Introduction to capitalised pronouns
Introduction to capitalised pronouns
Alright, let’s get one myth out of the way. Capitalised pronouns are not rare. I have personally met thousands of people who use…
You're viewing a single thread.
Likewise, a trans person you meet on the street isn’t benefiting from the might of the Roman church. So you’re not supporting hierarchy by using a trans person’s preferred pronouns. By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.
So, I want to start by pointing out that this article is directly making a link between capitalization of pronouns, and the specific practice of capitalization as a Christian show of religious reverence.
Worse, if you refused to use a trans man’s preferred pronouns because of this, you’d be guilty of pretty blatant transphobia. I believe refusing to use capitalised pronouns for a trans person who requests them is exactly the same bigotry.
Is the assertion here specifically that capitalization is tied to gender expression, or simply that it is another aspect of a personal identity that should be respected? Obviously neopronouns can be non gender-related, but the article isn't really making clear if that is the case here or not. If anything, it is quite muddled on this point.
By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.
Wooph... The first part of that is by no means a safe assumption. While I would certainly hope that trans men would not seek to enforce a male-dominant gender power dynamic, it is by no means beyond their ability to do so as an intrinsic matter. Now, whether they can benefit from that dynamic in a given time and place is a different discussion, but even in places that do not afford them the systemic backing of the patriarchal system, they can still support and reify it themselves. Any person who attempts to enforce a male-dominant systemic power dynamic can be supporting patriarchy.
The end of that sentence seems to confirm that this is about a show of religious reverence? Or is the assertion that by capitalizing the pronouns of not-the-christian-diety one is inherently attacking Christianity?
I think that if these are simply the neo pronouns that make someone comfortable, it is for the most part fine to request this, but the article is directly drawing the link between capitalized pronouns and religious reverence, and that is not something anyone can demand someone else extend, and not one that is inherently inappropriate not to.
There are plenty of arguments over the limits of neopronoun usage within the neopronoun-using community, but generally neopronouns like "master", that confer or denote a power dynamic, are considered inappropriate.
This feels like this is skirting that line to me.
There is something very uncomfortable to me about demanding the use of a deferential title, while also insisting that not to do so is a moral wrong, while also claiming not to support hierarchy of peoples... which the creation of distinct and deferential titles would seem to contradict.
So, I want to start by pointing out that this article is directly making a link between capitalization of pronouns, and the specific practice of capitalization as a Christian show of religious reverence.
I felt it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the biggest historical precedent when writing this article. People always bring up Deus when they see My pronouns, so it's not like I can just ignore it.
Is the assertion here specifically that capitalization is tied to gender expression, or simply that it is another aspect of a personal identity that should be respected?
Both? I don't really mind why someone uses capitalised pronouns. For Me personally it's gender identity; I'm goddessgender. But anyone can use any pronouns. I met a cis guy once who used it/its. Not a gender thing, it just felt more comfortable with its preferred pronouns. Have you ever heard the saying "trans rights are human rights"? When we extend liberties to trans people who need them to survive, we increase everyone's freedom, because everyone now has that option.
Wooph… The first part of that is by no means a safe assumption. While I would certainly hope that trans men would not seek to enforce a male-dominant gender power dynamic, it is by no means beyond their ability to do so as an intrinsic matter.
I always prefer to start by giving trans people the benefit of the doubt. The consequences of not doing so are a lot worse than a single trans person being a sexist, and the benefit of the doubt can always be revoked in an individual case later. Even so, if I knew a misogynistic trans man, My response to his misogyny would not be to misgender him.
The end of that sentence seems to confirm that this is about a show of religious reverence? Or is the assertion that by capitalizing the pronouns of not-the-christian-diety one is inherently attacking Christianity?
Many christians hold that capitalised pronouns are only for Deus, and that capitalising the pronouns of a mortal is an attack on christianity. I love the kind of christians who respect trans people and other faiths. But the form of christianity which is exclusionary and power-hoarding should be attacked. From the exclusionary christian's point of view, no matter the identity of the CPU in question, we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus' supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that. And we should also respect whatever the CPU identifies as.
First off, thank You for responding to my questions.
From the exclusionary christian’s point of view, no matter the identity of the CPU in question, we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that. And we should also respect whatever the CPU identifies as.
I have a few different converging thoughts, and I'll try to lay them out separately to make sure my question's premise is clear:
- You acknowledge the power dynamic which people perceive around capitalization of pronouns
- Pronoun capitalization is also used for royalty- not just divinity (e.g. 'Her Majesty'), so this is not a power dynamic specific to religious people
- You have used un-capitalized pronouns for other people, so at least perceptually, You're not treating all people as being of this same 'elevated' position
- Your neopronouns are not optional; You have insisted that people use them, which is not a universal standpoint on neopronouns; many neopronoun users are fine with people switching between their pronoun sets, or have a 'fallback'/ auxiliary set
- Words have meaning, and You cannot pretend or decide that other people have to not care about them. That would even be directly hypocritical to insisting others accept the pronouns of Your choice.
- Just to reiterate one last time, there is unquestionably a power dynamic at play, because upending the exclusivity of that deference to figures of authority is one of Your stated reasons (or at least benefits) for using them:
we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that.
You are forcing them to extend You that same deference, or claiming that Status for Yourself, however You prefer to view it.
But I am struggling to see how Your insistence on this particular set of pronouns does not engender a requirement of people to extend You deference You are (at least by default, demonstrably), not extending to them? (and I am not referring to the exclusionary Religious here, but fellow Beehaw users)
There is a strong debate over using neopronouns like "master/masterself", "daddy/daddyself", etc (certainly without auxiliaries), that may create uncomfortable power dynamics for the persons needing to use them. I think this is striking some of us as similar to that, which is I think why You are seeing this much pushback.
On My antirealist discord server, The Outside, all pronouns are capitalised by default. Even pronouns referring to inanimate objects. If someone joins the server who prefers lowercase pronouns, they have to choose a lowercase pronouns role or they'll be misgendered. People understand and accept an unusual tradition in a space that's specifically set up that way. But if I go around misgendering lowercase pronoun users in public forums like this, there's a lot more pushback. Lowercase pronoun users, or LPUs, tend to be a lot more hostile to being misgendered than CPUs like Myself. They're used to being catered to by society, and when that's suddenly taken away, it's a big surprise and they're not sure how to respond. Us CPUs have accepted that We're going to have to ask for Our pronouns to be used, and that it's easier for everyone if We just let the LPUs have this. Maybe in the future it'll be different, but I really don't want to be dragged into an argument by an LPU who takes offense and decides to make a scene instead of just asking to have their pronouns respected. I've been in that situation before. LPUs are a lot more common than CPUs, besides. There's another LPU in this thread commenting that she'd be uncomfortable if referred to with capitalised pronouns. And like most LPUs, she's polite about it.
One point of clarification, when I said that capitalised pronoun use challenges christian monotheism, I meant that it does so by devaluing the pronoun as a symbol of hierarchy. In the eyes of transphobic christians, I'm not the equal of their god, and they are incapable of thinking of Me as such. So if I have similar pronouns to their god, it means pronouns are no longer a symbol of supremacy. That's the actual side benefit that capitalised pronoun use has in challenging hierarchy, it devalues capitalised pronouns. And I don't think capitalised pronouns should be valuable, they should be cheap enough that anyone can afford them.
Us CPUs have accepted that We’re going to have to ask for Our pronouns to be used, and that it’s easier for everyone if We just let the LPUs have this. Maybe in the future it’ll be different, but I really don’t want to be dragged into an argument by an LPU who takes offense and decides to make a scene instead of just asking to have their pronouns respected. I’ve been in that situation before.
I know You say it is not about a power dynamic, but this statement is condescending as all get out. It makes people that use lower case pronouns seem petulant and childish because we get upset when we get misgendered. It smacks of not leveling the same amount of respect to others as You demand they pay to You
General pronouns have to be one or the other, or alternating, or some other strategy. I've only reported comments that misgendered Me after I already asked that person to use My preferred pronouns. I've had positive experiences with 90% of people that disliked being referred to with uppercase pronouns. The remaining 10% are people who weren't happy when I immediately used their preferred pronouns upon request. They were offended that I used a capitalised pronoun when addressing a person who had no previously stated preference, and they wanted Me to always lowercase strangers. So I agreed to their demands, and I lowercase everyone by default now. And of course that 10% is a minority of a minority, because most people aren't specifically LPUs, they don't care about the capitalisation of their pronouns. 99% of people who lowercase pronouns some or all of the time are perfectly pleasant. I am not insulting you when I talk about this small group that caused problems in the past.
I think You missed my point entirely. The language You used in the paragraph I quoted is condescending. You may not have meant to do that, but the result makes it seem like You are talking down to people that use lower case pronouns (or have not thought about/care about capitalization). Even if it is only a small part of Your experience, the language used makes it seem like folks that use lower case are more prone to outburst.
I'm afraid that if we're going to have a conversation about the experiences of capitalised pronoun users, the bigotry of certain people outside the community is going to have to be a part of the conversation. Most people are not transphobes, but some are, and most of the people who engage in violent and uncompromising transphobia are cis. That's not an attack on cis people, it's just the world we live in. Us trans people don't have the luxury of being cisphobic. That's not because of some kind of inherent superioity, it's because the conditions of society don't afford us the same latitudes when it comes to displaying intolerance. A trans person who went around misgendering cis people with neopronouns would be laughed at, while the same behaviour from cis people is often tolerated. That's the simple reason. Nobody's better than anyone else, it's simply what happens when a society is transphobic.
I did not say anything about cis people though? In the paragraph I quoted above, You made a distinction between people that use lower case and upper case pronouns. The distinction You made is that because people that use lower case pronouns are "used to being catered to by society" (which is very untrue in the case of trans people, us nonbinary folks in particular) we have tend to get more upset when misgendered. My point is that this is very condescending, and seems to be saying that people that use uppercase are more reasonable about it. You have been kind of dancing around that point in the last couple responses without actually addressing the condescension.
Curious whether the choice to use "we" and "us" lowercase is intentional. In French, if it's a group of women it's "elles" but 99 women and one man and it becomes "ils". I would have thought the inclusion of CPUs capitalizing "We" and "Us" would have made sense.