I’m pretty sure that pronoun sharing started for an entirely different reason, that our workforce has become more diverse and that we aren’t all able to tell if a name is male or female.
Like others, I quite strongly disagree. In fact, I worry that this misperception risks inadvertently re-writing history in yet another way that disadvantages women and girls.
One of the many distressing aspects of gender ideology, for me, is that women and girls have endured centuries of linguistic erasure without the slightest attention being paid to this.
We've tolerated, and continue to tolerate, the generic masculine (eg. "mankind"). We're been "misgendered" daily, in offices across the country, as the default masculine and sexist assumptions about professional hierarchies endure. Yes, we've seen a slow shift towards our recognition in language (eg. "chairwoman/person"). But we still use the patronymic, in most cases. And where language does distinguish us, it still, as often as not, sustains the weight of patriarchal oppression: in teaching, the diminutive "Miss" versus the authoritative "Sir" (yes, it does make a difference); in swearing, the astonishingly creative range of words for women versus the more limited range for men; in the media, the patronising use of "female" as a distinguishing marker of "otherness" - it's "The World Cup" versus "The Women's World Cup" / "the entrepreneur" (male, naturally) as opposed to "the female entrepreneur" - that labels us as different, as secondary to the default or norm. Think about the invidious effect that has on young girls.
To recognise our tolerance and dignity in the face of these enduring limitations placed on us by language, only to witness, in stark comparison, the instant and absolute condemnation of misgendering transpeople (as no less than "dehumanising hatred"!) is to see the true extent of our oppression.
And that's before you realise that not only is this treatment of the different demographics - female and trans - revealingly inconsistent... but that the current ideology is systematically obscuring or diminishing our most precious, painfully recent gains: "Madam Speaker" / the "highest-earning businesswoman" / even "the women's boxing" - all no longer a source of undiluted pride or excitement (and they genuinely were for me, before this) as they could now be male...
Just as "she" and "woman" were gaining validity in the public sphere - associated no longer only with domestic stereotypes but with professional and leadership roles, and women's acceptance into traditionally male-dominated jobs, and I’m pretty sure that pronoun sharing started for an entirely different reason, that our workforce has become more diverse and that we aren’t all able to tell if a name is male or female.
Like others, I quite strongly disagree. In fact, I worry that this misperception risks of inadvertently re-writing history in yet another way that disadvantages women and girls.
One of the many distressing aspects of gender ideology, for me, is that women and girls have endured centuries of linguistic erasure without the slightest attention being paid to this.
We've tolerated, and continue to tolerate, the generic masculine (eg. "mankind"). We've been "misgendered" daily, in offices across the country, as the default masculine and sexist assumptions about professional hierarchies endure. Yes, we've seen a slow shift towards our recognition in language (eg. "chairwoman/person"). But we still use the patronymic, in most cases. And where language does distinguish us, it still, as often as not, sustains the weight of patriarchal oppression: in teaching, the diminutive "Miss" versus the authoritative "Sir" (yes, it does make a difference); in swearing, the astonishingly creative range of words for women versus the more limited range for men; in the media, the patronising use of "female" as a distinguishing marker of "otherness" - it's "The World Cup" versus "The Women's World Cup" / "the entrepreneur" (male, naturally) as opposed to "the female entrepreneur" - that marks us as different, as secondary to the default or norm. Think about the invidious effect that has on young girls.
To recognise our tolerance and dignity in the face of these ongoing limitations placed on us by language, only to witness, in comparison, the ready and absolute condemnation of misgendering transpeople as dehumanising "hatred", is to see the true extent of our oppression.
And that's before you realise that not only is this treatment of the different demographics - female and trans - revealingly inconsistent... but that the current ideology is systematically obscuring or diminishing our most precious, painfully recent gains: "Madam Speaker" / the "highest-earning businesswoman" / even "the women's boxing" - all no longer a source of undiluted pride or excitement (and they genuinely were for me, before this) as they could now be male...
Just as "she" and "woman" were gaining validity in the public sphere - associated no longer only with domestic stereotypes but with professional leadership roles, and traditionally male-dominated jobs (and competence, as opposed to an assumption of inferiority) in these contexts - they've promptly been appropriated to signify "gender". The very social construct behind our past invisibility is being used to erase us once again.
Our sex - its reality and history, and our associated oppression - is linguistically erased, on a collective level, once again.- they've been appropriated to signify "gender". Our sex - its reality and history, and our associated oppression - is linguistically erased, on a collective level, once again.