Can we chat about reasons for not using trans name and pronouns?

[Teatimebrioche]

In a recent conversation about LGBTQ (well, just the TQ) I was asked if I'd be open to using the new name and pronouns of a trans person, theoretically speaking.

I said that I wouldn't, that it made me very uncomfortable and that I'd feel like I was lying by going along with it. That I didn't like the breaking down of reality and the female/male language and all that entails, and that it blurs boundaries.

But I ended up feeling pretty frustrated as that didn't really cover what I wanted to say and was a bit sound bitey. I just got more and more tongue tied when I tried to go into more detail. I've been trying to write down my thoughts on it since but I feel like they're all just swirling around my head and I can't isolate the thoughts well enough to formulate a proper sentence about it.

I especially feel it's detrimental to use the chosen name and pronouns for kids/teens, but again I can't articulate why even though I "know" why.

I agree with so much of what has been said on this board about it and when I listen to the likes of Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock etc I find my head bobbing up and down in agreement.

What way would you answer if asked the same thing?

I've been thinking about something similar today but find it confusing to understand my own feelings!

Generally find the whole trans thing quite bonkers but also think people should do / be what they want. But I just don't really get the need for the labels / pronouns / using women's spaces etc.

I was thinking, if we didn't have such stereotypes and behaviours for girls / boys, men / women, would people feel like their were the opposite sex so much? Like if people could just interchangeably wear makeup, dresses, short hair, long hair or whatever regardless of sex.. then would it really matter what your pronouns are?

I was also wondering about surgery. Like do most trans people want organs of the opposite sex or is it more about how they want to express themselves?

I don't really know what I'm talking about but just some jumbled thoughts!

If a person introduced themselves to you as Laura, even if Laura was clearly male, you would just address them as Laura. That's the only name you've got to work with. And you'd use she/her as that is clearly Laura's intended identity.

You might well refer to Laura as 'he' in conversations with people unfamiliar with Laura. Or if Laura was trying to join your rugby team. Or change in the women's dressing room at the pool.

Even if Laura was 15, you'd probably do the same, unless you previously knew Laura as Jason.

If you are Laura's parent, or teacher, or therapist, you may well take a different view on social transition and the dangers of it. But for most people... I'd just call them what they want to be called.

Pronouns kinda depend on the situation. And whether you can remember!

I refuse to bow down to this nonsense.

It doesn't bother me what people want to be called, I'll call them by their preferred name. Bob, Kate, whatever.

Pronouns are not really used when with someone are they? Depends if I remember as I'm chatting.

I’d answer that I’d be happy to use pretty much whatever name someone wants to be called by (as long as it didn’t make me feel uncomfortable), but I use sex-based pronouns because it makes everything clearer. Nobody can change sex

I definitely agree that sex-based stereotyping is an integral part of trans ideology. I sometimes wonder if part of the point is to suggest women who won’t conform to sex-based stereotypes aren’t ‘proper’ women

Why do you think you have to justify not using pronouns?

Names are different, anyone can have and change name as often as they like.
Whether I remember a current name among many is a different matter, but I would try.

Anyway if I was asked, I'd just say I'll use a name, and never refer to pronouns at all. But as an adult, I dont need reasons for my stance.

Using wrong sex pronouns is forced speech, being made to participate in a delusion, denying reality. Calling a rapist “she” is the most extreme example of this offensive practice. There is no way I would ever go along with this, and I will be forever grateful to Maya Forstater et al, for establishing our legal right in the matter.

To take from Gary Francione's argument; it a metaphysical belief that you don't share. It's the equivalent of being told to believe in Jesus.
You don't believe in gender identity and that people can change sex the same way you don't believe the bread and wine can become Jesus' body.
It's a faith, fine for those who wish to believe in it but they cannot force you to, any more than you can be forced into believing Jesus is god.

It's not "lying" to use a name that someone has chosen.

I do not want to renforce someone's delusions.

I'll use whatever name someone is introduced to me as - although I do find it difficult to use a female name for an obviously male person. But I've also found it difficult when friends have changed their name - it feels artificial to use a new, unfamiliar name rather than the one I know them as, but that discomfort is mine to deal with.

I feel completely differently about pronouns though. Asking me to use the wrong sex's pronouns, or they/them, is asking me to use language incorrectly, which I won't do. I'll follow the rules of grammar as I see fit, thank you very much.

So if you were told that Jesus' name is god and you should use it.... it's the same as calling Alan Barker 'Sarah-Jane' Barker.
It's a faith statement.

My view is that you own your name and should be addressed by that name. Pronouns are a part of speech and are owned by the person using them.

This may be just a story but I was told about a meeting of business consultants where a young female consultant introduced herself as 'my name is Persephone but I like to be called Sam'. A middle aged male consultant immediately said 'That's amazing. My name is Sam but I like to be called Persephone.'

Would use preferred name.
I'd also use 'they' if preferred as I think there is no reason for the rules of grammar to centre someone's sex every time you speak about them. You don't use different pronouns for different races. 'They' could be the equivalent of 'Ms' (or Mr!) ... you don't need to centre someone's marital status in a title either.
But I wouldn't use 'she' for a male person. I might use 'they'. although a proper gender and sex neutral pronoun is never going to catch on at this stage of the evolution of the English language, I think it would be better if we'd had one all along.

You're not the only one considering this and finding it tricky.

I don't want to be a dick and if a person feels strongly enough to transition, I would try to respect that. So I would try and use their preferred name. But then what? What if "Angela" (clearly Adam) wants to use the ladies toilet as we all clearly believe he is Angela?

I don't know how to deal with that and I don't want to lose my job for transphobic discrimination.

I don't think there's any justification for not using a person's preferred name, whether gendered or not, whatever they have done. Ok yes there is one, if they have changed their name to someone else's as a harassment tool - isn't there a violent activist who changed their name to Cthy Boardman to harassment an academic?

A much more pertinent point on names is this idea that a pre-transition name is a dead name that can't be referred to. I don't think it should be constantly brought up but it shouldn't disappear either.

Preferred pronouns - I use them. Being brought up on the UK im familiar with lying and repression for politeness' sake, and that's what it is - pretending the pain of growing up and the human condition can be swept away by a shiny new pronoun, replacing the search for meaning with the search for people who aren't convinced enough by your new persona.

That's an entirely false equivalence.

There's a real arrogance about people who refuse to call people the name they want to be called.

I remember the daughter of one of my Mum's friends choosing to be called by her middle name, as she disliked her first name. Eveyone in her family (including the parents who'd chosen her first name) was fine with it, as was everyone else...apart from my mum. Who refused and consistently called her by the name she hated. Because 'I like it better and that's what she was named at baptism'. Even as child I knew that was arrogant and selfish of my mum.

I'd call him Laura as if it was a nickname. But I'd be blown if I was going to tie myself in knots with the wrong sex pronouns when talking to other people.

Not at all;
If you are Elizabeth and prefer to be called Amelia it is absolutely different from being called Keith and demanding everyone call you Amanda.
The first example is a simple name change . It requires no forced belief from others.

The second is a religious faith statement that Keith, a man, is now a woman, called Amanda.
And you are required to partake and believe.

It’s compelled speech: forcing women to say something that they know is untrue. That’s always the first step in totalitarian regimes.

I’d say that women are physically vulnerable to men in a way that men can never truly comprehend, and as such we women are extremely sensitive to the physical cues which designate who is male. This has nothing to do with clothes and make up, and everything to do with the adam’s apple, the jawline and forehead, the pheromones, shoulder breadth and the forearm muscles and so on. Forcing women to deny what they see is psychologically harmful to them, and especially harmful if the victim of compelled speech is a child.

I’d say that we live in a world where some women and girls suffer genital mutilation to please men, where women in many countries are not allowed to work or even go shopping without a male supervisor, and that even in the UK girls are sexually harassed from pre-adolescence, most women have been sexually pestered or assaulted in some way, UK women have been raped and murdered by police, and UK women have been fired from their jobs for refusing to repeat a lie. I’d say that in all this context I’m reluctant to defer to the feelings of a man over who is and who is not a woman, and I see attempts by him to control my speech as deeply sinister and threatening. I’d say that no one ever needs to use gendered pronouns when talking to a transperson: if I am talking to Laura, I call Laura “you”. Even if Laura hears that I referred to him as ‘he’, I would ask why the man’s feelings are so much more important than my own, particularly as he grew up with male privilege and will never begin to comprehend what being female has meant to my life.

I would use whatever name someone wanted. To me, not using that name is like someone insisting on calling a woman by her husband's surname because they believe women should change their name (or calling a woman by her old surname because they don't believe women should change their name). I realise this is not a perfect comparison, but my point is really that a person can choose their name, whatever it is.

Also, how does refusing to use a name work? What if someone is introduced to you as "Anna", but they are male? What name will you use if you don't know a previous name?
Or would you, for example, refuse to call Blake Lively's daughter James because it's almost always a name for males?

What if a transwoman has chosen a name that is almost always used for women, but can sometimes be used for men? Lindsay springs to mind as an example. Will you judge how female you think the name sounds before deciding whether to use it? Or is it enough that the person intends it to be a female name, and that will stop you using it?

A much more pertinent point on names is this idea that a pre-transition name is a dead name that can't be referred to. I don't think it should be constantly brought up but it shouldn't disappear either.

I agree with this. Again I'd sort of treat it like an old surname if someone got married and changed their name.

Pronouns I'd say are a totally different kettle of fish.

It's not a religious faith statement at all.

Someone has a name that they want to be called. Calling them that name is nothing to do with faith or lying. It's a name. You don't have to believe anything to call someone by the name they've chosen.

It’s compelled speech: forcing women to say something that they know is untrue. That’s always the first step in totalitarian regimes.

So people who choose a new name don't expect the men in their lives to use it,? Just women?

A name isn't untrue. It's a name.

Pronouns are a different matter, but a name cannot be a lie.

If that's the case, for the next week tell everyone you've changed you name to
"Allah."
Come back and tell me how that worked out for you.