Should we accept and use non-binary gender pronouns?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I would agree if you feel as though you're being forced to kow tow to a social pressure, I would probably be less likely to oblige. Many of us simply don't mind and don't feel that same pressure though.

A side note, I do think its humorous for Christian's to talk about "social pressure" when all throughout the church social pressures to conform to (insert whatever) are rampant and gladly kow tow to them regardless if they agree or not.

True. I suppose I'll clarify and say secular social pressure.

 

[Tetra]

Be as sorry as you like, but I am not wrong.

Now you're just wrong twice.

"Only shows"? I think not. And define what you mean by "statistical correlation."

A correlation would be how strongly two different pairs of variables would be related to one another. In the case of gender and physiological sex, they are very strongly correlated.

Did I say that someone in this thread had said that it was "merely a social construct"? No. But I have encountered people both online and in-person who have said that gender is entirely socially constructed. It's from these "progressive" ideologues, not me, that the "false dichotomy" originates.

Why are we playing the semantics game? Did I say that you said someone in this thread said it was merely a social construct? I'm getting a fairly progressive science degree, and I've yet run into anyone who has taught that gender is entirely socially constructed. I guess it's possible those individuals exist somewhere, but I wouldn't suggest it's the norm (which based on your posts, I gather you think it is?).

I think gender identity is fundamentally defined by one's biology. This is certainly a biblical viewpoint and increasingly what is indicated by scientific research.

I have to be honest, I'm not gonna look back on 10 pages to try and find your link. Can you please share me the link to the research that says "gender identity is fundamentally defined by one's biology" without exception (and it would have to be without exception, in order for it to not simply be a strong correlation).

 

[PloverWing]

They seek to destroy God's structure and plan for the family by eliminating any distinction between male and female.

It's not the specific linguistics at issue, but the intent and meaning of those words. The Bible seems to make it very clear that God created man and women with unique differences and distinct purpose. The pronouns are simply a way to cloud those differences and condition people to water down the sanctity of God's creation.

Those of you who strongly object to using gender-neutral pronouns for nonbinary people: Is this part of your motivation? Do you see men and women as filling different roles in society and in the family, and you want language to help communicate and enforce these gender roles?

 

[RDKirk]

Those of you who strongly object to using gender-neutral pronouns for nonbinary people: Is this part of your motivation? Do you see men and women as filling different roles in society and in the family, and you want language to help communicate and enforce these gender roles?

No, I just see it as more effort than the English-speaking world (including the millions speaking English as a second language) is going to go to.

Language grammar does not become more complex over time, it simplifies. Attempting to inject a huge level of complexity into the grammar--including the complexity of having to readjust one's grammar for each individual one is speaking to--is just not going to stick.

 

[Sparagmos]

It does not follow that, because a gender dysphoric person doesn't like it when people refuse to cater to their delusion, those around them are obliged to accommodate their identity confusion. It is not misgendering to call a man who thinks he is a woman what he really is: a man. It is the truth; it is reality. Anyone who denies truth, who spurns reality in favor of a lie as gender dysphoric people do, denies and spurns the Source of truth and the Ground of All Reality, who is God. Terrible, eternal jeopardy hangs over such people - jeopardy that may at any moment become irreversibly manifest. What love do we show, then, to the gender dysphoric when we encourage them in their eternally-damning delusion? The Christian is to love in truth which necessitates refusing falsehood wherever it is encountered - including among hyper-sensitive gender dysphoric people.

The point I was making remains. Sounds like you think fender dysphoria is a sin worse than most, is that right? Do you think adulterers also have “terrible, eternal jeopardy” over their heads as well? Frankly you sound like a caricature.

 

[aiki]

The point I was making remains. Sounds like you think fender dysphoria is a sin worse than most, is that right? Do you think adulterers also have “terrible, eternal jeopardy” over their heads as well? Frankly you sound like a caricature.

*Sigh* No, I don't think gender dysphoria is a "worse sin than most." Yes, unrepentant adulterers - really, all unrepentant sinners of whatever stripe - stand under the eternal jeopardy of hell. Frankly, I think you'd like to paint me as a caricature so it is easier to dismiss my views. In fact, you seem to be trying to do so in your comments above (this is called Strawman arguing, by the way). But, your opinion of me notwithstanding, I am not a caricature - certainly no more than you are.

 

[Sparagmos]

*Sigh* No, I don't think gender dysphoria is a "worse sin than most." Yes, unrepentant adulterers - really, all unrepentant sinners of whatever stripe - stand under the eternal jeopardy of hell. Frankly, I think you'd like to paint me as a caricature so it is easier to dismiss my views. In fact, you seem to be trying to do so in your comments above (this is called Strawman arguing, by the way). But, your opinion of me notwithstanding, I am not a caricature - certainly no more than you are.

I wouldn’t ask a straw man to clarify his ideas. I guess I’m not used to such fire and brimstone language, it does sound silly to me, but I am in a far different place from you.

 

[aiki]

I guess I’m not used to such fire and brimstone language, it does sound silly to me, but I am in a far different place from you.

Yeah, the Pharisees pooh-poohed Christ's words, too. They were in a very "far different place" from him, as well. It's just how it is sometimes.

 

[Oldmantook]

Those of you who strongly object to using gender-neutral pronouns for nonbinary people: Is this part of your motivation? Do you see men and women as filling different roles in society and in the family, and you want language to help communicate and enforce these gender roles?

My answer would be yes. If God created roles for both men and women as part of his order of creation, should we not seek to maintain and fulfill them? Or, should we erase the roles and no longer distinguish between male and female? Put it another way, what do you think Satan would have us do?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Thou was grammatically correct and replaced with the more respectful you even though it's grammatically incorrect. "You" is a plural that has adopted a role as a singular.

Saying he/she can be used to single out someone's gender like the speaker wishes to clearly state the gender and this can be used in a pejorative manner. For example let's take a dominate women's past time and a woman wishes to take a man, someone may say "You wish to go with him?" Perhaps the man is listening and he would take offence that because he is a man he is not welcomed. Of course the alternative "You wish to go with them?" seems just as insulting but it becomes more nuanced as to the reason why they seem unworthy. It can also be used to suggest intimacy and some people may look at a friend of the opposite sex as just a friend but the moment they use he or she then people start to make all these assumptions which may not be fair to the individuals or an accurate judgement. A lot of circumstances would welcome a neutral pronoun. People like anonymity and their privacy and a gender neutral pronoun could easily catch on simply for those reasons.

It's a fraction of the population who need to be accommodated now but a much larger demographic is rising that supports this type of language and those people may start to get offended when gender pronouns are used so that they may champion the cause. It just takes a few popular tweets to start the conversation that they wish to be addressed using a gender neutral pronoun not because they are trans or nonbinary but to promote greater fairness and equal opportunity. Then people retweet and the next thing you know it's the new thing to be wanted to be called "them" not "he/she".

Look at the term "Ms." A martial neutral term to address women. In the 60s and 70s it was a big topic and people were upset with the idea of not knowing a women's martial status upfront and it was thought to greater encourage all sorts of immoral behaviour. No one cares now even though Miss, Mrs and Ms are all still used. They are also all from the same word "mistress" which makes it all a little arbitrary but culture will do that.

You are really splitting microscopic hairs here.

But sure, call the person whatever name he wants, but I am not using inappropriate or ungrammatical pronouns.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'm sorry but you're wrong Aiki. The scientific evidence only shows there is a strong statistical correlation. I don't know of anyone who hasn't said there aren't outliers (even Jordan Peterson, who's been one of the strongest proponents supporting a statistical correlation in recent years).

No one said gender is "merely" a social construct, you're creating a false dichotomy. It's not merely a social construct, nor is it merely a biological one.

Sure, there are outliers in any group. But that doesn't make a man a woman or vice versa, simply because he may respond more like "typical" women (whatever those are) in a situation.

Biology dictates what you are.

 

[Tetra]

Sure, there are outliers in any group. But that doesn't make a man a woman or vice versa, simply because he may respond more like "typical" women (whatever those are) in a situation.

Biology dictates what you are.

The individuals we are talking about in this thread are the outliers.

I believe there is a strong correlation between gender and physiological sex. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find say, a systematic review (which would carry the greatest evidentiary weight) saying biology dictates "what you are" 100% of the time.

If you concede there are outliers, your comment would then seem contradictory since it would mean biology wouldn't dictate what you are 100% of the time.

I would argue it's both biology as well as social construct.

What I find bizarre is that a more conservative individual could agree a portion of what makes you who you are is determined by a social construct and lose nothing in their arguments. I see no reason to hold dogmatically to the notion it's solely biology.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The individuals we are talking about in this thread are the outliers.

I believe there is a strong correlation between gender and physiological sex. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find say, a systematic review (which would carry the greatest evidentiary weight) saying biology dictates "what you are" 100% of the time.

If you concede there are outliers, your comment would then seem contradictory since it would mean biology wouldn't dictate what you are 100% of the time.

I would argue it's both biology as well as social construct.

What I find bizarre is that a more conservative individual could agree a portion of what makes you who you are is determined by a social construct and lose nothing in their arguments. I see no reason to hold dogmatically to the notion it's solely biology.

It is not contradictory. In any given group, there are outliers of the norms, but the presumption is they are still in the category. That's why they are outliers. They don't become something else because they are outliers; they simply increase the range of what happens in that population.

For example (just drawing a random example). The average woman in America is 5'6". The ones off the ends of the curve are 3"10 and 6'8" (let's say, for purposes of our example). That means they are outliers in the range of what is typical for women. But they are STILL women. They do not change character because they fit within the norm.

That's a close analogy to the one in this thread. Some men (and some women) are atypical. But they are still men or women.

 

[Tetra]

It is not contradictory. In any given group, there are outliers of the norms, but the presumption is they are still in the category. That's why they are outliers. They don't become something else because they are outliers; they simply increase the range of what happens in that population.

For example (just drawing a random example). The average woman in America is 5'6". The ones off the ends of the curve are 3"10 and 6'8" (let's say, for purposes of our example). That means they are outliers in the range of what is typical for women. But they are STILL women. They do not change character because they fit within the norm.

That's a close analogy to the one in this thread. Some men (and some women) are atypical. But they are still men or women.

This isn't uni-varied, we're not talking about simply the variance of women's height. We're talking about 2 variables, the correlation of physiological sex to gender expression. Which is why I'd venture to guess you'll be hard pressed to find a systematic review saying physiological sex to gender expression is 100% correlated.

The question examined is, how many people who have a particular physiological sex, identify with the general expression of that physiological sex?

I've also never heard of a physiological man, disagree with the fact they are a physiological man, men are men. Otherwise, why would they need to transition? As I understand it, they are saying, my gender expression is outside the norm, so I will attempt to have my physiological sex mimic the appearance of that expression.

Again though, I fail to see the motivation behind holding that no part of gender (partially or otherwise) is socially constructed.

 

[DamianWarS]

You are really splitting microscopic hairs here.

But sure, call the person whatever name he wants, but I am not using inappropriate or ungrammatical pronouns.

you should stop using "you" in the singular and reintroduce thou

 

[RDKirk]

you should stop using "you" in the singular and reintroduce thou

We already have "y'all."

 

[AACJ]

...Is this just being decent and respectful, an example of love your neighbour, or does it unfairly force ideologies that traditional Christianity can't agree with?

Replace the phrase "traditional Christianity" with 'God's Word.' Traditional Christianity is not the prime authority in matters of faith and practice. Do you disagree?

 

[AACJ]

...or do we help lead a trans closer to God by respecting them in a way they desire?

I think the erroneous presumption in your question should be addressed first.

 

[AACJ]

I'll respect anyone's decision to employ them but I won't sanction or use them myself. I see this whole silly development as another way of attacking the establishment just as indignant children like to provoke their parents.

If only it were that simple.

 

[AACJ]

I'm not asking about what they consider acceptable or responsible, as the premise is about their voiced request so their desires are clear. I'm asking what the churches response should be. Do we dishonour God by using nonbinary pronouns or do we help lead a trans closer to God by respecting them in a way they desire? I honestly don't know.

What you're doing of course is knowingly or unknowingly presenting a false claim disguised as a question. Your disguised false claim, "we help lead a trans closer to God by respecting them in a way they desire," results in a false dilemma. It certainly is not an either/or situation.