Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mark Neznansky's avatar

Thank you for the thoughtful and sincere piece.

I've been rather eye-rolly towards such bio bits as ‘she/her,’ partially for its ideological projection, as you've called it, but also for it being part of the phenomenon which unduly promotes language. Language is a codified-protocol used to communicate. A table is called a ‘table’ out of convention. I can call my bicycle ‘a table’ all I want and get upset with other people for refusing to call it so. Even if anyone humours me, nobody would think it was ‘really’ a ‘table’ and would likely call it a ‘bicycle’ when speaking between themselves and particularly when speaking with third parties that were not yet indoctrinated by my peculiar lingo. I side with descriptive rather than prescriptive linguistics.

As far as I'm concerned, language is always a little off, a little wrong; but a shadow of a shadow of the reality which it tries to project from one mind to another. I look at language pragmatically. And for this reason I see language to be the business of the people who employ it. That the employment of the pronoun advertising has been particularly strong on the American —that is, English speaking— internet was a further inducement of my eye-rolling. I grew up speaking Hebrew and Russian, both of which (the former more so) differentiate second-person speech based on sex, which English does not. In other words, when speaking English a person would not know if I take them for a ‘he’ or a ‘she’ or otherwise unless I refer to them by a third person pronoun in their presence, which is not impossible but very unlikely. (I have thought of this much but only writing this now it occurs to me that this is not the case in the twittersphere, where one might cite another and then proceed using a pronoun.)

While ‘self determination’ makes sense in the political sphere, it doesn't make sense in the personal sphere. In the former case it's an accord, indeed a choice and a performance: when a state, that is, its constituency collectively, decides ‘we are a democracy’ or ‘we are a monarchy,’ they then proceed to act according to that consensus. Of course, a population might regard their country to be enlightened and so on while the rest of the world see them differently. Nonetheless, their self determined identity affects their behaviour. Such a self determined personal identity likewise affect how a person behaves, though it would neither be necessarily necessary to advertise it, nor it necessarily follows that other people wound identify the person the same way.

That being said, I've never had much trouble accepting and using people's chosen pronouns (I suppose it has to do with my growing up, I always feel like my ‘yous’ are loaded with gender-identifying information). It's a matter of respect giving, not unlike the usage of a formal second person pronoun (as English formerly had and many languages still do) or, I don't know, addressing a queen with ‘your majesty.’ Is she really a queen? How do I know? Because everyone says so? Because she talks like a queen, walks like a queen?

I think at the heart of this issue there's a conflation of language and reality, which for me is the foundation of magical thinking and much of the most bonkers popular delusions. There's the world and there's language to talk about it. You touched on definitions in your piece. Words have definitions and however varied phenomena are, we can use more or less of them to convey something meaningful and useful to another. One table might be very different from another table, both are still ‘tables.’ A penguin is a bird — ‘but.’ A tomato is a fruit ‘technically,’ or, as Wikipedia puts it, ‘is a plant whose fruit is an edible berry that is eaten as a vegetable.’ People would get upset by you if you threw any tomatoes into a fruit punch. A tomato is a fruit among a minor and extremist portion of the university's biology department, as well as for a few prigs we would not invite to our house party ever again, but a vegetable everywhere else.

Linguists have stood on their soap boxes with their convictions for centuries, having some success at converting the masses but mostly they follow the vulgar winds, if not in their lifetime then over their generations. Anyway, I'd say there's a difference between ‘X is a woman’, ‘X is a she’ and ‘we refer (only) to women as “she”’. The truth status of the first is a matter of the definition of ‘women’ and of X's match to the definition. The last is a linguistic rule we might accept or not, and the validity of the second statement depends on the other two.

The tension and contention around this issue rises, I think, 1. from this conflation of language and reality, 2. the inertia of language (people do not accept that one word now means something else just because somebody said so) and 3. the fact that most people, unlike yourself, treat it as if it was a single dimensional issue and not as if they are trying to solve issues of sport, prisons, communication, bathroom, law, language &c all at the same breathe.

I haven't experienced the kind of quandary that you have had, but I experienced something similar. I admit it must sound silly, being indeed ‘lower stakes’ though it, too, has been a source of frustration and by now a bit of despair. I'm rather ashamed to bring it up in this context, but hoping it would help something in this discussion, here it is. I've been unemployed for a year now. I'm looking for a job as a data scientist, which I've done before. Also the last two times that I was looking, it took a long while. There are various reasons why it had taken so long in the past and currently again, but I can't help feeling that part of it is my difficulty in saying ‘I am X.’ It's perhaps the common impostor syndrome, which I sense other people on average are able to wing better than me. Just yesterday I had a call with a recruiter who asked me about my ‘expertise.’ Oh god. It's exactly the kind of thing that I feel I or anybody should not be able (allowed?) to testify about themselves. ‘What can you do?’ — yes, but whether I think I'm an expert or not might not align with how other people see it. This is why you proffer references when applying to jobs, so other people could testify about you. Perhaps here there's also this language-reality conflation. I try to speak truly always; I always assume people would doubt my words (as I doubt theirs, though probably less than I expect them to doubt me) and therefore motivate my statements and avoid saying what might sound ‘too good to be true.’ I find rather revolting, to put it dramatically, laudatory bios written in the third person. I don't see them as ‘self confident’ but indeed as a bit delusional.

We don't perceive ourselves the way other people do. Every person is perceived differently by different people, but I think it's safe to say that they way they view themselves is particularly different. Depending on how important it is, on what it entails, I'd be more or less uncomfortable being called something that I don't see myself as. That mismatch, of course, again, depends on both what I regard this ’something‘ to be/ mean, and on my perceived adherence to it.

I'm rather too on your expansive camp, but as far as I'm concerned language and words are secondary in importance. Their meaning arises from context, and how we choose them depends on the particular question answered. I'll call John ‘tall’ when he stands next to short people and ‘short’ when he stand by tall people. When discussing the fascinating life of plants, tomatoes and cucumbers(!) are fruits because of the role they play in the sexual reproduction of their respective vines, but they are vegetables from the moment I set my eyes on them in the market because I'd use them in savory dishes. Many people conform to the one or the other mode of the gender distribution, but those who do not perhaps should be treated differentially depending on whether they are competing for a boxing championship, are sent to prison or are considered as a partner to make a family with. How often/ when does it matter whether a person is a man or a woman or neither?

Expand full comment
Anonymous Dude's avatar

Bravo! You're the first other person I've seen use the overlapping-curves model, which

1. avoids the essentialism of the right

2. avoids the pure-social-constructionism of the left

3. names, explains, and validates the experiences of people who are closer to the other sex's mean than their own

The identity of 'tomboy' used to subsume the idea of 'masculine woman who nonetheless identifies as female'. Sadly its male inverse, 'sissy', is derogatory.

An older 'woo' book you might nonetheless enjoy is Jean Shinoda Bolen's *Goddesses in Every Woman*, which uses Greek mythology to talk about personality types. The 'Athena' is rational, often identifies with men, and sometimes leans to the right politically.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts