles.

The rule is actually "choosing to call people by a name (or pronoun) other than the one they asked for is deliberate rudeness and disrespect."

I'm ok with deliberate rudeness and disrespect to certain powerful people (and all corporations,) though. Deliberate rudeness and disrespect is one of many social tools that can be useful if used well.

OP needs to decide if she disagrees with the friend's choices enough to use that tool to communicate that.

I wouldn't deliberately misgender someone, no matter how much I despised them, tho

I absolutely detest/despise Rupert Murdoch, but

If Rupert Murdoch announced tomorrow that their pronouns were now they/them or she/her, I would do my best to remember and use the pronouns they had stated that they wanted

Yeah, especially with pronouns there's a point where misgendering is showing disrespect not just to the person but to all trans people. (But when people misgender each other, they *are* doing it to show disrespect and to despise the person, you just don't despise him *enough* to be willing to dehumanize him in that particular way and with that collateral damage.)

That said if he announced his pronouns were now His Highness I'm absolutely sticking with he/him, where if a random 12-year-old at work did I would try to roll with it.

I'm not calling anyone His Highness except a cat...

I was really impressed with my city's (usually terrible) newspaper about this a while ago

there was an article about a trans woman who was facing charges for knowingly having unprotected sex as a sex worker while she knew she was HIV positive, and passing HIV on to several of her clients,

and apart from one single mention at the beginning of the article of what her legal name was at the time that she did these things (which was her deadname)

the article consistently used her current name and she/her pronouns

and also included a thing about how it would be deeply unjust for her to be held in custody anywhere but a women's prison

Yep. Caitlin Jenner is the best example of this for me; she’s an absolute shitbird, but her shitbirdery in no way negates her gender. Gender acknowledgment isn’t something to be withheld as punishment for poor behavior.

“This is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.”

—-Batman on guns, from The Dark Knight Returns (1986 comic).

I have two exceptions to this due to being a petty bitch - Twitter is not X and Prince Charles is not King Charles.

Someone was joking how the only deadnaming allowed is for Twitter.

Haha!

It's like the stepparent who comes in and forces the kids to change their surname. Solidarity is using the name of choice, not the one forced on them.

Or the colonizer who imposes names of their own choosing upon subjugated people—-that, for example, is why so many African-Americans have chosen Muslim or African or invented names rather than “slave names” for themselves and their children.

LW, someone asked you to refer to them as they/them. They don't owe you an explanation as to why, but they've given you one, which is nice of them! Do the simple thing they asked of you because they asked it of you, and get over yourself. You can do all the thinking you want in your own time. Also, they may end up identifying as something else later! Either way, they're hurting nobody by normalizing singular they/them pronouns, and plenty of people who identify with a specific gender still use them.

The unethical (?) act here is asking anyone why they want to be named/pronouned/nicknamed a particular set of sounds. Just do it and always remember, it's none of your business!

Why are people

Idk, a lot of trans people see themselves as part of a gender liberation movement based on freedom and self determination, to the extent that they wouldn't have an issue with this. Also, idk how the friend's decision isn't part of an effort to challenge gender designations or withdraw from the sex-gender system? Isn't a cis woman going by they/them also somewhat gender destabilizing?

Like, I'm sure some people, cis and trans, would find this kind of allyship cringe, but I don't think there's a big push in the trans community to root out like... stolen gender valor or whatever?

Like, I'm sure some people, cis and trans, would find this kind of allyship cringe, but I don't think there's a big push in the trans community to root out like... stolen gender valor or whatever?

Thank you for that phrase, which neatly summarizes the TERF premise.

There are probably a handful of contexts contexts where I would get touchy about a non-trans person using a pronoun that gave the impression they were trans--like, maybe when applying for a job/scholarship/grant designated for trans people/where trans lived experience is relevant? A context where there is some sort of scarcity of resources to go around? But none of those contexts are among family members, the context above, and generally omg who cares.

I think it's not only rude but *dangerous* to set a policy of "I will only use your chosen pronouns if you satisfy me that your reasons for using them are pure and true."

Use they/them for your family member, LW, or walk around waving an "I'm a disrespectful and presumptuous jerk" flag every time you open your mouth.

Also, more people using they/them is in no way doing harm to me, a nonbinary they/them user. Normalizing it is useful. Drawing out jerks like LW is actually kind of useful, too - any OTHER members of the family who might have been considering coming out or exploring their gender performance options are now on notice that LW thinks they're the Authority about who gets to use what pronouns.

I think it's not only rude but *dangerous* to set a policy of "I will only use your chosen pronouns if you satisfy me that your reasons for using them are pure and true."

Yeah, this is the right answer. "These are my pronouns" is not an invitation to debate whether the person has a good enough reason for using them. We don't accept people's name and pronouns because we have sat in judgement of them and found them worthy, we accept them because their name and pronouns are for them to decide and no one else.

Well said. takes notes

I feel like this answer to the question on "Should cis folks use gender neutral pronouns?" from the Trans Advice Column is relevant here. Short version: "Anyone of any gender can use any pronouns for themself whenever."

Edited 2024-07-25 05:04 (UTC)

takes note of this column

I think we have an ethical responsibility to call people what they request to be called, unless there is another salient factor that alters the situation. It's not that hard to use preferred standard pronouns for people and I'm glad the general cultural mood is that you're being silly if you have a problem with he/she/they/xe.

Askamanager published a letter about a silly person who wanted her coworkers to refer to her male partner as her 'master' - that's an example where another factor comes into play, i.e. preferring not to participate in other people's sexual kinks. Another hypothetical example might be someone who disingenuously picks the preferred name 'Carol Is A Jerk', which is pretty mean to poor Carol.

…treating these pronouns as a choice, detached from identity.
I know this is not true of all gender non-conforming and/or trans and/or nonbinary people but I chose all three sets of pronouns that I use and when I use them is contextual.

Has no one ever told the Ethicist that pronouns don't [necessarily] equal gender??

Trans person here — I keep hearing about these trans folks who are offended by cis people using gnp’s but I’ve never met one or even seen anyone claim this opinion for themself online.

Maybe the ethicist should actually talk to some trans folks before they talk for us. Or if this is their personal opinion as a trans person they could disclose that. (Instead, they use the anonymous “many” to support their view.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only