The trend of requesting personal, specific pronouns is completely wrongminded and counterproductive. That is, it is completely wrongminded and counterproductive for general social interaction.
To start with, I assume that the overall purpose of the personalized pronouns trend is to not make assumptions; to treat each person with a general respect; to not place upon them any presumptions they did not proclaim. Most all of this is because we are aiming at an individualistic, free society*.
( * There may be those who really aren’t aiming at a truly free society — whether directly acknowledged or not by themselves in their words or actions. But, those people really don’t belong in the United States. They do not deserve nor honor a constitutional government based on ideals of allowing individual freedom where it does not step on anyone else. Those people are free to, and should, move to more suitable cultures and environs where they can fight it out with the rest of their static, traditionalist, archaeomythological ilk — places like the Middle East. But that’s enough on that for now.)
To the end of not making any assumptions about a person, the English language already has the means. Those are the words “one”* and “they”. One of these has already been adopted in a bastardized sort of fashion — “they”. It is a plural word being used to refer to any given quantities of subjects. However, there is no reason to continue abusing it, when the other is readily available to put to use. We can start putting back into use a superior, pre-existing, linguistically non-ambiguous system (at least in terms of singularity vs plurality) that, truly, should offend nobody, because it makes no assumptions beyond addressing a single individual vs multiple individuals.
( * Personally, I’d rather a new word other than “one” were devised. “One” already has at least one meaning, and that is referring to the number. Making language completely clear and unambiguous wherever possible would be nice. However, I’m aware that trying to instill a new word would just agitate the poor, frail conservative’s sense of right and wrong. And we may as well adopt something that already is and has been, rather than continually fighting against ourselves by demanding too much change at once.)
The current pronoun mess emphasizes the wrong things. It is a reactionary backlash. It is an attempt to shove the idea in others’ faces. Such things only trigger the opposite reaction, generally. (I know and recognize such things, trust me, because my natural tendency is to do them myself.) Plus, the pronoun mess is only being adopted by selected “in” groups, and that then makes it an exclusionary practice. I should think that is abhorrent to those fighting for the underlying cause it represents — to be more inclusive — even if the “other” side is a bunch of obnoxious, obstinate assholes themselves generally. Perhaps, more importantly to consider, a house united stands strong. And to that end, wouldn’t it be wise to adopt a system that doesn’t aggravate the other side (any more than necessary or than that side is already going to be aggravated), and to adopt a system that isn’t exclusionary and “in-your-face”?
That relates to another aspect of the new pronoun mess that I think is undesirable. It agitates those interested in maintaining “proper” use of language — the more linguistically conservative, if I might say. For one, as mentioned above, “they” need no longer be abused. It can go back to properly referencing the plural. Number two, not trying to force a whole slew of words into common, everyday usage can avoid heaping more onto the fire already burning against the underlying cause — a cause that is more important to focus on and fight for.
Granted, the other words will still be there, and can and will still be applied, but they need not be so agitatedly up-front, in-your-face. In personal, more familiar interactions, each person is free to request personal references as they see fit, references that begin fitting the more personal intimacy of familiar interactions. Further more, if someone refuses to respect your wishes, you know who to drop from your inner personal circles — unless they’re important enough to you that it’s worth working with them on a personal level, to win them over, and convince them your pronoun of choice is right because it’s what you want and how you feel.
That last arrives at an important point with personalized pronouns. They can still be used in personal relationships, upon request, when people become more familiar. There can be investment in knowing and trying to remember your preferences. The relationships are likely becoming more of a nature orienting around or including the purpose of the differentiated pronouns. Those differentiated, personal roles in relationships then matter, and are in the appropriate context to be put into play.
Whereas, in general social interactions, such as meeting on the street, or more importantly, work, those roles are firstly unknowable, and secondly, irrelevant. At work, are we going to fuck? Do I need to know what role you like to play in intimate relationships? If I’m making some money by making you a cake, am I supposed to care what role you want to play in maintaining a household? Should I be taking these things into account?
No. At work, your role is clearly defined, and often you have a specific title related to that role. Beyond that, yes, you are a human being, another among many, working to carry out the larger goal of the organization — that job you are doing for others, for society. But your gender role et al is, and should be, irrelevant. (And this could be applied generally to any economic interaction as well.)
To bring these considerations into the workplace (and any other unfamiliar social interactions) works against the broader goal of sexual equality in the workplace, in society; of LGBTQ+ rights and equal treatment; when it comes to work and shopping and otherwise generally living life the same as anyone else does or should have the right to. It does not matter, and it should not matter, what “personal” pronoun you like to use. If I’m buying a loaf of bread, should it matter to the grocer if I’m Susie Homemaker or not? If I’m buying a power suit, does it matter to the tailor if I’m John Stockbroker or not? Is this not part of the larger goal, to make such things as gender irrelevant to employment, commerce, and government?
If you insist on it: if you are then a woman, for example, presumedly seeking equal treatment in the workplace, and respect for the work you do, but insist on she/her/etc., should I also call you “woman” at every interaction? “Get back to work, woman.” Should I also refer to you as housewife? “That housewife is so good at math. What a surprise!” “Hey, you sure look pretty in that dress, little darling.” Does this not impress you as being entirely backwards from the intended purpose? The usage and attempted enforcement of differentiated pronouns in the workplace strikes me as completely irrelevant; or instead, as inadvertently shooting oneself in the foot, and continuing to hearken back in the present situation to specific assumptions of roles that is my understanding was the point to eradicate from our present situation. Those roles are not pertinent to the work place, and are not supposed to be considered — in hiring, in meetings, in performance evaluations, in promotions, et al. And that is just as true for non-familiar social interactions in general. Deciding to insist on them all the more in these situations is raging insanity.
As for another point I believe I hear around pronouns. Not referring to someone by their preferred pronouns dehumanizes them. To not refer to a man as a man is to not respect him. To not refer to a woman as a woman does not respect her.
Bullshit! It does no such thing. Are you only your genitalia? Are you only the role everyone else expects you to play in society? Are you only valuable when considered for whether you wear an apron or a cowboy hat? Whether you’re big and strong for calling up to military service or getting into fights? or whether you’re petite and cute and valuable for bringing babies into the world and caring for them? Whether you like to give it or receive it?
If so, well … you live in a small world, and probably have some serious personal growth to do. Maybe that works for you. But we live in a broader, bigger, newer, shinier world ruled by constitutional separation of church and state, multiculturalism, and personal freedoms. And it is most salient towards promoting that cause to not refer to people only by their presumed social and biological functionality. We are free to pursue our hopes and dreams however we see fit, and to serve, defend, or enrich our society in whatever ways we are capable of. Demanding to be addressed only and always by how you wish to interact in personal relationships does not support the broader, newer ideological pursuit of freedom and self-determination.
(I mean, I guess you’re free to insist on it. And I’m free to ignore your request as silly and untenable. And you’re free to be offended. And I’m free to think you think too much of yourself to expect it of me, when I don’t even know you, nor need nor want to care in most situations. Sounds like a great way to conduct a cohesive, equal society, fighting for the greater good. You can insist on your personal preferences, or we can avoid the whole issue altogether in general, polite society — at least up until the point we’re deciding who’s playing what role in the marriage and who’s on which end of the fucking.)
Anyway… regarding another point, multiculturalism, as society becomes more diverse, and people with names from many languages become more common to encounter, a generalized means of reference is absolutely necessary. Do I know who Aifang is when referring to them in a meeting? I have no idea. I’ve never met them, but their work is fantastic. Is it rational for someone in the meeting to be incensed or offended that I didn’t refer to Aifang as she? Does it matter? Is it rational to expect me to do research on every single person whose artifacts I encounter for 30 secs? A generalized, non-presumptive manner of speech sidesteps the whole issue of knowing whether Aifang is male or female or transgender or homosexual, and likes to wear an apron or a cowboy hat, and in no way “dehumanizes” Aifang or lessens appreciation of Aifang’s work — the essential thing that truly mattered in that moment. Unless you’re trying to emphasize that it’s truly amazing that a woman could do such great work… Great.
There may be concerns about the workplace dehumanizing people, if we take my suggested route. That may be the case, but that has nothing to do with pronouns. That is a bigger societal problem with the nature of work and the dynamics of power and hierarchy. That is something to be addressed otherwise, and not related to not calling someone by their preferred pronouns — and as I argue above, is perhaps rather aggravated by it in certain respects.
Lastly, I think having personalized pronouns to know, learn, and remember for every single person I meet is cumbersome and unrealistic. Most of the time, most of us can barely remember each other’s names. And you think I’m going to remember your preferred pronouns on top of that? Maybe. But I think one has too high a sense of one’s importance. Maybe you as another human being are supposed to just be the most important, all-center of the universe for me as another human being. But, I as a human being have a limited brain and fickle capacities. And, sure, one could insist that other human beings should be so important I always remember their names and pronouns and birthdays and all of their personal histories and cultural identities and and and. But how self-important is that? I’m sorry that my brain can’t remember every piece of information that crosses its path. But, sure, I should exert more effort to remember all there is about this person who crosses my path for all of 30 seconds once every 6 months (maybe) to exchange petty, repetitive pleasantries about the weather and sports and babies or kitties. Yes, such realistic expectations.
All that being said, for now it’s more important to win the bigger fight of getting unassuming behavior into general practice, by utilizing an already existent system of “one” and “they”. Then, later, work can be done to morph one word into a better, unambiguous, single-purpose word. And, who knows, maybe in a few generations with our augmented reality, AI-informed cyberselves, the dream of individualized pronouns can become reality for each and every one, in every interaction.