He/She/They/Ze Response
In the article He/She/They/Ze by Robin Dembroff and Daniel Wodack, the authors make their "Radical Claim," which states that "we have a duty not to use gender-specific pronouns to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender identity" (Dembroff and Wodak 372). I agree with their claim, but have a few additions to their supporting explanations (specifically the social operative(s) of new pronouns).
Dembroff and Wodack assert that misgendering is wrong because "of the social and psychological features of the world" (Dembroff and Wodack 380). I agree with their statement; however, I want to add the dangers of removing or inhibiting the more tradtional, gender-normative pronouns used in society today. Under no circumstance am I suggesting that s(he) will be removed from the English language with Dembroff's and Wodacks Radical Claim; nor am I saying s(he) falling out of popular use is a wrong given the conclusion provided by the Radical Claim. I am simply saying that s(he) should be ensured that it still has its place in the English language.
Given Dembroff and Wodack provide and present a strong case for the use of 'They' and 'Ze' as a third catch-all, the presentation of such to the English language should be supplemental. I agree with Dembroff and Wodack's position that a third catch-all must be added; I've used them in the past myself. But I believe the idea and induction of a third catch-all would find more success and usage if not marketed as a replacement.
I would rank the issues Dembroff and Wodack reveal more as a lack of education due to the properly cited fear of the unknown/against the grain mentality Pederson-Nielsen speaks of in his presentation. I would argue for more dialogue between non-philosophers and philosopher alike, in addition to educational staff (or personnel). I feel that when everyone is closest to themself, there is the highest likelihood of cooperation and contribution.
Let's look more closely and Dembroff and Wodak's argument on the issue of a "third catchall" pronoun. Check out page 389, for example. At the top of that page, the authors raise the following question: suppose we should not use binary gender-specific pronouns when referring to non-binary folks. What pronouns should we use instead? Dembroff and Wodak state that so long as "she" and "he" are used for folks who identify within the gender binary, then using "she" or "he" for those with non-binary gender identities would be wrong (presumably because it would be to mis-gender those non-binary persons). Dembroff and Wodak then consider two alternative possibilities: (1) using a third catchall pronoun in which all non-binary folks (whether they are Two Spirit, gender fluid, or agender, or pangender etc.) are referred to using a single pronoun, say "they" or "ze", or (2) new pronouns are introduced for each non-binary gender identity, thereby resulting in as many gender-specific pronouns in addition to "she" and "he" as there are gender identities. Dembroff and Wodak then state: "both these options raise deep problems, and that the best way to avoid these problems involves ceasing to use gender-specific pronouns altogether" (389). Look back at that page--what reasons do Dembroff and Wodak provide in support of their claim that the third catchall option raises deep problems? In other words, why do Dembroff and Wodak *not* support the third catchall option? Do you agree with their reasoning there?
ReplyDelete