Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[Kenngo1969]

Here's my principal question with anything having to do with pronouns, okay?  If someone wishes to be addressed using a particular pronoun, okay, I suppose: I don't want to disrespect anyone's wishes in that regard deliberately.  But I was always taught that it's rude talk about someone behind his or her [etc.] back, and to not do it; the same for talking about someone who is in the room as though he or she [etc.] is nowhere around: It's rude; one shouldn't do it.

Meanwhile, however, the second-person pronoun doesn't change.  Even if, when spoken of in the third person, someone wishes his or her [etc.] interlocutors to refer to that person, for example, as "they" and not as "he" or "she," one wouldn't do that when speaking to the person directly: Second person singular?  "You."  Second person plural?  Also "you."

What am I missing?   

[The Nehor]

In regards to the term “cis” almost no one uses it in normal conversation. I spend time in LGBT spaces and even transgendered people rarely use it unless the distinction is important. I am going to ask next time I talk to one of my friends but I wonder if a lot of transgendered people don’t really like it since it adds another difference.

It is like the term “allosexual”. It is not a brand new sexuality. It just means “not asexual”. It is almost never used unless there is a discussion about the nature of asexuality and you want to contrast how the allosexual population experiences things and discussions of that nature. It is almost a technical term. I have only heard one person ever feel the need to say they were allosexual and (as I expected when I heard it) they were insufferable.

If anything it is straight allies that use the term cis and I kind of suspect it isn’t as appreciated as they might think. The other place it pops up is dating profiles. It would be interesting to see if an LGBT-specific dating site would use it a lot. I suspect not. While these sites exist they are also overrun by outsiders. The only places that tend to survive without a lot of fetishizing weirdos overrunning the place are those specific to men looking for other men. Straight guys are usually afraid of gay male sites but think nothing of overrunning a lesbian site for a laugh or to harass women.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Here's my principal question with anything having to do with pronouns, okay?  If someone wishes to be addressed using a particular pronoun, okay, I suppose: I don't want to disrespect anyone's wishes in that regard deliberately.  But I was always taught that it's rude talk about someone behind his or her [etc.] back, and to not do it; the same for talking about someone who is in the room as though he or she [etc.] is nowhere around: It's rude; one shouldn't do it.

Meanwhile, however, the second-person pronoun doesn't change.  Even if, when spoken of in the third person, someone wishes his or her [etc.] interlocutors to refer to that person, for example, as "they" and not as "he" or "she," one wouldn't do that when speaking to the person directly: Second person singular?  "You."  Second person plural?  Also "you."

What am I missing?   

If there are more than two people in a conversation and you are addressing one of them you use third person pronouns when referring to the third person. People also talk about people who are not present all the time.

Maybe I don’t understand what problem you are pointing out.

[Daniel2]

On 12/18/2022 at 9:17 AM, smac97 said:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important pieces of thought in the history of the world.  It preserves, or is intended to preserve, individual liberties from encroachments and threats by the State.  I find it interesting that the Latter-day Saints owe so much to this small bit of writing, but we are far from the only ones.  I value the common ground I, as a male Latter-day Saint in Utah, share with Gjevjon, Norwegian lesbian filmmaker relative to valuing Free Speech.  This includes resisting compelled speech, and it is a concern as central to my interests as a Latter-day Saint in America as to Gjevjon's interests as a lesbian and artiste in Norway.

I, too, am grateful to be a citizen of the United States of America, which preserves both freedom of and freedom from religion and freedom of speech to the greatest degree that any country is likely able to do so without infringing upon other prescribed freedoms.  It's true that Norway and many other countries who don't operate according to U.S. law don't recognize the same freedoms of and from religion and or speech; sometimes the ramifications of such alarm conservative-leaning minds; sometimes they alarm liberal-leaning minds. 

While others may focus on the legal complexities surrounding the issue of pronouns. for me and my house, our general rule is to treat others as we wish to be treated. 

For example: to me, the man I married is my husband. I recognize and call him as such and ask others to do the same--he is not my partner, my friend, my roommate, or any other nomenclature.  I've asked those who interact with me to respect and refer to him as such, even though sometimes it's hard to remember or challenging to use such a designation when it's outside one's comfort zone.  Whatever others' personal beliefs may be to the contrary, I appreciate it when others are speaking to me respect my use of the term 'husband' and refer to him as such (or by other appropriate designations, such as his shorter, first name) when appropriate.

Another example: to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Faith they believe in and belong to is called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  They recognize and call it as such--not The Mormon Church, the LDS Church, the Latter-day Saint Church, or any other nomenclature.  Said Faith's members have asked those who refer to their Faith refer to it by its full designation.   Whatever my or others' personal beliefs to the contrary, I strive to extend respect and have received appreciation from church members when I and others not of their Faith use the full, preferred term "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (or by any other appropriate preferred shorter designations) when appropriate in conversation or reporting.  I don't always remember to get it right, but at least I'm trying and always attempt to self-correct and apologize when I make mistakes. 

Final example: transgender and/or nonbinary prefer to use non-traditional pronouns when referring to themselves and ask others to do the same. Doing so when conversing with such individuals is sometimes hard to remember or challenging to use non-traditional pronouns a designation when it's outside my comfort zone.  Whatever my or others' personal beliefs are regarding gender identity, I strive to extend the same respect towards those who identify differently than my own preferred pronouns. 

At the end of the day, when it comes to calling someone by their preferred pronouns or referring to a member of another Faith by using the full, preferred name of said Faith, from my perspective, it's about treating others as I wish to be treated.  It's no more complex than that.

 

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

... Maybe I don’t understand what problem you are pointing out.

Quite probable.  Don't mind me.    Carry on!

[pogi]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

While it would be great this drastically increases the likelihood of being ridiculed and/or attacked. The history of minorities shows that once an oppressed group starts to be proud of themselves there is an almost reflexive reaction from many to crush them back. In the US we had the Red Summer of 1919, the Tulsa Massacre, and many others. You see it in the contempt of pride parades which rarely have any impact on the angered except that they exist.

I like your optimism but I could see it going very badly. Your bolded “and that should be ok” is probably not the reality.

I don't have any unrealistic expectation that a certain segment of society will ever be ok with trans people.  I know that will likely never happen.

I am not talking about any radical external show of pride - like we see in LGBTQ pride parades.  No in-your-face exhibitions of pride.   I am speaking more about the internal acceptance of the reality of who and what they are - people in some stage transition.  There is no stage where they will not still be trans.  Self acceptance HAS TO be something they embrace and accept or there can be no internal peace - which is often far more damaging and long-lasting than any external ridicule and violence.  I would assume that mental health experts would agree with that as a universal goal in mental health.  Mindfulness has so much to offer in that respect of dealing with what might be perceived as a painful reality.  Acceptance without judgment.  

I think the alternative to that is what is going to end very badly, with increases suicide, cutting, poor mental health outcomes.   The opposite is an oppressive mindset where the oppressive nature of the outside world only validates their internal feelings about themselves.  That is not ok. 

When I said it "should be ok", I was speaking primarily about the individual, but I think that can have a positive influence on how they are accepted by the community.  Change has to start with the self.   What percentage of trans people can legitimately pass?  I would suspect it is pretty low.

[Rain]

 

23 hours ago, pogi said:

The anti-trans crowd would simply make the same fuss and exercise their free-speech rights by showing how big of a jerk they can be by not referring to them by their preferred names.  They will refuse to call someone of the male sex "Tiffany", and will use their birth name instead.  If they don't know their birth name, they will call them "John" or "Jane" to signify their disapproval.  

That, and the fact that those who refuse to use pronouns in a way which yields to a persons gender identification would in the same way simply refuse to adapt their language in other ways. 

When my loved one became trans it was actually very easy for me to use their trans name as I have spent all of my non legal life going by my nickname (everything legal is my given name).  I hate being called my given name so calling someone by their preference was easy.

The pronouns were incredibly hard for me. I felt almost like I was lying by using the trans preferred ones over the biological ones.  So for a long time I avoided the pronouns and just used their name.  

Eventually I had to decide if I wanted to keep in contact with this person and help them feel God's love like Elder Scott taught or did I want to hold on to something that really was just a preferred name anyway.  I still see that person as their biological sex. That's not going to change, but increasing my love for them is the only thing I can do for them.

[Rain]

On 12/20/2022 at 10:52 AM, Danzo said:

The whole point of a pronoun is to be able to refer to someone or something without always using the name.

If it gets to the point that using pronouns offends someone then we might as well stop using pronouns all together. 

It might be easier to just use the name and forget the pronoun. 

One easy way to do this is have a non gender pronoun which is what the use of "they" is trying to accomplish.  Many people don't like that as it is a plural form and I totally get that.  But people have had a problem with using specific pronouns for decades if not centuries now.  The use of "he" for both men or women in the scriptures, laws, etc. So if we can be ok with using "he" for both men and women I think we should be ok with using "they" for both singular and plural for non gender specific pronouns.

[Rain]

23 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I agree for the reasoning. I haven't met enough to get a consensus. And with the increase in non-binary or trans femme/Masc ID's I think that to some degree is less the case for many who take on some but not all the options available for transitioning stopping at a certain point due to a wide range of issues or concerns. This could be social transitioning not medical or hormonal but not completely surgical. Which means they will at some point have to come to terms that there will be limits to the passing. And even if they do entirely change their body, there will likely be limits to their experiences. And to say otherwise doesn't help them grieve and come to terms with the limitations of their bodies. 

With the example of the face lift, it would be similar to thinking the facelift actually made you 10 years younger. You may pass for it, and live like it in several ways...but That's just not the case. Your age will always be you age. You will grow older, so will your face to some degree or another. There will experiences people younger to you won't relate with. You will likely face the complications that come with aging and one day we will all return to the earth, you most likely earlier than me if we both luckily die from natural causes. Not coming to terms with that, whether one gets a face lift or not, will leave one more vulnerable to pain in the future when unexpected moments of dissonance comes one's way. 

Likewise i find it a little concerning that even for the most passing person there will likely be limits that they need to grieve over, that can be glossed over a little in the pursuit of affirming identity. For example I was reading I think a Healthline article talking about trans pregnancy and put in this line that though there was currently no way for a trans woman to be pregnant, there's always medical advances and that recently a woman had a successful pregnancy from a transplanted uterus. This glosses over that the leap to transplant a uterus in to a biological woman and the leap needed to transplant a functional uterus into a trans woman are by no means the same. That that leap would likely be years if not decades away from ever really happening. And if/when it did, pregnancy would likely strongly differ in terms of needed medications and risk. All of that is glossed over to give a since of hope for something that may not happen in their gestational lifetime. To me that form of hope is a form of cruelty.

Even if they never want biological children, there will still be social concerns that will inevitably come up due to the limitations of transitioned/transitioning bodies. And they will likely be met with those at different points for the rest of their life. I would want them to have resilience in living in-between rather than the stress of permanently trying to completely be something they can't fully pass for. Even for those who physically pass, there can be differences that still crop up, especially in excruciatingly personal moments.  

 

I would note that none of this is a license to be disrespectful to a person and take it on themselves to "inform" someone that they aren't what they say they are. If someone tells me their pronouns are she/he/they/zhe/heaven knows what else, it's not my place to correct them as some rando stranger. That's not my gate to keep. But somewhere along the lines they're going to run into the problem of difference and they need to have people tied to their health preparing them for that inevitability. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes 45 years ago.  Back then we were already hearing there would be a cure for it soon.  Internally I always knew I would always have it so it didn't bother me,  but it is such a hard thing for others I know who have been told it.  It has made them less likely to accept they have it and be ok with that.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

When my loved one became trans it was actually very easy for me to use their trans name as I have spent all of my non legal life going by my nickname (everything legal is my given name).  I hate being called my given name so calling someone by their preference was easy.

The pronouns were incredibly hard for me. I felt almost like I was lying by using the trans preferred ones over the biological ones.  So for a long time I avoided the pronouns and just used their name.  

Eventually I had to decide if I wanted to keep in contact with this person and help them feel God's love like Elder Scott taught or did I want to hold on to something that really was just a preferred name anyway.  I still see that person as their biological sex. That's not going to change, but increasing my love for them is the only thing I can do for them.

That is interesting about the names being easy for you, I guess we all respond and perceive things in different ways.  For me, it would be a difficult adjustment to think of my father as a Tiffany instead of a Jerry.  My dad is Jerry.  He is my dad, and I would have difficulty perceiving him in a motherly/feminine light.  "Tiffany" would feel awkward and maybe even phony to me initially, I think.  Those kinds of transitions would take time to adjust to and may create a dysphoria of perceived identity for us too.   It is a tiny introduction to the dysphoria that they are feeling and experience and live with every day on a much larger scale.  This realization and experience of dysphoria (on a tiny scale of what that they are experiencing) that we may naturally feel in transitioning our perspectives and language towards are loved ones, should help engender the compassion and courage necessary to support them in what they are going through.

 Trans people would do good to appreciate (and many probably do) that it is not just them who are transitioning, but those who are in relationships with them are transitioning with them in different and difficult ways - that requires all involved to practice patience and compassion.  

We all have internal and external identities.  Internal identities are entirely subjective, and external identities are entirely objective.  For most people, their subjective internal identities match their objective external bodies/birth sex/genetics.  In those cases (which is the vast majority of people) our use of pronouns corresponds with both internal and external identities.  Simple.  Because our use of pronouns almost always corresponds with external objective identities, it becomes instinctual to think and perceive of their use in that way.  That is understandable.  Because we can't see or experience the subjective internal identities of others, we might not instinctively think of pronoun use in that way.  Internal identity is not something that most people even think of as potentially being distinct from their external identities.   

When a person's internal and external identities don't match, we become more aware of the very real subjective internal identity, and how it is distinct from the very real objective external identity.  When this happens we can choose which identity to address with our use of pronouns.  Language is flexible.  Neither is a lie, but one is more validating of the very real identity that the person identifies with the most.   I think it is ok to still see that person as their biological sex - because they ARE their biological/genetic sex.  That is still a part of their very real identity as most don't fully transition and have a hard time legitimately passing.   That is the only identity that you can actually see with your eyes.  The other is not something that you can see.  To treat another's internal experience as "not real" simply because one can't see it, isn't validating and isn't accurate - and that is rarely helpful, and never validating of their experience.  I have posted many studies which give abundant evidence that mental health outcomes are improved when we choose to yield to their internal identity in relation to gender - doing so is demonstrated to benefit their mental health and well-being.  THAT is love.   Maybe thinking about it in that light might help some get past feeling like they are lying.  You are not lying, you can still perceive of them in their external identity but choose to respond to yield and respond to them by their very real internal identity.  

 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by pogi

[Eschaton]

Speaking of pronouns, this came out today:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2022/12/21/23512261/sunday-second-hour-meetings-to-open-with-prayer?utm_campaign=churchnews-en&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social_share

Quote

“Members should pray using words that express love and respect for Heavenly Father. In English, this includes the pronouns Thee, Thy, Thine, and Thou when addressing Him.”

This seems to be a longtime hobby horse of Elder Oaks - I remember watching a talk 20 years ago where he emphasized this idea. He's given the talk multiple times. I get where he's coming from, although grammatically thee/thy are familiar, and not formal. A holdover of a lifetime of reading the poetic but source-impoverished KJV translation, I suppose. To modern ears it certainly sounds more formal. You even get this in Star Wars, where Darth Vader asks the Emperor: "What is thy bidding, my master?" 

In any case, the church announcing what they think God's preferred pronouns are made me think of this thread! 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Eschaton

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

In any case, the church announcing what they think God's preferred pronouns are made me think of this thread! 

God is such a snowflake.

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Speaking of pronouns, this came out today:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2022/12/21/23512261/sunday-second-hour-meetings-to-open-with-prayer?utm_campaign=churchnews-en&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social_share

This seems to be a longtime hobby horse of Elder Oaks - I remember watching a talk 20 years ago where he emphasized this idea. He's given the talk multiple times. I get where he's coming from, although grammatically thee/thy are familiar, and not formal. A holdover of a lifetime of reading the poetic but source-impoverished KJV translation, I suppose. To modern ears it certainly sounds more formal. You even get this in Star Wars, where Darth Vader asks the Emperor: "What is thy bidding, my master?" 

In any case, the church announcing what they think God's preferred pronouns are made me think of this thread! 

I think I am going to use those (thee, thy, thine, thou) the next time someone asks me what my preferred pronouns are. 

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Speaking of pronouns, this came out today:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2022/12/21/23512261/sunday-second-hour-meetings-to-open-with-prayer?utm_campaign=churchnews-en&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social_share

This seems to be a longtime hobby horse of Elder Oaks - I remember watching a talk 20 years ago where he emphasized this idea. He's given the talk multiple times. I get where he's coming from, although grammatically thee/thy are familiar, and not formal. A holdover of a lifetime of reading the poetic but source-impoverished KJV translation, I suppose. To modern ears it certainly sounds more formal. You even get this in Star Wars, where Darth Vader asks the Emperor: "What is thy bidding, my master?" 

In any case, the church announcing what they think God's preferred pronouns are made me think of this thread! 

I struggle with that hobby horse, even though I use that language myself when I pray.

[Eschaton]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I struggle with that hobby horse, even though I use that language myself when I pray.

I used to use that language too, but I've kind of forced myself to use modern language instead. It took a while for me to get used to it. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Eschaton

[Eschaton]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think I am going to use those (thee, thy, thine, thou) the next time someone asks me what my preferred pronouns are. 

God (thee/thy)

Lord of all creation. Ground of all being. I retweet accounts I disagree with. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I used to use that language too, but I've kind of forced myself to use modern language instead. It took a while for me to get used to it. 

I guess my thinking is, requiring this kind of language has a good chance of making prayers harder for some people (or makes it more difficult for some people to connect with God in prayer), and what is the payoff?

Does God not hear prayers that don't use this language?  

Does God bless people who use this language more than those who don't?

Is having an informal personal relationship with God wrong?

Why is it acceptable to God for spanish members to use informal and personal nouns (which are the spanish equivalent to thee, thy, thine, thou) but unacceptable for english speakers to do it (I have no idea how other language pronouns fall)?

I understand the need to teach people how to pray, which will need to include structure and form and a 'this is how you do it' point of reference.  But I struggle with the idea that there is one acceptable way to pray and that sincere prayers that don't follow that outline are somehow less or wrong.

 

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is having an informal personal relationship with God wrong?

Not all scholars agree, but many suggest that Abba means daddy.  I love the more intimate and endearing nature of that type of informal but still reverent relationship which brings more personal comfort in private, personal prayer.   I don't know if I would feel comfort expressing that level of private personal intimacy in public prayers though.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

God (thee/thy)

Lord of all creation. Ground of all being. I retweet accounts I disagree with. 

 

[rodheadlee]

Is cis the same cis as cis lunar space? Somebody said it was from Latin? What is the translation if you don't mind?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Is cis the same cis as cis lunar space? Somebody said it was from Latin? What is the translation if you don't mind?

Cis = "on this side"

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Is cis the same cis as cis lunar space? Somebody said it was from Latin? What is the translation if you don't mind?

Sort of the same. Cis lunar means on this side of the moon. Trans lunar is the far side of the moon.

In Latin one translation for cis is “on this side”. The opposite of it in Latin is trans which can be translated as “on the other side” or “across from”.

“Cis” was chosen for being an opposite and not for the original meaning. People are transgendered so people who aren’t are the opposite and are cisgendered. Neither of the prefixes Latin meanings really match what it means in this context but it is a handy opposite prefix for “trans” so ended up being used.

Edited December 21, 2022 by The Nehor

[gopher]

I agree that we should call people by whatever they want, even if we disagree with their choice of terms.  But it can take a long time for it to happen.  It's been almost 200 years since the Church asked to be called "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" yet there are still hateful anti-Mormons who refuse to honor that simple request.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 12/21/2022 at 4:52 AM, Danzo said:

The whole point of a pronoun is to be able to refer to someone or something without always using the name.

If it gets to the point that using pronouns offends someone then we might as well stop using pronouns all together. 

It might be easier to just use the name and forget the pronoun. 

This is actually common in certain parts of Indonesia, especially those where the list of pronouns (and their finely graded social distinctions) is long and unwieldy. It covers all persons, including first and second, essentially turning everything into third person. Therefore, Hamba might say to Danzo, 'Danzo, Hamba is hungry. Does Danzo have any food that Hamba can eat? If not, shall Danzo and Hamba go visit Bob? Bob always has good food.'

I wrote 'pronouns' above, but to be honest, genuine pronouns in Indonesian are rarely used. Instead, what function as pronouns are euphemistic terms that replace them. The most common first-person singular 'pronoun' used is saya, a short form of sahaya, borrowed from Sanskrit सहाय and meaning 'slave, servant'. This is the equivalent in English of referring to oneself as 'your humble servant' ... though in Indonesian it would be rude to say 'your'.

Ironically for me, Hamba is another term for servant and therefore also replaces the first-person pronoun in some dialects, more common in the past. (My user name in Indonesian means literally 'servant of the Lord'. If anyone has ever read Josef Conrad's Lord Jim, s/he might recognise the titular character's cognate title in the novel: tuan. I had a couple of very old Javanese housekeepers refer to me this way when I was working in Jakarta because I was a foreigner. It was very colonial and very unnerving!)

Polite replacements for the second-person pronoun number in the dozens, especially in more traditional areas, each with its own subtle distinctions based on the relative social status and familiarity of both speaker and person addressed. It's a nightmare for second-language learners and even some locals. In many instances, people avoid saying you  and your altogether, if necessary performing linguistic feats to do so. Indonesia's first president, Sukarno, tried to impose a neutral second-person pronoun on the language (anda), but it never really took off, except in advertising.

More 'egalitarian' parts of the archipelago (and especially Christian areas) reject many of the second-person pronoun replacements common elsewhere but still refuse to use the genuine pronoun because, even to them, it's still too intimate. Instead, they just use a shorter list of their own euphemisms.

Speaking in the third person is the only time when it's OK to use actual pronouns, and there's only one in the singular, with no grammatical gender whatsoever: dia (sometimes ia). Problem solved!

This intersects with the parallel discussion on the 'language of prayer', but Indonesians reserve the first- and second-person pronouns for spouses, their own children (and not even always then), and God. Consequently, most of the times I have heard someone actually say I (aku) and you (kamu/engkau) were prayers at church. As I learnt to pray in Indonesian myself, it felt wonderfully 'transgressive' to have these special words reserved for when I spoke to Heavenly Father!

Edited December 22, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Eschaton]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I guess my thinking is, requiring this kind of language has a good chance of making prayers harder for some people (or makes it more difficult for some people to connect with God in prayer), and what is the payoff?

Does God not hear prayers that don't use this language?  

Does God bless people who use this language more than those who don't?

Is having an informal personal relationship with God wrong?

Why is it acceptable to God for spanish members to use informal and personal nouns (which are the spanish equivalent to thee, thy, thine, thou) but unacceptable for english speakers to do it (I have no idea how other language pronouns fall)?

I understand the need to teach people how to pray, which will need to include structure and form and a 'this is how you do it' point of reference.  But I struggle with the idea that there is one acceptable way to pray and that sincere prayers that don't follow that outline are somehow less or wrong.

 

Yeah, I think it is a struggle for people not steeped in reading literature with this kind of language in it. Why make it harder for new converts? At the end of the day to me it seemed more performative than anything else, which is why I dropped it.