Multiple people have been tripped up by my claims in a recent post that “demanding that people call you by incorrect pronouns counts as bullying and harassment.” This is in answer to that. I went through a lot of titles for this one before settling on “How They/Them Hurts.” The all started with “How They/Them Hurts” but they had different endings.
I think your pain is real. But I don't see how this is any different than your brain saying "Person X is bullying me into calling them David, which I know is False!" I don't even know what it would mean for that to be False, outside of your brain saying it. Or at least, things I can think of that False could mean seem equally socially constructed to things that True could mean. (I'm thinking of a woman owning property in Osirion not being considered a woman anymore, as a fictional example.)
There exist people who disagree with you or want their pronouns respected who also care about your pain. I've certainly talked to people about the cognitive load of ideopronouns and the kinds of people that makes life harder for. But you seem to have an axiomatic idea of what these words are allowed to be used for , and then get mad at other people for breaking your rules, and reframe this rules disjunction as them being lying bullies.
I felt hurt reading this article and I think it's worth it to try to explain why.
Most of your points I agree with and actually sum up pretty well why I stopped using they/them pronouns. I especially appreciate you pointing out the loss of conversational spontaneity it can cause.
This is the hurtful passage.
"If you aren’t ambiguous, then you are asking me to affirm every time I refer to you that there exists a neuter sex in the human species, and that you are one of these neuters. This is a lie, and I decline to lie."
It's pretty simple what's happening actually. I, a non-binary person, know I am real, but you confidently declare I am not. I do not ask that you lie and say you are any less sure than you are. For now, I will just acknowledge that this state of affairs will make peacebuilding difficult.
(I don't know what the social norms on substack are wrt commenting on old posts, sorry if this violates them) Is it "lying" to not say "peace be upon him" before referring to an Islamic prophet? I'm guessing you don't think so. You know fully well the person you're talking about is considered a prophet in the Islamic religion, you just don't think one is obligated to say "peace be upon him" before the names of Muslim prophets. Similarly, which set of chromosomes/gametes/genitalia one has may be an objective fact, but what isn't is the idea that this information is so important it must be explicitly acknowledged literally every time one refers to them in the third person. Gendered pronouns are, frankly, a Byzantine relic that a better coordinated society would've abandoned long ago. If we need a way to differentiate which person pronouns are referring to, we might as well find a better one anyway, given how this is still an unsolved problem anytime one needs to talk about two people of the same sex interacting. I *would* just use they/them for everyone, but this would piss off even more people than using whichever pronouns meet my intuitive observation of their sex.
This post zeroes in well on the core of the issue. Lying. Let me preface everything else I'm about to say with that I believe the pain you feel is real, non-trivial and not to be glossed over. To a degree, I feel it to, when I speak something I know to be untruthful (desire for truth is one reason people end up here, after all), though I think the effect is stronger in you.
But why would a pronoun be a lie? From this post, I get the impression that in the end, it all comes down to "when I was young, this part of my brain was hooked up to that part of my brain and it took". Everything else develops from there.
I find it peculiar to leave this as the ultimate justification for something, especially in a rationalist context. We know human brains are flawed and easily impressionable, we make a hobby or even an identity out of learning about that and questioning what our brains tell us and why.
Just accepting that as an axiom and reasoning from there seems... strange. And ultimately counter what I think we're trying to do here.
Of course I can't show you any maths or microscopy as evidence that pronouns work this way instead of that way. But neither can you. Because ultimately, all of language is only what we make of it. Linguistics can tell you how language is used and talk about patterns therein, but there is no amount of maths or science we can do to find out what the "correct" use of language is, because there is no such thing.
In the absence of a scientific result, I go with what seems to me as the kindest approach, just going with what people say they'd like me to say. The same thing I (and I suspect, both of us) already do for names. If someone says to me that their name is 'Stefan' but they go by 'Steve', I don't consider calling them Steve a lie. I don't think you would either, please correct me if I am wrong on this.
For me, I don't see any difference between that and using the pronouns someone has asked for. I appreciate that your brain is telling you that using they/them for someone you still clearly categorise as male of female would objectively be a lie, but.... why is that different from other outputs of your brain that you would normally be able to reason about?
"My brain intuitively tells me that this is incorrect and even knowing there is no objectively correct answer, I don't want to change my mind because a) I've always believed that! or b) then the wokes would win!" seems so very very strange and unlike you.
To be clear, I'm not telling you "shut up and use the pronouns", I'm not here for that and I can also tell it wouldn't work. I'm asking why this is case is apparently (?!) axiomatic.
And I want you to know (again, for your own sake of truth and understanding, not as a reason to force a certain behaviour), be aware that from the other end of this conversation, what you do is not understood as a principled stance on truth. On the contrary, actually. It appears that you're going out of your way to hurt people who showed some vulnerability.
You can tell it hurts people even just by reading other entries in this comment section. I'm not saying your pain is worth more or less than theirs. I'm also not saying that you don't care about their pain.
But I am saying that their pain is as real as yours, they're not trolls and maybe their pain is reason enough to honestly re-evaluate why you consider your own intuition on this unquestionably factual and theirs only "pretend-time".
I think your pain is real. But I don't see how this is any different than your brain saying "Person X is bullying me into calling them David, which I know is False!" I don't even know what it would mean for that to be False, outside of your brain saying it. Or at least, things I can think of that False could mean seem equally socially constructed to things that True could mean. (I'm thinking of a woman owning property in Osirion not being considered a woman anymore, as a fictional example.)
There exist people who disagree with you or want their pronouns respected who also care about your pain. I've certainly talked to people about the cognitive load of ideopronouns and the kinds of people that makes life harder for. But you seem to have an axiomatic idea of what these words are allowed to be used for , and then get mad at other people for breaking your rules, and reframe this rules disjunction as them being lying bullies.
I felt hurt reading this article and I think it's worth it to try to explain why.
Most of your points I agree with and actually sum up pretty well why I stopped using they/them pronouns. I especially appreciate you pointing out the loss of conversational spontaneity it can cause.
This is the hurtful passage.
"If you aren’t ambiguous, then you are asking me to affirm every time I refer to you that there exists a neuter sex in the human species, and that you are one of these neuters. This is a lie, and I decline to lie."
It's pretty simple what's happening actually. I, a non-binary person, know I am real, but you confidently declare I am not. I do not ask that you lie and say you are any less sure than you are. For now, I will just acknowledge that this state of affairs will make peacebuilding difficult.
(I don't know what the social norms on substack are wrt commenting on old posts, sorry if this violates them) Is it "lying" to not say "peace be upon him" before referring to an Islamic prophet? I'm guessing you don't think so. You know fully well the person you're talking about is considered a prophet in the Islamic religion, you just don't think one is obligated to say "peace be upon him" before the names of Muslim prophets. Similarly, which set of chromosomes/gametes/genitalia one has may be an objective fact, but what isn't is the idea that this information is so important it must be explicitly acknowledged literally every time one refers to them in the third person. Gendered pronouns are, frankly, a Byzantine relic that a better coordinated society would've abandoned long ago. If we need a way to differentiate which person pronouns are referring to, we might as well find a better one anyway, given how this is still an unsolved problem anytime one needs to talk about two people of the same sex interacting. I *would* just use they/them for everyone, but this would piss off even more people than using whichever pronouns meet my intuitive observation of their sex.
This post zeroes in well on the core of the issue. Lying. Let me preface everything else I'm about to say with that I believe the pain you feel is real, non-trivial and not to be glossed over. To a degree, I feel it to, when I speak something I know to be untruthful (desire for truth is one reason people end up here, after all), though I think the effect is stronger in you.
But why would a pronoun be a lie? From this post, I get the impression that in the end, it all comes down to "when I was young, this part of my brain was hooked up to that part of my brain and it took". Everything else develops from there.
I find it peculiar to leave this as the ultimate justification for something, especially in a rationalist context. We know human brains are flawed and easily impressionable, we make a hobby or even an identity out of learning about that and questioning what our brains tell us and why.
Just accepting that as an axiom and reasoning from there seems... strange. And ultimately counter what I think we're trying to do here.
Of course I can't show you any maths or microscopy as evidence that pronouns work this way instead of that way. But neither can you. Because ultimately, all of language is only what we make of it. Linguistics can tell you how language is used and talk about patterns therein, but there is no amount of maths or science we can do to find out what the "correct" use of language is, because there is no such thing.
In the absence of a scientific result, I go with what seems to me as the kindest approach, just going with what people say they'd like me to say. The same thing I (and I suspect, both of us) already do for names. If someone says to me that their name is 'Stefan' but they go by 'Steve', I don't consider calling them Steve a lie. I don't think you would either, please correct me if I am wrong on this.
For me, I don't see any difference between that and using the pronouns someone has asked for. I appreciate that your brain is telling you that using they/them for someone you still clearly categorise as male of female would objectively be a lie, but.... why is that different from other outputs of your brain that you would normally be able to reason about?
"My brain intuitively tells me that this is incorrect and even knowing there is no objectively correct answer, I don't want to change my mind because a) I've always believed that! or b) then the wokes would win!" seems so very very strange and unlike you.
To be clear, I'm not telling you "shut up and use the pronouns", I'm not here for that and I can also tell it wouldn't work. I'm asking why this is case is apparently (?!) axiomatic.
And I want you to know (again, for your own sake of truth and understanding, not as a reason to force a certain behaviour), be aware that from the other end of this conversation, what you do is not understood as a principled stance on truth. On the contrary, actually. It appears that you're going out of your way to hurt people who showed some vulnerability.
You can tell it hurts people even just by reading other entries in this comment section. I'm not saying your pain is worth more or less than theirs. I'm also not saying that you don't care about their pain.
But I am saying that their pain is as real as yours, they're not trolls and maybe their pain is reason enough to honestly re-evaluate why you consider your own intuition on this unquestionably factual and theirs only "pretend-time".