Revisionary Pronouns

Iwanttostopphilosophizingbutikant

I would just like to preface this argument by saying that regardless of my views (which are in no way reflected in this argument because this is academic), this is strictly philosophical and is in no way meant to isolate or offend anyone.
Regarding the question of whether or not Christians should adopt revisionary pronouns for the changing transgender community, one argument can be understood as the following
If Christianity is true, then God designed us to conceive of ourselves as male or female based on our reproductive structures.
If so, then it is immoral to conceive of oneself as male while being biologically female, and vice versa.
If so, then contemporary transgender ideology is immoral.
If so, we shouldn’t perpetuate it by using revisionary pronouns.
So, if Christianity is true, we shouldn’t use revisionary pronouns.
I reject premise two and premise three of the argument regarding the transgender ideology being immoral in the face of Christianity. There are counterexamples such as people being born with both male and female biological anatomy. Why would God allow these babies to be in the gray area of determining sex. By having this gray area, it supports that sex is not the only identifying factor of a person’s identity. Gender being self-identifying can be understood as a reaction to this medical phenomenon as well as just a psychological feeling. If God was against this lifestyle, then why has he allowed these births to happen?
This leads me to reject premise four of the argument because of my rejection of premise two and premise three. Revisionary pronouns are meant to make someone feel more comfortable in their decision to be who they feel like they are on the inside. One of God’s morals that is taught in the Bible over and over again is to “love thy neighbor.” Even in the face of evil, God believes that Christians should treat everyone to the best of their ability. By using these revisionary pronouns, Christians are treating their neighbors with the best of their ability. These revisionary pronouns are the courtesy that others ask of Christians just as Christians ask of them to respect their religious views.

Brillig

1. If Christianity is true, then God designed us to conceive of ourselves as male or female based on our reproductive structures.
2. If so, then it is immoral to conceive of oneself as male while being biologically female, and vice versa.
3. If so, then contemporary transgender ideology is immoral.
4. If so, we shouldn’t perpetuate it by using revisionary pronouns.
5. So, if Christianity is true, we shouldn’t use revisionary pronouns. — Iwanttostopphilosophizingbutikant

I'd like to preface this by saying I agree that Christians and other religiously minded people should be encouraging compassionate attitudes towards the transgender community. However, I think your argument could use some work - both the original form that you lay out, and your objection to it. I added number labels in my quote just for visual clarity, but I didn't change any of your wording.

Firstly, your objection is useful, but I'd like to point out that it seems to apply more to (1) than to (2) or (3). Children born with non-standard genitalia or reproductive organs could challenge the premise that God designed genitalia to assign our gender, but it applies less directly to morality.

Secondly, the argument that you construct in order to pose your objection against it could be phrased much more charitably. Currently, it is not sound. For (1), the phrase "If Christianity is true" could entail a large variety of things, many of which would be subject to debate. I do not think it is clear that the Christian God designed people to "conceive" of themselves as male or female based on reproductive organs. That would mean the second half of (1) is not necessarily entailed by the first half.

Furthermore, (2) is not entailed by (1). Even if God designed us to conceive of gender by our reproductive organs, it's possible that choosing to conceive otherwise is not immoral. For example, a video game developer could design a game to be played exclusively with your left hand. I could still choose to play this game with my right hand. While it may not be what the designer had in mind, it does not necessarily follow that I have done anything immoral.

Then if (1) is not entailed by itself, and (2) is not entailed by (1), I think the other premises lack support. So the argument does not stand up.

Jamesk

I stopped reading at 'If Christianity is true'. Can religions have truth values? Not all Christian belief is about transgender issues, Christianity could be wrong about that and right about other things.

My two cents worth, homosexuality and gender vagueness have been with us for thousands of years. Christian culture is one of the most sexually repressive religions around. The only major moral issue here is one of medical morals. Before gender reassignment was around and wide-spread we didn't have a transgender issue.

Dgallen

Should Christians use revisionary pronouns? Many have argued that religion gets in the way with the transgender movement, and most of the arguments are vague at best. In this article (http://www.dennyburk.com/bruce-or-caitlyn-he-or-she-should-christians-accomodate-transgender-naming/) the author argues “transgenderism is a denial of God-ordained differences between male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). It is an untruthful suppression of the sexual binary that God has encoded into every cell of our bodies.” His argument takes a similar form to this:

1. It is necessary for Christians to tell the truth.
2. Transgenderism is an untruthful suppression of God’s creation.
3. If a Christian were to refer to a transgender individual by revised pronouns or names, they would not be telling the truth.
4. Therefore Christians should not use revisionary pronouns.

There are several issues with this argument however. First of all, with premise one. Is it really necessary for Christians to tell the truth at all times? I don’t believe so. In cases where telling the truth is harmful, it may not be necessary to tell the truth just for the sake of itself. For example, telling someone where someone else is hiding if you know they plan to murder them. It would not be defensible for a Christian to tell the truth in this case. The transgender situation can be analogous to this in that collective misgendering may lead to violence against transgender individuals. Another problem with the argument is premise 2. If God intended to create a sexual binary for humans, then why are some people born as intersex? This goes against the idea that we are on a sexual binary, and it must only exist through the will of God. So is it necessarily problematic for Christians to use revisionary pronouns for transgender individuals?

SethRy

Galatians 3:28

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

The bible is a compilation of millions of paradoxes and reflections. Only articulate, passionate acceptance of it can grant you understanding; various interpretations are the reason for discord regarding the ecclesiastical truth value of Christian Theology. Interpreting it in its entirety is the only way to understand the bible's objectivity and explicit implicature — and only few can do so.

God also gave us the ability to know what is good, to encompass moral decisiveness. Subsequently, we understand to change moral dogmas by the means of tolerance and inclusion. As God granted us consciousness, it tells us what is good or not, wherein contingent idealism blinds our intrinsic viewpoints of objective morality as oppose to Necessary Idealism.

In conclusion, I think it is erroneous to represent the dogmas and laws of biblical Christianity with only a substrata that conveys a particular situation. The bible is given to you as a whole, not by verse.

As a theist, I believe so.

tim wood

If Christianity is true, then God designed us to conceive of ourselves as male or female based on our reproductive structures. — Iwanttostopphilosophizingbutikant

If that's true, then how do you account for the fact that people can and do not identify with their "reproductive structures." What is "reproductive structure" and what does that include/exclude? God made minds too, yes? And if you think sex and biological reproduction are interchangeable terms, well, anyone who thinks that really should just shut up and live in this life for a while!

We have arrived, after a difficult voyage across a still stormy sea, at a time when the comments from the religion gallery are at best completely irrelevant, and always ignorant and self-serving. Oh yes, and sometimes lethal.

Do I want to see revisionary pronouns? No. I think they're a cure worse than the disease. On the other hand, I admire the courage of people who look their families and communities in the eye and say, "I am not like you. I am not one of you. I'm different, and I insist on living my life!"

Of course many are just whackjobs, but I think not all.

Revisionary Pronouns

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions