Should We Exercise “Pronoun Hospitality?”

I don’t get why a gendered name that is biologically incongruous with biological sex is supposed to be OK but an incongruous (or completely invented) pronoun is not.

Best I can tell, they’re both OK (or at least unavoidable) or both not. … and practical necessity isn’t going to allow avoiding use of the name. So why hang up on the pronoun?

Before the Miller Lite debacle and Target fiasco, I would have said this is not a culture battle that can be won—that it’s already history. I’m not so sure now. The social change activists may have overestimated the cultural consensus for their POV on these things.

But is self-contradictory use of language (incongruously gendered name = OK, incongruously gendered pronoun = not OK) really a good strategy? I can’t see how that sends any kind of coherent message about truth or compassion or anything else that matters, though it works as a species of virtue signaling.

What we need is a new genderless pronoun.

For he, she and variations: Coo

For him, her and variations: Coom

I talked to Chris, and coo said to give the book to coom. That would simplify everything. Alas, my influence is microscopic.

The issue comes down to whether you’re willing to suffer the consequences for your decision to misgender or deadname people.

We can dress this issue up as pronoun hospitality and say it’s one way of loving our lost neighbor, but it ultimately comes down to whether you’re willing to lose your job over it.

Pastors can pontificate to their people about this and write blog posts, but they are not going to suffer the consequences of this decision.

I don’t get why a gendered name that is biologically incongruous with biological sex is supposed to be OK but an incongruous (or completely invented) pronoun is not.

I take this position. My thinking is that to use “her” is a declaration that someone is female. 100%.

But names aren’t necessarily such a statement. A lot of names are used for both male and females (Terry, etc.). And others could be. I could name my son Debbie and call him a boy. You might think that’s weird and you’d be right.

That’s my thinking. But I get what you’re saying and I do hesitate over the second part. Fictional Example: I know the family and I know that “Greg” (their “son”) is their daughter Sarah. To call her Greg seems nearly as complicit as “him.”

One advantage I see in it is that it has an element of friendly love (use the name) and an element of, to borrow from another thread, true love sometimes wounding.

I met the first transvestite (that I am aware of) about 20 years ago. I had no idea that the person was not born a female until I had already gotten to know the person. I was actually thankful for that, because it removed the awkwardness of it. I was actually able to share the gospel as we got to know each other, and trans never came up in our conversations.

Part of my concern for our current generation is that so many kids are being lied to about the whole trans thing and are being sucked into a culture that pretends to be loving and caring but is not. I do not want to perpetuate the lies, but I also do not want to show a lack of grace toward a trans young person so that they are pushed further into that culture. When I have talked to people that have expressed their preferred pronouns, as long as I am speaking to them rather than about them, then pronouns are not even necessary. I think that one way to show grace is to speak to people rather than about them. We can still speak the truth about the issues without making it personal to individuals.

When it becomes more difficult is when there is a reason to talk about a person who is trans and how we navigate that. For example, if someone asks how Leah Thomson placed in the latest swim meet, the use of a pronoun would normally be part of the answer, but a response of first or second could be given without pronouns.

We are probably more likely to offend people who have taken a strong position on pronouns one way or the other than we are to offend a trans person by carrying on a polite conversation with them without the use of any pronoun about them. The reality is that there are unsaved people on both sides of the pronoun issue that we need to be careful we do not burn bridges with for our future gospel witness. We should not just assume that by using pronouns we are more likely to not offend unsaved people.

Sadly, I sometimes get the impression from some Christians on the right that as long as a person holds conservative values then they do not really need the gospel. Then I get the impression from Christians on the left that if someone holds more conservative values then they are hardly even worthy of the gospel. The same could be stated the other way around as well. Let us focus more on grace and truth in these conversations, than on the politics of the matter. The truth is God made them male and female. Grace says we show love toward them regardless of how confused they are.

I've had a situation where my first thought about a person was that they might be trans, but I simply was not sure. Upon further consideration--and I've not asked anyone about this--my conclusion is that she's simply not "Barbie feminine" or such. So if I'd started to make assumptions about what this person's birth pronouns would be, I might be facing a very, very unpleasant talk with HR and giving up my badge at work, even if I were right.

Plus, more importantly, the key need for the "trans" person I might meet is not primarily for them to use "the right pronouns." It is their need for Christ, and weird me, I have a hunch that if I started interactions by bludgeoning them with "proper pronouns", I'd forfeit any chance of sharing Christ with them.

Thankfully, I've been able to avoid this issue at work, at least so far.

Many names are now basically genderless, but I agree that using a strongly gendered name is little different than using gendered pronouns. In that case I would try to avoid using either the name or the pronoun, although I realize that might involve some creativity on my part.

I feel that my number one obligation is to the Lord and therefore I will strive to not condone or legitimize with my language things that the Bible reveals as sin. Loving my neighbor means that I don't cause needless offense, if I can help it. At some point, though, loving my neighbor means that I can't give the impression that I think their sin is OK with me or with God. On the other hand, I also don't want to cast my pearls before swine, and just injure myself with any sort of rebuke that I know will just be used against me.

At some point, though, loving my neighbor means that I can't give the impression that I think their sin is OK with me or with God.

This is the reason why many would choose not to use the preferred pronouns and is certainly understandable.

But I also feel that if someone is friends with the person then they almost certainly already know one's religious stance as well. So using their preferred pronoun out of respect for them wouldn't cause them to think that stance has changed. Using the pronoun they are requesting shows respect and care, while alternatively refusing to use the pronoun they have requested creates barriers to further conversation.

If there is not an existing friendship, then there is not relational equity to invoke religious beliefs on such a heavy topic anyway. So in that case why would it hurt to use their preferred pronoun out of respect?

For a number of years in the church I attend we had a transgender/lesbian couple attending. As part of the church leadership at that time I was involved in discussions about whether to use the preferred pronouns. But regardless using their preferred pronouns, there was never any false impression to this couple of where the church stood. They knew very well what the church taught on this issue. They also had no doubt that the church loved them and that opened many doors for conversation.

>>But I also feel that if someone is friends with the person then they almost certainly already know one’s religious stance as well.<<

Actually, while this may have been true 50 years ago (but probably not even then), it’s amazing what people today think belongs to Christianity when they find out you are a Christian. Unless the discussion delves deeply into theology (and it rarely does, unless they also claim to be Christian), non-believers have pretty strange ideas what being a Christian means. On this topic I’ve run into everything from “Christianity means you hate gay people,” to “Jesus taught we should love everyone and everything, so if you are not approving of my being gay, you can’t actually be a Christian.” Most of my non-Christian friends, whether agnostic/atheist or belonging to another faith, usually tend to avoid the topic if at all possible.

Like Andy, I don’t try to cause needless offense, and I certainly don’t lead with the topic, but if the discussion gets down to things like fake genders, sexual preferences, and the like, eventually I have to be honest with what I believe.

I am also in the camp of avoiding using pronouns at all (except ones like “you”) with people who request ones that are clearly wrong, and using only the person’s name. Thankfully, it doesn’t come up at work, and only rarely in other situations I find myself.

Where I work, the whole DE&I train rolled into town in 2021. It included mandated training, seminars, new vocabulary, and encouragement to indicate pronouns and to be an ally for various under-represented minorities (i.e., anyone who isn't white, male, and heterosexual).

Navigating all that has been profoundly frustrating at times.

Is “why do you get to offend me by imposing your religion on me?”