I was looking forward to this piece because your comments on Twitter suggested (I thought) that it would contain a new and compelling argument for using preferred pronouns, but it feels like a bit of an anti climax. It's just the same old "be kind" line that we've heard a million times before. I'd hoped you would address the practical issue of preferred pronouns getting in the way of talking about the actual problem in many situations, ie; the reason *he* is excluded from the team is because *he is male*, which comes across very differently from *she* is excluded from the team because *she is trans* (especially to those not steeped in this issue). This is why pronouns matter in press reports and public discussions, we need to talk about the actual problem. Referring to your trans friends by their preferred pronouns is fine, do whatever you like, but that's a separate issue from accuracy in public discussions and in articles. Often preferred pronouns in the media serve to obscure the facts of a news story or issue and have nothing to do with courtesy. It's obviously up to you what pronouns you use in your own articles but I'd hoped you'd defend the choice with something more substantial than "I'm a nice, courteous guy, not like all you deranged terfs". Not your actual words obviously but it does come across as a bit insulting the idea that we're just being mean for the sake of it, rather than trying to shine a light on a real, practical problem. I do appreciate your work overall, which is I guess why I feel disappointed.
I find your reflection here compelling, as it highlights that there may be good reasons to apply different rules of thumb in different contexts. Rigidly avoiding preferred pronouns in writing and reporting may be compatible with using them interpersonally to maintain dignity and respect, as in each context there are different goals.
I think context is key. I don't like any set of rules from either side that dictates 100% one way or another. I make my choices based on each individual case and what needs to be communicated or accomplished.
The problem with even the private use of preferred pronouns is that you are almost always around women or girls. It is just as offensive to insist that it is "kind" to use female pronouns for a man as it is to insist that it would be "kind" for Black people to simply accept Rachel Dolezal as Black (i.e., in other words, this demand for "kindness" would be tone-deaf and racist). Since the dawn of time and across cultures, women and girls have been oppressed on the basis of SEX (not because they decided to wear pink the day they were born). Within this global, historical, and current context of female-oppression on the basis of sex, when we use female pronouns for a member of the male sex, we exert social pressure upon the oppressed sex to comply, when their resources are already limited and when they are likely to experience far worse punishment than any man who speaks his mind. It is actually quite *unkind* to do this to women and girls, to make them feel as though the language they use for themselves and other members of the female sex can be snatched away and made meaningless, inverted, and turned inside out whenever a man wants these words for himself. Be kind to women and girls in both public and private life by holding good boundaries and learning to say no, without apology.
The kindness argument is wholly uncompelling and you present a good rebuttal, pointing out that the “be kind” crowd is very selective in who they deem deserving of kindness. No one should ever feel obligated to use preferred pronouns, particularly since they run contrary to fact. But people do feel obligated, which is evidence that preferred pronouns are a top-down imposition on the public and not an organic development reflecting a broad cultural consensus. Gender ideology is fundamentally a project of denying our sexed reality, which is why its stock in trade has to be indoctrination and coercion rather than facts and rational argument.
I am ordering my priorities, saying that being kind to people who request certain pronouns yields a greater benefit than it supposedly harms anyone else. That said, I do not agree that preferred pronoun use causes substantial harm elsewhere, with perhaps some edge-case exceptions that are frequently blown out of proportion.
Sorry I can't tell if this is a reply to me or someone else (Substack threads a bit confusing) but I just wanted to ask if you think the confusion and distortion of facts in press articles that can result from using preferred pronouns counts as harm. It seems to me to be very prevalent, far beyond the odd edge case. Take, for example the many articles about males competing in the female category which use she/her throughout in a discussion framed as a type of woman (a trans woman) being excluded from the women's category. The choice to use preferred pronouns in an article greatly contributes to this framing - by not making it clear he's male it obscures the nature of any complaint about his inclusion from female competitors (which is about sex, nothing to do with his identity). It also sets the male athlete up as the victim in the situation, and the female athletes as the villain mean girls if they have complained. Do such distortions count as harm as far as you're concerned? And if it's kind, I'd have to ask who is it kind to and at whose expense? When preferred pronoun use is effectively enforced through editorial policies of publications, and there is immense social and professional pressure on journalists and others in the public discussion to use preferred pronouns doesn't it make it nearly impossible to talk clearly about the actual problem at hand (in this case, a male in the female category)? To me, this is clearly harmful to the female athletes directly and to anyone else who wants to talk about the problem clearly and honestly. But you seem to be arguing that distortions of the facts of a story are not harmful, or that the harm is so insignificant that it just doesn't matter. I just can't understand why a male athlete whose choices (to compete against females) are questionable at best would be deserving of kindness and courtesy while female athletes who are having their rights (to a female-only category) removed would not be. If you think the distortions of facts are not harmful, and it is legitimate to extend kindness to one side at the expense of the other then I'd like to hear you defend that specifically. Or if I have misunderstood you, please explain.
This response shows that you are not listening to the many women who are telling you, over and over, that this "kindness" toward people who want us all to go along with affirming they are something they are not, which you say yields "greater benefit" than the SUPPOSED harms to anyone else, is not as you think. Listen to yourself, man! (Emphasis on MAN.) Supposed harms? No, dude, the harms are very real. We're all supposed to engage in code-switching, from one context to another, from one person to another, depending upon who else might happen to be in earshot? What about written communication, involving more than you and the person you think is worthy of pronounery? Isn't is much easier to give up the fantasies, and speak honestly and openly?
Ben, Do you not find the comparison of transgenderism to transracialism (the Rachel Dolezal kind) to be compelling at all? Do you understand that women and girls around the globe have had atrocities enacted upon them by human males at such an unimaginable scale over millennia (since the dawn of time) that it dwarfs the transatlantic slave trade and America's racist history? That it continues to happen across the globe right now? Why do we all know that it is offensive to hand over Black identity and language to whites, but we somehow fail to see how offensive it is to hand over women's language and female identity to males? Is it really so difficult?
Respectfully, you're making an all-too-common, tragic mistake. You're framing "kindness" from the solipsistic, narcissistic viewpoint of the trans person—a POV from which the trans person is the only actual person with actual personhood, and everybody else is just scenery or NPCs who don't count.
Please, ask yourself whether you're being "kind" to everybody ELSE—especially children and English learners (whose command of fundamental boundaries WILL be compromised by the perpetual lack of clarity that's the main goal of these word games)...and/or Women themselves, especially those who've personally been traumatized by men in Their private intimate spaces and lives who were first and foremost emboldened by being "she/her"d by EVERYBODY in the media.
I think you'll find that there's a massive UNkindness that dominates here... once you snap back out of viewing everything through the eyes of exploitative narcissistic predators.
Please, also, ask yourself whether your "kindness" even counts as kindness at all, even to that one person!
Because remember, these are THIRD PERSON pronouns. Do you make a regular habit of using third-person pronouns for somebody you're directly interacting with? I'm guessing no... so... these pronoun choices don't even get the chance to have the superficial kindness you're positing here. But they definitely have ALL the unkindness for the most vulnerable persons around us.
.
Finally.
Will you do the same thing for somebody whose preferred pronouns are fae/faer/faen, xi/zur/var, or ✨/💫/⚡️?
I feel safe assuming that's a hard no (where I would definitely want you to tell me if I'm wrong •________•)
but if those neopronouns are a hard no, then why isn't it the same hard no for opposite-sex pronouns—which are JUST AS RIDICULOUS, and far MORE harmful on the societal level?
Thanks for responding. I still have the impression that you're deliberately avoiding the issue of exactly what will happen to formative boundaries (e.g. for children) in a society where everybody with a platform makes the same decision—an issue that the essay doesn't rlly touch—but I guess this is where we pause that discussion for the moment, at a simple recognition that we don't agree.
The question about fae/faer/faen, xi/zur/var or ✨/💫/⚡️ pronouns, however, was entirely serious—and (to me) centrally important.
Would you make the same effort to use those? If not, why not?
Hi. I consider those cases important because they're instrumental in piecing together the full set of priorities behind Mr. Ryan's—or anyone else's—willingness to "she/her" trans-identifying males even in conversations they're not part of.
Obviously, as You say, fantastical neopronouns are rare—but not nonexistent. (If you know enough tweens and teens then you'll know at least a couple who are currently fixated on some exotic hybrid gender identity or other.)
But it doesn't matter how common or rare these things are. That's an irrelevant whataboutism in the first place—and let's not forget, it was only 15 or even 10 short years ago that men who DEMANDED that everybody ELSE call them "she" or "her" were even more vanishingly rare than today's "fae/faer" middle schoolers.
But anws.
They're important because this is a discussion about being kind™, and, frankly, anybody who would put themselves out there as xi/zar or ✨/💫 DESERVES the kindness™ far more than a grown-ass man who insists that he's a "girl" and that the whole world needs to use female language for him.
Deserves it more because the "xi/zar"s and "✨/💫"s of the world are going to be somewhere on a continuum between harmless, fantastical exploration and mental illness. The chance of enabling harm by partaking in THESE kinds of word games is negligible.
A significant fraction of all "trans women", on the other hand, are opportunistic, predatory sex pests. Every submission to their demands has a pernicious effect on the aggregate safety of Women and children and of society as a whole—so, unlike with the "xi/zar"s and "✨/💫"s, there are definitive reasons to be parsimonious with Kindness™ with that group.
Even for the "trans women" whom Mr. Ryan mentions as his personal friends, unfortunately, that's not worth much when it comes to extra trust factor. Male friends, after all, are ••notoriously•• ignorant (if not in active denial) of whether anybody in their friend groups is a rapist, abuser, or sex pest. The VAST majority of men report that they don't know (or aren't personal friends with) any rapists or sex abusers—despite grim statistics universally showing that rape and sex abuse are both distressingly common—so, unfortunately, the only streetwise way to proceed here is to assume that Mr. Ryan WON'T KNOW if one or more of his friends (whether "trans women" or otherwise) are actually sex predators, and therefore to have these discussions with an awareness that that's alws a possibility.
.
I'm also interested in whether Mr. Ryan would extend the same courtesy to trans-identifying females ("trans men")—especially in his articles.
This has major added significance because Mr. Ryan is a member of the mainstream press, which has steadfastly adhered to an appalling double standard these past few years—almost NEVER affording the same Kindness™ to trans identifying females ("trans men" / "trans boys"), but falling all over themselves to "she/her" EVERY man who demands it, even the most obviously insincere opportunists. And even when TIF pronouns are used, many many articles will still sneak in a deadname or other prior-identity info ("Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen").
When it comes to trans people who commit serious violent crimes, the double standard is utterly absolute. Male perps are "she/her"... but female perps are ALSO "she/her". It's almost as though the entire mainstream press has been bought and sold into the same psyop to trick the whole world into thinking Women are the sex with the violence problem.
like... I literally ••DARE•• anybody who reads this comment to find even ONE single mainstream press article about Audrey Hale—the Nashville Covenant School mass shooter, who "identified as male"—that actually uses her preferred "he/him" pronouns, ••or•• that DOESN'T deadname her as "Audrey".
note—that's "or", not "and". I literally dare you to find even one article that "respects" her "gender identity" in EITHER of those two ways.
Meanwhile, the ENTIRE press makes complete horses' asses of themselves in order to BeKind™ to men like Adam Graham—the Scottish double rapist who suddenly, and conveniently, discovered his twue awfentic sewf™ as a "girl" named "Isla Bryson" in 2023 AFTER being convicted of the two rapes, in order to try and scam his way into a Women's prison... which very nearly worked, and absolutely WOULD have worked if the UK government hadn't stepped in with the Sec. 35 order to shoot down the Scottish gender law.
Articles about this idiot ALWAYS "she/her" him, and NEVER call him Adam Graham. It's just fucking embarrassing.
It's also the one thing I simply don't understand at all in this whole sordid mess—because this happens even in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph (UK), the two mainstream newspapers that have been doing yeoman's work in relentlessly publishing news stories on the violent crimes committed by men who identify as "trans women". (While of course never ever doing this for "trans man" criminals.) WHY?
Just to be clear Benjamin, by liking this you appear to agree that people who refuse to use incorrect pronouns for troubled young people are "wingnuts" and not "sane." I appreciate your journalism but am not impressed by your notion of "kindness."
But pronoun police are wingnuts and insane. I can’t speak for him, but I believe Mr. Ryan can and does make that distinction. What the insane wingnut pronoun police peddle is not “kindness”, but orthodoxy. No thanks.
What you call "orthodoxy" is known in the real world as "definitions." It's not a matter of "kindness." Male and Female are biological categories with real definitions. There are many areas in policy and law that require clarity regarding sex differences. It's impossible to write law without clarity on what the fucking words mean! Insult us a "wingnuts and insane" if you wish, but that only reveals your own logical mushiness.
Actually, “orthodoxy” is equal parts “definitions” and “intolerance of differences of opinion”.
Sure, the biology is clear and I’m on board with that. But pronouns have the square root of sweet jack all to do with “policy” or “law”.
So absolutely, make laws etc using biological sex definitions. But F the hell off if someone chooses to use pronouns as they see fit. Not complicated for people who are not insane wingnuts. Good luck.
Let's take schools. We now have many that expect all teachers and staff to go along with the "preferred pronouns" of a student, which means all the other students need to play along as well. Teachers and staff are even expected to LIE to the parents of the child who has announced his/her new name and pronouns. This is POLICY. There's wingnuttery involved, yeah, but it isn't coming from those of us who think the policy is batshit crazy. The biological sex of a student isn't a matter of opinion, over which there can be differences, unless you want to live in fantasy land.
Do you ever read? And if so, do you ever comprehend anything you read?
My initial comment here was to say that I want to be left alone (by the insane far right) if I CHOOSE to use someone’s preferred pronouns, but that I would not accept any MANDATE to do so (by the insane far left).
Just slow down for half a sec, and engage your cerebral cortex instead of just going with your brain stem reflexes FFS. I’d have more meaningful interaction with an MP3 file.
the way i read this sentence is that you think most agree that using opposite pronouns is a good idea. have you seen any polling on this? we know 75% of everyone oppose allowing men in womens spaces and sterilizing kids. and increasingly people are less and less in favor of any of the fraud based offerings of the gender industry.
That was just a general statement. Applies to any issue. Extremists on either side are insane, when it comes to anything. I consider those who dictate to others that ‘thou shall always use preferred pronouns’ to be insane. I consider those who dictate to others that ‘thou shall never use preferred pronouns’ to be similarly insane.
I have no idea if most agree with that, or not. I’m gonna do me, and would prefer if others simply leave me the F alone.
The pronouns are separate from the larger gender medicine fiasco and debate. I’m firmly on the side of reality rather than identity on that one.
However, as I mentioned above, if “Patrick” wants to be called “Patricia” instead, I would generally oblige out of courtesy. OTOH, I’m not going to be told to do so.
in general i agree with you. i think of myself as moderate as well. however, when it comes to policies based on gender beliefs, there is no middle ground. either men are allowed in womens spaces or they arent. no middle. either kids are affirmed into the harmful and severe intervention of affirming opposite gender ID or they aren't.
another commenter noted that ones personal pronoun use is a different issue than when the government and media use wrong sex pronouns. the misdirection is intentional and progressives fall for it everytime. activists claim "why are you stopping me from making tea in my own home?". but what they really mean is "im a white male and i want to rob women of their safety and i dont gaf who this harms and im going to use this straw man to lie my ass off becuase thats just what white men do and everyone knows white men have that right and im going to keep lying about this until gov accepts my bogus and homophobic claim that the hobby of trans ID is like immutable traits".
so details matter. and yes, we are all being lied to.
I think we actually largely agree. As I said, if “Patrick” prefers to be called “Patricia”, I would generally oblige. But I would not allow “Patricia” into a female change room, or onto a female sports team. (That’s also not cut and dried. If Patricia has had bottom surgery, I would factor that in….but that’s getting into the weeds a bit).
im fine if patrica who had bottom surgery uses the mens. i doubt anyone would care. if they do have an issue thats the acceptance we should be working toward. but few have had the bottom surgery. and the ones that have report terrible misery. thats another public messaging that should be done. its a scam.
Wingnuts are the ones who tell Black people they are bigoted and "unkind" when they fail to simply accept that Rachel Dolezal is also Black. Same goes for wingnuts who tell women and girls that it would only be "kind" of them to use the words they use for themselves for a member of the sex that currently, historically, cross-culturally, and globally has been their oppressor, enacting atrocities upon them since the dawn of time merely because human females are physically weaker and burdened by reproduction.
Yes, there are wingnuts on that end of the horseshoe as you described. Just as there are wingnuts on the other end of the horseshoe. Same wingnut psyche, different flavor.
They are also wingnuts on the other end who lose their sh1t about people who do. We just need wingnuts on both ends to mind their own sh1t, and no one else’s.
It’s just as stupid to insist on the pronouns OTHER PEOPLE use, as it is on the pronouns other people NOT USE.
You write "These determined factions—they are, simply put, the “woke left” on one side and the “woke right” on the other—are signature examples of the horseshoe theory of political polarities."
This is way, way off base. I, along with many others, are on the LEFT (not "woke"), and as such, are materialists. One can hardly be more materialist than to recognize that sex is binary. You seem to view those who recognize reality as "woke right," when we are nothing of the sort. Adhering to "preferred pronouns" is to adhere to an illusion, which can only serve to confuse all those reading your reportage and analysis. We need clarity, not role-playing. It's not kind to girls and women to pretend that males are any sort of woman (hence our objection to "cis" or "transwoman," as if there is, in reality, any kind of male that is female. Going along with "preferred pronouns" wrecks the English language, to no ones benefit. Is there any other category in which we accept an illusion in reportage, in legal cases, in education? Then why should we adopt this foolishness?
Radical feminists aren't the only people who use sex-based pronouns. I use sex-based pronouns because I think gender medicine is fraudulent and I don't want to abet the fraud. I'm curious to hear you engage with that position.
I'm fairly sure I covered this territory already in my essay, but I used more muted language to describe my position on what it means to be transgender and to take hormones and undergo surgeries accordingly.
You frame your adversaries' position as "ideological purity over kindness." Not generous or neutral, but I'll work with it.
When people encourage you to use sex-based pronouns, they're not demanding you change or purify your "ideology." Many believe you already agree with them on the ideology. As you say in this essay, "I know for a fact that sex is binary." Now you've acknowledged writing about something akin to fraud, just in "more muted language."
That's why you can't get critics off your back. It's not because they live on the far end of a horseshoe. It's because they see in you a kindred spirit who is refusing to join them in the fight of a lifetime on grounds of etiquette.
Your kindness argument is not persuasive. Who knows what kind of pronoun practices leave trans-identified people better off? Some have argued that trans identity is like addiction. Testosterone (steroids) is literally an addictive drug. Enabling addiction is not kind.
Up until now I've held my tongue about your pronoun practices. But I'm tired of watching this show. People write very thoughtful, insightful responses to you and you just call them "angry rad fems" and cherry pick the weakest to rail against.
In late 2023 I posted a note on Substack using preferred pronouns. One or two people attacked me for it. My first reflex was anger. Then I reflected on why I felt so strongly and realized it was shame, because they were right. So I switched to using sex-based pronouns.
I didn't say anything about "prescribing such drugs", I referenced castrating, sterilizing, mutilating unnecessary elective surgeries that kill @ risk youth (sepsis, suicides).
I, too, will use someone's preferred pronoun as a courtesy and not to make that person's life even more difficult. And, frankly, it would take far more effort to do the opposite when I'm looking at someone presenting a particular gender.
Katherine, by using female language for men you are being discourteous to women and girls. Why do you find it easy to be discourteous to women and girls but impossible to be discourteous to a man?
I'm not being discourteous to women and girls by using female pronouns for a trans person, or being discourteous to men by using male ones. You'd can't just make that assertion. As a woman, I dont become less than because someone used a pronoun to refer to a trans person. I'm not sure why you do.
I agree, although not being a woman I'm certainly interested to hear women's take on this. That said, just as gays marrying doesn't impact straight people's marriages (except by driving comparing and despairing over gay men's gorgeous weddings), my calling a trans man "he" has no impact on my own sex, gender, masculinity, gender identity, manhood, etc.
Benjamin, it has no impact on you as a man because you’re not the oppressed sex! Hello! This is obvious. Women and girls have the right to language that excludes males. We should have language that meaningfully describes our sex, the sex that gestates and births the entire human race. The fact that you think it “polite” to use our language for men is wildddddd
While I'm interested in hearing her perspective backed up to explain what exactly makes it discourteous to the extent one should cause pain to people by avoiding it, I currently can't see how that takes away from my own womanhood.
Katherine, If you can't allow for the sex that gestates and gives birth to the entire human race to have a WORD for itself, you are intellectually stymied by a sexist ideology. You do understand that the human race is sexually dimorphic, and that woman are equally human? Why should women and girls share language for females with males, when men historically, cross-culturally, and currently continue to oppress women on the basis of sex? The context within which women and girls are told to be "polite" to trans-identified men by giving them our language is worldwide oppression of our sex. It seems to be the very comfortable westerners who think they're being sophisticated when they're switching up pronouns for the sexes, perhaps because they temporarily forget about all of the less privileged women and girls around the world who experience atrocities every day merely because they are female.
Oh my, it’s telling that the assumption would be that I feel “less than” a man rather than “more than.” Do you assume Black people feel “less than” Rachel Dolezal when people refer to Rachel Dolezal as Black? It’s telling that you’d assume women would roll right over when men use our words for themselves. We’re supposed to feel flattered, is that it? LMAO
> "... when I'm looking at someone presenting a particular gender. "
Exactly. The pronouns are generally used on the basis of someone looking like a typical member of the female or male sex categories. If someone is describing a scene and someone else walks through it who might be walking a dog and who looked like a typical woman we would say, "she was walking a dog".
Kinda think that some transwomen cross the Rubicon in claiming that they've changed sex, others don't. Don't think the former are entitled to cross-sex pronouns, the latter -- like Buck Angel -- maybe. Kind of a significant difference there.
Though, in a note from our sponsor, one might reasonably argue that Buck is now, in all probability, neither male nor female. "He" is -- like most of the intersex and all the prepubescent -- simply sexless. If that's the case then would you insist on "it"? ....
The devils are in the details. The issue is what it takes to qualify as male or female. And what rights and opportunities then follow from being either.
Standard biological definitions -- which you don't seem much willing to consider; not very scientific of you -- say that one must have, to a first approximation, ovaries to qualify as a female, and testicles to qualify as a male. Though one might say that those with only one of either -- for examples, Kathleen Stock and you respectively -- are then half the females or males they used to be, so to speak ....
But the problem is that many others insist on different, and quite unscientific, criteria to qualify as male or female, and then -- because they meet those rather bogus requirements -- insist on rights and privileges that normally attend the biological definitions. For example Roxanne Tickle and Renee Richards, both of whom once had testicles, replaced them with neovaginas, and now claim access to rights and privileges that had been granted only to those with ovaries:
"... when Renee Richards, a transgender women’s tennis player, was forced to take a chromosomal test to qualify for the 1976 U.S. Open, she challenged the policy as discriminatory. The New York State Supreme Court agreed, with the judge declaring that there is “overwhelming medical evidence that (Richards) is now female.”
How can you possibly gainsay the New York Supreme Court? 🙄 They might just as well have stipulated that 2+2=5 ...
There's a difference between substance and appearance, between reality and illusion. Some actor puts on a doctor's uniform and drapes a stethoscope around his neck then "he" is giving the APPEARANCE of being a doctor. But that actor hasn't the training and education to qualify as a doctor.
Same thing with Buck -- and Bruce Jenner. They give the APPEARANCE of being a male and a female, respectively. But, to a first approximation, one MUST have ovaries to qualify as a female, or MUST have testicles to qualify as male.
And Buck apparently still has "his" ovaries so nominally a female. And Jenner no longer has "her" testicles, and hasn't replaced them with ovaries -- can't possibly be a female; in fact "she" is a sexless eunuch.
You might look at the definition for "identify as ...":
" 'identify as' phrasal verb; identify as something;
to recognize or decide that you belong to a particular category;
You can't "identify as a teenager" unless you're really 13 to 19. Same thing with male and female. You can't reasonably say you're a member of a category unless you meet the membership requirements. Someone can't reasonably "identify as" a male or female unless they actually have testicles or ovaries, respectively.
Which "person's life"? The very rare, genuine cases (in which case, ditto) or the jump on the bandwagon, "some other problem" people? In which case, no I wouldn't give it credence.
You assert that it is kind to use preferred pronouns thereby implying that those who don’t, are therefore unkind. You speak from a position of implied moral superiority which is in itself bigoted. Those of us who don’t use preferred pronouns are not doing it to be unkind, nor are we right wing fanatics. Most of us in the UK are from the left. We are doing it because it’s unkind to women to suggest that anyone can just say some magic words and identify into the myriad of experiences which make up being female. It is an insult to women, it belittles us and reduces us to nothing more than clothes, make up and a few words. Nor is it kind to reinforce delusion, particularly in the young. While I’m not in the business of compelled speech and would not want to force you to change your speech, I would urge you to examine your rather dogmatic and offensive reasons for attacking those of us who disagree with you.
Five years ago, I believed there was no good reason NOT to use preferred pronouns. It seemed like the right thing to do morally and socially. I now realize I was laboring under the illusion that preferred pronouns were merely a polite social fiction that made everyday life easier for trans people. Preferred pronouns are not a polite fiction, but an integral part of a rights discourse (namely, gender ideology) in which men who claim to be women are deemed to be women literally, and therefore entitled to access women’s single-sex spaces. Preferred pronouns do a lot of the linguistic labor in propagating and normalizing this ideology that denies the reality of women as a biological/sex class. In advocating for men who “identify” as women (deem themselves women by proclamation) this ideology redefines women as a “gender” class completely divorced from female embodiment. The redefinition is now part and parcel of laws and policies, which almost always work to the disadvantage and detriment of women and girls. Language isn’t a passive tool people use to communicate their thoughts; it’s a powerful medium that actively shapes people’s thoughts. I didn’t sign up for policies that work against the interests of women, and calling men “women” lends support to those policies.
I get your position but I think you haven't discussed how circumstances may influence the conclusion. One thing is to use preferred pronuns in an ordinary setting, but what if you were to write an article about a convincted offender? I hope you too would acknowledge that "she raped her with her penis" is nonsense. Even the headline "woman convicted" is a lie that should be avoided. Finally, in court proceedings it would amount to conceding way too much, as in the currently ongoing case of the nurse against Fife. I hope you'll recognize in such cases avoiding any ambiguity matters more and shifts the weight of the arguments to use sex based pronouns instead
Excellent point. I would hope that Benjamin Ryan (whose work I very much admire) would respond to this. As well as to Annette Pacey and Tenaciously Terfin, a bit farther down.
I'm not used to employ flattery and I expect you don't particularly like it, but I HAVE to say you are a myth of mine since when a long time ago as young physics students (mostly radical leftists, of course) we childishly laughed at humanities because of your "prank" (I also saw a video of you at a recent FSU event joking about the fact that you'd prefer to be remembered for something else, so sorry for focusing on this).
I would have never expected that 30 years later postmodernism would have become WORSE and a serious matter of concern, and that working in an italian IT department, I would have to quote yours and Dawkins's Boston Globe article to defend realism to my HR... Thank you.
Ben does good reportage, which is unfortunately marred by his obstinate insistence on using wrong-sex pronouns. It makes his work more difficult to read or understand, and will discourage reality-based readers from circulating his work to others. The point is to NOT normalize this obfuscatory language. Ben explained his position to his readers, as so many have objected to it. His readers are responding, trying yet again to convince him that his approach is not kind to girls and women, messes with common understanding of the issues at hand, and gives credence to delusion. Would Ben, in a piece of journalism, refer to anorexics as obese, to be "kind"? If not, why not?
The APA, which oversees the DSM and thus the parameters of gender dysphoria, would strongly disagree that there is a neat and tidy parallel between GD and anorexia and that the treatments for each should resemble one another. This analogy gets thrown around a lot, but it is weak.
Please explain why, other than the APA being in thrall to gender ideology. Both situations are a matter of feelings not being in accord with reality. Only in the one, "affirmation," puberty blockers, wrong-sex hormones, and surgeries are considered some bizarre sort of standard of care, while in the other - as should always be the case when the mind and body are not in alignment - we work on the mind. Also of import: we don't expect the rest of the world to go along with an anorexic's self-image issues, and we don't call on the rest of the populace to bend language in opposition to what they see and know to be true. Nor does an individual's anorexia impinge on the rights and privacy of others.
YES! Thank you - I am so grateful for these words. Being kind and respectful -and actively listening and engaging - is truly the only way I see out of this mess. As a woman who has a 19 year old natal daughter with multiple comorbidities caught up in what I see for much of her cohort as ideology and escapism, *and* with several adult trans friends who made their choices with fully developed prefrontal cortexes and are both generally happy and have made peace with their choices, I see the need for nuance. We don't need wars, we need nuance, which currently is in short supply. I continue to be grateful for your words and stance. And kindness.
Very disappointed. While I can understand getting tired of being 'the bad guy' for reporting facts, you undermine your credibility by reasoning kindness is warranted, when kindness itself has been weaponized by those who declare war on reality. I might use a first or last name, but buying into and supporting their (mental health) delusion? Never.
From a UK perspective, much of the pushback against prescribed pronoun use has come from the feminist left - not the right. We are fortunate that both main political parties of left and right have woken up to the controversies and conflicting rights around the trans issue so have largely avoided the political polarisation that the US has experienced. This is an area where reasonable people may disagree, and "prescribed speech" the demand of the trans activists, was rightly criticised, so not something those on the other side of the debate should emulate.
My preference is context dependent. When a friend told me of the suicide of a trans friend of theirs I felt it would be gratuitously cruel to describe her as anything other than "she". On the other hand, Public Bodies ignoring legislation (see NHS Fife et al) that offers protection to women, or rape victims being required to refer to their rapist as "she" (now being rowed back on) or lesbians being forced underground because they've got to admit men (see Australia) then clarity trumps kindness.
(Edit) I suppose it also depends on who you are "being kind" to.
Was it "kind" to Lia Thomas's female competitors to refer to "him" as "her"?
If most of what we are seeing today is social contagion, is it "kind" to validate this affectation? Does this kindness increase the number of people who will resort to medical interventions? Does this kindness apply to minors when the Cass review tells us that social transition is not a benign intervention? If we agree that children shouldn't be socially transitioned before receiving extensive therapy, why should we automatically affirm the 20 year old who is captured by the same ideology that is afflicting so many kids? I prefer to use a person's name if at all possible. I am very reluctant to affirm a trans identity for a young person when there is no credible diagnostic procedure in use.
But I have thought more about this since your last post and the comment discussion, and I think there is space for a different response for kids/youth who are experimenting with different gender identities. To fully use their preferred pronouns is to endorse a set of ideas that may make medical transition more appealing or likely.
I now, with those kids/youth that I encounter who identify in this way, default to just using their preferred name instead of pronouns wherever possible. This maintains dignity and respect, but avoids supporting potentially harmful ideas or contributing to confusion (it is a typical thing to try different names and identities in adolescence).
People like me who work with kids, especially vulnerable kids, and also parents of those kids, carry natural authority in those relationships. And maintaining relationships and open lines of communication is crucial. Sometimes we need to strategically buy into a child/youth’s fiction to maintain trust and relationship.
But we should always be prudent and wise in what we promote and demote, and using a child/youth’s preferred pronouns is not a benign act with no downsides. It is supporting social transition, which can make medical transition more likely. And this is what makes navigating the issue so challenging: there are ethical downsides to both options.
I think that is a decision for parents to make on behalf of their children. But if the family wants me to use certain pronouns, it’s not my place to say no.
Yes it is your place for exactly the reason that Josh mentions. By joining in with a child’s delusion you are complicit in putting that child onto the path of medicalisation and regret. We know that most children grow out of those feelings if not affirmed. It is cowardly of you to go along with something so harmful simply because you don’t want to be seen as unkind.
If a person were to be rigid in never using a child/teen’s preferred name or pronouns, then they will increase the likelihood of a breakdown of trust in relationship. And if you lose relationship, then you lose the ability to influence.
So no, it is not cowardly to use a child’s preferred pronoun. But it’s important to recognize, even while doing so, that you are strategically supporting their delusion for the sake of them feeling supported as a person, to maintain that relationship. And frankly, any dogmatic or rigid adherence to not using pronouns is just being pointlessly unkind.
I agree up to a point, in particular regarding parents and in fact, I do use preferred pronouns in a small number of such cases with young adults,in private. But the author is I think, more concerned with appearing to be kind by lecturing dogmatically on a public forum. That is cowardly and misguided. I’d have more respect for someone who kept quiet about their private use of pronouns and who didn’t appear to be ok with affirming children when this is clearly unhelpful as a general rule. Each case needs to be approached sensitively and not because someone on substack has shamed you into compliance with preferred pronouns.
TT: "Lecturing dogmatically in a public forum" is something you seem intimately familiar with, You also seem quite fond of asserting a lack of sincerity on the part of people with whom you disagree. My perception is that Ben Ryan is actually concerned to be kind, not just appear that way, and you have not given us any reason to believe otherwise. Finally, you seem to like throwing the word "cowardly" around. I always find that odd coming from someone who posts behind a pseudonym, Be that as it may, Mr. Ryan's accomplishments as a reporter suggest bravery, not cowardice.
Tim I love this response, thank you for it. I didn’t have space to formulate a good response until now, and it’s a delight to return to Substack and find someone who has already responded even better than I would have.
I suppose I deserved that. I’m afraid my patience with gender ideology has run dry and so if I’ve misunderstood Mr Ryan’s motives for the piece or his implications regarding people who use sex based pronouns, then I wholeheartedly apologise.
It is possible to use a person's name in lieu of a pronoun. Reinforcing a psychological malady in a child is harmful. The example may seem extreme, but I believe this is substantially similar to agreeing with an anorexic child that they are overweight. The evidence strongly suggests that ROGD is a social phenomenon, not an innate disorder that requires medicalization. If this is true, using wrong-sex pronouns for a child seems morally wrong.
I think “morally wrong” is a strong sentiment here, as there may be circumstances where it is most appropriate to use a preferred pronoun. But it’s about doing so with an awareness of what one is doing, and always holding the goal of providing the tools and skills necessary for dealing with reality, or life on life’s terms, in a functional way that contributes to their wellbeing.
I work with kids/youth whose perceptions of situations is often severely disconnected from reality (i.e. they may perceive intended harm from another’s actions or words that wasn’t there). Part of working effectively with these kids is getting them to trust you and know that you are on their side. So sometimes it means affirming feelings and perceptions that are exaggerated, misguided, or incorrect, for the purpose of allying and then guiding them back more closely to reality. This isn’t morally wrong. It’s actually just good therapeutic work. It could be, in some cases, morally wrong to not use their preferred pronouns, as this could close the door on relationship, and thus the possibility of guiding them away from irreversible harmful medical procedures.
In short: it’s not always clear what the right moral decision is, and this may be different in each circumstance.
Please explain further your use of "preferred pronouns" when working with these kids. If you're working with them one-on-one, how do pronouns even enter the picture? Don't you just use their preferred name? Or are you talking about others (not in the room)?
I work primarily with kids in groups, so it does arise that I speak about kids in front of or to other kids. My default is to use their preferred name, but sometimes that makes for awkward sentences in the cases where a pronoun would be the best fit in a sentence, so I will then use a pronoun. Sometimes it will also involve letting others know that so-and-so likes to be called “preferred name” and go by “preferred pronouns.” Stating this is a way of conferring respect.
The third way it arises is when speaking to parents who are gender-affirming about their kids.
And what of the other children with whom that child interacts, classmates in school for example? Because you think it right to go along with the decision of the parents of this one child, must all the other kids now get their developing understanding of the real world tossed into the blender of gender-woo? And what if the parents of the other children refuse to go along with this deliberate confusion? What if teachers want to hold fast to reality, and model that to their students? Once you've decided to call little Johnny "she," how do you deny Johnny access to the girl's changing room, the girl's sports teams? Because if you want to call him "she," while still conceding that sex categories matter, you are admitting that "she" is not really a "she" at all. Do you not see the immediate impact this has on the much wider world?
I agree, and I do approach it on a case by case basis, with each kid/family. It is so important to include both the kid and the family’s input. A lot of times it just requires holding numerous competing factors in tension.
I was looking forward to this piece because your comments on Twitter suggested (I thought) that it would contain a new and compelling argument for using preferred pronouns, but it feels like a bit of an anti climax. It's just the same old "be kind" line that we've heard a million times before. I'd hoped you would address the practical issue of preferred pronouns getting in the way of talking about the actual problem in many situations, ie; the reason *he* is excluded from the team is because *he is male*, which comes across very differently from *she* is excluded from the team because *she is trans* (especially to those not steeped in this issue). This is why pronouns matter in press reports and public discussions, we need to talk about the actual problem. Referring to your trans friends by their preferred pronouns is fine, do whatever you like, but that's a separate issue from accuracy in public discussions and in articles. Often preferred pronouns in the media serve to obscure the facts of a news story or issue and have nothing to do with courtesy. It's obviously up to you what pronouns you use in your own articles but I'd hoped you'd defend the choice with something more substantial than "I'm a nice, courteous guy, not like all you deranged terfs". Not your actual words obviously but it does come across as a bit insulting the idea that we're just being mean for the sake of it, rather than trying to shine a light on a real, practical problem. I do appreciate your work overall, which is I guess why I feel disappointed.
I find your reflection here compelling, as it highlights that there may be good reasons to apply different rules of thumb in different contexts. Rigidly avoiding preferred pronouns in writing and reporting may be compatible with using them interpersonally to maintain dignity and respect, as in each context there are different goals.
I think context is key. I don't like any set of rules from either side that dictates 100% one way or another. I make my choices based on each individual case and what needs to be communicated or accomplished.
The private/public distinction is very important. I hadn’t thought of that before. Thanks!
The problem with even the private use of preferred pronouns is that you are almost always around women or girls. It is just as offensive to insist that it is "kind" to use female pronouns for a man as it is to insist that it would be "kind" for Black people to simply accept Rachel Dolezal as Black (i.e., in other words, this demand for "kindness" would be tone-deaf and racist). Since the dawn of time and across cultures, women and girls have been oppressed on the basis of SEX (not because they decided to wear pink the day they were born). Within this global, historical, and current context of female-oppression on the basis of sex, when we use female pronouns for a member of the male sex, we exert social pressure upon the oppressed sex to comply, when their resources are already limited and when they are likely to experience far worse punishment than any man who speaks his mind. It is actually quite *unkind* to do this to women and girls, to make them feel as though the language they use for themselves and other members of the female sex can be snatched away and made meaningless, inverted, and turned inside out whenever a man wants these words for himself. Be kind to women and girls in both public and private life by holding good boundaries and learning to say no, without apology.
The kindness argument is wholly uncompelling and you present a good rebuttal, pointing out that the “be kind” crowd is very selective in who they deem deserving of kindness. No one should ever feel obligated to use preferred pronouns, particularly since they run contrary to fact. But people do feel obligated, which is evidence that preferred pronouns are a top-down imposition on the public and not an organic development reflecting a broad cultural consensus. Gender ideology is fundamentally a project of denying our sexed reality, which is why its stock in trade has to be indoctrination and coercion rather than facts and rational argument.
I am ordering my priorities, saying that being kind to people who request certain pronouns yields a greater benefit than it supposedly harms anyone else. That said, I do not agree that preferred pronoun use causes substantial harm elsewhere, with perhaps some edge-case exceptions that are frequently blown out of proportion.
Sorry I can't tell if this is a reply to me or someone else (Substack threads a bit confusing) but I just wanted to ask if you think the confusion and distortion of facts in press articles that can result from using preferred pronouns counts as harm. It seems to me to be very prevalent, far beyond the odd edge case. Take, for example the many articles about males competing in the female category which use she/her throughout in a discussion framed as a type of woman (a trans woman) being excluded from the women's category. The choice to use preferred pronouns in an article greatly contributes to this framing - by not making it clear he's male it obscures the nature of any complaint about his inclusion from female competitors (which is about sex, nothing to do with his identity). It also sets the male athlete up as the victim in the situation, and the female athletes as the villain mean girls if they have complained. Do such distortions count as harm as far as you're concerned? And if it's kind, I'd have to ask who is it kind to and at whose expense? When preferred pronoun use is effectively enforced through editorial policies of publications, and there is immense social and professional pressure on journalists and others in the public discussion to use preferred pronouns doesn't it make it nearly impossible to talk clearly about the actual problem at hand (in this case, a male in the female category)? To me, this is clearly harmful to the female athletes directly and to anyone else who wants to talk about the problem clearly and honestly. But you seem to be arguing that distortions of the facts of a story are not harmful, or that the harm is so insignificant that it just doesn't matter. I just can't understand why a male athlete whose choices (to compete against females) are questionable at best would be deserving of kindness and courtesy while female athletes who are having their rights (to a female-only category) removed would not be. If you think the distortions of facts are not harmful, and it is legitimate to extend kindness to one side at the expense of the other then I'd like to hear you defend that specifically. Or if I have misunderstood you, please explain.
This response shows that you are not listening to the many women who are telling you, over and over, that this "kindness" toward people who want us all to go along with affirming they are something they are not, which you say yields "greater benefit" than the SUPPOSED harms to anyone else, is not as you think. Listen to yourself, man! (Emphasis on MAN.) Supposed harms? No, dude, the harms are very real. We're all supposed to engage in code-switching, from one context to another, from one person to another, depending upon who else might happen to be in earshot? What about written communication, involving more than you and the person you think is worthy of pronounery? Isn't is much easier to give up the fantasies, and speak honestly and openly?
Ben, Do you not find the comparison of transgenderism to transracialism (the Rachel Dolezal kind) to be compelling at all? Do you understand that women and girls around the globe have had atrocities enacted upon them by human males at such an unimaginable scale over millennia (since the dawn of time) that it dwarfs the transatlantic slave trade and America's racist history? That it continues to happen across the globe right now? Why do we all know that it is offensive to hand over Black identity and language to whites, but we somehow fail to see how offensive it is to hand over women's language and female identity to males? Is it really so difficult?
"I'm a nice, courteous guy, not like all you deranged terfs".
oh fark. f'n hilarious. but good points
Respectfully, you're making an all-too-common, tragic mistake. You're framing "kindness" from the solipsistic, narcissistic viewpoint of the trans person—a POV from which the trans person is the only actual person with actual personhood, and everybody else is just scenery or NPCs who don't count.
Please, ask yourself whether you're being "kind" to everybody ELSE—especially children and English learners (whose command of fundamental boundaries WILL be compromised by the perpetual lack of clarity that's the main goal of these word games)...and/or Women themselves, especially those who've personally been traumatized by men in Their private intimate spaces and lives who were first and foremost emboldened by being "she/her"d by EVERYBODY in the media.
I think you'll find that there's a massive UNkindness that dominates here... once you snap back out of viewing everything through the eyes of exploitative narcissistic predators.
Please, also, ask yourself whether your "kindness" even counts as kindness at all, even to that one person!
Because remember, these are THIRD PERSON pronouns. Do you make a regular habit of using third-person pronouns for somebody you're directly interacting with? I'm guessing no... so... these pronoun choices don't even get the chance to have the superficial kindness you're positing here. But they definitely have ALL the unkindness for the most vulnerable persons around us.
.
Finally.
Will you do the same thing for somebody whose preferred pronouns are fae/faer/faen, xi/zur/var, or ✨/💫/⚡️?
I feel safe assuming that's a hard no (where I would definitely want you to tell me if I'm wrong •________•)
but if those neopronouns are a hard no, then why isn't it the same hard no for opposite-sex pronouns—which are JUST AS RIDICULOUS, and far MORE harmful on the societal level?
Obviously, I disagree, and detailed why in the essay I wrote.
Thanks for responding. I still have the impression that you're deliberately avoiding the issue of exactly what will happen to formative boundaries (e.g. for children) in a society where everybody with a platform makes the same decision—an issue that the essay doesn't rlly touch—but I guess this is where we pause that discussion for the moment, at a simple recognition that we don't agree.
The question about fae/faer/faen, xi/zur/var or ✨/💫/⚡️ pronouns, however, was entirely serious—and (to me) centrally important.
Would you make the same effort to use those? If not, why not?
Hi. I consider those cases important because they're instrumental in piecing together the full set of priorities behind Mr. Ryan's—or anyone else's—willingness to "she/her" trans-identifying males even in conversations they're not part of.
Obviously, as You say, fantastical neopronouns are rare—but not nonexistent. (If you know enough tweens and teens then you'll know at least a couple who are currently fixated on some exotic hybrid gender identity or other.)
But it doesn't matter how common or rare these things are. That's an irrelevant whataboutism in the first place—and let's not forget, it was only 15 or even 10 short years ago that men who DEMANDED that everybody ELSE call them "she" or "her" were even more vanishingly rare than today's "fae/faer" middle schoolers.
But anws.
They're important because this is a discussion about being kind™, and, frankly, anybody who would put themselves out there as xi/zar or ✨/💫 DESERVES the kindness™ far more than a grown-ass man who insists that he's a "girl" and that the whole world needs to use female language for him.
Deserves it more because the "xi/zar"s and "✨/💫"s of the world are going to be somewhere on a continuum between harmless, fantastical exploration and mental illness. The chance of enabling harm by partaking in THESE kinds of word games is negligible.
A significant fraction of all "trans women", on the other hand, are opportunistic, predatory sex pests. Every submission to their demands has a pernicious effect on the aggregate safety of Women and children and of society as a whole—so, unlike with the "xi/zar"s and "✨/💫"s, there are definitive reasons to be parsimonious with Kindness™ with that group.
Even for the "trans women" whom Mr. Ryan mentions as his personal friends, unfortunately, that's not worth much when it comes to extra trust factor. Male friends, after all, are ••notoriously•• ignorant (if not in active denial) of whether anybody in their friend groups is a rapist, abuser, or sex pest. The VAST majority of men report that they don't know (or aren't personal friends with) any rapists or sex abusers—despite grim statistics universally showing that rape and sex abuse are both distressingly common—so, unfortunately, the only streetwise way to proceed here is to assume that Mr. Ryan WON'T KNOW if one or more of his friends (whether "trans women" or otherwise) are actually sex predators, and therefore to have these discussions with an awareness that that's alws a possibility.
.
I'm also interested in whether Mr. Ryan would extend the same courtesy to trans-identifying females ("trans men")—especially in his articles.
This has major added significance because Mr. Ryan is a member of the mainstream press, which has steadfastly adhered to an appalling double standard these past few years—almost NEVER affording the same Kindness™ to trans identifying females ("trans men" / "trans boys"), but falling all over themselves to "she/her" EVERY man who demands it, even the most obviously insincere opportunists. And even when TIF pronouns are used, many many articles will still sneak in a deadname or other prior-identity info ("Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen").
When it comes to trans people who commit serious violent crimes, the double standard is utterly absolute. Male perps are "she/her"... but female perps are ALSO "she/her". It's almost as though the entire mainstream press has been bought and sold into the same psyop to trick the whole world into thinking Women are the sex with the violence problem.
like... I literally ••DARE•• anybody who reads this comment to find even ONE single mainstream press article about Audrey Hale—the Nashville Covenant School mass shooter, who "identified as male"—that actually uses her preferred "he/him" pronouns, ••or•• that DOESN'T deadname her as "Audrey".
note—that's "or", not "and". I literally dare you to find even one article that "respects" her "gender identity" in EITHER of those two ways.
Meanwhile, the ENTIRE press makes complete horses' asses of themselves in order to BeKind™ to men like Adam Graham—the Scottish double rapist who suddenly, and conveniently, discovered his twue awfentic sewf™ as a "girl" named "Isla Bryson" in 2023 AFTER being convicted of the two rapes, in order to try and scam his way into a Women's prison... which very nearly worked, and absolutely WOULD have worked if the UK government hadn't stepped in with the Sec. 35 order to shoot down the Scottish gender law.
Articles about this idiot ALWAYS "she/her" him, and NEVER call him Adam Graham. It's just fucking embarrassing.
It's also the one thing I simply don't understand at all in this whole sordid mess—because this happens even in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph (UK), the two mainstream newspapers that have been doing yeoman's work in relentlessly publishing news stories on the violent crimes committed by men who identify as "trans women". (While of course never ever doing this for "trans man" criminals.) WHY?
Yours is a principled and logical position. Extend people the courtesy, at your choosing. But don’t be mandated to do it.
Ignore the wingnuts at both ends of the horseshoe. Stick with the majority in the same middle.
Just to be clear Benjamin, by liking this you appear to agree that people who refuse to use incorrect pronouns for troubled young people are "wingnuts" and not "sane." I appreciate your journalism but am not impressed by your notion of "kindness."
Like I said, it is the courteous thing to do.
But pronoun police are wingnuts and insane. I can’t speak for him, but I believe Mr. Ryan can and does make that distinction. What the insane wingnut pronoun police peddle is not “kindness”, but orthodoxy. No thanks.
And they’re very rude about their non-kindness!
What you call "orthodoxy" is known in the real world as "definitions." It's not a matter of "kindness." Male and Female are biological categories with real definitions. There are many areas in policy and law that require clarity regarding sex differences. It's impossible to write law without clarity on what the fucking words mean! Insult us a "wingnuts and insane" if you wish, but that only reveals your own logical mushiness.
Actually, “orthodoxy” is equal parts “definitions” and “intolerance of differences of opinion”.
Sure, the biology is clear and I’m on board with that. But pronouns have the square root of sweet jack all to do with “policy” or “law”.
So absolutely, make laws etc using biological sex definitions. But F the hell off if someone chooses to use pronouns as they see fit. Not complicated for people who are not insane wingnuts. Good luck.
Let's take schools. We now have many that expect all teachers and staff to go along with the "preferred pronouns" of a student, which means all the other students need to play along as well. Teachers and staff are even expected to LIE to the parents of the child who has announced his/her new name and pronouns. This is POLICY. There's wingnuttery involved, yeah, but it isn't coming from those of us who think the policy is batshit crazy. The biological sex of a student isn't a matter of opinion, over which there can be differences, unless you want to live in fantasy land.
Do you ever read? And if so, do you ever comprehend anything you read?
My initial comment here was to say that I want to be left alone (by the insane far right) if I CHOOSE to use someone’s preferred pronouns, but that I would not accept any MANDATE to do so (by the insane far left).
Just slow down for half a sec, and engage your cerebral cortex instead of just going with your brain stem reflexes FFS. I’d have more meaningful interaction with an MP3 file.
"Stick with the majority in the same middle"
the way i read this sentence is that you think most agree that using opposite pronouns is a good idea. have you seen any polling on this? we know 75% of everyone oppose allowing men in womens spaces and sterilizing kids. and increasingly people are less and less in favor of any of the fraud based offerings of the gender industry.
That was just a general statement. Applies to any issue. Extremists on either side are insane, when it comes to anything. I consider those who dictate to others that ‘thou shall always use preferred pronouns’ to be insane. I consider those who dictate to others that ‘thou shall never use preferred pronouns’ to be similarly insane.
I have no idea if most agree with that, or not. I’m gonna do me, and would prefer if others simply leave me the F alone.
The pronouns are separate from the larger gender medicine fiasco and debate. I’m firmly on the side of reality rather than identity on that one.
However, as I mentioned above, if “Patrick” wants to be called “Patricia” instead, I would generally oblige out of courtesy. OTOH, I’m not going to be told to do so.
in general i agree with you. i think of myself as moderate as well. however, when it comes to policies based on gender beliefs, there is no middle ground. either men are allowed in womens spaces or they arent. no middle. either kids are affirmed into the harmful and severe intervention of affirming opposite gender ID or they aren't.
another commenter noted that ones personal pronoun use is a different issue than when the government and media use wrong sex pronouns. the misdirection is intentional and progressives fall for it everytime. activists claim "why are you stopping me from making tea in my own home?". but what they really mean is "im a white male and i want to rob women of their safety and i dont gaf who this harms and im going to use this straw man to lie my ass off becuase thats just what white men do and everyone knows white men have that right and im going to keep lying about this until gov accepts my bogus and homophobic claim that the hobby of trans ID is like immutable traits".
so details matter. and yes, we are all being lied to.
I think we actually largely agree. As I said, if “Patrick” prefers to be called “Patricia”, I would generally oblige. But I would not allow “Patricia” into a female change room, or onto a female sports team. (That’s also not cut and dried. If Patricia has had bottom surgery, I would factor that in….but that’s getting into the weeds a bit).
im fine if patrica who had bottom surgery uses the mens. i doubt anyone would care. if they do have an issue thats the acceptance we should be working toward. but few have had the bottom surgery. and the ones that have report terrible misery. thats another public messaging that should be done. its a scam.
Wingnuts are the ones who tell Black people they are bigoted and "unkind" when they fail to simply accept that Rachel Dolezal is also Black. Same goes for wingnuts who tell women and girls that it would only be "kind" of them to use the words they use for themselves for a member of the sex that currently, historically, cross-culturally, and globally has been their oppressor, enacting atrocities upon them since the dawn of time merely because human females are physically weaker and burdened by reproduction.
Yes, there are wingnuts on that end of the horseshoe as you described. Just as there are wingnuts on the other end of the horseshoe. Same wingnut psyche, different flavor.
It’s wingnuts who use female pronouns for men.
They are also wingnuts on the other end who lose their sh1t about people who do. We just need wingnuts on both ends to mind their own sh1t, and no one else’s.
It’s just as stupid to insist on the pronouns OTHER PEOPLE use, as it is on the pronouns other people NOT USE.
Puh-lease. Take a breather from all that “oppressed” and “marginalized” business….lest you become a far lefty mouth breather.
You write "These determined factions—they are, simply put, the “woke left” on one side and the “woke right” on the other—are signature examples of the horseshoe theory of political polarities."
This is way, way off base. I, along with many others, are on the LEFT (not "woke"), and as such, are materialists. One can hardly be more materialist than to recognize that sex is binary. You seem to view those who recognize reality as "woke right," when we are nothing of the sort. Adhering to "preferred pronouns" is to adhere to an illusion, which can only serve to confuse all those reading your reportage and analysis. We need clarity, not role-playing. It's not kind to girls and women to pretend that males are any sort of woman (hence our objection to "cis" or "transwoman," as if there is, in reality, any kind of male that is female. Going along with "preferred pronouns" wrecks the English language, to no ones benefit. Is there any other category in which we accept an illusion in reportage, in legal cases, in education? Then why should we adopt this foolishness?
Radical feminists aren't the only people who use sex-based pronouns. I use sex-based pronouns because I think gender medicine is fraudulent and I don't want to abet the fraud. I'm curious to hear you engage with that position.
I'm fairly sure I covered this territory already in my essay, but I used more muted language to describe my position on what it means to be transgender and to take hormones and undergo surgeries accordingly.
You frame your adversaries' position as "ideological purity over kindness." Not generous or neutral, but I'll work with it.
When people encourage you to use sex-based pronouns, they're not demanding you change or purify your "ideology." Many believe you already agree with them on the ideology. As you say in this essay, "I know for a fact that sex is binary." Now you've acknowledged writing about something akin to fraud, just in "more muted language."
That's why you can't get critics off your back. It's not because they live on the far end of a horseshoe. It's because they see in you a kindred spirit who is refusing to join them in the fight of a lifetime on grounds of etiquette.
Your kindness argument is not persuasive. Who knows what kind of pronoun practices leave trans-identified people better off? Some have argued that trans identity is like addiction. Testosterone (steroids) is literally an addictive drug. Enabling addiction is not kind.
Up until now I've held my tongue about your pronoun practices. But I'm tired of watching this show. People write very thoughtful, insightful responses to you and you just call them "angry rad fems" and cherry pick the weakest to rail against.
In late 2023 I posted a note on Substack using preferred pronouns. One or two people attacked me for it. My first reflex was anger. Then I reflected on why I felt so strongly and realized it was shame, because they were right. So I switched to using sex-based pronouns.
Canceled Exulansic, Glinner, Andrew Gold detransitioners, J.K. Rowling & many more inventory @ risk youth who DIE from their "gender affirming care".
I didn't say anything about whether prescribing such drugs to children is a good idea.
I didn't say anything about "prescribing such drugs", I referenced castrating, sterilizing, mutilating unnecessary elective surgeries that kill @ risk youth (sepsis, suicides).
I, too, will use someone's preferred pronoun as a courtesy and not to make that person's life even more difficult. And, frankly, it would take far more effort to do the opposite when I'm looking at someone presenting a particular gender.
Katherine, by using female language for men you are being discourteous to women and girls. Why do you find it easy to be discourteous to women and girls but impossible to be discourteous to a man?
I'm not being discourteous to women and girls by using female pronouns for a trans person, or being discourteous to men by using male ones. You'd can't just make that assertion. As a woman, I dont become less than because someone used a pronoun to refer to a trans person. I'm not sure why you do.
I agree, although not being a woman I'm certainly interested to hear women's take on this. That said, just as gays marrying doesn't impact straight people's marriages (except by driving comparing and despairing over gay men's gorgeous weddings), my calling a trans man "he" has no impact on my own sex, gender, masculinity, gender identity, manhood, etc.
Benjamin, it has no impact on you as a man because you’re not the oppressed sex! Hello! This is obvious. Women and girls have the right to language that excludes males. We should have language that meaningfully describes our sex, the sex that gestates and births the entire human race. The fact that you think it “polite” to use our language for men is wildddddd
While I'm interested in hearing her perspective backed up to explain what exactly makes it discourteous to the extent one should cause pain to people by avoiding it, I currently can't see how that takes away from my own womanhood.
Katherine, If you can't allow for the sex that gestates and gives birth to the entire human race to have a WORD for itself, you are intellectually stymied by a sexist ideology. You do understand that the human race is sexually dimorphic, and that woman are equally human? Why should women and girls share language for females with males, when men historically, cross-culturally, and currently continue to oppress women on the basis of sex? The context within which women and girls are told to be "polite" to trans-identified men by giving them our language is worldwide oppression of our sex. It seems to be the very comfortable westerners who think they're being sophisticated when they're switching up pronouns for the sexes, perhaps because they temporarily forget about all of the less privileged women and girls around the world who experience atrocities every day merely because they are female.
Oh my, it’s telling that the assumption would be that I feel “less than” a man rather than “more than.” Do you assume Black people feel “less than” Rachel Dolezal when people refer to Rachel Dolezal as Black? It’s telling that you’d assume women would roll right over when men use our words for themselves. We’re supposed to feel flattered, is that it? LMAO
> "... when I'm looking at someone presenting a particular gender. "
Exactly. The pronouns are generally used on the basis of someone looking like a typical member of the female or male sex categories. If someone is describing a scene and someone else walks through it who might be walking a dog and who looked like a typical woman we would say, "she was walking a dog".
Genuinely mistaking somebody for the opposite sex is irrelevant, because that's not an act of "kindness".
You're only "being kind" if you make a DELIBERATE CHOICE to call somebody by what YOU KNOW are the WRONG sexed pronouns.
Kinda think that some transwomen cross the Rubicon in claiming that they've changed sex, others don't. Don't think the former are entitled to cross-sex pronouns, the latter -- like Buck Angel -- maybe. Kind of a significant difference there.
Though, in a note from our sponsor, one might reasonably argue that Buck is now, in all probability, neither male nor female. "He" is -- like most of the intersex and all the prepubescent -- simply sexless. If that's the case then would you insist on "it"? ....
Buck would say that he's living his life as a male.
That’s what he does say but acknowledges he is a biological female. This is not terribly complicated, but a lot of people want to split hairs over it.
The devils are in the details. The issue is what it takes to qualify as male or female. And what rights and opportunities then follow from being either.
Standard biological definitions -- which you don't seem much willing to consider; not very scientific of you -- say that one must have, to a first approximation, ovaries to qualify as a female, and testicles to qualify as a male. Though one might say that those with only one of either -- for examples, Kathleen Stock and you respectively -- are then half the females or males they used to be, so to speak ....
But the problem is that many others insist on different, and quite unscientific, criteria to qualify as male or female, and then -- because they meet those rather bogus requirements -- insist on rights and privileges that normally attend the biological definitions. For example Roxanne Tickle and Renee Richards, both of whom once had testicles, replaced them with neovaginas, and now claim access to rights and privileges that had been granted only to those with ovaries:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/23/roxanne-tickle-v-giggle-for-girls-transgender-woman-wins-discrimination-case-against-women-female-only-app-ntwnfb
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0960
"Are trans women ‘biologically male’? The answer is complicated" https://theconversation.com/are-trans-women-biologically-male-the-answer-is-complicated-244465
"... when Renee Richards, a transgender women’s tennis player, was forced to take a chromosomal test to qualify for the 1976 U.S. Open, she challenged the policy as discriminatory. The New York State Supreme Court agreed, with the judge declaring that there is “overwhelming medical evidence that (Richards) is now female.”
How can you possibly gainsay the New York Supreme Court? 🙄 They might just as well have stipulated that 2+2=5 ...
There's a difference between substance and appearance, between reality and illusion. Some actor puts on a doctor's uniform and drapes a stethoscope around his neck then "he" is giving the APPEARANCE of being a doctor. But that actor hasn't the training and education to qualify as a doctor.
Same thing with Buck -- and Bruce Jenner. They give the APPEARANCE of being a male and a female, respectively. But, to a first approximation, one MUST have ovaries to qualify as a female, or MUST have testicles to qualify as male.
And Buck apparently still has "his" ovaries so nominally a female. And Jenner no longer has "her" testicles, and hasn't replaced them with ovaries -- can't possibly be a female; in fact "she" is a sexless eunuch.
You might look at the definition for "identify as ...":
" 'identify as' phrasal verb; identify as something;
to recognize or decide that you belong to a particular category;
synonym self-identify"
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/identify-as
You can't "identify as a teenager" unless you're really 13 to 19. Same thing with male and female. You can't reasonably say you're a member of a category unless you meet the membership requirements. Someone can't reasonably "identify as" a male or female unless they actually have testicles or ovaries, respectively.
Which "person's life"? The very rare, genuine cases (in which case, ditto) or the jump on the bandwagon, "some other problem" people? In which case, no I wouldn't give it credence.
You assert that it is kind to use preferred pronouns thereby implying that those who don’t, are therefore unkind. You speak from a position of implied moral superiority which is in itself bigoted. Those of us who don’t use preferred pronouns are not doing it to be unkind, nor are we right wing fanatics. Most of us in the UK are from the left. We are doing it because it’s unkind to women to suggest that anyone can just say some magic words and identify into the myriad of experiences which make up being female. It is an insult to women, it belittles us and reduces us to nothing more than clothes, make up and a few words. Nor is it kind to reinforce delusion, particularly in the young. While I’m not in the business of compelled speech and would not want to force you to change your speech, I would urge you to examine your rather dogmatic and offensive reasons for attacking those of us who disagree with you.
Five years ago, I believed there was no good reason NOT to use preferred pronouns. It seemed like the right thing to do morally and socially. I now realize I was laboring under the illusion that preferred pronouns were merely a polite social fiction that made everyday life easier for trans people. Preferred pronouns are not a polite fiction, but an integral part of a rights discourse (namely, gender ideology) in which men who claim to be women are deemed to be women literally, and therefore entitled to access women’s single-sex spaces. Preferred pronouns do a lot of the linguistic labor in propagating and normalizing this ideology that denies the reality of women as a biological/sex class. In advocating for men who “identify” as women (deem themselves women by proclamation) this ideology redefines women as a “gender” class completely divorced from female embodiment. The redefinition is now part and parcel of laws and policies, which almost always work to the disadvantage and detriment of women and girls. Language isn’t a passive tool people use to communicate their thoughts; it’s a powerful medium that actively shapes people’s thoughts. I didn’t sign up for policies that work against the interests of women, and calling men “women” lends support to those policies.
I get your position but I think you haven't discussed how circumstances may influence the conclusion. One thing is to use preferred pronuns in an ordinary setting, but what if you were to write an article about a convincted offender? I hope you too would acknowledge that "she raped her with her penis" is nonsense. Even the headline "woman convicted" is a lie that should be avoided. Finally, in court proceedings it would amount to conceding way too much, as in the currently ongoing case of the nurse against Fife. I hope you'll recognize in such cases avoiding any ambiguity matters more and shifts the weight of the arguments to use sex based pronouns instead
Excellent point. I would hope that Benjamin Ryan (whose work I very much admire) would respond to this. As well as to Annette Pacey and Tenaciously Terfin, a bit farther down.
Thank you professor, you made my day.
I'm not used to employ flattery and I expect you don't particularly like it, but I HAVE to say you are a myth of mine since when a long time ago as young physics students (mostly radical leftists, of course) we childishly laughed at humanities because of your "prank" (I also saw a video of you at a recent FSU event joking about the fact that you'd prefer to be remembered for something else, so sorry for focusing on this).
I would have never expected that 30 years later postmodernism would have become WORSE and a serious matter of concern, and that working in an italian IT department, I would have to quote yours and Dawkins's Boston Globe article to defend realism to my HR... Thank you.
Pronouns are Rohypnol. https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/# Don't encourage girls and women, especially, to dull their instinctive reactions.
Who's encouraging anyone? Ben said, "Hey, this is my personal policy." He didn't add, "...and you should feel the same way."
Ben does good reportage, which is unfortunately marred by his obstinate insistence on using wrong-sex pronouns. It makes his work more difficult to read or understand, and will discourage reality-based readers from circulating his work to others. The point is to NOT normalize this obfuscatory language. Ben explained his position to his readers, as so many have objected to it. His readers are responding, trying yet again to convince him that his approach is not kind to girls and women, messes with common understanding of the issues at hand, and gives credence to delusion. Would Ben, in a piece of journalism, refer to anorexics as obese, to be "kind"? If not, why not?
The APA, which oversees the DSM and thus the parameters of gender dysphoria, would strongly disagree that there is a neat and tidy parallel between GD and anorexia and that the treatments for each should resemble one another. This analogy gets thrown around a lot, but it is weak.
Please explain why, other than the APA being in thrall to gender ideology. Both situations are a matter of feelings not being in accord with reality. Only in the one, "affirmation," puberty blockers, wrong-sex hormones, and surgeries are considered some bizarre sort of standard of care, while in the other - as should always be the case when the mind and body are not in alignment - we work on the mind. Also of import: we don't expect the rest of the world to go along with an anorexic's self-image issues, and we don't call on the rest of the populace to bend language in opposition to what they see and know to be true. Nor does an individual's anorexia impinge on the rights and privacy of others.
YES! Thank you - I am so grateful for these words. Being kind and respectful -and actively listening and engaging - is truly the only way I see out of this mess. As a woman who has a 19 year old natal daughter with multiple comorbidities caught up in what I see for much of her cohort as ideology and escapism, *and* with several adult trans friends who made their choices with fully developed prefrontal cortexes and are both generally happy and have made peace with their choices, I see the need for nuance. We don't need wars, we need nuance, which currently is in short supply. I continue to be grateful for your words and stance. And kindness.
Thanks! Keep playing it in HD!
Very disappointed. While I can understand getting tired of being 'the bad guy' for reporting facts, you undermine your credibility by reasoning kindness is warranted, when kindness itself has been weaponized by those who declare war on reality. I might use a first or last name, but buying into and supporting their (mental health) delusion? Never.
Everyone who reads your article must read this, as it answered you years ago.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/#
From a UK perspective, much of the pushback against prescribed pronoun use has come from the feminist left - not the right. We are fortunate that both main political parties of left and right have woken up to the controversies and conflicting rights around the trans issue so have largely avoided the political polarisation that the US has experienced. This is an area where reasonable people may disagree, and "prescribed speech" the demand of the trans activists, was rightly criticised, so not something those on the other side of the debate should emulate.
My preference is context dependent. When a friend told me of the suicide of a trans friend of theirs I felt it would be gratuitously cruel to describe her as anything other than "she". On the other hand, Public Bodies ignoring legislation (see NHS Fife et al) that offers protection to women, or rape victims being required to refer to their rapist as "she" (now being rowed back on) or lesbians being forced underground because they've got to admit men (see Australia) then clarity trumps kindness.
(Edit) I suppose it also depends on who you are "being kind" to.
Was it "kind" to Lia Thomas's female competitors to refer to "him" as "her"?
If most of what we are seeing today is social contagion, is it "kind" to validate this affectation? Does this kindness increase the number of people who will resort to medical interventions? Does this kindness apply to minors when the Cass review tells us that social transition is not a benign intervention? If we agree that children shouldn't be socially transitioned before receiving extensive therapy, why should we automatically affirm the 20 year old who is captured by the same ideology that is afflicting so many kids? I prefer to use a person's name if at all possible. I am very reluctant to affirm a trans identity for a young person when there is no credible diagnostic procedure in use.
I really appreciate and agree with this. It is the same argument that I have tried to use with friends who include pronouns in their signatures.
I love this, and fully agree with you by default.
But I have thought more about this since your last post and the comment discussion, and I think there is space for a different response for kids/youth who are experimenting with different gender identities. To fully use their preferred pronouns is to endorse a set of ideas that may make medical transition more appealing or likely.
I now, with those kids/youth that I encounter who identify in this way, default to just using their preferred name instead of pronouns wherever possible. This maintains dignity and respect, but avoids supporting potentially harmful ideas or contributing to confusion (it is a typical thing to try different names and identities in adolescence).
People like me who work with kids, especially vulnerable kids, and also parents of those kids, carry natural authority in those relationships. And maintaining relationships and open lines of communication is crucial. Sometimes we need to strategically buy into a child/youth’s fiction to maintain trust and relationship.
But we should always be prudent and wise in what we promote and demote, and using a child/youth’s preferred pronouns is not a benign act with no downsides. It is supporting social transition, which can make medical transition more likely. And this is what makes navigating the issue so challenging: there are ethical downsides to both options.
I think that is a decision for parents to make on behalf of their children. But if the family wants me to use certain pronouns, it’s not my place to say no.
Yes it is your place for exactly the reason that Josh mentions. By joining in with a child’s delusion you are complicit in putting that child onto the path of medicalisation and regret. We know that most children grow out of those feelings if not affirmed. It is cowardly of you to go along with something so harmful simply because you don’t want to be seen as unkind.
If a person were to be rigid in never using a child/teen’s preferred name or pronouns, then they will increase the likelihood of a breakdown of trust in relationship. And if you lose relationship, then you lose the ability to influence.
So no, it is not cowardly to use a child’s preferred pronoun. But it’s important to recognize, even while doing so, that you are strategically supporting their delusion for the sake of them feeling supported as a person, to maintain that relationship. And frankly, any dogmatic or rigid adherence to not using pronouns is just being pointlessly unkind.
I agree up to a point, in particular regarding parents and in fact, I do use preferred pronouns in a small number of such cases with young adults,in private. But the author is I think, more concerned with appearing to be kind by lecturing dogmatically on a public forum. That is cowardly and misguided. I’d have more respect for someone who kept quiet about their private use of pronouns and who didn’t appear to be ok with affirming children when this is clearly unhelpful as a general rule. Each case needs to be approached sensitively and not because someone on substack has shamed you into compliance with preferred pronouns.
TT: "Lecturing dogmatically in a public forum" is something you seem intimately familiar with, You also seem quite fond of asserting a lack of sincerity on the part of people with whom you disagree. My perception is that Ben Ryan is actually concerned to be kind, not just appear that way, and you have not given us any reason to believe otherwise. Finally, you seem to like throwing the word "cowardly" around. I always find that odd coming from someone who posts behind a pseudonym, Be that as it may, Mr. Ryan's accomplishments as a reporter suggest bravery, not cowardice.
Thanks, Tim! :)
Tim I love this response, thank you for it. I didn’t have space to formulate a good response until now, and it’s a delight to return to Substack and find someone who has already responded even better than I would have.
I suppose I deserved that. I’m afraid my patience with gender ideology has run dry and so if I’ve misunderstood Mr Ryan’s motives for the piece or his implications regarding people who use sex based pronouns, then I wholeheartedly apologise.
It is possible to use a person's name in lieu of a pronoun. Reinforcing a psychological malady in a child is harmful. The example may seem extreme, but I believe this is substantially similar to agreeing with an anorexic child that they are overweight. The evidence strongly suggests that ROGD is a social phenomenon, not an innate disorder that requires medicalization. If this is true, using wrong-sex pronouns for a child seems morally wrong.
I think “morally wrong” is a strong sentiment here, as there may be circumstances where it is most appropriate to use a preferred pronoun. But it’s about doing so with an awareness of what one is doing, and always holding the goal of providing the tools and skills necessary for dealing with reality, or life on life’s terms, in a functional way that contributes to their wellbeing.
I work with kids/youth whose perceptions of situations is often severely disconnected from reality (i.e. they may perceive intended harm from another’s actions or words that wasn’t there). Part of working effectively with these kids is getting them to trust you and know that you are on their side. So sometimes it means affirming feelings and perceptions that are exaggerated, misguided, or incorrect, for the purpose of allying and then guiding them back more closely to reality. This isn’t morally wrong. It’s actually just good therapeutic work. It could be, in some cases, morally wrong to not use their preferred pronouns, as this could close the door on relationship, and thus the possibility of guiding them away from irreversible harmful medical procedures.
In short: it’s not always clear what the right moral decision is, and this may be different in each circumstance.
Please explain further your use of "preferred pronouns" when working with these kids. If you're working with them one-on-one, how do pronouns even enter the picture? Don't you just use their preferred name? Or are you talking about others (not in the room)?
I work primarily with kids in groups, so it does arise that I speak about kids in front of or to other kids. My default is to use their preferred name, but sometimes that makes for awkward sentences in the cases where a pronoun would be the best fit in a sentence, so I will then use a pronoun. Sometimes it will also involve letting others know that so-and-so likes to be called “preferred name” and go by “preferred pronouns.” Stating this is a way of conferring respect.
The third way it arises is when speaking to parents who are gender-affirming about their kids.
And what of the other children with whom that child interacts, classmates in school for example? Because you think it right to go along with the decision of the parents of this one child, must all the other kids now get their developing understanding of the real world tossed into the blender of gender-woo? And what if the parents of the other children refuse to go along with this deliberate confusion? What if teachers want to hold fast to reality, and model that to their students? Once you've decided to call little Johnny "she," how do you deny Johnny access to the girl's changing room, the girl's sports teams? Because if you want to call him "she," while still conceding that sex categories matter, you are admitting that "she" is not really a "she" at all. Do you not see the immediate impact this has on the much wider world?
I agree, and I do approach it on a case by case basis, with each kid/family. It is so important to include both the kid and the family’s input. A lot of times it just requires holding numerous competing factors in tension.