'They': being expected to remember the requirement to deny reality

[SwedishKvinnaboske]

I just hugely enjoyed, for all of its faults, another glorious Eurovision final - it's the highlight of the TV year for my family.

However, I couldn't help noticing in the TV commentary that Graham Norton - himself obviously no stranger to the 'LGBT community' - automatically used sex-based pronouns for the two 'non-binary-identifying' finalists who both make it known that they prefer to use 'they' - in English, at least (I presume that Nemo must have seen the obvious drawback in German, where the same word 'sie' is used for 'she' and for 'they', with the context sometimes only being clear from the correct use of the singular or plural form of the verb).

Once, Graham referred to Bambie Thug as 'she' (but other times used 'they'); and I counted at least three times when he referred to Nemo as 'he', in the midst of all the other uses of 'they'. This included Graham's loud exclamation at the end that "HE'S DONE IT!", which you would normally expect the BBC news afterwards to automatically replay as the defining moment when reporting on the victory. Oddly enough, this moment was notable in its absence, which seemed rather strange.

Unless I'm very much misinformed, all of the other 23 singers in the final use sex-based pronouns, in accordance with biology, and Graham never once failed to use these correct pronouns for the other 92% of performers - even if the potential effects of alcohol consumption are taken into account. Interestingly, he also never accidentally called Bambie 'he' or Nemo 'she'.

My main point in highlighting this is that being expected to refer to a single known individual as 'they' is most obviously not something that comes naturally to most of us, and thus, even if we do willingly (or feel forced to) comply, it presents a real barrier to our normal use of language, as we have to remember to stop and think every time what needs to be changed when dealing with particular people. I'm sure not one of us has ever had to stop and remember to refer to our mum as 'she' or our brother as 'he'.

It feels to me like a round on Richard Osman's House of Games - where the object is to think hard whilst playing and not to forget that every correct number in an answer first has to be doubled or every 'E' has to be changed to an 'O' or whatever. The whole idea of these games is that they're deliberately designed to catch you out if you aren't on high alert at all times. Fun for a half-hour light-hearted brain-teaser, but extremely tiresome to have to follow 24/7 in real life.

If humans being 'non-binary' - and thus 'they' - is indeed, as we are told, a perfectly natural state of affairs, why do our brains have to be temporarily re-wired and constantly on edge every single time we have to address or talk about somebody who demands to be referred to as 'they'? Why must we walk on eggshells and deliberately deny the common-sense reality in language that our brains automatically go to?

How come one person can dictate to countless others that they are not allowed to fully use the natural fluency that they have long had in their own (mutual) native language in order to validate somebody else's (minority) personal beliefs - and in so doing confirm that they must necessarily share these beliefs and are therefore not allowed to hold different ones themselves? It's widely viewed as bigotry/nastiness/phobia not to call a self-proclaimed 'NB' person 'they' - but however much you try to deny it, it simply is not ever instinctive or natural to the vast majority (if not all) of us.

I find that breathtakingly arrogant and naive of Bambie and insulting and offensive to me as a woman

Me too! It makes me angry. How fucking dare she think that? And, pertinently, she who looked like a normal woman 5 minutes ago and whose act has ripped off a genuinely talented woman. It looks like she’s just chosen non-binary and her rip-off look to get attention. Indeed, in an earlier interview, she said something like she always wanted to be a star.

Actually, Bambie (or Barbie, as auto-correct slyly renamed her 😀) is just pushing regressive stereotypes because she thinks that you can’t look, do, be those things when you’re ‘only’ a woman.

The Swiss national broadcaster SRG SSR organises the process for choosing Switzerland's entry and since 2019 has used the internal selection method.
SRG SSR confirmed its intention to participate at the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 on 7 July 2023 and announced the artist and song it was sending on 29 February 2024.

Interesting timings altogether.

"Nemo and the song "The Code" were internally selected out of more than 400 songs submitted to the Swiss broadcaster. Five artists and songs were invited to perform at auditions in Zurich back in December 2023."

https://eurovisionworld.com/esc/switzerland-nemo-releases-the-code-for-eurovision-2024

<Minor thread derail>
I do creative writing and submit short stories/ first chapters etc to competitions. In recent years I have seriously wondered if I should just declare myself non-binary as it would open up so many more opportunities to me, and as far as I can see, wouldn't necessarily need to change my life in any way.

I always think the pronoun thing is stupid because realistically how often do you refer to a person in the third person when you're talking to them, or talking about them when they're in the same room?

Obviously the Eurovision scenario is a very different one. But in non-celebrity daily life, as 'you' in english is non-gendered, most non-binary specials will tragically never find out how you refer to them when they're not around.

But in non-celebrity daily life, as 'you' in english is non-gendered, most non-binary specials will tragically never find out how you refer to them when they're not around.

Except that, as in a PP's post, their "allies" and sycophants will scold you for referring to them with the wrong pronouns and doubtless report back to them what a hateful bigot you are. And if it's at work in a captured organisation, quite possibly get you reported to HR.

Traditionally, in languages which have sexed third person singular pronouns they just informed others of the sex of the person. If doing this is something we need to do, from a wider philosophical point of view would be an interesting debate. Many languages do just fine without having two pronouns for the third person singular.

But the debate now is different: If some people are now 'they', yet they are still either male or female, what is the meaning of telling others that your pronouns are, say, he/him?

You are no longer signaling your sex. So what are you signaling? That you love male gender roles, rules, and stereotypes for yourself?

The nonbinary category puts this into stark light, because it really does suggest that everyone who is not nonbinary is a lover of sexist stereotypes attached to their sex. I find this somewhat suffocating, because I don't share a love of those stereotypes for myself.

And I, at least, want to know if those who identify as nonbinary expect not to be affected by societal sexism while others are to be seen as prey for it. Or what?

From another angle, what do the two nonbinary singers have in common that they don't share with people of their own sex? Which of the two would be paid more in some job? Which of the two is most likely to be sexually assaulted?

Or is it simply that they both want to be seen different from the masses?

I understand that there are many young people who pick 'nonbinary' do so to avoid many of the more extreme stereotypes the society attaches to being female (we are seen as sexual and fertility commodities by so many) or male (men are seen as violent oppressors by some), and that some do it because of mental suffering of various kinds.

But still. This choice changes the world for all of us, often in negative ways, and it would be good to be told exactly why we should go along with it when there are good alternatives to it. Better ones, even, in feminist activism, at least.

My personal favourite version

Exactly this.

Until about five minutes ago we used the pronouns "she" for a woman/female person and "he" for a man/male person. Since we can all see with our own eyes whether someone is a male or female, there was never any need to tell people what pronouns to use because they could work it out for themselves based on what they could see with their own eyes.

When you tell someone "your pronouns", you are signaling that you believe that whether someone is a man or a woman has nothing to do with their sex and everything to do with their identity, and that some people are neither a woman nor a man because they do not identify as either.

(Incidentally, the entire concept of preferred pronouns disproves the batshit claim that we can't tell what sex someone is. If we couldn't tell what sex someone was, we would either be calling everyone "they" or we would already be calling trans people by the pronouns corresponding to their gender identity because that is what we would be seeing.)

When you tell me to refer to a male person as "she" or an unambiguously male or female person as "they", you are telling me I must describe the world according to your belief system rather than my own. But I don't like your belief system. I find it regressive and sexist. I don't want to define men and women according to stereotypes, neither do I believe it is possible to identify out of sex based oppression. I certainly don't believe I share any kind of identity with trans women. I just want to be allowed to have, and use, words for "male people" and "female people". But right now, refusing to describe the world according to your belief system can have serious consequences for me.

The reason it felt like bullying is because that's exactly what it is.

The self-appointed 'correcters' have arbitrarily decided that they are right and that you are simply wrong, no question.

It just does not even figure with them as a slight possibility that you may well know that a person has asked/demanded people use unusual pronouns for them, but you have decided that you don't share their beliefs and thus do not wish to entertain their requests.

It's kind of like the equivalent of if, say, Kelloggs had lots of prime-time adverts for their cereals (all well and good) but then somehow found out that you had decided to buy a different brand of cereal - or indeed didn't want to buy cereal at all. Then, instead of them just being a bit disappointed that you hadn't chosen to give them a sale, they sent a representative to your door to check that you'd seen the adverts, and that you understood their message that they were telling you that you needed to buy their products, and to ask what your problem was, patronisingly see if they could 'help' you to make the 'necessary' purchase and tell you they would monitor you and check back later, to make sure that you had seen the error of your ways and were now going to do the 'correct' thing.

There's nothing wrong with telling people what you would like them to do, but unless you are their employer or the government, it is then entirely their choice how they respond to that request.