Gender Identities

My definitions for these words (i.e. the way I use and understand English) are biological. As they are for a lot of people.



And as I've said before, I may well choose to use someone's chosen pronoun as a matter of empathy, or for any other reason. What I don't agree with is the idea that they are entitled to it as a basic form of human respect. It's up to me to decide whether to do it or not. I believe that basic human respect involves respecting the fact that people are entitled to disagree with you and express opposing views to yours.

On the other hand, if they were entitled to have me make adjustments to my conversational English to make them feel welcome and accommodated, then I would be equally entitled to have them do the same thing, wouldn't I?

Pronouns have a long history of usage in English where they're used flexibly or not linked to biological sex at all - Older forms of English had full sets of gendered nouns like European languages, there are still all sorts of objects referred to today in gendered terms that don't have a biological sex (referring to ships as "she" is the common example), it's only been a pretty recent change to stop using "he" to refer to both men and women in many formal legal documents. Up until the 15th century it was standard to give a female gender to all children until they reached adulthood.

I struggle to see why is it so important to you in general conversational English to use pronouns strictly to reference someone physical chromosomes, rather than all the other aspects of how gender presents itself in society - which are usually much more important in day-to-day conversational life that someone's genetic chromosome makeup. Usually when I'm talking to someone their chromosomes aren't important to me, I'm usually trying to build a social rapport, or maybe I'm working with them, or maybe I need a favor etc... The technical biological sex of the person I'm speaking to comes pretty far down the list of priorities if I need that person to send me a spreadsheet at work.

If you've firmly adopted a very specific view of how pronouns should be used - that as a consequence gives you a grammatical justification to be rude and offensive to trans people... well I guess no one can stop you, and I guess no poster on here is going to convince you otherwise. I think it's a pretty unusual way to go about your life and being unnecessarily rude to others is likely to cause people to treat you unfavorably, if you behave in this way to others in real life.

I wouldn't recommend it, but ultimately the choice is yours.

You aren't giving them more respect. You are assuming that you are giving them more respect because you assume that the transgender person already agrees that your pronouns are valid. You cannot make that assumption. Even if they did, it is no less mutual respect for them to use your pronouns. Consider that they could refuse to call you a "real man" even if they otherwise agreed that the term is valid. They certainly don't have to, you have just become normalised to the fact that they are already showing you respect. The fact that you have to adapt your definitions while they don't makes no difference to whether the mutual respect exists either. Again, they could always view your pronouns as invalid. Just because they start by thinking they are valid doesn't mean they have to continue doing so. The fact that they do just shows that they are starting with more respect than you are willing to give them, as if that is somehow a bad thing.

This is an exchange of experience. I am asking our of curiosity because I want to understand what you have experienced in the past. It makes no difference to the wider discussion, it remains a basic level of respect to go by the identity someone wants you to use irrespective of whether people reciprocate. Have you ever asked people to call you a "real man" outside of the internet? To the people you asked outside of this forum, what did they say? Did they give a reason why they rejected your pronouns, etc?

And so too were "he" and "she" chosen arbitrarily to define biological men and women. It's not like the words were divinely inspired, they were chosen arbitrarily just as names are chosen by parents. All this describes is that words originate themselves through arbitrary means. If, at the point they exist, the words "he" or "she" are non-arbitrary labels to describe an individual then, at the point it exists, the name "Sally Smith" is a non-arbitrary label to describe an individual. The name is determined by what is on the birth certificate. There is no difference between them except the longevity with which the words have existed, but that doesn't make one arbitrary but the others not. Once a name is defined it becomes non-arbitrary.

"The word "king" is also arbitrary, so we should respect the identity of every commoner who calls themselves that." - Funny you should say that given that one of the most famous musicians in the world was called "Prince", which was not only their legal name but also the name everyone else respected (well, except Warner Brothers). So, yes, I think we should respect people who want to call themselves "king", "queen", etc. Why shouldn't we? If this is purely a matter of identity then what is the issue?

This is an exchange of experience. I am asking out of curiosity because I want to understand what you have experienced in thepast. It makes no difference to the wider discussion, it remains a basic level of respect to go by the identity someone wants you touse irrespective of whether people reciprocate. Have you ever asked people to call you a "real man" outside of the internet? To thepeople you asked outside of this forum, what did they say? Did they give a reason why they rejected your pronouns, etc?

And so too were "he" and "she" chosen arbitrarily to define biological men and women. It's not like the words were divinely inspired,they were chosen arbitrarily just as names are chosen by parents. All this describes is that words originate themselves througharbitrary means. If, at the point they exist, the words "he" or "she" are non-arbitrary labels to describe an individual then, at thepoint it exists, the name "Sally Smith" is a non-arbitrary label to describe an individual. The name is determined by what is on thebirth certificate. There is no difference between them except the longevity with which the words have existed, but that doesn't makeone arbitrary but the others not. Once a name is defined it becomes non-arbitrary.

"The word "king" is also arbitrary, so we should respect the identity of every commoner who calls themselves that." - Funny youshould say that given that one of the most famous musicians in the world was called "Prince", which was not only their legal namebut also the name everyone else respected (well, except Warner Brothers). So, yes, I think we should respect people who want tocall themselves "king", "queen", etc. Why shouldn't we? If this is purely a matter of identity then what is the issue?

Pronouns have a long history of usage in English where they're used flexibly or not linked to biological sex at all - Older forms of English had full sets of gendered nouns like European languages, there are still all sorts of objects referred to today in gendered terms that don't have a biological sex (referring to ships as "she" is the common example), it's only been a pretty recent change to stop using "he" to refer to both men and women in many formal legal documents. Up until the 15th century it was standard to give a female gender to all children until they reached adulthood.

I struggle to see why is it so important to you in general conversational English to use pronouns strictly to reference someone physical chromosomes, rather than all the other aspects of how gender presents itself in society - which are usually much more important in day-to-day conversational life that someone's genetic chromosome makeup. Usually when I'm talking to someone their chromosomes aren't important to me, I'm usually trying to build a social rapport, or maybe I'm working with them, or maybe I need a favor etc... The technical biological sex of the person I'm speaking to comes pretty far down the list of priorities if I need that person to send me a spreadsheet at work.

If you've firmly adopted a very specific view of how pronouns should be used - that as a consequence gives you a grammatical justification to be rude and offensive to trans people... well I guess no one can stop you, and I guess no poster on here is going to convince you otherwise. I think it's a pretty unusual way to go about your life and being unnecessarily rude to others is likely to cause people to treat you unfavorably, if you behave in this way to others in real life.

I wouldn't recommend it, but ultimately the choice is yours.

You're missing the point here. Respect is subjective. I feel that adaptation to suit others is respectful in and of itself, even if you don't. That's a basic, non-negotiable premise for me. That means I think going out of your way to adapt to calling someone what they prefer is more respectful than just calling them whatever you would have done anyway and it happens to be fine with them. You can feel differently and express your opposing opinion all you like, but you'd be wasting your time. Because in the matter of how I communicate, your opinion doesn't supersede my own.



Outside of the internet, no I haven't asked people to do this. It's usually in the context of a debate where I would discuss things like this, rather than every day social interaction.



I'm not talking about someone whose name is "King". Even I agree that we should respect someone whose name is King or Prince or whatever. Your logic, whereby all words in the English language are arbitrary, implies that we need to respect literally everything they want us to call them, whether it's a name, pronoun, noun, adjective, job title, age or any other kind of description that they claim as part of their identity. So if a person identifies an actual member of the royal family you'd have to indulge them. If a person identifies as an actual doctor, you would't be able to say things like "But I don't want this person to perform my heart surgery, he's not really a doctor". You wouldn't even be able to tell me that I'm not being respectful towards trans people because I identify as very respectful towards them. If that's the bullet you want to bite, that's fine - I'd like to see you try and live by this in practice.

This doesn't change what I have said. I agree that respect comes from adapting the way you communicate to suit others, but it is no more or less respectful if the way you communicate already suits the person you are speaking to. What you are failing to realise is that nobody has to respect your identity even if they would otherwise accept the pronouns you have asked them to use. You have taken it for granted that if, for example, someone already accepts the pronouns "real man" that they therefore must continue to accept them and also apply them to yourself (at your request). This isn't the case, they can always change their view of the pronoun or simply refuse to accept what you want to be called (even if they still call other people "real men"). The only reason you think it doesn't qualify as respect is because that behaviour is normalised. It isn't a matter of subjectivity, either way the respect is mutual in this scenario; they respect your identity, you respect theirs. That is as mutual as you can make it. The irony is that, despite previously mentioning the legitimacy of viewpoints, your demands actually exceed what they are asking from you and assign supremacy of your own actions over theirs. They are asking you to respect their identity, you are asking them to respect your identity and do other things. You have treated the adaptation of your own definitions as supreme over them sticking to their pre-existing beliefs (assuming they already agreed that your pronouns are valid, an assumption of which you have conviniently ignored). Your defence may well be 'it is just my opinion', but that neither makes it true or change the fact that your argument doesn't work.

Would you ask people to call you a "real man" in an everyday social interaction, if the opportunity came up? If not, why not? Of the people you have spoken to on the internet, why did they reject your pronouns? Did they give a reason?

My logic is that identities are arbitrary, which they very well are. Names, titles, pronouns, etc, are arbitrary parts of your identity. Someone could very well go around calling themself "queen" but so long as this only involves their identity, i.e. how we refer to them, then we should respect it. What would be the issue? Take as an example the artist Dayvon Bennett, who was professionally known as "King Von". Dayvon was not a king on objective grounds, "King" was merely an identity. They didn't profess, as far as I can tell, to have genuine royal or legal powers over other people. Their identity was chosen on a personal whim, it was arbitrary. Should we therefore not respect it? If not, why not? He wasn't the only artist to have used titles like that for their identity and he certainly won't be the last. Put this in comparison with someone like Romana Didulo, who is more widely known by her identity "The Queen of Canada". This itself would not be an issue but in Romana's case this title goes beyond just identity. She not only calls herself "queen" but also professes to have genuine legal powers over other people, so much so that an entire cult has formed around her. This is obviously a problem, as you will surely agree, but it is not one to do with the mere identity of the person. You can, as the earlier example demonstrated, use a royal title as an identity alone. Not only have I 'bit this bullet' on this but so have millions of other people. All because, as I said at the beginning, identities are arbitrary. Take the example given to you by another user: people use pronouns like "she" and "he" to describe things that are not even alive, like boats, cars, motorbikes, etc. It's all arbitrary.

On the matter of the English language, my point about names being non-arbitrary was only taking your argument to it's logical conclusion. If "he" and "she" are non-arbitrary, for the reasons you had described, then so too are any names ever written on birth certificates. On that basis you should never respect someone who wants to be called anything else than what they were given at birth, but by your own admission you are happy to call people whatever they want you to call them. If you take exception to names but not pronouns, despite them being equally as arbitrary by your own reasoning, then you are not being consistent.

Would you ask people to call you a "real man" in an everyday social interaction, if the opportunity came up? If not, why not?

Of the people you have spoken to on the internet, why did they reject your pronouns? Did they give a reason?

My logic is that identities are arbitrary, which they very well are. Names, titles, pronouns, etc, are arbitrary parts of your identity. Someone could very well go around calling themself "queen" but so long as this only involves their identity, i.e. how we refer tothem, then we should respect it. What would be the issue? Take as an example the artist Dayvon Bennett, who was professionallyknown as "King Von". Dayvon was not a king on objective grounds, "King" was merely an identity. They didn't profess, as far as Ican tell, to have genuine royal or legal powers over other people. Their identity was chosen on a personal whim, it was arbitrary.Should we therefore not respect it? If not, why not? He wasn't the only artist to have used titles like that for their identity and hecertainly won't be the last. Put this in comparison with someone like Romana Didulo, who is more widely known by her identity"The Queen of Canada". This itself would not be an issue but in Romana's case this title goes beyond just identity. She not onlycalls herself "queen" but also professes to have genuine legal powers over other people, so much so that an entire cult has formedaround her. This is obviously a problem, as you will surely agree, but it is not one to do with the mere identity of the person. Youcan, as the earlier example demonstrated, use a royal title as an identity alone. Not only have I 'bit this bullet' on this but so have millions of other people. All because, as I said at the beginning, identities are arbitrary. Take the example given to you by anotheruser: people use pronouns like "she" and "he" to describe things that are not even alive, like boats, cars, motorbikes, etc. It's all arbitrary.

On the matter of the English language, my point about names being non-arbitrary was only taking your argument to its logical conclusion. If "he" and "she" are non-arbitrary, for the reasons you had described, then so too are any names ever written on birth certificates. On that basis you should never respect someone who wants to be called anything else than what they were given at birth, but by your own admission you are happy to call people whatever they want you to call them. If you take exception to names but not pronouns, despite them being equally as arbitrary by your own reasoning, then you are not being consistent.

You're stating things as fact when they're just your personal feeling. For example: "I agree that respect comes from adapting the way you communicate to suit others, but it is no more or less respectful if the way you communicate already suits the person you are speaking to.". That's fine if you feel that way but I don't. I feel more respected when someone adapts to me, rather than if they're just communicating in the way they would have done anyway. Likewise, I have to feel more respect for someone in order to be willing to adapt to them, rather than to just call them what I would have called them anyway.

The rest of what you've said doesn't change this. I've already agreed with you that in theory someone may not already agree with my pronouns a priori. Or they might agree with them and later change their mind. So if they're now having to adapt to me in order to call me what I want, sure I'll consider that equally reciprocated respect. But in practice I've never had that happen.

I don't know, I'd probably decide at the time if the situation ever came up.

Nobody has ever rejected my pronouns (i.e. he / him). People have rejected my request not to be called cisgender, or to be called something else instead.

It's happened lots of times, and different people's reasons would have been different. As I've said I don't care to go through them one by one trying to remember and list them all, but a couple of examples of responses I've had are "it's not that deep, cis literally just means not trans, so if you're not trans you're cis". Or people not wanting to call me a "real man" instead of "cisgender man" because it wouldn't make sense in their parlance (in which trans men are also real men).



Alright, if you say so. As I said, I'd be interested to see if you really live like this in practice, Not just calling people by their chosen names, titles and pronouns, but agreeing to refer to them and describe them in literally any way they choose, be it a noun, adjective or any other sort of description whatsoever.



I can respect someone who wants to be called something other than their birth name. Just in the same way that I can respect a trans person's pronouns if I want to. I haven't claimed that either of these are things I can't or shouldn't do. I've just argued that it's my choice as to whether to adapt to suit them or not, rather than a basic entitlement of theirs.

When it comes to a using a trans persons pronouns, I'm having to adapt my definitions. In my usual parlance, if I say "he" or "she" I'm explicitly (and often intentionally) indicating that someone is male or female, respectively. But when it comes to a using a person's own choice of name, I'm not having to adapt to them. When I call someone "John" in my usual parlance, I'm not explicitly indicating that their birth certificate says "John" on it. I'm just using whichever word will let people easily understand who I'm talking about.

It isn't a matter of subjectivity what mutual respect looks like. It matters only on what each person is doing in the arrangement. In our case, respect for one anothers pronouns is mutual regardless of whether one of the individuals involved has to adapt their pre-existing definitions. 'Adapting their definitions' is just a fancy way of saying they respect your identity; if they didn't adapt them then they wouldn't be respecting it. It isn't superior to the case where someone doesn't adapt their definitions because in both cases your identity is being respected. The case where someone doesn't have to adapt their definitions doesn't strictly mean they have never done so, only that they didn't do it in that exact moment; they already adapted them, just not when you spoke together. The response you demand in return goes beyond what they have actually shown you, which is fundementally the same as what would be the case in the other scenario.

If people have accepted your pronouns (in this case "he" and "him") then they have shown you the same level of respect that they have asked from you (to be referred to as "she" or "he", depending on the person).

It isn't a matter of 'if I say so'. This is literally how identities work in the real world. I have given at least three such examples. It is practice, not just for myself but for millions (if not billions) of other people. Despite all of this you have yet to explain why you think it should work differently. Why, for example, someone should not be able to go by the identity "King Von" because they don't have royal blood or "Dr Dre" because they don't have a PhD or medical training. All you have done is fall back on the non-response of 'it's just my opinion'. I am aware it is your opinion, but you haven't explained why it is your opinion or why your opinion is true.

So why choose one but not the other? Why choose to define "male" and "female" based on biological sex alone, but not the names of individuals based on what is on their birth certificate? The only answer you have given so far is that one is arbitrary while the other isn't, but as we have already seen the two are just as arbitrary as the other. So, by all accounts, you shouldn't be treating the two differently. If you respect all the custom names people give themselves then you should respect the pronouns people give themselves.

This is still just your opinion. Respect isn’t something you can measure with a ruler. It is a matter of subjectivity what constitutes “more respectful” or “less respectful”. My feelings on the matter are no less correct than yours.



Your examples have only related to people’s names. Your logic requires you to use literally every single possible name, title, noun, pronoun, adjective, or any other kind of description that they say is be part of their identity. For example, let’s say I identify as “SHallowvale’s supreme lord and master”. I’m not asking for any real authority over you, I’m just asking you to call me that from now on. Would you do so?



Because it’s what I’m used to, the way I’ve been taught to speak growing up, and the way I find that most people easily understand what I’m saying (and vice-versa). The same reason why I use any other rules of the English language.

Not at all. We are talking about mutual respect, i.e. that which involves more than just one person. By it's very nature it is not subjective, when one person asks for respect of a certain kind then it is objectively possible to measure what reciprocated respect would look like and whether it is being given (at least in this context where the respect being asked for is measureable). Third parties can determine whether the respect is mutual. In this case mutual respect would be for both parties to refer to one another using the identities they go by and, as already explained, pre-existing opinions on whether these identities are valid or invalid makes no difference to whether the respect is given mutually.

The examples involve names, titles and pronouns. "King Von" is not the name of Dayvon Bennett, it an identity they created using the "King" title (despite not having royal blood). "Dr Dre" is not the name of Andre Young, it is an identity they created using the "Dr" title (despite not having a PhD or medical degree). The HMS Ark Royal is often referred to as "she" despite it not even havingsexual organs or DNA, let alone that of a biological human woman. All of these are examples where identities are completely arbitrary. They even touch upon the things you think shouldn't be arbitrary, particularly the title "Dr" and "King". That's the reality ofthe world we live in. You might disagree that it should work like that but, unfortunately for you, it does. An identity such as"SHallowvale’s supreme lord and master" is different to all previous examples because it now makes explicit reference to the identity of another person, i.e. someone other than just yourself. You could argue that this kind of identity is invalid or shouldn't berespected for that reason, whereas "Dr", "King", "He", "She", etc, do not suffer from this problem. Personally, though, I don't care. Itis nevertheless still arbitrary. If that's the way you identify then have at it, I would respect it if was.

Why should it remain that way just because it is what you are use to? Why is that change undesireable? English, as a language, changes continuously and there is no reason why the definitions of words one day have to be the same as they are the next day.You already accept that names can be arbitrary (despite them not being arbitrary, strictly speaking) and you don't seem to take issue with the usage of titles like "King" and "Dr" in the examples I gave earlier (although seemingly contradicting yourself in the process). So why not go the extra step and change how you consider the terms "he" and "she"? What is stopping you?

You're still relying on your own preconceptions about what constitutes "respect" and what doesn't. Mine are different. I care more about person's intent and effort rather than the outcome, and that's how I measure respect. So no, I don't consider it particularly respectful in itself that someone happens to be calling me by my preferred terms. I'd feel more respected if someone would have otherwise been using different terms, but went to the effort to use my preferred ones specifically because I prefer them. Likewise vice-versa.



Your examples may involve names, titles and pronouns. But the logic you're using (i.e. every word in the English language is arbitrary) isn't limited to names, titles and pronouns. So that would require you to refer to everybody using every noun, adjective, job title, or any description of any kind that they say they identify with. If you're actually willing to call me "supreme lord and master" or whatever, then great, at least you're consistent. Personally I consider it absurd to think that's a "basic form of respect that everyone's entitled to".



Why would I change my definitions of "he" and "she"? What's the need? Most people I speak to already understand the ones I'm using, rather than the ones you're suggesting I should switch to.

Respect, in this context, means accepting the identity of another person. This is what formed the basis of the discussion and the following questions on whether everyone should be entitled to that respect. You may disagree that acceptance of someone's identity even qualifies as respect but that is beyond the scope of the discussion. "Respect" is merely a shorthanded way of saying that someone's identity is being accepted. Mutual respect therefore means that one person accepts the identity of the other and vice-versa. In the case of transgender people that would mean that you accept their pronouns while they accept yours. Pre-existing beliefs on the matter do not change whether the respect is being given or is mutual. Transgender people should be entitled to that respect, just as we are with our pronouns and names.

So what if it applies to more than just names, titles and pronouns? The point is still the same. Names, titles and pronouns are all arbitrary. You made the appeal to objective truth to justify why we should respect names but not pronouns, even giving examples of "King" and "Dr" as titles which we shouldn't respect. However all of these things are arbitrary, as has very clearly been demonstrated to you. You may not like that fact but it is nevertheless true, welcome to the real world. The fundamental premise of your argument, that one is arbitrary while the other isn't, completely falls apart when you just barely dig at the surface of how these words / terms were created, what they mean and how they are used in practice.

You would change your definitions to be respectful and inclusive towards transgender people, just as you are respectful and inclusive towards the people who use a name other than the one written on their birth certificate; you see no problem with doing this, so why not do the same for transgender people? What is the issue, exactly? You have yet, despite repeated attempts, to give one reason why names should be respected but not pronouns. All you can fall back on is either just 'it's my opinion' or 'why should I?', neither of which are arguments. It isn't as if the concept of gender is alien to the broader public, polls consistently show that at least 50% are aware that transgender people exist. It follows easily that they can understand that "he" and "she" do not just refer to biological sexes. For example a YouGov poll found that over 50% of people accept transgender identities, let alone are just aware that transgender people exist.

So what if it applies to more than just names, titles and pronouns? The point is still the same. Names, titles and pronouns are all arbitrary. You made the appeal to objective truth to justify why we should respect names but not pronouns, even giving examples of "King" and "Dr" as titles which we shouldn't respect. However all of these things are arbitrary, as has very clearly been demonstrated to you. You may not like that fact but it is nevertheless true, welcome to the real world. The fundamental premise of your argument, that one is arbitrary while the other isn't, completely falls apart when you just barely dig at the surface of how these words / terms were created, what they mean and how they are used in practice.

You would change your definitions to be respectful and inclusive towards transgender people, just as you are respectful and inclusive towards the people who use a name other than the one written on their birth certificate; you see no problem with doing this, so why not do the same for transgender people? What is the issue, exactly? You have yet, despite repeated attempts, to give one reason why names should be respected but not pronouns. All you can fall back on is either just 'it's my opinion' or 'why should I?', neither of which are arguments. It isn't as if the concept of gender is alien to the broader public, polls consistently show that atleast 50% are aware that transgender people exist. It follows easily that they can understand that "he" and "she" do not just refer tobiological sexes. For example a YouGov poll found that over 50% of people accept transgender identities, let alone are just awarethat transgender people exist.

I'm not using the word "respect" to just mean "accepting the identity of another person". If those are the terms of the discussion then I haven't signed up to them. That might be a type of respect, but there are other types too. I consider adapting to suit someone else to be an even greater type of respect. I also consider it a basic level of respect to accept the fact that others can openly disagree with you about anything.



I think these are two separate issues. It's true that all words in the English language are historically arbitrary. However the decision to apply a specific word to a specific individual may or may not be arbitrary, depending on how that decision was made. So I'm still not convinced that people's names and pronouns and nouns and adjectives and ages and job titles are all equally arbitrary. But then again, that's why I'm not the one who now has to call people "supreme lord and master" if they ask me to.



I haven't had to change my definitions in order to use people's chosen names that differ from their birth certificates . When I call a person John, I have never explicitly meant "John is written on his birth certificate", and I don't think people interpret it as if I'm trying to say that either. For most practical purposes people rarely even care what name is on someone's birth certificate. Not everyone even has a birth certificate; names have existed far longer than birth certificates have. It requires no adaptation of definitions on my part to use someone's chosen name. The same can't be said about people's pronouns or their sex. So there's no comparison.

Regardless of that, perhaps I could change my definitions of "he" and "she" to be respectful towards trans people. But going back to my earlier point, I'd want to know whether they're also willing to change their definitions in order to make me feel respected as well. If not, then I see no reason why I should feel the need to do this.

Of course there are other types of respect, "respect" can mean all sorts of things depending on the context and situation. In this case respect is about accepting the identity of someone else. Whether someone should be entitled to that respect is at heart of the discussion. You and I both respect the names of individuals without issue, for the same reason we should respect pronouns. The respect that transgender people ask from you is mutual respect.

You have yet to give any reason why the decision to apply "he" and "she" to specific people is non-arbitrary but the decision to apply the word "John" isn't. Making an appeal to the objective nature of sex doesn't make that decision any more non-arbitrary, you have still chosen to define the pronouns in that way just as you have chosen not to name people using what's on their birth certificate (an otherwise objective criteria). The only thing you have essentially said is that you just disagree, you haven't presented a sound argument. You made the appeal to objective truth but it didn't work, both the origin and application of these words is arbitrary. You made the appeal to popularity too but that also didn't work, most people in the public know that "he" and "she" can refer to both sex and gender.

You have missed the question. Why do you respect people's names? It isn't enough to say 'I don't have to adapt my definitions'. All'adapting my definitions' means is that you already respect their identity, it is circular reasoning to say 'I respect their name becauseI respect their name'. The question I am asking is why you respect their name at all? If someone tells you to call them "John" then why respect that? What is the reason? And, for whatever that reason is, why does that not apply to pronouns? Of course you would have to 'adapt your definitions' with respect to pronouns, that's the whole reason of the discussion. It isn't an argument to say 'I won't respect their pronouns as I would have to adapt my definitions', all that means is that 'I won't respect their pronouns as I would have to respect their pronouns'.

Well my answer to that is, I don't believe people all have a blanket entitlement to have their identity respected (regardless of what it is) in the first place. I don't agree that respecting someone's identity is always a "basic level of respect". The amount of respect involved varies depending on the situation and the identity in question.



I use their chosen name because it usually doesn't make any difference to me what their name is. For my purposes (just making sure people know which who I'm talking about), their name could be anything, just as long as it's consistent and not changing from one moment to the next. So it may as well be the one they prefer. Even then, I still wouldn't say that it's something they're necessarily entitled to. It's up to me to do it as I see fit. For example if their name was something that I found offensive or objectionable or if using it would suggest something or set an impression that I don't want to set - even if it were the one on their birth certificate - I'd still reserve the right not to use it. I probably wouldn't feel the need to call anyone "supreme lord and master" even if they told me that was their name. Most names don't have that problem though, because they don't explicitly mean anything.

Pronouns have a long history of usage in English where they're used flexibly or not linked to biological sex at all - Older forms of English had full sets of gendered nouns like European languages, there are still all sorts of objects referred to today in gendered terms that don't have a biological sex (referring to ships as "she" is the common example), it's only been a pretty recent change to stop using "he" to refer to both men and women in many formal legal documents. Up until the 15th century it was standard to give a female gender to all children until they reached adulthood.

I struggle to see why is it so important to you in general conversational English to use pronouns strictly to reference someone physical chromosomes, rather than all the other aspects of how gender presents itself in society - which are usually much more important in day-to-day conversational life that someone's genetic chromosome makeup. Usually when I'm talking to someone their chromosomes aren't important to me, I'm usually trying to build a social rapport, or maybe I'm working with them, or maybe I need a favor etc... The technical biological sex of the person I'm speaking to comes pretty far down the list of priorities if I need that person to send me a spreadsheet at work.

If you've firmly adopted a very specific view of how pronouns should be used - that as a consequence gives you a grammatical justification to be rude and offensive to trans people... well I guess no one can stop you, and I guess no poster on here is going to convince you otherwise. I think it's a pretty unusual way to go about your life and being unnecessarily rude to others is likely to cause people to treat you unfavorably, if you behave in this way to others in real life.

I wouldn't recommend it, but ultimately the choice is yours.

Why not? It is one of the most fundamental aspects of civilised human interaction to reference one another by the identities being given. It is showing mindfullness towards the wishes of anyone person, as is how respect is defined. It is a "basic" level of respect because it takes almost no effort for you to respect the identity of another. Using "he" or "she" is not a burden to either yourself or I, at least not anymore than using the name "John" or "Dave".

Why not accept pronouns for the same reasons you accept names? It doesn't make a difference to you what someone's pronouns are, just like it doesn't make a difference to you what someone's name is. Pronouns are certainly not offensive, nor have you demonstrated why they are objectionable or suggest something that you don't want to suggest. Needing to adapt your definitions isn't an argument for why they would be objectionable or misleading, rather just a reiteration that you think they are. As for broader identities we could always draw the line on those which are not independent or call upon offensive language, either of which would be fair limits to place. But neither such things apply to pronouns or names (at least not most names).

You say it takes almost no effort, but "respecting someone's identity" can actually come with all kinds of extra baggage. For example it may be an identity I don't agree with, one I consider offensive, one that degrades myself and my worldview, one that I find linguistically inconvenient, or one that I just find plain ridiculous for obvious enough reasons. It takes more than just "basic respect" to get past all of these issues. So no, I don't agree that people are entitled to have any and every identity respected. Especially when it comes with baggage the they wouldn't have been willing to carry themselves.

In the case of pronouns, the extra baggage is the fact that I already have definitions for the words "he" and "she". The people I usually speak to tend to also use and understand those same definitions. If I called a male person "she" without further clarification, that would typically give people the strong impression that I'm talking about a female, (which I wouldn't want to do because it isn't true). In most situations, I also care more about what a person's sex is than what their gender identity is, so it's more linguistically convenient for me if those words indicate sex rather than gender identity. So yes, it does make a difference to me what pronouns I use.

Pronouns do not degrade yourself or your world view, nor are they offensive or ridiculous. You might not agree with them or you may find them "linguistically challenging", but how do either of things mean that respecting them requires a considerable amount of effort? They're mere words just like names are. If anything names require more effort from you because they are more complicated and diverse, it requires more effort to remember and apply a name than it does pronouns. Names come up in conversation all the time, in fact almost always when people refer to one another. Pronouns do not, you can certainly refer to someone without ever needing to use them. Put it this way, if respecting pronouns doesn't constitute as a basic level of respect (that everyone should be entitled to) then what does? If your answer is "nothing" then I can't help you, there'd be far greater issues than just pronouns.

It is circular to say that needing to adapt your definitions is a reason why you don't want to respect the pronouns of another person. The two are the same, it is just saying 'I don't want to respect their identity as I would have to respect their identity'. It isn't an argument on why changing your definitions constitutes as considerable baggage. You have yet to do present that argument. With regards to other people, you have already mentioned that you have had a lot of discussions on the internet about gender identity. No doubt the people you talk to already understand that "he" and "she" refer to both sex and gender, so there wouldn't be any problem in you treating pronouns as such. Certainly the wider UK public are in the loop about this as polls clearly suggest. Should you ever encounter someone who doesn't know about them then it's likely you won't be talking about transgender people anyway, so how is this a problem? Should the time ever arise that the clarification is needed then you could always just explain that at the time, as people already do when the distinction between sex and gender is needed. It will remain the case that most people you refer to will have their sex and gender aligned. Should you happen to talk to someone about a transgender person then why would the distrinction between their sex and gender be necessary? Outside of internet debates, that is.

My first paragraph wasn’t referring to pronouns specifically. I was disagreeing with your fundamental premise that “everyone is entitled to have their identity respected”. That’s the sort of logic that ignores the extra baggage that may or may not come with it, and leads to absurdities like being required to call anyone “supreme lord and master”, or any other ridiculous thing that they ask for. On the contrary, I think a “basic level of respect” is accepting that people have the right to express themselves how they wish even if you don’t like it. Because of course, that literally doesn’t require you to do anything.

As for pronouns specifically, I don’t agree that the point is circular. The point is that it comes with various types of extra baggage that demand extra respect from me. And since respect is subjective, it’s up to me to feel however I want to about how much extra respect carrying each type of baggage constitutes I don’t need a reason to feel different from how you would about that - perhaps I just value free expression more, and validation of identities less than you do. Having said that, a big factor that plays into it is whether or not I think they’d be willing to carry the same baggage for me.