All for One and They for All! - Reflections on Dembroff and Wodak’s Call for the Elimination of Gender-Specific Pronouns

Robin Dembroff and Daniel Wodak’s “He/SheThey/Ze” is a fascinating philosophical paper that centers around our moral duties in regard to pronoun use. The authors of this paper propose two claims about pronoun use, which they refer to as the moderate claim and radical claim. 

Moderate Claim “We have a duty not to use binary gender-specific pronouns (he or she) to refer to genderqueer individuals..."

Radical Claim “We have a duty not to use gender-specific pronouns to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender identity.”

When I first began to read this text, my gut reaction was a bit of skepticism toward the radical claim. While the moderate claim was something I already fully agreed with, the radical claim felt like an idea that seemed like it could hold the potential to be beneficial to the lives of all people of all gender identities, but I couldn't help but have a few reservations about. And, as it turned out, many of my initial concerns about the radical claim were both anticipated and answered by the authors as I continued to read the text. 

First, I worried that referring to trans people who, as the text so eloquently put it, “don’t self identify beyond the binary” using the pronoun they could be an invalidating experience for that trans person. This argument made me think about one of my trans friends specifically, and how important being referred to by pronoun he is to him. As he puts it, being called the pronoun he by others is a representation of acceptance,  support, and validation of his gender. And, upon first reading of the radical claim, I worried that those feelings of acceptance,  support, and validation could be undermined by use of solely they and rejection of gender-specific pronouns altogether.  

But, despite these initial reservations, it didn’t take long for Dembroff and Wodak to begin to sell me on the idea of eliminating gender-specific pronouns. I was first convinced by the point the authors raise about how there is a difference between a lack of positive affirmation and outright denial. Specifically, they argue that while affirmation of gender identity is of course a positive thing, and that gender-specific pronouns certainly have the capability of providing affirmation for an individual (as we can see in the case of my trans friend that I described before), not providing someone that positive affirmation that can be derived using a gender-specific pronoun and instead using a gender-neutral pronoun is no where near as egregious as outright denying and invalidating someone’s gender identity by using the wrong gender-specific pronoun. At first, as I described before, I was overly focused on the benefits (such as feelings of affirmation, acceptance, support, etc.) that can be attained by using a gender-specific pronoun that matches a person’s gender identity. I worried that robbing binary trans people of that gender-specific pronoun based validation could be harmful because it would taking away something that can bring a valuable and far too rare sense of acceptance in the world we live in. But, as the authors of this paper helped me realize, there are many other ways in which a person’s gender identity can be validated other than by using the correct gender-specific pronouns. For instance, if a trans person has chosen to go by a more gender affirming name other than the one assigned at birth, making sure to refer to that person by that name is certainly a way to generate similar feelings of affirmation, acceptance, support that using gender-specific pronouns that match a person’s gender identity can sometimes provide. 

And, Dembroff and Wodak also argue that even if third person references to a person have the capability to provide affirmation and validation, that does not mean they absolutely need to. They pointed out that “it is perfectly appropriate to refer to a woman in the third person by her proper name or professional title, even though neither affirms the referent’s gender identity.” In this case, the references to the woman are perfectly acceptable, even if they do not directly affirm her gender identity, making the case that use of solely gender neutral pronouns, such as they or ze would essentially to the same. 

What holds far more potential to be harmful, as the authors argue, would be using an incorrect gender-specific pronoun to refer to someone. Instead of using a gender-neutral pronoun and contributing to a lack of affirmation, using an incorrect gender-specific pronoun would lead to the direct denial and invalidation of a person’s gender identity. This can be illustrated by the fact that referring to my trans friend using his correct gender-specific pronoun he brings him some sense of validation, referring to him using the incorrect gender-specific pronoun she would bring him an instant sense of invalidation, and using the gender-neutral pronoun they would sort of act as just that, neutral. This direct form of misgendering, in both my and the authors’ view, is far more harmful. Therefore, although I was initially skeptical, for these and many other reasons outlined in the text, I do think there is merit to the idea of moving toward a world where gender-netural pronouns are the used for all, even binary trans people (although in the short term we need to be incredibly careful when using pronouns to refer to individuals who may be vulnerable to misgendering or third-gendering, especially binary trans people, but this is an entire issue on its own that could make for a great blog post)!

Image Credit- LA Johnson/NPR https://www.npr.org/2019/08/06/744121321/even-a-grammar-geezer-like-me-can-get-used-to-gender-neutral-pronouns