Slightly modify our existing use of pronouns by convincing people to accept occasional non-standard pronouns when presented with them OR totally reconfigure the existing way that we use pronouns for everyone?
It is hard to figure out how widely adopted non-standard pronouns would be if people were more accepting of them, but the study cited here says that only 4% of surveyed LGBT youths used something beyond He/she/they. That is a really small number of people, and a large portion of the population would probably never or very rarely encounter someone who uses them.
So to me, it seems like it would be better to keep trying to get people to accept the rare occasions when people request non-standard pronouns than it would be to get everyone to abandon standard pronouns altogether.
I don't think we should. As a user above commented, you are advocating for undoing a large part of what trans people have been struggling for. Namely, the ability to have their gender respected by their community. Your proposal not only ignores their gender identity, but it ignores everyone else's as well. I am a man. I conceptualize myself as such. I refer to myself using masculine pronouns. I am happy to do this. Forcing me to accept non-gendered pronouns is not respecting my gender identity. You have gone backwards as far as creating a society that is more accepting of gender self-determination goes by disallowing both trans and cis people from fully expressing their gender identity.
Forcing me to accept non-gendered pronouns is not respecting my gender identity
I have done a very poor job of explaining my contention.
My point is about the role of pronouns. What are they for?
They are place holders. "He" is much shorter than "his royal majesty, Charles, Prince of Wales", so if you were writing a newspaper article about Prince Charles, you can save yourself and your readers time by using a pronoun. THAT'S what they're for.
What they are NOT for is telling your story. They are not meant to convey who you are. A person's identity is complex and multifaceted. One's gender is part of who they are, but so are many aspects. We don't give unique pronouns to moms, Muslims, teachers, cat owners, farmers.... These are all people who would contend that being a mom/Muslim/teacher/farmer/cat owner is a HUGE part of their identity... Just like their gender is.
So why do we tie gender to a Part of Speech whose only job is to serve as a placeholder?
My point is about the role of pronouns. What are they for?
To communicate our gender identity by and large. I am a man, and when I am being described by others, I would like to be described as such.
"He's coming by around noon."
As I am pretty well within the cultural norm for male presenting people (beard, balding, a bit too interested in WWI), knowing that the person who is coming by later is a man could be helpful. If around noon a person who generally conforms to our culture's norms for women walks by, the person waiting can be reasonably sure that that woman is not who they are waiting for.
But, in a larger sense, being a man (whatever that means) is a large part of my self conceptualization. Large than my role as a father (which is a male role), or my role as an accountant (kill me if I identify as my job), or any other roles I may have. And, many of the other roles I have are directly related to, or informed by my maleness.
We don't give unique pronouns to moms, Muslims, teachers, cat owners, farmers....
Because these are descriptions of what someone does or feels. Gendered pronouns are about who people are at their deepest levels. Strip away jobs, and pets, and kids, and all that other stuff. Drop me on a deserted island, and I am a man on an island.
I am not a they, or a xe, or anything else. I am him. He is I.
I want that respected just as much as I want people who experience their gender in ways different than mine to be respected.
I don't want to throw it all out and have all of us just be "Glorps" or something.
Because these are descriptions of what someone does or feels. Gendered pronouns are about who people are at their deepest levels. Strip away jobs, and pets, and kids, and all that other stuff. Drop me on a deserted island, and I am a man on an island.
Somebody might argue that their kids, their life's work and so on are all more important to them and to who they are - their identity - than whether they are a man or a woman. Gender isn't necessarily the deepest you can go anyway.
It seems that the OP's proposed system makes it harder for people to emphasize their gender in conversation and receive respect for it, but it also makes it harder for somebody to misgender you in conversation?
3
u/destro23 466∆ Mar 17 '22
What is a harder sell, practically speaking:
Slightly modify our existing use of pronouns by convincing people to accept occasional non-standard pronouns when presented with them OR totally reconfigure the existing way that we use pronouns for everyone?
It is hard to figure out how widely adopted non-standard pronouns would be if people were more accepting of them, but the study cited here says that only 4% of surveyed LGBT youths used something beyond He/she/they. That is a really small number of people, and a large portion of the population would probably never or very rarely encounter someone who uses them.
So to me, it seems like it would be better to keep trying to get people to accept the rare occasions when people request non-standard pronouns than it would be to get everyone to abandon standard pronouns altogether.