Request to share pronouns

Which kind of proves it to be performative and irrelevant

And as I posted at the end of the last page (where it got missed), that performativity comes at a cost. Adding pronouns to emails generates additional carbon emissions that add up cumulatively to lives lost.

Once upon a time, I believe that "plum" referred to all sorts of dried fruit; "nice" started out meaning foolish, then shifted to lascivious, then extravagant, then precise/scrupulous.

It is entirely possible that one day "he/she" will cease to be sex-based but instead refer to "people who wear checked flannel shirts and drink ale/people who have long hair and gesture softly" 🤷🏻‍♀️ but at this present moment, I think the majority of English speakers are still languishing in the former category awaiting educational updating.

@Helleofabore I agree, and I hope so too. I expect that asking for pronouns will disappear eventually. I’d guess that cross-sex pronouns will continue but be much rarer than now. I’m hopeful that the whole compulsion edifice will fall down.

“The issue with that is that, descriptively, large numbers of people really do believe that he/she refer to someone's self-identity not their sex.”

It is a recent change and there are large numbers of people who are confused too, not just those who are ideologically driven. Going forward, I assume that Society will revert back to the vast majority using the established use of language, schools will teach those established language conventions.

Sure there will always be people who choose to use gender identity language. Groups of people have always created specific language for their cultural group. The difference was that they never made the demands that this group is making. This group has been allowed significant over reach and people declaring that they should have the freedom to do so are ignoring the power that the group have obtained where their demands are now in policy where freedom to choose seems to have been removed, if it has not actually been removed.

But hopefully in the future, we will not have that coercive pressure and without it, I suspect people will just revert back to using the established conventions of the language.

@Helleofabore Why should one group or one person be able to demand that their changes to already established words be accepted by the entire population?

Absolutely they should not. I agree. Language meaning should be organic and not compelled.

@Helleofabore MN isn't great for nuance, because I agree that Revd and Ms are slightly different from each other and slightly different from pronouns again (and slightly different from His Holiness, too). The point connecting them is that if we are deciding what are permissible self-descriptions we need a permitter, to judge the meaning of each and how they measure up to the permitted standard. That worries me a lot more than someone calling themself something I don't buy into.

The strongest argument (your argument) is of course: "that word's already taken". You can't call yourself a surgeon, and you can't call yourself she if you are male. The issue with that is that, descriptively, large numbers of people really do believe that he/she refer to someone's self-identity not their sex. It's not a movement I have much sympathy with. But it is, in fact, real and widespread. I don't think we want a system where one side gets to say "my" view of what pronouns means is the permitted one and others are banned. The other lot tried that, and it was wrong. I don't think we can do it either. At least for self-description.

There's a hairdresser on tiktok who "went viral" for always asking her clients if she was allowed to touch them and what their pronouns were.

In every single video I have seen so far she refers to the client either by their name or as "you" (do you want this, how do you like that). Never once has she ever used the she/her they/them, etc. pronouns that are given and requested.

Which kind of proves it to be performative and irrelevant.

Stick to your guns OP.

Moral courage is one of the principle characteristics of leadership. Demonstrate some moral courage and don't pander to this utter nonsense.

So they only really apply if other people are talking about you?

How would you know if they were using the appropriate pronouns or not?

Language is a communication tool that requires a clearly understood base to be successful. If a group chooses to change the meanings of words to suit the purpose of the group to mean the very opposite of what the established meaning is, why should that be acceptable?

Why should one group or one person be able to demand that their changes to already established words be accepted by the entire population? Particularly when those changes make significant and harmful changes to already established language?

Sure. But your examples of Reverend and Ms were not comparable to someone with a philosophical belief about their gender because their gender is not based on a materially real fact such as adult female status or an earned qualification.

I disagree that Reverend is based in ideology only. It is actually an earned qualification whether you agree with the ideology or not. Is there also any expectation to use the term outside of the church? It is like Dr. Do you use Dr as the title for your GP?

Would you call the Prime Minister, ‘Prime Minister’ when needed? What if someone is a Lord appointed to the House of Lords? Would you use their title when it was appropriate?

While you focus on freedom of choice only, I prefer to focus on both material reality and choice.

Because if some random person who held a belief they were PM asked me to call them Prime Minister and I knew they were not, there is no way I would even consider doing it just because they sincerely believed they were. As I said, I don’t believe using the title Reverend is comparable to the choice of using correct sex pronouns because there is the element of materially real qualification.

I disagree that they are comparable.

That’s fine that we disagree. But that should make you hesitate before deciding that only reality-based terms should be permitted. Why? Because what if fate chose me not you to be the permitter? You might discover that I feel all sorts of words you use ‘really’ imply something different from what you mean by them, and have them banned.

I don’t think you, me or anyone should have that power, at least for self-description. [should edit to say: at least for pronouns].

I disagree that they are comparable. You don’t have to believe in a god to use an honorific or title. The honorific or title in and of themselves don’t deny reality or distort words.

The distortion of language around gender isn’t an evolution, and it’s designed to deceive.

I think the way you’re framing this is playing into the hands of those who want to distort and deceive.

Sorry - that response was intended for the poster to whom you were responding.

There are limits to that though. Some words / labels have real-world impacts that should be boundaried. I am thinking here of performative utterances: "I declare you man and wife" only has real-world impacts if you are invested with the requisite authority for instance. If you go round claiming to be a surgeon when you are not you are liable to get in trouble. It's an interesting question - I wonder if any philosophers of language are tackling it.

That’s why I said personal, ideological or political.

@Helleofabore Fully agree with you on no compulsion to use. That’s the important thing here, not adjudicating whether someone else’s use of words is sufficiently aligned to material reality to permit them to use them or to invite others to use.

The fact is we live in a society where people hold a wide range of political and metaphysical beliefs, many of which I believe to be false or even dangerous. I think the best system is not to adjudicate which are based on reality and to permit only those to be expressed. I think the best way (in fact the only workable way) is to say: you’re free to use words as you like, but you aren’t free to expect me to comply.

Reverend implies a world view I believe to be false. I don’t think it should be banned on those grounds. I’d call the Dalaï Lama the Dalaï Lama (or sir, if speaking to him), not His Holiness. I don’t think he should be banned from using His Holiness either, not from requesting others do so, provided it’s acceptable and normal to decline to do so.

Concepts and meanings are also partly social, and by necessity evolve. A lot of words are load-bearing (especially in this space around laws and rights) and that’s why it’s very important to explain and defend important terminology. But not by literally banning others from using the words differently, especially about themselves. That’s ’no debate’ thinking and I reject it.

Someone can ask to be called Reverend. And if that is their job title/qualification title, it is based in material reality.

It is also not a requirement for anyone to call someone Reverend.

'Ms' is a political but legitimate neutral title for a female person. Also not a requirement for anyone to use. But again, it is based in material reality as it is a title used for a female person.

These are not comparable to expecting someone to use wrong sex pronouns that defy English language conventions.

I'm also unsure as to how women's not wanting to announce our marital/sexual status is 'ideological'. To me, it seems merely logical. No man is ever expected to introduce himself in such a way.

Does being called Reverend or Ms change the mean of words or require others to deny reality? No, of course not. So really not comparable.

Basically call yourself Reverend, OK (though it does rather break the social contract rooted in Gricean conversational maxims if you are not, in fact, a reverend). Call other people heathens and infidels if they prefer not to, not so much.

How did you get on at yesterday’s meeting OP?

Do I think it would be OK for someone to ask that? Yes, albeit weird.

Do I think there should be any expectation that others comply? No.

Do you think it’s OK for someone to ask to be called Reverend? It also implies a world view.

Do you think it was OK when the first person asked to be called Ms? Because that was also weird (and ideological) at the time.