Misgendering . . . actually isn't

[Fifteentoes]

Someone a while back accused me of misgendering someone, and being an open minded and reflective kind of guy, if gender critical, I found myself thinking about it from time to time. Wondering if I really had done something wrong, should try to do things differently, etc.

Then I realised, I hadn't done anything of the sort. When I referred to the person as male I wasn't referring to their gender, I was referring to their sex (as the meaning of the word has been understood for millenia, and still is by most people). As I was making no claim whatsoever about their gender, how could I be misgendering them?

It's like these people not only claim the right to change the meaning of language, but the right to interpret everyone else's use of the language according to the new meaning as well, even when it's not intended that way. And then get offended by it.

Weird.

I can't bring myself to lie (ASD)
I just avoid the pronoun. Its easy to go given that you don't call a person she/he to their face
It is compelled speech
The whole obsession with 'passing' troubles me because that feels deceitful too. I would love people to be happy and proud for what they are
I wouldn't be happy if a close relationship tried to convince me they were the opposite sex

Excellent analysis fifteentoes.

‘Misgendering’ is correctly sexing.

Incidentally, as a female, I have never lost my shit over letters addressed to Mr MyName or when I have been referred to as he or Mr (worked overseas and non-native English speakers often struggle with pronouns and titles). They still see me and know me as a DifficultBloodyWoman.

In what context did you use the term male? When I assume talking with someone about another person you both knew.

I mean that's kind of important.

Are you in the medical field?

Context is important I think.

@NiceGerbil

In what context did you use the term male? When I assume talking with someone about another person you both knew.

context isn't important, male is nothing to do with gender it is a fact about sex

Context is very important.

Because I can't imagine many situations where I would be talking to someone about another person we both knew, and would need to say they were male. Or whatever happened.

It's important because without the context. OP may have been totally reasonable. Or may have been behaving like a nob.

That matters to me.

I've had the same thought. If sex isn't the same as gender, then using pronouns based on someone's apparent sex isn't misgendering them. If anything, it would be mis-sexing them, but it isn't that either, because the entire point of this is that their gender is different from their sex.

Personally, I gave up trying to reason with people when someone was offended than I "assumed the gender" of a tall and muscular bearded person who introduced him/herself as Carl.

That's not what this is about though.

Male is not a pronoun etc.

I'm really interested in finding out the context before commenting.

OP could have been behaving like a dick.

I mean who knows.

Pronouns are not actually about the person they refer to. Pronouns are about the speaker. They describe how the speaker perceives another person. How can you perceive another person's sense of self?

YY etc

However.

The OP was talking about someone they both knew. I cannot imagine how the OP needed to say male in that conversation.

From my POV there's some posts on here that I want to ensure I know exactly what was going on before giving my opinion. This is one.

Yep, I do not accept "misgendering" as a concept. If I use he/she, I'm indicating their sex.

Previously I would have been inclined to regard a "white lie" about someone's sex via pronouns as being acceptable, but the harm of that has become clear.

If it would cause significant issues to point out someone's sex via pronouns, I now just avoid referring to their sex at all.

@NiceGerbil

Context is very important.

Because I can't imagine many situations where I would be talking to someone about another person we both knew, and would need to say they were male. Or whatever happened.

It's important because without the context. OP may have been totally reasonable. Or may have been behaving like a nob.

That matters to me.

I imagine the OP simply used the pronoun 'he' rather than stating 'he is male' Pronouns do tend to come up quite often when people are discussing other people...

Pronouns are a made-up/language/social thing, so really they can refer to whatever we agree to: either sex or gender identity or social role. From a purely logical point of view, there's no issue with collectively deciding that pronouns are based on gender identity (or anything else, really) instead of sex.

But pronouns are currently strongly linked to sex in our minds, because until very recently, so few people expressed gender identity or were permitted/accepted to step outside sex-based roles that those few who did didn't affect what we assumed the language to mean. Also, sex is pretty important to humans.

But then within the context of TRAs trying to replace sex with gender socially and legally, I see the push to use pronouns as a very deliberate attempt to coopt that strong association and transfer it to gender as part of a wider agenda. You can see it working where people initially don't see the problem with transwomen in women's prisons and women's sports, because they don't feel the dissonance which they would get if the correct language were used, which would prompt them to think about it more carefully. People do rely on language to help them think.

I still think that the best solution would be to get rid of gender pronouns entirely and call everyone the same pronouns. It would reduce unconscious bias against women too. We got rid of 'thou' - but I suppose the compartmentalising we do based on sex is much stronger than just status/formality, so ironically he/she is actually much harder to change/get rid of.

Context is important I think.

Not really. Referring to a male person as male isn't something we should ever have to walk on eggshells over.

When I speak to you, I refer to you as you. (English having dispensed with the polite thou/thy/thine, maybe we should bring it back?

The only occaisions when I might refer to you as he/she/they is when you are not present.

So what gives?

What you are doing is disrespecting their identity. Ask yourself why you want to hurt another person in doing that, and perhaps reflect on that - especially knowing you will be hurting them. The rest then I guess is your choice on how you wish to be as a human being, and if your view on their sex (which may or may not be right!) and expressing it, is adding or taking away from goodwill in our society.

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with Mishy...

It feels uncomfortable to me to use different pronouns to what comes naturally, and I have many, many issues with the current gender ideology.

However, I've concluded that I don't want to deliberately do something to/say something about an individual that I know they will feel offended by.

I don't know what the impact on that individual will be. And the overall impact on society is to increase hostility.

Yes, one should always prioritise not upsetting anyone else even if it means you have to say something that you don't believe in , that makes you feel upset or uncomfortable , that you believe harms you , or that ignites any old trauma such as gender dysmorphis

There is no conflict provide you lie down and shut up

Hmm I hear you, I have spent plenty of time mulling over this one!

At the moment, we have women and trans people all shouting that we are not feeling comfortable or safe, and terrified that we're not being heard on this. We don't have to agree, but we have to start hearing each other. A lot of trans people won't be able to listen properly to our concerns as feminists, if we are pointedly doing something that upsets them.

But we should listen to them if they pointedly upset us ?

Of course it goes both ways.

I would find it very hard to listen to someone who was calling me cis, for example, especially if they persisted when they knew it upset me.

But I find it hard calling a man her because it is in conflict with how I have reconciled myself to not being male

If he can be a her wtf am I not a him
If I am a him, does that mean I am no longer entitled to use the ladies ? What does that mean for me?

What you are doing is disrespecting their identity.

And anyone demanding anyone else to refer to them with a particular form is disrespecting that person's identity.

The Queen apparently gets to do it to her subjects, but not clear why subjects should be able to demand it of other subjects.

In Japan, honorifics are very much at the behest of the speaker, and indeed are an indication of respect. You could not demand one, unless in some position of authority.

I'm looking at a bigger picture of 'How do we get out of this mess?'

As far as I can tell, this board is unique. It's full of interesting, well-written posts from all sorts of knowledgeable people, and generally robust but respectful debate. I have learnt loads from reading on here.

There will be trans people and others who might find reading this board changes their views about GC feminists, or who might learn more about our perspective. It has the potential to be a place where others might listen to us. We know deliberate misgendering is perceived as hostile, it will immediately get people's backs up and change the way they read and process the posts here.

I will honestly say I find it personally difficult to use preferred pronouns, because of my own beliefs and experience of gender. But I decided it's a compromise I can make for the sake of better understanding and communication.