Non-gendered kids

[EmseB]

I understand wanting your kid to be free to choose how to dress, what to play with, what interests to pursue regardless of their sex. I totally get that. I don't understand not acknowledging their sex...like to what end? I don't know how to phrase this, but being sexed female means something. Being sexed male means something. They aren't easily interchangeable and I don't see what the purpose would be to try to deny or not acknowledge that a person is 99.5% of the time born as one or the other. Again, I do see a point to not putting limits on interests or pursuits because of sex, I just don't see why parents would try to avoid it entirely as a thing that a person exists as. It just seems like willfully confusing a child for no real purpose or gain. Given that sex has, at the very least, real physical traits and aspects that affect someone's life in profound ways, why not acknowledge it? It almost seems like not acknowledging a child's sex could be a recipe for making them ashamed of it later in life.

I am not a "girly girl". I remember this being a weird problem for me in late elementary and jr. high. I just couldn't understand why my peers cared so much about doing their hair and makeup and wearing certain clothes. I wanted to care more to fit in, but it all just about bored me to tears. But I never doubted, ever, that I was a female or a girl because of this. It just never occurred to me that I had to do all those things to be a girl. I am a girl. I think I would have been much more confused and maybe even distraught if my parents had tried to raise me ambiguously and then I didn't fit in with the girly crowd, or the boys. It was tough enough as it was, but add in questioning my sex (defined biologically for me) as it related to gender stereotypes would have just been a huge mess. But then again, I don't think that gender sterotypical behaviors or interests have any real bearing on biological sex in any case. IOW, I don't think a female who likes sports and trucks and dirt is any less female than one who likes makeup and dresses.

[dirty ethel rackham]

23 hours ago, Quill said:

I would also not want to be hurtful towards anyone who lives with different understandings/beliefs about gender and sexuality. IMO, though, feeling a sense of gender identity happens from early on in a child’s life; it is a healthy and biologically normal phase of development. Gender dysphoria is itself identified as “a disorder”. It is normal for a child, from an early age, to identify with a gender and it is one of the earliest identifiers that a child embraces as part of developing personhood. Gender confusion or dysphoria is not something society/parents should provoke in a child, which is what I expect would be likely with a child being raised in the manner you describe. 

I would be sad for my sibling’s child. 

Gender dysphoria and gender confusion are not the same thing.  Dysphoria has to do with the distress caused by feeling that one's body does not match one's gender.  That is considered a psychiatric disorder.  Being confused about one's gender does not always mean dysphoria.  Gender confusion or identifying with a gender that does not match one's body is not considered a psychiatric disorder.  This change in emphasis has been hugely beneficial for the trans community.  

I really don't see what the big deal is.  I often wonder if we had been more open to questioning this aspect of societal expectation, just like we had been about schooling, could have saved our transgender daughter so much pain.  I wish we had been aware of this as a possibility much sooner.  And the sense of gender identity is not something that happens in a vacuum.  Like others have mentioned gender norming happens constantly in our society.  That has a strong influence.  There are tons of trans persons who knew that something was wrong, that they felt out of place, but didn't identify the possibility that their gender did not match their sex until they were older.  That is how powerful gender norming is psychologically.  This is what happened with my child.  And, we didn't intentionally raise our kids to match stereotypical gender roles, nor did we seek out gender specific toys.  We just didn't know that gender identity issues were even a thing.  

 

22 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Generally speaking, this sort of thing doesn't really bother me.  Gender neutral names, hairstyles, etc, no big deal.  

 

But, and maybe my gripe is more with language...or not...I dunno...but the use of "they" in reference to a singular individual confuses ME, I am sure it would confuse the heck out of toddlers and preschoolers.  We DO have a gender neutral word....it.  I understand exactly why people are reluctant to use the word it.  But maybe that means coming up with new language rather than using "they" for a singular individual.   

People have been trying for decades to invent a new word and it has not caught on.  Attempts to do so were met with hostility and derision.  It is an adjustment.  But, it is what many non-binary people prefer.  Sure, it is an adjustment, but not any different than calling little "Ricky" "Richard" when he asks to lose a childhood nickname.  

21 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

 

Neither of these things mean that I have to like using "they" for a singular individual, or that I don't have the opinion that it could be really confusing for a toddler/preschooler.  

 

And much of my problem likely stems from the fact that my child with ASD still mixes up all these words up.  She will walk up to a family and point to the little boy and say "hey, whats her name?"  To which I respond "that's a little boy, so do you say "her" name or "his" name."  Or she will point to the girl wearing the Dominos Pizza hat and say "Hey!  He's the pizza man!"  ETA:  My brain is breaking at the idea of trying to explain "no, honey, they are/is the pizza people/person" lol

 

 

It is confusing for adults.  It is no more confusing to a toddler/preschooler than many of the other complexities of English.  Yet, we expect people to master those.  

5 hours ago, bolt. said:

I think there is a difference between “pretending they don’t have a gender” and acknowledging that their gender is not very relevant and not yet completely clear.

The problem “they” people are trying to solve is not with the child. They are trying to solve way that conventional English grammar crams gender identity information into nearly every sentence where a person is the subject or object. Gender information about one’s self and others is so deeply embedded in language that some people want to shelter their children from the relentless norming influence of the actual words.

Its true that most people identify with one of the binary genders, and that it is most common for that gender identity to match with their physical sex characteristics. However, it’s entirely possible that hearing the words “he” or “she” hundreds of times per day since birth might actually influence a person’s sense-of-self. It’s fair enough to see what happens when we don’t language bomb a kid with an assumption (however plausible and likely the assumption is).

I don’t think that having a gender identity (which we all have) is an “issue” — so I don’t think these people are assuming their child will have “gender identity issues”. It sounds like they are just being patient and vague.

Yes.  This!!

I read a novel this past year about a family with a gender-nonconforming child that was incredibly powerful.  It is called "This Is How It Always Is" by Laurie Frankel.  The descriptions of the mental and emotional impact on a young child having a different sense of who they are than what others expect was heartwrenching.  Knowing that this is what my child went through, only at a later age ... knowing that this is the suffering she endures ... it just breaks my heart.  

[Bluegoat]

16 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

We quite rightly challenge 'color blindness' as a form of race and racism denial. Pretending not to see race doesn't actually improve the world for those who suffer from racism.

I can't for the life of me see how 'sex blindness' is any different. Pretending not to see sex doesn't actually improve the world for those who suffer from sexism.

Why should OP feel responsibility for normalising what is likely, at best, to be a faddish experiment, and at worst, an experiment that encourages a form of disassocaition from the child's sexed body ?

Parents do not alwys try to live out their best values for their children.

 

I think this would be true even if there was no such thing as sexism.  Life will be different for boys and girls, men and women.  In many (all?) settings, profoundly so.  Why not have the capacity to understand that in our language?

[Guest]

Quote

 10/25/2018 at 4:13 PM,  Quill said: 

I would also not want to be hurtful towards anyone who lives with different understandings/beliefs about gender and sexuality. IMO, though, feeling a sense of gender identity happens from early on in a child’s life; it is a healthy and biologically normal phase of development. Gender dysphoria is itself identified as “a disorder”. It is normal for a child, from an early age, to identify with a gender and it is one of the earliest identifiers that a child embraces as part of developing personhood. Gender confusion or dysphoria is not something society/parents should provoke in a child, which is what I expect would be likely with a child being raised in the manner you describe. 

I would be sad for my sibling’s child. 

Gender dysphoria and gender confusion are not the same thing.  Dysphoria has to do with the distress caused by feeling that one's body does not match one's gender.  That is considered a psychiatric disorder.  Being confused about one's gender does not always mean dysphoria.  Gender confusion or identifying with a gender that does not match one's body is not considered a psychiatric disorder.  This change in emphasis has been hugely beneficial for the trans community.  

I really don't see what the big deal is.  I often wonder if we had been more open to questioning this aspect of societal expectation, just like we had been about schooling, could have saved our transgender daughter so much pain.  I wish we had been aware of this as a possibility much sooner.  And the sense of gender identity is not something that happens in a vacuum.  Like others have mentioned gender norming happens constantly in our society.  That has a strong influence.  There are tons of trans persons who knew that something was wrong, that they felt out of place, but didn't identify the possibility that their gender did not match their sex until they were older.  That is how powerful gender norming is psychologically.  This is what happened with my child.  And, we didn't intentionally raise our kids to match stereotypical gender roles, nor did we seek out gender specific toys.  We just didn't know that gender identity issues were even a thing.  

I would expect that dysphoria could develop or be more likely if there is this message, subtle or not, that, “maybe you aren’t really a girl.” For the very large majority of humans, they will never question or in any way wonder if they really are the gender their DNA makeup presented. Got XX chromosomes? Grow the corresponding genetalia and have the appropriate hormonal signaling at the appropriate age. Got XY? Same thing, different genetalia and hormone signaling.

For a smaller segment of the population, there may be ocassions of doubting they were really supposed to be a girl/a boy, but even then, most such kids adjust without intervention of any kind and never have a notion to pursue literally changing their physical bodies and public identity. They grow up to be women who like messing about with car engines or men who like putting outfits and hairstyles together. And/or they may be gay. 

The smallest segment of the population is (or should be, probability speaking) men who cannot accept being male or women who cannot accept being female. This would be the “true” transgender people. And I say that loathing that I have to say it like that: “true” transgender. (I’m going to set that aside for a moment in order to make my point.) 

My point is: you don’t raise a child from the beginning as if they are going to have abnormal gender identity. You don’t put the idea in their heads that, even though they have a vagina, they can’t be certain they are a girl until some undefined time comes when they “feel like” they are a girl. In all probability, born with a vagina will mean they will never have any problem knowing themselves to be a girl. If a child seems to be developing differently, then sure, hopefully the parents are not obtuse jerk-wads about it. But even in that case, I don’t think we should rush to suggest a kid is transgender. I would think it would be fine to handle it more simplistically until/unless it is an obvious problem. 

So, in the real world example, my sister’s kid showed from early on a propensity to gravitate towards boyish things and boyish clothes and so on. From early on, kiddo was uncomfortable with the feminine name kiddo had. So I think it’s fine to say, “Yeah kiddo likes this style of clothing...kiddo wants to be called by this nickname...” etc. I think all that is fine, but I don’t think very young kids benefit from being introduced to the concept that it is possible to have girl genetalia but not be a girl in her heart. 

I think in our society at present (at least where I live) the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It’s like every third kid thinks they are trans. It seems like...more kids just need to go ahead and grow up without such a barrage of messages about “choosing” a gender identity (and also thinking they have to “choose” a sexual orientation.) Even my sister herself was very to boyish when we were young, but I think it benefitted her that nobody was telling her, “oh, you’re probably really a boy inside.” AFAIK, she isn’t sorry she grew up to be a non-“girly” straight woman. She’s just a woman who can fix your lawnmower engine and who probably doesn’t own a dress. 

 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, bolt. said:

I think there is a difference between “pretending they don’t have a gender” and acknowledging that their gender is not very relevant and not yet completely clear.

The problem “they” people are trying to solve is not with the child. They are trying to solve way that conventional English grammar crams gender identity information into nearly every sentence where a person is the subject or object. Gender information about one’s self and others is so deeply embedded in language that some people want to shelter their children from the relentless norming influence of the actual words.

Its true that most people identify with one of the binary genders, and that it is most common for that gender identity to match with their physical sex characteristics. However, it’s entirely possible that hearing the words “he” or “she” hundreds of times per day since birth might actually influence a person’s sense-of-self. It’s fair enough to see what happens when we don’t language bomb a kid with an assumption (however plausible and likely the assumption is).

I don’t think that having a gender identity (which we all have) is an “issue” — so I don’t think these people are assuming their child will have “gender identity issues”. It sounds like they are just being patient and vague.

My question is, what is so bad about this? So I was influenced from the moment of my birth (It’s a girl!) and repeatedly in constant interactions to believe I am female. So? I’m female. It’s like saying, “I’ve constantly been told I have brown eyes and light skin.” These things are apparent so what’s the big deal? 

We even assign much more arbitrary things to kids all the time; i.e., “he’s such a musician!” Or, “she’s quite a natural athlete!” Nobody gets bugged about that. I’ve never heard a parent say, “Please refrain from referring to my child as musical just because you keep seeing them turn everything into a musical instrument. We want to see what they naturally decide they like to do.” 

[Bluegoat]

17 minutes ago, Quill said:

I would expect that dysphoria could develop or be more likely if there is this message, subtle or not, that, “maybe you aren’t really a girl.” For the very large majority of humans, they will never question or in any way wonder if they really are the gender their DNA makeup presented. Got XX chromosomes? Grow the corresponding genetalia and have the appropriate hormonal signaling at the appropriate age. Got XY? Same thing, different genetalia and hormone signaling.

For a smaller segment of the population, there may be ocassions of doubting they were really supposed to be a girl/a boy, but even then, most such kids adjust without intervention of any kind and never have a notion to pursue literally changing their physical bodies and public identity. They grow up to be women who like messing about with car engines or men who like putting outfits and hairstyles together. And/or they may be gay. 

The smallest segment of the population is (or should be, probability speaking) men who cannot accept being male or women who cannot accept being female. This would be the “true” transgender people. And I say that loathing that I have to say it like that: “true” transgender. (I’m going to set that aside for a moment in order to make my point.) 

My point is: you don’t raise a child from the beginning as if they are going to have abnormal gender identity. You don’t put the idea in their heads that, even though they have a vagina, they can’t be certain they are a girl until some undefined time comes when they “feel like” they are a girl. In all probability, born with a vagina will mean they will never have any problem knowing themselves to be a girl. If a child seems to be developing differently, then sure, hopefully the parents are not obtuse jerk-wads about it. But even in that case, I don’t think we should rush to suggest a kid is transgender. I would think it would be fine to handle it more simplistically until/unless it is an obvious problem. 

So, in the real world example, my sister’s kid showed from early on a propensity to gravitate towards boyish things and boyish clothes and so on. From early on, kiddo was uncomfortable with the feminine name kiddo had. So I think it’s fine to say, “Yeah kiddo likes this style of clothing...kiddo wants to be called by this nickname...” etc. I think all that is fine, but I don’t think very young kids benefit from being introduced to the concept that it is possible to have girl genetalia but not be a girl in her heart. 

I think in our society at present (at least where I live) the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It’s like every third kid thinks they are trans. It seems like...more kids just need to go ahead and grow up without such a barrage of messages about “choosing” a gender identity (and also thinking they have to “choose” a sexual orientation.) Even my sister herself was very to boyish when we were young, but I think it benefitted her that nobody was telling her, “oh, you’re probably really a boy inside.” AFAIK, she isn’t sorry she grew up to be a non-“girly” straight woman. She’s just a woman who can fix your lawnmower engine and who probably doesn’t own a dress. 

 

 

 

The other thing is that while I do think it's true that most kids won't "naturally" question whether they will be a boy or girl, many kids, maybe particularly girls though, go through times when they are unsure about things.  Lots of kids are unhappy about their place in life at certain time, restrictions they feel that might be social or even because of their physical reality.  And lots of kids go through periods of feeling really uncomfortable with their bodies around adolescence, and it isn't necessarily obvious to them what the origin of that is.   Most people grow out of this stuff, eventually.  But maybe not totally until they are a lot older.  But - that isn't because there is something wrong with them.

 

[Farrar]

I see a sort of irony in the way that some people in this thread are discussing this. I don't think using "they" or asking a young child their pronouns seeks to minimize or make gender issues invisible or assumes that they'll be a problematic "issue." I think it seeks to recognize that gender is a giant part of life and meet it head on. So the assumption that these parents are trying to obscure sex and gender by using neutral pronouns seems all backwards to me. I think they're introducing it as a conversation.

Now, would I do it like that? Not personally, nope. But depending on how it's done, I don't think it's as harmful as the dads who tell their sons to buck up because boys don't cry or the parents who put their preschool daughters in "I'm a princess so I get whatever I want" shirts or a whole host of other toxic messages we send kids about gender identity.

[Lawyer&Mom]

I decided to raise my children as girls. (They have vulvas, so it wasn’t a unusual choice, but a choice nonetheless.) In addition to selecting a gender, I also picked a religion, a socio-economic class, and a sexual orientation for them.  All of these choices will impact their lives. I think that as long as I recognize that all of these choices are subject to change, I don’t see a problem with making an initial decision for them.  (And we do discuss this!  Following their lead, we’ve been talking about marriage a lot lately.  Lots of “we expect you will marry a boy, but some girls actually marry girls.”  “We’d like you to get married in a church, but some people get married on a beach/in the woods...”)  

I think in general the “let the kid decide for themselves” concept puts a lot of pressure on a kid.  

[dirty ethel rackham]

This conversation is making my head (and my heart) hurt.  Goodie for all of you who can accept that your body and your internal idea of your gender match up.  Gender dysphoria is life threatening.  It isn't about the right to vote, about who likes fashion and dolls and who likes messing with engines.  It is not about sex role stereotypes.  It is about one's gender identity not matching up with their body and what people call them and what they assume about them. Gender =/= sex.  If you've never experienced that disconnect, then, of course, you see no harm in just using the genitalia to determine who they are.  But, the statistics on suicide rates for transgender individuals is truly scary.  And that is what forced me to shove aside all my preconceived notions about gender to accept what my child was telling me ... to not do so would likely mean that my child would not be here today.  I am truly sorry that it took me 4 hours in the ER hoping that someone would be able to convince my child to go on living for me to look at things differently.  And I think the parents mentioned in the OP are likely very aware of this (and perhaps they have been personally touched by this issue.)  Attempting to minimize assumptions of gender is not assuming that their child is gender non-conforming, but acknowledging that it is a possibility and that society's insistence on equating sex and gender is toxic to those individuals for whom they do not match up.  

Would I go as far as these parents are?  Probably not.  But the idea of minimizing the emphasis on gender does not, in any way, deny the reality of binary sexual reproduction, nor a child's natural curiosity about their body.  The arguments presented here have very little to do with what these parents are trying to do.  

 

[EmseB]

34 minutes ago, dirty ethel rackham said:

This conversation is making my head (and my heart) hurt.  Goodie for all of you who can accept that your body and your internal idea of your gender match up.  Gender dysphoria is life threatening.  It isn't about the right to vote, about who likes fashion and dolls and who likes messing with engines.  It is not about sex role stereotypes.  It is about one's gender identity not matching up with their body and what people call them and what they assume about them. Gender =/= sex.  If you've never experienced that disconnect, then, of course, you see no harm in just using the genitalia to determine who they are.  But, the statistics on suicide rates for transgender individuals is truly scary.  And that is what forced me to shove aside all my preconceived notions about gender to accept what my child was telling me ... to not do so would likely mean that my child would not be here today.  I am truly sorry that it took me 4 hours in the ER hoping that someone would be able to convince my child to go on living for me to look at things differently.  And I think the parents mentioned in the OP are likely very aware of this (and perhaps they have been personally touched by this issue.)  Attempting to minimize assumptions of gender is not assuming that their child is gender non-conforming, but acknowledging that it is a possibility and that society's insistence on equating sex and gender is toxic to those individuals for whom they do not match up.  

Would I go as far as these parents are?  Probably not.  But the idea of minimizing the emphasis on gender does not, in any way, deny the reality of binary sexual reproduction, nor a child's natural curiosity about their body.  The arguments presented here have very little to do with what these parents are trying to do.  

 

1

From what I can tell, the people in the OP are trying to minimize sex, not just gender assumptions. From what the OP describes, it seems like the parents are trying to whitewash or avoid the fact that the child is biologically female, which has nothing to do with gender assumptions or roles. That was the point of my post, in that telling kids that they can play how they want or grow up to be what they want is entirely different than ignoring or avoiding the fact of biological sex which has many profound implications that have nothing to do with societal assumptions about gender. 

Using genitalia to determine sex does not determine who they are as a person, but it does define their biological sex regardless of gender dysphoria they may experience based on a nebulous and stereotypical idea of what it means to be female or male in society. 

I agree that gender dysphoria is a life-threatening issue and I'm sorry for the pain you and your family have gone through. I do think, though, that others who are in this conversation have gone through some of the same issues as well with members of their own family. I also think that a lot of this can't be decided based on emotions or how difficult it is to be gender-non-conforming in society or to have the intense pain of wanting to be something that cannot happen biologically no matter how much one might wish it were true. Further, I can't think of any other type of body dysmorphia where we tell a person that they should make their body conform to what the mind thinks it should be (10 pounds lighter at 90lbs, or just one more tummy tuck after having 3 of them, or I just want one more facial surgery to look a little bit more X). And yet because gender seems to be some kind of untouchable subject, this is what we're telling small children...that if they don't like their body parts then it might be because they were born with the wrong ones and if that's the case then you can take drugs and have surgery to correct the problem with your body. It is frightening to me, honestly, as someone who was a "late-bloomer" or "tomboy" (in terms of gender-typical interests and assumptions) what that would have looked like for me growing up now vs. 25 years ago. 25 years ago, I was just a girl who didn't fit in with the popular girls or have much interest in boys until later on. Now, what does a girl like that go through in terms of identity? Even now, I would say that I'm less on the "girly" side of the spectrum and don't fit in with typical gender-based groups. And? Those stereotypes don't make me not a woman or not female, right?

I think there is much improvement to be done in handling cases of gender dysphoria so that it does not get to the point of suicide. I also think, though, that it isn't as cut and dry and just telling children that their biological sex and body parts have no bearing on who they are. And I honestly don't know if there is a good answer that will fully help someone who is born with genitalia they would rather surgically remove than live with. That is heartbreaking in all cases and not something I'm trying to speak of lightly.

Edited October 27, 2018 by EmseB

[Terabith]

I think it's very normal and typical for young children to not have a strong sense of gender permanence.  So, when my all boy three year old class was sitting at snack discussing what they were going to be when they grew up, it was pretty common for one or more to say that they were going to be a mommy.  However, and I don't mean this in any way to cheapen the issue of gender dysphoria, they also don't have a strong sense of species permanence, because they also often emphatically stated that they were going to be a dinosaur/ dragon/ tiger when they grew up.  

The way I always handled statements like that was, "Well, most of the time, boys grow up to be daddies and girls grow up to be mommies."  I never tried to present it as an impossibility, but I also acknowledged what is manifestly true. 

Gender dysphoria is a real, serious thing, and I do not want to minimize the pain that people experiencing it suffer.  I've been pleased that "what pronouns do you use?" is a standard part of social introductions.  And I don't really even mind they/ them being used as a singular pronoun.  It's what a lot of people prefer, and languages evolve, and it seems pretty clear that this is the direction in which it is evolving.  I totally see the point (and agree with) Stella's point that it's somewhat presumptive to say that "Oh, you like wearing dresses and playing with dolls, you must be a girl," or "You like sports and messing with engines; you must be a boy."  That feels really wrong to me.  It's different if a child emphatically states, "I am NOT a girl!  I'm a boy!"  In that case, I think there are times the right thing to do is to allow a child to socially transition, even at an early age.  But de-emphasizing sex roles and stereotypes seems like the right thing to do in general.  

I have been a little concerned, and as someone who thinks of herself as progressive and trans friendly, by the fact that my almost 15 year old, who has spent her entire life not really questioning her gender identity and who, while not an extremely feminine person, enjoyed doing ballet for years, went through phases of wanting dresses/ pink/ frills, never enjoyed traditionally masculine activities, etc, is now questioning whether or not she's REALLY a girl or whether or not maybe she should be nonbinary because she doesn't think of her gender much at all.  I don't mind her playing with gender identity.  She wants a chest binder to enable cosplaying of male characters, and that's fine.  But gender dysphoria is such a serious thing that I really am uncomfortable at some level with how easy and casual it is to question gender identity the way she questions what she might want to be when she grows up.  

Edited October 27, 2018 by Terabith
left out a very important not

[Guest]

Quote

gree that gender dysphoria is a life-threatening issue and I'm sorry for the pain you and your family have gone through. I do think, though, that others who are in this conversation have gone through some of the same issues as well with members of their own family. I also think that a lot of this can't be decided based on emotions or how difficult it is to be gender-non-conforming in society or to have the intense pain of wanting to be something that cannot happen biologically no matter how much one might wish it were true. Further, I can't think of any other type of body dysmorphia where we tell a person that they should make their body conform to what the mind thinks it should be (10 pounds lighter at 90lbs, or just one more tummy tuck after having 3 of them, or I just want one more facial surgery to look a little bit more X). And yet because gender seems to be some kind of untouchable subject, this is what we're telling small children...that if they don't like their body parts then it might be because they were born with the wrong ones and if that's the case then you can take drugs and have surgery to correct the problem with your body. It

Good point. 

[Joker]

37 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Further, I can't think of any other type of body dysmorphia where we tell a person that they should make their body conform to what the mind thinks it should be (10 pounds lighter at 90lbs, or just one more tummy tuck after having 3 of them, or I just want one more facial surgery to look a little bit more X). And yet because gender seems to be some kind of untouchable subject, this is what we're telling small children...that if they don't like their body parts then it might be because they were born with the wrong ones and if that's the case then you can take drugs and have surgery to correct the problem with your body. 

I don't know about everyone else but, for my son, allowing him to transition meant no more anxiety and depression and no more medication for those things. I've seen the anorexia comparison before but allowing someone to keep losing weight will kill them. For my son, not allowing him to transition would kill him (not an exaggeration as the catalyst for him finally coming out to us was him becoming suicidal and us having to hospitalize him).  So the comparisons don't really work well for me. The end result of most of these things is trying to make the person as healthy, mentally and physically, as possible. Transitioning does that for many. 

FTR, my son didn't tell us he was transgender until he was 16 and didn't start hormones until he was 17. He's now thriving at college and doing really well. 

[Bluegoat]

This really doesn't sound like its about helping a kid who has a problem.  It sounds like its an assertion by the parents that acknowledging the sex of the child is out of bounds.

[Farrar]

3 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

This really doesn't sound like its about helping a kid who has a problem.  It sounds like its an assertion by the parents that acknowledging the sex of the child is out of bounds.

I don't think it is intended to be about helping a kid with a problem. I think it's about heading off problems - both for the child and for other kids, for society. Basically, I think this is taking the same approach to gender that I took with my kids to sexual orientation. Which was, any time a future anything came up, I always used non-gendered language toward future life and partners. Like, "One day, when you grow up and fall in love for the first time, he or she will..." or "One day, if you decide to get married, your spouse might..." or "Oh, does so and so have crush on a girl or boy..." etc. No assumptions. I don't think that has "turned my kids gay" (because duh, not how that works) or hurt their straight selves (if that's where they are... I mean, one of them certainly seems to be...). I think it meant that they grew up always knowing it was okay to be gay or straight or bi. And it helped them think that when they meet other people who are gay or bi, that they're normal.

I don't think the intention is what is being stated here - to obscure sex, to minimize it, or to make it off limits for discussion. I think it's exactly the opposite. I think it's teasing apart gender and sex and saying that sex is born, gender is a construct that the child has a say in how they express and present. Now, if you think those two things are inextricably linked and that gender and sex are the same, then I'm sure it reads that way. But I seriously doubt the parents are refusing to discuss the kid's genitals. I mean, the sort of parents who are this far on the liberal parenting spectrum are likely to also be pretty frank about bodies and sex.

Basically, everyone keeps saying that these parents are refusing to discuss biological sex with their kid... but I see zero indication in that from the OP. Whether it *works* to make a kid feel at home with whatever gender presentation and approach they choose... no clue. Whether it's the best approach... I don't personally think so? But I doubt they're doing some horrible harm to their kid.

[Terabith]

I think there's also a big difference in where this approach to child rearing takes place.  What might be genuinely confusing and alienating for a child in Montgomery, Alabama, where this would be stigmatizing and a big deal socially might not be a big deal in Portland, where there might be other families trying to be conscious of not raising their child with a preconceived notion of gender.  Assuming this is a socially progressive area, there are likely other people the child will encounter who use they/ them pronouns.  It's much less likely to be isolating, and as long as the child is well loved and is supported in their development, however it turns out, it sounds like the parents are trying to be thoughtful and considerate in how they raise this child.  And fairly soon, the child will likely start to identify with a gender, and the whole thing isn't as big a deal as it might be in a small, rural, conservative area.  It's a very different experience.  I think ultimately this child will probably be fine, and it sounds like their parents are trying to be thoughtful and caring, and even if it might not be the approach that I would take, I don't think it is likely to be problematic in this particular social environment.  

[Farrar]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It's not a matter of either/or. Both can be harmful.

Inducing a small child to believe her sex is mutable is a lie. Boys don't cry is a lie. The extremes are mirrors of each other.

The centre ground rests in acknowledgement of sex - everyone has one, even people with disorders of sexual development. No-one's sex is mutable. And then on that basis of material reality, helping children to understand what sex stereotypes are, and supporting them if they wish to challenge them. (And for the very small % of persisting children with sex dysphoria, helping them navigate that).

There is nothing backwards, for example, about the conversation I've had recently with my son, where he talked to me about feeling that maybe this idea of playing with gender and 'girliness' in the form of gender presentation, is, for him, a form of internalised homophobia. Easier to think he might be another 'gender' than to face up to the fact that he might be quite a feminine gay male.  That's a confronting thing for a boy to consider, given we live in a world not very friendly to feminine gay men. There's nothing backwards about him saying to me 'Mum, I know I am male. I have a male body and that is never going to change. I'm just scared to be a different kind of male'.There's nothing backwards about me affirming that he is a male, that is never going to change, and that is indeed challenging to be a feminine gay male.

 That's real. That's grounded. That actually looks sexism and homophobia right in the face.

 

But if you believe that sex and gender presentation really are separate, then pronouns is part of gender presentation and isn't telling a child that their sex is mutable. It's telling them that their gender presentation is mutable. And that they can choose the language they want to use.

[Farrar]

Language is not biology. Language is language. It IS mutable.

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

How is sex not obscured when it is off limits to those in the child's life ? When her aunty cannot call her by the pronouns for her sex, or a name indicating her sex, or refer to her by her sex without fearing a backlash from the parents ?

 

 

[Terabith]

Sure.  I think that it is likely that sometime between 3-5, the child is likely to decide, "I'm a girl."  Preschoolers like to categorize, and even if the adults in their life are careful not to categorize, I think it is probable that this child will decide that they are (in all likelihood) a girl.  That doesn't mean that they will start wanting to embrace gender stereotypes, but just that in a society in which even in the most progressive of locations is largely binary in terms of gender, will make a claim for where they belong.  In no way does that involve clothing, interests, or anything like that, but just an internal sense that "this is who I am," the same way they might think, "I am four."  

I think that process is likely to take longer in a child whose parents are trying to consciously raise them without preconceived notions of gender, but I think it's likely to occur even without it.  

I don't know how likely it is that they will embrace pronoun issues.  If they do not hear gender specific pronouns regularly, it's very possible that they might not claim a set of pronouns.  That might wind up being the biggest effect on their life.  

Edited October 27, 2018 by Terabith
pronouns

[maize]

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It's not a matter of either/or. Both can be harmful.

Inducing a small child to believe her sex is mutable is a lie. Boys don't cry is a lie. The extremes are mirrors of each other.

The centre ground rests in acknowledgement of sex - everyone has one, even people with disorders of sexual development. No-one's sex is mutable. And then on that basis of material reality, helping children to understand what sex stereotypes are, and supporting them if they wish to challenge them. (And for the very small % of persisting children with sex dysphoria, helping them navigate that).

There is nothing backwards, for example, about the conversation I've had recently with my son, where he talked to me about feeling that maybe this idea of playing with gender and 'girliness' in the form of gender presentation, is, for him, a form of internalised homophobia. Easier to think he might be another 'gender' than to face up to the fact that he might be quite a feminine gay male.  That's a confronting thing for a boy to consider, given we live in a world not very friendly to feminine gay men. There's nothing backwards about him saying to me 'Mum, I know I am male. I have a male body and that is never going to change. I'm just scared to be a different kind of male'.There's nothing backwards about me affirming that he is a male, that is never going to change, and that is indeed challenging to be a feminine gay male.

 That's real. That's grounded. That actually looks sexism and homophobia right in the face.

 

I would question as well (I am guessing you already do) the idea that a male who likes more stereotypically female things or behaves in more stereotypically female ways must be gay. There are straight men who like glittery things or who dance or etc. etc.

Of all the gender boxes I believe it is straight males who get given the most restrictions as far as acceptable behavior and attitudes goes. We've come to a point where we are more accepting of females dressing and acting in ways that have been primarily associated with males (yeah I know there's a long way still to go) but there is almost no acceptance for straight males who may have "feminine" likes or interests.

[maize]

24 minutes ago, Farrar said:

But if you believe that sex and gender presentation really are separate, then pronouns is part of gender presentation and isn't telling a child that their sex is mutable. It's telling them that their gender presentation is mutable. And that they can choose the language they want to use.

 

Do you believe a three year old child can differentiate between sex and gender?

I doubt my three year old could. She doesn't understand that I cannot drive her to the museum she made up in her head that she says is in a country in Europe and is called the Duck Swim. "I made it up and it is really real, when can we go to the Duck Swim?"

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by maize

[Terabith]

I don't know that I agree that preschool children settle into an understanding that their sex is immutable.  I think preschoolers aren't real big on immutability in general.  But yes, I think they come to recognize their sex and depending on their social environment, some subset of gender roles.  There are few people on earth as conservative, in many ways, as preschool aged kids.  

Maize, I agree with you that men have far more constrained boxes than women, in general.  I think that's part of the issue with toxic masculinity, that there are so few socially acceptable ways to be a man.  For all the issues that women face, we have a much wider arena of socially acceptable gender expression.  

[Terabith]

True!  Although my (not entirely neurotypical) 13 year old keeps at least hoping that one day she'll wake up a dragon.  

[maize]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

True!  Although my (not entirely neurotypical) 13 year old keeps at least hoping that one day she'll wake up a dragon.  

Does this imply that there are people out there who DON'T hope to wake up as a dragon?

Who knew.

[Happy2BaMom]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I feel frustrated, because I feel that you are not understanding me. Yes, language is mutable. 

Perhaps we simply disagree on what pronouns signify. 

The entire conversation re pronouns and sexism would be easier to have in a context where gender, sex, gender identity, sex roles and sex stereotypes were not being continually conflated.

I think whenever we consider the language we impose on others - and our pronouns are not used by us, but about us - we must consider not only the benefit to the individual (we can disagree on the extent of that benefit) but the cost imposed via social control.

The OP's family is seeking to impose a form of social control on the language that Aunty and Uncle and cousins use for their niece. They believe the cost is worth it. I am not so sure, on a cost benefit analysis, that it is.

I'm informed by the impact on my own mental health of being required to use pronouns which did not refer to my child's sex. I found it more distressing than I would have anticipated. After much thought and working through with a social worker I came to the conclusion that being told to collude, linguistically, in the lie that my child had no sex, or was between sexes, or a male sex, was a form of social gaslighting. It was being told not to believe the evidence of my lying eyes.

These things, of course, are taboo to speak about, particularly in the progressive community.

 

 

 

I am a long-time Leftie, have been progressive for a lot of my life, but I have really mixed feelings about the whole gender "thing" (for lack of a better word) and I completely agree with this comment above. In some of the herbalist/crunchy circles I run in, it sometimes seems that half the people have different gender labels they want others to use. Nametags are worn that not only show the person's name, but also the preferred pronouns (which can also be plural, as in "they" for a single person). I keep thinking, "WTF?". I mean, if Zander is 25 yards away and I want to refer to him/her/they and I can't see his/her/their name tag and I can't remember which one he/she/they wants to be, what am I supposed to do? Multiply that times 20 people in a group and it quickly becomes unmanageable and more than a little ridiculous.

And I'm personally sad, because the reason I have been a long-term Leftie is that I am a very strong environmentalist who believes that the only protection for the environment in a capitalistic/market-based system ARE strong regulations, however flawed they may be. And it seems to me that too many Leftie groups often now seem to care more about pronouns and deck-chair-arranging than what is happening to the natural world and the polar ice caps. 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Happy2BaMom

[Farrar]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I feel frustrated, because I feel that you are not understanding me. Yes, language is mutable. 

Perhaps we simply disagree on what pronouns signify. 

The entire conversation re pronouns and sexism would be easier to have in a context where gender, sex, gender identity, sex roles and sex stereotypes were not being continually conflated.

I think whenever we consider the language we impose on others - and our pronouns are not used by us, but about us - we must consider not only the benefit to the individual (we can disagree on the extent of that benefit) but the cost imposed via social control.

The OP's family is seeking to impose a form of social control on the language that Aunty and Uncle and cousins use for their niece. They believe the cost is worth it. I am not so sure, on a cost benefit analysis, that it is.

I'm informed by the impact on my own mental health of being required to use pronouns which did not refer to my child's sex. I found it more distressing than I would have anticipated. After much thought and working through with a social worker I came to the conclusion that being told to collude, linguistically, in the lie that my child had no sex, or was between sexes, or a male sex, was a form of social gaslighting. It was being told not to believe the evidence of my lying eyes.

These things, of course, are taboo to speak about, particularly in the progressive community.

We definitely disagree about what pronouns signify. They clearly signify sex organs to you. They do not to me. They do not to many people. I think that they're increasingly de-coupled from biological sex and that's okay. Like, I don't think that's hurting our understanding of ourselves and others as having biological sex to decouple gender and gendered language from biology. 

In terms of being asked to use pronouns for someone else - especially someone I love - I cannot personally imagine making it about my reactions. If language is comforting, it can be changed. If clothing and presentation is comforting, they can be changed. I know from other things you've said that you find it to be supporting a fantasy, but gender is already a social fantasy, so of course it's a constructed reality that you're supporting. It's one constructed reality over another. One that a person has chosen for themselves instead of having chosen for them based on biology. But, again, if you believe that you can separate the biology and the social aspects, then, well, they're separate. Again, I don't think that hurts men or women - I think it opens up gender as a thing that is a construct. The reality it has is the reality we give it. But society gives it a great deal of reality, so it's impossible to ignore. Instead, if people want to shape it to fit their visions of themselves, I don't want to stand in the way.

I know lots of people using "nibling" in a way that has really nothing to do with trans issues, but just because less gendered language may be beneficial to all. We don't say "mailman" or "actress" or "councilman" anymore, just like "doctress" and "stewardess" have gone out of fashion and I think it's all for the best. I certainly think so. I don't find that it erases sex. It doesn't even erase the social construct of gender, which keeps on keeping on.

I don't think you're wrong that these issues are complex. Or that biological sex is basically immutable, though we do have medical ways to bend it for sure now. And that everyone has to come to terms with the body they're born into in some way or another. Or even that sometimes, the bodies people are born into are bodies that they're uncomfortable with because of narrow societal definitions of gender instead of anything innate. Nothing exists in a vacuum. I don't think the increase in trans and non-binary identifying people will make those boxes more constrained. I think they may help break them.

[EmseB]

3 hours ago, Farrar said:

 

I don't think the intention is what is being stated here - to obscure sex, to minimize it, or to make it off limits for discussion. I think it's exactly the opposite. I think it's teasing apart gender and sex and saying that sex is born, gender is a construct that the child has a say in how they express and present. Now, if you think those two things are inextricably linked and that gender and sex are the same, then I'm sure it reads that way. 

 

 

Even if this is granted as the intent, it is now at the point where in many places people are being asked to accept the presentation of gender identity as equivalent to biological sex. In other words, I have been told that I am a bigot if I don't see gender identity and sex as the same thing. Transwomen are women, right? I care not if someone wants to dress any certain way or present or express any certain thing. But that's never been the real end of the discussion. Because presentation becomes the reality and biology is considered irrelevant. If I don't want a male-bodied person in any number of women's spaces, that's too bad and I am just backward for thinking that way. If I don't think bio-male people should compete in women's sports, or be in a women's prison, or be in a women's dormitory, then that is considered straight up bigotry. The whole point at the end, it seems to me, is exactly to conflate gender presentation with biological sex, and it then it seems, honestly, primarily to allow male-bodied people into women's spaces.

So if I have come to the conclusion that the intention, generally, maybe not with these parents specifically, but generally, is to obscure sex, minimize it, and make it off-limits for discussion (especially in academia!!), it is because of what I'm seeing around me societally that leads me to believe that is the case. 

[Farrar]

11 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, it's interesting that mothers are not supposed to have or prioritise their own reactions, or even be able to define their own boundaries, or take seriously their own mental health, lest they be accused of selfishness. Just another manifestion of sexism, imo. 

 

My kids are their own people. The choices they make are not mine. They are not a reflection of me. It is not up to me to decide who they are. When people try to make those things about me, that - to me - is the sexist, anti-mother position. To pass laws to punish mothers for children's actions or to generally blame mothers for children's mental health issues. I do not have the right to determine anyone else's pronouns - including my children's. That's not a boundary that I am allowed to cross for anyone. To think that I have some special right to decide that for my kids is no different than thinking I can decide their future partners, their jobs, their passions, their sexual orientation, their favorite colors just because I'm their mother. And I can't. It's not up to me.

Of course any parent who is being asked to do something by their kids that they don't like is going to have emotions about it. We're always entitled to process those - privately is often better. But we have the right to grieve over choices we don't like. To feel. To have our own mental health issues. But that's about our reactions, not about determining who our children are. That's up to them. When we go beyond that, then, yeah, I do personally call that selfish. Just like I would call thinking that, say, an adult child's choice of partner was something I had the right to question for my own "mental health" selfish.

When kids are at home, obviously we have a great amount of control over them. Even then, there are boundaries that I think should be respected.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, maize said:

I would question as well (I am guessing you already do) the idea that a male who likes more stereotypically female things or behaves in more stereotypically female ways must be gay. There are straight men who like glittery things or who dance or etc. etc.

Of all the gender boxes I believe it is straight males who get given the most restrictions as far as acceptable behavior and attitudes goes. We've come to a point where we are more accepting of females dressing and acting in ways that have been primarily associated with males (yeah I know there's a long way still to go) but there is almost no acceptance for straight males who may have "feminine" likes or interests.

It’s true. I find this noticeable with naming patterns, too. A lot of new parents give their dauhter’s “cool” guyish names, but once those names start moving strongly towards girls, people stop picking them for boys. If they do pick them for boys anyway, the parents, and later the child, will constantly hear subtle or not-at-all-subtle questions about why they have a “girl name.” I am intimately aware of this because dh has just such a name. By the time he was given his name, few males were named this and (partially due to celebrities) public perception changed to think it is a girl name. 

IOW, it’s sort of cool and edgy to give your daughter a guyish name, but it is strongly frowned upon to give a boy a name that *anyone* might perceive as feminine. Two major examples I have seen are Taylor and Cameron. When I was early twenties, Dh and I liked the name Cameron and thought we might name a future boy this. By the time we did have a kid, we weren’t hearing of any baby boy Cameron’s, only girl Camerons. Not wanting to repeat what happened with the way he was named, that name came off the list of possibilities. 

[Guest]

Quote

am a long-time Leftie, have been progressive for a lot of my life, but I have really mixed feelings about the whole gender "thing" (for lack of a better word) and I completely agree with this comment above. In some of the herbalist/crunchy circles I run in, it sometimes seems that half the people have different gender labels they want others to use. Nametags are worn that not only show the person's name, but also the preferred pronouns (which can also be plural, as in "they" for a single person). I keep thinking, "WTF?". I mean, if Zander is 25 yards away and I want to refer to him/her/they and I can't see his/her/their name tag and I can't remember which one he/she/they wants to be, what am I supposed to do? Multiply that times 20 people in a group and it quickly becomes unmanageable and more than a little ridiculous.

I find the obscuring of gendered pronouns unworkable in many situations. I was at a doctor’s appointment once, being attended by a PA with ambiguous apparent gender. The person’s name was (presumably intentionally) androgenous. No hints were given by the person or by others in the room. So, later, when I called the office back, talking to the reception felt like a linguistic landmine. Finally at some point the recptionist said, “she” and I felt like, “HALLELUJIA! I can finally just have a conversation!” I finally had a way or referring to the person without constantly using her name or her job description. 

 

[mumto2]

On 10/27/2018 at 7:21 AM, Quill said:

It’s true. I find this noticeable with naming patterns, too. A lot of new parents give their dauhter’s “cool” guyish names, but once those names start moving strongly towards girls, people stop picking them for boys. If they do pick them for boys anyway, the parents, and later the child, will constantly hear subtle or not-at-all-subtle questions about why they have a “girl name.” I am intimately aware of this because dh has just such a name. By the time he was given his name, few males were named this and (partially due to celebrities) public perception changed to think it is a girl name. 

IOW, it’s sort of cool and edgy to give your daughter a guyish name, but it is strongly frowned upon to give a boy a name that *anyone* might perceive as feminine. Two major examples I have seen are Taylor and Cameron. When I was early twenties, Dh and I liked the name Cameron and thought we might name a future boy this. By the time we did have a kid, we weren’t hearing of any baby boy Cameron’s, only girl Camerons. Not wanting to repeat what happened with the way he was named, that name came off the list of possibilities. 

This happened to us with my son’s name because we weren’t clued into US trends enough.  We were using traditional Scottish names for both children and actually picked names that had been on the top ten birth names in Scotland the year before each child was born intentionally.  With my son we knew no one in the US who had used the name for a girl.   We knew lots of Brit and Canadian men with his name but no Americans of either gender so felt it was a good name choice.  Within 6 months my son’s traditional male name seemed to be all over attached to baby girls........spelled oddly occasionally.  One thing that seems common is people tweak the spelling of the traditional male name when attaching it to females.

My son’s gripe is the traditional meaning,   in other words he is fine with his girly first name. ? Going to be honest and say it gives him a bit of a conversation starter in the US which I think he actually likes, but he doesn’t have to deal with it constantly.  In the UK it is still seen as a predominantly male name, at least in our circles.  We know lots of little boys with his first name and I can’t think of any girls there.

A good friend’s daughter received an androgynous first name at birth with a very traditionally female middle name.  She hated her first name and was using her middle name by the time she was 3.  Totally tired of being identified as a boy by others, and frankly a bit angry about it.   At seven they had to pay to have her birth certificate changed because she wanted the name gone and they decided to do it for her before it was attached to more permanent records.

 

Edited October 28, 2018 by mumto2

[LMD]

For the op situation, I'd try to deal with it how I'd deal with any other belief system that we disagreed on. I would respect them as parents and do my best to uphold their requests without violating my own conscience. I don't know exactly where that line would be.

I would also have a good think about a prepared response for if I slipped up. My response would be genuinely kind and curious, wanting to support them by trying to understand the worldview better. 

As to the general conversation... I think there is somewhat a clash of the purpose of language/discourse happening at root. I read posts about changing the world through language and I think I understand that it's coming from a very different set of assumptions. Is language a tool to describe and communicate reality, or is language a tool to mould and affect reality? So, the former sees some of this stuff as totalitarian, while the latter sees it as liberating and we're completely missing each other. 

Where it kind of jumps off the logic cliff for me is how gender identity is separate and independent of sex, is subjective and immeasurable (defined as 'an innate sense') yet requires masking/changing sex characteristics and identifying as/being recognized as the opposite (or no) sex? I honestly don't understand the if:then sequence here. And I've really, hand on heart tried to understand. Is it that sex (observable biological reality) and gender (? Feeling? Personality?) are assumed and socially reinforced that they're so closely tied? If we could have a discussion about the language - as I said previously - if I knew what was meant by gender & gender identity then we could make progress. I'm talking about the philosophical underpinnings, not of any particular individual. 

[Selkie]

7 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I don’t think OP disclosed sibling’s sex anywhere in the thread, although I think a couple of PP mentioned sister. It seems like the thread has progressed assuming they are women?

But what if it’s a gay brother- so two men raising a daughter- and they are obscuring her sex? I find that extremely alarming. I find it alarming the other way as well. But if it were two men obscuring a daughter’s given sex- I really have to question motives here. It seems sinister and anti-female in the worst way. 

I worked within the LGBT community for many years, and I’m very well aware that there can be an extreme anti-female vein within the gay male community. I do wonder if that’s what is happening here. 

I'm pretty sure it is a sister. IIRC, OP had an earlier thread about how difficult it is when the sister and her partner come to visit because they are disapproving of many things OP and her family do, like celebrate Thanksgiving and use paper napkins.

[katilac]

11 hours ago, StellaM said:

Yes, it's interesting that mothers are not supposed to have or prioritise their own reactions, or even be able to define their own boundaries, or take seriously their own mental health, lest they be accused of selfishness. Just another manifestion of sexism, imo. 

 

Her original response, which you bolded in your own response, was, "In terms of being asked to use pronouns for someone else - especially someone I love - I cannot personally imagine making it about my reactions."  She did not specify mothers or even parents. She did not say that people, mothers or otherwise, aren't supposed to have reactions.  It's interesting that you assumed she meant mothers, when the OP that sparked the conversation is about niece nibling << ? just to this word  

10 hours ago, Farrar said:

My kids are their own people. The choices they make are not mine. They are not a reflection of me. It is not up to me to decide who they are.  <snip>  To think that I have some special right to decide that for my kids is no different than thinking I can decide their future partners, their jobs, their passions, their sexual orientation, their favorite colors just because I'm their mother. And I can't. It's not up to me.

Of course any parent who is being asked to do something by their kids that they don't like is going to have emotions about it. We're always entitled to process those - privately is often better. But we have the right to grieve over choices we don't like. To feel. To have our own mental health issues. But that's about our reactions, not about determining who our children are. That's up to them. When we go beyond that, then, yeah, I do personally call that selfish. Just like I would call thinking that, say, an adult child's choice of partner was something I had the right to question for my own "mental health" selfish.

When kids are at home, obviously we have a great amount of control over them. Even then, there are boundaries that I think should be respected.

 

Bolding by me, because I love this too much to just quote it. Most of the post, but especially that. 

Yes, parents have the right to grieve over decisions their kids make (double yes to privately being better). And all people have the right to address their own mental health issues, but people do not have the right to make their own mental health issues about someone else. Obviously, someone else or their actions might affect my mental health issues, but that is for me to resolve.

Names are a boundary that should always be respected, imo, and a pronoun stands for the name. If you want me to call you James, I will; if you want me to call you Jimmy, I will; if you want me to call you Moo Goo Gai Pan, I will. The same goes for he, she, they. You get to define who you are, not me. I'm kind of old and forgetful, though, so I personally welcome the idea of they as an all-purpose pronoun ?

 

10 hours ago, StellaM said:

When you've walked in my shoes you can judge me, and not before.

 

I don't think she's judging you - she is expressing her thoughts on whether one should use preferred pronouns, just as you are. Those of us with strong opinions cannot begrudge others the same thing! Some parents on the board have walked in your shoes specifically related to transgender children, many parents on the board have walked the road of being confused or disappointed or distressed about decisions made by their kids. I don't buy the idea that we can only discuss things with people who have had the exact. same. experience. 

10 hours ago, StellaM said:

Also, I gotta say, it's silly to think people own their pronouns.

Pronouns are not words you use for your self; those words you 'own'. Pronouns are words others use for you; those words 'belong' to them.

Pronoun use can be negotiated, both on a societal level and on an individual level. There's been a complete failure for this negotiation to happen on a societal level. 

 

But of course I use pronouns to refer to myself! Grammar aside, I do think people 'own' the pronouns that refer to them, because the pronoun stands for the name. When I say James went to the store; he left five minutes ago I am of course referring to James and no one but James. 

I'm not sure what you mean by negotiating pronouns on a societal level. What do you think that should look like, what should happen? 

4 hours ago, Quill said:

I find the obscuring of gendered pronouns unworkable in many situations. I was at a doctor’s appointment once, being attended by a PA with ambiguous apparent gender. The person’s name was (presumably intentionally) androgenous. No hints were given by the person or by others in the room. So, later, when I called the office back, talking to the reception felt like a linguistic landmine. Finally at some point the recptionist said, “she” and I felt like, “HALLELUJIA! I can finally just have a conversation!” I finally had a way or referring to the person without constantly using her name or her job description. 

 

Why wouldn't you just ask the receptionist? How is that a big deal? You were on the phone, it's not like the PA was going to hear you. 

You could also simply use they. "Cameron said I should come back in two weeks. Oh, they also said they would renew my prescription but the drugstore didn't get the order." 

Either one. Easy peasy. 

I wouldn't assume that their name or their appearance was intentionally androgynous - some people just happen to have an androgynous look, no effort needed, and some of those same people are just using the androgynous name their mama gave them. 

ETA: also, how does this have anything to do with obscuring gendered pronouns? The receptionist used she. This story has nothing to do with gendered pronouns. 

Edited October 27, 2018 by katilac

[Bluegoat]

17 hours ago, Farrar said:

I don't think it is intended to be about helping a kid with a problem. I think it's about heading off problems - both for the child and for other kids, for society. Basically, I think this is taking the same approach to gender that I took with my kids to sexual orientation. Which was, any time a future anything came up, I always used non-gendered language toward future life and partners. Like, "One day, when you grow up and fall in love for the first time, he or she will..." or "One day, if you decide to get married, your spouse might..." or "Oh, does so and so have crush on a girl or boy..." etc. No assumptions. I don't think that has "turned my kids gay" (because duh, not how that works) or hurt their straight selves (if that's where they are... I mean, one of them certainly seems to be...). I think it meant that they grew up always knowing it was okay to be gay or straight or bi. And it helped them think that when they meet other people who are gay or bi, that they're normal.

I don't think the intention is what is being stated here - to obscure sex, to minimize it, or to make it off limits for discussion. I think it's exactly the opposite. I think it's teasing apart gender and sex and saying that sex is born, gender is a construct that the child has a say in how they express and present. Now, if you think those two things are inextricably linked and that gender and sex are the same, then I'm sure it reads that way. But I seriously doubt the parents are refusing to discuss the kid's genitals. I mean, the sort of parents who are this far on the liberal parenting spectrum are likely to also be pretty frank about bodies and sex.

Basically, everyone keeps saying that these parents are refusing to discuss biological sex with their kid... but I see zero indication in that from the OP. Whether it *works* to make a kid feel at home with whatever gender presentation and approach they choose... no clue. Whether it's the best approach... I don't personally think so? But I doubt they're doing some horrible harm to their kid.

 

I think this idea that because language is mutable it can only apply to a social construct like gender, is patently false. If that were true we could not use language to talk about things that are material or have an objective reality.

 Pronouns, words like man and women, male and female, etc are primarily meant to refer to sex, and they are part of how sex is built into and acknowledged in our language.  In the same way a word like "penis" is about sexual reality, despite the fact that it is not the same word in every language.

And in fact it's become not unusual to see those who are taking the view of gender described in the OP even to words about anatomy and physical sex, whatever - so we have a lady-dick, or are told that it's wrong to talk about the uterus as being a female organ, or have pregnancy attached to the idea of a woman or even a female person.  It was a mantra on the parenting group I was on that a vulva or penis could be male or female, etc. I don't really see how that is being frank about bodies and sex.  

[Bluegoat]

17 hours ago, Terabith said:

I don't know that I agree that preschool children settle into an understanding that their sex is immutable.  I think preschoolers aren't real big on immutability in general.  But yes, I think they come to recognize their sex and depending on their social environment, some subset of gender roles.  There are few people on earth as conservative, in many ways, as preschool aged kids.  

Maize, I agree with you that men have far more constrained boxes than women, in general.  I think that's part of the issue with toxic masculinity, that there are so few socially acceptable ways to be a man.  For all the issues that women face, we have a much wider arena of socially acceptable gender expression.  

 

Well, I think at pre-school age they settle into an idea that people are a particular sex at all.  IME some think those are strict and immutable categories, while others seem not to, which I suspect is a personality thing.  But they do seem to often try and draw the categories very tightly, and that loosens as they get older.  But that's developmental, you see the same pattern with other things in that age group, like what counts as breakfast food.

I remember thinking it might be possible to change your sex, and I was school age, but I think most kids do eventually accept that and that is part of a larger project toward self-acceptance that often lasts into adulthood.  

[MEmama]

6 hours ago, mumto2 said:

This happened to us with my son’s name( Cameron) because we weren’t clued into US trends enough.  We were using traditional Scottish names for both children and actually picked names that had been on the top ten birth names in Scotland the year before each child was born intentionally.  With my son we knew no one in the US who had used the name for a girl.   We knew lots of Brit and Canadian men with his name but no Americans of either gender so felt it was a good name choice.  Within 6 months my son’s traditional male name seemed to be all over attached to baby girls........spelled oddly occasionally.  One thing that seems common is people tweak the spelling of the traditional male name when attaching it to females.

My son’s gripe is the traditional meaning, crooked nose,  in other words he is fine with his girly first name. ? Going to be honest and say it gives him a bit of a conversation starter in the US which I think he actually likes, but he doesn’t have to deal with it constantly.  In the UK it is still seen as a predominantly male name, at least in our circles.  We know lots of little boys with his first name and I can’t think of any girls there.

A good friend’s daughter received an androgynous first name at birth with a very traditionally female middle name.  She hated her first name and was using her middle name by the time she was 3.  Totally tired of being identified as a boy by others, and frankly a bit angry about it.   At seven they had to pay to have her birth certificate changed because she wanted the name gone and they decided to do it for her before it was attached to more permanent records.

 

Names are so regional. Cameron is a common enough name in my area, but only for boys. I've never heard it for a female (except  Cameron Diaz, so it's obviously not new for girls). 

My son's Irish name gets used by both. I don't know why anyone would get fussed over it though. Then again, he wasn't particularly fussed over being referred to as a girl for all the years he wore his hair long; we just assumed the people making that assumption weren't terribly perceptive. Lol

Edited October 27, 2018 by MEmama

[Bluegoat]

13 hours ago, StellaM said:

Also, I gotta say, it's silly to think people own their pronouns.

Pronouns are not words you use for your self; those words you 'own'. Pronouns are words others use for you; those words 'belong' to them.

Pronoun use can be negotiated, both on a societal level and on an individual level. There's been a complete failure for this negotiation to happen on a societal level. 

 

 

 

The thing is, to me, pronouns have to be collective or they don't work.  Most of the time they need to be able to be applied unconsciously and reflexively, or you might as well just use the individual's proper name all the time and not bother with the pronoun.

If a "pronoun" is wholly about the individual choosing "their pronouns" which then it's really part of their name.  

And it isn't down to just two or three of them, or even a fixed number, the idea seems to be the individual chooses, which is why they now have those silly nametags.  And of course now they aren't considered stable either - people may change them from day to day.  I can barely remember the names of people I meet much of the time!

[Guest]

Quote

hy wouldn't you just ask the receptionist? How is that a big deal? You were on the phone, it's not like the PA was going to hear you. 

You could also simply use they. "Cameron said I should come back in two weeks. Oh, they also said they would renew my prescription but the drugstore didn't get the order." 

Either one. Easy peasy. 

I wouldn't assume that their name or their appearance was intentionally androgynous - some people just happen to have an androgynous look, no effort needed, and some of those same people are just using the androgynous name their mama gave them. 

 ETA: also, how does this have anything to do with obscuring gendered pronouns? The receptionist used she. This story has nothing to do with gendered pronouns. 

Well, I still find it extremely awkward to either mis-identify someone’s gender or have to admit I can’t determine. While some progressive people might consider it just awesome that they managed to conceal their gender so well that I had to ask or I guessed wrong, there’s still the large majority who find it absolutely dreadful to be mis-identified. When my SIL was going through cancer treatment, this was one of her most profound stories - when a man at a restaurant said, “excuse me, sir...” to her. She felt that cancer had robbed everything beautifully feminine about her and left her looking like a bald, flat-chested dude. 

It is still grammatically confusing for most people (where I live) when someone utters a sentence like the one you used. Most people would think I was talking about Cameron and then I started talking about some other collective of people. 

In any case, I strongly felt that this person was intentionally obscuring gender in exactly the manner the OP is talking about. The receptionist did eventually say “she”, but I got the feeling either the receptionist slipped and said ‘she’ though she had been told to do otherwise, or else she intenitonally said ‘she’ to cut me slack. Or she knows the PA’s request is going to confuse a lot of patients who don’t understand these new rules and so she capitulates to familiar terms when some old lady patient seems to be struggling to identify the PA’s intentionally-obscured gender. 

[Happy2BaMom]

6 hours ago, katilac said:

 

Her original response, which you bolded in your own response, was, "In terms of being asked to use pronouns for someone else - especially someone I love - I cannot personally imagine making it about my reactions."  She did not specify mothers or even parents. She did not say that people, mothers or otherwise, aren't supposed to have reactions.  It's interesting that you assumed she meant mothers, when the OP that sparked the conversation is about niece nibling << ? just to this word  

 

Bolding by me, because I love this too much to just quote it. Most of the post, but especially that. 

Yes, parents have the right to grieve over decisions their kids make (double yes to privately being better). And all people have the right to address their own mental health issues, but people do not have the right to make their own mental health issues about someone else. Obviously, someone else or their actions might affect my mental health issues, but that is for me to resolve.

Names are a boundary that should always be respected, imo, and a pronoun stands for the name. If you want me to call you James, I will; if you want me to call you Jimmy, I will; if you want me to call you Moo Goo Gai Pan, I will. The same goes for he, she, they. You get to define who you are, not me. I'm kind of old and forgetful, though, so I personally welcome the idea of they as an all-purpose pronoun ?

 

But of course I use pronouns to refer to myself! Grammar aside, I do think people 'own' the pronouns that refer to them, because the pronoun stands for the name. When I say James went to the store; he left five minutes ago I am of course referring to James and no one but James. 

I'm not sure what you mean by negotiating pronouns on a societal level. What do you think that should look like, what should happen? 

 

Why wouldn't you just ask the receptionist? How is that a big deal? You were on the phone, it's not like the PA was going to hear you. 

You could also simply use they. "Cameron said I should come back in two weeks. Oh, they also said they would renew my prescription but the drugstore didn't get the order." 

Either one. Easy peasy. 

I wouldn't assume that their name or their appearance was intentionally androgynous - some people just happen to have an androgynous look, no effort needed, and some of those same people are just using the androgynous name their mama gave them. 

ETA: also, how does this have anything to do with obscuring gendered pronouns? The receptionist used she. This story has nothing to do with gendered pronouns. 

3

 

It has never been the case, throughout the entire history of the English language, that people own their own pronouns. You also ignore the fact that, in the English language, “they” is plural, not singular and pronouns are binary, based on biological sex (“he” “she”). The Latin language & it’s modern-day descendants have all nouns being masculine or feminine. The fact that a (relatively) small group of individuals suddenly decide that “they” should be acceptable to refer to an individual person (or that every individual now gets to choose their own pronoun) does not mean the rest of society - or any individual - is petulant and selfish for refusing to instantly get on board with that.

We may need a whole new, gender-neutral pronoun in common-use everyday language, but an issue such as this is very complex and confusing for the majority of people and stating that any interaction concerning gender pronouns is “easy peasy” is condescending. (And using “they” in any type of group conversation to refer to another person in the group is certainly NOT “easy peasy”. Neither is having someone verbally land on you like a Sumo wrestler when you accidentally use the ‘wrong’ pronoun in a moment of forgetfulness – as I have experienced several times over in Leftie groups.) In fact, there is nothing easy peasy about negotiating an entire re-write of gender and it's related language. 

Edited for clarity.

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Happy2BaMom

[katilac]

42 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

It has never been the case, throughout the entire history of the English language, that people own their own pronouns. You also ignore the fact that, in the English language, “they” is plural, not singular and pronouns are binary, based on biological sex (“he” “she”). The Latin language & it’s modern-day descendants have all nouns being masculine or feminine. The fact that a (relatively) small group of individuals suddenly decide that “they” should be acceptable to refer to an individual person (or that every individual now gets to choose their own pronoun) does not mean the rest of society - or any individual - is petulant and selfish for refusing to instantly get on board with that.

We may need a whole new, gender-neutral pronoun in common-use everyday language, but an issue such as this is very complex and confusing for the majority of people and stating that any interaction concerning gender pronouns is “easy peasy” is condescending. (And using “they” in any type of group conversation to refer to another person in the group is certainly NOT “easy peasy”. Neither is having someone verbally land on you like a Sumo wrestler when you accidentally use the ‘wrong’ pronoun in a moment of forgetfulness – as I have experienced several times over in Leftie groups.) In fact, there is nothing easy peasy about negotiating an entire re-write of gender and it's related language. 

Edited for clarity.

 

 

I still don't understand what people mean when they say people don't own their own pronouns, so I'd welcome some more information on that. 

I don't at all think I am ignoring the fact that they is plural in the English language - I don't regard it as a fact at all. It is being used in both the singular and plural, not by a small number of people but by a large number of people, and language is defined by its use. As others have pointed out, this is not a strictly recent phenomena, it has been used that way in past times as well. The general use has changed and changed again, as language is wont to do. They in the singular has been around for quite a while in this latest go-round. 

Please read my prior post again. I did not at all say that the entire gender pronoun issue is easy peasy, but rather that one VERY SPECIFIC example brought up by Quill was. And I stand by that. You don't know someone's pronoun, and you're on the phone with someone else who knows them? For heaven's sake, ask them if it's bothering you so much. Or use their name. I simply cannot see that as a big deal. 

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Well, I still find it extremely awkward to either mis-identify someone’s gender or have to admit I can’t determine. While some progressive people might consider it just awesome that they managed to conceal their gender so well that I had to ask or I guessed wrong, there’s still the large majority who find it absolutely dreadful to be mis-identified. When my SIL was going through cancer treatment, this was one of her most profound stories - when a man at a restaurant said, “excuse me, sir...” to her. She felt that cancer had robbed everything beautifully feminine about her and left her looking like a bald, flat-chested dude. 

It is still grammatically confusing for most people (where I live) when someone utters a sentence like the one you used. Most people would think I was talking about Cameron and then I started talking about some other collective of people. 

In any case, I strongly felt that this person was intentionally obscuring gender in exactly the manner the OP is talking about. The receptionist did eventually say “she”, but I got the feeling either the receptionist slipped and said ‘she’ though she had been told to do otherwise, or else she intenitonally said ‘she’ to cut me slack. Or she knows the PA’s request is going to confuse a lot of patients who don’t understand these new rules and so she capitulates to familiar terms when some old lady patient seems to be struggling to identify the PA’s intentionally-obscured gender. 

 

I get unreasonably embarrassed when I can't understand people who are talking quietly, but if I don't ask them to speak up, that's on me. Why would I assume that they have some nefarious plot to purposefully speak in tones I can't hear, lol? And again, you did not have to ask them directly, so this is like third-hand embarrassment. I don't think it's fair to blame the PA for that. 

I am truly not understanding some of the connections you are making. First of all, if you know that some people find it devastating to be misgendered, why would you assume that someone is doing it on purpose? You stated that this person looked androgynous -   that is a natural look for many people. And they had an androgynous name - that may be the name they were given at birth. So, yeah, don't assume. 

If the PA is intentionally presenting as nonbinary (not intentionally 'obscuring their gender') and intentionally not using gendered pronouns, the receptionist would not have said she. That would not make sense. Whether the PA uses he or she or they, that is what the receptionist would use also. Using non-gendered pronouns or gendered pronouns that don't match your biological sex is a thing. Hiding your preferred pronouns in order to intentionally confuse people is not. I mean, I suppose there might be some asshat somewhere rubbing their hands in glee when you get it wrong - Bwa ha ha! I'm a he, you fool! - but likely not. 

Did this PA give you a painful shot or something? Because you are really assuming a lot of negative things about them. 

[bolt.]

We all use “they” as a singular pronoun already.

We use it when talking about an individual who is hypothetical, unknown or anonymous. We already use “they” as a way to be vague and non-specific about gender — even for individuals.

An anonymous donor is “they”. A swimming coach you haven’t met yet is “they”. A criminal who hasn’t been identified is “they”. A person who will win the student body president election is “they”. The patient, the client, the student, the healthcare worker, and the customer are all “they” when “they” are discussed in the singular but abstract sense. The person across the room that we can’t see or interpret their visual gender markers is “they” so we don’t have to guess. 

We do it all the time. We know how to use this pronoun. We know what it means.

It’s just unfamiliar to us when we *do* know gender information about someone — to *intentionally* leave it out of our grammar choices. None the less, we are free to leave things vague if we want to. It’s not a form of lying, collusion, or gender denial. It’s just refraining from continually referencing gender information in conversation.

A lot of people are making a big deal out of not being allowed to be as specific as they like about other people’s gender identity.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

 

I still don't understand what people mean when they say people don't own their own pronouns, so I'd welcome some more information on that. 

I don't at all think I am ignoring the fact that they is plural in the English language - I don't regard it as a fact at all. It is being used in both the singular and plural, not by a small number of people but by a large number of people, and language is defined by its use. As others have pointed out, this is not a strictly recent phenomena, it has been used that way in past times as well. The general use has changed and changed again, as language is wont to do. They in the singular has been around for quite a while in this latest go-round. 

Please read my prior post again. I did not at all say that the entire gender pronoun issue is easy peasy, but rather that one VERY SPECIFIC example brought up by Quill was. And I stand by that. You don't know someone's pronoun, and you're on the phone with someone else who knows them? For heaven's sake, ask them if it's bothering you so much. Or use their name. I simply cannot see that as a big deal. 

 

I get unreasonably embarrassed when I can't understand people who are talking quietly, but if I don't ask them to speak up, that's on me. Why would I assume that they have some nefarious plot to purposefully speak in tones I can't hear, lol? And again, you did not have to ask them directly, so this is like third-hand embarrassment. I don't think it's fair to blame the PA for that. 

I am truly not understanding some of the connections you are making. First of all, if you know that some people find it devastating to be misgendered, why would you assume that someone is doing it on purpose? You stated that this person looked androgynous -   that is a natural look for many people. And they had an androgynous name - that may be the name they were given at birth. So, yeah, don't assume. 

If the PA is intentionally presenting as nonbinary (not intentionally 'obscuring their gender') and intentionally not using gendered pronouns, the receptionist would not have said she. That would not make sense. Whether the PA uses he or she or they, that is what the receptionist would use also. Using non-gendered pronouns or gendered pronouns that don't match your biological sex is a thing. Hiding your preferred pronouns in order to intentionally confuse people is not. I mean, I suppose there might be some asshat somewhere rubbing their hands in glee when you get it wrong - Bwa ha ha! I'm a he, you fool! - but likely not. 

Did this PA give you a painful shot or something? Because you are really assuming a lot of negative things about them. 

I don’t know how to articulate the manner in which this doctor’s appointment transpired that would help you understand why I think as I do. You just had to be there. For all the decades of my life in times past, the extremely large majority of people I have interacted with have been instantly correctly identifiable as male or female. Also, the extremely large majority has not wished to be wrongly identified; the very large majority of women have not liked being mistook for a man and vice versa. 

BUT! Now it is “trendy” to present in a way that it is hard to guess, or even to change what one wants to be called like changing out of pjs. I have met a person with an obviously female body but whose partner called that person “he.” So this is, presumably, a non-transitioned trans person. It is snares like this that make the PA situation feel super-awkward to me. I guess for some people it feels perfectly fine to say, “excuse me, receptionist, but I don’t know whether to refer to the PA as ‘he’ or ‘she’.” But for myself, that is a mortifying and tasteless thing to say. 

[poppy]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

In terms of owning pronouns, I think bluegoat has a post upthread about it.

I think it is very weird to talk about owning pronouns, as if they are individual consumer items we order from Amazon, and not collectively understood terms that other people use to refer to us, but I'll give it a go.

I don't use she/her pronouns about myself. If I'm telling someone what I did yesterday, I don't say 'oh, she went to a concert, and her liked it very much'. I literally never use these words about myself. I may make a case for 'owning' 'I, me, mine' (if I believed in individual ownership of words) but not my sexed pronouns. 

People use pronouns about me.  If I wanted to think in terms of ownership, they own those words, because those words come out of their mouths, in order to describe their perceptions.

There is a social cost imposed when someone decides that they would like to control the words others use in order to describe their own perceptions. I will give a controversial example in order to illustrate; radical transactivists (not your everyday transexual who lives next door and just gets on with living a post dysphoria life) would require women, as a collective, to refer to a male bodied rapist as 'she' and 'her', if he so identifies. Google Karen White UK if you want to see the specific example; it's not needed for me to go into all the gory images and pictures here.

Under your model of individual ownership, women just have to suck it up. No matter the collective perception, they must be guided by the 'owner'. The social cost of this is horrendous. It requires women to disbelieve what they see in front of them, and to collude with the lie that the rapes were committed by a woman. 

Of course, you can make exceptions. Everyone owns their pronouns except rapists, perhaps. Seems a lot simpler to me to admit that sexed pronouns are not, in fact, owned by individuals. That as a society, we may sometimes negotiate non-standard use (for example, we might choose to use opposite sex pronouns for our transexual neighbour or workmate as a way of being helpful to that person, being polite, being courteuous and not adding to their stress) but that generally the terms used by others reflect how they perceive us, and don't really belong to us at all.

 

 

How is the bolded not exactly what you are doing? 

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

In terms of owning pronouns, I think bluegoat has a post upthread about it.

I think it is very weird to talk about owning pronouns, as if they are individual consumer items we order from Amazon, and not collectively understood terms that other people use to refer to us, but I'll give it a go.

I don't use she/her pronouns about myself. If I'm telling someone what I did yesterday, I don't say 'oh, she went to a concert, and her liked it very much'. I literally never use these words about myself. I may make a case for 'owning' 'I, me, mine' (if I believed in individual ownership of words) but not my sexed pronouns. 

People use pronouns about me.  If I wanted to think in terms of ownership, they own those words, because those words come out of their mouths, in order to describe their perceptions.

There is a social cost imposed when someone decides that they would like to control the words others use in order to describe their own perceptions. I will give a controversial example in order to illustrate; radical transactivists (not your everyday transexual who lives next door and just gets on with living a post dysphoria life) would require women, as a collective, to refer to a male bodied rapist as 'she' and 'her', if he so identifies. Google Karen White UK if you want to see the specific example; it's not needed for me to go into all the gory images and pictures here.

Under your model of individual ownership, women just have to suck it up. No matter the collective perception, they must be guided by the 'owner'. The social cost of this is horrendous. It requires women to disbelieve what they see in front of them, and to collude with the lie that the rapes were committed by a woman. 

Of course, you can make exceptions. Everyone owns their pronouns except rapists, perhaps. Seems a lot simpler to me to admit that sexed pronouns are not, in fact, owned by individuals. That as a society, we may sometimes negotiate non-standard use (for example, we might choose to use opposite sex pronouns for our transexual neighbour or workmate as a way of being helpful to that person, being polite, being courteuous and not adding to their stress) but that generally the terms used by others reflect how they perceive us, and don't really belong to us at all.

Um, I'm fine with rapists or serial killers or embezzlers or really any other criminals owning their pronouns too. Criminals have certain rights. The right to self-determine is one of them (no, this does not mean they should necessarily be housed with a general female population in prison though...). It's not about being courteous to criminals to allow them to keep their names and identities. Those are human rights that everyone has. Rape should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible no matter the perpetrator. This whole argument is just completely bizarre to me. Like, in a few isolated incidents trans women have raped women so therefore every single person on earth shouldn't have control over their pronouns? The logical fail here is so huge.

Women have fought for centuries to have the right to our own names and identities. We have had to fight to not have our very titles be tied to our marriage status. To not have to keep our names if we don't choose. To have the right to self-identify in all kinds of ways. Extending this right further empowers women. 

[bolt.]

It *is* tasteless to assume that someone who seems androgynous wants to be gendered by inquiry. That’s *why* getting used to *not bothering* to guess or to say people’s gender (as a grammar shift) solves so many problems.

The question is not why you couldn’t visually gender the person who presented androgynously... the deeper question is why you found yourself unable communicate or relate normally until you had done so.

What if we *could* relate normally and speak normally without that information? What if language allowed us that freedom?

Wouldn’t we be more comfortable with ambiguity and privacy about gender if we didn’t ‘need to know’ in order to simply talk?

Many English speaking societies are just a small shift away from successfully normalizing a “they” pronoun language solution that helps everyone. There isn’t any need to resist it. It *solves* problems like these ones. It doesn’t cause them. 

[Bluegoat]

If people really "own" pronouns, adding a they or shifting from he to she occasionally isn't going to cut it.  There are already several sets of alternate pronouns that various people want used for themselves, and since self-perception is entirely subjective there is no reason there should remain only a few if that is the standard.

Except that - it's not. Language is collective.  Sure, it can change, but it's fallacious to claim that its changeability means that it isn't collective, that somehow individuals "own" it.  It's really just another example of this idea that everything can be owned individually, that, as Thatcher said, there really is no such thing as society.  Which is a pernicious ideology.

[katilac]

15 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I get a little twitchy on the "they" thing, because more often than not, it seems targeted at depriving women of being able to be called "she" rather than being directed towards groups as a whole (like men). I don't want to be called they. Or them. I am not a plural. I am a she, and I like being a she. There's nothing to be ashamed of. I shouldn't have to become a "them" to assuage someone else's philosophical struggles on identity, for lack of a better term.

 

That isn't something I've seen or experienced in real life. I've only experienced people wanting to use specific pronouns for themselves. A woman should certainly be able to choose she just as much as they. 

Is this something you've observed in real life, or something you're read in articles? If the latter, I'd be interested in links if you have them, although I probably should not go down that rabbit hole. 

[goldberry]

Been mulling over the ownership of pronouns, and a brief observation, although I'm not quite sure how it fits it.  For example, if we had never met "Mary", we would refer to Mary as "her or she" based on her name.  If we then saw a person Mary who presented as a women, we would still call Mary "her or she".  Mary could secretly have a penis. We wouldn't think to ask that question. Biological sex would never enter the equation.  We would accept the way Mary identified and presented.  So isn't Mary in effect defining her own pronoun?  Both by name and presentation?

There would only be a question really if we knew Mary previously and knew Mary previously identified as a male and possessed a penis.  Or if Mary didn't pass very well and had some male characteristics that made us wonder about actual biological sex. But it still seems like *in general* people do define their own pronouns, both by names, by self-identification, and by presentation.  That's why it's so confusing when someone is more ambiguous. I would find it easier to refer to an ambiguous person as "they" than to ask directly, as I would find that more awkward and embarrassing.  And I am someone who NEVER uses they in singular when I can avoid it.  It grammatically bugs me.

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

OK, nothing to talk about if Rapist Hill is where you're prepared to make your stand.

No woman, raped by a male, should be forced or coerced (by society, by accusations of selfishness, by the law) to refer to that male as a woman. And whether you are prepared to admit it or not, this is the logical extreme of your individualist position.

The fact that your  'personal ownership of pronouns' stance leads you to this place should give you pause. This is not feminist. It's beyond gross to think of putting even one female in that position.

 

I'm very concerned about the rights of criminals and the extent to which prisoners are abused, honestly. I'm personally against the death penalty. I believe that all criminals should have basic human rights. That's not taking a stand to defend rapists. I'm also super concerned by how utterly lax punishment is for sexual violence no matter the perpetrators. Good grief. I got effing arrested over this issue the other week. I'm not defending rapists. If you believe that the right to your identity is a basic human right, then everyone gets to have it. I think criminals also have a right to self-determine their religion, their philosophy, their name - because I believe all people do. The way we treat prisoners in the US is deeply offensive to me. I don't think any person deserves to be stripped of their sense of self, no matter how heinous their crime. Should some people be locked up and have their freedoms almost completely restricted? Yes, definitely. And that should include most violent rapists, who we give far too little punishment to. None of this has anything to do with trans issues as far as I'm concerned.

ETA on that... you can't just say "rapists!" and expect to win. It's a complete distraction from the issue.

Compelled speech? I mean, we ask people not to use offensive words that are akin to hate speech. No one has the right to stand there and call you whatever they like - nor should they. There are libel laws. There are time, place, manner restrictions. There's courtesy and general societal rules about speech. There's code switching. Speech has always been and always will be penned in certain ways. I do not believe you should ever be legally compelled to call someone anything though. It's your right to be as rude as you like - again, within the bounds of those time, place, manner type restrictions which exist in every western democracy.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Farrar