Investing in gender-neutral pronouns
I am not a big follower of university controversies and politics. Basically, often it has to reach the front pages before I know it is…
I am not a big follower of university controversies and politics. Basically, often it has to reach the front pages before I know it is going on. That happened today with a Globe and Mail article on University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson who has been taking a stand against the use of gender-neutral pronouns and also requirements for gendered pronouns not to be used. In trying to understand the controversy, I think there are two things that became conflated. The first was the general issue of political correctness and how that should translate into laws and rules. The second issue is the particular case of gender-neutral pronouns. To be sure, they are conflated. But Professor Peterson is opposing using gender-neutral pronouns as part of a “drawing the line” on political correctness.
This post isn’t about political correctness except to say it is a controversy that is not going away. Political correctness, I recall, was a term invented by those trying to improve discourse in a world of racial, gender and other biases. However, it was controversial when it arose and is controversial today. The discussion includes a matter of degrees, real offence, and potential restrictions on free speech. Those are thorny issues and I don’t intend to tread into it here as I want to focus on the particular case of gender-neutral pronouns.
What is that issue? A gendered pronoun is something like he, she, him or her in English. When we are talking about a particular person or even gender, we use these rather than names to refer to a person. What happens, however, when we are referring to a person for whom the gender does not matter and is irrelevant to the argument? Well, according to the “proper use” of English grammar, if it is a group being referred to you use “them” or “they” as there is no gendered group pronoun. But if it is an individual, you are supposed to make a choice — “he” or “she”. Indeed, until fairly recently, the default choice was almost always “he.” Then people realised that and switched to “she.” But that did not really help as the “she” was the thing that was out of place so it was a roadblock. Then people mixed which could get confusing unless you had two people. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that there was no easy way out of this other than abandoning usage altogether. (Some SciFi writers imagined the future where people used a generic “per” for him or her but that didn’t look like catching on either).
Does it matter? Possibly. We have many biases that influence our thinking. The consequences are hard to tell. At the moment, I am not sure there will be a scientific resolution soon on the impact of those biases or the specific ones that come from gender pronouns. But I am going to argue here that is beside the point. Instead, I am going to use a moral argument that invokes the precautionary principle. That is, it may be that gendered pronouns have an impact, so why take the risk of using them when it is not necessary?
This is actually a very simple and non-controversial argument. If you believe in the immorality of gender-bias and equal treatment and you are writing, talking or communicating regarding something that does not require gender identification, then there is no gain to taking the risk of using gendered pronouns when you don’t have to. [This is especially so for academics who are writing words that are meant to be read in the future. If the future has a possibility that this will turn out to be a big deal, why have your writing part of the excuse we use today “that was how they did things then”? It seems short-sighted and not part of the mission.] Given this, there are only two things to consider: is there an alternative language to use and is it too costly to do so?
The alternative language is the use the non-singular, non-gendered pronouns “they” and “them” instead of the singular, gendered pronouns. Some object that is “not proper English” but let’s face it, I thought the objection to political correctness was an objection to language rules. So morally at least, that one will not fly. Moreover, when you aren’t actually referring to a single person or don’t have to, two thirds of the time (in my estimation) is you can multiple the situation up and apply the term properly. (And if you want to hear it from a linguist rather than me, try this piece).
What about the costs? You have learned to speak English and use gendered pronouns. It is costly to catch yourself when writing and edit out the language. It is even harder when you are talking. So there are costs. They are not the costs of learning a foreign language but they are there. More critically, I suspect the costs rise with age. The question is: do the potential benefits (risk assessment included) outweigh the costs?
On this I can only give you my personal experience and choices. When I was 18 — before I had ever heard the term “political correctness” — I read an essay by Douglas Hofstadter called “A Person Paper on Purity in Language.” If you haven’t read it, you should do so now. That influenced me and I vowed to remove all gendered pronouns from my writing and speaking. For almost three decades now, I have done just that. I have written millions of words and I would challenge you to find a case where I have broken this. There likely is one or two that have got through. In some cases, it is because I lost an argument with a co-author over the issue and did a “he or she” or something although I can’t recall having conceded in anything published. But I recall the arguments and there was no demographic predictor (including gender and age) of when someone would double down in an edit war over the use of “they.”
However, my point is that by starting young, I was able to bear the costs and changed my own style. The costs are pretty low and, moreover, you can actually trial them to see how high they might be. I urge all of my fellow academics to consider behavioural change in this direction and students to take the opportunity to do it now while the costs are low.
Which brings me to Jordan Peterson. He has a broader issue with enforced political correctness and that is his right. But the Globe and Mail article started with this:
That is when he posted a video saying he would not use genderless pronouns — “they” — if asked to do so by a student. Laws that would force him to are partly the result of lobbying from a “sophisticated radical fringe,” he said, and infringe his academic freedom.
And he is quoted as saying:
I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.
What this is saying is that (a) Peterson does not agree with the moral argument I have outlined above and/or (b) he does agree with it but is taking a stand on being told what to do on this issue.
On these I want to suggest that if (a) is true, Peterson would do well to outline his arguments. I have looked but have not seen them. I realise that in some cases he has a belief that gender identity matters. But those are not the cases I am talking about here. What I am talking about here are the cases where it does not matter? As an economist, I write models to describe things. That means that I am often referring to an “agent” who does something or runs a business or whatever. That agent doesn’t need to have a gender and so that is the time I avoid using gendered pronouns. If Peterson thinks the costs of change are too high (for him or everyone else), he should say so.
On the other hand, if it is just (b) that is his point, then I, say, give me a break. I am a man. Peterson is a man. Neither of us (to my knowledge) have changed gender. For goodness sake, if a transgendered student or any student for that matter, came to you and asked you to use “they” rather than “him or her” in your discussions, then you should consider doing that. Things are hard enough for people who have been traditionally discriminated against that if they take the time to approach someone in authority with a request for change that you don’t take it seriously. What are you going to say “look I understand you don’t like it, but I have to fight this war on political correctness, so you are collateral damage”? Come on. Academics do not take collateral damage in the name of black/white argumentation. We take the path of nuance.