Epiphanies 2022: Use of pronouns - Epiphanies version

LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
edited January 2024 in Limbo
Hi if people want to discuss gendered pronoun use please remember this is an issue so often used to attack trans people either directly or indirectly that great care needs to be taken in how it is discussed. Please do not import examples/cases from the closed thread. Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host

BroJames wrote: »
I’d have thought it was fairly simple. It is preferable to use a person’s preferred pronouns to refer to them.

The use of a singular ‘they’ etc. is widely but not universally accepted.

In relation to an identified individual, whether their gender is as assigned at birth or not, the use of gender neutral pronouns (unless that is their preference) may be felt by them to be erasing or denying their identity.
[Purg stuff snipped - L]

Comments

  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    It seems to me that the obvious consequence of BroJames' second sentence is that I cannot know how to address or refer politely to a person whose preferred pronouns I do not know. If I want to avoid confusion or perceived offense, I presumably can address or refer to individuals I already know well, a serious limitation. (This assumes an individual will not now and then change the choice of preferred pronouns without informing all acquaintances.)

    If we accept "they" as generic singular, then to avoid confusion, we need a replacement pronoun for plurals. In the American South, people use "you-all" for second-person plural; why not use "they-all" for third-person plural?

    I see no possible solution to this that will be acceptable to all.

    I have no idea whether this matter arises in other languages and cultures (but it seems likely). I cannot say I regard this as the largest problem facing the world today.

    I hope that I have not offended anyone in stating these opinions.
  • HarryCH wrote: »
    If we accept "they" as generic singular, then to avoid confusion, we need a replacement pronoun for plurals. In the American South, people use "you-all" for second-person plural; . . .
    ”Y’all,” actually. “You all” is heard more in movies and on TV than in real life, at least in my experience. (“All y’all,” on the other hand . . . .)

    But do we need” a replacement third-person plural pronoun? English on the whole functions without a plural second-person pronoun. Even here, where “y’all” is very common, “you” continues to function both as a singular and as a plural pronoun. No, it’s not ideal, but most English speakers can tell from context whether “you” is singular or plural.
    I cannot say I regard this as the largest problem facing the world today.
    No one has said it is or ought to be. But do we only take on the biggest problems? It would seem to me that common courtesy and respect of addressing and referring to people in the way that they prefer and that reflects who they are is sufficient, even if it’s uncomfortable for some of us or we flub it at times.

  • Actually when addressing a person, any person, you use "you". It's only when you are talking about them to a third party that the gendered pronouns come into play.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    I’d have thought it was fairly simple. It is preferable to use a person’s preferred pronouns to refer to them.

    The use of a singular ‘they’ etc. is widely but not universally accepted.


    We've not heard it used here at all - it may be in other parts of the country/city.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    @Gee D, out of curiosity, did my use of singular ‘their’ and ‘them’ in the final quoted paragraph of my post strike you as something that wouldn’t be used in your neck of the woods?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Actually when addressing a person, any person, you use "you". It's only when you are talking about them to a third party that the gendered pronouns come into play.

    This is the situation that baffles me, because the way I was brought up, using any pronoun in those circumstances would be considered rude- you refer to someone by name. To do otherwise would bring down a parental rebuke along the lines of "Who's 'she'- the cat's mother?".

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited April 2022
    BroJames wrote: »
    @Gee D, out of curiosity, did my use of singular ‘their’ and ‘them’ in the final quoted paragraph of my post strike you as something that wouldn’t be used in your neck of the woods?

    Yes - they are words for the plural and their use for the singular seems very odd.
  • HarryCH wrote: »
    It seems to me that the obvious consequence of BroJames' second sentence is that I cannot know how to address or refer politely to a person whose preferred pronouns I do not know.

    I find that asking them, once and without making a big deal out of it works fine.
  • HarryCH wrote: »
    If we accept "they" as generic singular, then to avoid confusion, we need a replacement pronoun for plurals. In the American South, people use "you-all" for second-person plural; why not use "they-all" for third-person plural?

    No, that's not a confusion. The grammar is clear, and whether the pronoun refers to one person or multiple people is obvious from context.

    The location of possible actual confusion is similar to the old-fashioned English practice of using "he" as a generic pronoun. Many women, quite reasonably, felt excluded by this use of "he", feeling that it didn't apply to them, because they weren't a "he".

    Singular "they" currently fills two roles - the role of generic gender-neutral pronoun to refer to an individual whose gender you don't know, and the specific pronoun used by a number of non-binary people. Sometimes, it's obvious which use is being made. If you're talking about some people, and use "he" for A, "she" for B, and "they" for C, then that looks very much like a positive assertion that "they" is the pronoun that C uses. In constructions that talk about the person that does X, they ..., then it's obviously a generic use. And then there are some uses where it's not obvious.

    Given that patriarchy is a thing, and nonbinary-archy isn't a thing, it's reasonable to consider male-default more potentially harmful than they-default.
  • The location of possible actual confusion is similar to the old-fashioned English practice of using "he" as a generic pronoun. Many women, quite reasonably, felt excluded by this use of "he", feeling that it didn't apply to them, because they weren't a "he".
    Yes. And how often were we told “everyone understands it’s generic.”

    HarryCH wrote: »
    It seems to me that the obvious consequence of BroJames' second sentence is that I cannot know how to address or refer politely to a person whose preferred pronouns I do not know.
    I find that asking them, once and without making a big deal out of it works fine.
    Yep. My children are in their early 20s, and I’m noticing it’s essentially a non-issue for them; it’s simply one of those things you learn about someone when you meet or get to know them. In group settings where everyone introduces themselves, something like “Hi, my name is ___, my pronouns are ___, and I’m from ___” seems to be the norm.

    At my church, we have a basket in the narthex with “pronoun buttons,” like this one. (There’s also “She/Her/Hers,” “He, Him, His,” “Xe, Xem, Xir,” “Ask Me My Pronouns,” and “Any Pronouns Are Cool.”). Some church members wear them, and sometimes visitors wear them. Either way, our hope is that their presence communicates something, especially to visitors, about our attitude to welcoming and accepting people for who they are. (We’ve also changed all of our bathroom signage to signs that are more inclusive.)

    My 21-year-old daughter picked up a “She/Her/Hers” button on Christmas Eve and put it on the strap of her backpack. Recently, she was at a multi-day group program in town that had drawn people from around the Southeastern US. An older woman in the group noticed the button, told my daughter she liked it and asked where she got it. She was surprised and even excited when my daughter said “at my church.” Turns out she has a trans son, and hasn’t always found a supportive church environment where she lives. She came to our church the following Sunday. And she took some buttons home with her, as well as pictures of the bathroom signage.

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    I was amused to discover that in the UK even legislation relating to pregnancy and childbirth used generic "he" well into the 20th century.
  • I think I've mentioned before that Mrs C used to have a (female) tutor who used "he" for a generic member of her entirely female tutorial group*, and when one of the young women pointed out that nobody in the room was a he, produced the full-on "it's generic, this is how English grammar works" explanation. In the mid 1990s.

    *She'd say things like "I will choose one student each week, and that student will read his essay to the class."
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    A serious question, and not a stir: if you use "they" for a single person, what verb does it take? They is running here as quickly as possible?
  • Gee D wrote: »
    A serious question, and not a stir: if you use "they" for a single person, what verb does it take? They is running here as quickly as possible?
    “They are,” or “Someone’s at the door. Find out what they want,” just like it would if used as a plural pronoun, or just like “you” does whether singular or plural.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Right.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited April 2022
    Signaller wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Actually when addressing a person, any person, you use "you". It's only when you are talking about them to a third party that the gendered pronouns come into play.

    This is the situation that baffles me, because the way I was brought up, using any pronoun in those circumstances would be considered rude- you refer to someone by name. To do otherwise would bring down a parental rebuke along the lines of "Who's 'she'- the cat's mother?".

    No, Signaller doesn't. If Signaller kept repeating a person's name over and over, instead of using a pronoun, the other people would think Signaller was crazy. I'm sure if Signaller thinks about it, Signaller will see what mousethief means. The people who speak a language have to use pronouns. It's crazy to think that the people who speak a language can get away without using pronouns. Language gets too clunky. The people who speak a language have pronouns for a reason, and all such people use pronouns.
  • RooKRooK Shipmate
    Now I'm having fond flashbacks to black & white Tarzan films.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Signaller wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Actually when addressing a person, any person, you use "you". It's only when you are talking about them to a third party that the gendered pronouns come into play.

    This is the situation that baffles me, because the way I was brought up, using any pronoun in those circumstances would be considered rude- you refer to someone by name. To do otherwise would bring down a parental rebuke along the lines of "Who's 'she'- the cat's mother?".

    No, Signaller doesn't. If Signaller kept repeating a person's name over and over, instead of using a pronoun, the other people would think Signaller was crazy. I'm sure if Signaller thinks about it, Signaller will see what mousethief means. The people who speak a language have to use pronouns. It's crazy to think that the people who speak a language can get away without using pronouns. Language gets too clunky. The people who speak a language have pronouns for a reason, and all such people use pronouns.

    Very good. I was imagining a family talking without pronouns, "John's just going into town to take John's clothes for cleaning, and then John has to take John's car for a service, so what time do you expect John back?"
  • I like watching Grayson Perry's Art Club programmes. I enjoy Eddie Izzard's comedy. I like both people, tremendously. I believe Izzard has chosen female pronouns, though she has also said that while in 'boy-mode' (eg, doing acting) she's then a 'he'. Whereas Perry is Claire only when dressed as Claire, and I have no idea about preferred pronouns. It's fine saying, 'ask the person'. But what if you're just having a discussion like this, and you don't know. Some men who are he/him/his are still he/him/his when wearing female clothes. Some aren't. It's difficult to discuss the subject for fear alone of unintentionally offending readers, who may assume that wrong labelling is a malicious act.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited April 2022
    We've (hosts) been talking about putting together a resources thread to help people with the kind of issues which get discussed in Epiphanies but life keeps happening...

    But here's a wee thing from Scottish Trans Alliance with a section on useful tips that might be helpful

    https://www.scottishtrans.org/trans-equality/use-of-pronouns/
  • Thanks, Louise. That's helpful.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Signaller wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Actually when addressing a person, any person, you use "you". It's only when you are talking about them to a third party that the gendered pronouns come into play.

    This is the situation that baffles me, because the way I was brought up, using any pronoun in those circumstances would be considered rude- you refer to someone by name. To do otherwise would bring down a parental rebuke along the lines of "Who's 'she'- the cat's mother?".

    No, Signaller doesn't. If Signaller kept repeating a person's name over and over, instead of using a pronoun, the other people would think Signaller was crazy. I'm sure if Signaller thinks about it, Signaller will see what mousethief means. The people who speak a language have to use pronouns. It's crazy to think that the people who speak a language can get away without using pronouns. Language gets too clunky. The people who speak a language have pronouns for a reason, and all such people use pronouns.

    Very good. I was imagining a family talking without pronouns, "John's just going into town to take John's clothes for cleaning, and then John has to take John's car for a service, so what time do you expect John back?"

    It should be said that some people do indeed ask that people use their name instead of pronouns. Also I have seen a move towards describing God in this way, eg talking about God and Godself rather than Him/Himself.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Also I have seen a move towards describing God in this way, eg talking about God and Godself rather than Him/Himself.
    I was hearing that back in the 1980s.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Signaller wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Actually when addressing a person, any person, you use "you". It's only when you are talking about them to a third party that the gendered pronouns come into play.

    This is the situation that baffles me, because the way I was brought up, using any pronoun in those circumstances would be considered rude- you refer to someone by name. To do otherwise would bring down a parental rebuke along the lines of "Who's 'she'- the cat's mother?".

    No, Signaller doesn't. If Signaller kept repeating a person's name over and over, instead of using a pronoun, the other people would think Signaller was crazy. I'm sure if Signaller thinks about it, Signaller will see what mousethief means. The people who speak a language have to use pronouns. It's crazy to think that the people who speak a language can get away without using pronouns. Language gets too clunky. The people who speak a language have pronouns for a reason, and all such people use pronouns.

    That may be true, but in my experience everyday social interactions rarely require the use of third-person pronouns- possibly the influence of past parental rebukes, but YMMV. I'm sure if you think about it, you will see what I mean.
  • Signaller wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Signaller wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Actually when addressing a person, any person, you use "you". It's only when you are talking about them to a third party that the gendered pronouns come into play.

    This is the situation that baffles me, because the way I was brought up, using any pronoun in those circumstances would be considered rude- you refer to someone by name. To do otherwise would bring down a parental rebuke along the lines of "Who's 'she'- the cat's mother?".

    No, Signaller doesn't. If Signaller kept repeating a person's name over and over, instead of using a pronoun, the other people would think Signaller was crazy. I'm sure if Signaller thinks about it, Signaller will see what mousethief means. The people who speak a language have to use pronouns. It's crazy to think that the people who speak a language can get away without using pronouns. Language gets too clunky. The people who speak a language have pronouns for a reason, and all such people use pronouns.

    That may be true, but in my experience everyday social interactions rarely require the use of third-person pronouns- possibly the influence of past parental rebukes, but YMMV. I'm sure if you think about it, you will see what I mean.
    In my experience, everyday social interactions regularly require and involve the use of third-person pronouns, and the usage of third-person pronouns never drew rebuke from a parent or teacher unless the antecedent of the pronoun was unclear.

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Signaller wrote: »
    That may be true, but in my experience everyday social interactions rarely require the use of third-person pronouns- possibly the influence of past parental rebukes, but YMMV. I'm sure if you think about it, you will see what I mean.

    I have no idea what you mean. I and everyone I know uses third-person pronouns every day. My boss says, "[Name] is supposed to call you about her father's memorial service," and I answer, "She already has." I tell my partner I spoke with a mutual friend of ours, and he says, "Oh, how is she?" Partner says of the cats, "George and Ace missed you while you were gone," and I ask, "Did they sleep on the bed with you or do they not do that when I'm not there?"
  • Any time you talk about someone or something you're not talking to, you are likely to use personal the pronouns he, she, it, they. Otherwise you're just repeating nouns/names over and over. I won't say nobody does that, but it's awkward and quite unusual among English speakers.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    Also I have seen a move towards describing God in this way, eg talking about God and Godself rather than Him/Himself.
    I was hearing that back in the 1980s.

    Madeleine L'Engle used El and Elself.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited April 2022
    Signaller wrote: »
    That may be true, but in my experience everyday social interactions rarely require the use of third-person pronouns- possibly the influence of past parental rebukes, but YMMV. I'm sure if you think about it, you will see what I mean.

    "Have you seen Brian?"
    "He's in a meeting."

    "How's your mother?"
    "She's feeling much better, thank you."

    "What time is K coming?"
    "Their train gets in at 6:00."

    Do you just never talk about other people, perhaps?
  • Parental rebuke superseded by SoF rebuke. I'll shut up.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    It should be said that some people do indeed ask that people use their name instead of pronouns. Also I have seen a move towards describing God in this way, eg talking about God and Godself rather than Him/Himself.

    So Kate would like us to use the words that Kate Kateself has chosen to refer to Kate, rather than any other choice of words?

    I'm not sure how far this is reasonable. You telling me what gender you are is a thing about you, and clearly within your purview. And choosing whether to be referred to by gendered pronouns (and which ones) or non-gendered pronouns is kind of the same as that, although it only tells me the thing I need to know (which pronoun to use) rather than the thing which isn't necessarily any of my business (if we're having a discussion of some kind, it's important for me to address you correctly, but usually not so relevant what your gender is.)

    But saying "you can't use pronouns to refer to me" isn't so much about you, as it is about everyone else's use of language. It's more like saying "I identify as German, so you have to use German pronouns to refer to me when you're speaking English." Which would be silly, and would be an absurd request.

    But let's talk about the half-dozen gender-neutral pronouns I'm aware of (and I'm sure there are more I've never encountered).

    Is there any semantic difference between them? Does someone who want to be referred to as "sie" or "em" mean something different by it than someone who wants to be "them"?
  • RooKRooK Shipmate
    I'm getting a little uneasy with assertions about what is and isn't reasonable to feel about how we're addressed. Could it be rephrased in terms of own personal experiences?
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    @Leorning Cniht I mean you should probably ask someone who uses those pronouns. I don't, and I can't answer for them.

    Also pronouns don't have genders in themselves, and you don't have to identify as any particular gender to use a set of pronouns. Historically many lesbians have used he/him pronouns for instance. Many gay men use she/her including cis gay men. Pronoun use is part of gender expression but that doesn't inherently equal gender.
  • RooKRooK Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Also pronouns don't have genders in themselves, and you don't have to identify as any particular gender to use a set of pronouns. Historically many lesbians have used he/him pronouns for instance. Many gay men use she/her including cis gay men. Pronoun use is part of gender expression but that doesn't inherently equal gender.

    [lightbulb moment]
    Suddenly I find myself better able to decode decades of conversations. Derp. Thank you.
  • A man (whose family I read somewhere said he was autistic) was arrested in the US for threatening to bomb a dictionary publisher’s offices because of changes they had made to their definitions of boy and girl.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    A man (whose family I read somewhere said he was autistic) was arrested in the US for threatening to bomb a dictionary publisher’s offices because of changes they had made to their definitions of boy and girl.


    Stonespring, maybe be aware of how mentioning Autism in this context could encourage stigmatisation?

    https://theconversation.com/toronto-attack-autism-does-not-increase-risk-of-violence-95636
    once co-occurring conditions were accounted for, the rate of violent acts by those with only ASD was less than the group without ASD.

    And, importantly, the evidence indicates that having ASD actually reduced the risk of violence.

    Autistic people are far more likely to be trans folk themselves than to be going round threatening dictionaries about pronouns.
  • Louise wrote: »
    A man (whose family I read somewhere said he was autistic) was arrested in the US for threatening to bomb a dictionary publisher’s offices because of changes they had made to their definitions of boy and girl.


    Stonespring, maybe be aware of how mentioning Autism in this context could encourage stigmatisation?

    https://theconversation.com/toronto-attack-autism-does-not-increase-risk-of-violence-95636
    once co-occurring conditions were accounted for, the rate of violent acts by those with only ASD was less than the group without ASD.

    And, importantly, the evidence indicates that having ASD actually reduced the risk of violence.

    Autistic people are far more likely to be trans folk themselves than to be going round threatening dictionaries about pronouns.

    I apologize. I did not mean to suggest that autism increases the risk of violence. I wasn’t sure how to mention the family’s statement that the suspect was autistic - I guess I was trying to
    provide context so that I wasn’t just sharing a juicy clickbait story that could be read as “see what the evil conservatives are doing” but I was not mentioning what his family said about autism as a way of to explaining the reason why the suspect carried out the attack or why he became focused on the issue of gender identity and language. Almost always, when I post something that is problematic it is because I am trying to avoid being problematic in a different way, and wind up doing so problematically. I apologize again. I suppose any issue of neurodiversity is irrelevant to the threat of violence the suspect issued, and all that is relevant to the discussion here is that anyone would be so worked up over the controversy over pronouns to make a bomb threat against a newspaper publisher.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Thanks! People have said the weirdest and most extreme and inflammatory things about the use of people's preferred pronouns, so I suppose in a sad way it's not surprising that the hyperbole might have encouraged someone to attack.
  • I suppose any issue of neurodiversity is irrelevant to the threat of violence the suspect issued, and all that is relevant to the discussion here is that anyone would be so worked up over the controversy over pronouns to make a bomb threat against a newspaper publisher.

    Dictionary publisher. There I go flubbing up what I post again.
  • A man was arrested in the US for threatening to bomb a dictionary publisher’s offices because of changes they had made to their definitions of boy and girl.

    Sigh. Dictionaries record usage. Regardless of what you think about gender, or trans rights, or wokery, or whatever other bees are in your particular bonnet, the gender-affirming use of "boy" and "girl" to include trans boys and trans girls, and self-identification, is widespread, and so it belongs in a dictionary.

    Although the man in question doesn't seem to have singled out the dictionary - he sent abusive threats to a wide collection of people he disagreed with on the internet on this subject.

    In terms of the wider "culture war" then so long as our societies see a difference between men and women (in terms of privacy / modesty issues, sporting contests, or whatever other reasons we feel the need to classify people in to two groups) there is the potential for dispute about who fits in which group. Because any case where you're taking two people and putting them in the same (toilet, sporting contest, whatever) only lacks conflict if both people agree that they both belong in that classification.
Sign In or Register to comment.