crfriend wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 11:28 pm
The problem with the "preferred pronoun" argument is that pronouns are part of the lexical structure of the language and NOT for individual interpretation. "He" and "his" refer to a male or a male's property. "She" and "hers" refer similarly to a female. The third, "their" is appropriate when the distinction is either unknown or unimportant. English also has a very useful entirely neutral, "it" and "its".
They are, though, in practice, and that’s what matters in day-to-day interactions. There are many cases, where it is easy to misgender somebody. All you need is a feminine enough looking male wearing conventionally feminine clothes, or, conversely, a masculine enough looking female wearing conventionally male clothes, or even an amibiguously presenting, but male (or female) person, and pronouns, in practice, become highly subjective.
Further, there are males with gynecomastia easily mistaken for elderly women, and females that grow beards, easily mistaken for transmen (or transwomen, depending on their features).
But even if we were to ignore these departures from conventional gender appearance/presentation that force the identifier to defer to the non-conforming individual for lack of information, and restrict ourselves only to those cases where we know another’s biological sex for certain, that still doesn’t change the fact that a pronoun is a matter of identity, not a matter of biology.
And, of course, you might disagree, and argue that, no “he” refers to “biological male”, while, “she” refers to biological female, but let me challenge that.
To wit, how is that even a useful distinction to make? In practice, when you think about a “woman,” you’re not thinking, “a person with xx chromosomes.”. You are thinking about a person, who acts functionally like a woman in some respect. And no, it had nothing necessarily to do with breasts, vaginas, or uteruses, because not all women have those things.
Indeed, with the exception of the uterus, not even possessing those sexual characteristics guarantees that the owner IS a biological woman.
So, frankly, in practice, these pronouns refer far more to expected social behaviors and traits rather than genetics. I mean, hell, these pronouns existed long before anybody knew what genes, or x/y chromosomes even are.
So, if you want to take the approach that “we shouldn’t alter meaning,” then at least be consistent, and respect that these pronouns were never meant to refer to genetic makeup, but to social traits and behaviors.
But then, this is exactly what trans-people are asking for: to be referred to in the sense of traits and behavior, rather than out of some weird preoccupation with genitalia, or chromosomes (that I might add is considered archaic by today’s state of scientific knowledge).
I would also like to add that focusing on a person’s genitalia, or chromosomal makeup, rather than their identity objectifies them, especially in consideration of the fact that gender (an identity) IS distinct from sex.
In summation, it’s not about you, or how you feel chromosomes map to sex (which, honestly is a really simplistic way of looking at sex). It’s about who they are.
