I think it's just courtesy. And politeness is actually one of my highest values; if I had to answer the Proust Questionnaire, I'd say that rudeness is one the qualities I most deplore in others. I also have no religious or other beliefs that make me unwilling or unable to use people's preferred pronouns.
I think it's just courtesy. And politeness is actually one of my highest values; if I had to answer the Proust Questionnaire, I'd say that rudeness is one the qualities I most deplore in others. I also have no religious or other beliefs that make me unwilling or unable to use people's preferred pronouns.
I'm happy to debate things like bans on gender transition care for minors, whether transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in girls' or women's sports, etc. But in those situations, there are arguable harms or costs. Personally speaking—and again, I have no religious or other issues—I'm not harmed by using someone's preferred pronouns.
We can debate the case of people whose religious or other deeply held beliefs create issues for them on this front. But that's not my case. And I think being willing to accommodate on something like pronouns gives me greater credibility on other issues, since it's more difficult to dismiss me as an "anti-trans bigot." If you oppose it all—including pronouns, which is much less important than the other issues I've mentioned—you end up having a meta-debate over whether you're a bigot.
Of course, I acknowledge that you can still be accused of bigotry anyway, for opposing any plank in the transgender-rights platform. But neutral third parties, the people whose hearts and minds we are trying to win, will not find the bigotry accusation convincing if you use people's preferred pronouns (and extend other relatively costless courtesies).
Despite what I wrote, I think you're correct. Politeness is a necessary quality for good human relations. I believe you are also correct that showing respect to a non-binary person comes with relatively zero cost, particularly when you're attempting to get through to people, both in that community and outside of it.
However, I feel the "rudeness" on this issue can go both ways. Insisting that others change the standard usage of English to refer to them in the plural—and if you don't you're a bigot, contributing to transgender suicide, committing "violence," or "refusing to acknowledge their humanity"—that's also pretty rude. I understand that English usage develops over time, etc., but my gut on this is that the transgender/non-binary movement has attracted quite a few entitled narcissists who do not have good intentions. I recall the Stanford law students shouting down Judge Duncan with vulgarities and threats, in part for misgendering serious criminals. We have all seen "trans-rights" activists aggressively shouting down and assaulting parents who are concerned about what's being taught in elementary schools. But I think I've gone too far afield on this issue.
I have never refused to honor pronouns, to a point. In most cases I see it just like a person's name preference: "Do you go by Jonathan, or Jon?" That to me is a costless courtesy, and the kind everyone deserves. The other day I accidentally misgendered a non-binary person in a social setting, someone who I happen to respect very much as an individual. Thankfully, my apology was taken graciously, and I've worked hard to show this courtesy.
I think the movement in the aggregate, however, is producing costs to society, particularly as it's being used to further the oppressor/oppressed, white supremacy narrative in academia, which I believe has greased the rails for the anti-Semitic behavior we have seen since last Saturday. As a Jew, I take this very seriously, and despite formerly showing much more tolerance for the movement, I feel it is time to pay attention. I was not surprised to see that workman was non-binary. That is not the same as saying if you are non-binary, you are anti-Semitic.
In some way I haven't been able to tease out and fully articulate, there is a link between some individuals in the trans/non-binary community, academia, and the burgeoning, contemporary hatred for Jews. I hope I'm wrong.
I think it's just courtesy. And politeness is actually one of my highest values; if I had to answer the Proust Questionnaire, I'd say that rudeness is one the qualities I most deplore in others. I also have no religious or other beliefs that make me unwilling or unable to use people's preferred pronouns.
I'm happy to debate things like bans on gender transition care for minors, whether transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in girls' or women's sports, etc. But in those situations, there are arguable harms or costs. Personally speaking—and again, I have no religious or other issues—I'm not harmed by using someone's preferred pronouns.
We can debate the case of people whose religious or other deeply held beliefs create issues for them on this front. But that's not my case. And I think being willing to accommodate on something like pronouns gives me greater credibility on other issues, since it's more difficult to dismiss me as an "anti-trans bigot." If you oppose it all—including pronouns, which is much less important than the other issues I've mentioned—you end up having a meta-debate over whether you're a bigot.
Of course, I acknowledge that you can still be accused of bigotry anyway, for opposing any plank in the transgender-rights platform. But neutral third parties, the people whose hearts and minds we are trying to win, will not find the bigotry accusation convincing if you use people's preferred pronouns (and extend other relatively costless courtesies).
Despite what I wrote, I think you're correct. Politeness is a necessary quality for good human relations. I believe you are also correct that showing respect to a non-binary person comes with relatively zero cost, particularly when you're attempting to get through to people, both in that community and outside of it.
However, I feel the "rudeness" on this issue can go both ways. Insisting that others change the standard usage of English to refer to them in the plural—and if you don't you're a bigot, contributing to transgender suicide, committing "violence," or "refusing to acknowledge their humanity"—that's also pretty rude. I understand that English usage develops over time, etc., but my gut on this is that the transgender/non-binary movement has attracted quite a few entitled narcissists who do not have good intentions. I recall the Stanford law students shouting down Judge Duncan with vulgarities and threats, in part for misgendering serious criminals. We have all seen "trans-rights" activists aggressively shouting down and assaulting parents who are concerned about what's being taught in elementary schools. But I think I've gone too far afield on this issue.
I have never refused to honor pronouns, to a point. In most cases I see it just like a person's name preference: "Do you go by Jonathan, or Jon?" That to me is a costless courtesy, and the kind everyone deserves. The other day I accidentally misgendered a non-binary person in a social setting, someone who I happen to respect very much as an individual. Thankfully, my apology was taken graciously, and I've worked hard to show this courtesy.
I think the movement in the aggregate, however, is producing costs to society, particularly as it's being used to further the oppressor/oppressed, white supremacy narrative in academia, which I believe has greased the rails for the anti-Semitic behavior we have seen since last Saturday. As a Jew, I take this very seriously, and despite formerly showing much more tolerance for the movement, I feel it is time to pay attention. I was not surprised to see that workman was non-binary. That is not the same as saying if you are non-binary, you are anti-Semitic.
In some way I haven't been able to tease out and fully articulate, there is a link between some individuals in the trans/non-binary community, academia, and the burgeoning, contemporary hatred for Jews. I hope I'm wrong.
It's a complex issue. Thanks for answering.