The PP folks stated their names and, without being solicited to do so, their pronouns. If they did so without being solicited at all, why were you concerned? They offered their preferred pronouns - what does that have to do with you at all?
I also love the working-class-focused politics of Bernie and AOC. But, please please consider that working class politics and liberatory gender politics are not mutually exclusive.
We have been told during our entire lives that gender is binary and, essentially, superficial. If you look like a dude, you are a dude. If you look like a lady, you are lady. And being a dude means you don't cry, and it means you like guns, and it means you have a penis, and it means you like sex, and it means you like war...and whatever else the culture gods tell us it means. And being a lady means the opposite of all that...and whatever else the culture gods tell us it means. Do you ever get tired of conforming to all that?
Feel free to disagree, but I think that someone who looks like a dude asking me to refer to them as "she" or that someone who looks like a lady asking me to refer to them as "he" or being in situation where I am asked, for even just a second, to consider that everything I have been told about gender, he/she, dude/lady, penis/vagina, etc. etc. might be complete bullshit is incredibly liberatory and radical in all the best ways. That doesn't mean it's easy or comfortable. But that's exactly why we fight.
Hey Jeff, If I'm understanding this right, is that by stating our pronouns we 1) annoy some people, who'd rather not hear them, and 2) in a time when we need to be fighting for the rights of seemingly everyone, when we use our pronouns, it distracts from, and makes harder, the bigger fight. (Excuse my poor distillation of your post.)
I get where you're going. But.... Earlier today I was reading a "NY Times" post with four Time's conservative columnists (Stephens, French, Brooks and Dougthat) in a moderated discussion by Times' opinion editor, Patrick Healy, who were discussing why Trump is now more popular within the GOP. Healy, in a lighting round, made statements and asked each to reply with their thoughts and Bret Stephens' replied:
Healy: The federal government sending hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a prison in El Salvador, deciding they were gang members even as a federal judge was assessing their cases, and doing so even though the judge ordered the deportation flights to turn around and head back to the United States.
Stephens: I’d need to learn a few more details, but it sounds legally iffy. Still, not the hill Trump’s critics should want to die on.
OK, I'm a Trump critic. Why would this not be a hill that I and others take a stand? From my perspective, Trump and this administration shipping off people--some people that are in the US legally-- without any due process is fucking consequential. (I get where Stephens is coming from--he was not being flip but recognizing that this is popular with a large segment of voters.)
So here we are, that the shipping off of immigrants--some who might be here legally, and the use of pronouns are not the things we shouldn't be concerned with in our big fight quest. I realize that these two items are disparate in nature, but it's part of the bigger picture of what we consider in this fight what's important. Everything, in my armchair observations, is a trigger for the conservatives these days: immigrants = bad people, pronouns = woke. The list goes on.
Again, I see your point, but for many people, some who are non-binary, it's a big deal as it's one more thing that attempts to erase them in a hostile environment that every day is creating more laws targeting marginalized communities and making their lives more difficult.
You said that at the meeting the two women introduced their self and then, unsolicited, stated their preferred pronouns. How long did that take? Two seconds? I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're an older, white, male (I am), so pronoun usage is not that significant to you. Regardless, should it not be important that we are considerate and recognize others? It's not that difficult. I think throwing these people under the bus, when they are in the same fight as us and fighting along our side, is not the route we want to go. I know you did not say "throw them under the bus", but if you work through your argument that's where it ultimately goes.
I certainly don't have the answer going forward on how we should approach our arguments in our quest to win back power. But I feel strongly that negating those on margins is not the right way to go. From immigrants to those who might not live in a binary world, to SS, to the environment, to our allies north and south of us, etc., we need to weigh all equally as these people and these issues are all darn important.
I have struggled with the preferred pronoun craze as well. I call it a craze in the sense of “everyone is doing it, I guess I need to as well.” Especially in email signatures. My previous employer required us to have our preferred pronouns in our signatures.
At first, I was thought stating pronouns was great. Folks were letting others know how they wished to be addressed. I assumed it was a way to politely deter people from misgendering them. But now, everyone seems to have to do it. When I say everyone, I don’t literally mean everyone. I work in social services, and my colleagues lean liberal. So, everyone in my world.
It feels uncomfortable and awkward for me to state that I go by he/him. I am obviously male and have never been misgendered to my knowledge. I feel pressure to state my pronouns in meetings quite often. And I don’t feel like it’s a solidarity thing either. Such as, I state my pronouns so that it is helpful for someone else. I want people to be secure and safe and heard in public. If stating pronouns helps them. Awesome. However, I don’t like the pressure to state mine.
As for the larger view of how it may hurt us liberals politically, I can see that. If the goal is to toughen up and kick some ass, then opening every discussion with a statement that associates oneself with a specific group may put us in a box. A box that has been marginalized, demonized, and infantilized by many on the Right.
I hear you, but I am confused by your take here.
The PP folks stated their names and, without being solicited to do so, their pronouns. If they did so without being solicited at all, why were you concerned? They offered their preferred pronouns - what does that have to do with you at all?
I also love the working-class-focused politics of Bernie and AOC. But, please please consider that working class politics and liberatory gender politics are not mutually exclusive.
We have been told during our entire lives that gender is binary and, essentially, superficial. If you look like a dude, you are a dude. If you look like a lady, you are lady. And being a dude means you don't cry, and it means you like guns, and it means you have a penis, and it means you like sex, and it means you like war...and whatever else the culture gods tell us it means. And being a lady means the opposite of all that...and whatever else the culture gods tell us it means. Do you ever get tired of conforming to all that?
Feel free to disagree, but I think that someone who looks like a dude asking me to refer to them as "she" or that someone who looks like a lady asking me to refer to them as "he" or being in situation where I am asked, for even just a second, to consider that everything I have been told about gender, he/she, dude/lady, penis/vagina, etc. etc. might be complete bullshit is incredibly liberatory and radical in all the best ways. That doesn't mean it's easy or comfortable. But that's exactly why we fight.
Solidarity Always.
I love your books, and I love your takes, Jeff. You rock.
Hey Jeff, If I'm understanding this right, is that by stating our pronouns we 1) annoy some people, who'd rather not hear them, and 2) in a time when we need to be fighting for the rights of seemingly everyone, when we use our pronouns, it distracts from, and makes harder, the bigger fight. (Excuse my poor distillation of your post.)
I get where you're going. But.... Earlier today I was reading a "NY Times" post with four Time's conservative columnists (Stephens, French, Brooks and Dougthat) in a moderated discussion by Times' opinion editor, Patrick Healy, who were discussing why Trump is now more popular within the GOP. Healy, in a lighting round, made statements and asked each to reply with their thoughts and Bret Stephens' replied:
Healy: The federal government sending hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a prison in El Salvador, deciding they were gang members even as a federal judge was assessing their cases, and doing so even though the judge ordered the deportation flights to turn around and head back to the United States.
Stephens: I’d need to learn a few more details, but it sounds legally iffy. Still, not the hill Trump’s critics should want to die on.
OK, I'm a Trump critic. Why would this not be a hill that I and others take a stand? From my perspective, Trump and this administration shipping off people--some people that are in the US legally-- without any due process is fucking consequential. (I get where Stephens is coming from--he was not being flip but recognizing that this is popular with a large segment of voters.)
So here we are, that the shipping off of immigrants--some who might be here legally, and the use of pronouns are not the things we shouldn't be concerned with in our big fight quest. I realize that these two items are disparate in nature, but it's part of the bigger picture of what we consider in this fight what's important. Everything, in my armchair observations, is a trigger for the conservatives these days: immigrants = bad people, pronouns = woke. The list goes on.
Again, I see your point, but for many people, some who are non-binary, it's a big deal as it's one more thing that attempts to erase them in a hostile environment that every day is creating more laws targeting marginalized communities and making their lives more difficult.
You said that at the meeting the two women introduced their self and then, unsolicited, stated their preferred pronouns. How long did that take? Two seconds? I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're an older, white, male (I am), so pronoun usage is not that significant to you. Regardless, should it not be important that we are considerate and recognize others? It's not that difficult. I think throwing these people under the bus, when they are in the same fight as us and fighting along our side, is not the route we want to go. I know you did not say "throw them under the bus", but if you work through your argument that's where it ultimately goes.
I certainly don't have the answer going forward on how we should approach our arguments in our quest to win back power. But I feel strongly that negating those on margins is not the right way to go. From immigrants to those who might not live in a binary world, to SS, to the environment, to our allies north and south of us, etc., we need to weigh all equally as these people and these issues are all darn important.
Sorry for this long-winded response. As you guessed, brevity is not in my cards! If anyone has read this and make it this far, if interested, here's the link to the Time's piece. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/opinion/trump-administration-polling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.6E4.eLEd.cSXaDG9BDTp0&smid=url-share
I have struggled with the preferred pronoun craze as well. I call it a craze in the sense of “everyone is doing it, I guess I need to as well.” Especially in email signatures. My previous employer required us to have our preferred pronouns in our signatures.
At first, I was thought stating pronouns was great. Folks were letting others know how they wished to be addressed. I assumed it was a way to politely deter people from misgendering them. But now, everyone seems to have to do it. When I say everyone, I don’t literally mean everyone. I work in social services, and my colleagues lean liberal. So, everyone in my world.
It feels uncomfortable and awkward for me to state that I go by he/him. I am obviously male and have never been misgendered to my knowledge. I feel pressure to state my pronouns in meetings quite often. And I don’t feel like it’s a solidarity thing either. Such as, I state my pronouns so that it is helpful for someone else. I want people to be secure and safe and heard in public. If stating pronouns helps them. Awesome. However, I don’t like the pressure to state mine.
As for the larger view of how it may hurt us liberals politically, I can see that. If the goal is to toughen up and kick some ass, then opening every discussion with a statement that associates oneself with a specific group may put us in a box. A box that has been marginalized, demonized, and infantilized by many on the Right.