People should use language they want, not what someone else wants. In essence, if someone wants to call a transwoman a "she", that is their prerogative. If someone is compelled to call a transwoman a "she" for fear of social, political, economic or other repercussions, that is wrong. Unfortunately, the whole pronoun thing is a slippery s…
People should use language they want, not what someone else wants. In essence, if someone wants to call a transwoman a "she", that is their prerogative. If someone is compelled to call a transwoman a "she" for fear of social, political, economic or other repercussions, that is wrong. Unfortunately, the whole pronoun thing is a slippery slope, the same people who want you to use certain pronouns - which defy reality, also want you to believe that men can somehow become women by simply "feeling" like one, donning make up, wig and spinny dress.
Yes, there's an absolutely excellent article called "pronouns are Rohypnol" that was removed from Medium a few years back. It really lays out the argument against pronouns perfectly (which I guess is why the powers that be at Medium removed it).
Where we've gone wrong is the idea that pronoun "preferences" should be compulsory in any way. There are certainly some trans people, especially trans men, who pass so convincingly that it would just be obstinate to refer to them by their "sex based" pronoun. But that doesn't mean losing sight of reality in cases where it matters.
I once made the comparison to adoptive parents. We call a child's adoptive mother their mother. We don't add "adoptive" every time. But we know they're not genetically related and don't pretend they are. We recognise that it would be wildly irresponsible for the mother to tell a doctor they were related in the context of genetic conditions. Language is flexible enough to allow (optional) compassionate fudges I think. But they shouldn't be used to hide the truth.
I don't recall if I mentioned this before on this substack, but here is my take: have you heard of Emperor Joshua Norton? He lived in San Francisco in the 1800s. He convinced himself that he was the emperor of the United States, because in his opinion the United States needed some fixing. And he was just the man to do it. Most of his fellow citizens simply went along with it. He was harmless. But nobody thought he had any authority at all. They just let him be. And so this is my view on transgenders. But, and this is crucial, only adults can make this decision about themselves or other adults.
But your example relates in no way to the trans issue. Transwomen who insinuate themselves into women’s spaces, rape shelters, prisons, change rooms, sports, etc are not harmless. Nor is the indoctrination of children to believe they can simply choose their gender, like one chooses a pair of shoes. Nor is it harmless to change language to accommodate trans ideology at the expense of reality and women. There is institutional capture in many areas. Eg: only women have periods, only women give birth, women breast feed - there is no such thing as chest feeding, women have vulvas - not front holes. There is a very, very long list of harms.
I in no way mean any disrespect to you or any person or group society needs to protect. Joshua Norton did not try to harm a soul (to my knowledge. ) And before this ludicrous trans activism, there was not a concerted push to invade women's spaces. Before this insane activism, transgenders lived in their own space. That was what was available, and I believe it was just. Leave them be and they would leave the rest of society be. But now they insist that the rest of the world redefine themselves to accommodate them. So on that fundamental level, you and I agree completely. There are transgendered people in this world, and no amount of legislation or proselytizing will make them go away. Let them occupy their space and no other. I'm fine with that. The world does not need to change to accommodate anyone.
People should use language they want, not what someone else wants. In essence, if someone wants to call a transwoman a "she", that is their prerogative. If someone is compelled to call a transwoman a "she" for fear of social, political, economic or other repercussions, that is wrong. Unfortunately, the whole pronoun thing is a slippery slope, the same people who want you to use certain pronouns - which defy reality, also want you to believe that men can somehow become women by simply "feeling" like one, donning make up, wig and spinny dress.
Yes, there's an absolutely excellent article called "pronouns are Rohypnol" that was removed from Medium a few years back. It really lays out the argument against pronouns perfectly (which I guess is why the powers that be at Medium removed it).
Where we've gone wrong is the idea that pronoun "preferences" should be compulsory in any way. There are certainly some trans people, especially trans men, who pass so convincingly that it would just be obstinate to refer to them by their "sex based" pronoun. But that doesn't mean losing sight of reality in cases where it matters.
I once made the comparison to adoptive parents. We call a child's adoptive mother their mother. We don't add "adoptive" every time. But we know they're not genetically related and don't pretend they are. We recognise that it would be wildly irresponsible for the mother to tell a doctor they were related in the context of genetic conditions. Language is flexible enough to allow (optional) compassionate fudges I think. But they shouldn't be used to hide the truth.
I don't recall if I mentioned this before on this substack, but here is my take: have you heard of Emperor Joshua Norton? He lived in San Francisco in the 1800s. He convinced himself that he was the emperor of the United States, because in his opinion the United States needed some fixing. And he was just the man to do it. Most of his fellow citizens simply went along with it. He was harmless. But nobody thought he had any authority at all. They just let him be. And so this is my view on transgenders. But, and this is crucial, only adults can make this decision about themselves or other adults.
But your example relates in no way to the trans issue. Transwomen who insinuate themselves into women’s spaces, rape shelters, prisons, change rooms, sports, etc are not harmless. Nor is the indoctrination of children to believe they can simply choose their gender, like one chooses a pair of shoes. Nor is it harmless to change language to accommodate trans ideology at the expense of reality and women. There is institutional capture in many areas. Eg: only women have periods, only women give birth, women breast feed - there is no such thing as chest feeding, women have vulvas - not front holes. There is a very, very long list of harms.
I in no way mean any disrespect to you or any person or group society needs to protect. Joshua Norton did not try to harm a soul (to my knowledge. ) And before this ludicrous trans activism, there was not a concerted push to invade women's spaces. Before this insane activism, transgenders lived in their own space. That was what was available, and I believe it was just. Leave them be and they would leave the rest of society be. But now they insist that the rest of the world redefine themselves to accommodate them. So on that fundamental level, you and I agree completely. There are transgendered people in this world, and no amount of legislation or proselytizing will make them go away. Let them occupy their space and no other. I'm fine with that. The world does not need to change to accommodate anyone.