Five Reasons Why I Don't Feel Comfortable Introducing Myself Using Gender Pronouns

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Reason #1: I Am an Individual, Not a Gender Identity
3. Reason #2: I Don't Care What People Call Me
4. Reason #3: Focusing on Gender Pronouns Sexualizes People and Triggers Me
5. Reason #4: I Do Not Care About Being Misgendered
6. Reason #5: I Do Not Want to Be Referred To
7. Conclusion

 

 

 

Content

 

 

 

1. Introduction

      A pronoun is a word or phrase used to refer to someone or something. Gender pronouns (or gender-based pronouns) are used to refer to a person by their gender, as shorthand, in place of their name.

     Over the last several years, it has become more and more common - especially in socially liberal or left-leaning circles - to provide one's gender-based pronouns, while introducing oneself to a new group of people.

     I have encountered this phenomenon twice so far in my life; once in a union meeting, and again for a meeting of environmentalists.

     I have written this article in order to explain why I do not feel comfortable introducing myself using gender pronouns.

2. Reason #1: I Am an Individual, Not a Gender Identity

     For one, my gender identity is not an integral part of my identity. I do not primarily identify as a man, a woman, male, nor female, nor anything else "in between" nor "other". What I primarily identify as, is an individual.

     If someone wishes to refer to me, then I would hope that they would refer to me as "Joe" (my first name), or as "Joseph", "Joey", or "Joe Kopsick" (or my full name "Joseph William Kopsick").

     Notice that I said "hope". I hope that people refer to me by my chosen name. If someone wants to call me "Steve", "Billy", "Josephine", "Princess", or "X AE A-12", that is their choice. Attempting to refer to me by that name would be completely unproductive, and would only confuse people about to whom they're referring. But it would not offend or insult me.

3. Reason #2: I Don't Care What People Call Me

     There is no point in getting "offended" or "insulted" when someone refers to you by the wrong name. If they're doing it on purpose, then I would understand feeling offended. But even if a person is trying to offend or insult you, nobody can actually make you feel one way or another. Your feelings are under your control.

     If you suspect that someone is trying to hurt your feelings by calling you by the incorrect name, then you have every right to confront the person about that. As long as you remember that feeling insulted, or saying "I'm offended", doesn't give you any extra rights.

     All you can do is inform people of the name, or pronouns, with which you would like to be referred, and hope that they respond in-kind. You cannot make someone refer to you by any name, because they are in control of their mouths and voice boxes; not you.

 

     I have no preferences regarding what I would like people to call me. As I explained, if they don't call me "Joe", then I may suspect that they are talking about somebody else. But I am not about to start ordering people to call me by any particular name, nor by any particular set of pronouns.

     That's because I am not a grammar Nazi, nor a control freak. I do not care what people call me.

4. Reason #3: Focusing on Gender Pronouns Sexualizes People and Triggers Me

     Another reason why I don't care whether people call me by he/him pronouns, she/her pronouns, or anything else, is because I consider the use of gender-based pronouns to be sexualizing.

     If I were introducing myself with as much attention to gender as the rest of the group would wish, then I would be allowing them to refer to me with a reference to my sex or gender, instead of with a reference to my individuality (the easiest way to do so being to use my first name).

     As I explained, I primarily consider myself to be an individual human being, rather than as a member of the male biological sex, or the masculine gender, or the female biological sex, or the feminine gender, or anything else.

     I am not primarily a member of any group; I identify as myself.

     Even though (as far as I know) I have XY sex chromosomes, that fact does not dictate my identity as much as some people might assume it does. If socially tolerant people are correct - and gender is fluid, and biological sex does not dictate who you're attracted to, nor whom you love, nor whether you are more masculine or feminine - then telling you that I identify as male should not tell you jack shit about who I am as a person.

     In my opinion, treating my sex or gender as an integral part of who I am, is just submission to the false assumption (ironically shared by socially "tolerant" people) that telling you my gender identity will tell you everything (or anything) that you need to know about me. It does not.

     I could allow you to refer to me by "he/him" pronouns, but that would be denying that I have a feminine side. I could allow you to refer to me by "she/her" pronouns - as a way of recognizing my feminine side - but that would only be a distraction from the fact that I have XY sex chromosomes and the external genital appearances characteristic of a biological male (i.e., a penis and testicles).

     I was molested as a child.

     When I tried to grow my hair long in high school, I was treated as if I were a girl; as if having long hair alone, made me a girl or a woman. I knew then that that was not so, and I still know it today.

     When I introduce myself to a new group of people, I want them to know what my first name is. That is the way that we all grew up introducing ourselves, and there is no need for that to change. I do not say this out of lack of tolerance for transgender individuals; I say it because there is no need to overload people with information about me aside from my name.

     Also, I do not want people to be thinking about my dick and balls just because I am meeting them for the first time.

     Parents in the Millennial generation (my generation) have spoken up recently about the fact that babies are routinely dressed in gender-specific ways; blue for boys, and pink for girls. It used to be the other way around, actually; blood-red used to stand for males (many of whom became soldiers) while sky-blue stood for the peaceful nurturing nature associated with females.

     Several years ago, a "gender-reveal party" caused a wildfire that burned down twenty-two thousand acres of California wilderness. Millennial parents were quick to point out that that wildfire was an indication that people's obsession with their children's genders has gotten out of hand.
     You can read about that fire at the following link:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dorado_Fire

     People do not need to be thinking about your child's genitals when you inform them that you have given birth to a baby. Similarly, people do not need to know that I have a penis and testicles in order to know that I like to be called Joe.

     Do you need to know that I have a dick, or XY sex chromosomes - or know that I have no plans to take hormones or get surgery - in order to call me by my preferred name of Joe? No, you don't.

     Groups that ask people to introduce themselves with their name and gender pronouns, should think about the fact that many people have sexual trauma in their past.

     Having to decide whether I am more masculine or feminine, in front of a group of strangers, is triggering for me; it traumatizes me and causes me to think about the complicated past I have in terms of trying to figure out what my gender identity is or is not.

     When I am told "Please introduce yourself and tell us your pronouns", I am no longer looking forward to the meeting; now I am anxiously worrying about how to deal with referencing my sexual or gender identity. I am worrying about how to avoid being objectified sexually, or sexualized, when all I should be doing is waiting to tell people what my name is.

     After I introduce myself, people should be thinking about the fact that my name is Joe. They should not be thinking about whether I have a penis, whether I am attracted to men, nor whether I am taking hormones or seeking gender confirmation surgery.

     The person who molested me as a child, was obsessed with my appearance and sexuality and my sex. I grew up fixated on my appearance, and having to worry about whether I seemed masculine-looking enough, while retaining my right to have a nurturing and feminine side.

     I don't need to go through the rest of my life worrying that complete strangers are going to treat me the same way as my child molester.

     My name is Joe. Some biological women are named Joe (or Jo) too. The fact that my name is Joe, has absolutely nothing to do with my external genital appearance, nor with whether I am more masculine or feminine.

     Stop sexualizing me. And stop sexualizing your infants.

5. Reason #4: I Do Not Care About Being Misgendered

     If you feel it necessary to use pronouns when referring to me, then I would not be offended, hurt, insulted, nor shocked, if you guessed. Not even if you guessed incorrectly. I would be confused, but not offended.
     I do not care about being misgendered (that is, identified as a member of "the wrong gender"). I would rather be misgendered, than order people to use - or not to use - certain words, when referring to me.



6. Reason #5: I Do Not Want to Be Referred To

     When I introduce myself to a group, I assume that - if someone wishes to speak to me - they will address me directly, calling me by my name.

     I do not assume that they will chiefly reference me by referring to me in the third person while speaking to other people in the group.

     If you need to mention me to someone else in the group, then my first name "Joe" will suffice perfectly, in place of whatever pronouns you may wish that I had indicated that I prefer.

 

     As I explained, I do not wish to "force" nor "make" people call me by any particular name(s) or gender pronoun(s), and I cannot force anybody to say anything because I don't control their mouth.

     But what I suggest, is that, if someone wishes to refer to me, to another person in the group, then there is no reason whatsoever why they need to refer to me as "him" or "he".

     Instead of "him" or "her", say "Joe". Instead of "he" or "she", say "Joe".

     Now, it may feel awkward to you to say "Joe" every five seconds instead of using "he" as shorthand, but imagine how awkward I might feel having my gender referred to every few seconds, or (even worse) being prompted to focus on my gender as if it were an integral (or the second-most important) part of my identity.

     There is no reason why you can't say to someone, "How do you think Joe feels about that" instead of "How do you think he feels about that". There is no reason why you can't say, "Let's invite Joe to the event later this week" instead of "Let's invite him to the event later this week."

     If you think that all of this is a bit too much for me to tell you about myself, then imagine how I must feel when you ask me to talk about my sexual or gender identity the very same moment that I meet you for the first time!

 

     In fact, if your question is "How do you think Joe feels about that", then why don't you ask me how I feel about it, instead of asking someone else!?

     If we referred to each other by their names when speaking to each other - and never gossiped about each other behind one another's backs - then there would be almost zero need for third-person pronouns (let alone gender pronouns).

     The American-Israeli philosopher Dr. Martin Buber explained, in his book I and Thou, referring to someone as "it" or "he" has a very different character from calling that person "you". Dr. Buber (not "he", but Dr. Buber) explains that referring to someone in the third person, separates that person from oneself (I). When you engage directly with a person, and speak directly to them, you remove that separation, and enter into a real, direct relationship with that person.

     Buber even went so far as to assert that this implies that there is no such thing as "they" (a plural form of the third-person pronouns "it", "he", and "she"). Referring to a group of people as "they" not only separates them from yourself and the person to whom you are speaking, it "others" them. Here, I use "other" as a verb, meaning that calling people "they" implies that they are so different from you and the person to whom you are speaking, that it is almost as if they are not worthy of being spoken to directly.

     I would prefer that people not gossip about me behind my back. I would prefer that people refer to me as "Joe". But just because I might prefer that, that does not mean that it gives me any right to do anything about it.

     Stop talking about me, and start talking to me.

 


7. Conclusion

     I care more about other people's freedom to use whichever words they please, than I am worried about being misgendered. I care more about helping people not to feel excluded or "othered" than I do about labeling them.

     This is why my preferred pronouns are "Shut the fuck up", "Joe-self" and "Go-fuck-your-self".

Written on September 8th, 2021

Published on September 8th, 2021

Dennis Altman's "Global Sex" from a Sociological Perspective

     According to Global Sex author Dennis Altman, there have been arguments that globalization is not a new phenomenon; that it began, some say, as long ago as the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans. 

     Throughout history, as travel and communication became easier, the world became more connected and ideas spread more quickly. The difference is that these days, Altman quotes David Held as saying, “What is new about the modern global system is the chronic intensification of patterns of interconnectedness mediated by such phenomena as the modern communications industry and new information technology… through… technological, organizational, administrative and legal [dimensions of interconnectedness].” Faster modes of transportation such as trains and airplanes, and faster modes of communication such as the telegraph, the telephone, and the Internet, replaced and built on each other, allowing globalization to occur quickly.

     Globalization is rapidly becoming a reality and we are seeing the Americanization of the rest of the world. Altman mentions that people, art, and fashions often do not become popular until they are associated with something American, and that American films and the English language are widespread and popular. Globalization does not mean the eradication of local cultures because, Altman argues, other popular cultures besides the American culture flourish, such as African music, Mexican soap operas, Indian films, and “television in most countries is dominated by locally produced shows….” Cultures often retain their identities and customs even though they are influenced, or even taken over, by other cultures. Altman claims that “almost all of us remain linked to particular places, even if we may also feel part of communities which are not primarily defined by a shared space.”

     The three main socioeconomic factors that create the contexts in which sexual acts and identities occur, according to Dennis Altman, are the economic, the cultural, and the political.

     Altman exemplifies the effects of economy on sex by noting that as cultures trade with each other and there is more contact between the two peoples, they see the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. This can be seen in the case of the spread of syphilis from North America to Europe after Columbus’s contact with North America. Altman also mentions prostitution “Japan established brothels through east Asia to accommodate the expansion of Japanese business….” This shows how the development of the international economy and the expansion of trade have affected sexuality and affected people’s personal lives.

      According to Altman, “Sexual mores and values have constantly changed as societies have come in contact with outside influences….” He mentions an opinion, held by a person in Japan, that introducing the birth control pill into that country would “undermine Japanese social stability.” Altman notes that Ronald Ingelhart has observed that many countries have shifted toward “a more permissive view on abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and extramarital sex.” As outside influences permeate a local culture, that culture gets exposed to alternative attitudes on sexual behavior.

     Political issues relating to sex such as the legalization of gay marriage, the women’s rights movement, the gay rights movement, and the push for anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation are discussed in government around the world, in places such as Namibia, South Africa, Fiji, and Mexico. Altman mentions the case in which “the Namibian high court… ruled that a homosexual relationship should enjoy legal equality.” He also connects the political regimes and relative wealth of Singapore and the Philippines to the size of their gay cultures.

     According to Dennis Altman, “growing affluence allows – and forces – new ways of organizing ‘private’ life… as sexuality is increasingly commodified.” He supports this claim with the example of how sexuality was affected by the expansion of Europe and Japan through imperialism. For example, syphilis spread after Columbus’s contact with North America. Also, Japan established brothels in the areas of east Asia that it conquered “to accommodate the expansion of Japanese business.” Altman also argues that the conquerors and the conquered began to affect each other in ways other than economically, but also in terms of sexuality. He gives the example of Josephine Baker, Carmen Miranda, Alicia Parla, and reggae music, which contributed to the stereotype relating African-Americans and Hispanics to sex, which affected sexuality among white Americans by creating in them an association between the exotic and the erotic. Also, he says that colonizing states contribute to the affluence of the conquered peoples, which sometimes causes the conquered peoples’ traditional family structures to break down.

Altman says “images of different sexualities are rapidly diffused across the world, often to be confronted by religious and nationalist movements.” In this age in which most cultures embrace modernity, there are a few that openly reject it – namely the Lubavitchers, the Amish, and the Taliban – who still have patriarchal attitudes toward women and children. Because the definition of modernity is constantly changing, the change in sexual attitudes can be seen in most cultures to be progressing still. For example, in Japan, a sort of sexual revolution has been taking place for several decades, and more women are questioning their roles as housewives and considering full-time jobs, are more likely “to reject arranged marriages, initiate divorces, and pursue cases of sexual harassment and rape.”

Altman says that “state regulation plays a crucial role in determining the possible forms of sexual expression.” He gives the example of reproductive laws in China and Ireland. China’s one-child policy, in one case, resulted in a woman who was pregnant for the second time to be deported and forced to have an abortion. That law also causes high rates of infanticide in China. Ireland’s strict laws on abortion cause Irish women to go to Britain in order to have reproductive freedom. In countries fortunate enough to have governments that allow people to vote so that the laws reflect popular values, problems like this are becoming less common. Countries such as the United States, Namibia, South Africa, Fiji, and Mexico have pushed for laws against discrimination by sexual orientation, and gay marriage is becoming legal in more countries.

     In chapter 4 of Global Sex, Altman says “the growing internationalization of trade in both sex and drugs has played a major role in the diffusion of HIV….” He goes on to say that it has been argued that “patterns of use of illicit drugs are becoming globalized and ‘standardized,’ leading to the rapid spread of HIV in countries in both Southeast Asia and South America where the U.S.-led ‘war on drugs’ has meant injecting practices have partly replaced traditional opium smoking.”

     Awareness of HIV/AIDS is also an effect of globalization, as evidenced by the popularity of American films about people with AIDS, and the use of the red ribbon and the AIDS quilt as symbols of awareness. Altman references the “considerable amount of literary and theatrical response to the [AIDS] epidemic” in Latin America as evidence of the awareness of the disease’s link to globalization. He notes that condom use has also spread throughout the world.

     Though, through contact between cultures, globalization has facilitated the spread of diseases such as AIDS and syphilis (as mentioned in the chapter on socioeconomic factors of sex), globalization also facilitates communication between cultures, allowing information on HIV/AIDS and awareness of the disease to spread as well.

This essay was originally written in October 2006 as a college essay.

For more entries on gender, sexuality, and L.G.B.T.Q. issues, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/justice-stephen-breyer-and-recognition.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/writing-of-michel-foucault-as-radical.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/personal-and-political-connotations-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-role-of-aswpl-and-christian.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html