You may want to research the (very recent) origin of the word Ms., which was needed for a reason that was indeed controversial at the time: Women’s titles relied on marital status, whereas men’s did not. “Ms.” was indeed resented by SQWs of the era because it was a feminist gesture, and explicitly so.
You say “controversial,” so let me ask you: Do you not think that trans men are men and trans women are women? Do you think it’s more right to address them by pronouns that indicate genders they do not identify with? What’s to be gained from that, other than continued alienation? If a woman corrects me when I say “Miss” and tells me to call her “Ms.” or Mr. Jackson’s wife tells me “no, I’m not ‘Mrs. Jackson,’ I’m ‘Mrs. Smith.’ I chose to keep my family name,” is it somehow “controversial”? Would it somehow be more right to refuse to abide by her wishes, wishes that cause me no harm or loss at all?
I also disagree that using preferred pronouns is a tacit agreement–it may just be common politeness, or, perhaps even more controversially, good old fashioned human kindness.
I generally find it useful, when I must risk error, to err on the side of empathy.
@marvin100 the origins of Ms are irrelevant. You’re right, it was controversial at the time (a time which was, in fact, not all that recent for the purposes of this discussion). It is no longer controversial because the issues surrounding the origins of Ms. have been discussed and a consensus has been reached. No such consensus has been reached in the practice of referring to transgender people by their preferred pronouns and therefore using said pronouns represents acquiescing to the belief that people can make decisions about their gender. This is a burden for many. I maintain that it is a tacit agreement, and if it is not it certainly feels like it to many, which would make it functionally the same in those cases.
I’m not going to answer your questions about my personal feelings, because I feel that would distract from my larger point which is that this law is reasonable; it is not as extreme as people make it out to be. I am not trying to convince anyone that it is right, only that it does not fall outside the realm of the mainstream. I will, however, take issue with the Mrs. Jackson analogy. Names exist because we need to be able to label people, they do not exist to convey any sort of meaning. Accordingly, no one disputes that one can change their name, and no one is burdened by a name change (or lack thereof, in your example). Changing one’s pronouns is different, because pronouns do convey meaning- they convey what gender someone is. When you say “he”, you’re saying a person is male, when you say, “she” you’re saying they’re female. When someone asks you to refer to someone you consider male as a “she”, or vice versa, for many that represents a burden because they are being asked to acquiesce to something they believe to be false.
Those people will be found–and make no mistake, this will happen–on the wrong side of history.
The petty grievance of having to show others the kindness of addressing them as they’d like to be addressed pales in comparison to the civic and human good of allowing people who suffer mightily from gender dysphoria to have a smidgen of dignity, and people who hold their “conviction” that genitals=gender above the feelings and dignity of others are–and shall increasingly be–seen as bigots.
By siding with them and holding their needs above those who are actually suffering, you give me little choice but to include you among their ranks.
(Interestingly, seen in this way, the parallel with the Civil Rights movement becomes more apparent: the tide of change is upon us, and those who resist and insist that the status quo is “right” will be swept along with it whether they like it or not, to the detriment of their reputations in posterity.)
@marvin100 I don’t have much more to add to the discussion. I think if you’re going to simply assert that you’re on the right side of history without feeling the need to argue for why that might be so, then you exemplify the very attitude that I’m trying to address; you’re thinking about this emotionally instead of rationally, you’re drawing parallels that aren’t there, and you’re ignoring meaningful differences that exist in order to push forward an agenda that doesn’t receive much opposition on websites like College Confidential and within other, similar echo chambers. Posting an editorial from Times instead of making your own argument only cements my point that this is an issue where people don’t feel the need to do the logical legwork themselves. I don’t appreciate the condescending attitude and hope that you and others will work to re-examine this issue and appreciate the real nuance at play here.
First of all, I’ve made several arguments, and the Time link is in addition to rather than instead of them.
Emotion and reason are not antitheses, and it’s the valorization of “logic” that allows so many of us to discriminate against trans individuals and wave away their suffering as somehow subordinate to our ratiocination, sacrificing our empathy for the “common sense” or “logic” of the unjust status quo.
What’s more, (science! rational!) there is significant neuroscience research suggesting that emotions precede “reason,” and what we think of as “reason” is more accurately understood as mental “post-production” by which we justify our feelings with a veneer–that is, “reason” is more often “rationalizing.”
I hope that you and other SQWs will work to re-examine this issue and appreciate the real injustice at play here.
By your logic, though, you’d be opposed to the advent of Ms. on the basis that it would somehow force those who use it to acquiesce to the feminist argument that underpins it. If your stance is “I have no dog in the fight and can’t judge the merit of this social movement until a consensus has been achieved,” well, that’s a fair abdication, but your stance isn’t that–your stance seems to amount to “until consensus has been reached, I’m opposed to the change,” a logic that, if followed, would allow for no social change at all.
This law will eventually be repealed, but it will not happen quickly. In the meantime the UNC campuses will continue to practice their non-discriminatory policies as stated directly in the emails that were sent out. The entire triangle area does not support such a law. College students who choose to vote down there instead of in their home states need to be made aware of the tactics that are in place to turn them away. I can’t believe I live in the same country as some of these people. It’s scary. People can say whatever they want about NY and NJ, but this kind of thing would never fly here.
I may be delusional, but I do not think OOS students in the UNC-CH community will be turned away due to tactics that are used to turn away college students. The idea that I am even entertaining this idea is mind boggling to me.
My son attends a private university in NC (Wake Forest) and they posted a statement on the legislation making it clear it does NOT apply to them and will NOT impact any of their practices or campus life. Of course, as others have stated, these kids don’t always live in the campus “bubble” so it is still very unfortunate for the the entire state of NC.
In regards to voting @twogirls - my son has voted twice in his time in NC without any issues. He was a freshman for the 2012 presidential election (which was especially exciting for him) and he just recently voted in the NC primary. The university was extremely organized in getting the students registered, providing all the necessary info about voting and even providing transportation. Being a private university, so many students are OOS so providing so much info is certainly necessary.
@TatinG My trans friend is very obviously trans because she cannot afford surgery to remove her Adam’s apple and other masculine features. If she entered a womens bathroom she is no threat to other women. She is sexually attracted to men. If forced to use a men’s room she runs the very real risk of being beaten or worse in addition to public humiliation.
Trans people are no threat to other people. But as I stated earlier sex offenders could now easily enter women’s rooms claiming to be transgender and they could be a very real threat. Or make women uncomfortable by staring or whatever. This law jeopardizes people without protecting anyone from an actual danger.
@twogirls@ucbalumnus I don’t understand though. What tactics are used to “scare” college students away from voting? I never registered back home, but I totally intend on doing so here.
I don’t know. It seems like selective outrage to me. He licenses his image for IPhone cases…why do that considering Apple has manufacturing operations in China (horrible human rights record) and has opened stores in Saudi Arabia (horrible human rights record)? The Boss has enough money…why license his image for something that is designed for an Apple product?
N.C. single sex bathrooms is nothing compared to what goes on in those two countries.
Wow, that is really simplifying things. Give me a break. If you want to link everything to something else, you can play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon to your heart’s content with almost anything on the planet. Springsteen is in a position where people will play attention to what he says. I don’t think him making a stand against discrimination is a means to get more people to buy an iphone case with his picture on it. Maybe he is trying to get into the good books with Saudi Arabian retailers by selling more iphone cases. And N. Carolina toilets vs. human rights abuses in China and Saudi Arabia are all linked back to Bruce Springsteen doing the right thing? Puhleeze @Trisherella
LBad96 I don’t know much except that some areas won’t let people vote because they claim they do not have the proper ID, etc. Some people may be able to provide you with more detailed information.
