Food for thought; I had not considered some of these points before. I recall one instance in which I couldn't join a training webinar unless I provided pronouns.
Thank you for another great article. The point that is missing is the chilling effect this has on your gay and lesbian colleagues and patrons. Seeing pronouns in an email or online profile is a signal to me, as a sex realist lesbian, that the librarian sending that signal does not care about supporting true diversity of thought and belief. It indicates that individual is more concerned with conformity and fake superficial kindness than actual kindness that prioritizes the patrons needs over their own ego. Supporting gender ideology means you support the subjugation of lesbian identity, female only spaces, female centric language, and children's right to grow up without being castrated, to the delusions of straight predatory (mostly)male entitlement. Supporting gender ideology means prioritizing the Colonizers over the colonized, the narcissistic abusers over the people they want to abuse. In supporting gender ideology you are equating sexuality and sex with live action role play. Putting on a costume does not make you a Civil War hero or an anime cat, or the opposite sex. Hanging the so-called "progress flag" all over your library proves to this lesbian patron that I am not welcome, that you have chosen the side om my oppressors while blithely congratulating your own lack of actual kindness.
Wow. This is an exceptionally clear explanation as to why accepting and/or endorsing a completely relativist, post-modern definition of reality (as it applies to human beings, just to begin with, but not stopping there), is a serious problem for Librarianship -- but actually, for any institution engaged in producing knowledge or making it available to the public.
You admit yourself that you've never been required to do this at your place of work, so what exactly is the problem? Making your patrons feel more comfortable is part of your vocation. Have a little heart. You claim that trying to make a space where marginalized patrons feel more comfortable makes less marginalized patrons feel less comfortable. Think about it this way: you think your pronouns are self evident, if that is true then you are implicitly advertising your pronouns anyway. However, not all pronouns are self evident so by explicitly advertising your pronouns you are inviting others to share theirs if they choose to; no one is being required to explicitly state their pronouns in a library setting. If they were, that would risk marginalizing people with unconventional pronouns further. The point is to create a space where stating pronouns is a matter of course, similar to shaking someone’s hand. No one is required to shake someone’s hand and many people don’t, but if they did no one would bat an eye.
It’s clear you simply reject the idea that there are multiple genders or that someone’s gender identity doesn’t conform to your initial assumptions about them. You position yourself as classically liberal, but really you are just rejecting change. There is simply nothing irrational about respecting someone’s individual identity, in fact you do so every day whenever someone tells you they prefer to be referred to as ‘Brad’ instead of ‘Bradly.’ When you meet a person who has a gender identity that you don’t want to recognize or a pronoun you don’t want to use, you are choosing your initial assumptions over new information which should change your perspective. That is rationality. Rejecting gender identity and efforts to make people feel comfortable in public spaces is irrational. If you believe there is objective reality, fine; but at least accept the empirical evidence before you that someone doesn't conform to your assumptions. I hope your will reconsider your position on this issue.
Thank you for your comment. You're correct: I do reject the idea that there are multiple genders. But I wasn't arguing for an elimination of declared pronouns for everyone--I made it clear that, in one's private life with friends and family that's completely up to you. Nor did I say that, as a professional, you shouldn't respect the pronoun declarations of others. What I am arguing is that, in a professional context, to declare your own pronouns is to stake a public position regarding a controversial political ideology that your patrons may not share, and which may well be off-putting, in particular to gender-critical female and gay patrons. As such professional pronoun declarations are incompatible with multidimensional library neutrality, which I've articulated elsewhere on this substack.
I removed the snark because my point stand on its own, but I'd like us all to reflect on the tepid hypocrisy of policing someone's language while another person is denying the existence of other human beings.
Thanks for removing the snark. At the same time though I would argue that you're still misunderstanding me. I'm not denying anybody's existence; I'm not even denying anyone's experience in claiming a transgender or nonbinary identity. It is gender identity ideology, however, that denies the existence of both women and gay people as existing in stable categories, which is why so many of them are rejecting it. Therefore, stating one's pronouns in a professional capacity indicates to gender critical library users that you as a librarian either do not recognize--or worse, have no issue with--their erasure.
I’m not misunderstanding you. In your last comment you said “I do reject the idea that there are multiple genders.” In your own words, you are rejecting the objective existence of people who identify with any gender that is not Man or Woman, because you are rejecting the legitimacy of their human identity. The existence of non-binary genders does nothing to deny that there are people who exist in “stable categories,” by which I assume you mean people who have identified as Man (boy) or Woman (girl) since they began conceptualizing gender and have never questioned their identified gender. I consider the denial of any human being’s existence hateful and anti-humanist, and I object to anyone who does so.
I do think that is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding. There is no denial that such people exist, just a disagreement with their assessment and understanding of gender. It seems to me that your arguments are starting from a completely different essential point of this piece. It is completely reasonable to believe (and expect) someone who is gender critical will treat people who prefer "they/them" pronouns or claim to be the opposite gender with equal respect and dignity as individuals who don't identify that way. Just as it should be expected that people who believe in gender ideology ought to treat people who dissent with respect. Which I think is an important part of this post - using pronouns in one's email signature (for example) is a political statement and signal, which is inappropriate for librarians who must communicate and assist patrons from all walks of life.
My comment was in response to the author's prior comment; it is not discussing the article. The author very explicitly denied the existence of non-binary genders.
The problem in your comment is that you treat people's identity as academic; a matter within which dissent should be respected. This is a category error. When someone tells you "this is who I am" and you say "I doubt the validity of who you are" it is utterly disrespectful. It is not disrespectful to ask a person to respect the validity of another person. Not all ideas are acceptable; ideas that are hateful or marginalizing are decidedly unacceptable.
Displaying pronouns does nothing to someone who is "gender critical" (henceforth, transphobic). Are you really arguing that someone is so triggered by the presence of "he/him" in my signature line that they feel disrespected? Come now. These supposed people use the words "he" and "him" to refer to people everyday. This is an absurd claim.
Obviously, the very act of allowing questioning of the validity of a human being's identity is political. Indeed, you engage in transphobic politics in your call for neutrality. You say "claim to be" instead of accepting them as who they say they are, treating their identity as a matter of debate. You categorize the acceptance of transpeople for who they are as "ideology" but you categorize people who do not accept them as "critical;" the former implies dogma, the latter implies reason. You are engaging in very explicit "political statement[s]" and "signal[s]" but you are pretending you aren't. Attempting to use "neutrality" as a shield for reactionary politics is a tired rhetorical strategy.
I have not been in a situation where they are required and have not used them when given the option.
Food for thought; I had not considered some of these points before. I recall one instance in which I couldn't join a training webinar unless I provided pronouns.
That is appalling, and proves that that the entire point of stating pronouns is to validate and advertise one's politics.
Thank you for another great article. The point that is missing is the chilling effect this has on your gay and lesbian colleagues and patrons. Seeing pronouns in an email or online profile is a signal to me, as a sex realist lesbian, that the librarian sending that signal does not care about supporting true diversity of thought and belief. It indicates that individual is more concerned with conformity and fake superficial kindness than actual kindness that prioritizes the patrons needs over their own ego. Supporting gender ideology means you support the subjugation of lesbian identity, female only spaces, female centric language, and children's right to grow up without being castrated, to the delusions of straight predatory (mostly)male entitlement. Supporting gender ideology means prioritizing the Colonizers over the colonized, the narcissistic abusers over the people they want to abuse. In supporting gender ideology you are equating sexuality and sex with live action role play. Putting on a costume does not make you a Civil War hero or an anime cat, or the opposite sex. Hanging the so-called "progress flag" all over your library proves to this lesbian patron that I am not welcome, that you have chosen the side om my oppressors while blithely congratulating your own lack of actual kindness.
Wow. This is an exceptionally clear explanation as to why accepting and/or endorsing a completely relativist, post-modern definition of reality (as it applies to human beings, just to begin with, but not stopping there), is a serious problem for Librarianship -- but actually, for any institution engaged in producing knowledge or making it available to the public.
Thank you. :-)
You admit yourself that you've never been required to do this at your place of work, so what exactly is the problem? Making your patrons feel more comfortable is part of your vocation. Have a little heart. You claim that trying to make a space where marginalized patrons feel more comfortable makes less marginalized patrons feel less comfortable. Think about it this way: you think your pronouns are self evident, if that is true then you are implicitly advertising your pronouns anyway. However, not all pronouns are self evident so by explicitly advertising your pronouns you are inviting others to share theirs if they choose to; no one is being required to explicitly state their pronouns in a library setting. If they were, that would risk marginalizing people with unconventional pronouns further. The point is to create a space where stating pronouns is a matter of course, similar to shaking someone’s hand. No one is required to shake someone’s hand and many people don’t, but if they did no one would bat an eye.
It’s clear you simply reject the idea that there are multiple genders or that someone’s gender identity doesn’t conform to your initial assumptions about them. You position yourself as classically liberal, but really you are just rejecting change. There is simply nothing irrational about respecting someone’s individual identity, in fact you do so every day whenever someone tells you they prefer to be referred to as ‘Brad’ instead of ‘Bradly.’ When you meet a person who has a gender identity that you don’t want to recognize or a pronoun you don’t want to use, you are choosing your initial assumptions over new information which should change your perspective. That is rationality. Rejecting gender identity and efforts to make people feel comfortable in public spaces is irrational. If you believe there is objective reality, fine; but at least accept the empirical evidence before you that someone doesn't conform to your assumptions. I hope your will reconsider your position on this issue.
Thank you for your comment. You're correct: I do reject the idea that there are multiple genders. But I wasn't arguing for an elimination of declared pronouns for everyone--I made it clear that, in one's private life with friends and family that's completely up to you. Nor did I say that, as a professional, you shouldn't respect the pronoun declarations of others. What I am arguing is that, in a professional context, to declare your own pronouns is to stake a public position regarding a controversial political ideology that your patrons may not share, and which may well be off-putting, in particular to gender-critical female and gay patrons. As such professional pronoun declarations are incompatible with multidimensional library neutrality, which I've articulated elsewhere on this substack.
Reminder that comments are expected to abide by the HxA Way: https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/the-hxa-way/
I removed the snark because my point stand on its own, but I'd like us all to reflect on the tepid hypocrisy of policing someone's language while another person is denying the existence of other human beings.
Thanks for removing the snark. At the same time though I would argue that you're still misunderstanding me. I'm not denying anybody's existence; I'm not even denying anyone's experience in claiming a transgender or nonbinary identity. It is gender identity ideology, however, that denies the existence of both women and gay people as existing in stable categories, which is why so many of them are rejecting it. Therefore, stating one's pronouns in a professional capacity indicates to gender critical library users that you as a librarian either do not recognize--or worse, have no issue with--their erasure.
I’m not misunderstanding you. In your last comment you said “I do reject the idea that there are multiple genders.” In your own words, you are rejecting the objective existence of people who identify with any gender that is not Man or Woman, because you are rejecting the legitimacy of their human identity. The existence of non-binary genders does nothing to deny that there are people who exist in “stable categories,” by which I assume you mean people who have identified as Man (boy) or Woman (girl) since they began conceptualizing gender and have never questioned their identified gender. I consider the denial of any human being’s existence hateful and anti-humanist, and I object to anyone who does so.
I do think that is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding. There is no denial that such people exist, just a disagreement with their assessment and understanding of gender. It seems to me that your arguments are starting from a completely different essential point of this piece. It is completely reasonable to believe (and expect) someone who is gender critical will treat people who prefer "they/them" pronouns or claim to be the opposite gender with equal respect and dignity as individuals who don't identify that way. Just as it should be expected that people who believe in gender ideology ought to treat people who dissent with respect. Which I think is an important part of this post - using pronouns in one's email signature (for example) is a political statement and signal, which is inappropriate for librarians who must communicate and assist patrons from all walks of life.
My comment was in response to the author's prior comment; it is not discussing the article. The author very explicitly denied the existence of non-binary genders.
The problem in your comment is that you treat people's identity as academic; a matter within which dissent should be respected. This is a category error. When someone tells you "this is who I am" and you say "I doubt the validity of who you are" it is utterly disrespectful. It is not disrespectful to ask a person to respect the validity of another person. Not all ideas are acceptable; ideas that are hateful or marginalizing are decidedly unacceptable.
Displaying pronouns does nothing to someone who is "gender critical" (henceforth, transphobic). Are you really arguing that someone is so triggered by the presence of "he/him" in my signature line that they feel disrespected? Come now. These supposed people use the words "he" and "him" to refer to people everyday. This is an absurd claim.
Obviously, the very act of allowing questioning of the validity of a human being's identity is political. Indeed, you engage in transphobic politics in your call for neutrality. You say "claim to be" instead of accepting them as who they say they are, treating their identity as a matter of debate. You categorize the acceptance of transpeople for who they are as "ideology" but you categorize people who do not accept them as "critical;" the former implies dogma, the latter implies reason. You are engaging in very explicit "political statement[s]" and "signal[s]" but you are pretending you aren't. Attempting to use "neutrality" as a shield for reactionary politics is a tired rhetorical strategy.