This past weekend, I came upon an editorial by Colin Wright about gender pronouns that was published by the Wall Street Journal. Wright’s op-ed is entitled “When Asked ‘What Are Your Pronouns,’ Don’t Answer,” and it carries the alarmist sub-heading, “A seemingly innocuous question masks a demand for conformity with a regressive set of ideas.”
My first thought was, “Well, I guess irony is officially dead.”
|
My summary of his thesis after reading this, in carbonated beverage terms is: If someone asks you to indicate that you are ordering either New Coke or Coke Classic you should refuse the obvious ploy to impose that persons beverage ideology on you. “I see only Coke.”
|
A white heterosexual Christian male bylined writer for the bastion of conformity and Patriarchal thinking that is the Wall Street Journal – of all places – is warning about the insidious “demands for conformity” that LGBTQ+ people are making on us?
The WSJ guy preaching about how we have to refuse to conform is dazzlingly rich and strikingly un-self-aware.
And his thesis is that he is somehow the victim here, because LGBTQ+ people are requesting that cis-gendered people use the gender pronouns he/him or she/her?
Constantly claiming to be a victim is not a sign of virtue. It’s a strategy for narcissists and psychopaths to get ahead.
Data: people who regularly signal victimhood are more willing to lie, cheat, and steal.
Beware those who air personal grievances like every day is Festivus. pic.twitter.com/qRMa9FN4rh
— Adam Grant (@AdamMGrant) February 6, 2022
You can read Colin’s article at the link above and judge for yourself. But my summary of his thesis after reading this, in carbonated beverage terms, is:
“If someone asks you to indicate that you are ordering either New Coke or Coke Classic you should refuse the obvious ploy to impose that persons beverage ideology on you. ‘I see only Coke.'”
Other things Colin probably doesn’t like and is defending the world from by pretending they don’t exist:
- New toppings on pizza. “Oh. It’s on the menu? I get to decide that. I’m going to say it doesn’t exist!”
- Remakes of movies. He particularly dislikes the new Ghostbusters with the all-female cast.
- The Protestant Reformation. (“There is only one Church.”)
- The Enlightenment. (“This is new and different.”)
- Reform Judaism. (“We never had a guitar on the bimah when I was growing up. This will ruin everything. Just say no. If you ignore the music, that means it doesn’t exist.”).
In fact, it’s like an Orthodox Jew refusing to say what denomination of Judaism they are, because to do so would imply the legitimacy of the Conservative and Reform movements.
In mask terms, it feels like this article could be titled, “How To Be a Karen That Goes Viral For Refusing To Put on a Mask In One Easy Step.” Refuse to conform!
|
“I don’t need to share my pronouns. I have the privilege of my pronouns being consistent with how most people perceive me. I can do nothing…but then nothing will change.
Cis-gender people like me can use our privilege to create a welcoming space for those that challenge gender norms. If someone in my position of privilege does nothing, we allow the current system to continue. On the other hand, by supporting those who push against the borders of the current system, we can support the people on the front lines who dare to expand the current system.”
– Dr. Robert Zeitlin, What Are *Your* Preferred Pronouns?
|
C’mon, Colin. Look around. Read the room.
It’s painfully obvious that these types of fear-mongering, center-yourself-as-victim, “refuse to conform” cries are just a mechanism to seek to enable anti-social, abusive behavior under the guise of caring about rights of the individual.
For anyone that wants to learn more about why you are being asked to state your gender pronouns, please take a look at “What Are Your Pronouns,” “What Are *Your* Pronouns, or “It’s Not Just a Pronoun,” all published on The Good Men Project.
The TL;DR version: It’s not about you.
♦◊♦
This kind of zero sum thinking (i.e., someone else or some other group being accommodated or gaining something means I must be losing something) will truly be the death of us all.
Personally, I’m stunned that Wright sees himself and other cis-gendered people as the victims here. And I’m even more stunned to see that he is a scientist with a byline in the WSJ. (But not really on that last part.)
Specifically, what is stunning is that he is so fragile that he cannot accommodate a cultural change that feels threatening to him, because he doesn’t understand it. It’s all just sex and territory.
The sum total of his argument is “This is strange to me. I don’t understand it. I’m going to warn others.” It makes me want to scream back at him, “Sorry snowflake that someone’s punctured your nice little bubble that allowed you to live a fantasy of homogeneity where you get to dictate what’s ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable.'” The truth is, these are all constructs. And his inability and unwillingness to re-examine them is very revealing.
It strikes me that this is the same as saying “I’m White. Diversity doesn’t have to do with me.” Or “Racism doesn’t have to do with me.” Or “I’m a man. Women’s rights have nothing to do with me.”
Because no one’s ever challenged your supremacy, and it pisses you off.
Don’t die on this hill of “Give me binary, or give me death!”
“They” are here. They are queer. Deal with it.
—
The author (who goes by he/him) would like to thank and credit Lisa Duggan (she/her) for listening and actively participating in his rant/conversation after reading the WSJ article early on Sunday, before even coffee. The best lines in this rant are all hers.
—
Thanks, Colin Wright, self-proclaimed best bro bud of Joe Rogan, retweeter of your own Tweets, for making yourself the victim & demanding conformity w/ your heteronormative POV. You don’t need to “mask your demand for conformity.” You have a byline with the Wall Street Journal.
— Michael Kasdan (@michaelkasdan) February 6, 2022
Photo Credit: Shutterstock
You have little idea what you are talking about here, brother, or what the larger issue is. Genderism is primarily a sexist and chauvinistic men’s rights movement, focused on the demand for privileged white men to colonize female spaces. When males claim to be female, demand access to sex-segregated spaces or ask others to call them by their “preferred pronouns,” they are gaslighting others, often in support of a narcissistic fetish. A good explanation of this is at https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/, and demanding deferential language from others is decidedly unkind. Good men are standing up to entitled men who would impose their… Read more »
Where did “Genderism” come out of a male rights movement? “Genderism” is about a social agenda wanting to destroy the distinction between male, and female, and yes, in that process many women lose. The irony is though, that very few so called feminists are concerned. Certainly haven’t seen many come to JK Rowling’s defense. Guess what community it is they don’t want to offend? And of course, it was some in that community that sent hateful, disgusting sentiments her way. Imagine, people wanting “tolerance,” sending hateful messages to a woman for stating biological reality. Obviously, they only mean tolerance for… Read more »