Banning Gender Pronouns Because They’re Microaggressions

[FaithIsFilth]

All of these arguments only look at one side of the issue, how the person being addressed feels about it.  Nobody ever seems to look at the other side, how the person using the pronoun may be made uncomfortable by its use.  While I am certainly a champion for LGBT rights that doesn't mean that their feelings are the only ones we should consider.

Case in point, I read a few months ago about parents suing to stop gender reassignment surgery (unsuccessfully) for their daughter (born as their son).  The father kept calling her his "son" until the judge ordered him to use the proper pronoun.  The judge was considering only the feelings of the defendant, who was a woman as far as she was concerned and demanded that she be referred to as such.  But he never considered the father's perspective.  He took a baby boy home from the hospital.  He was old and this really is rather new territory for this country.  He was not comfortable referring to her as his "daughter".  She had always been his son and, as far as he was concerned, she always would be.  Now certainly he was closed minded and selfish.  He was, after all, suing to prevent his daughter from having the surgery, which is what she truly believed would make her happy.  But why must we be concerned with her comfort zone and hers alone?  They will clearly never see eye to eye on this matter.  The father clearly doesn't want to see this happen (I believe he lost, by the way).  And, yes, referring to her with the female pronoun did make her feel more comfortable, which I, personally, am more than happy to do.  But it doesn't make me uncomfortable to do so, so there's no conflict.  In this case either the father was uncomfortable or the daughter was.  Yes, the father's beliefs were bigoted and outdated, but they were still his beliefs.  Why are we concerned only with the feelings of one and not the other?  Is it not enough to say, "You are wrong.  Everyone has the right to be happy."?  Must we then go further and demand that they make themselves uncomfortable, that they offend themselves in order to prevent offending the other?  It's not like what he was saying was derogatory or anything.  He wasn't using negative words to describe her and he wasn't hurting her on purpose.  But he wasn't comfortable describing his boy as his daughter, from his perspective.

I understand that not everybody "feels" like they fit into one of these two categories, but really, that's life.  People label us all the time in ways we are not comfortable with.  Personally, if it bothers you then tell the person using what you feel is the wrong pronoun which one you prefer, but don't expect them to make themselves feel uncomfortable to make you feel comfortable.  It's selfish and childish, in my opinion, and if they refuse to do it then you can easily tell who is more concerned with their own feelings than yours, thus, who to avoid in the future.

Fuck the father's feelings. What if a father is upset that he can't call his gay son a fruitcake in a joking manner? I mean, he doesn't want a gay son afterall, just like the father in your case doesn't want a transgender for a son. Shouldn't we also respect that he doesn't want a gay son? Well, not really. Fuck him. Refusing to accept that your son is no longer your son but now your daughter, is like refusing to accept that your son is gay and trying to set him up with girls and joking about him to try to embarass him and get him to change back to straight.

Christians do the same thing with atheists. We're not really atheists. We're just mad at god. It's just a phase and we will come out of it. My parents tell me I'm still a Christian. Even if I don't believe, I'm still saved they say, right after telling me to repent or burn. Now, I don't find this offensive. I actually get a kick out of being insulted, and the only thing I really find offensive is the actions of governments, but I can imagine that it might not be too fun having your womanhood/ manhood constantly questioned like the father in your story was doing. I would say he wouldn't even need to refer to her as his 'daughter' or use 'she' anyways. You only use the words daughter and she when you are talking to someone else about your daughter. When you are talking to her directly, you just talk to her. There is no need to use the word 'daughter', 'she', 'her', etc. when actually talking to the daughter. If the father is used to calling her 'son' rather than calling the child by their name, just replace 'son' with 'sport' or 'buddy'. Problem solved. Now he doesn't have to be a prick and call her son.

Edit - Oh, the Judge ordered that the father refer to her as daughter in court? That is dumb. He can refer to her as 'my child' in court, and 'buddy' or whatever at home. Again, no need for the word daughter to be used. Problem solved.

[trdsf]

Is it not enough to say, "You are wrong.  Everyone has the right to be happy."?

That's a noble sentiment, but it's impossible for everyone to be happy.  The best we can do is minimize the number of people made unhappy.

My question to the father in that court case would be: what's more important, your fantasy of who your child is... or the real, live, living human being that is your child, of whatever sex?  It seems to me that the father was more fixated on what he wanted his child to be, than on who his child actually is.  And that is dehumanizing, and what is particularly dehumanizing about this case: to this father, his child is a possession, not a person.  And once his child is an adult, and absent a clear incapability and an assignment of guardianship, it's not his fucking decision.

Simply put, in this case, the father does not have a right to be happy, certainly not one that trumps his daughter's personal medical decisions and needs.

[Baruch]

That's a noble sentiment, but it's impossible for everyone to be happy.  The best we can do is minimize the number of people made unhappy.

My question to the father in that court case would be: what's more important, your fantasy of who your child is... or the real, live, living human being that is your child, of whatever sex?  It seems to me that the father was more fixated on what he wanted his child to be, than on who his child actually is.  And that is dehumanizing, and what is particularly dehumanizing about this case: to this father, his child is a possession, not a person.  And once his child is an adult, and absent a clear incapability and an assignment of guardianship, it's not his fucking decision.

Simply put, in this case, the father does not have a right to be happy, certainly not one that trumps his daughter's personal medical decisions and needs.

We don't even have the ability to control our own happiness, though we try to do so with intoxicants and drugs.  And as narcissists ... of course I am more important than my child or anyone else!  I am not saying that being transgender is an illness, but clearly the father has more psych problems than his "daughter".

[SilentFutility]

Offence is taken, not given.