APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, June 15, 2017
The Carillon, June 15, 2017
Transgender
preferred pronouns?
If passed by Canada's senate, Bill C16, a.k.a. the Transgender Rights Bill, will add "gender identity" and "gender
expression" to Canada's human rights and hate-crime laws.
According to U of Toronto psychology
professor Jordan B. Peterson, a staunch critic of Bill C16, this bill will
require us to use pronouns preferred by transgender persons (e.g., hir, ve,
ver, vis, xe, xem, xyr, ze/ zie, etc.). But others disagree with Peterson's interpretation.
If the law does require citizens to use
"preferred pronouns," then I am inclined to follow Professor
Peterson: I, too, will refuse.
Before I provide my reasons, let's get
some clarity.
Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould sets
out key concepts: "Gender identity is a person's internal or individual
experience of their gender. It is a deeply felt experience of being a man, a
woman, or being somewhere along the gender spectrum."
Moreover, "Gender expression is how
a person publicly presents their gender. It is an external outward presentation
through aspects such as dress, hair, makeup, body language, or voice."
So why will I refuse to use a
transgender's preferred pronoun? Answer: Because I refuse to be compelled to
speak falsely.
I think it's false that a man who feels
he is a woman is in fact a woman and false that a woman who feels she is a man
is in fact a man. Enter: gender dysphoria, formerly known as gender identity
disorder.
Also, it seems to me that, aside from the
small percentage of intersex people, the idea of a "gender spectrum"
doesn't ring true to biological fact. So it seems to me that using a pronoun
that is contrary to fact is like agreeing an anorexic is "fat" when
she's not.
At this juncture, three objections might
be raised.
Before I consider these objections, let
me say this: All people—including people who identify as transgender—deserve
respect, compassion, plus protection from bullying, violence, and unjust
discrimination. God loves everyone.
Objection 1: My view should be dismissed
because I am (allegedly) "transphobic."
Objection 2: The freedom to identify as
transgender is like freedom of religion, so just as I am free to determine and
live according to my religious identity, so too transgender persons are free to
identify and portray themselves as such to the world.
Reply: According to Dr. Bruce Pardy, professor of law at
Queen's University, "Those are the equivalents."
"But," Professor Pardy quickly adds,
"here's the one thing that people who claim freedom of religion do not
have: they do not have the right to demand that other people agree."
In other words, in a free society
religious people have the freedom to believe (and live as if) religion X is
true, but they don't have the right to require others to say they agree X is
true too. Similarly, transgender people have the freedom to believe (and
portray) themselves as other than their biological sex, but they don't have the
right to require others to say they agree with what they believe. (Such agreement
is implied by preferred pronouns.)*
Objection 3: Oh, come on, just use the
preferred pronouns for the sake of courtesy!
Reply, from American attorney and journalist
David French: "I’ve encountered
many well-meaning people who’ve told me that I should acquiesce to new pronouns
because it’s the polite thing to do. I want to avoid hurting feelings, don’t I?
I want to treat someone the way I’d like to be treated, right? What’s the harm
in a little white lie?"
French answers: "But when your definition of manners
requires that I verbally consent to a fundamentally false and important
premise, then I dissent."
"You cannot use my manners to win
your culture war. I will speak respectfully, I will never use a pronoun with
the intent of causing harm, and if I encounter a person in obvious emotional
distress I will choose my words very carefully. But I will not say what I do
not believe."
(Hendrik
van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence
University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect
the views of Providence.)
* Reasonable
inference (drawn by me, after listening to Professor Pardy's response), an
inference that may be of interest to public school boards: Just as our
government shouldn't promote/ enshrine a particular religion, so too our
government shouldn't promote/ enshrine transgenderism—thus just as our public
schools shouldn't promote/ enshrine a particular religion, so too our public
schools shouldn't promote/ enshrine transgenderism.
Further reading/ viewing:
No comments:
Post a Comment