English evolved parallel to survival. If a person, particularly a woman, can’t identify the reality of if another person is a biological woman or a biological man, we are talking about the difference between life and death.
From my point of view, we were all okay with using "preferred pronouns" until it started to seriously affect our rights and well-being. Like when they started to include males in our crime and health data, that created a serious problem. And when they started to act like biological sex was irrelevant for sports and intimate spaces, that made it necessary for us to put our feet down and say no, sex is still very relevant and important in these situations.
@@shiina29 i heard someone say recently, and found it interesting, that the first generation know it's a politeness, a playing along; but the second generation takes the language literally, and that's where the trouble starts. that seems so plausible to me, and suggests that the language really does (and always did) matter.
@@hollylawford-smith it's important on multiple levels as often the genuine misgendering of naturally non culturally sex stereotypical ppl, is often cited as a reason for why some who experience this, develop gender dysphoria and seek to undergo medical transition procedures.
Pronouns are rooted in sex, leave it that way. Feel free to declare yourself as masculine, feminine, neither, both, other, etc but leave existing and reasonable language alone.
My first inclination is to consider the practicality of the pronoun challenge. Pronouns are functor words, grammar that is rule-governed, that we code unconsciously. The choice of he or she is as automatic as the choice of a or the. Changing a grammar rule is a big ask. Try using is for are, and are for is, for a day. That’s tough to do, though it’s still rule-governed. The preferred pronoun movement asserts that there no longer is a rule, at all. The only way to use pronouns properly is to ask each individual person, and remember what you’ve been told by each. A somewhat more reasonable ask would be the use of they for everyone, singular and plural. We tend to do that when we can’t specify sex: If a student has a blue shirt, they’re a senior. I’m old so I still say: If a student has a blue shirt, he or she is a senior. Kind of clunky. Changing the use of gendered content words, such as nouns, is a far more reasonable endeavor: firefighter rather than fireman. Even then, it requires time and patience.
I can’t believe that I have to explain to people how the english works. Pronouns belong to the SPEAKER not the LISTENER. When someone speaking has to determine which pronouns they will for the subject they are speaking about, they make that decision based on careful observation, investigation using strict guidelines. These guidelines include very close observation of both visual and audible ques. Also taken into consideration is a healthy suspicion of the possibility of any intentional deception. Even the slightest hint of questionable speaking, acting or mannerisms that do not align with the perception of female sex or male sex will force the speaker to be even more cautious to not choose the wrong pronouns. Once the speaker is satisfied they do indeed no for certain what the actual sex of the subject is they will proceed to use the appropriate male or female sex pronouns. As you can see, at NO TIME would an english speaker EVER ask the listener what their “preferred” pronouns are. Because that is not now nor has it ever been nor ever will be part of natural accepted english speaking/conversation.
I agree that's how pronouns actually work. But your opponents wish to change that. So it would be good to have some arguments in favor of keeping things how they are now, i.e. arguments in favor of tracking sex with our third-person singular pronouns.
I agree - preferred, individualized pronouns are not how language works. A preferred name, yes, preferred pronouns no. It’s almost as if the 2 concepts are being confused.
I wonder what would happen if we allow our language to evolve to the point where everyone uses "they/them" instead or "he/she/him/her" as a matter of course (much like the almost universal adoption of "ms" in place of "miss/mrs") and out of respect for people who may be non-binary. Those who say "they/them" are plural pronouns miss the point that we happily use "you" as both plural and singular without any problem - the meaning is clear from the context. But here's the thing: how would a non-binary then identify themselves as being different, if their pronouns were then the same as everyone else's?
Interesting commentary. I think you are trying hard to be accommodating, and are dreaming up excuses to intellectually justify that accommodation. You point out that we often use gendered language to refer to things which really don't have a gender. While that is true, it doesn't follow that it is therefore OK to use incorrect language when referring to people, who objectively do have a sex. I have seven transgendered friends, and I have no problem using their preferred pronouns for obvious reasons. Some people object to doing this for religious reasons, and that is their prerogative. But, the public discourse on this issue goes way beyond pronoun use. It seems obvious to me that women and girls need to be protected in intimate spaces, such as locker rooms and prisons, and need to be able to compete in sports against only biological women, not trans women. Ultimately, the objective truth of one's sex must be recognized.
Well said & I completely agree. I am more than happy to refer to trans women _as if they were women_ to be respectful, but they should also be respectful in acknowledging their sex when it's relevant. I personally don't care about the bathroom issue because someone's sex isn't really relevant in a bathroom, but spaces like locker rooms, sports prisons & SA centers, sex _is_ relevant.
I consider the reasons given for having pronouns rooted in sex reasons against continuing the practice. For me, my gender identity is not a "deep inner truth", I could conceivably have lived in my assigned sex, but only if people didn't ascribe to me based on biology characteristics like "potentially violent" that couldn't be further from the truth. Also, in many social situations, I find it inappropriate and do not wish to be scrutinized for reproductive potential.
I understand that's how you feel, personally. But I would have thought that, when we're deciding how to use the language, we're thinking about society as a whole. Whether it would be good, on a societal level, to keep track of males and females. And whether it would be good, for society, to facilitate reproduction. Those both seem like worthwhile goals to me. No?
I am sorry, but for a philosopher to describe males as "disproportionately violent" is incredibly sloppy. Are males in most species not more violent than females? In a descriptive sense, it may be an essential characteristic of male behaviour. So, to what, or whom, are they "disproportionately violent", Tomas? Are they disproportionately strong, or tall?
@@gerarddearie-zd2gb i think the charitable reading of tomas's claim is that males commit a disproportionate share of the violence that is done. and that is true.
@@hollylawford-smith Yes, but applying that statistical observation to individuals is sexist discrimination. If that is the message conveyed by he pronouns, then some females should be he and some males should not, or it could again be argued to be "lying"
@@AnitaLichtenberg that's not how group-based statistical claims work. it's a comparative claim between the sexes (males more than females), not a claim naming all the people capable of violence, which of course is everyone.
English evolved parallel to survival. If a person, particularly a woman, can’t identify the reality of if another person is a biological woman or a biological man, we are talking about the difference between life and death.
From my point of view, we were all okay with using "preferred pronouns" until it started to seriously affect our rights and well-being. Like when they started to include males in our crime and health data, that created a serious problem. And when they started to act like biological sex was irrelevant for sports and intimate spaces, that made it necessary for us to put our feet down and say no, sex is still very relevant and important in these situations.
@@shiina29 i heard someone say recently, and found it interesting, that the first generation know it's a politeness, a playing along; but the second generation takes the language literally, and that's where the trouble starts. that seems so plausible to me, and suggests that the language really does (and always did) matter.
@hollylawford-smith Some of us never thought it was polite to play along. Perhaps instinctually we understood why they are important.
@@hollylawford-smith it's important on multiple levels as often the genuine misgendering of naturally non culturally sex stereotypical ppl, is often cited as a reason for why some who experience this, develop gender dysphoria and seek to undergo medical transition procedures.
Pronouns are rooted in sex, leave it that way. Feel free to declare yourself as masculine, feminine, neither, both, other, etc but leave existing and reasonable language alone.
If someone asks you what your pronouns are & you respond with anything other than "I/me" then you're not using English properly.
My first inclination is to consider the practicality of the pronoun challenge. Pronouns are functor words, grammar that is rule-governed, that we code unconsciously. The choice of he or she is as automatic as the choice of a or the. Changing a grammar rule is a big ask. Try using is for are, and are for is, for a day. That’s tough to do, though it’s still rule-governed. The preferred pronoun movement asserts that there no longer is a rule, at all. The only way to use pronouns properly is to ask each individual person, and remember what you’ve been told by each. A somewhat more reasonable ask would be the use of they for everyone, singular and plural. We tend to do that when we can’t specify sex: If a student has a blue shirt, they’re a senior. I’m old so I still say: If a student has a blue shirt, he or she is a senior. Kind of clunky. Changing the use of gendered content words, such as nouns, is a far more reasonable endeavor: firefighter rather than fireman. Even then, it requires time and patience.
I can’t believe that I have to explain to people how the english works. Pronouns belong to the SPEAKER not the LISTENER. When someone speaking has to determine which pronouns they will for the subject they are speaking about, they make that decision based on careful observation, investigation using strict guidelines. These guidelines include very close observation of both visual and audible ques. Also taken into consideration is a healthy suspicion of the possibility of any intentional deception. Even the slightest hint of questionable speaking, acting or mannerisms that do not align with the perception of female sex or male sex will force the speaker to be even more cautious to not choose the wrong pronouns. Once the speaker is satisfied they do indeed no for certain what the actual sex of the subject is they will proceed to use the appropriate male or female sex pronouns. As you can see, at NO TIME would an english speaker EVER ask the listener what their “preferred” pronouns are. Because that is not now nor has it ever been nor ever will be part of natural accepted english speaking/conversation.
I agree that's how pronouns actually work. But your opponents wish to change that. So it would be good to have some arguments in favor of keeping things how they are now, i.e. arguments in favor of tracking sex with our third-person singular pronouns.
I agree - preferred, individualized pronouns are not how language works. A preferred name, yes, preferred pronouns no. It’s almost as if the 2 concepts are being confused.
I wonder what would happen if we allow our language to evolve to the point where everyone uses "they/them" instead or "he/she/him/her" as a matter of course (much like the almost universal adoption of "ms" in place of "miss/mrs") and out of respect for people who may be non-binary. Those who say "they/them" are plural pronouns miss the point that we happily use "you" as both plural and singular without any problem - the meaning is clear from the context. But here's the thing: how would a non-binary then identify themselves as being different, if their pronouns were then the same as everyone else's?
Interesting commentary. I think you are trying hard to be accommodating, and are dreaming up excuses to intellectually justify that accommodation. You point out that we often use gendered language to refer to things which really don't have a gender. While that is true, it doesn't follow that it is therefore OK to use incorrect language when referring to people, who objectively do have a sex.
I have seven transgendered friends, and I have no problem using their preferred pronouns for obvious reasons. Some people object to doing this for religious reasons, and that is their prerogative. But, the public discourse on this issue goes way beyond pronoun use. It seems obvious to me that women and girls need to be protected in intimate spaces, such as locker rooms and prisons, and need to be able to compete in sports against only biological women, not trans women.
Ultimately, the objective truth of one's sex must be recognized.
Well said & I completely agree. I am more than happy to refer to trans women _as if they were women_ to be respectful, but they should also be respectful in acknowledging their sex when it's relevant. I personally don't care about the bathroom issue because someone's sex isn't really relevant in a bathroom, but spaces like locker rooms, sports prisons & SA centers, sex _is_ relevant.
I consider the reasons given for having pronouns rooted in sex reasons against continuing the practice. For me, my gender identity is not a "deep inner truth", I could conceivably have lived in my assigned sex, but only if people didn't ascribe to me based on biology characteristics like "potentially violent" that couldn't be further from the truth. Also, in many social situations, I find it inappropriate and do not wish to be scrutinized for reproductive potential.
I understand that's how you feel, personally. But I would have thought that, when we're deciding how to use the language, we're thinking about society as a whole. Whether it would be good, on a societal level, to keep track of males and females. And whether it would be good, for society, to facilitate reproduction. Those both seem like worthwhile goals to me. No?
I am sorry, but for a philosopher to describe males as "disproportionately violent" is incredibly sloppy. Are males in most species not more violent than females? In a descriptive sense, it may be an essential characteristic of male behaviour. So, to what, or whom, are they "disproportionately violent", Tomas? Are they disproportionately strong, or tall?
@@gerarddearie-zd2gb i think the charitable reading of tomas's claim is that males commit a disproportionate share of the violence that is done. and that is true.
Compared to women
@@hollylawford-smith Yes, but applying that statistical observation to individuals is sexist discrimination. If that is the message conveyed by he pronouns, then some females should be he and some males should not, or it could again be argued to be "lying"
@@AnitaLichtenberg that's not how group-based statistical claims work. it's a comparative claim between the sexes (males more than females), not a claim naming all the people capable of violence, which of course is everyone.