4 ms·

2. Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that

2. Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm? If nothing else it seems to me to come down to basic decency and respect for others. It's less about one term being "privileged" (I must confess that word seems slightly unclear to me in this context) over another and more about the ease of treating people the way they would like, with no real downsides that I can see. Anecdotally, refusing to use a trans person's pronouns seems typically to be a dogwhistle for not respecting the existence/legitimacy of transgender people.

atq2119 5y ago
> Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm So I think a natural conservative argument there would be that the primary reason why we have sex-based (not gender-based!) pronouns in the first place is so that we can talk about biological categories that are important for the continuation of our species: while some men cannot father offspring, certainly no transman can. So why should we call them men, if it is in fact the reproductive function because of which we use these terms in the first place? Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly. Even as somebody who is non-conservative on most issues, the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing rubs me slightly the wrong way.
- maybeOneDay 5y ago
  That logic would also state that we should no longer call a man a man if he becomes infertile through choice (or otherwise), no? > Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly. I disagree with this. Unsurprisingly so, given that I am non-conservative. I believe in personal choice over reproduction and I believe that this choice simply is more important than any tiny effect on societies survival - something that in fact means very little to me other than the 'coincidental' lack of suffering in people I care about/humanity in general. I'm not sure there's any objective value in the human race surviving, in fact if I could push a button that meant all humans would be incredibly fulfilled and lead happy lives and then naturally (peacefully, painlessly, etc) die out in 3 generations time I would certainly strongly consider doing so... I'm rambling now, though. > the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing I think that's because it's largely incidental - indeed, it doesn't stop them from becoming adoptive parents. It doesn't stop them from freezing sperm/eggs and creating children through more modern means. It may not even lead to infertility in many cases - I'll admit I don't know any detailed knowledge on that. But most importantly their right to lead their life in whichever way they want, and to choose not to have children, is not especially relevant to anyone else. Nobody should be forced (or be guilted into) to have(ing) children.
  - atq2119 5y ago
    > That logic would also state that we should no longer call a man a man if he becomes infertile through choice (or otherwise), no? I don't think that's necessarily the case. The argument is less about individual cases and more about keeping the overall categories intact as traditionally perceived, which isn't really endangered in that case. By the same argument, calling transmen men if they are passing perfectly would probably be fine. And that's likely what's been happening forever anyway, and is the point of "passing": those individuals don't threaten the general categories. It's a kind of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. [...] > > the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing > I think that's because it's largely incidental Is it? What you write about personal choice is all(?) true and does not contradict the argument. My impression is that while transphobia is definitely a thing, a lot of the backlash against trans activism isn't about trans people's individual rights and choices but about trans activists wanting to impose certain beliefs that they have on others. For example, for the purpose of this discussion, the belief that the categories of "man" and "woman" must be defined differently than many (most?) people intuitively define them based on some of the most deeply rooted perception and pattern recognition of the brain. So it may feel incidental to trans activists, but the people who react likely don't feel the same because it's the aspect (or one of the aspects) of trans activism that affects them the most personally.
memling 5y ago
> It's less about one term being "privileged" (I must confess that word seems slightly unclear to me in this context) over another and more about the ease of treating people the way they would like, with no real downsides that I can see. Sorry for any confusion. By privileged, I simply mean that one's gender identity instead of biological sex should govern pronoun usage. > 2. Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm? If nothing else it seems to me to come down to basic decency and respect for others. I mean I guess that is part of the reason that pronoun usage is a controversial topic, right? Why are people uncomfortable with using others' desired pronouns? It may be deeply rooted beliefs or other identitarian characteristics (religious or political convictions for example) that could cause someone psychological harm if they use preferred pronouns instead of biological sex. In areas where legal agency is at issue—in children, for example—use of pronouns could potentially elide complex challenges and lead to irreversible physical changes that don't correspond with later preference (i.e., sex reassignment surgery or puberty blockers may have permanent effects even if the child decides later that it was a bad idea). Now I don't know that these are particularly good arguments, but they are two ideas that I've seen online or that arise from applying a subjective-experience argument to other identity characteristics.

atq2119 5y ago

> Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm So I think a natural conservative argument there would be that the primary reason why we have sex-based (not gender-based!) pronouns in the first place is so that we can talk about biological categories that are important for the continuation of our species: while some men cannot father offspring, certainly no transman can. So why should we call them men, if it is in fact the reproductive function because of which we use these terms in the first place? Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly. Even as somebody who is non-conservative on most issues, the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing rubs me slightly the wrong way.

maybeOneDay 5y ago
That logic would also state that we should no longer call a man a man if he becomes infertile through choice (or otherwise), no? > Messing about with mechanisms that are crucial to our survival should at least not be done lightly. I disagree with this. Unsurprisingly so, given that I am non-conservative. I believe in personal choice over reproduction and I believe that this choice simply is more important than any tiny effect on societies survival - something that in fact means very little to me other than the 'coincidental' lack of suffering in people I care about/humanity in general. I'm not sure there's any objective value in the human race surviving, in fact if I could push a button that meant all humans would be incredibly fulfilled and lead happy lives and then naturally (peacefully, painlessly, etc) die out in 3 generations time I would certainly strongly consider doing so... I'm rambling now, though. > the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing I think that's because it's largely incidental - indeed, it doesn't stop them from becoming adoptive parents. It doesn't stop them from freezing sperm/eggs and creating children through more modern means. It may not even lead to infertility in many cases - I'll admit I don't know any detailed knowledge on that. But most importantly their right to lead their life in whichever way they want, and to choose not to have children, is not especially relevant to anyone else. Nobody should be forced (or be guilted into) to have(ing) children.
- atq2119 5y ago
  > That logic would also state that we should no longer call a man a man if he becomes infertile through choice (or otherwise), no? I don't think that's necessarily the case. The argument is less about individual cases and more about keeping the overall categories intact as traditionally perceived, which isn't really endangered in that case. By the same argument, calling transmen men if they are passing perfectly would probably be fine. And that's likely what's been happening forever anyway, and is the point of "passing": those individuals don't threaten the general categories. It's a kind of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. [...] > > the lack of acknowledgment by trans activists that that's what they're doing > I think that's because it's largely incidental Is it? What you write about personal choice is all(?) true and does not contradict the argument. My impression is that while transphobia is definitely a thing, a lot of the backlash against trans activism isn't about trans people's individual rights and choices but about trans activists wanting to impose certain beliefs that they have on others. For example, for the purpose of this discussion, the belief that the categories of "man" and "woman" must be defined differently than many (most?) people intuitively define them based on some of the most deeply rooted perception and pattern recognition of the brain. So it may feel incidental to trans activists, but the people who react likely don't feel the same because it's the aspect (or one of the aspects) of trans activism that affects them the most personally.

memling 5y ago

> It's less about one term being "privileged" (I must confess that word seems slightly unclear to me in this context) over another and more about the ease of treating people the way they would like, with no real downsides that I can see. Sorry for any confusion. By privileged, I simply mean that one's gender identity instead of biological sex should govern pronoun usage. > 2. Is definitely the counter argument I would use - if people have preferred pronouns then what is the ethical argument for ignoring those and using words that would cause them harm? If nothing else it seems to me to come down to basic decency and respect for others. I mean I guess that is part of the reason that pronoun usage is a controversial topic, right? Why are people uncomfortable with using others' desired pronouns? It may be deeply rooted beliefs or other identitarian characteristics (religious or political convictions for example) that could cause someone psychological harm if they use preferred pronouns instead of biological sex. In areas where legal agency is at issue—in children, for example—use of pronouns could potentially elide complex challenges and lead to irreversible physical changes that don't correspond with later preference (i.e., sex reassignment surgery or puberty blockers may have permanent effects even if the child decides later that it was a bad idea). Now I don't know that these are particularly good arguments, but they are two ideas that I've seen online or that arise from applying a subjective-experience argument to other identity characteristics.