Many arguments in politics quickly descend into language games. As the American hack likes to say, there’s a lot to \u2018unpack\u2019 in how we talk about things. And with English grads running things we’re doing more unboxing than an Amazon returns department.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps this is never truer than with arcane and ever-changing politically correct speech. Terms that were acceptable yesterday are today derogatory or hateful. \u2018Person of colour\u2019 is fine; \u2018coloured person\u2019 deeply offensive. The euphemism treadmill<\/a> keeps turning, and it’s not the only machine in the gym.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The current imbroglio over pronouns is among the best examples of this. Ridiculous modern coinages aside, the main event is people’s negotiation to be referred to as their preferred gender \u2013 or lack thereof in the case of non-binary people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think it’s generally polite and cost-free to comply with this request even if you don’t believe it reflects the truth. But this rule is inadequate for more complicated requests, such as that given<\/a> by the writer Laurie Penny recently on Twitter:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the way! I would appreciate it, if you know me, if you\u2019d make the effort to remember that my preferred pronouns are \u2018they\/them.\u2019 My attitude to pronouns is pretty personal: \u2018she\/her\u2019 = accurate, kinda, but more formal and stiff. Like \u2018tu\/vous.\u2019<\/p>

When I\u2019m being a Feminist In Public I\u2019ll use she. I earned that pronoun with a lot of hard work. I have friends with PhDs, but I don\u2019t call them \u2018doctor\u2019 when we\u2019re chatting on the phone. But if you know me or it\u2019s a non-professional setting, \u2018they\/them\u2019 feels right. Thank you.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

To be fair to Penny, this is a more courteous request on pronouns than many you see online, where \u2018misgendering\u2019 is often treated as a hate crime. But her \u201cpretty personal\u201d rule that \u2018she\/her\u2019 be treated as a formal address and \u2018they\/them\u2019 as informal is unique. This is not a compliment when you’re discussing communication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What \u2013 to paraphrase the economist John Kay \u2013 is it all for? Penny’s two tweets raise more questions than they answer. The most generous interpretation is that she (or they) identifies as non-binary but has pragmatically accepted she’s female to most eyes, although it doesn’t fit her view that she has \u201cearned\u201d the right to be called a \u2018she\u2019 through \u201ca lot of hard work\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps it’s best not to worry, but these skirmishes tend to reflect broader fault lines in our politics. Language, being about mutual understanding, has to be decided ultimately by consensus. You can’t singlehandedly import some formal\/informal distinction from French and expect people to understand you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, an editor once tried to convince me that \u2018utilise\u2019 was different from \u2018use\u2019. Different dictionaries dispute the point, but more important was the fact that nobody else on the desk recognised the distinction. If readers don’t understand a nuance you believe a word communicates then it doesn’t communicate that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, a word can’t be offensive just because one activist declares it to be so, but if it gathers offensive connotations among a decent slice of the population then a speaker can’t deny that’s the case. In general usage, language is an ongoing negotiation among the whole population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps Penny can make a decent case for her unique interpretation of pronouns. But she has to make it, and enough people have to agree with her for it to be so. If we want to understand each other there can be no unilateral declarations of independence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Many arguments in politics quickly descend into language games. As the American hack likes to say, there’s a lot to \u2018unpack\u2019 in how we talk about things. And with English grads running things we’re doing more unboxing than an Amazon returns department. Perhaps this is never truer than with arcane and ever-changing politically correct speech….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4546"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4546"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4546\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4555,"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4546\/revisions\/4555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightdishonourable.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}