Call it special pleading, but there’s a reason to keep old people alive. It’s not that we’re wiser. It’s that we’re more likely to’ve seen it all before. For example:
Back in the day – by which I mean when I was growing up in the 50’s – you could be nothing other than a Mr., a Mrs., or a Miss. Why the latter two? Because enquiring male minds wanted to know whether she was married or still single. And if you have to ask why that, then you’re far too woke to continue reading this.
Some time in the 60’s, not all but some women decided their marital status was none of men’s business. Hence the introduction of Ms, though most kept the tell on the fourth finger of the left hand. Was it any of our business? Of course. But did we have a right to make it our business? Probably not. So if I mis-status you as Miss, correct me if you don’t want me hitting on you. Otherwise …
Flash forward to today. We’ve divided the world into men and women. Why? For the same reasons we divided women into married and un-. There are things I can more likely get from a woman than I can from a man. And I’m not just talking about sex. So the category of men and women is one without which we couldn’t function.
Can the same be said of pronouns? That is, could we do away with pronouns altogether? We could. But we invented them for a reason. And that reason is what linguists call ease of articulation. Jack and Jill went up the hill. He said to her … In this case we can replace the “He said to her …” with “Jack said to Jill …” But not so with “The man sitting closest to the window said to the woman next to the punch bowl … ” That’s where the he and the she become pretty much indispensable.
Now then, suppose the person sitting closest to the window feels more like a woman than a man. If you don’t know that, and even assuming I do, how do I tell you who spoke to whom? Communication hangs on what I understand you understand. And what I understand you understand about the person sitting closest to the window is how he presents.
So here’s how English works. First person singular is I. Second person singular or plural is you. Third person singular is he if he looks like a man, she if she looks like a woman. Why what he or she looks like? Because that’s how the speaker directs the listener’s eye to the person the speaker is talking about.
Can we imagine a culture in which it’s behooved us to categorise people in terms of skin colour? Apparently we have. And skin colour is at least as visibly salient as sex. So why haven’t we developed pronouns for ease of articulation in referring to blacks and whites? Answer: language reveals thought. So that sex is the only visible property for which we have developed pronouns should tell us something pretty significant about our reptilian brains. It tells us our racism just can’t compete with our sexism. And isn’t that a comforting thought?
Categories: Everything You Wanted to Know About What's Going On in the World But Were Afraid to Ask, Social and Political Philosophy
Paulosophical Vimplications 
The expectation that you ought to refer to the person next to the window as she or they (or zir) even if it confuses the listener who sees only an obvious man in a dress (or in the female version of the uniform of a United States Navy admiral) is an example of queering. That it degrades the fidelity and efficiency of communication is not an effective argument against the practice—indeed that is the whole point. The queerers would agree wholeheartedly with you while they press forward with stiffening the penalties for misgendering.
LikeLike
The interesting case, I suppose, is when the person next to the window is clearly a man but he’s TRYING to present as a woman, perhaps by wearing a dress and lipstick. Do I he him or she her? On the view I’ve been pushing, it depends on whether I think my listener has bought the person’s act. If I think my listener would identify the person as a women, then I should she her. Otherwise not.
LikeLike
“Bought the person’s act” as in
1) sincerely fallen for it (as an in-law straight nephew of mine did), or
2) sincerely accepts the gender expression as determinative and thinks you should too, or
3) knows she has to endorse it for fear of reprisal from the employer of you both, and fervently hopes you will too so you don’t get the both of you in trouble?
I like to say I’m more in favour of not being forced to accept pronouns than of demanding people push back against their instincts to be polite. But every time I go along I think I take us one step closer to it being a criminal offence not to use the correct pronoun. Everyone else says “zir”. What’s wrong with you?
LikeLike
And if I’m calling her “her”, why am I donating to the rape crisis shelter that won’t let her in the door?
LikeLike
If the man sitting closest to the window said something to the woman next to the punch bowl, but they aren’t close enough to hear you, then it really doesn’t matter what their preferred pronoun is, does it?
LikeLike
Actually it does, because either of you (who are speaking in the third person about the person closest to the window) might rat the other out to HR for misgendering the person out of earshot. It would only be necessary that your interlocutor knew that you knew what pronoun the out-of-earshot person used and you were using the wrong one.. You are supposed to know that the walls have ears and informants are everywhere. You’re even supposed to thank them for pointing out your micro-aggression so you can confess to the person what you said out of earshot and beg their forgiveness. There are even videos depicting this. Speak up. It’s like overhearing someone using the n-word. Report it!
I’m not exaggerating. I was inadvertently overhearing one side of a telephone conversation between two people who worked for different organizations. They were discussing a job reference of a third person who was not present (and who was, of course not named in my presence as an unavoidable intruder in the circumstances. The woman on my end was taking the call while trying to pour wet concrete into a fence post hole I had dug). Much was made of the pronoun preference of the third party and the concrete pourer was apologizing in advance for any slips in pronoun use she might make….which the third party would never know about unless the other one blabbed.
LikeLike
I’m glad I’m not in the workforce any longer AND ‘granny’ enough to generally cruise under the radar in these matters. Confront granny for a wrong pronoun, then be accused of elder abuse? Risky in this day and age, maybe.
LikeLike