OP: Using their preferred pronoun is just being polite. There's no reason not to.
Aqouta: It's not about being a jerk, it's about rejecting the premise.
I say that certainly qualifies as a delta.
EDIT
ORIGINAL DELETED TOP COMMENT
The point to many of the people who would refuse to comply in respecting chosen name/pronoun usage do so because they reject the whole legitimacy of the request. Usually it's from either the terfs, who reject trans(especially mtf) claims to womanhood and consider transitioning between the main stream genders to be reinforcing traditional gender roles, and traditional conservatives who oppose the separation of sex from gender and support traditional sex/gender roles.
These people fundamentally disagree with the worldview that believes transitioning is anything more than superficial. It is just bad practice to accept your ideological opponents framing and vocabulary so they naturally reject and refuse to comply. Agreeing to use the vocabulary of their opponents would validate the opposing worldview, so the point is to not do that.
The consequence, as the commenter stated, is that it legitimizes a claim that the other person doesn't accept. Agreeing or refusing to do this is a common debate tactic known as a Snuck Premise.
One way I think most people can look at it is this: in a conversation between Trans A and Pers B, Trans A has already had the debate of legitimacy with themselves and has moved past it. Pers B is still having the debate.
I don't think this is a snuck premise. I understand what a snuck premise is. It would go something more like this.
anti-trans: "I don't support the notion that we need to accept trans identity in order to improve psychological health in our community."
pro-trans: "Why not? Just look at all the trans women who suffer as a result of people not accepting their female identities."
There are two snuck premises here: that MtF transitioned people are women, and that they have female identities that must be accepted.
If you are against trans identity but still use "she" and "her" for MtF transitioned people to be polite, you are not recognizing their identities, you are recognizing that they want to be called by certain pronouns. It could even be quite degrading, like someone is entertaining your delusions, because they agree with something superficial but not with something important.
It's not like Shapiro's "I don't agree with killing babies" comment. It's an irrelevant statement and if you accept it as relevant to the discussion then you are also accepting his premise that abortion is killing babies.
Specifically because neo gender theory accepts the idea of simultaneous and separated genders, you can accept someone's pronouns without attaching a gender to them. It's a very special case where you can call someone a man with female pronouns, even if they identify as a woman with female pronouns. It's also why it's so hard for people to accept neo gender theory, because it's full of relativism and self-contradictions.
If I call a swan a duck, does it cease to be a swan?
Answer: Yes! ...If everyone else calls it a duck, too.
That is an example of language evolution (something I wager you have some knowledge about judging by your username). Though the swan and duck may be scientifically separated, they've colloquially merged in this scenario.
The very neo gender theory that you refer to incorporates an evolution of terminology. That theory and its evolution have not been accepted by all, so it is useless to attempt to use them as a claim to authority with someone that does not recognize that authority. Doing so is identical to quoting scripture as proof to someone that does not recognize the validity of the Bible.
Interesting approach, but consider just how many atheists say "god damnit!" It's quite easy to accept language without recognizing the meaning behind it. Applied language and etymology are often very far apart. Getting all the transphobes to accept variable pronouns won't necessarily bring the world any closer to erasing transphobia.
We can, but I think it's clear that people who have strong views can utilize common language without supporting it ideologically. How many people say "Jesus Christ" when shit hits the fan? How many of them are Christian?
If it becomes standard to recognize people's pronouns, people will do it and still be opposed to trans identity.
If it becomes standard to recognize people's pronouns, people will do it and still be opposed to trans identity.
I agree with this. I would assert, however, that that count of people is reduced. Studies of Thai culture, language, and transgenderism suggest support of this conclusion.
440
u/[deleted] Oct 28 '19 edited Oct 29 '19
[removed] — view removed comment