With all the recent coverage surrounding Lia Thomas and the recent passage of Florida’s notoriously under-read Parental rights in education bill I have once again been drawn back to numerous water cooler chats and online debates, both solicited and not. In fact, just a few months ago I had an incident at work that moved the discussion of gender identity, specifically the use of preferred pronouns, that had the potential to move this subject out of the realm of personal debate.
We all have seen the explosive use of listing one’s preferred pronouns in Twitter bios and email signature blocks, and it seems that this latest rage is not likely to fade away anytime soon. Now, I have, over the last few months, tried to pen countless responses using a whole host of arguments.
The ideology behind this approach is that these pronouns are simply a mental image of yourself, and not necessarily how others choose to see you. There’s the biological point of view, which is easy to argue. You either have two ‘X’ chromosomes or an ‘X’ and a ‘Y’ chromosome and outwardly display the characteristic attributes that are traditionally assigned to a specific gender.
Additionally, I’ve considered this concept from both the legal and constitutional angles, arguing both the free speech component of the First Amendment to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I’ve also done a little research into the legal aspects of the compelled speech aspect of companies that force their employees into utilizing such language.
I have even approached this conundrum from the more simplistic perspective of basic grammar rules and the fact that no one can just unilaterally rewrite the English language. Since the designation is that these words are “preferred,” I would just prefer to use the pronouns that were both scientifically and grammatically correct.
As you can see, I have invested more into this effort than I would have ever thought I would or should have; but here we are. I have read the actual Florida bill, researched Supreme and State court cases, have watched the work that Matt Walsh has done on the subject – including the viral debate conducted on the Dr. Phil show – just so that I can have some talking points and attempt to understand the varied points of view.
It was while reviewing the aforementioned interview in which Mr. Walsh said something that caused me to have a change of direction in how I plan to approach this debate from here on out. I chose to pick the path of compromise, something that historian Shelby Foote once pointed to as a thing that we Americans have a knack for.
So, in the spirit of compromise and to forestall any accusations of insensitivity or bigotry, I will, if requested, use a person’s preferred pronouns on one condition: They must use my preferred adjectives anytime I am being mentioned in conversation. I will be using the same vibrate fervor they use and demand to be addressed using either of the following adjectives (with an adverb for good measure), “keenly astute” or “ravishingly handsome”. I will deem either one acceptable.
So please for the sake of unity I implore you to take a similar stance and let’s start making the corresponding changes to your bios and signature blocks.
Featured image by anaterate at Pixabay.
Content syndicated from TheBlueStateConservative.com with permission.
Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!