Use of pronouns in college papers

[Dmmetler]

As someone who has had the experience of being a person with a disability before and after the ADA, I understand the drive towards generic pronouns, even if the individual doesn't necessarily mind being identified with a gender. Because the fact is, there are still people who will prejudge you based on a range of traits. If you can get your foot in the door and sit down and talk to them, you can often show you are competent. If your application or resume gets chucked in the bin due to a perception of inability, you lose that chance. 

 

While right now using they/them pronouns doesn't do anything to get your foot in the door, and might in fact be worse for your prospects than being labeled as female, a lot of young people feel that the best way to change this, for women, for NB folks, for trans folks, is for gender to not be one of the default pieces of information given in non-medical settings.  And in the age of Google, that's not easy if people are referring to you as she all over the place. 

 

 

[Bootsie]

I was recently writing an academic piece about financial markets in which Janet Yellen was repeatedly discussed (so much that rewriting to avoid pronouns was not reasonable). The pronoun to use to refer to Yellen became an issue with the publisher.  I am not aware that Yelen has ever publicly announced preferred pronouns.  Most writing I have seen uses "her/she" However, when she was elected as chair of the Federal Reserve she instructed her staff to refer to her as "chair" rather than "chairman" or "chairwoman"  (The Federal Reserve Act states that a "Chairman of the Board" will be appointed--so there was a lot of discussion at the time in financial circles as to whether her official title was Chairman.)  The publisher of the piece wants to default to a gender neutral "they" unless the person has specifically stated the use of gender-specific pronouns (especially in this case for which a gender-neutral title was chosen)--resulting in a sentence of When they were elected as chair of the Federal Reserve, Yellen instructed  their staff to refer the them as "chair" rather than "chairman" or "Chairwoman".  

[KSera]

14 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

resulting in a sentence of When they were elected as chair of the Federal Reserve, Yellen instructed  their staff to refer the them as "chair" rather than "chairman" or "Chairwoman".  

This sentence doesn’t cause any confusion for me. It’s clear in this case to me that “they” refers to Yellen. Though I suppose depending on the context surrounding it or whether the reader knows that Yellen is the one who was elected chair, someone might think that “they” referred to some other person who was elected chair. The same could be said if he or she was used in that sentence in place of they though. I do wish that a new singular neutral pronoun had gained traction and popularity. I definitely think that would’ve been easier for everyone to adapt to.

[SKL]

' When elected chair of the FR, Yellen instructed staff to refer to the position as "chair" rather than "chairman" or "chairwoman." '

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

' When elected chair of the FR, Yellen instructed staff to refer to the position as "chair" rather than "chairman" or "chairwoman." '

Yes the sentence can be rewritten to eliminate some of the issues but this does not always result in the same precise meaning.  For example, Yellen did not ask for people to refer to the position as "chair"--Yellen asked to be referred to as "Chair"--so chair is referring to a person not a position.  So, it would need to be "when elected chair of the Fed Reserve, Yellen instructed staff to refer to them as "chair"..."   Perhaps it could be "when elected chair of the Fed Reserve, Yellen instructed staff to use the title 'chair' rather than ...."  but that still isn't as specific because were they being instructed o use the term "chair" for all people in a Chairman of the Board position?--or was Yellen instructing the staff to use the term to refer to Yellen specifically (and, hence, the need to be specifc of using the term chair to refer to XpronounX)  

The more I have learned about language, the more problematic I think pronouns are.  I have colleagues for whom English is not their native language and who are quite proficient in English but after many years have problems with English pronouns.  And, I know trying to learn a foreign language, pronouns are what keep tripping me up.   And to the OP's question, I don't think clear, consistent guidance is available as to the pronouns to use in academic writing.  I try to avoid them as much as possible.  

 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

“There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend”

That's Shakespeare, and if it's good enough for Will it really ought to be good enough for anybody.

If your teachers at any point taught you that this was incorrect - listen, they were wrong. We're all adults here, we really should know by now that sometimes teachers make mistakes and spread falsehoods.

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I was recently writing an academic piece about financial markets in which Janet Yellen was repeatedly discussed (so much that rewriting to avoid pronouns was not reasonable). The pronoun to use to refer to Yellen became an issue with the publisher.  I am not aware that Yelen has ever publicly announced preferred pronouns.  Most writing I have seen uses "her/she" However, when she was elected as chair of the Federal Reserve she instructed her staff to refer to her as "chair" rather than "chairman" or "chairwoman"  (The Federal Reserve Act states that a "Chairman of the Board" will be appointed--so there was a lot of discussion at the time in financial circles as to whether her official title was Chairman.)  The publisher of the piece wants to default to a gender neutral "they" unless the person has specifically stated the use of gender-specific pronouns (especially in this case for which a gender-neutral title was chosen)--resulting in a sentence of When they were elected as chair of the Federal Reserve, Yellen instructed  their staff to refer the them as "chair" rather than "chairman" or "Chairwoman".  

The meaning is there, but it's an ugly way of writing. I don't mean ideologically ugly - it's just clunky. I personally prioritize flow over...other things. Flow affects readability - the aim of writing is to communicate as clearly as possible. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[Bootsie]

Speaking of language and word choice on college campuses, what does this mean:

Our University will be "a place where all are welcome and no one is excluded on any rational basis"

I know that there is a legal term of "rational basis" but is this the desired wording?  Wouldn't there be a rational basis to exclude someone?  It would be rational to exclude someone who is 2-years old from a college classroom.  it seems to me that it should be "no one is excluded on any irrational basis".  What am I missing?

[MEmama]

16 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Speaking of language and word choice on college campuses, what does this mean:

Our University will be "a place where all are welcome and no one is excluded on any rational basis"

I know that there is a legal term of "rational basis" but is this the desired wording?  Wouldn't there be a rational basis to exclude someone?  It would be rational to exclude someone who is 2-years old from a college classroom.  it seems to me that it should be "no one is excluded on any irrational basis".  What am I missing?

I think the wording is correct, it just sounds like they (uhhh…the university, in case anyone’s confused) have intentionally kept the wording vague so as to be open to interpretation. For better or worse.

People are excluded for irrational reasons all the time. Trans and non binary kids are currently being excluded from playing on sports teams at schools. LGBTQ people are excluded from certain churches (the ones that profess to love thy neighbor and all that). Businesses can exclude people who are wearing masks in the midst of a crippling international pandemic. None of those exclusions are *rational*, despite being applauded by some. Judges are literally installed in order to determine vague wording, and we see over and over that the outcomes don’t always make sense. Very often going to court is the exact outcome authors of vague wording desire and they are awarded a sympathetic judge. Other times it backfires. It’s a dangerous game either way. 

[Bootsie]

24 minutes ago, MEmama said:

I think the wording is correct, it just sounds like they (uhhh…the university, in case anyone’s confused) have intentionally kept the wording vague so as to be open to interpretation. For better or worse.

People are excluded for irrational reasons all the time. Trans and non binary kids are currently being excluded from playing on sports teams at schools. LGBTQ people are excluded from certain churches (the ones that profess to love thy neighbor and all that). Businesses can exclude people who are wearing masks in the midst of a crippling international pandemic. None of those exclusions are *rational*, despite being applauded by some. Judges are literally installed in order to determine vague wording, and we see over and over that the outcomes don’t always make sense. Very often going to court is the exact outcome authors of vague wording desire and they are awarded a sympathetic judge. Other times it backfires. It’s a dangerous game either way. 

I am still confused.  Is this trying to say that there is no rational reason to exclude anyone, so no one will be exculded.  In other words exclusion is always based upon irrational reasons?  

Or is it saying that there are rational reasons for excluding people, but even in those instances the university will not exculde them?  

I understand about judges and lawyers and wording.  But, I came across this yesterday as I was looking over a letter of application for a university position.  The applicant had this statement in quotes in her letter (stating that she looked forward to supporting it) and I thought she must have a typo--but I looked at the university's website and it is worded that way in the university's strategic DEI plan.  The applicant picked this one phrase to highlight in her application, so I was wondering if this is commonly used wording.  

[Dmmetler]

I think the idea is that they won't restrict a student who is capable of participating and has the prerequisite skills needed from applying and participating, regardless of race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, age, etc. A 2 yr old would not be able to participate, but a 12 yr old would need to be considered on a case by case basis, as would a 72 yr old.  I don't believe any university, or even a local community college, is throwing open the gates and not requiring any sort of application process. 

 

 

 

 

[Bootsie]

Just now, Dmmetler said:

I think the idea is that they won't restrict a student who is capable of participating and has the prerequisite skills needed from applying and participating, regardless of race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, age, etc. A 2 yr old would not be able to participate, but a 12 yr old would need to be considered on a case by case basis, as would a 72 yr old.  I don't believe any university, or even a local community college, is throwing open the gates and not requiring any sort of application process. 

 

 

 

 

But the items listed (race, disability, etc.)  are not a rational basis for exclusion.  What would be an example of a rational basis for exclusion that the university will welcome the person and not exclude them?  (And this statement is about the university as a whole, not simply application process, so it applies to employment, students, visitors, etc.)

[MEmama]

Another good resource for anyone truly interested in why using correct pronouns is important, and *how to make that change* if you find it difficult.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CV0iS-bgBBj/?utm_medium=copy_link

[GoodnightMoogle]

A bit off topic now but this thread reminded me of when I was pregnant with my son and we didn’t yet know the sex. I texted my father in a conversation, and, unwilling to call my baby “it,” I said something like,

”They are doing well.”

He immediately was like,

”They???!!”

No dad, no twins, I was just trying not to use “it.”

-_-  Many people acted so confused when I said “they” about my one baby. It’s clunky but it’s English, people!

[Melissa Louise]

13 hours ago, MEmama said:

Another good resource for anyone truly interested in why using correct pronouns is important, and *how to make that change* if you find it difficult.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CV0iS-bgBBj/?utm_medium=copy_link

This person demands respect in a way that sets my DV survivor signals off. 

Can I respectfully suggest that they are not likely to be a source that encourages the doubtful? 

 

[kiwik]

On 11/5/2021 at 2:16 AM, Jenny in Florida said:

A number of respected outlets have recognized they/them as acceptable for singular usage.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/pronouns/gendered_pronouns_and_singular_they.html

I still find it bit clunky, but I have people in my life who feel strongly about the issue, so I am working on it.

I'm currently taking some graduate courses, and the singular they/them doesn't raise eyebrows.

Me too.  I don't like it and would actually prefer it (they works some of the time but the rest of the time really confused me) but it is not a hill to die on and it is more important to the people I know who use they than it is to me who finds it clunky.

[kiwik]

9 hours ago, GoodnightMoogle said:

A bit off topic now but this thread reminded me of when I was pregnant with my son and we didn’t yet know the sex. I texted my father in a conversation, and, unwilling to call my baby “it,” I said something like,

”They are doing well.”

He immediately was like,

”They???!!”

No dad, no twins, I was just trying not to use “it.”

-_-  Many people acted so confused when I said “they” about my one baby. It’s clunky but it’s English, people!

But They does suggest twins or more if it is just stated like that.  "The baby is feeding.  They are doing well." Indicates one baby.  It is a bit like using a name once before using "she". It probably doesn't confuse most people but those of us with ASD etc really get confused by imprecise language.

[MEmama]

6 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

This person demands respect in a way that sets my DV survivor signals off. 

Can I respectfully suggest that they are not likely to be a source that encourages the doubtful? 

 

Wow. I follow them and have found their words and messaging educational, calming and validating. They speak to my heart and hurt like no one else. ❤️

I'm truly surprised you had a different reaction. 😞 

[maize]

There's an aspect to demanding everyone use one's favored pronouns--which can be changed at will--that feels very controlling to me. 

We don't have individual ownership of our common language ("my pronouns") nor an inherent right to demand those around us accommodate their use of language to our personal desires.

Offering such accommodation may certainly be respectful behavior, but respect between humans needs to be mutual--and demanding linguistic accommodation from everyone reads to me as profound disrespect.

 

 

 

[MEmama]

3 hours ago, maize said:

There's an aspect to demanding everyone use one's favored pronouns--which can be changed at will--that feels very controlling to me. 

We don't have individual ownership of our common language ("my pronouns") nor an inherent right to demand those around us accommodate their use of language to our personal desires.

Offering such accommodation may certainly be respectful behavior, but respect between humans needs to be mutual--and demanding linguistic accommodation from everyone reads to me as profound disrespect.

 

 

 

So you feel it is your right to erase someone because you don’t respect the human they are?

How exactly are you respecting them? 

[Faith-manor]

Just now, MEmama said:

So you feel it is your right to erase someone because you don’t respect the human they are?

How exactly are you respecting them? 

For me, this ranks right up there with people who insist on using a nickname/shortened name that someone specifically does not use. Our son has professors and fellow students who insist on calling him Chris even though he has never used it, does not come by it (which frustrates the hell out of them because when someone says Chris, he doesn't automatically think of himself and say, "Yes?"), and has repeatedly very graciously asked to be called Christopher. Same for people who disrespect our Peter by saying Pete or worse, Petey, all the damn time.

No difference. Pronouns and names are how we relate to people linguistically and identify them. Refusing to use what has been requested, or in the absence of knowing what they go by getting ruffled by using something inclusive is just disrespectful. It is NOT disrespectful for my sons to nicely asked to be called by their given names, nor is it disrespectful for me to insist on the use of Ms. even though I am married because if my husband does not have to identify his marital status at work or in class, neither should I. It is not disrespectful for them to ask that the pronouns that apply to them be used, and linguistically this is not something new. People have gotten out of the habit of using gender neutral pronouns though they used to be a lot more common in English historically. Shakespeare was not the only one.

And we do add new words to English all.the.time. people do not freak out about it. I think this has a lot more to do with people being very uncomfortable with the fact that sex and gender are actually two different things, and that is not compatible with many religious groups.

Now, on an entirely different note, if one more billionaire refers to himself as an "astronaut" for going to the "edge" of space for 30 seconds in a vehicle in which they have ZERO responsibilities for the operation of said vehicle, nor do anything of worth,nor even orbit the earth once and require NO training to do this, I am going to scream! 😠

[GracieJane]

Preferred pronouns are by definition the pronouns personally preferred over the normative by the owner. In the absence of the owner‘s directive, standard pronouns are used.

[maize]

54 minutes ago, MEmama said:

So you feel it is your right to erase someone because you don’t respect the human they are?

How exactly are you respecting them? 

Erase?

What does this even mean?

Do you think I am planning to murder someone? 

[SKL]

2 hours ago, MEmama said:

So you feel it is your right to erase someone because you don’t respect the human they are?

How exactly are you respecting them? 

The idea that referring to an individual in the way we've always referred to them, based on their genetic sex, is "erasure" completely loses me.

Suppose a teen xx decides one day that "nonbinary" is a better term for said xx than "girl."  Suppose said xx's loving mother refers to said xx as "my girl" or "my daughter" or "she/her."  That is erasure of said xx?  A person's current feeling about gender is said person's entire existence?

Perhaps we need to revisit the use of the word "erase."

Edited November 6, 2021 by SKL

[MEmama]

14 minutes ago, maize said:

Erase?

What does this even mean?

Do you think I am planning to murder someone? 

It’s a commonly used word. I doubt you have never heard it used. For example, take a poster at the gynecologists office that uses the term pregnant people instead of pregnant women. Insisting that the poster ought to only use the term pregnant women in this instance erases the fact that many pregnant people aren’t, in fact, women. They may be trans or non binary. Their lived experience, their personhood, their existence, is thus erased by not using a more inclusive term.

Imagine for a moment that the word woman is no longer used. Instead, all humans are to be all referred to as men and gender differences will no longer be considered. How does that make you— by your own accounts very much a woman—feel? How do you begin to share your truth when you can longer refer to yourself as anything but a man, that your experiences as a woman are no longer recognized, that your uniqueness has, in fact, been erased. 

I know you like language, so when you consider the very term non binary you can see it literally means not of the gender binary— neither male nor female. Thus, the use of the pronouns he and she are not applicable unless requested otherwise. It’s really not different from the consideration given to another person's name, as @FaithManor illustrated above. To refer to Christopher as Chris when that is not his preferred name is inconsiderate and incorrect. Likewise insisting on referring to him as Christopher just because it was his birth name, if he prefers and requests to be called Chris. 

It is similar with bisexuality, which is a sexuality that is neither gay nor straight. It stands alone as a separate identity. To refer to a bi woman in a partnership with a man as straight is incorrect, same as it is incorrect to refer to her gay if she has a female partner.

It really isn’t complicated to address people the way they prefer. We do it all the time, whether by using a nickname, a diminutive form of a given name, by marital status. And those may fluctuate throughout a persons life depending on circumstance, they may indeed “change at will” as you said above. Any hesitation then isn’t because we aren’t accustomed to referring to people as they prefer, it must come from something else. 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

6 hours ago, MEmama said:

Wow. I follow them and have found their words and messaging educational, calming and validating. They speak to my heart and hurt like no one else. ❤️

I'm truly surprised you had a different reaction. 😞 

I genuinely find their videos scary and upsetting. 

I really encourage you to have a different video or resource up your sleeve to share, because I know I'm not the only person who has this reaction to this person. 

Generally, text resources are better than video, for a number of reasons.

 

[maize]

8 minutes ago, MEmama said:

It’s a commonly used word. I doubt you have never heard it used. For example, take a poster at the gynecologists office that uses the term pregnant people instead of pregnant women. Insisting that the poster ought to only use the term pregnant women in this instance erases the fact that many pregnant people aren’t, in fact, women. They may be trans or non binary. Their lived experience, their personhood, their existence, is thus erased by not using a more inclusive term.

Imagine for a moment that the word woman is no longer used. Instead, all humans are to be all referred to as men and gender differences will no longer be considered. How does that make you— by your own accounts very much a woman—feel? How do you begin to share your truth when you can longer refer to yourself as anything but a man, that your experiences as a woman are no longer recognized, that your uniqueness has, in fact, been erased. 

I know you like language, so when you consider the very term non binary you can see it literally means not of the gender binary— neither male nor female. Thus, the use of the pronouns he and she are not applicable unless requested otherwise. It’s really not different from the consideration given to another person's name, as @FaithManor illustrated above. To refer to Christopher as Chris when that is not his preferred name is inconsiderate and incorrect. Likewise insisting on referring to him as Christopher just because it was his birth name, if he prefers and requests to be called Chris. 

It is similar with bisexuality, which is a sexuality that is neither gay nor straight. It stands alone as a separate identity. To refer to a bi woman in a partnership with a man as straight is incorrect, same as it is incorrect to refer to her gay if she has a female partner.

It really isn’t complicated to address people the way they prefer. We do it all the time, whether by using a nickname, a diminutive form of a given name, by marital status. And those may fluctuate throughout a persons life depending on circumstance, they may indeed “change at will” as you said above. Any hesitation then isn’t because we aren’t accustomed to referring to people as they prefer, it must come from something else. 

 

 

I see pitfalls in suggesting to people that they are so personally fragile that they are "erased" if someone uses a non-personally-preferred pronoun to refer to them--I think we teach a lack of resilience. And I likewise see pitfalls in supporting the idea that every individual ought to be able to demand and receive from every other human they may encounter accommodation of their personal linguistic preferences.

Seems to me this is how we end up with college students who are afraid of making a miss-step by using the ordinary gendered pronouns of ordinary English for a person whose name can be reasonably and reliably interpreted as feminine. We've taught that they should live in fear of judgment for, even accidentally, using a non-preferred pronoun. 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

And no, I'm not trying to erase that person, but equally, I don't think I need to erase my own reaction. 

Male person + demand for respect + an attitude I perceive as aggressive = really upsetting. Especially when other women are insisting I should find it educational. 

[ikslo]

4 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

And no, I'm not trying to erase that person, but equally, I don't think I need to erase my own reaction. 

Male person + demand for respect + an attitude I perceive as aggressive = really upsetting. Especially when other women are insisting I should find it educational. 

You say you aren’t trying to erase them, but yet you still refuse to recognize them as non-binary rather than male.

[MEmama]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

And no, I'm not trying to erase that person, but equally, I don't think I need to erase my own reaction. 

Male person + demand for respect + an attitude I perceive as aggressive = really upsetting. Especially when other women are insisting I should find it educational. 

Um, I didn’t insist. Also they are not male (did you even listen?). There is no demanding of anything. And no one is saying anything about your reaction as erasing anything? Ofc you are entitled to your opinion. 🤷‍♀️

Bummer you didn’t care for the messenger. I wouldn’t suggest watching more of their videos. They are a highlight of my day, though, and that’s ok too. 🙂 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, ikslo said:

You say you aren’t trying to erase them, but yet you still refuse to recognize them as non-binary rather than male.

I'm using they pronouns for them.

My experiences  and reactions deserve respect too. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, MEmama said:

Um, I didn’t insist. Also they are not male (did you even listen?). There is no demanding of anything. And no one is saying anything about your reaction as erasing anything? Ofc you are entitled to your opinion. 🤷‍♀️

Bummer you didn’t care for the messenger. I wouldn’t suggest watching more of their videos. They are a highlight of my day, though, and that’s ok too. 🙂 

Please don't gaslight me. It's abusive. 

That is a male-bodied person with a non binary identity.

 

[Dmmetler]

41 minutes ago, SKL said:

The idea that referring to an individual in the way we've always referred to them, based on their genetic sex, is "erasure" completely loses me.

Suppose a teen xx decides one day that "nonbinary" is a better term for said xx than "girl."  Suppose said xx's loving mother refers to said xx as "my girl" or "my daughter" or "she/her."  That is erasure of said xx?  A person's current feeling about gender is said person's entire existence?

Perhaps we need to revisit the use of the word "erase."

If a teen comes to mom and says "Mom, I don't want to be called "Diminuitive" anymore, I want to be called "Name", you being their mom does not give you the privilege of saying "No, I refuse to think of you as anything but "Diminuitive"."  You are putting that word over the relationship. Personally, I don't think that a name, or a pronoun, is worth losing a relationship with your child over. Yet, a lot of people are making that choice. In some cases, they're making that choice without even knowing it, because their child hears statements made to other people and chooses NOT to come out to their parents. 

 

 

[KSera]

43 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

If a teen comes to mom and says "Mom, I don't want to be called "Diminuitive" anymore, I want to be called "Name", you being their mom does not give you the privilege of saying "No, I refuse to think of you as anything but "Diminuitive"."  You are putting that word over the relationship. Personally, I don't think that a name, or a pronoun, is worth losing a relationship with your child over. Yet, a lot of people are making that choice. In some cases, they're making that choice without even knowing it, because their child hears statements made to other people and chooses NOT to come out to their parents. 

 

 

I think pronouns are stickier when it comes to minor children. I call people by the pronouns they prefer. That is common courtesy and I have no reason not to. The stakes are much higher for a minor kid who is requesting this change from their parents though. People treat it like an inert or purely positive thing people can do, but it’s well demonstrated that while many kids today will play around with different identities, the chances of going on to medicalize such a change dramatically increases if they do a complete social transition with new pronouns and all. For some reason, people seem to have blinders on when it comes to the very real reasons it’s not desirable for a kid to medicalize if it doesn’t end up necessary in the long run and they would have ended up coming to terms with their physical body (however they decide to present it) without doing so. The side effects of the surgeries and hormones are SIGNIFICANT and it disturbs me that people can be so cavalier about assisting kids in making decisions that will have permanent effects on their sexual function and health, such that the kids have no way of even understanding what that is going to mean for them. This is not a zero sum game. If kids can end up keeping all their function and health optimum, that is better for the KID. I often wonder how much people actually know about the physical effects of medicalization, especially puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. A kid doesn’t know what they’re agreeing to when they say that it’s fine with them if they don’t have normal sexual function in adulthood. How could they know? And there aren’t even long term clinical Studies available yet on the outcomes of long-term cross sex testosterone therapy. Except that they know that it dramatically increases the risk of heart attack and stroke and it appears some kinds of cancer. But they don’t even know what else or how big those risks are going to end up for people who start these medications as teens and young adults. So it makes me more than a little frustrated and upset when people encourage kids that this is a great thing to do in order to achieve their identity when in the process they are causing real physical harm.

Pronouns themselves are whatever, and as I’ve said, I always use them, including for other people’s kids. I fully respect people’s right to identify however they want. I do disagree that this is based on any innate thing called gender; there is no evidence for such a thing, which should be clear just by the fact that it can change multiple times in someone’s life. Still, people can identify and present however they want.  I’m just so very disturbed about the minimizing of what medicalization actually means for kids, though.

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by KSera
Typo

[MEmama]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Please don't gaslight me. It's abusive. 

That is a male-bodied person with a non binary identity.

 

I am neither gaslighting you nor am I in any way abusive.

I understand you have a complicated relationship with this topic, but it is not ok to call me abusive or make your issues about me. I provided some lighthearted videos I thought someone might find helpful (I do, after all); it’s totally ok if you don’t care for them.

I am not interested in discussing this further with you. Your words were very hurtful; ironic in discussion about being respectful toward others. 

[Melissa Louise]

7 minutes ago, MEmama said:

I am neither gaslighting you nor am I in any way abusive.

I understand you have a complicated relationship with this topic, but it is not ok to call me abusive or make your issues about me. I provided some lighthearted videos I thought someone might find helpful (I do, after all); it’s totally ok if you don’t care for them.

I am not interested in discussing this further with you. Your words were very hurtful; ironic in discussion about being respectful toward others. 

It is traumatizing to be told to deny the evidence of one's own eyes. 

That behaviour is indeed abusive. 

Do better. 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[Dmmetler]

I tend to think that it is possible to support your child without supporting gender altering treatments-and, indeed, this is the case for the people I know IRL with NB kids. For the most part, they have changed pronouns, sometimes, but not always names, and maybe a new hairstyle or some new clothes, but NOT rushed to start hormones or book surgery, and even therapists listed as being LGBT+ friendly by Psychology Today have also not encouraged such changes. 

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I tend to think that it is possible to support your child without supporting gender altering treatments-and, indeed, this is the case for the people I know IRL with NB kids. For the most part, they have changed pronouns, sometimes, but not always names, and maybe a new hairstyle or some new clothes, but NOT rushed to start hormones or book surgery, and even therapists listed as being LGBT+ friendly by Psychology Today have also not encouraged such changes. 

Hairstyles and clothes are totally a non issue. I’m just saying that the research shows full transition with name and pronoun changes makes it much more likely medicalization will happen. The chances for no medicalization are better for NB people, but even then are still not uncommon.  It’s good that in your experience, that’s not typically happening. My own NB kid has medicalized in multiple ways, and I can’t help but worry about the long term effects, so it makes it hard when I hear people cavalier about such treatments. FtM and MtF people are much more likely to use hormones than NB, I think. 

[1234]

21 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I tend to think that it is possible to support your child without supporting gender altering treatments-and, indeed, this is the case for the people I know IRL with NB kids. For the most part, they have changed pronouns, sometimes, but not always names, and maybe a new hairstyle or some new clothes, but NOT rushed to start hormones or book surgery, and even therapists listed as being LGBT+ friendly by Psychology Today have also not encouraged such changes. 

Yes, my oldest is trans and changed his name and sex legally at 18. He did start testosterone not long after but has since decided (at 22) that surgery may not need to happen at all. Surgery and hormones weren’t recommended or pushed by any therapist or doctor we’ve ever seen and he’s been out since sixteen. He does a very low dose of testosterone and is happy so far with the results.

My youngest is non binary and has never wanted hormones or surgery. Using they/them really isn’t that big of a deal. 

Also, for those who have followed and supported my son on here all these years, thank you! He’s now engaged to one of the sweetest girls ever and happier than I honestly thought possible for him.

[frogger]

On 11/5/2021 at 9:09 AM, MEmama said:

Another good resource for anyone truly interested in why using correct pronouns is important, and *how to make that change* if you find it difficult.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CV0iS-bgBBj/?utm_medium=copy_link

Well, I will say he is more honest than most.

 

 

Personally, the real reason I just want to use "they" for everyone (and I mean everyone)  is that I don't want to keep track. I have a hard enough time with Ms, Miss, Mrs. I decided to just start saying Greeting First Name Last name and throw out the title entirely when I'm communicating with education or business associates. I don't want to sound familiar enough to just jump to first name only. I've also wavered and just used Ms. without caring if it is a Miss or Mrs. I don't want to offend people but how am I supposed to know?

 

Now people want me to research pronouns? That is egotistical.  Is life not hard enough without agonizing over every minute detail?  I do not know your life journey and there is no possible way for me to for every person I meet. If you are my child or close friend, it is showing love to dwell on these things maybe. To expect every passer by to figure out what gender you want to be is impossible, confusing, and egotistical. So, perhaps just using "they" for every single person would be a better and less confusing alternative. 

 

 

[Dmmetler]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

Well, I will say he is more honest than most.

 

 

Personally, the real reason I just want to use "they" for everyone (and I mean everyone)  is that I don't want to keep track. I have a hard enough time with Ms, Miss, Mrs. I decided to just start saying Greeting First Name Last name and throw out the title entirely when I'm communicating with education or business associates. I don't want to sound familiar enough to just jump to first name only. I've also wavered and just used Ms. without caring if it is a Miss or Mrs. I don't want to offend people but how am I supposed to know?

 

Now people want me to research pronouns? That is egotistical.  Is life not hard enough without agonizing over every minute detail?  I do not know your life journey and there is no possible way for me to for every person I meet. If you are my child or close friend, it is showing love to dwell on these things maybe. To expect every passer by to figure out what gender you want to be is impossible, confusing, and egotistical. So, perhaps just using "they" for every single person would be a better and less confusing alternative. 

 

 

And my guess is that this is why it is the standard in the AP and Chicago style guides. Because even without non-binary in the mix, there needs to be a default, and a lot of people aren't really thrilled with being misgendered based on their first name, in either direction. And in many situations, it simply isn't relevant. 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Dmmetler

[KSera]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

So, perhaps just using "they" for every single person would be a better and less confusing alternative. 

 

I would love to see a new singular, non-gendered pronoun introduced that would be embraced by everyone. I really do think that would help a lot. Yes, it would take effort to get used to a new word in the language, but I think people would adapt to it eventually and it would be nice to have one where singular verbs could then be used with the singular pronoun, because I think the fact that singular they still takes plural verbs contributes to the lack of clarity at times.

[DawnM]

I call people what they want to be called, but they have to tell me if it is other than their assigned gender.  Otherwise, if you tell me your name is Sarah, I will assume I can use the "she" pronoun.   

[kiwik]

25 minutes ago, KSera said:

I would love to see a new singular, non-gendered pronoun introduced that would be embraced by everyone. I really do think that would help a lot. Yes, it would take effort to get used to a new word in the language, but I think people would adapt to it eventually and it would be nice to have one where singular verbs could then be used with the singular pronoun, because I think the fact that singular they still takes plural verbs contributes to the lack of clarity at times.

How about it for singular and they for plural. After all it is he/she/it in most languages.

[kiwik]

16 minutes ago, DawnM said:

I call people what they want to be called, but they have to tell me if it is other than their assigned gender.  Otherwise, if you tell me your name is Sarah, I will assume I can use the "she" pronoun.   

Yes if you say your name is Sarah then you have to expect to be called she especially if you are pregnant.

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, kiwik said:

How about it for singular and they for plural. After all it is he/she/it in most languages.

I hate the idea of calling my dc “it” 🙁. I’d rather deal with the sometimes confusion of “they” over that. I anticipate if “it” had always been a singular pronoun in English, it wouldn’t seem degrading to a person, but it hasn’t, and so it does.

[kiwik]

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

I hate the idea of calling my dc “it” 🙁. I’d rather deal with the sometimes confusion of “they” over that. I anticipate if “it” had always been a singular pronoun in English, it wouldn’t seem degrading to a person, but it hasn’t, and so it does.

You have a point but if we are changing anyway we can change that just as easily.  I am not particularly invested in such things but I have a female name and am manifestly female, most people are male or female and it is pretty obvious.  While if you request it I will try my best to use gender neutral pronouns as I have no wish to offend, I can see no reason why I should be referred to as they and not be offended so a small group of people won't be accidentally offended.

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, kiwik said:

You have a point but if we are changing anyway we can change that just as easily.  I am not particularly invested in such things but I have a female name and am manifestly female, most people are male or female and it is pretty obvious.  While if you request it I will try my best to use gender neutral pronouns as I have no wish to offend, I can see no reason why I should be referred to as they and not be offended so a small group of people won't be accidentally offended.

I agree no one should call someone “they” and then refuse to switch to a gendered pronoun when someone says that is what they use (the respect needs to go all directions on that one). I still think introducing a new pronoun would be much better than trying to change the connotation of an existing one that is dehumanizing in the language we have. I’m not suggesting this is what you personally are trying to do, but when people suggest “it” as the alternative, it feels somewhat like an underhanded way to dehumanize NB people. 

[maize]

33 minutes ago, kiwik said:

How about it for singular and they for plural. After all it is he/she/it in most languages.

"It" has too strong a sense of only being used for non-humans, and we are going to continue using it for non-humans (especially inanimate objects) because English speakers long ago gave up the common grammatical-gender structure of Indo-European languages--adopting instead a sort of animate/inanimate or human/non-human usage (animals can go either way, but when we are close to an animal, imbuing them with more human characteristics, we use he and she not it).

"They" really does make the most sense when we want to use a non-gendered third person singular pronoun. It's been used in some ways as such for a long time; what is happening now is more an expansion of that usage than anything else, and doesn't require a fundamental change in the character of the word as using "it" for humans would.

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by maize

[Melissa Louise]

Someone's gender identity is irrelevant to an academic paper.  If citing, you use an author's name.

"Colours are fun" (Blue, 2003).

Blue and Red (2016) state that...

According to Blue and Red (2016), 

"Purple is best." (Blue & Red, 2020).