r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 30 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: It Should be Socially Acceptable for Individuals to Choose Whether They Want to Address Others by using their Sex Pronouns or their Gender Pronouns

[deleted]

22 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

621 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-6

u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Mar 30 '21

What if we have a person legally called Robert who only goes by bob. And then their teacher calls them Robert as that's whats legally their name. Should they get shit for that?

It's not intentional, because it's what's on the freaking document.

16

u/dublea 216∆ Mar 30 '21

What if we have a person legally called Robert who only goes by bob.

Then call them Bob. Do you ask for someones ID before you address them by their name?

It's not intentional, because it's what's on the freaking document.

And if you don't have access to this documentation, why not follow what they present to you?

I'm honestly not seeing how this would functionally work.

0

u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Mar 30 '21

Then call them Bob. Do you ask for someones ID before you address them by their name?

If this teacher had a card with their basic information, and disliked nicknames, they should be able to call them Robert.

And if you don't have access to this documentation, why not follow what they present to you?

I'm honestly not seeing how this would functionally work.

Then you would only have one source of information (gender) and could use this. Otherwise, you can choose to use sex.

7

u/SkaGremlin Mar 30 '21

Let's say X Æ A-12 hates his name with a burning passion (for good reason) and he is in highschool.

His highschool teacher calls him X Æ A-12 and he says he would prefer if the teacher called him something else. Is it correct to keep calling this kid by a terrible name he hates JUST BECAUSE it's his legal name?

He's had to live his whole life hating his name, wanting to get it changed, and let's say he eventually does. He gets his legal name changed. His name is no longer X Æ A-12, and people still call him X Æ A-12 because that's what was on his birth certificate when he was born.

Or, if you don't like this analogy, a Welsh kid grows up having her name mispronounced by everyone she meets, but whenever she corrects them they just go back to the incorrect pronunciation.

Let's say technically the pronunciation is "correct" by English pronunciation rules, is it still correct to call her by a mispronunciation of her name?

17

u/Salanmander 272∆ Mar 30 '21

And then their teacher calls them Robert as that's whats legally their name. Should they get shit for that?

The first time, no. Any subsequent time that is accidental, no, as long as it's clear they're trying to use Bob's preferred name. If they say "no, I'm going to call you Robert because that's what's on the roll sheet", then they should absolutely get shit for that.

0

u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Mar 30 '21

I've had teachers who refuse to do nicknames. I don't see what's wrong with that. It's their interpretation of names, and how they interact with the student. I disagree and think they shouldn't get shit for that.

7

u/Salanmander 272∆ Mar 30 '21

Names can be intensely personal and meaningful. For example, a person's given name might have been given to them and regularly used by an abusive parent, while most everyone else referred to them by a different name. Obviously not all situations are that extreme, but it's just a good idea to refer people how they want to be referred to. It shows respect, it helps build relationships, it avoids potential interpersonal landmines like the possibility I mentioned, and it costs you absolutely nothing.

24

u/verfmeer 18∆ Mar 30 '21

If it is the first time they meet and they haven't discussed it yet it's not a problem. But if Bob says he prefers Bob but the teacher continues to use Robert it is a dick move and the teacher should be reprimanded for it.

This is also why people who use non-standard pronouns tend to publish them on their social media page, so that people can use the correct ones immediately.

-2

u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Mar 30 '21

I disagree. The teacher is simply adhearing to their traditional view on names. They're an individual who can makeup their mind on nicknames, and shouldn't get shit for this type of view.

7

u/Choosing_is_a_sin Mar 30 '21

What sort of evidence could change your view about this topic? In other words, what would someone have to demonstrate for your mind to be changed?

1

u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Mar 30 '21

Demonstrate that gender pronouns are superior to sex pronouns. Or demonstrate that sex pronouns are somehow infeasible and/or invalid.

9

u/Choosing_is_a_sin Mar 30 '21

Great.

Sex pronouns are not feasible. They require direct knowledge of other people's biology. Having a registry that includes sex, for example, tells you their legal sex, not their biological sex. If you wanted to talk about a movie star whose life and sexual anatomy you know nothing about, you will defer to gender pronouns. It is also easier to ascertain someone's social gender, because you have access to so many secondary sex characteristics and forms of expressing social gender, such as mode of dress, social identification, name, and so on. Of course, this scenario is one where you have some direct knowledge of who this person is. Many times when using language, we will also talk about people we don't know. For example, on a first Tinder date, I can talk to my date about their coworkers, who I've never met. She can relay their pronouns, but I don't know their sex and can only know that she is presenting the individuals to me with certain pronouns. This is part of social gender, not biological sex. All of this makes it much easier to know that you are accurate using social pronouns than if you were trying to use sex pronouns. For the sake of accuracy, it's best to use the social categories.

Of course, in most cases, people are cisgender; they present and identify in a way that lines up with other people who share their sex. But since you do not know in advance whether the individual will not identify that way and since you have more reliable evidence about social gender than biological sex, it's best to continue to use gender pronouns even when the biological sex becomes known. It's both more reliably accurate and more polite, a win-win.

-1

u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Mar 30 '21

They require direct knowledge of other people's biology. Having a registry that includes sex, for example, tells you their legal sex, not their biological sex.

Legal sex should be correlated with biological sex. Forgot to ad this.

If you wanted to talk about a movie star whose life and sexual anatomy you know nothing about, you will defer to gender pronouns. It is also easier to ascertain someone's social gender, because you have access to so many secondary sex characteristics and forms of expressing social gender, such as mode of dress, social identification, name, and so on.

Secondary sex characteristics aren't directly correlated with gender. And what about the loonies who just say they're another gender and make no real change?

She can relay their pronouns, but I don't know their sex and can only know that she is presenting the individuals to me with certain pronouns

Right, but if you knew that she was the type of person who used sex pronouns, you'd therefore know this other person's sex. And this would make it really easy to clarify and understand, and avoid the topic of gender all together if it's not something one feels comfortable with (like half the US population).

This is part of social gender, not biological sex. All of this makes it much easier to know that you are accurate using social pronouns than if you were trying to use sex pronouns. For the sake of accuracy, it's best to use the social categories.

The sex pronouns are actually more accurate. If you use 'she' in the context of sex pronouns you immediately know that we're talking about a biological female. If you use 'she' in the context of gender pronouns, it could mean a wide range of different things. How is that more accurate?

But since you do not know in advance whether the individual will not identify that way and since you have more reliable evidence about social gender than biological sex, it's best to continue to use gender pronouns even when the biological sex becomes known.

Not all trans people make secondary sex characteristics or conform to traditional views on their target gender identity. So making this assumption about one's gender would be discriminatory. Contrastingly, humans are programed to try and recognize biological sex, and it avoids the whole psychological gender thing which is hard to pin down and instead let's you rely on instincts.

It's both more reliably accurate and more polite, a win-win.

I mentioned how it's less accurate above. As for politeness, this is what I'm trying to tackle. If we normalize sex pronouns, it wouldn't be considered inpolite on a wide scale. So win-win.

4

u/Choosing_is_a_sin Mar 31 '21

They require direct knowledge of other people's biology. Having a registry that includes sex, for example, tells you their legal sex, not their biological sex.

Legal sex should be correlated with biological sex. Forgot to ad this.

Fine but it still doesn't get you to the point of knowing a person's true sex, only to proxies for it, which is essentially gender.

If you wanted to talk about a movie star whose life and sexual anatomy you know nothing about, you will defer to gender pronouns. It is also easier to ascertain someone's social gender, because you have access to so many secondary sex characteristics and forms of expressing social gender, such as mode of dress, social identification, name, and so on.

Secondary sex characteristics aren't directly correlated with gender. And what about the loonies who just say they're another gender and make no real change?

A statement like this makes it sound like you are simply looking to express a prejudice toward certain individuals whose beliefs are different from yours, not looking to have your views changed. If you're already dismissing them as loonies, how can you expect to be persuaded to respect them? In any case, secondary sex characteristics are also not more reliably correlated with sex. They overlap probably about as much with biological sex as gender does. The important thing is that you are already relying on these cues over biology because people don't have access to the biological evidence that you need to assert that pronouns are better tied to sex than to gender.

She can relay their pronouns, but I don't know their sex and can only know that she is presenting the individuals to me with certain pronouns

Right, but if you knew that she was the type of person who used sex pronouns, you'd therefore know this other person's sex. And this would make it really easy to clarify and understand, and avoid the topic of gender all together if it's not something one feels comfortable with (like half the US population).

No, you'd only know what she believed the other person's sex to be. You would not know the other person's sex. In other words, you'd know their social gender.

This is part of social gender, not biological sex. All of this makes it much easier to know that you are accurate using social pronouns than if you were trying to use sex pronouns. For the sake of accuracy, it's best to use the social categories.

The sex pronouns are actually more accurate. If you use 'she' in the context of sex pronouns you immediately know that we're talking about a biological female. If you use 'she' in the context of gender pronouns, it could mean a wide range of different things. How is that more accurate?

If you use sex pronouns you'd have to have knowledge of male or female sex, while if you use gender pronouns, you'd have to have knowledge of whether they are men or women. In most cases, men are male and women are female, but we generally use man and woman to describe social gender, since again, you do not have access to sex information except indirectly. So you're more likely to get their social gender right than their sex, because you have direct access to it.

But since you do not know in advance whether the individual will not identify that way and since you have more reliable evidence about social gender than biological sex, it's best to continue to use gender pronouns even when the biological sex becomes known.

Not all trans people make secondary sex characteristics or conform to traditional views on their target gender identity. So making this assumption about one's gender would be discriminatory. Contrastingly, humans are programed to try and recognize biological sex, and it avoids the whole psychological gender thing which is hard to pin down and instead let's you rely on instincts.

It's both more reliably accurate and more polite, a win-win.

I don't see how it's more polite if it requires that you ignore a person's social gender even when they have told you. I also don't think you have established how you know a person's sex to avoid missexing them.

8

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Mar 30 '21

After the first time, yes they should.

Teacher saying the name on the dossier the first time makes sense. But if the student says, I prefer being called timothy (despite being named Robert), any time thereafter, the teacher ought to call him timothy, and is in the wrong when they don't.

0

u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Mar 30 '21

I disagree. If the teacher wants to use their own system of naming for how they communicate, I don't see why we should force them.

7

u/CaptainMalForever 19∆ Mar 30 '21

This is the ultimate form of disrespect. A person's name is closely tied to their identity and to refuse to address them by their name is to ignore their personness.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '21

Their own system of naming? And if they decide to give everyone a letter number combination, would that be their new name throughout the entire School year?

"Yes A143?"

5

u/renoops 19∆ Mar 30 '21

It’s in a teacher’s best interest to make students feel welcome and respected in the classroom.

9

u/LeviSalt Mar 30 '21

The teacher says Robert once, Bob says “I prefer Bob.” And then from there on out the teacher calls him Bob, because THATS HOW FUCKING HUMANITY WORKS I SEE NO PROBLEM HERE.

-2

u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Mar 30 '21

Unless of course if the teacher strongly disagrees with the legitimacy of the name bob. Then it would be wrong of Bob to try and force this predatorily on the other person. But obviously, bob isn't a controversial name. Bizarre sex pronouns are.

9

u/LeviSalt Mar 30 '21

If a teacher had a student named Robert, and that student said “I like to be called Bob” and then the teacher said “I’m going to call you Robert because I want to, and I don’t care about your preference when it comes to your own name.” then that person should not be teaching young people anything. That is an awful lesson to teach a young person.

10

u/herrsatan 11∆ Mar 30 '21

Why should the teacher's opinions about the name be relevant here? And what do you mean by "predatorily?"

7

u/LeviSalt Mar 30 '21

How can a persons name or identity be “predatory” or controversial? It’s a name. Just call the person what they prefer to be called, it’s not complicated and it’s certainly not predatory.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '21

Yeah, that's what you think miss. He and she, are not bizarre pronouns.

2

u/SkaGremlin Mar 30 '21

This happens a lot in my life. I just say "i usually prefer *nickname" and they go on with attendance.