Much of the time, pronouns are used only when talking about a person. Often when the person isn not present. So the PPP (preferred personal pronoun) can be seen as a form of controlling behaviour – trying to control how other people refer to you when you are not present. Anyone who has been in a relationship with.a controlling person knows that acquiescing to the demands of a controlling person does not bring the demands to an end. It is simply another step in the controlling person making you responsible for their mental well being.
When faced with controlling behaviour, it is worth making the point that you are not responsible for anyones mental health other than your own. If a person claims your actions or speech harms them, encourage them to learn tools and techniques of mental development so that they no longer feel the need to coerce others into doing their bidding in order to feel at ease.
It is worth remembering that weaponised compassion is not compassion at all. Weaponised compassion is the desire to control the actions, speech and thoughts of others, rebranded.
The only time I’ve found it necessary for people to provide (or for me to ask for) pronouns is in the BTL comments on this site. After all, N K is not giving any clues!
Great, really great, thank you. Can I have a badge saying “I am not responsible for anyones mental health other than my own. If you feel my actions or speech harms you, I encourage you to learn tools and techniques of mental development so that you no longer feel the need to coerce others into doing your bidding in order to feel at ease.” Big badge!
I’d suggest learning it off by heart. And trotting it out whenever appropriate.
Penny Adrian
2 years ago
Thank You for this article. I LOVE TITANIA MCGRATH! She has helped me laugh about a grotesque state of affairs about which I have often cried.
Here’s the thing: my son is a trans man. He struggled with gender dysphoria for years before medically transitioning from F to M as an adult. He has no need to state his pronouns because he has a beard. No one would mistake him for a cis woman today, and he would be insulted if anyone asked him what his pronouns are (most people would be insulted by this question).
Trans activists, especially those who promote the ludicrous concept of being “non-binary” are harming trans gender people.
Gender dysphoria is a painful condition – most likely a neurological condition – that can be treated with palliative care (medical gender transition).
This rare neurological condition has been turned into a joke by academics and journalists who run around claiming that biological sex does not exist.
If biological sex did not exist TRANS GENDER PEOPLE COULD NOT EXIST!
The only reason it’s possible to suffer from gender (actually, sex) dysphoria is because the sexes ARE dimorphic.
We humans are male, female, or an intersex combination of the two that often comes with painful medical and fertility issues. My son kept the female gender marker on his health insurance because – silly him – he wants accurate medical care!
Please know that the insanity of online trans activism and the gibberish coming from the academic community has almost nothing to do with the actual lives of trans gender people.
Trans people need protection from discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and adoption. They do not need to force people to use non binary pronouns or to cancel JK Rowling (whose statements I agree with 100%) and they absolutely do not need anyone to pretend that sexual dimorphism in humans does not exist. That is insane.
Anyway, please know that plenty of trans people and their loved ones are just as disgusted for what passes as “trans activism” these days as you are. Those claiming to be trans “allies” are exploiting and harming trans people.
Thanks for your personal example. We humans are male, female, or an intersex combination of the two that often comes with painful medical and fertility issues. I am confused with an intersex combination of the two. DSD’s as far as I am aware, are either female or male. Can you tell me what you mean by intersex combination of the two?
There are people who are intersex – biologically. It can range from somewhat malformed genitals, through people with a mixture of XX and XY cells, chromosomal abnormalities, hyperactive or -inactive hormones or hormone receptors, etc. Some could most obviously be seen as clearly of one sex with some medical problems, but in other, rare, cases you can get to the point where it becomes a bit of a toss-up which group they ought to belong to.
If you choose to draw the net extremely widely, at small differences, it becomes less rare. And of course this can be used as ammunition for people who want to say that it is NOT TRUE that humanity divides neatly into two sexes. If you can claim that it is all a spectrum or a mess, it is easier to demand that people should be free to choose their own individual variants.
Many thanks for your post. For many of us the issue is a piece of theoretical nonsense that is not actually going to impinge on our lives. It is good to have comment from someone for whom the issue is less than theoretical and of real relevance.
Twenty years ago my wife worked for a northern local authority that solemnly sent round instructions that required anyone offering coffee to avoid asking if the client wanted black coffee in case it offended someone who was black. The instructions could only have come from someone who was white as any sane black person would have thought it idiotic to assume black people were so hypersensitive about the colour of their skin that they would be triggered by reference to black coffee. Just as your son would be insulted by such absurd pronoun hypersensitivity introduced by disruptive political activists.
The problem is that “transgender” got redefined and de-medicalised and no longer has to do anything with gender dysphoria – now it’s all about the nebulous, undefinable “gender identity”. I’ve seen a few interviews with people like your son and I’m sorry that trans people with genuine gender dysphoria get outshouted by the gender-specials.
“I had been breastfed for the first six months of my life. Did my mother not realise that I was a vegan? Did she even care? Either way, this was abuse.”
The idea that “vegan” (like gender) somehow is an essence preceding existence is itself interesting. When I (turned 69 last week) was a student the progressive view was that social construction and nurture outweighed nature (and thus, human choice was expanded); whereas now we suppose that determination by nature is Left and insistence on latitude of choice is Right. Nature is destiny, and even over-rides anatomy: how is this Left?
Peter LR
2 years ago
This latest fad is yet another Shibboleth: another way to isolate someone who can be hated and attacked. They have always existed in some form: speaking up for Brexit, mentioning Trump’s successes, being asked if homosexuality is a sin (Tim Farron), presumably McCarthyism.
And there are other forms of forced behaviour: wearing rainbow laces in sports, taking the knee, not applauding fast enough or long enough in China! In what used to be liberal democracies, the fact that these situations develop is down to cowardice in the leaders of Government and organisations.
Peter (Sir, Sir: the pronouns my pupils used – bald, baldy: the pronouns they used when I couldn’t hear them)
I have only been asked for my pronouns once, so far. It was one of these situations when a group is each introducing themselves. The others had included their pronouns, as prompted, I just used my name.
I was then asked for my pronouns, but I politely replied that I’d rather not, thank you, that I didn’t object to others including this info, but I prefer not to label myself and have no wish to compel or control anyone else’s speech. How people wish to refer to me is their own business.
The matter wasn’t pressed.
Just say you have no pronoun preferences. If the demand is pushed aggressively, you can always point out that in Queer Theory, categorisation is considered ‘violence’.
Ive always rather fancied Sire, Queenie never quite cuts it being redolent of 1950s South London. Queen is already taken. I dont like Ms and if you must use Mrs then Missus sounds more fun Wharrevs, just get it over with as I really cant be bothered getting worked up over it.
I’ve been saying that my pronouns ought to be, ‘Sire’ or ‘My Lord’ or ‘Your Grace’ for a while. Reason being that I ought to get some actual mileage out of all this privilege I apparently enjoy…
Exactly! “My” pronouns are the ones I use to refer to myself. The third-person pronouns others use in my absence are those dictated by the rules of English grammar + the facts dictated by biological reality.
Since I am retired I don’t suppose any of this will impact my life. However, if people get to chose their pronouns why not go further so that someone might insist they be referred to as the “sexy blond” or “wise lawyer” or “handsome millionaire” regardless of whether these adjectives fit them. Is it not mere respect and politeness for us to confirm someone’s self image? Is it not bigoted to determine for ourselves how we perceive someone?
I sympathise with that. I’ve been retired for about 20 years so never encountered any of this nonsense. Just as well as I tend to be outspoken so would doubtless have got sacked!
Ha Ha. I was just thinking the same. But then, it is only us oldies who dare swim against the current as we are not fighting tooth and nail to keep a job.
So true. I retired very recently and I had to sigh with relief that I had managed to get to the end without being cancelled or ending up in an employment tribunal, having been sacked for one of these new ‘non-crime’ wrong speech incidents.
Julian Farrows
2 years ago
i prefer adjectives to pronouns when introducing myself. ‘Sexy’ and ‘smart’ are my two personal adjectives.
Spot on. The common denominator of culture warriors, Putin, Trump etc. Pronouns: MY, ME, MINE!
Andrew Dalton
2 years ago
My issue with all this is that the concept of gender appears redundent to me.
Biological sex is immutable and except for rather specific edge cases (such as intersex) it is binary.
Gender, be it an individuals emergent behaviour and traits, or conformance to societal expectation is surely unimportant now. This is seen by the number of men and women who do not necessarily adhere to these expectations while still being perfectly happy as their born sex.
A man with a lot of more typically femine traits is not less of man and a woman with a lot of more typically masculine traits is not less of a woman. By taking the view that they are, surely this is the backward, “conservative” way of looking at things.
For me, I don’t know or understand what it is to be a woman. Nor be a man. In fact, I only know what it is to be me, fullstop. Maybe I’m a bit of a sociapath, but there it is.
TL;DR: gender is a pointless concept.
Edit: I missed off one point. I’m not entirely opposed to gender neutral pronouns. Mostly this is because writing particular documentation, it becomes tricky to address an unknown individual by a pronoun and one ends up with awkward text such as his or her etc. The purpose is not necessarily to change self-identification, but to address a writing pitfall.
For me, I don’t know or understand what it is to be a woman. Nor be a man. In fact, I only know what it is to be me, fullstop. … TL;DR: gender is a pointless concept.
Well, at long last a fellow compatriot! IIRC, Andrew Doyle mentioned something regarding his own similar view on GBNews recently. I hadn’t thought about this for some time and it took me aback to hear someone else mention that in terms of their own self, gender is a non event, non applicable.
The term ‘man’ refers to an adult human male, in which male refers to the sex of the individual. Therefore adult is the term for a sexually mature individual. Other common usages are predicated on this realisation.
I too regard gender as a pointless concept. Pointless because it has been reified out of its abstract domain and regarded as a material feature of the real world. Biological sex is immutable and except for rather specific edge cases (such as intersex) it is binary.
As far as I am aware, intersex or DSD’s are either male or female.
Gender is neither redundant nor pointless. I think all societies have different social roles for men and women (expected behaviour, rights and obligations, how to signal your group membership, …). Mostly these match the sex, but there are examples (Montenegro, some Indian tribes) where your social role can differ from your actual sex, or where there are more than two genders. So these are two different concepts, and you can separate them – if you want.
Nor is it true that we are all individuals and so genders do not matter. A lot of what and who we are is formed as children look around them at how others behave and internalise it. You find out you are a boy (or girl) and you learn from the other boys (or girls) what kind of person this means you should be. By the time you are grown it is no longer a role, it is part of who you are. Having established roles is extremely useful. Both to the children who can see what they should try to grow into instead of inventing a brand new role from scratch and forcing the rest of the world to adapt. And to everybody who can see from their signals which group this person belongs to and use the established communication patterns without a lot of complex, conscious thought and research. As for having a single, unisex role, the biology of menstruation, pregnancy, sexual attraction and different capabilities from sport to earlier development of fine motor skills, will make sure that the two groups are noticed and seen as different.
Last edited 2 years ago by Rasmus Fogh
Ri Bradach
2 years ago
I have a simple rule for LinkedIn when I see pronouns on a profile: I assume they are idiots and marginally above sheep grade intelligence. I therefore refuse to speak to them.
Andrew Roman
2 years ago
While the West is busy debating pronouns Putin is busy invading a neighbouring state. Time to wake up. Is white privilege helping the Ukrainians?
Indeed. I have wondered why we aren’t hearing more strident objections from the Critical Race pushers to the international concern shown for a nation so clearly endowed with white privilege as Ukraine.
Gordon Black
2 years ago
As coined by my dear wife, my pronoun is “it”: rare and quite distinctive in company.
I have a friend called Edit (Estonian, hence the spelling), whom I used to call It and who did a Philosophy PhD on biological essentialism, which once prompted me to write on her Facebook page, in homage to Silence of the Lambs, “It writes about essentialism, and It sees its supervisor”.
Charles Lewis
2 years ago
I am in favour of pronouns that reflect one’s gender identity. My gender identity is the regal gender (most of the time, anyway)and my pronoun is His Highness. This is also the case for the second person singular pronoun for me which is no longer ‘you’, but, of course,Your Highness.
“A refusal to participate in these rituals need not be antagonistic” It bluddee well does. These people need to be told NO.
Ben Hazard
2 years ago
I’m in the fortunate position of being able to refuse to state my preferred pronouns without repercussions. The whole exercise is mind numbingly stupid, and if taken seriously would bring conversation to a halt. Every time I wanted to talk about someone I’d have to search through my emails to find that person’s stated pronouns before finishing my sentence. Fortunately it’s all ignored in reality except for silly virtue signaling episodes.
Unfortunately I don’t think this article’s argument against pronouns really works. The gist of the argument is that liberals should oppose pronouns because forced speech is illiberal. But aren’t you forced to speak in every situation where this exercise might come up? Going around the room and giving my name and telling people about myself, that’s all forced speech. Adding pronouns to this is just an addition to the exercise. If I’m really opposed to forced speech I should refuse to provide my name and anything else. To single out pronouns as the forced part of the exercise is misleading.
By all means refuse to play this game, but I don’t think saying you’re doing so as a liberal protest against compelled speech works. You’ll just have to admit you’re not doing it because it’s stupid.
Being asked to say your name at the start of a meeting, and a little about yourself is not so forced, nor is it beyond accepted conventions – a person might talk about their hobbies, work history, family or where they come from. This may or may not be illuminating to others. The speaker can be as private or as open as they wish.
The act of starting a meeting by stating names and pronouns is clearly more prescribed, more coercive and can be a deliberate attempt to “flush out” those who do not subscribe to gender ideology. I’ve seen it happen.
Demanding people now state their preferred personal pronouns is as you say, stupid, and it is forced speech, as there can be consequences for not doing so.
The best way to do this, which means it will never happen, is for the meeting coordinator to ask for people’s names and whatever personal information you’d like to share. You can include in that optional section that you have special pronouns, or you’re gay, or that you have a special needs kid, etc etc. It’s odd that the only mandatory disclosure item at this point apart from your name is your gender identity.
Going round the room giving your name and details about yourself is not ‘forced speech’. Forced speech is when you are forced to use specific words or phrases. For example, having to always refer to the country’s leader as ‘the great leader’, or being forced to not use the word ‘chairman’ in favour of ‘chair’.
If going around the room giving your name and personal details isn’t forced speech, then how is doing the same thing but appending your preferred pronouns deemed forced speech? I can see calling all of it forced speech or none of it, but not this sort of hybrid you’ve created.
Please refer to my previous answer.
You are presenting a false dichotomy. By your definition, answering any question would be considered forced speech.
The issue here is the nature and motivation for asking a question based in a contested ideology. This should not be mandatory in a work environment. If it is, then we are dealing with forced speech.
If you conflate demanding a person state their pronouns with asking someone their name or what football team they support, I’d suggest you might want to rethink your position.
Last edited 2 years ago by N Forster
Melissa Martin
2 years ago
Let’s not overthink this. It’s barking mad & illegal to discriminate (thanks to Maya Forstater) against people who don’t believe in this religion. People need to man & woman up & politely refuse. (Not actors, obviously, who would sell their souls for a part, just like Guy in Rosemary’s Baby, but the rest of us.)
Michael James
2 years ago
Agreed. Where, for heaven’s sake, are the satirists? (Not in Private Eye.)
What would happen if a lady of the Muslim faith, conservatively attired, is asked: “Declare your pronouns.”?
What would happen at international conferences or talks in the UK? When the cosmopolitan participants are asked to declare their pronouns?
Would in some foreign country that reports on the conference a piece be printed wondering about the strange customs of the British? To some countries, in such a scenario, Britain would appear not progressive, but going all-out Gulliver’s Travels mimicking.
Michael Cavanaugh
2 years ago
How does “declare your pronouns” differ from “your papers are not In Order”?
Steve Elliott
2 years ago
I don’t understand the need for alternative pronouns. If you are a transwomen wouldn’t it make sense to use She/her. Isn’t that the whole point? Similarly for transmen.
I can see the problem with people identifying as non binary but I don’t understand what that means.
Using ‘they’ when unsure always seems ok to me If ‘they’ have a problem with that then actually its their problem not mine
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
“there is nothing Right-wing about standing up to ideologues who insist on imposing their values onto everyone else.” There most certainly is, which is precisely why I am proud to call myself right wing.
1990’s style liberals (Bari Weiss for example) desperately want to distance themselves from the “woke” insanity that has swept the Anglo-sphere, but they can’t. While they didn’t intend it, it was Enlightenment liberalism that got us into this mess.
Liberalism gets the name because it seeks to “liberate” people from unchosen obligations or bonds. It’s been dissolving bonds since the 18th century: race, class, religion, sex, eventually family, nationality (globalism is just liberalism) and now biology itself. It won’t stop with transgenderism either; I must be able to recraft my entire existence, including my physical body, in whatever way I wish. By liberating us from all unchosen constraints, liberalism makes us free. The fact that it dissolves families, churches and society along the way is just the price we must pay for freedom — got to break eggs to make an omelet.
It was the “nice 1960’s liberalism” that midwifed the woke. Returning to it won’t solve anything; we’ll end up right back here. The future is uncertain, but it is certainly not liberal.
Judy Johnson
2 years ago
If the number of people that are likely to represent the cast of a play told me their pronouns one after the other, I would definitely not remember them!
I wonder if this will pass and, if so, how long that will take.
Andrea X
2 years ago
I have just come to check and my comment has disappeared from here too. I really don’t know what is going on here.
Anyway, I was directing you to this clearly transph°bic article. See if you can spot the relevant bit… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60526714
Yep, I spotted it. Since only biological women can have a cervix why the necessity to include a political term (people with a cervix) as well as “women”? Oh never mind, I know the answer.
Actually my take is that they shouldn’t say “women and people with a cervix” because we “know” that not all women have a cervix.
In other words, you can’t win…
Is it because the term “woman” has been deconstructed from its strict biological meaning in order to be given a Butlerian social constructivist meaning – as ‘performative’ or performance.
Essentially, this is a rhetorical strategy involving the redefinition of terms.
Thank you for your email.
I will be sure to pass your feedback onto the management team.
A number of improvements are currently being made to our commenting platform which is why you may be experiencing a lag in the moderation of comments and general ongoing moderation. I do apologise for any disappointment caused.
Should you have any other queries please do not hesitate to get in touch and I will be more than happy to help.”
David Bullard
2 years ago
I have a friend who identifies as a Narina Trogon. What would be the appropriate pronouns for that?
Andrew Walker
2 years ago
Coerced announcement of pronouns is not inclusive of anything. I refuse to declare pronouns, for I do not use any (I) which run counter to normal practice. Further, I have no gender, and I have a visceral objection to being cissed by the “transgender community” in the name of “inclusion.”
Much of the time, pronouns are used only when talking about a person. Often when the person isn not present. So the PPP (preferred personal pronoun) can be seen as a form of controlling behaviour – trying to control how other people refer to you when you are not present. Anyone who has been in a relationship with.a controlling person knows that acquiescing to the demands of a controlling person does not bring the demands to an end. It is simply another step in the controlling person making you responsible for their mental well being.
When faced with controlling behaviour, it is worth making the point that you are not responsible for anyones mental health other than your own. If a person claims your actions or speech harms them, encourage them to learn tools and techniques of mental development so that they no longer feel the need to coerce others into doing their bidding in order to feel at ease.
It is worth remembering that weaponised compassion is not compassion at all. Weaponised compassion is the desire to control the actions, speech and thoughts of others, rebranded.
You just undermined the whole, sad obsession with pronouns. Well done.
The only time I’ve found it necessary for people to provide (or for me to ask for) pronouns is in the BTL comments on this site. After all, N K is not giving any clues!
That is excellent. Thank you!
Great, really great, thank you. Can I have a badge saying “I am not responsible for anyones mental health other than my own. If you feel my actions or speech harms you, I encourage you to learn tools and techniques of mental development so that you no longer feel the need to coerce others into doing your bidding in order to feel at ease.” Big badge!
I’d suggest learning it off by heart. And trotting it out whenever appropriate.
Thank You for this article. I LOVE TITANIA MCGRATH! She has helped me laugh about a grotesque state of affairs about which I have often cried.
Here’s the thing: my son is a trans man. He struggled with gender dysphoria for years before medically transitioning from F to M as an adult. He has no need to state his pronouns because he has a beard. No one would mistake him for a cis woman today, and he would be insulted if anyone asked him what his pronouns are (most people would be insulted by this question).
Trans activists, especially those who promote the ludicrous concept of being “non-binary” are harming trans gender people.
Gender dysphoria is a painful condition – most likely a neurological condition – that can be treated with palliative care (medical gender transition).
This rare neurological condition has been turned into a joke by academics and journalists who run around claiming that biological sex does not exist.
If biological sex did not exist TRANS GENDER PEOPLE COULD NOT EXIST!
The only reason it’s possible to suffer from gender (actually, sex) dysphoria is because the sexes ARE dimorphic.
We humans are male, female, or an intersex combination of the two that often comes with painful medical and fertility issues. My son kept the female gender marker on his health insurance because – silly him – he wants accurate medical care!
Please know that the insanity of online trans activism and the gibberish coming from the academic community has almost nothing to do with the actual lives of trans gender people.
Trans people need protection from discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and adoption. They do not need to force people to use non binary pronouns or to cancel JK Rowling (whose statements I agree with 100%) and they absolutely do not need anyone to pretend that sexual dimorphism in humans does not exist. That is insane.
Anyway, please know that plenty of trans people and their loved ones are just as disgusted for what passes as “trans activism” these days as you are. Those claiming to be trans “allies” are exploiting and harming trans people.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Well said.
This is a powerful testimony Penny, many thanks.
Thanks for your personal example.
We humans are male, female, or an intersex combination of the two that often comes with painful medical and fertility issues.
I am confused with an intersex combination of the two. DSD’s as far as I am aware, are either female or male. Can you tell me what you mean by intersex combination of the two?
There are people who are intersex – biologically. It can range from somewhat malformed genitals, through people with a mixture of XX and XY cells, chromosomal abnormalities, hyperactive or -inactive hormones or hormone receptors, etc. Some could most obviously be seen as clearly of one sex with some medical problems, but in other, rare, cases you can get to the point where it becomes a bit of a toss-up which group they ought to belong to.
Why I why does the tranny lobby go on and on about intersex. It so rare and so totally pointless to the debate.
If you choose to draw the net extremely widely, at small differences, it becomes less rare. And of course this can be used as ammunition for people who want to say that it is NOT TRUE that humanity divides neatly into two sexes. If you can claim that it is all a spectrum or a mess, it is easier to demand that people should be free to choose their own individual variants.
Many thanks for your post. For many of us the issue is a piece of theoretical nonsense that is not actually going to impinge on our lives. It is good to have comment from someone for whom the issue is less than theoretical and of real relevance.
Twenty years ago my wife worked for a northern local authority that solemnly sent round instructions that required anyone offering coffee to avoid asking if the client wanted black coffee in case it offended someone who was black. The instructions could only have come from someone who was white as any sane black person would have thought it idiotic to assume black people were so hypersensitive about the colour of their skin that they would be triggered by reference to black coffee. Just as your son would be insulted by such absurd pronoun hypersensitivity introduced by disruptive political activists.
Brilliant comment.
The problem is that “transgender” got redefined and de-medicalised and no longer has to do anything with gender dysphoria – now it’s all about the nebulous, undefinable “gender identity”. I’ve seen a few interviews with people like your son and I’m sorry that trans people with genuine gender dysphoria get outshouted by the gender-specials.
“I had been breastfed for the first six months of my life. Did my mother not realise that I was a vegan? Did she even care? Either way, this was abuse.”
The idea that “vegan” (like gender) somehow is an essence preceding existence is itself interesting. When I (turned 69 last week) was a student the progressive view was that social construction and nurture outweighed nature (and thus, human choice was expanded); whereas now we suppose that determination by nature is Left and insistence on latitude of choice is Right. Nature is destiny, and even over-rides anatomy: how is this Left?
This latest fad is yet another Shibboleth: another way to isolate someone who can be hated and attacked. They have always existed in some form: speaking up for Brexit, mentioning Trump’s successes, being asked if homosexuality is a sin (Tim Farron), presumably McCarthyism.
And there are other forms of forced behaviour: wearing rainbow laces in sports, taking the knee, not applauding fast enough or long enough in China! In what used to be liberal democracies, the fact that these situations develop is down to cowardice in the leaders of Government and organisations.
Peter (Sir, Sir: the pronouns my pupils used – bald, baldy: the pronouns they used when I couldn’t hear them)
And another excellent comment in this thread. Thanks.
Agreed, except that “taking the knee” really ought to be quarantined inside quote marks.
MI6 hosting LGBT coffee mornings….no wonder Putin has been emboldened to attack Ukraine, our enemies must be quaking in their boots!
More like laughing their socks off!
I have only been asked for my pronouns once, so far. It was one of these situations when a group is each introducing themselves. The others had included their pronouns, as prompted, I just used my name.
I was then asked for my pronouns, but I politely replied that I’d rather not, thank you, that I didn’t object to others including this info, but I prefer not to label myself and have no wish to compel or control anyone else’s speech. How people wish to refer to me is their own business.
The matter wasn’t pressed.
Just say you have no pronoun preferences. If the demand is pushed aggressively, you can always point out that in Queer Theory, categorisation is considered ‘violence’.
Ive always rather fancied Sire, Queenie never quite cuts it being redolent of 1950s South London. Queen is already taken. I dont like Ms and if you must use Mrs then Missus sounds more fun Wharrevs, just get it over with as I really cant be bothered getting worked up over it.
Comrade.
I’ve been saying that my pronouns ought to be, ‘Sire’ or ‘My Lord’ or ‘Your Grace’ for a while. Reason being that I ought to get some actual mileage out of all this privilege I apparently enjoy…
I didn’t know that about queer theory (and fankly could have got by without), but it shows the progressive canon has some large contradications.
I like the CQT response.
In theological debates, displaying greater knowledge of the bible’s verses can be a status enhancer.
The only possible answer is ‘I and Me’.
Exactly! “My” pronouns are the ones I use to refer to myself. The third-person pronouns others use in my absence are those dictated by the rules of English grammar + the facts dictated by biological reality.
I would probably just say “I’m not woke”.
Since I am retired I don’t suppose any of this will impact my life. However, if people get to chose their pronouns why not go further so that someone might insist they be referred to as the “sexy blond” or “wise lawyer” or “handsome millionaire” regardless of whether these adjectives fit them. Is it not mere respect and politeness for us to confirm someone’s self image? Is it not bigoted to determine for ourselves how we perceive someone?
Jeremy, I’m starting to think that all of us commenters on here are retired – can’t be the case?
I’m not and I bl00dy well wish I was. Mostly to get away from the virtue signalling that now seems ubiquitous in the modern workplace.
I sympathise with that. I’ve been retired for about 20 years so never encountered any of this nonsense. Just as well as I tend to be outspoken so would doubtless have got sacked!
Ha Ha. I was just thinking the same. But then, it is only us oldies who dare swim against the current as we are not fighting tooth and nail to keep a job.
So true. I retired very recently and I had to sigh with relief that I had managed to get to the end without being cancelled or ending up in an employment tribunal, having been sacked for one of these new ‘non-crime’ wrong speech incidents.
i prefer adjectives to pronouns when introducing myself. ‘Sexy’ and ‘smart’ are my two personal adjectives.
We should now be compelled to call you ‘Sexy Julian Farrows’
Me too
WE are not amused!
Why cannot ‘Sexy’ and ‘smart’ be pronouns. You are just being grammarist
I love how much the pedants would hate your comment.
Narcissism finds a way
Spot on. The common denominator of culture warriors, Putin, Trump etc. Pronouns: MY, ME, MINE!
My issue with all this is that the concept of gender appears redundent to me.
Biological sex is immutable and except for rather specific edge cases (such as intersex) it is binary.
Gender, be it an individuals emergent behaviour and traits, or conformance to societal expectation is surely unimportant now. This is seen by the number of men and women who do not necessarily adhere to these expectations while still being perfectly happy as their born sex.
A man with a lot of more typically femine traits is not less of man and a woman with a lot of more typically masculine traits is not less of a woman. By taking the view that they are, surely this is the backward, “conservative” way of looking at things.
For me, I don’t know or understand what it is to be a woman. Nor be a man. In fact, I only know what it is to be me, fullstop. Maybe I’m a bit of a sociapath, but there it is.
TL;DR: gender is a pointless concept.
Edit: I missed off one point. I’m not entirely opposed to gender neutral pronouns. Mostly this is because writing particular documentation, it becomes tricky to address an unknown individual by a pronoun and one ends up with awkward text such as his or her etc. The purpose is not necessarily to change self-identification, but to address a writing pitfall.
For me, I don’t know or understand what it is to be a woman. Nor be a man. In fact, I only know what it is to be me, fullstop. … TL;DR: gender is a pointless concept.
Well, at long last a fellow compatriot! IIRC, Andrew Doyle mentioned something regarding his own similar view on GBNews recently. I hadn’t thought about this for some time and it took me aback to hear someone else mention that in terms of their own self, gender is a non event, non applicable.
The term ‘man’ refers to an adult human male, in which male refers to the sex of the individual. Therefore adult is the term for a sexually mature individual. Other common usages are predicated on this realisation.
I too regard gender as a pointless concept. Pointless because it has been reified out of its abstract domain and regarded as a material feature of the real world.
Biological sex is immutable and except for rather specific edge cases (such as intersex) it is binary.
As far as I am aware, intersex or DSD’s are either male or female.
Gender is neither redundant nor pointless. I think all societies have different social roles for men and women (expected behaviour, rights and obligations, how to signal your group membership, …). Mostly these match the sex, but there are examples (Montenegro, some Indian tribes) where your social role can differ from your actual sex, or where there are more than two genders. So these are two different concepts, and you can separate them – if you want.
Nor is it true that we are all individuals and so genders do not matter. A lot of what and who we are is formed as children look around them at how others behave and internalise it. You find out you are a boy (or girl) and you learn from the other boys (or girls) what kind of person this means you should be. By the time you are grown it is no longer a role, it is part of who you are. Having established roles is extremely useful. Both to the children who can see what they should try to grow into instead of inventing a brand new role from scratch and forcing the rest of the world to adapt. And to everybody who can see from their signals which group this person belongs to and use the established communication patterns without a lot of complex, conscious thought and research. As for having a single, unisex role, the biology of menstruation, pregnancy, sexual attraction and different capabilities from sport to earlier development of fine motor skills, will make sure that the two groups are noticed and seen as different.
I have a simple rule for LinkedIn when I see pronouns on a profile: I assume they are idiots and marginally above sheep grade intelligence. I therefore refuse to speak to them.
While the West is busy debating pronouns Putin is busy invading a neighbouring state. Time to wake up. Is white privilege helping the Ukrainians?
Indeed. I have wondered why we aren’t hearing more strident objections from the Critical Race pushers to the international concern shown for a nation so clearly endowed with white privilege as Ukraine.
As coined by my dear wife, my pronoun is “it”: rare and quite distinctive in company.
I have a friend called Edit (Estonian, hence the spelling), whom I used to call It and who did a Philosophy PhD on biological essentialism, which once prompted me to write on her Facebook page, in homage to Silence of the Lambs, “It writes about essentialism, and It sees its supervisor”.
I am in favour of pronouns that reflect one’s gender identity. My gender identity is the regal gender (most of the time, anyway)and my pronoun is His Highness. This is also the case for the second person singular pronoun for me which is no longer ‘you’, but, of course,Your Highness.
We are amused.
“A refusal to participate in these rituals need not be antagonistic”
It bluddee well does. These people need to be told NO.
I’m in the fortunate position of being able to refuse to state my preferred pronouns without repercussions. The whole exercise is mind numbingly stupid, and if taken seriously would bring conversation to a halt. Every time I wanted to talk about someone I’d have to search through my emails to find that person’s stated pronouns before finishing my sentence. Fortunately it’s all ignored in reality except for silly virtue signaling episodes.
Unfortunately I don’t think this article’s argument against pronouns really works. The gist of the argument is that liberals should oppose pronouns because forced speech is illiberal. But aren’t you forced to speak in every situation where this exercise might come up? Going around the room and giving my name and telling people about myself, that’s all forced speech. Adding pronouns to this is just an addition to the exercise. If I’m really opposed to forced speech I should refuse to provide my name and anything else. To single out pronouns as the forced part of the exercise is misleading.
By all means refuse to play this game, but I don’t think saying you’re doing so as a liberal protest against compelled speech works. You’ll just have to admit you’re not doing it because it’s stupid.
Being asked to say your name at the start of a meeting, and a little about yourself is not so forced, nor is it beyond accepted conventions – a person might talk about their hobbies, work history, family or where they come from. This may or may not be illuminating to others. The speaker can be as private or as open as they wish.
The act of starting a meeting by stating names and pronouns is clearly more prescribed, more coercive and can be a deliberate attempt to “flush out” those who do not subscribe to gender ideology. I’ve seen it happen.
Demanding people now state their preferred personal pronouns is as you say, stupid, and it is forced speech, as there can be consequences for not doing so.
The best way to do this, which means it will never happen, is for the meeting coordinator to ask for people’s names and whatever personal information you’d like to share. You can include in that optional section that you have special pronouns, or you’re gay, or that you have a special needs kid, etc etc. It’s odd that the only mandatory disclosure item at this point apart from your name is your gender identity.
Going round the room giving your name and details about yourself is not ‘forced speech’. Forced speech is when you are forced to use specific words or phrases. For example, having to always refer to the country’s leader as ‘the great leader’, or being forced to not use the word ‘chairman’ in favour of ‘chair’.
If going around the room giving your name and personal details isn’t forced speech, then how is doing the same thing but appending your preferred pronouns deemed forced speech? I can see calling all of it forced speech or none of it, but not this sort of hybrid you’ve created.
Please refer to my previous answer.
You are presenting a false dichotomy. By your definition, answering any question would be considered forced speech.
The issue here is the nature and motivation for asking a question based in a contested ideology. This should not be mandatory in a work environment. If it is, then we are dealing with forced speech.
If you conflate demanding a person state their pronouns with asking someone their name or what football team they support, I’d suggest you might want to rethink your position.
Let’s not overthink this. It’s barking mad & illegal to discriminate (thanks to Maya Forstater) against people who don’t believe in this religion. People need to man & woman up & politely refuse. (Not actors, obviously, who would sell their souls for a part, just like Guy in Rosemary’s Baby, but the rest of us.)
Agreed. Where, for heaven’s sake, are the satirists? (Not in Private Eye.)
These movements are self-satirising – it’s hard for satirists to do a take when the real-life characters act the full Monty-Python.
My brain hurts.
I think you may be referring to a sort of converse of Poe’s Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
What would happen if a lady of the Muslim faith, conservatively attired, is asked: “Declare your pronouns.”?
What would happen at international conferences or talks in the UK? When the cosmopolitan participants are asked to declare their pronouns?
Would in some foreign country that reports on the conference a piece be printed wondering about the strange customs of the British? To some countries, in such a scenario, Britain would appear not progressive, but going all-out Gulliver’s Travels mimicking.
How does “declare your pronouns” differ from “your papers are not In Order”?
I don’t understand the need for alternative pronouns. If you are a transwomen wouldn’t it make sense to use She/her. Isn’t that the whole point? Similarly for transmen.
I can see the problem with people identifying as non binary but I don’t understand what that means.
Using ‘they’ when unsure always seems ok to me If ‘they’ have a problem with that then actually its their problem not mine
“there is nothing Right-wing about standing up to ideologues who insist on imposing their values onto everyone else.”
There most certainly is, which is precisely why I am proud to call myself right wing.
When I self-id as a four-engined aircraft I am, politically, Starboard Inner.
Quite so.
Mill. Dickens. Orwell.
Why is standing up to idealogues right wing? I would have thought those who do so range across the political spectrum!
Although no employers are as yet mandating pronoun declaration, there is something coercive about the request.
The Sex matters website has an excellent resource regarding pronoun coercion etc
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Pronouns-summary.pdf
1990’s style liberals (Bari Weiss for example) desperately want to distance themselves from the “woke” insanity that has swept the Anglo-sphere, but they can’t. While they didn’t intend it, it was Enlightenment liberalism that got us into this mess.
Liberalism gets the name because it seeks to “liberate” people from unchosen obligations or bonds. It’s been dissolving bonds since the 18th century: race, class, religion, sex, eventually family, nationality (globalism is just liberalism) and now biology itself. It won’t stop with transgenderism either; I must be able to recraft my entire existence, including my physical body, in whatever way I wish. By liberating us from all unchosen constraints, liberalism makes us free. The fact that it dissolves families, churches and society along the way is just the price we must pay for freedom — got to break eggs to make an omelet.
It was the “nice 1960’s liberalism” that midwifed the woke. Returning to it won’t solve anything; we’ll end up right back here. The future is uncertain, but it is certainly not liberal.
If the number of people that are likely to represent the cast of a play told me their pronouns one after the other, I would definitely not remember them!
I wonder if this will pass and, if so, how long that will take.
I have just come to check and my comment has disappeared from here too. I really don’t know what is going on here.
Anyway, I was directing you to this clearly transph°bic article. See if you can spot the relevant bit…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60526714
Yep, I spotted it. Since only biological women can have a cervix why the necessity to include a political term (people with a cervix) as well as “women”? Oh never mind, I know the answer.
Actually my take is that they shouldn’t say “women and people with a cervix” because we “know” that not all women have a cervix.
In other words, you can’t win…
Is it because the term “woman” has been deconstructed from its strict biological meaning in order to be given a Butlerian social constructivist meaning – as ‘performative’ or performance.
Essentially, this is a rhetorical strategy involving the redefinition of terms.
Happened to me just now, too.
I have sent them a stroppy email.
Their reply:
“Hi Andrea,
Thank you for your email.
I will be sure to pass your feedback onto the management team.
A number of improvements are currently being made to our commenting platform which is why you may be experiencing a lag in the moderation of comments and general ongoing moderation. I do apologise for any disappointment caused.
Should you have any other queries please do not hesitate to get in touch and I will be more than happy to help.”
I have a friend who identifies as a Narina Trogon. What would be the appropriate pronouns for that?
Coerced announcement of pronouns is not inclusive of anything. I refuse to declare pronouns, for I do not use any (I) which run counter to normal practice. Further, I have no gender, and I have a visceral objection to being cissed by the “transgender community” in the name of “inclusion.”