Let’s talk about pronouns, or rather, the people who demand that, in reference to them, we use the pronouns of their choice.
The people who make this demand are invariably trans: they want us to replace the old with the new genders or with neutral ones that they have made up, like “zhi”. The world being what it is, their claims are vigorously supported by people in power − legislators, officials, employers − and people with little better to do, such as old biddies and students.
This campaign has become, over time, an onslaught that has caused a lot of harm. Thankfully, it seems to be in retreat, but there are still enough of them to be a nuisance, worse a pest, nay, worse still, a veritable torment.
Propelling the demand is a belief that claims submission to the demand promotes inclusivity. If you submit to the demand, you make me an insider; if you don’t, I feel excluded. By using the old pronoun, “you ‘dis’ my new gender, man” (or rather not “man”, but you know what I mean).
Pronouns are generally used in speech or text in a communication between two people in referring to somebody else. So, Jim will say to John, when referring to the absent Sally, “He left her at home.”
Can be ignored
That the subject of the exchange is a third person is not invariable. In addressing the King, a Judge or another person of consequence, we will use the pronoun in direct reference to the interlocutor. “Your Majesty (Ladyship or other dignitary) will consider her position and make up her own mind on the point.” These cases, which provide a convoluted way of showing respect, by the by, can be ignored for present purposes.
From this we learn that the pronoun police are making an effort to shape the way we talk to others. In common with every such circumstance, it can be a request, a demand with conditions, or a stipulation with punitive sanctions. In every one of these guises, it is an exercise of power, even if in the first case the exercise is purely precatory.
Receiving a demand to speak exclusively in these terms, the respondent, now put on a spot, has a choice. Do I acquiesce or not?
The response will understandably depend on the nature of the request, the relationship between the two, and the object in view.
If the choice is an open one and without ramifications, the person called upon to respond (let’s call him the responder) has no reason to fuss. He can agree or not as he wishes, and go on his merry way.
Such cases, regrettably, are rare. The choices are seldom open, and a refusal to submit can bring down upon one’s head the collective wrath of the harpies, herpes and indeterminate others who make up this clamant band. The result can be ostracism, cancellation and, in by no means unusual cases, even a loss of position or employment.
Chill coercion
Plainly this is not inclusion, but the reverse, exclusion. Expulsion, isolation, termination, and vilification can never be inclusive. The process of giving some a warm feeling that third parties are speaking nicely about them, has, through the exercise of chill coercion, forced out others into the cold, where they are bound to suffer, not just hurt feelings, but a terrible injury to their social standing and material wellbeing.
(One by-product, I suppose, of this concentration on pronouns is that we can expect a greater understanding of the use of the accusative tense. To hear “between him and I” no more is a consequence devoutly to be desired. If this means we cease to be quite so accusatory, so much the better.)
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend