6 reasons the gender critical right and the woke left are both WRONG about pronouns

Summary

Le script du vidéo traite des pronoms et des néo-pronoms, examinant les raisons pour lesquelles les discours de la droite critique envers le genre et de la gauche 'éveillée' sont erronés. Le Dr. Taylor Jones, linguiste, critique les idées préconçues sur les pronoms et la manière dont ils sont utilisés dans différentes cultures. Il propose des pistes pour naviguer dans ce débat culturel complexe avec respect et inclusion, tout en reconnaissant les défis et les tensions entre l'identité personnelle et les attentes sociales.

Takeaways

• 😀 Le script discute de la complexité et de la confusion entourant l'utilisation des pronoms, notamment dans le contexte de la diversité des identités de genre.
• 🗣️ L'auteur exprime ses inquiétudes concernant la polarisation des débats publics sur les pronoms et souligne la nécessité de dialogue raisonné.
• 🏷️ Il explique que les pronoms sont des mots qui remplacent un nom spécifique, pouvant varier selon le contexte et la langue.
• 🚫 Il réfute l'idée que les pronoms sont statiques, montrant qu'ils évoluent et se développent dans de nombreuses langues.
• 🤔 Il met en doute la compréhension de certains participants aux débats publics sur la nature même des pronoms et de la grammaire.
• 🌐 Il souligne que le genre en linguistique est différent de la notion de genre en sciences sociales et que cela influence la manière dont les pronoms sont utilisés et perçus.
• 💡 Il suggère que l'apprentissage de nouveaux pronoms, tels que les neopronoms, peut être difficile mais n'est pas impossible, contrairement à certaines perceptions.
• 🧠 Il mentionne des études qui montrent que l'ambiguïté des pronoms dans les phrases peut entraîner une charge cognitive accrue pour le cerveau.
• 🌐 Il discute de l'impact de la culture sur la perception et l'utilisation des pronoms, soulignant que les attentes et les pratiques peuvent varier considérablement d'une culture à l'autre.
• 💬 Il appelle à la réflexion sur la manière dont les pronoms sont utilisés pour inclure et respecter les identités de genre, tout en reconnaissant les défis et les tensions qui peuvent survenir.

Q & A

Quels sont les six points sur lesquels le Dr. Taylor Jones pense que les gens se trompent concernant les pronoms?

Le Dr. Taylor Jones mentionne six points d'erreur concernant les pronoms : 1) Les gens se trompent sur ce qu'est un pronom. 2) Ils se trompent sur la notion de genre. 3) Ils se trompent sur la difficulté des néo-pronoms. 4) Ils se trompent sur la facilité des néo-pronoms. 5) Ils se trompent sur la culture. 6) Ils se trompent sur l'inclusion.

Pourquoi le Dr. Taylor Jones considère-t-il que les pronoms sont comme des variables mutables en codage?

Il les compare aux variables mutables en codage parce qu'ils peuvent se référer à plusieurs noms différents selon le contexte, tout comme une variable en codage peut prendre différentes valeurs.

Quelle est la différence entre les pronoms et les termes de civilité comme 'sir' ou 'ma’am', selon le Dr. Taylor Jones?

Selon le Dr. Taylor Jones, les pronoms sont une catégorie de mots qui se substituent à un nom, tandis que les termes de civilité comme 'sir' ou 'ma’am' sont des noms et non des pronoms, car ils ne fonctionnent pas comme des pronoms.

Comment le Dr. Taylor Jones explique-t-il la complexité des pronoms dans les différentes langues?

Il explique que les pronoms varient d'une langue à l'autre par le nombre d'informations qu'ils codifient, comme le singulier ou le pluriel, la familiarité, la distance sociale, l'inclusivité ou l'exclusivité.

Pourquoi le Dr. Taylor Jones pense-t-il que le genre est souvent mal compris dans les discussions sur les pronoms?

Le Dr. Taylor Jones souligne que le genre est un terme qui désigne des types ou des catégories, et que les discussions sur les pronoms confondent souvent les catégories sociales, biologiques et linguistiques de genre.

Quels sont les exemples donnés par le Dr. Taylor Jones pour montrer que les néo-pronoms ne sont pas aussi difficiles à apprendre que certains le pensent?

Il mentionne que de nouveaux pronoms apparaissent régulièrement dans les langues, comme 'vosotros' en espagnol, et que de nombreuses personnes apprennent des pronoms en apprenant des langues étrangères.

Pourquoi le Dr. Taylor Jones est-il d'avis que l'utilisation des néo-pronoms n'est pas aussi facile que certains le prétendent?

Il cite des études qui montrent que l'ambiguïté des pronoms dans les phrases a un coût de traitement cognitif, et que l'utilisation de néo-pronoms peut être difficile à suivre pour les locuteurs.

Quelle est la perspective du Dr. Taylor Jones sur la façon dont la culture influence la perception des pronoms?

Il souligne que les discussions sur les pronoms sont influencées par des suppositions culturelles non déclarées, comme l'individualisme et le collectivisme, qui affectent la manière dont nous pensons à propos des pronoms.

Comment le Dr. Taylor Jones aborde-t-il le sujet de l'inclusion et des pronoms?

Il soutient que bien que partager ses pronoms puisse aider à inclure les identités de genre non traditionnelles, exiger que les gens se catégorisent eux-mêmes peut créer des tensions sociales et mettre des personnes dans des situations inconfortables.

Quelles sont les trois suggestions que le Dr. Taylor Jones donne pour interagir de manière respectueuse avec les identités de genre et les pronoms?

Il suggère de ne pas forcer les gens à se catégoriser, de respecter les pronoms que les gens partagent, et de considérer l'audience lors de l'utilisation des pronoms pour respecter les interlocuteurs présents.

Outlines

00:00

😀 Introduction aux pronoms et aux néopronoms

Le script introduit un débat controversé sur l'utilisation des pronoms et des néopronoms, soulignant la peur de l'animateur de créer cette vidéo. Il mentionne la perturbation du débat public sur les pronoms, qui est influencé par des questions de langue, de genre et de culture. L'animateur, Dr. Taylor Jones, se présente et aborde la question des pronoms, des néopronoms et de la manière dont les gens réagissent à ces sujets. Il critique également les linguistes qui ajoutent à la confusion et souligne l'importance de la gentillesse et de l'inclusion, tout en reconnaissant les défis de la vérité et de la perception.

05:01

📚 Comprendre les pronoms et la notion de genre

Dans ce paragraphe, l'animateur explique ce qu'est un pronom, clarifiant les malentendus courants sur leur nature et leur utilisation. Il mentionne que les pronoms sont des mots qui remplacent un nom et peuvent varier entre les langues en ce qui concerne les informations qu'ils encodent. Il critique également les erreurs courantes concernant la compréhension du genre, soulignant que le genre est un concept plus complexe qui peut inclure des aspects sociaux et linguistiques. L'animateur discute des différences entre le genre en termes de sciences sociales et en termes de langue, et comment cela affecte la manière dont les pronoms sont utilisés et perçus.

10:03

🧠 La complexité de l'apprentissage des néopronoms

Le script aborde la difficulté et la facilité d'apprendre et d'utiliser les néopronoms, comme 'they' pour un référent singulier ou des pronoms comme 'xe' ou 'hir'. Il repose sur des études qui montrent que les pronoms ambigus entraînent un coût cognitif, et que l'utilisation de néopronoms peut être difficile à suivre. Cependant, il souligne également que l'apprentissage de nouveaux pronoms n'est pas impossible, contrairement à certaines opinions, et que l'apprentissage de langues étrangères avec leurs propres systèmes de pronoms est courant. L'animateur met en garde contre l'idée que l'utilisation de néopronoms soit aussi simple que certains le prétendent.

15:04

🌐 L'impact de la culture sur les pronoms

Dans ce paragraphe, l'animateur discute de l'impact de la culture sur la perception et l'utilisation des pronoms. Il mentionne que les deux côtés du débat des pronoms ont des préjugés culturels qui influencent leur pensée. Il critique l'individualisme excessif qui peut se manifester dans l'exigence de la reconnaissance des pronoms personnels, tout en reconnaissant que la collectivité ou l'orientation communautaire dans d'autres cultures peut avoir des attentes différentes. L'animateur appelle à la reconnaissance de ces différences culturelles et à la navigation respectueuse des identités dans les interactions.

20:05

🤔 Réflexions finales sur l'inclusion et la communication

Le script se conclut par une discussion sur l'inclusion et la communication, soulignant que l'inclusion peut parfois être gênée par des exigences qui peuvent être sources de conflit. L'animateur partage ses propres réflexions sur comment naviguer le débat des pronoms avec respect et empathie, tout en reconnaissant les défis et les nuances de la communication interpersonnelle. Il appelle à la dignité et à l'excellence dans les interactions, qu'elles soient en ligne ou hors ligne, et encourage les spectateurs à réfléchir et à discuter de ces questions complexes.

Keywords

💡Pronoms

Les pronoms sont des mots qui remplacent un nom dans une phrase, permettant d'éviter des répétitions. Dans le script, ils sont au cœur du débat car ils sont utilisés pour identifier et reconnaître les identités de genre, y compris celles qui ne se réfèrent pas aux catégories de genre traditionnelles. L'auteur critique l'usage des pronoms et l'attention particulière qu'ils reçoivent dans les discussions sociales, indiquant que cela est lié à une question plus large d'inclusion et de respect des identités.

💡Genre

Le terme 'genre' est utilisé pour désigner les rôles, les comportements, les attitudes, les apparences et les relations sociales assignés aux individus en fonction de leur sexe. Dans le script, l'auteur explique que le genre est souvent confondu avec le sexe, mais qu'en linguistique, il fait référence à des catégories de noms. Le genre est un élément clé dans le débat sur les pronoms, car il influence comment les personnes sont référencées et identifiées.

💡Neopronoms

Les 'neopronouns' sont des pronoms non traditionnels, comme 'xe' ou 'hir', utilisés pour représenter des identités de genre qui ne s'alignent pas sur les genres masculin ou féminin. Dans le script, l'auteur discute de la difficulté et de la facilité potentielle d'apprendre et d'utiliser ces nouveaux pronoms, soulignant que cela peut être à la fois plus difficile et moins difficile que ce que certains le pensent.

💡Inclusion

L'inclusion est le processus par lequel les individus de différents groupes, y compris ceux avec des identités de genre non traditionnelles, sont acceptés et valorisés dans la société. Dans le script, l'auteur aborde l'inclusion comme un objectif important, mais souligne également les défis et les limitations de certaines approches, comme le partage forcé des pronoms, qui peuvent créer des tensions ou aliéner certaines personnes.

💡Culture

La culture est référencée dans le script comme un facteur clé qui influence la manière dont les pronoms et le genre sont perçus et traités. L'auteur mentionne que les attentances et les normes en matière de genre et de pronoms varient d'une culture à l'autre, soulignant l'importance de reconnaître ces différences et de ne pas imposer des modèles culturels spécifiques à d'autres.

💡Identité de genre

L'identité de genre fait référence à la manière dont une personne comprend et exprime son propre genre. Dans le script, l'auteur discute de la manière dont les pronoms sont utilisés pour reconnaître et respecter les identités de genre des individus, y compris celles qui ne se réfèrent pas aux catégories de genre binaires traditionnelles.

💡Langue

La langue est le système de communication orale et écrite utilisé par un groupe de personnes. Dans le script, l'auteur aborde la manière dont la langue, y compris l'usage des pronoms, est influencée par et influence la culture et les normes sociales, y compris celles liées au genre et à l'identité.

💡Droit

Le terme 'droit' est implicite dans le script en ce qui concerne les droits des personnes à être reconnues et respectées dans leur identité de genre. L'auteur mentionne le débat autour des pronoms dans le contexte plus large des droits et des protections des droits des personnes transgenres et non-conformistes au genre.

💡Communication

La communication est le processus de partage d'informations, d'idées et de sentiments. Dans le script, l'auteur discute de la manière dont la communication est affectée par l'usage des pronoms et des néo-pronoms, soulignant l'importance de s'adapter et de respecter les préférences d'identité de genre dans les interactions quotidiennes.

💡Respect

Le respect est un principe clé dans le script, où l'auteur insiste sur l'importance de respecter les identités et les préférences de pronoms des autres, même si cela peut être difficile ou inconfortable. Le respect est présenté comme un moyen de promouvoir l'inclusion et de maintenir des relations saines dans une société diversifiée.

Highlights

Pronouns are a significant topic of debate, with both the Gender Critical right and the Woke left having strong but often misguided opinions.

Pronouns are more complex than they appear, with many people misunderstanding their linguistic functions.

The societal shift towards using pronouns is driven by inclusivity for the trans and gender non-conforming population.

Pronouns are a word category that stand in for a noun and can vary significantly across languages.

The concept of gender in language is distinct from biological sex and social gender roles.

Neopronouns, like 'xe' or 'hir', are a recent development in English to accommodate non-binary identities.

Adding new pronouns to a language is not as difficult as some believe, given that it has happened historically.

Using new pronouns can be cognitively challenging, as they require a shift in established language patterns.

The cultural implications of pronouns are often overlooked, with different societies having varied approaches to language and identity.

The expectation to share one's pronouns can create discomfort and force individuals into unwanted self-identification.

Inclusivity through pronouns is important, but it can sometimes conflict with other social pressures and norms.

Respecting others' identities involves navigating the tension between self-determination and societal acceptance.

The video concludes with a call for dignity and respect in language use, acknowledging the complexities of identity and communication.

Transcripts

6 reasons why the Gender Critical right and the Woke left are both WRONG about pronouns

Ah, Pronouns.

I’ve been a little afraid to make this video, honestly.

But I guarantee you need to hear what I have to say.

Everyone is talking – ok, yelling – about pronouns nowadays.

Verbs, adjectives, even nouns don’t get this level of attention.

But for those of us who actually study pronouns and even publish in academic journals about

them – and there are dozens of us – it’s hard to watch the public conversation become

increasingly unhinged.

Unfortunately, plenty of well-meaning linguists add oil to the pronoun fire, too.

Some of the confusion, anger, and vitriol is about language, and some of it is about

gender.

But there’s also an overlooked third component, related to culture.

Today I’m going to talk about pronouns and neopronouns.

What they are, why people are so worked up, and what regular folks like you and me can

do to navigate this cultural moment.

Let’s get into it.

I’m Dr. Taylor Jones, a straight, cis-gendered man, and this probably a mistake.

Uh…this is Language Jones.

[Break]

What are your pronouns?

Many of you have asked or been asked this question.

Maybe in person, maybe introducing yourself to a new group of people, maybe even on a

survey or questionnaire.

And if you haven’t asked or been asked this, you know that people do ask and answer it.

Profiles on Twitter might have “he/him” or “she/they” listed.

Unquestionably, there’s a societal shift happening in the Anglosphere.

It’s largely motivated by a desire to be inclusive and welcoming to the portion of

the population that self-identifies as either trans or gender non-conforming, which all

basically boils down to not self-identifying the same way other people might initially

categorize you, especially around binary sex categories: male/female, man/woman, etc.

Depending on who you ask and which surveys you trust, that’s either less than a percent

of people or like 20% of people.

Some people are very supportive of this shift and others are VERY unhappy about it.

But here’s the thing, the majority of people I’ve seen, on all sides, are wrong about

most of what they’re talking about.

I’ll always come down on the side of kindness and inclusion BUT a lot of us are going about

THAT wrong.

And sometimes kindness and inclusion are in – we’ll say *tension* -- with what we

perceive to be truth, and honestly.

So, here’s six reasons why YOU are wrong about pronouns.

1.

You’re wrong about what pronouns even are.

Many people arguing about pronouns have only the vaguest idea of what pronouns are.

People are even worse at identifying pronouns than they are at identifying the passive voice.

So you have people out here saying that there are no pronouns in the bible, and then turning

around and saying “THOU SHALT NOT…”

What do you think THOU is???

Spoiler: it’s a pronoun.

Even the original language has pronouns in the nominative, and pronominal suffixes in

other cases.

(Pronouns in biblical Hebrew are a whole separate complicated thing).

You also have people saying “sir” or “ma’am” are pronouns.

Or “bro,” “dude,” or “guys.”

They are not.

Those are gendered, yes, but they’re terms of address that are not pronouns and do not

function as pronouns.

Most of those terms of address are nouns.

Regular old vanilla nouns.

So pronouns are a category of word – and I’m being vague about what “word” means

in linguistics – that stand in for a noun.

They’re reusable, so they’re kind of like mutable variables in coding.

If I talk about my friend Chris, after I’ve mentioned him, I can use a pronoun.

Like I just did.

It was “him.”

“Him” refers to Chris.

And “it” referred to “a pronoun.”

You might use “him” thousands of times a day, and it might refer to hundreds of different

people.

Pronouns are effectively a pointer to some noun the listener should be able to figure

out from context.

Across languages, pronouns differ in part by how much information they encode.

Some languages make you choose a different pronoun depending on whether the thing referred

to is singular or plural.

Or if there are precisely two.

Some make you specify formality and social distance, like French tu (informal) and vous

(formal or plural), or early modern English Thou (informal) and You (formal or plural).

Some languages have inclusive and exclusive “we,” where they differentiate between

us all together, and us but not you.

Standard English doesn’t distinguish between second person singular and plural – they’re

both “you” – but many informal varieties do, with everything from youse, to yinz to

y’all.

Some regions of the American South now have y’all as a semi-formal pronoun like vous,

and all y’all is the true plural.

And some languages specify gender, some don’t.

English splits the difference and ONLY specifies gender on third person pronouns.

Not I or you, but a special THIRD person we’re talking about, you and I. Other languages

have gendered versions of I and you, in addition to he, she, it, and so on.

That brings us to another thing you’re wrong about.

2.

You’re wrong about gender.

Gender is a word related to the word “genre.”

It literally just means type or category.

Part of the reason we talk about gender in language is specifically that linguists were

trying NOT to say “sex.”

We can get into a more detailed discussion, but sex is the physiological and biological

reproductive categories for a species: humans are a sexually dimorphic species that reproduces

by combining a small, mobile gamete, with a larger immobile gamete, and the developing

new human is carried by the person with the larger gamete (unlike seahorses).

This is a characterization of the species, not of individuals, who don’t ALL fall into

those categories.

This is how I imagine humans in the Federation in star trek explain human sexes to aliens.

Before they explain gender.

Before they problematize that.

Before they get it on.

Gender, on the other hand, means something in the social sciences, and something totally

different when we’re talking about language.

In the social sciences, it can be thought of as all the ways we expect humans to act,

speak, behave, and dress, based on socially constructed categories.

These categories are often, but not always related to, but not determined by, sex distinctions.

There are many cultures that famously have at least 3 social genders, from India, to

Thailand, to some Native American cultures.

In linguistics, though, it’s categories for classes of nouns.

English has masculine and feminine, basically on pronouns only, and we use those pronouns

to talk about people so you basically have to categorize them as one or the other if

the referent is known to the listener.

If not, I can do what I just did and say “they” or “them” for a singular referent.

But other languages don’t have genders that line up with biological sexual dimorphism.

The word for woman in German is feminine, and man is masculine, but girl is…neuter?

In Dutch there are two genders but both man and woman are “common” gender and girl

is neuter.

In Zulu there are 14 genders, but 6 are different classes, another 6 are the plurals of the

first six, and the last two make things into either verbs or abstract ideas.

So umuntu is a person, abantu are people, isintu is a race or humankind, and ubuntu

is the abstract concept of humanity.

I have to use U- as the third person singular pronoun no matter who I’m talking about,

and nobody can identify as Si- instead, because it would just NOT be understood.

And even in languages where they’re called “masculine and feminine” and man is masculine

and woman is feminine, you still run into complications.

In French, person is feminine.

Une personne.

And the word for female genitalia, what linguists call the hoo-ha, is masculine: Le vagin.

Slang terms for the male member, like PIPE and BITE are feminine.

Because it’s about linguistic categories, not social or biological categories.

By the way, if you speak other languages, now’s the perfect time to leave me a comment

below with the most interesting grammatical gender or funniest mismatch you’ve come

across.

I’ve already discussed how in some other languages there’s a move toward gender neutral

terms only for nouns and pronouns that refer to humans – which basically just makes an

animate/inanimate distinction, which is…wait for it…another gender.

Anyway, In English, there’s a trend toward using what people sometimes call neopronouns.

That’s singular they for a named referent, or pronouns like xe or hir.

And you’re all wrong about those too.

Doubly wrong.

3.

You’re wrong about how hard neopronouns are.

First, you’re wrong about how hard they are.

In intro to linguistics, undergrads are often taught that pronouns are a “closed class.”

This means that unlike verbs or adjectives, its’ really hard to add new ones.

And yet, new ones organically arise all the time.

Vosotros is relatively new in the history of Spanish.

Portuguese has an impersonal a gente, and French has a generic on that can mean anything

from third person to first person plural to even first person singular if you don’t

want to take personal responsibility for what you’re talking about.

I’ve even coauthored work on how some forms of the n-word, yes that one, meet the syntactic

requirements for pronounhood in African American English, and that’s definitely a new development.

And if it were so hard for us to learn new pronouns, I shouldn’t be able to understand

who “youse” refers to or use it myself with youse guys.

Besides, many of us learn foreign languages, and somehow do fine learning new pronouns

in different languages.

So saying “This is Bex, they go by ‘they’”is not as impossible as people make it out to

be.

BUT it’s also not as easy as some people claim, which brings me to:

4.

You’re wrong about how easy neopronouns are.

There are plenty of studies that indicate that ambiguity in pronouns in sentences like

“he hit him” incur a processing cost.

That is, they are annoying and make your brain tired.

It’s a higher cost when there’s a perceived mismatch, like in “Alice didn’t like what

Bob said so he hit them.”

And lots of experimental evidence from psycholinguistics shows that singular they for a named referent

is harder to follow.

There are trans linguists who research pronoun use, and even they find that some people have

an easier time and some people have a harder time with new, unusual, or unexpected pronoun

use.

It’s harder to figure out who ze refers to, and it’s harder to consistently remember

to map a person to a new category like ze, when we have a lifetime of practice mapping

that person to “she,” for instance.

There’s a higher level of cognitive stress when we are in a social situation where we’re

expected to use pronouns we’re not comfortable with—it’s like all the stress of practicing

a foreign language, with the additional element that you might deeply offend your listeners

at literally any new sentence.

And don’t even think about just avoiding pronouns.

If you say Alice saw Alice in the mirror and Alice liked how Alice looked, you sound like

an absolute basketcase.

Plus, remember how I said that pronouns are like pointers in code?

Well the consensus in psycholinguistics is that as I said that sentence, you were instantiating

new Alices all over the place, and then had to rectify that they all referred to the same

Alice after the fact.

The default is to make new conceptual objects you have to track, and that’s fatiguing

for everybody.

Both speaker and listener.

So just as the people saying it’s impossible to learn new pronouns are wrong, the people

acting like it’s the easiest thing in the world are also very wrong.

But all of that ignores the bigger, deeper issue.

5.

You’re wrong about culture.

A huge, overlooked part of the pronoun debates is that both sides have unspoken culturally

informed assumptions that dramatically influence how we think about this conversation.

Advocates used to refer to so-and-so’s “preferred pronouns.”

Now people will say “my pronouns are…”.

Here’s the thing: this is one cultural approach among many.

I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I AM saying it’s not universal.

In English, we talk about third person pronouns.

Literally, how someone talks ABOUT us when they’re NOT talking TO us.

To say that I, as an individual, can determine how I am spoken ABOUT by others, even when

I’m not around, is on the extreme individualist end of the individualist/collectivist continuum.

And the extreme individualists on the other side will predictably say “you can’t tell

me what words are supposed to come out of MY MOUTH.”

We don’t have to go into a deep dive on thinking about dimensions of culture, like

Geert Hofstede’s classic “Culture’s Consequences” to see that there are other

ways of thinking about this.

In a highly collectivist or community oriented culture, I might simply assume that the categories

that already exist in my culture are what I can choose from – this raises the question

of how new categories emerge – and that if I want to be referred to in a certain way,

it is up to OTHERS to choose to refer to me that way.

So my appearance, behavior, and so on, can INFLUENCE that, but I don’t get to determine

it, any more than I get to determine my adjectives (handsome, intelligent) or what nouns are

used to refer to me (zaddy).

I’ll reiterate that I’m on the side of inclusion and kindness, so when someone tells

me how they feel they should be referred to, I respect that.

But it also means that when people ask me MY pronouns, I don’t have a satisfying answer.

Call me whatever you want when you’re talking about me, just so long as it ain’t “late

for supper.”

Other straight guys might be LIVID at being called “she” but I don’t get that.

And there’s plenty of aspects of my identity that are important to me that some other people

fail or refuse to acknowledge.

Out of prejudice, malice, disagreement, or sheer ignorance.

Both my self-conception (handsome, intelligent) and group memberships (AAE speaker, Jew).

Of course some of those have established norms and boundaries, so you can’t just claim

to be a PhD or a Jew based on vibes alone.

And some are gradient: I can get certified at C2 in French, but not African American

English.

And what would it mean to be a certified man or woman???

Dare I ask you to leave a comment below?

AND if we’re talking about my group memberships and multiple identities – I am large, I

contain multitudes -- maybe I don’t always want to have that discussion with every damn

body.

That’s why:

6.

You’re wrong about inclusion.

Choosing to share what pronouns correspond to your gender identity as a way of normalizing

open discussion and acceptance of what people sometimes call “nontraditional genders”

(it’s not a perfect phrase, I know), makes sense as a reasonable way of normalizing inclusion.

But sometimes in the spirit of inclusion, we go a little far.

REQUIRING people to share their pronouns means that you either force people to out themselves

(not great) or to choose to be in the closet (not great).

It means that people who can’t identify a pronoun, remember that’s MOST people,

are put on the spot, and they know it’s a question that will affect how people think

of them as moral beings in the world, but they don’t quite grok the question in the

first place.

Bad vibes, all around.

It also might put different social pressures in conflict with one another.

I was at a conference a few years back, and one of my colleagues who is an expert on the

n-word, yes, that one (he’s got a book about it coming out soon), put the n-word – no

r -- as his pronoun on the write-in part of his name tag.

Yes, it can function as a pronoun, and yes, it’s literally an important part of his

identity.

But also, it’s a social taboo for anyone who is not black – that’s 98% of the conference

– to say that word, let alone in addressing a Black man.

He was highlighting the tensions around identity, speech community, self-determination, and

respect.

If you truly respect him, you’ll respect his chosen pronoun.

But you also socially CANNOT call him that.

It was a provocative move that got people talking, and thinking, about all of these

levels of language.

And yes, it was at a linguistics conference, basically the only place that would land.

And it’s not just that word.

People who may want, prefer, demand, or expect other pronouns may do so for a variety of

reasons.

I’ve come across a few people who take delight in causing others confusion and watching them

work it out in real time.

That’s a tiny minority of a group that’s already a tiny minority, it’s also a real

phenomenon.

Another issue is that people who don’t respect you are going to find a way to show it anyway.

Even the people who think that there are only two genders and you can’t change them, will

intentionally misgender straight, cisgender people, for social reasons.

So your best case scenario is that you at least can sort people into those who try to

be respectful and those who don’t behave like civilized adults.

Which is not nothing.

So what do we do with all this information?

Well, if you believe there’s a global trafficking ring being run by one political party out

of the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn’t even have a basement, and you’re waiting

for your orders from JFK, then I’m not sure I can say anything useful.

And if you’re changing your pronouns every third hour or so just to mess with people,

you get what you get.

But for the rest of us, if you just want to be a decent person who respects others’

identities, even if you don’t fully understand them, here’s three ideas.

The third is contentious, and you may not agree with me, so take it with a grain of

salt.

1.

Don’t force people to categorize themselves for your gratification.

It’s the same with gender as it is for genetic ancestry and ethnicity.

It’s never great to demand “what are you?”

To someone.

And it’s hardly ever actually relevant.

When they’re ready for you to know, they’ll share what they want to share.

I might be in the minority here, but I always felt like Pat was not the butt of the joke

on SNL’s “it’s Pat.”

Pat just shows up to work and shares birthday cake and lives their?

Life.

2.

When people do share, if you respect them, you’ll respect what they share.

If that means pronouns that are hard for you, then doing that brain-tiring work of learning

and using new pronouns is behavior that demonstrates that respect.

And it’s about as hard as talking to someone who just keeps using pronouns the normal way

but ambiguously.

“Did you hear about Fred and Steve?

He told him he’d see him tomorrow, but he didn’t see him, but it turned out he was

there but he just wasn’t looking in the right place.”

3.

This one is the contentious one.

Linguists talk about something called audience design, meaning choosing HOW you talk to someone

based on WHO you’re talking to.

I’ve seen instances where people intentionally use pronouns the KNOW won’t be understood,

without clarification, to refer to someone who is not present.

That sends the signal to the listener that you don’t actually care about communicating

with them, and you are prioritizing someone who isn’t even there over treating the listener

with respect.

To me that feels kind of shitty.

If your goal is to show your commitment to a social movement or ideal, at the expense

of your relationship with the listener, then that’s a fine strategy.

I generally fall on the side of audience design and showing respect for the people you’re

actually talking with, and in some cases this might mean using pronouns the listener will

understand rather than the pronouns the absent third party would insist on.

You may disagree about what the tradeoff is there, and where to draw the line.

If it’s clear it’s not malice, I’m definitely fine with listening for what people are trying

to say, rather than what they actually do say.

Things are rarely black and white, and we have to figure out how to navigate the grey

in ways that respect each other.

I guess another way to say things aren’t always black and white is to say that sometimes

things aren’t…binary?

One thing is for sure: arguing with people about their identity is never effective, and

always a waste of time, and having to defend your own identity is always exhausting.

And to make things worse, the entire discussion is predicated on a mix of ignorance of linguistics,

biology, sociology, and culture, and the places where those don’t line up.

So everybody should maybe just take a few deep breaths.

Not everybody has to agree.

The problem is when this goes from abstract philosophical differences to trying to take

people’s rights away, or threatening them harm.

And part of why I wanted to make this video is to point out that basically everything

people are saying about pronouns is wrong, in part because it’s not really about pronouns.

It’s about societal acceptance of different sexual orientations and social genders, and

it’s about the tension between self-determination: “This is who I am” and other people’s

self determination: I choose how I speak and you can’t impose your view of the world

on me.

Socially and politically I work to expand people’s rights and the protection of those

rights, and in my work life, I work to help people interact effectively across these kinds

of differences.

Personally, I’m working on navigating that tension around audience design, and I’m

trying to just accept people where they are: If that means using a pronoun that doesn’t

click for me because it’s upsetting when I don’t, that’s fine.

Especially when it’s only a theoretical or philosophical question for me, but for

the other person, it’s their life.

In some cases, it’s related to a struggle that is literally life-or-death.

But also, if that means recognizing that someone’s not up-to-date with the newest terminology,

but is approaching an interaction out of mutual respect, I’m going to respect THAT as well.

Gotta live with that tension.

To quote Gene Kelly, I’ve had one motto which I’ve always lived by: dignity.

Always dignity.

I promised this one would be spicy, and I’d love to know your thoughts on neopronouns

and who gets to decide how we refer to one another, so leave me a comment!

If you like what I’m doing with the channel, please like and subscribe!

I want to give a big thanks to all of my patrons on patreon: Bek S, Spanish Input, Peter Kolb,

Sarah Shaw Tatoun, blake, Dillon, Hartwig, Anders Torgerson, My all access patron David

Hayter, and special thanks to my VIP Patrons Johnny Childress and Paul H!

Until next time, be excellent to each other.