I am all for doing all that is possible, in a sensible way, to accommodate for the needs, desires, wishes of others, even, yes, for how they wish to be understood, known, acknowledged and have most always been willing and able to make the properly sensible accommodations. That said, I find the pronoun thing to be an obfuscation of meaningful human relationships and a hindrance to meaningful communication of the kind that allows people to come to know one another in truly meaningful ways.
To spend time getting pronouns
right, as is done here, wastes valuable time that could and should be used for
discussing the ideas a course is about, hearing what all have to say about it,
and coming to know one another through that kind of discourse. I also find it a
factor of confusion in using the plural for the singular, in any discourse. I
look for the other, another when "they" is used and a bit pissed off
when language use has tricked my brain …
Sorry, if I step on sensitivities
but sometimes in our modern cultures the latitude given sensitivities makes
difficult the more productive kinds of good sense, good faith communication
that, allowed to shape itself naturally in the context of the quest for shared
meanings, leads to understandings of one another that go considerably deeper
than jerking away from the topic at hand to recall a desired pronoun. …
Pronouns are a very different
thing. They are functional in the sense that they make meanings possible. Invent a new one if gender marking is a problem. But sometimes it
is necessary to know gender, to distinguish he from she, yes? If we want
to recognize that there are genders other than male and female, we need new
pronouns.
Whether or not people come to use
them naturally, so that thought is not interrupted by need to find the right
pronoun, such pauses known to interrupt thought, is a possibility. There
is a syntactical issue with repeating a name rather than using the pronoun.
Read any long passage where Ruth is repeated Ruthlessly!
So, I look over at a car and want to reference it in a sentence to explain something to another, and I refer to the single car as "those." Pronouns are marked for number for a reason, and misuse of number is a problem because it misdirects and confuses. …
I totally agree with "feeling
safe" too, and I, who has always had short term memory problems—like to
think it is caused by a propensity to think too fast—have always had a hard
time remembering students' names. After a bit, I knew character, even
some history and conceptual understanding of person easier than a label …
If I treated a person as an
individual, respected them for what they showed themself to be, we came to have
a relationship that grew as we came to know more about one another. If a
person who looked like a woman turned out to be a man, interaction led to that
discovery, that same person revealing that he drove a cement truck and sang in
a choir…
And, when I could, I would try to personalize the discourse to take advantage of the knowledge I had acquired of people. I cared not about academic formality, never insisting that I be called doctor or professor. Many liked to call me Lafer after they got to know me, and I had let them know that I was 99.9% a regular human being and a bit professor because of life experience. …
Okay, some have come to be
sensitive about gender identification. Perhaps some always were and this
was not recognized. I easily adjusted to Ms. and I gave into the
demise of the Oxford comma. None of these adjustments made for confusion.
I am not rigid and never ever wish to be disrespectful, unless someone
earns disrespect.
Sorry, but calling one
"they" is ridiculous. Language does change but usually to
improve clarity, not to muddle.
If you hate me for it, well ....
-Stephen Lafer
(from a Facebook discussion)
I’d be interested in your thoughts as well, Glen. I don’t recall ever really considering the difficulty of adopting an entirely “new” manner of cleansing or making pronoun usage correct or sanitary or non-injurious. Several factors are present in Lafer’s response which reverberate for me: no interest, waste of time, waste of language and communication. I do not know Lafer’s age, but I should think after many decades of finding one’s way through language to achieve dialogue and more, the simple inertia of what works stands inviolable to the kind of complicated polishing he describes.
ReplyDeleteA good friend of mine who is younger and worries a great deal about her Millennial children and their successes and stumbles in life recalled a frightening story of one of her kids unable to take an upgraded position over a subordinate staff for fear that speaking to them would elicit complaints for not being compliant or agile with the demand for the appropriate pronoun. This was especially so because the same potential leader had witnessed emails and other complaints by the group about previous leadership and the inability to find the sexually or personally acceptable pronouns in memos, etc.
Thus, Lafer is spot on because in this case language was so stymied by the daunting fear to learn a new and likely ever-changing lexicon for a group of co-workers negated the opportunity its and any frank discussion of the issue (or many more serious needs they faced as a functioning group). You can’t hit a baseball if you’re too concentrated on exactly what kind of pitch is coming at you. You don’t have the time. Language is alive and always changing (another agreement), not a series of violations to tiptoe and dance about carefully. Do you agree thyself?
-John Dillon
It’s difficult “to teach an old dog new tricks” comes to mind. Though Merriam-Webster added the singular “they” to the lexicon a few years ago, it’s still pronoun antecedent agreement, “clarity” and “obfuscation” that Lafer points out and the politicizing of pronouns that puzzle me. Yes, pronouns matter; inclusiveness matters too. However, since it is a matter of personal choice (and many people do care), not all non-binary, transgender, gender-neutral and others are “sensitive about gender identification.” Allowing the option to specify pronoun choice might be the best approach in any college, school or organization and avoiding binary-gendered language altogether. Of course, what might still be the result is the violation of civil rights in our age of lawsuits.
DeleteP.S.
A good friend of my brother’s told me in 2016: “Johnny, like all pioneers, was ahead of his time [in the early 1980s]. Today, the world might view him as non-binary or gender-expansive. I think your brother as gender-fluid, someone whose gender could vary at random or vary in response to different circumstances.”
P.S.S.
I can’t imagine a professor or teacher asking my brother/sister, what should I call you? each day. Knowing him/her, he/she would have made it quite entertaining! Call me Johnny/Janie.
-Glen
I am in total agreement with this.
ReplyDeleteIn Florida it is legal to fire gay men and women if it is against an employer's religious beliefs. Pronouns are a distraction from what really needs to be addressed. One of my gay friends whose political campaign I worked on agrees with me. He recently moved to New Hampshire to marry and live in a more open-minded community.
-Ken Previti
Life behavior and beliefs change, and how we express ourselves in language changes as the world's events and conditions change. Notice, he referred to being able to use "Ms"....[oh, my]. shows stubbornness regarding gender issues rather than making sensible decisions when encouraged to change and/or go with the "times", even when language is one's "expertise". BUT, can understand how these "changes" affect one's behavior when trying to uphold past values and behavior.
ReplyDelete-Rosemary Schroeder
I know that language evolves constantly, but I guess I feel that we spend too much energy trying to respond to the expressed needs of every "new gender" that comes along. Surely we have enough pronouns already. Maybe one more to refer to a new gender in the singular. Keep it as simple as possible and get on to more important things.
ReplyDelete-John Church
Hi Glen,
ReplyDeleteInteresting topic for discussion! I agree with some of Lafer's points but not others.
His tone is quite defensive, making me curious what he is responding to. I agree with taking the time to see the "person" and not the "label", but for some people their labels are important, which the author does not seem to understand. He focuses more on his discomfort than the feelings of others.
I agree that using a plural pronoun rather than singular can lead to obfuscation of meaning, but so do lax grammar, acronyms, and our collective tendency to turn nouns into verbs and vice versa. This is not a defense for refusing to acknowledge someone's identity.
Should classroom time be spent training students to use preferred pronouns? As teachable moments present themselves, perhaps, but I would rather see time spent on other subjects, such as a more accurate depiction of our nation's history and the value of diversity in its many glorious forms.
Personally, I am ambivalent about the topic of personal pronouns. For example, I fully accept and defend the principles of universal design. In most aspects of life (including teaching), I believe we should proactively remove barriers to accessibility; no one should need to self-disclose disabilities or have to "ask" for reasonable accommodations - ramps, parking, closed captioning or video transcripts, etc. (Designing with short people in mind - counters, shelving, and "standard" dosages for medications and vaccines - would also be nice, but I digress.)
We consider and address these barriers in advance to reduce the discomfort of others. The next "logical" step might be to proactively identify our own personal pronouns when communicating with others so those who prefer to use alternative pronouns are more comfortable disclosing this. This is the approach encouraged by many universities, but I do not support this.
First, I consider this a label, which is something I try to avoid. Second, this could imply that I am seeking personal information from others, and this is not something that students (especially online students!) need to share. This is not to say that I will not respect the pronouns of others if they choose to share this information.
Although this can be a bit of a challenge when you previously knew someone by a different name and/or gender, I am aware that any discomfort I feel in adapting pales in comparison with what this person must have felt along his/her/their journey.
-Cindy