Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Conservatives, Common Courtesy, and the Gender Police
Transgender issues seem to be a tricky thing for many conservatives. (And it’s only going to get worse.) For example, a conservative told me the other day that “Misgendering is not a thing.” If you’re not hip to the lingo, misgendering is when you call someone by a gender label other than what they identify as. Like, if you call a lady “sir.” And it can be done accidentally or on purpose. People who care about transgender issues tend to (rightly so) get worked up about it, especially when it is done intentionally.
They also get worked up about “deadnaming.” That’s when you refer to a person who has transitioned by their pre-transition name. I see both misgendering and deadnaming occur here regularly on Ricochet anytime someone brings up Caitlyn Jenner. You may not realize it, but both intentional deadnaming and misgendering are insensitive at best and offensive at worse.
Now, I understand why conservatives do this. They’re taking a stand to preserve what they see as objective reality. If you have a penis, you’re a man, after all. To deny that damages reality or something, so it must stop here and now. This far and no further. Ils ne passeront pas!
Yeah, okay. I could try to explain the difference between sex and gender, but that tends to fall on deaf ears among many conservatives. So let me pose a question to those who believe such: Who made you the gender police?
For those of you taking this stand, I suspect you don’t really want the job of being the gender police, because at the end of the day the only way to know for sure is to reach into someone’s pants and check.
Now, I don’t deny that minding everyone else’s business is a time-honored conservative tradition, but it directly conflicts with another equally time-honored and very American tradition: Live and let live. Still another conservative tradition this gender police mindset conflicts with: basic common courtesy.
There aren’t a lot of Freds in the world. There was only one other in my high school. And, unlike me, he wasn’t a Frederick, he was Ferdinand. But he went by Fred, and didn’t much care to be called Ferdinand, so that’s what we called him. This is pretty common. Lots of people go by names other than their birth names. To call someone by their birth name after they’ve expressed a clear preference to the contrary would just be rude. That is what intentional misgendering is: rude. It’s calling someone by the wrong term, even when you know better.
Intentional misgendering is also supremely arrogant. Setting aside transgender people, there’s a non-trivial percentage of people in our daily lives where you can’t easily identify their gender. There are men with gentle features, there are women who look masculine, and there are people who are androgynous in appearance, either by choice or because that’s just how God made them. When I encounter such a person, I stay neutral until I know what pronoun to use with them. The alternative is to flip a coin, take a guess, and make a horse’s ass of yourself if you’re wrong, embarrassing both you and the other person.
Look, you’re welcome to your opinions and far be it for me to stop you from expressing them. That’s not my goal. But when you intentionally misgender someone or deadname them, it’s disrespectful and discourteous. You don’t need to be the one person who tries to push back the tide. You’re not going to make the difference and not enough people care to make your effort worthwhile.
These issues are all in flux right now. It’s still going to be a few years before norms and customs settle down. But in the meantime, it’s no excuse for rudeness and discourtesy to make some kind of quixotic point. You’re better off being civil to people.
Published in General
Give up before there is a fight because we must lose? Wrong side of History and all that? Seems I have heard such arguments before. If your post about being courteous was the actual issue then there would be no problem and there would be no reason for this post.
So in the case of your friend Ferdinand. Say a teacher sees his name on her seat and calls out his name Fred. Then she asks a simple question, “Was your given name Fredrick or were you named Fred I have always been interested in these things.” Your friend says in a towering rage, “No my given name was Ferdinand.” He then storms out of the room. The Teacher then finds articles in the local newspaper about how she is a hateful bigot that is too dangerous to be around kids. The schools suspends her she finds herself and her school sued for million of dollars.
Then you write this article and say all “Fred” wanted was for people to be polite. No.
Courtesy works when it is given in both directions and grace is given for mistakes and misunderstandings. When a women is able to see, clearly, that someone is a man in the women’s bathroom and she is made uncomfortable by that her feelings should be given respect too.
Courtesy is not the current strategy being pursued by the Transgender movement it is force normalization through the force of law in a very expansive way. With people demanding the ability to deceive their children about their own sex. If gender and sex are different things as you claim then birth certificates would be untouched and sex would be identified at birth since there are biological realities that carry real health consequences in to the future regardless of what persona you present to the public world.
Perhaps you should write a post about people not mixing up “gender” whatever that means to you and sex.
Yes. As Thomas Szasz said years ago, “In the animal kingdom the rule is kill or be killed. In the human, it is define or be defined.” I will not be defined as uncivil until and unless I intentionally insult another. If asked to use a pronoun, I will do so with what Jesuits call a “mental reservation.” But the air quotes may creep into my tone, since I don’t buy the sociology or “science” behind the claims. As Jordan Peterson pointed out, laws and policies about this are non-scientific and are actually shutting science down.
This is the part of Fred’s post that bothers me most.
“Or something.” See how dismissive he’s being? He says he understands, and then brushes it all way “or something”
Note how Fred pulls the following rhetorical trick: I could try to explain but you won’t accept my explanation so . . . I’m just going to assume you’re too obstinate and then I don’t have to explain.
Perhaps Fred actually can’t explain. But using this trick he absolves himself from duty to explain.
So, above he accuses conservatives of being the gender police, then tries to offer a way out: “I suspect you don’t really want that job . . .” But he’s the one who put the “gender police” label on conservatives in the first place. Another rhetorical trick.
Fairly insulting to say “Minding everyone else’s business is a time-honored conservative tradition.”
So the person demanding that we show “common courtesy” can’t himself show common courtesy. I think we call this “hypocrisy.” “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Also note that he asserts that common courtesy is a foundation of conservatism so that he can declare conservatives who refuse to show the sort of courtesy he demands to themselves be hypocrites.
And that’s just a small portion of what is overall a bad-faith post.
Fred, I know you have a lot of fun writing posts (and responses to posts) that stir the pot. It’s a lot more fun being a gadfly whose opinions generate responses, even if those responses are generally hostile, than be a conventional conservative whose posts descend without a ripple.
Heck, there are even advantages for us. It keeps things interesting on Ricochet—and for the aged like me, it keeps my blood moving briskly through my veins. It otherwise lies around stagnant and pools up.
At any rate, I usually enjoy your posts and responses because I know what’s coming. And what’s coming is a variety of responses that politely inform you that you’re just as wrong as wrong can be. Sometimes not so politely.
BTW, I was born young but am now old, and I would like to be addressed as Venerable—as in the Venerable Forrester. That’s the way my wife addresses me.
It becomes everyone’s problem because it affects children. Just like we were told not to oppose gay marriage because after all, how does it affect you what someone else wants to do? It affects kids by confusing them… when their parents and pastor tell them men can’t marry men but their teacher tells them they can. Who’s right? (Maybe my parents are crazy… ). Now young boys being told that they can and should be girls and vv.
Talking about courtesy to those propagating this is demented, as demented as the mental illness which causes it.
I get using names. If a big harry guy in a dress tells me his name is Lisa. I will call him/her Lisa. Just like I would call him Bill if that is what he said his name was Bill.
I think a lot of this stuff has jumped the shark. Facebook has like 57 “‘genders”. I am not going to learn 57 genders or care which of them someone claims. I am going to assume that a biological female dressed like a female is female. The same for a man. I will proceed more cautiously with someone cross-dressing.
If this had been kept simple their might be less push back. As it has become absurd, it is treated as such. Like anything when you start to force things on people (criminal punishment/ expulsion type stuff for not using Xe) you actually harden opposition.
If I am going to be forced to care about and pay attention to this stuff, then I am not going to be bullied into using someone’s language.
Fred, What you are actually asking is that straight people change their behavior just because your aggrieved group wants them to, while many like you are in the process, particularly in my state of California, of trying to use the force of law to impose your will on others. Your request is frankly outrageous. It is disgusting. You have no right to ask for that. You, like many of your Progressive friends are disrespecting our Constitutional rights to our own beliefs. Period. And no, it is not about politeness , insensitivity or civility.
I, in my personal life, try to look beyond race, religion, ethnic background and sexual orientation, but it is getting harder and harder. That said, a huge majority of Gays now no longer respect the religious rights of the rest of the population and have used abominable tactics to destroy those rights. It is an absolute outrage. Why then, should the straight community respect at all the rights of Gays? I almost feel gays should be harshly discriminated against just because of their disgusting political stance.
There may be a very tiny percentage of people that have some transgender medical condition.
40% of population is now born without fathers, and of the remaining roughly half will have their parents divorce. The emotion issues from these situations are just terrible and I feel for these people. Life in single parent households can leave a child very emotionally wounded. As a result a very high percentage of our population have some serious emotional issues to sort out. I understand that many of the so-called “transgender’ population are also dealing with some of these same deeply personal emotional struggles. However, that condition does not give them the right to impose the impact of that struggle on to others.
Unless they are transformed medically, a person born a man is a man, and a person born a woman is a woman. Notwithstanding their personal struggle, transgenders do not have the right to demand that society or government conform to what or how they want to be treated.
It took awhile for “misgendering” and “deadnaming” to sink in. Just how much time does the left spend thinking up neologisms? And how and when does this happen? Is there a conference or something, or just a single wordsmithing Grand Poobah who issues periodic pronouncements? I’m serious about this.
Pronouns are not nouns. Pronouns are not nouns.
Linguists make a useful distinction; one I wish more conservatives would use in their arguments against political correctness — the distinction between open and closed word classes. Open classes — nouns, verbs, adjectives, and whatnot — are like slots: plunk any combination of sounds into one, modify as appropriate, and, voila!, you have a new word. Closed classes, on the other hand, are more mechanically important and have relatively rigid meanings.
If Bruce Jenner wishes to adopt the name “Caitlin,” that’s fine, just as it’s fine that Aloysius McDonaldson Chiffswiddleuptonthwaiteham might prefer “Donny.” But Jenner has no right to reach into a closed class of words and demand that the laws of syntax and grammar be rewritten to suit his (her?) whims. Pronouns exist to generalize. The only reason language contains pronouns is because making specific references to specific people becomes tiring and repetitive. Pronouns do not, and cannot, express individual identity.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some enterprising twenty-something decides to wage war against “I” and “me” because, well . . . to be a self is, like, so totally selfish, man!
Since I first encountered “deadnaming” here, I suggest it really should be called “frednaming.”
Yeah, I first heard about “deadnaming” a couple years ago when I saw it used on a political forum I used to frequent. One of the regulars disappeared for awhile and returned, announced he was now a woman. When someone mentioned that “Dan” was back, he had one of the most glorious, expletive-laden meltdowns I’ve ever seen, which included accusing someone of “deadnaming” him. He had learned all the new terms to go along with his new identity, and his lefty White Knights treated him like royalty.
But let’s just think about what the term “deadname” might indicate. It announces that who you were before is now dead. You had that person killed off. Pretty violent way to think about it, really.
But we’re to believe these people are perfectly sane; just another variety of normal.
Everything is now “normal,” since the word has come to mean “acceptable within the current parameters of society (subject to later change and revision as need be.)” Normal used to be “most common,” as in “it’s normal to have ten fingers,” and now it’s “there’s nothing wrong with having nine fingers, so you can’t say ten is normal.” There’s a whiff of judgment in “abnormal,” and since that can’t be tolerated, abnormality has to be celebrated as a wonderful new variant that enriches us all.
Starting point: don’t consider someone with nine fingers to be any less of a human being deserving of basic respect
End result: California passes laws requiring stores to stock an equal number of ten- and nine-finger gloves
Leaving aside the overwrought coinage ‘deadnaming’, courtesy is for people we actually meet, not press icons, or internet activists (or presidents, obviously).
I have been led (frog-marched, actually) to believe that gender is a social construct – to some degree it is.
And if it is, I would gently point out that defying gender is an anti-social construct. That is to say; the person who is changing gender or can’t make up their mind about it is culturally in the wrong.
Which is fine. People can be culturally wrong – it happens every day. Moreover, it is a right enshrined in our Constitution (more-or-less).
But that’s the end of it. You, you bizarre march-to-own-drum guy, get to be a rugged individual.
Unless you’re not rugged. If you’re not rugged, if you find the going tough because people aren’t helping you be different from them, aren’t celebrating your particular wave of rainbow, aren’t remembering or respecting your pronoun-of-choice-of-the-moment; well, just know that you’re not the first person that has felt that way, but that nevertheless, that’s life on planet Earth.
tl;dr Courtesy is for individuals, not the aggregate, and no one has a right to courtesy in any case.
Calling someone by their preferred name I have no problem with, we do it all the time. If Bruce Jenner wants to change his name to John Jenner or Bartleby Jenner or Starshine Jenner or Caitlyn Jenner its common courtesy to call them by the name they claim for themselves. We literally do this for every human being on earth regardless of gender.
Calling someone by pronouns that do not match their sex/gender (I have not been convinced these are different things) is not something I’m terribly interested in. I will call you by the pronouns I perceive you to be. If you are a transgendered woman and I can’t tell that you have a penis I’ll probably call you “she”, if you have five o’clock shadow and a voice deeper than mine I’ll probably call you “he”. If you correct me and ask nicely that I use your preferred pronoun I’ll call you by your preferred pronoun out of common courtesy. If you act like most leftists when confronted with “misgendering” and scream at me or berate me for my insensitivity then you can go to hell and I’ll probably keep calling you by the pronoun I perceive as a reflection of the courtesy you just showed me.
Amen.
I’ve been misgendered, btw. I suspect most people have at one time or another, usually by a clerk who’s not really focused. I don’t make a big deal out of it – or even any deal out of it generally, unless it’s important/likely to come up again. I imagine trans-types would say that not caring that much is a variety of cis-privilege. Maybe? Don’t care.
With his choice of illustration, does the OP imply that gender is binary? Or that those of nonbinary gender are unwelcome at Ricochet? I pray not. That would be rude.
Try being man in America with the name Jamie.
Abnormal, deviant, special…these are all once-serviceable words for people who are different than the norm which now cause offense. Rest assured their replacements will eventually suffer the same fate. It’s the way words are; what can I say, it’s retarded.
I have a man crush on you, Jamie…
You first…
Try Basil.
Right back at ya, tough guy.
I like basil.
Who are these people? I’ve not met one in my home state of Texas.
So why don’t you then. Why post this without your explanation?
Indeed. Except that you and the gender police want to force this garbage down our throats.
I’m not buying any of this.
Dr. Cole, where do transvestites fit into your lexicon? Are they part of the “protected” class of whom we are prohibited from making any reference, intentional or not, with which they disapprove?
How are we who are busy with other interests and activities to stay current with the approved speech codes? Is there a central registry that we can consult?
What will happen when we have exhausted the alphabet? Will we all have to learn Greek, Cyrillic, or Coptic to accommodate the new term abbreviations?
You have given us some really challenges if we are to meet your standards.
I think you’re confusing Fred with Gary Robbins. I’m not sure Fred was old enough to vote when Reagan ran.
Edit: I’ve met Fred a couple of times. I’d guess he’s in his mid to late 30’s.
Jamie gets this exactly correct.
I don’t know anyone (even Conservatives!) who will purposefully misgender someone. If someone presents themselves in a certain way, they going to get treated appropriately.
The only time I’ve seen someone act in confusion is at a hotel when someone’s driver’s license didn’t match the way the person presented themselves. Imagine a very awkward, unattractive person, short hair, wisp of a moustache, wearing a headband, sports bra, sun dress and Birkenstocks … and a driver’s license that identified this person as male.
While the clerk looked from the DL to the person, I could feel the person’s mother literally coiling up for a fight.
It’s rare that you use a pronoun to someone’s face – I haven’t found it a problem when I’m in Reed’s company. First name usually suffices. (Writing is a lot harder.)
BTW, this person I’m talking about has not been invited to family functions as planned. I have young nieces and nephews and I know them well enough to know there would be confusion and misspeaking as they had known Reed before s/he began to dress as a female. I also knew Reed was not going to be gracious about it, and if Reed’s mother heard about any confusion, there would be hell to pay.
On a personal note, I never told my kids “not to stare”. Whether it was a guy with a beard in a dress (happened more than once), someone in a wheelchair or physical malady; whatever: I simply demanded they smile while they were staring.
Fred, is it significant in your post that you refer to conservatives in the third person instead of in the first-person plural?
Even post Game of Thrones this is an issue? Dang.
Oh, my yes!