The Radical Claim of Dembroff and Wodak

Reading the article "He/She/They/Ze" by Dembroff and Wodak has challenged my views on pronouns and gender identity. There were two main theses in this article, which are the moderate and radical claims. The moderate claim states that "we have a negative duty not to use binary gender-specific pronouns (he or she) to refer to genderqueer individuals", and the radical claim states that "we have a negative duty not to use any gender-specific pronouns to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender identity" (371). From the beginning, I agreed with the moderate claim, but I was more skeptical about the radical claim as extending this theory to everyone seemed unnecessary upon first glance. However, after the authors provided extensive evidence supporting the radical claim, such as privacy concerns and the importance of not reinforcing harmful ideologies, by the end of the article I agreed with Dembroff and Wodak's Radical Claim.

The example comparing the treatment of McGregor, a transgender woman, with Haze, a genderqueer individual, caught my attention and made me think deeper about our moral responsibility not to misgender people. While I accepted that it seems obvious that I shouldn't refer to McGregor with "he" pronouns, I found it harder to figure out what the right approach would be when referring to Haze. My initial understanding was that "they" could be an appropriate pronoun for anyone who is genderqueer or gender fluid, but I didn't consider that binary gender pronouns (he/she) could also be applicable. I then learned that if it is offensive to misgender McGregor with he instead of she, it would also be wrong to refer to Haze with either he or she, according to the moderate claim. This is not right because it puts them into a category when they may not identify with either pronoun at one given time, and using he or she to refer to Haze is disrespectful to Haze's social identity. People who are genderqueer may alternate their gender identities, or they may also identify as a gender that is not male or female, or they may identify as agender where they don't have a gender. 

After understanding the diversity within the genderqueer community, I comprehended why using "they" as an umbrella term for anyone who is genderqueer would not be accurate. I also did not realize that using she (for example) to refer to Haze would imply that Haze has access to resources that are typically held by women, such as bathrooms or jobs directed towards women, when that is not true for a genderqueer individual. Very few resources are aimed towards genderqueer individuals, and using she or he would indicate that they should "fit into a binary and gender-specific organization of restrooms, legal identification,..." and other categories rather than creating new resources that're accessible for them (377). Dembroff and Wodak talk about how gender identities can act as a "blueprint" for perceiving a person's behavior, so misgendering McGregor would discredit her mannerisms or choices. This is also relevant for Haze, because the identity of genderqueer at its core rejects the blueprints or norms that lead to interpretations of masculine and feminine behavior (378). By calling Haze he or she, it puts them back in the binary box of acting in a manly or womanly manner and it diminishes a genderqueer individual's ability to reject these blueprints. Another reason why misgendering is harmful is that it "reinforces ideologies that disrespect transgender and genderqueer individuals, deprive them of resources, and undermine their social intelligibility" (379). I can see how this can be true for my peers that have been misgendered, as it reminds them that they have to go through an extra step to make their pronouns known to people compared to those who fit into traditional binary gender categories.

An objection to the moderate claim that the authors address is the idea that a person has to either be only a man or only a woman (380). I immediately thought of the example that the authors also elaborated on, which deals with the identities of intersex people. I have heard the argument so many times about how "biologically" a person is either male or female. I find this puzzling as a biology major and someone who thinks (and is still learning, hence taking this class) that sex is mostly binary even though there are variations within these two categories, but gender is a part of a vast spectrum. I appreciated the following argument presented by the authors as it supports my beliefs: "due to the existence of intersex conditions, Exclusivity is not supported by biological essentialism" (380). Stating that a person has to either be a man or woman invalidates the naturally born identities of intersex people.

"AFFIRMATION" is another objection Dembroff and Wodak address (that I also automatically thought of while reading through their argument) which states that "We have a duty to affirm others’ gender identities by using third-person pronouns that represent the referent’s gender identity (382). I had always thought that since it is our responsibility to recognize gender identities, using gender-specific pronouns like she and he rather than they, especially for transgender people, is a direct and clear way to do this. I was hesitant to accept that using they for a transgender individual like McGregor is acceptable as I thought it would be a form of misgendering. In my opinion, this would invalidate all the work that individual has probably gone through to ensure that their friends and families use the correct pronouns and that their personal identification documents reflect who they truly are. The idea that changed my mind was the compelling response that recognition isn't necessarily the way to fix misrecognition, as "one can categorize everyone accurately (affirm) or not categorize anyone at all l (and thereby not deny, without affirming", which I had never even considered as a possibility to rectify this issue (383). I appreciated that the authors stressed that while we have the obligation to not use gender pronouns in certain situations, in other instances we also have the duty to use specific pronouns such as she in reference to a person like McGregor (until language practices are reformed). Not using he or she for a transgender person would reinforce that they aren't actually a woman or man, and I am concerned that not using specific pronouns for a transgender person could lead to people labeling them as confused. This ties into a reason that favors of the radical thesis and alleviates my concern, which is that "we have no general positive duty to use she and he to validate or affirm women’s and men’s gender identities, as using a gender-neutral pronoun like they will suffice to avoid invalidating or denying their gender identities" (383). The radical claim changes everyone's pronouns, and if this claim is applied there wouldn't be an assumption that he/she is only for the traditional binary genders. Therefore, referring to a transgender person as they wouldn't invalidate their gender identity.

AFFIRMATION also implies that gender identity should be looked at differently from other identities such as religious or racial identities, as we don't feel the need to affirm those so why should gender be represented more distinctly? Also, pronoun preferences are based on the linguistic norms of society, so changing the language used so that they is a term for everyone may alter the pronouns people wished to be called, thus making it an acceptable way to refer to transgender people. Something I didn't know before reading this article is that "they" is not a gender-neutral term since it carries the implication that someone is non-binary. I realized that it would always refer to someone who is genderqueer, which automatically implies that the person is not exclusively a man or woman.

All of this information left me wondering what pronouns we should use for people who don't identify within the gender binary. The third catchall option would mean that a single pronoun is used for non-binary people while he/she is used for binary people, while the option to proliferate pronouns would mean that a new pronoun is introduced for each non-binary identity while he/she is used for binary people. I agree with the authors' opposition to the third catchall because there is more than one way to be genderqueer and putting all non-binary people under one term while allowing gender binary people to have specific pronouns dismisses non-binary identities. It subtly reinforces the idea that binary identities are superior or more natural. I also agree with the authors' response to the proliferate pronouns option, as people would get confused with the sheer amount of pronouns people would have and could unintentionally misgender people. The conclusion the authors came up with creates the first official point in favor of the Radical claim, as they stated "if we should not use gender-specific pronouns in relation to genderqueer individuals...there is no better alternative to ceasing to use gender-specific pronouns for anyone" (392).

The second argument in favor of the radical claim is that gender-specific pronouns mandate that individuals either "disclose private information about one's gender identity or sexual orientation, or deceive others..." (392). I feel bad that people are currently required to disclose this personal information due to something as small as grammatical correctness because people should be able to choose who has the right to know that information depending on their comfort level.

The last argument that supports the radical claim is that gender-specific pronouns within languages impact the reinforcement of harmful beliefs about gender identities, so decreasing these linguistic aspects of gender would decrease the pervasiveness of these beliefs. The "degree to which gender is encoded grammatically in a natural language" is connected to the essentialist beliefs about gender or the extent to which people believe gender is "an intrinsic part of who they are..." (395). I never thought about how deeply language influences my sense of self and how I identify myself. The concept of gender loading was intriguing because I never considered how other languages could be more gender-loaded than English, and the consequences for children being more likely to put themselves into a gender category was fascinating. I worry that gender loading can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, impede social awareness about gender, and promote toxic masculinity and gender roles in children.

Towards the end of the article, the authors proposed ideas for a singular, plural pronoun such as they or a gender-neutral, singular pronoun such as ze.  Frankly, I find the objection to they based on the fact that it is ungrammatical a little arbitrary. If using they as a plural pronoun would be misleading, I would argue that people can make an adjustment for one word ad the English language is always changing. I would hope that if this need for clarity is great enough, there would be another linguistic change to "differentiate between third-person singular and plural nouns (402). I strongly agree with the authors' point that the risk of being grammatically incorrect is less important than the feelings of genderqueer individuals who are misgendered. I don't really care about how grammatically correct I am if being incorrect is less disrespectful, doesn't oppress minority gender identities, and doesn't invalidate someone's identity as a human being. Although introducing a new pronoun may be hard, that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. Overall, I agree that English could use a gender-neutral pronoun like ze instead if introducing new pronouns for every identity is too difficult.

A statement that has stuck with me throughout this reading is that "If there is no silver bullet, we may well need to use every weapon in our arsenal, including linguistic reforms that on their own can only ameliorate gender oppression" (375). While understanding the nuances behind gender pronouns can help us to treat people with respect and equality, it does not diminish the systematic oppression that gender minorities will continue to face. However, it is clear that the "symptoms and causes of discrimination" reinforce each other and that fixing the symptom can play its part to address the larger cause of discrimination (395). I have seen firsthand that people often question why pronouns are such an important topic of discussion, but taking time to reflect on pronouns or ensuring that we don't misgender people is a small step that works towards solving a larger problem.