Transgender preferred pronouns?

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
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."

Reply: This is an ad hominem fallacy (i.e., attacking the person rather than the ideas/ reasoning).

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:

● Transgender ideology (Apologia column)

● Phobic anti-phobia? (Apologia column)
● Why there are only two sexes (Public Discourse article)

● Senate hearing on Bill C16 with Jordan B. Peterson and D. Jared Brown (video)

Men in women's bathrooms?

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, May 12, 2016

Men in women's bathrooms?

Should the use of public multiple-occupancy restrooms, showers, and changing facilities be based on biological sex or “gender identity”? I think the answer is biological sex.

Before I set out the reason for my answer, here are four clarifications.

Clarification 1. All people are made in God's image and deserve respect, including those who identify as “transgender.” (To identify as transgender is to feel oneself is, or wishes oneself to be, the opposite of one's biological sex; a.k.a. gender dysphoria, formerly known as gender identity disorder.)

Clarification 2. According to John G. Stackhouse Jr., “Gender dysphoria in particular, and the wider range of trans issues, are matters disputed at the highest levels of psychological and psychiatric expertise.” (Of related interest: A tracking of children who at one time reported transgender feelings reveals that 70-80 percent of these children spontaneously lost those feelings.)

Clarification 3. The percentage of the general population that is transgender is small, apparently less than 1 percent and perhaps even less than 0.5 percent.

Clarification 4. Love requires careful thinking. In our desire to promote the well being of some, we also need to consider the well being of others.

So why do I think the use of public multiple-occupancy restrooms, showers, and changing facilities should be based on biology instead of gender identity?

My reason is simple: prudence.

I think it's prudent (i.e., an exercise in sound judgment on practical matters) to protect girls and women from the very real possibility of sexual predators and perverts.

No, I am not saying that all transgender people are sexual predators and perverts (though perhaps some are).

Rather, I'm saying that there are too many rapists and pedophiles (whether transgender or heterosexual or whatever) from whom we, as responsible citizens, must protect women and children. The concern here, then, is not with transgenders, but with rapists and pedophiles who pretend to be transgender.

We must also protect women and children from the voyeurism of men and boys pretending to be transgender.

In other words, opening physically intimate spaces such as public multiple-occupancy bathrooms, showers, etc. to anyone who claims a transgender identity allows sexual predators to stalk their prey much, much too easily.

Prudence also involves practicality. The fact is that girls and women account for roughly 50 percent of the population whereas (as mentioned) transgenders account for less than 1 or 0.5 percent.

Yes, the well being of transgenders is important. But their bathroom and shower room needs can be easily accommodated by adding some single-occupancy gender neutral facilities. And this can be done without opening all women's bathrooms and shower rooms to every man or boy who claims he feels female. Ditto for men's facilities and women or girls who feel they're male.

Let me put it this way: I care about the comfort and well being of a transgender person in his/ her using a bathroom or shower room, but I think it's wise not to allow this care to trump the comfort and well being of my wife, daughters-in-law, aunts, mother-in-law, and future grand-children.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz put it this way: “As a father of daughters, I'm not terribly excited about men being able to go alone into a bathroom with my daughters…And I think that is a perfectly reasonable determination for…people to make.”

Stackhouse puts it this way: “[Government and school] authorities can be sure that many children will be uncomfortable and even traumatized by the presence of members of the other sex in bathrooms, change rooms, gym classes, swimming classes, and the like. To knowingly plan to upset millions of young people in the disputed interests of the very, very few is not enlightened, but [ideologically] doctrinaire.”

So, should any person who claims to feel they are the opposite sex be permitted to use whatever public restroom, shower room, and other related facilities they choose?

The reasonable (and non-transphobic) answer is No.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

For further thought:

• The Unintended Victims of Bathroom Bills and Locker Room Policies (11 minute video)
• These Sex Assault Victims Want You To Know Why Open Bathroom Bills Are a Bad Idea (article for above video)
• Bathrooms, Identity, Rights, and Wisdom: Helping All Students in the Light of Trans* Issues (by John G. Stackhouse Jr.)
• A Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgender Bathrooms (by Kaeley Triller)
• Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme (by Paul McHugh)
• I Used to Be Transgender (by Walt Heyer)
• I Am Ryland - The Story of a Male-Identifying Little Girl Who Didn't Transition (by Lindsay Leigh Bentley)