"Since we don’t generally use pronouns in meetings, it always strikes me as performative."
Yep, I couldn't agree more. The performative nature of the pronoun game drives me crazy. Human beings are highly evolved to distinguish between male and female. We don't need to be told in over 99% of cases. If somebody prefers pronouns that aren't …
"Since we don’t generally use pronouns in meetings, it always strikes me as performative."
Yep, I couldn't agree more. The performative nature of the pronoun game drives me crazy. Human beings are highly evolved to distinguish between male and female. We don't need to be told in over 99% of cases. If somebody prefers pronouns that aren't immediately obvious by looking at them, they're going to have to "out" themselves anyway. So while I'm all for working towards a society where people feel safe to do that, pretending that we've suddenly lost the ability to distinguish is asinine. And as you say, in most settings we'll use names rather than pronouns anyway.
Honestly, I think the problem is that we normalised the idea that pronouns are identity markers rather than descriptors. People don't say I'm black because I *identify* as black. Nobody asks me in meetings if I'm white or black or hispanic. I'm black because it's a common (and slightly inaccurate) descriptor of my skin colour. I think things would be a lot less fraught for everybody if sex was treated in the same way.
Male and female are descriptors, not identities. and the pronouns go along with those descriptors. that's why we also call animals "he" and "she". But yes, there are a lot of layers to this. And that's a very interesting point you make about highlighting your minority status at work. I hadn't thought about that, but it's absolutely true.
This idea of identity markers vs. descriptors is interesting. I need to mull it over, as I hadn’t considered it before. It does make me think though about how ridiculous and/or inappropriate it would be if we were asked to describe other aspects of our identities at work. These questions are too deep for that setting.
"Since we don’t generally use pronouns in meetings, it always strikes me as performative."
Yep, I couldn't agree more. The performative nature of the pronoun game drives me crazy. Human beings are highly evolved to distinguish between male and female. We don't need to be told in over 99% of cases. If somebody prefers pronouns that aren't immediately obvious by looking at them, they're going to have to "out" themselves anyway. So while I'm all for working towards a society where people feel safe to do that, pretending that we've suddenly lost the ability to distinguish is asinine. And as you say, in most settings we'll use names rather than pronouns anyway.
Honestly, I think the problem is that we normalised the idea that pronouns are identity markers rather than descriptors. People don't say I'm black because I *identify* as black. Nobody asks me in meetings if I'm white or black or hispanic. I'm black because it's a common (and slightly inaccurate) descriptor of my skin colour. I think things would be a lot less fraught for everybody if sex was treated in the same way.
Male and female are descriptors, not identities. and the pronouns go along with those descriptors. that's why we also call animals "he" and "she". But yes, there are a lot of layers to this. And that's a very interesting point you make about highlighting your minority status at work. I hadn't thought about that, but it's absolutely true.
This idea of identity markers vs. descriptors is interesting. I need to mull it over, as I hadn’t considered it before. It does make me think though about how ridiculous and/or inappropriate it would be if we were asked to describe other aspects of our identities at work. These questions are too deep for that setting.