Gender Identities

There certainly is room for them to adapt their definitions. For example whenever they're in conversation with me, would they be willing to use the words "he" and "she" to refer exclusively to males and females respectively? Would they be willing to use words like "man" and "woman" purely in a biological sense? Would they be willing to refer to me as a "real" man on account of being biologically male?

If they're not willing to adapt their definitions to suit me, then they can hardly claim that me adapting my definitions to suit them is a "basic level of respect" that they're entitled to,


Indeed. But it also takes next to no effort to just accept the fact that some people use "he" and "she" in the biological sense and to not throw a tantrum about it. Especially when you claim that identity is arbitrary with respect to pronouns.

It's very easy for both sides to be adaptable on this matter; none of this takes much effort. But this discussion is about respect. And the point is, when one side demands that the other must do all the adapting, they're going beyond expecting just a "basic level of respect".

Or to put it another way, my work leans towards using they/them pronouns until someone specifies otherwise. If I tell them which pronouns to use, (which are the ones assigned to me at birth), and they ignore that, then it's at best annoying and makes not a terribly nice and respectful environment to work in.

Same as when introduces themselves with a nickname or preferred middle-name. It's not really for me to not recognise it and insist on their legal name.

The only definitions they would need to adapt, if any, would only be those that refer to you (as what you are adapting applies to them only, i.e. their pronouns). If they have nothing to adapt (because they already respect your identity) then the additional respect you are giving them is born from a technicality.

So you still haven't answered the question. Even if they haven't adapted their definitions (which I don't consider equivalent to a lack of respect in this context anyway), why does it qualify as a considerable amount of respect (for you to give) to adopt their pronouns? Whether someone respects your identity doesn't change the fact that respecting someone's identity is a basic form of respect.

No one is arguing that the other must do all the adapting. A persons preferred pronouns, like a preferred name, generally matter much more to themselves that it does to others - so as a general matter of courtesy we use the name and pronouns that person wants us to and generally don't make a big deal about it, or talk about how accommodating we're being.

The quid pro quo comes from the expectation that that person will equally refer to you with the pronouns that you want them to. If you're male and want, have asked, or haven't needed to have asked because it usually just happens, to be referred to as a he, you'd probably find it somewhat rude if I repeatedly referred to you as a she - or made a massive deal about how accommodating I was in referring to you as a he.

Or to put it more simply, you refer to me with the pronouns I'd like to be referred to, and I refer to you with the pronouns you'd like to be referred to. Everybody wins, everybody gets on and our conversation continues with a solid start of rapport - it's a really good way to crack on with your life and a "treat people how you'd like to be treated" thing, that's why we talk about it as a basic level of respect, not a special favour.

I appreciate there may be a very small number of people with a passionate and sincere belief that pronouns should only be used in a very strict sense aligned to physical sex characteristics and any wavering from this is doing the recipient a massive favor. Those with this view will probably need to accept that social custom is now that we use pronouns in a more flexible way.

I don't agree that what I’m adapting "applies" to them only. Unlike their name, the words “he” and “she” don’t belong to them or apply only to them; they’re words that are used universally and already have their own meanings. If I’m calling a male person “she”, I'm not merely "respecting their identity", I’m changing the entire meaning of that word to match theirs. Whereas they could have equally changed their definition to match mine.

In fact, even if we only consider terminology that they're applying to me, there's still room for them to adapt their definitions. What if instead of calling me a "cis-man" or "cisgender man", I asked them to call me a "real man" on account of being biologically male? Certainly that would be more respectful of my identity. Would you equally consider that a "basic form of respect" that I'm entitled to?



I don't necessarily consider “respecting someone’s identity” to be a basic form of respect. Identities are nothing special or sacred. They can be wrong or right, sensible or stupid just like any other statement. There are people in the world who identify as animals, the King’s long lost son, the second coming of Jesus Christ, and all sorts of things. They don’t all have the automatic right to be indulged. (You bring up respecting people’s names, but names are very much the exception rather than the rule because in most cases they’re arbitrary and don’t explicitly mean anything. Pronouns don't fall into this category.)

I have no issue with respecting someone's identity per se. But when it comes with additional baggage - particularly baggage that they wouldn't be willing to carry themselves for someone else (e.g. changing the entire meanings of the words they use, professing agreement with something they don’t believe in, or giving someone else's worldview precedence over their own) then they can't claim it's one of the “basic forms of respect” that we’re all entitled to. (I call it a “considerable” amount of respect just because that’s the word you used earlier for respect that one earns, as opposed to basic respect that one is entitled to by default.)

It does apply to them only. We are talking about the interaction between two people, yourself and a hypothetical transgender person.

The only thing they would need to adapt is how they refer to you, although in this case they probably would already respect your identity and pronouns (be it "he", "him", "cisgender male", "cis-man" or even "real man", etc).

Why are names arbitrary and mean nothing but not pronouns? If anything names are less arbitrary than pronouns since they are a much more direct form of identitification. The name "Sally Smith" holds far more meaning to the identity of an individual than the pronoun "she", which comparatively gives you far less information. Names are the thing that tie an individual to, well, anything; their birth, death, marital status, education, jobs, successes, failings, income, taxes, nationality, etc. If you respect the names of other people "because in most cases they’re arbitrary and don’t explicitly mean anything" then you should also accept the pronouns of other people. Pronouns are, in comparison, far more arbitrary and mean less.

You might think it applies to them only, but I don't. Why should your view be the one that counts here? This is the exact problem I'm talking about. What you are calling "basic respect" actually involves assuming that we should both be treating your view of the situation as more important, not mine. That's one-sided respect, not reciprocated respect.


In my experience it's very rare for people who believe in choosing one's own pronouns to respect the fact that I don't identify with terms like "cis" or "cisgender", and calling me a "real man" on account of biology would be out of the question.



I consider names to be arbitrary because in the language I speak, a person's name doesn't explicitly describe anything about them. A person's might be given the name Sally, but there's no particular reason why it had to be Sally; it could have been anything and still been just as valid. The same is not true of pronouns. If a person is male, then in the language I speak, it is correct to describe him as "he". If he were instead labelled "she", then one would be incorrectly indicating that he is female. Pronouns are non-arbitrary for the same reason that adjectives or job titles are non-arbitrary. The fact that these are all less specific identifiers than a person's name doesn't mean they're more arbitrary.

You don't have to agree with me. Maybe the rules of the language you speak are different. But to suggest that I'm the one who needs to switch to yours rather than vice-versa or that yours should be the one that takes precedence is again, one-sided respect rather than reciprocated respect.

Its narcissism. Don’t try and understand it or accommodate it, just ignore it or criticise it.

It applies to them only because that is the hypothetical example we are discussing. We aren't talking about the broader validity or implication of transgender identities, we are talking about how you or I would refer to a single transgender person. The reasoning being used doesn't depend upon the existence of other transgender people. In fact none of this is specific to transgender people at all, the same reasoning can apply to other matters of identity.

I beg to differ that people do not respect your identity. In fact, I have seen a lot of people respect those who do not wish to be referred to as a "cisgender man", etc, even going as far as to refer to people as 'real men'. Is that what you have asked people to do? Whenever you have met transgender people have you asked them to call you that?

Pronouns are most certainly more arbitrary than names are. That isn't a matter of personal opinion, that is a mere fact based on how names are used in practice. Your name is tied to almost everything about you, it informs other people of who you are, what you do, what you have done, etc. It is perhaps the single most important part of someone's identity, there are good reasons why we have them as opposed to all being nameless. Pronouns like "he" and "she" tell you very little in comparison. Usually they inform you about someone's sex or gender, although in some cases they may tell you nothing at all (for example when people assign genders to inanimate objects). You welcome respect for the names of others on the basis that "in most cases they’re arbitrary and don’t explicitly mean anything" but exactly the same goes for pronouns.

I don’t agree with that. If I’m to refer to even a single male person as “she”, then as far as I’m concerned I’m either uttering a falsehood, or I’m changing the meaning of the word “she” (a word that also I use more broadly for other people) to no longer indicate that someone is female. You’re welcome to disagree, but if you expect that to determine how I ought to communicate then you’re just proving my point about one-sided respect.



Well if that’s your personal experience, good for you. Mine is the opposite.



So what? All you've shown is that names are more specific to the individual, more integral to their identity, more important etc. than pronouns. That doesn't make pronouns more arbitrary than names.

If you refer to a biologically male person as "she" then all you have done is refer to a biologically male person as "she". The respect being given only involves the two of you, it doesn't involve anyone else. After all you could refer to some other biologically male (but transgender) person as "he", for some other reason. This isn't about how you ought to communicate, this is about who the respect would be given to.

Have you ever asked someone to call you a "real man", be then transgender or not?

Of course it does. You have granted respect for other people's names on the basis that "in most cases they’re arbitrary and don’t explicitly mean anything". We have already seen, as you admit here, that names definitely mean something. They are important, they have value. We wouldn't use them if they didn't mean anything. Hell, we even have strict laws on identity theft for this reason; they do mean something. Names, using your own terminology, 'explicitly describe' things about people; they are not arbitrary. They aren't random, they have real implications on a person's identity. Meanwhile pronouns have nowhere near as much meaning and are far more random. You are being inconsistent in respecting names but not pronouns.

Have you ever asked someone to call you a "real man", be then transgender or not?

Of course it does. You have granted respect for other people's names on the basis that "in most cases they’re arbitrary and don’texplicitly mean anything". We have already seen, as you admit here, that names definitely mean something. They are important,they have value. We wouldn't use them if they didn't mean anything. Hell, we even have strict laws on identity theft for this reason;they do mean something. Names, using your own terminology, 'explicitly describe' things about people; they are not arbitrary. Theyaren't random, they have real implications on a person's identity. Meanwhile pronouns have nowhere near as much meaning andare far more random. You are being inconsistent in respecting names but not pronouns.

This might be what happens when you refer to a male person as "she". But it's not for you to tell me what I mean when I say something. Based on the way I use and understand language, if I did this then I would either be uttering a falsehood or altering my definitions.


Yes, I have previously asked to be called that, or something similar instead of "cisgender man".
(I've even received a warning card for doing so on this site).


Importance and value have got nothing to do with what's arbitrary and what isn't. Names are arbitrary because they're assigned based on someone's personal choice rather than any fixed, objective criteria. Pronouns are not arbitrary because they're determined based on fixed, objective criteria (i.e. the person's sex). It's quite as simple as that.

This makes no difference to my point. Respect given between yourself and a transgender person only involves the two of you. It doesn't involve anyone else, how could it? Again, respecting the identity of one transgender person doesn't mean you have to respect the identity of all other transgender people. Even by your own demands this is perfectly possible, it would just depend on whether they reciprocate the respect. This all matters because it influences what reciprocated respect would look like. This goes beyond just transgender people, it applies to any other form of identity. If someone asks you to accept their identity then reciprocated respect would be for them to accept yours. It wouldn't be for them to change how they refer to a third party because they wouldn't be asking you to do the same. Demanding this from them would, in fact, be asking for more respect than you are giving them. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Who did you ask and where did you ask it? What did you ask them to call you? I have seen plenty of people ask not to be called cisgender on this forum and none of them got a warning for it. How do you know that this was the reason you got the warning, as opposed to something else?

Likewise, names aren't arbitrary because they are based on an objective fixed fact, e.g. what is written on your passport. The vast majority of people won't choose their name at random, they will go by what is written on official documents. Of course, a minority of people do change their name and go by something else on the basis of personal choice (i.e. by changing their legal name), but so do a minority of people change their pronouns and go by something else on the basis of personal choice (e.g. by changing their legal name). The only difference is that one is widely accepted whereas the other one isn't, but it doesn't stop names from having an objective, fixed basis. You have only become accustomed to the fact that people change their names, hence why you think they are arbitrary. No doubt you would treat names and pronouns the same if we lived in a world where people couldn't legally change their name, I can easily picture an alternative reality where people demand that we must refer to each other by what is written on a piece of paper.

I don't consider it an equal exchange of respect for a transgender person to say to me "You call me by my chosen pronouns and I'll call you by yours". That would be like going with me to a restaurant and saying "You pay for my meal and I'll pay for yours", even though I'm having a salad and they're having a steak. Just because it superficially sounds like an equal trade doesn't mean it really is, because one side of it is a greater burden than the other.

If I'm to use their pronouns, that comes with extra baggage. I'm the one who has to stop adhering to my own views on how pronouns work and appear to endorse theirs instead (at least temporarily). They don't have to do that in order to use my pronouns. They get to carry on sticking to their views, because my pronouns turn out to be the same either way. This arrangement ultimately gives their views more legitimacy than mine, because I'm the one who has to adapt to theirs - not vice versa. If they were really offering me an equal level of respect, they would be equally willing to carry the same baggage and occasionally give my views precedence ahead of their own as well (e.g. by clearly using the biological definitions of "he", "she", "man" or "woman).

Alternatively, another more simple arrangement of equally reciprocated respect would be "you speak in a way that makes sense to you, and I'll speak in a way that makes sense to me". This is my preferred arrangement, and it is what I consider to be the basic level of respect that we're all entitled to.



My exact post, word for word, was: I don’t identify as a “cisgender man”, I identify as a “normal man”, "real man" or just “man”. Please use this terminology to describe me. It received a warning card for "discriminatory language". I don't think it's because I asked not to be called "cisgender" per se, but rather because I asked to be called "normal man" or "real man".



No, it's the other way round. A person's name isn't "based on what is written on their passport". It's chosen arbitrarily by their parents. Passports and other documents are made afterwards based on whatever name was chosen. So they're still arbitrary even in this case.

"I'm the one who has to stop adhering to my own views on how pronouns work and appear to endorse theirs instead (at least temporarily). They don't have to do that in order to use my pronouns." - First of all, you don't know this. You can't assume that someone will already hold the view that your pronouns are valid. Someone could very easily hold the belief that "real man" isn't a valid pronoun just as you believe that "he" and "she" aren't valid pronouns for transmen and transwomen. Second of all, even if they already viewed your pronouns as valid it wouldn't mean they are reciprocating any less by using them. Reciprocation comes from respecting your identity irrespective of whether it matches their beliefs. They could, for example, view your pronouns as valid but choose not to respect them anyway (I have witnessed this myself in the wider transgender debate). You don't get a free pass to demand more from them just because they are already showing you respect.

How do you know it was because of the phrase "real man" or "man" and not "cisgender"? Your experience doesn't match what I have seen elsewhere on this forum, people refer to themselves as such very often. Furthermore this forum, rightly or wrongly, has rules on language which it finds might be discriminatory towards transgender people (a topic in an of itself). Have you ever asked someone to refer to you like that outside of this forum?

Someone's name is chosen by what's on their birth certificate, which forms the basis of their legal name and cannot be changed. It is exactly the sort of objective, fixed thing that you have described as non-arbitrary. People change their name all the time despite the 'objective truth' being written on their birth certificate, so why do you respect the names people choose for themself but not their gender? It doesn't matter that a name may originate from a person's parents, the point at which it is written on a birth certificate is the point at which is becomes non-arbitrary.

If names are arbitrary because the words were chosen arbitrarily by our parents then so too are the words "he" and "she". At some point in history people chose to use the words "he" and "she" to define certain things, just as parents use names to define children. There is no reason why people had to use the words "he" and "she", that choice was also arbitrary.

"by clearly using the biological definitions of "he", "she""

Eh? Pronouns like he and she aren't biological definitions, they're words that we associate with the much broader concept of gender, not biological definitions and like lots of conversational everyday English do not have specific meanings fixed in time, use and meanings can and do change - languages evolve.

Again, at the end of day as I've said before - it just comes down to showing some basic human empathy, it's showing what a decent human being you are by making a very small gesture in substituting a one syllable pronoun you might have been planning to use, for another one syllable pronoun. Making comparisons to being asked to buy someone a steak dinner as a similar"concession" is a little bizarre.

Between two worlds, one where we make some very minor adjustments to our conversational English to make trans people feel accommodated and welcome like any other person, and one where we adopt very strict and unchangeable rules on pronouns in conversational English that make trans people feel unaccommodated and unwelcome, I'm going to plant my flag firmly in the former camp, its a much kinder and nicer world to live in, for everyone.

Regarding your second point: That's just your opinion. My opinion is that if I refer to a trans person by their chosen pronoun and they refer to me with mine, I'm giving them more respect than they are giving me. I'm adapting my ways to suit them, they aren't doing the same for me. My views and definitions are being relegated to second place, not theirs. The conversation is being conducted on their terms, not mine. You may not think any of that matters, but I do. So I don't consider it an equal exchange of respect. You're entitled to your opinion, but in the matter of how I communicate, there's no reason for it to count for more than mine.

Regarding your first point: If a trans person is indeed having to adapt their ways in order to use my preferred terms, I would of course consider that equally reciprocated respect. But in practice I've never seen that happen. Nobody has ever indicated to me that they don't consider "he / him" to be the correct words to use for me, for example.



Like I said, if your experience is different from mine, good for you. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that information. All I can do is go by the experience I've had. I've given you one example of it, in which me expressing my preferred terms was considered objectionable rather than worthy of respect. I have said similar things many times, both on and off this forum. I don't care to try and list them all. But the reaction I receive from people on your side of the fence is almost always to dispute or object to my choice of preferred terms rather than respecting them.



An individual's name doesn't stop being arbitrary when it goes on a birth certificate, because the fact remains that their name was chosen arbitrarily. An individual's pronoun is not chosen arbitrarily; it is determined based on their sex.



This still doesn't make an individual person's pronouns arbitrary. The fact remains the pronouns for that particular individual were determined based on their sex.

The only thing that is arbitrary here is the fact that the English language as a whole uses "he" to mean one thing and "she" to mean something else. It's a large leap to then extend this to people's pronouns on the individual level. The same can be said about every word in existence. If we followed your logic, that would make everything arbitrary. The word "doctor" is also arbitrary, so we should respect the identity of any layman who calls themselves that. The word "king" is also arbitrary, so we should respect the identity of every commoner who calls themselves that. The number 18 is also arbitrary, so we should respect the identity of any child who says they're that age.