Splicetoday

Writing
Feb 07, 2018, 07:00AM

In Defense of Gender Neutral Pronouns

Languages evolve.

Screen shot 2018 02 06 at 4.50.43 pm.png?ixlib=rails 2.1

My Splice Today colleague Chris Beck wrote about how polarizing Jordan Peterson is, and I want to highlight what first put Peterson in the public spotlight: his refusal to refer to transgender students by gender neutral pronouns. In 2016, Peterson released a series of YouTube videos in which he railed against political correctness, specifically how, according to him, Canada’s C-16 bill would throw him in prison for not referring to trans students by gender-neutral pronouns. Most legal experts disagreed with his assertion, Parliament passed the bill, and Peterson hasn’t been arrested since.

The reason why he’s so adamantly against gender-neutral pronouns is, according to a televised debate, he thinks they’re “the constructions of people who have a political ideology” and “an attempt to control language... by force.” Peterson also claims that while the singular they has been used on occasion, it has never been used as a replacement for he or she.

The truth is more complex than Peterson’s talking points. Technically all language is constructed. All words are made up. I don’t know the exact origin of human language (although this neat little pamphlet from the Linguistic Society has some speculations), but do know that as new ideas develop, words are created in order to express those ideas. 

The singular they has been around for centuries. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, and Jane Austen all used the singular they. There was a time following the Victorian era where “he” was the standard universal pronoun, but the 1970s feminist movement (the Second Wave that classical liberals claim was better than the Third Wave) changed all that. For a while it became “he or she,” but that’s too much of a mouthful, and it leaves out non-binary people, hence the return of the singular they. While it’s true that the singular they hasn’t been used in the past as a replacement for either he or she to refer to an individual, language is constantly evolving, so why not use the singular they for a person’s personal pronoun?

Although they never caught on, neo-pronouns like “ze/hir” aren’t new. According to Dennis Baron, the mid- to late-1800s saw proposed gender-neutral pronouns like ze, nis, and thon. None of them stuck, but at least people tried. Also, Baron makes no connection between proposed gender neutral pronouns and a political agenda to control language.

There’s no cultural Marxist conspiracy to implement Newspeak through gender-neutral pronouns. It’s just our culture’s continuing quest to find new words to express new ideas. Rest assured that the Secret Police isn’t coming after Peterson.

Discussion
  • When Peterson claims C-16 is "an attempt to control language... by force," he's accurately describing the situation. All legislation involves the use of force.

    Responses to this comment
  • So basically, if I understand your argument correctly, it's that whenever any kind of speech is legislated in any way, it's bad, correct? I don't know if I agree because to me, it depends on the situation. I don't think it's a free speech violation to have rules in the workplace where calling black coworkers racial slurs has consequences.

    Responses to this comment
  • I was just stating a fact, not making an argument or calling something "bad," but you're including proscribed words in the same category as mandated words even though they're not the same thing. There is no legal precedent for mandated words, which Peterson is concerned with.

    Responses to this comment
  • The time I wrote a rebuttal to your story I referred to you several times. Your preferred pronoun is "they," but I can't use it because people will be totally confused about something that appears ungrammatical. So I just didn't use any pronoun to refer to you. That was my only choice.

    Responses to this comment
  • this is nonsense, Beck. You just say, "x person's pronoun is y", and write the piece. I've done it in larger venues than splice. People who aren't familiar might be momentarily confused, but part of what you do as a writer sometimes is teach people things they didn't know before.

    Responses to this comment
  • I prefer to do it without pronouns, that way I don't have to explain anything. I suppose you'll say that's offensive, for some reason.

    Responses to this comment
  • NYC can now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the crime of "mis-gendering," in case anyone wants to claim this is no biggie. You can get a similar fine if you're a Christian and won't bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because your pastor told you it's a sin and you might go to hell. This doesn't apply to Muslims, of course. People are out for blood. You really have to love the Left.

    Responses to this comment
  • Shut up Noah, you already let the cat out of the bag. No independent thinkers equals your having nothing to teach the readers.

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan, the idea that an anonymous pile of bile such as yourself is an independent thinker is pretty funny.// But no, I won't shut up. Why should I? I get paid to write here.

    Responses to this comment
  • "I prefer to do it without pronouns, that way I don’t have to explain anything. I suppose you’ll say that’s offensive, for some reason." A writer's job is literally to explain. This is what you get paid for.// I think it's inconsiderate, awkward, and silly to avoid using people's proper pronouns. It's better than misgendering people though, I think. (Though the people directly affected are in a better position to make that call than I am.)

    Responses to this comment
  • Do you have a source for the misgendering fine Beck? That sounds improbable, but if you've got a link, I'd be interested to see it.

    Responses to this comment
  • Don't mind me, I'm just making popcorn.

    Responses to this comment
  • http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/961-15/nyc-commission-human-rights-strong-protections-city-s-transgender-gender

    Responses to this comment
  • Who needs a lecture from a writer who admits he can't even think for himself? Just put the person who gave you these opinions on here and I'll discuss the matter with them. I don't like third-party discussions.

    Responses to this comment
  • Trav, when I wrote about you was I offensive to you in any way?

  • Well I disagreed with your argument, but I wasn't particularly offended.

    Responses to this comment
  • You don't think for yourself either Beck; you're on here saying you can't use "they" pronouns because it's somehow wrong. Who taught you it was wrong? did you fall out of the womb knowing that English didn't have neutral pronouns? Or did someone instill you with the gender binary?//I still can't believe that you think I'm the one being owned when you repeatedly spout clichéd and tired opinions and then claim that doing so makes you a daring independent thinker.

    Responses to this comment
  • So, it's pretty clear from the link that no one is going to be fined for slipping and using the wrong pronoun by accident. The $250,000 fine has to involve malicious intent. Any penalty for misgendering has to involve intentional misgendering too, which would be the equivalent of using racial slurs.//There's also a range of behaviors covered, of which pronouns seem to be the lowest violation—so this hardly supports your contention that failure to use the right pronouns is going to result in a $250,000 fine.// You can certainly argue that any penalty is wrong, I guess, but I'd say the link does not back up your alarmist claims here.

    Responses to this comment
  • I think creating a distinction between mandated and proscribed words doesn't work either. If people at work started calling you "shithead", you would see that as aggressive and an insult, I presume. If you said, "call me by my name" and they responded, "you can't proscribe what words I can use," you'd have a good argument that they were engaged in harassment.

    Responses to this comment
  • May I add something real quick? I took a look at the infamous Bill C-16, and I didn’t find anything about government mandated use of gender neutral pronouns. Here’s the link if anyone would like to fact check me: http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C-16_1/C-16_1.PDF

    Responses to this comment
  • I mean offended you by not using any pronouns.

    Responses to this comment
  • "This hardly supports your contention that failure to use the right pronouns is going to result in a $250,000 fine." Another lie. You just can't help yourself. I think you're actually a pathological liar, berlat. You're too dishonest to engage with.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment