Excellent article and a good pointer as to why the Skeptic ‘movement’ is not what it was. I speak as someone who, up until a few years back, was highly enthusiastic about the Skeptic movement, a regular at my local Skeptics In The Pub and also QED. I now feel I would not be welcomed because I have questions about this subject and no pro …
Excellent article and a good pointer as to why the Skeptic ‘movement’ is not what it was. I speak as someone who, up until a few years back, was highly enthusiastic about the Skeptic movement, a regular at my local Skeptics In The Pub and also QED. I now feel I would not be welcomed because I have questions about this subject and no pro nouns. Ironically James you were one of the people who got me into that world with your, much missed, Pod Delusion podcast.
Is your reply, perhaps, not also a little obtuse? I would say I don't 'have' pronouns, because I don't think pronouns are something one can 'have'. That the phrase is a non sequitur. There are pronouns that are standard in our language to refer to someone (male) like me. But I don't make any pretensions to control the speech of others.
So the claim to 'have' pronouns is one more attempt to beg the question in favour of a very particular belief system around gender. And it's a belief system I don't share or wish to participate in.
I'm not sure I really grasp what you're getting at, sorry. You seemingly do have preferred pronouns (he/him). What you seem to be opposed to is people saying they have different pronouns than those that would indicate the sex they were born as (i.e. the 'standard'). It seems to me a rather banal and arbitrary thing to be opposed to, unless I've got the wrong end of the stick?
If you're not grasping it, this may be a case of the fish not being aware of the water it's swimming in.
I take seriously the post-structuralist critique of language common on the SJ left. That forms of language can have embedded in them assumptions that affect how we think about things when using that language. But I note that instead of using that critique to move to more neutral ways of speaking, they've instead turned it into a an arms race. So there's a very deliberate attempt to force language use that embeds within it the assumptions of their own ideology.
Consider the difference between: "My pronouns are ..." - expected to be said by all present, and "I'd really appreciate if you could call me Miss/Sir and refer to me by male/female pronouns" - said by the one person who's gendered expression is radically different from that typical of their sex.
The first contains the assumption that we all 'have' pronouns, because we all 'have' a 'gender' (using a highly contentious notion of gender as some sort of personal property, quintessence, or soul - a further embedded assumption). The other does not.
What I'm saying, is that to even use the phrase 'have pronouns' is, whether you're aware of it or not, to align yourself with a set of ideological beliefs about gender that are the very ones in dispute when it comes to trans issues.
Yes your right, I do have pro nouns but I don’t, unlike a lot of people, I don’t feel the compulsion to announce them to the world to prove I’m a good person.
See, I'd like to discuss this because I think you're simultaneously right but also not really taking it in the best faith. Full disclosure: I put my pronouns (he/him) in my social media profiles and in my work email signature. I do this for a number of reasons. The work email signature is, to be frank, me bowing to corporate culture more than anything else. Why they're in my social media profiles, however, is, well, three reasons:
1) To signal where I lie ideologically - similar to someone putting #FBPE or #Antivax or whatever in their profile.
2) To signal my virtue - so people think I'm a good person and I receive an imaginary pat on the head; like why someone might wear a poppy or one of these neat Marie Curie flowers.
3) To provide cover to trans and nonbinary people - to help make it usual to freely offer one's pronouns. This is similar to why straight people might use 'partner' instead of 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend' - to make it stand out less when someone with a same sex partner isn't comfortable in outing themselves.
I don't think this is without caveats (one trans friend pointed out having to offer their pronouns at work would basically be forcing them to out themselves in what they feel is a hostile environment). But can you at least sympathise with the third point?
It's really good for you to be transparent in this way. I think there is a lot of motte and bailey switching between the propositions out there (or indeed just presenting it as 'just what you do', ie points 1+2 but in a way that implies dissent is sketchy)
Point 3 is clearly the most sympathetic to liberal-minded people - but I think it's to some extent an empirical question whether it's *actually* an effective way to do it, versus a bit of a rationalisation (with 1+2 as underlying motivation). And I've seen dissents both from trans-affirming / trans people and gendercrits on its merits in this respect; putting aside the open objections to the politics of it (many essays elsewhere). In some organisations it's going to be forcing dissenters to 'out' themselves, potentially to hostility (depending on the extent of formal or informal compulsion), so you can flip the argument the other way too, depending on your priors of course.
Re: your example with "partner" - I'm sceptical (!) That the growth in this usage relates to that motivation (even unconsciously) so much as i) more long-term hetero couples remaining unmarried, 'bf/gf' not sounding very grown up and ii) general preference for gender-neutral terms across the board, they sound more 'modern'.
Cf. liberal norms on race/cultural identity - we accept that it's an issue of variable importance to different people, it's considered polite to be non-dismissive when someone *does* bring it up but not to be intrusive if they don't, some people are obviously 'read' but others are ambiguous, it's impolite to make assumptions based on your own preconceptions, if you're unsure allowing maximal leeway is the way to go. And actively drawing attention to / strengthening divisions along those lines (except where wholly relevant) is generally to be uncomfortable or worse to all involved including the marginalised party.
All fair points, and I tend to agree with you re the partner thing - I was just grasping for an analogue and it's the best I could find at short notice!
It's actually kind of useful to specify the pronouns you prefer to be referred by if your gender is ambiguous (because your outward appearance doesn't match your gender) or obfuscated (for instance, the fairly anonymous nature of online interactions).
Some (okay, probably many) people may adopt them for social clout in the circles they want that clout in, sure. But for those who've been misgendered and would rather not be, it's valuable
Excellent article and a good pointer as to why the Skeptic ‘movement’ is not what it was. I speak as someone who, up until a few years back, was highly enthusiastic about the Skeptic movement, a regular at my local Skeptics In The Pub and also QED. I now feel I would not be welcomed because I have questions about this subject and no pro nouns. Ironically James you were one of the people who got me into that world with your, much missed, Pod Delusion podcast.
You do have pronouns though, don't you, Trevor? If we're going to have these arguments in good faith, there's no need to be intentionally obtuse.
Is your reply, perhaps, not also a little obtuse? I would say I don't 'have' pronouns, because I don't think pronouns are something one can 'have'. That the phrase is a non sequitur. There are pronouns that are standard in our language to refer to someone (male) like me. But I don't make any pretensions to control the speech of others.
So the claim to 'have' pronouns is one more attempt to beg the question in favour of a very particular belief system around gender. And it's a belief system I don't share or wish to participate in.
I'm not sure I really grasp what you're getting at, sorry. You seemingly do have preferred pronouns (he/him). What you seem to be opposed to is people saying they have different pronouns than those that would indicate the sex they were born as (i.e. the 'standard'). It seems to me a rather banal and arbitrary thing to be opposed to, unless I've got the wrong end of the stick?
If you're not grasping it, this may be a case of the fish not being aware of the water it's swimming in.
I take seriously the post-structuralist critique of language common on the SJ left. That forms of language can have embedded in them assumptions that affect how we think about things when using that language. But I note that instead of using that critique to move to more neutral ways of speaking, they've instead turned it into a an arms race. So there's a very deliberate attempt to force language use that embeds within it the assumptions of their own ideology.
Consider the difference between: "My pronouns are ..." - expected to be said by all present, and "I'd really appreciate if you could call me Miss/Sir and refer to me by male/female pronouns" - said by the one person who's gendered expression is radically different from that typical of their sex.
The first contains the assumption that we all 'have' pronouns, because we all 'have' a 'gender' (using a highly contentious notion of gender as some sort of personal property, quintessence, or soul - a further embedded assumption). The other does not.
What I'm saying, is that to even use the phrase 'have pronouns' is, whether you're aware of it or not, to align yourself with a set of ideological beliefs about gender that are the very ones in dispute when it comes to trans issues.
Yes your right, I do have pro nouns but I don’t, unlike a lot of people, I don’t feel the compulsion to announce them to the world to prove I’m a good person.
See, I'd like to discuss this because I think you're simultaneously right but also not really taking it in the best faith. Full disclosure: I put my pronouns (he/him) in my social media profiles and in my work email signature. I do this for a number of reasons. The work email signature is, to be frank, me bowing to corporate culture more than anything else. Why they're in my social media profiles, however, is, well, three reasons:
1) To signal where I lie ideologically - similar to someone putting #FBPE or #Antivax or whatever in their profile.
2) To signal my virtue - so people think I'm a good person and I receive an imaginary pat on the head; like why someone might wear a poppy or one of these neat Marie Curie flowers.
3) To provide cover to trans and nonbinary people - to help make it usual to freely offer one's pronouns. This is similar to why straight people might use 'partner' instead of 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend' - to make it stand out less when someone with a same sex partner isn't comfortable in outing themselves.
I don't think this is without caveats (one trans friend pointed out having to offer their pronouns at work would basically be forcing them to out themselves in what they feel is a hostile environment). But can you at least sympathise with the third point?
It's really good for you to be transparent in this way. I think there is a lot of motte and bailey switching between the propositions out there (or indeed just presenting it as 'just what you do', ie points 1+2 but in a way that implies dissent is sketchy)
Point 3 is clearly the most sympathetic to liberal-minded people - but I think it's to some extent an empirical question whether it's *actually* an effective way to do it, versus a bit of a rationalisation (with 1+2 as underlying motivation). And I've seen dissents both from trans-affirming / trans people and gendercrits on its merits in this respect; putting aside the open objections to the politics of it (many essays elsewhere). In some organisations it's going to be forcing dissenters to 'out' themselves, potentially to hostility (depending on the extent of formal or informal compulsion), so you can flip the argument the other way too, depending on your priors of course.
Re: your example with "partner" - I'm sceptical (!) That the growth in this usage relates to that motivation (even unconsciously) so much as i) more long-term hetero couples remaining unmarried, 'bf/gf' not sounding very grown up and ii) general preference for gender-neutral terms across the board, they sound more 'modern'.
Cf. liberal norms on race/cultural identity - we accept that it's an issue of variable importance to different people, it's considered polite to be non-dismissive when someone *does* bring it up but not to be intrusive if they don't, some people are obviously 'read' but others are ambiguous, it's impolite to make assumptions based on your own preconceptions, if you're unsure allowing maximal leeway is the way to go. And actively drawing attention to / strengthening divisions along those lines (except where wholly relevant) is generally to be uncomfortable or worse to all involved including the marginalised party.
All fair points, and I tend to agree with you re the partner thing - I was just grasping for an analogue and it's the best I could find at short notice!
It's actually kind of useful to specify the pronouns you prefer to be referred by if your gender is ambiguous (because your outward appearance doesn't match your gender) or obfuscated (for instance, the fairly anonymous nature of online interactions).
Some (okay, probably many) people may adopt them for social clout in the circles they want that clout in, sure. But for those who've been misgendered and would rather not be, it's valuable
…”if your gender is ambiguous (because your outward appearance doesn't match your gender)”
This forces women to look feminine or not be regarded as women anymore.
It is a historic trap that we have been trying to get out of forever, because it limits our potential.
I don't really understand how you reached that conclusion from what I posted