Proclaiming the Truth in Sodom

Come to San Francisco and visit Hamilton Square Baptist Church.

Great article, though I don’t know that we improve our ministries by refusing to call people by their preferred pronouns. I need to think about that one. Maybe a good subject for a poll.

I think one way to frame the pronouns thing is to look at it from the angle of courtesy. Courtesy involves lots of not saying things out loud that you might be thinking. Sometimes it even involves saying things that aren’t technically true. Some interactions that seem to be about truth really aren’t. E.g., these are usually not quests for truth…

• How’s it going? (from a relative stranger)
• Do you like the soup? (from a host… who isn’t a really good friend yet)
• Does this dress make me look fat?/How do I look? (from spouse)

Well, we could debate my list, but the point is that it’s not always about the surface truth. Sometimes it’s about the deeper truth: You’re important to me; I want to see joy and blessing in your life; I want to be helpful to you/encourage you; I accept you as a human being, etc. So you don’t want to deny the deeper truth by a failure of mere courtesy…. so you don’t tell your kind host that you hate the soup; you don’t tell your wife she looks tired and dreary (probably: it’s probably fine in some relationships!); you don’t tell strangers you’re having a bad day… and you don’t tell the trans identified woman that “she” or “they” is really a he. Their soul doesn’t rise or fall on clearing up gender confusion. It might rise or fall, indirectly, on our being needlessly offensive, because while we say a surface truth we might be “shouting” a deeper one, in their perceptions: “I hate you; I’m a bigot” etc. Why slam that particular door before you’re even friends?

That sounds like the ends justifies the means argument. To me it’s less about an evangelistic strategy then it is my own personal holiness and I just can’t see a way that it’s not a lie. Which is why I would just avoid it all together and refrain from using pronouns.

[Aaron Blumer]

Well, we could debate my list, but the point is that it’s not always about the surface truth. Sometimes it’s about the deeper truth…

[…]

Why slam that particular door before you’re even friends?

Because a relationship (“friends” in your example) based on a lie is not a good one, and is in fact destined for failure. There’s actual truth, and there is falsehood, not “surface” truth vs. “deep” truth. A relationship is not even going to work at a surface level unless you’re willing to lie or overlook obvious truth in order to maintain the facade demanded by the other person. If you give up the actual truth before you even start, it’s hard to say you actually care about the other person, no matter how “polite” you think yourself.

I’m with Josh. If I were trying to not be offensive, I would just avoid using pronouns. And in fact, when talking to another directly, you’re more often going to use “you” anyway, rather than “he, she, him, her,” which are 3rd-person. Besides, even if you agree to use “their” pronouns, rather than the correct ones, you’re just pushing off the problem. When they then ask if you would agree they actually are their chosen gender, will you agree with them? If not, you’re going to offend them anyway.

Oh, and if the dress makes your wife look fat to you, and you tell her it doesn’t (rather than deflecting or refusing to answer that question), it’s still a lie.

Because a relationship (“friends” in your example) based on a lie is not a good one, and is in fact destined for failure. There’s actual truth, and there is falsehood, not “surface” truth vs. “deep” truth. A relationship is not even going to work at a surface level unless you’re willing to lie or overlook obvious truth in order to maintain the facade demanded by the other person.

I have never based friendship on what a person believes about their gender. I don’t think it’s ever come up at all. But all my friends believe things I think they’re wrong about. It’s really not a friendship if I require certain beliefs of them. Of course I want them to believe what I know to be true, especially if it’s harming them, but what they believe isn’t a condition.

As for the the looking fat example, it’s not a great example but the point doesn’t rise or fall on it either way. What I’d really do in situations like that is try to say something true but nonresponsive to the question. This is still evasion, which plenty of people have also told me is lying. They’re wrong.

I don’t think very many people actually live up to the standards they claim for these kinds of interactions.

If I had a coworker who was absolutely convinced he was the king of Spain, I’d have no problem greeting him as “your highness.” It is not a deceit, because I’m not trying to convince him of anything. It’s not a lie because it’s not even a deceit. You could argue that it’s a lie because he thinks I’m agreeing with him. But a) how do we know he thinks that? and b) is it really my problem if he makes an inaccurate inference? By now, trans identified folks are aware that they have demanded specific pronouns. They certainly should also be aware that not everybody who meets the demands is necessarily trying to communicate what they personally believe.

Try another analogy. In the coutroom, you’re supposed to refer to the judge as “your honor.” Are you “lying” if you know he’s a dishonorable lout? Judges know its a convention, a courtesy and that what you really believe is anybody’s guess.

[Aaron Blumer]

But all my friends believe things I think they’re wrong about. It’s really not a friendship if I require certain beliefs of them.

Of course it isn’t, but with all of your true friends, you’re willing to let them know when you disagree and why, and that’s my point. If you actually try to hide disagreement from them (rather than just avoid the topic at times to prevent arguments), I’d contend that that friendship is in trouble.

As for the the looking fat example, it’s not a great example but the point doesn’t rise or fall on it either way. What I’d really do in situations like that is try to say something true but nonresponsive to the question. This is still evasion, which plenty of people have also told me is lying. They’re wrong.

I don’t think very many people actually live up to the standards they claim for these kinds of interactions.

I actually agree with you that deflection or evasion is often the best course, and that it’s not lying. I actually refuse to answer questions like that from anyone but my wife. She and I have an agreement that we don’t ask each other questions like that unless we want the truth. And yes, we don’t always “live up” to that standard, so sometimes we have to ask in response “Do you really want to know?” which is a reminder that the person is about to enter hard truth territory, and is doing so knowingly.

If I had a coworker who was absolutely convinced he was the king of Spain, I’d have no problem greeting him as “your highness.” It is not a deceit, because I’m not trying to convince him of anything. It’s not a lie because it’s not even a deceit. You could argue that it’s a lie because he thinks I’m agreeing with him. But a) how do we know he thinks that? and b) is it really my problem if he makes an inaccurate inference? By now, trans identified folks are aware that they have demanded specific pronouns. They certainly should also be aware that not everybody who meets the demands is necessarily trying to communicate what they personally believe.

If I had a coworker who was literally convinced he was the king of Spain, he wouldn’t last long at my business. But for the sake of argument, if I were ever to use a title like that with someone who didn’t actually possess it, my tone and phrasing would make it more than clear that my use of that honorific was extremely sarcastic, and not because I agree with its usage. And as to the insistence on pronoun usage, I’m convinced that the entire reason for that insistence is to get us to actually think of them in those terms, and thus come to agreement with them on it, which is one of the reasons I’m loathe to give in on that point.

Try another analogy. In the courtroom, you’re supposed to refer to the judge as “your honor.” Are you “lying” if you know he’s a dishonorable lout? Judges know its a convention, a courtesy and that what you really believe is anybody’s guess.

I’m not convinced this analogy actually applies, given this is part of “respect for the office” which is taught and modeled in the Bible. I don’t know what Paul thought of Felix, but I suspect it wasn’t really “most excellent.” And his dressing down of the high priest was only apologized for to the extent that he wanted to respect the office of the high priest, not that he thought what he said was untrue. Since there is a general understanding of the use of “respect for the office,” I put that in a different category than changing pronouns. I think there’s a big difference between Felix maybe not being “excellent” in every way, since that was an official term of office, and say calling him a Jew if he had wanted to be thought of as such.

Plus, respect for the office is only given to those who actually hold, or in some cases (like ex-presidents) once held the position, or sometimes only when they are acting in an official capacity. E.g. we don’t call any people we know who are judges “your honor” unless they are actually sitting in court. And we certainly don’t accord any non-judges that same honorific at any time. We don’t use those terms for people who have not earned or been elected to those positions, even if they would want us to.

Even though I get where you are coming from on pronouns, I disagree that this usage really helps your argument.

Aaron Blumer: …It’s really not a friendship if I require certain beliefs of them.

And vice versa? What if they require beliefs of you?

If I had a coworker who was absolutely convinced he was the king of Spain, I’d have no problem greeting him as “your highness.” It is not a deceit, because I’m not trying to convince him of anything.

That’s an odd qualification of deceit. You are certainly reinforcing his false belief with your statement, which you admit are not really true (white lie).

It seems to me that this comes down to you asking yourself, “Should I do wrong by insulting this person over a pronoun? Or should I do wrong by calling him something that he isn’t?” (Now - it also seems to me that having made your conclusion in this dilemma, you’re trying to satisfy yourself in it by redefining “lie,” “deceit,” etc.)

[Dan Miller]

It seems to me that this comes down to you asking yourself, “Should I do wrong by insulting this person over a pronoun? Or should I do wrong by calling him something that he isn’t?”

By your first question, you are assuming it actually insults someone to call them what they are.

By your first question, you are assuming it actually insults someone to call them what they are.

There’s a lot of anxiety in this. I had an interaction recently with a young female. Her mom introduced her and added, “Their pronouns are they and them.” I continued to call her “her” and “she” through the appointment and nothing more was said.

Some means are justified by their ends… Though I don’t think avoiding pointless offense needs ends to justify it.

About friends and differences of belief… I really can’t think of anybody that I have ever confronted about everything I thought we disagreed about. So it’s really not valid to say that a friendship is weakened by deciding not to talk about something. It would, of course, be weakened by deciding not to talk about anything! But there’s quite a bit of ground between nothing and everything.

I do think that just avoiding pronouns mostly is a good solution also. But it’s not always going to be possible to avoid that I don’t think.

Let’s take into consideration a feature of grammar too though. It changes over time. As an example who is usually considered a personal pronoun, but at some point it became customary to use the possessive form of that personal pronoun in reference to non-persons. People will say things like a car whose exhaust is too loud, or a dog whose leg was injured. … Or even without the possessive a dog who is cute.

I suppose if this grammatical trend had begun in the context of a social movement to claim personhood for dogs and cars, everyone would have been up in arms about lying when they use the personal possessive pronoun in reference to non-persons… Because they’re saying that dogs and cars are people.

But if I’d been around at the time I probably would have shrugged and said it’s inevitable; language is often not technically accurate; language changes; get used to it.

In the case of our culture’s sexual ethics, part of my attitude toward all this is that these changes seem to be inevitable. Until there is a widespread return to a lost view of what truth is and how it’s known, especially moral and ethical truth, the cultural drift is not really going to be slowed by fighting over pronouns.

[Aaron Blumer]

But if I’d been around at the time I probably would have shrugged and said it’s inevitable; language is often not technically accurate; language changes; get used to it.

In the case of our culture’s sexual ethics, part of my attitude toward all this is that these changes seem to be inevitable. Until there is a widespread return to a lost view of what truth is and how it’s known, especially moral and ethical truth, the cultural drift is not really going to be slowed by fighting over pronouns.

Yes, language changes, and mostly it just changes naturally.

These changes are agenda driven and the massive power of the media is part of it. There are countless examples. Notice how newspapers talk about “whites and Blacks.” That is deliberate. Do you accommodate that in your writing?

Words are power. That is what this is about.

I don’t think the arguments I’ve heard can pass a basic consistency test.

1. It’s been traditional for a long time to refer to boats and ships and sometimes cars as “she.” Based on the arguments above, it would be ethically wrong and lying to say “Ol’ Bessie has served me well for 300,000 miles. She’s a mighty fine truck!” Or the American flag: “Long may she wave!” If you want to factor in some other languages, German has masculine, feminine, and neuter definite articles. In English we use “the” for everything, but in German it’s “der” for a car… a lie that the car is male. On the other hand it’s “das” a neuter article, with “madchen” which is definitely a lie because “madchen” means little girl… and “die” for the sun, declaring it to be female. … so much lying!!

2. If using a traditionally feminine pronoun in reference to a person who is biologically male is a lie/wrong for other reasons, what do we do about nouns? For example, the individual formerly known as Bruce Jenner is now known as Caitlin Jenner, a traditionally feminine name. So if it’s wrong to use “she” and “her” in reference to Jenner, is it wrong to use Caitlin? In a work/job environment it may be possible to avoid pronouns, but avoid first names also? Where does this stop?

Gender in both pronouns and personal names (and articles) has had a fairly loose relationship with reality for a long time. It’s never been lying. It’s not lying now.

“2. If using a traditionally feminine pronoun in reference to a person who is biologically male is a lie/wrong for other reasons, what do we do about nouns? For example, the individual formerly known as Bruce Jenner is now known as Caitlin Jenner, a traditionally feminine name. So if it’s wrong to use “she” and “her” in reference to Jenner, is it wrong to use Caitlin? In a work/job environment it may be possible to avoid pronouns, but avoid first names also? Where does this stop?”

The difference is that a person can change their name anytime they want. They can call themselves anything and I will call them their chosen name. They cannot however change their God-given gender. Is a woman “pastor” a pastor? I think you would agree that she is not. What if she was your sister and wanted to be called pastor by those who knew her? Would you do so?
This whole discussion can fall into an argument akin to nominalism pretty quickly but a thing is what it is. If my father/mother/child came to believe he or she was a turtle I would not indulge their fantasy. It’s simply not loving to do so.

None of these objections offer a real solution to the problem.

Of course, on a personal level, with someone you know really well, responses could vary widely. Context! That wasn’t the situation on the table earlier in the thread. We were talking about people we don’t even really know at work.

But regardless of “a thing is what it is,” the fact remains that if we’re going to reject a pronoun because the gender isn’t precisely true, we would, by the same reasoning, have to reject a noun because the gender isn’t precisely true.

The fact also remains that we’ve been fudging on gender accuracy with both nouns and pronouns for centuries.

And the problem remains, how are you going to interact with these folks in the workplace? If coworker Mark decides he’s Marsha from now on, I’m calling him Marsha. And if he decides “him” doesn’t go with Marsha, and should be “her,” it’s silly to insist on ‘him’ but not insist on ‘Mark.’

What it comes down to is that it’s not my calling to fight this person’s lifestyle choices or self-perceptions. If he/she/they believes he’s an ambassador from Mars, it isn’t my job to straighten him out, if he maintains professional standards in his work.

We all make decisions every day about what’s “my problem,” and what’s “not my problem.” I mean, Google says 25,000 people die of hunger every day globally. I have lost precisely zero sleep over that. Am I a bad person for that reason? I don’t view anyone as a bad person for accepting what they are powerless to change and choosing to focus on efforts where they can make a difference.

We’re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube on our culture’s gender issues drift. The sexual revolution that began in the 1960’s guaranteed this day would come. Being a crank at work isn’t going to change that. But questions of ideals aside, unless we have a solution to the gendered noun problem, we also don’t really have a solution to the gendered pronoun problem.