"Preferred pronouns" are dangerous

If you think “respecting people’s pronouns” is an innocent gesture of courtesy you are mistaken. Enforcing one’s identity crises and associated delusions on one’s fellow citizens has nothing to do with civility, niceties, or “kindness.” It would be nice if it were only kind or silly, but it’s not. It’s disrespectful and obnoxious, and compliance with such impertinence is dangerous. Writer Helen Joyce explains why and how:

“Of course it’s better to make good arguments in your head and then take care about the way they are worded than to make bad arguments in the first place because you’re trying not to even think the truth. For an example of the latter, consider this editorial from the LA Times about the Wi Spa affair, in which a ‘transwoman’ (a man, in other words) stripped naked and went into the women’s section of a Korean spa, where many women and young girls were also entirely naked. According to eyewitness accounts, his penis was semi-erect as he lounged on the edge of a hot tub (he’s since been charged with indecent exposure). A woman complained to the reception staff, calling the man a man—which, incredibly, was regarded as a serious infraction.

This editorial doesn’t make a sensible argument, albeit couched in confusing language; it simply makes no sense. That’s clear when you edit it to replace gender-based pronouns by sex-based ones, and have the guts to state the consequences of what you’re advocating for. For example,

“The rights of transgender people to act in accordance with their gender identity is fortunately gaining acceptance in many corners—including at the U.S. Supreme Court, which just last week handed a major victory to transgender students seeking to use the schools bathrooms of their choice,”

becomes:

“The rights of trans-identified people to force everyone else to pretend they are the sex they are not are being imposed by many authorities—including the U.S. Supreme Court, which just last week enabled students of one sex to force themselves into school bathrooms supposedly reserved for students of the other.”

Similarly,

“There is no doubt that Wi Spa did the right thing in defending the right of a transgender customer to be nude in the women’s area, even though the sight of male-appearing genitalia discomfited at least one female customer, who complained at the front desk,”

becomes:

“This paper applauds Wi Spa for siding with a man who committed indecent exposure in front of naked women and girls in a space supposedly reserved for women and girls, even though the sight of a man’s genitalia discomfited at least one of the women who had just been victimised by him.”

I rest my case. I couldn’t have made anything near such an eloquent argument for it. Thank you, Helen.

Íris Erlingsdóttir for TRevoices