Personal Pronouns / First Names

[downer]

Good. Now I'm clearer about the options.

Has anyone stuck to using last names and used "Mx Smith" in class, rather than Mr or Ms? (Pronounced "mix" apparently.)

[Conjugate]

Good. Now I'm clearer about the options.

Has anyone stuck to using last names and used "Mx Smith" in class, rather than Mr or Ms? (Pronounced "mix" apparently.)

I never have. Of course, I am terrible with names and faces, to the point where I can't reliably get more than five or six of the 90+ students in the semester down by the end of the semester. I mean, I try to keep track, but it just doesn't stick. This is, however, off the subject. Also, I find the comments about race and ethnicity puzzling, since surely pronouns are not signifiers of race or ethnicity.

This illustrates the heart of the problem. The problem with the emphasis on "gender identity" is that is implies that somehow a "correct" identification of a person's gender avoids any misconceptions of who they are as a person. If "gender" includes basically everything about a person, then there are currently about 7 billion genders in the world. The point of having any sort of pronoun is to have some sort of broad categorization; the number of categories is only useful if most people understand what they mean. So, the more categories, the less useful they are since the terms will be unfamiliar.

Biological sex has relevance for medicine. It does not indicate whether a person like sports, or shopping for clothes, or an infinite number of things, even though there are some probabilities for those related to sex.  For a long time it has been understood to not even guarantee sexual preference. Replacing "sex" by "gender" and then creating multiple genders is a step backwards because it assumes that more airtight categorizations can be used which will not be misunderstood. This is nonsense. The only way any individual can be clearly understood is through the long process of getting to know that person. There are no shortcuts, and creating extra pronouns won't help, while it may give  the illusion of doing so.

See, this doesn't address the question; we are not trying to "clearly understand" the person, we are simply attempting to choose a pronoun to which they will not feel a strong objection. We aren't choosing pronouns that will indicate if they like shopping for clothes, or enjoy watching football; just one of a small set of options.

[marshwiggle]

See, this doesn't address the question; we are not trying to "clearly understand" the person, we are simply attempting to choose a pronoun to which they will not feel a strong objection. We aren't choosing pronouns that will indicate if they like shopping for clothes, or enjoy watching football; just one of a small set of options.

In most of the discussion I've heard, it's not one of a "small set" of options; it's "whatever the person wishes", which is an entirely different thing.

[downer]

See, this doesn't address the question; we are not trying to "clearly understand" the person, we are simply attempting to choose a pronoun to which they will not feel a strong objection. We aren't choosing pronouns that will indicate if they like shopping for clothes, or enjoy watching football; just one of a small set of options.

In most of the discussion I've heard, it's not one of a "small set" of options; it's "whatever the person wishes", which is an entirely different thing.

Isn't that the situation in most interpersonal interaction? You ask their name, and they can get you calling them just about whatever they like. And these days, they can tell you their pronouns too. There is some possibility of chaos. But in fact things work out fine. Even in place like Northampton MA or Berkeley CA.

[marshwiggle]

See, this doesn't address the question; we are not trying to "clearly understand" the person, we are simply attempting to choose a pronoun to which they will not feel a strong objection. We aren't choosing pronouns that will indicate if they like shopping for clothes, or enjoy watching football; just one of a small set of options.

In most of the discussion I've heard, it's not one of a "small set" of options; it's "whatever the person wishes", which is an entirely different thing.

Isn't that the situation in most interpersonal interaction? You ask their name, and they can get you calling them just about whatever they like. And these days, they can tell you their pronouns too. There is some possibility of chaos. But in fact things work out fine. Even in place like Northampton MA or Berkeley CA.

It only works out as long as only a very small number of people do it. Imagine in a class of 200 (or even 20 for that matter) where everyone wants their own specific pronoun. It becomes impossible to remember them all, and it's easier to just omit pronouns entirely.

There have been many discussions of these sort of "tragedy of the commons" accommodation requests on the old fora, and the consensus is often that fairness requires avoiding any special treatment that cannot be given to all. There is no guarantee that someone who requests special treatment has any more (or even as much) reason as someone who accepts the rules as given but doesn't ask because they are mature enough to accept the rules, whether they like them or not .

[polly_mer]

Good. Now I'm clearer about the options.

Has anyone stuck to using last names and used "Mx Smith" in class, rather than Mr or Ms? (Pronounced "mix" apparently.)

I never have. Of course, I am terrible with names and faces, to the point where I can't reliably get more than five or six of the 90+ students in the semester down by the end of the semester. I mean, I try to keep track, but it just doesn't stick.

I don't even get my own kid's name right and I only have the one who doesn't change every few months.  I have had to resort to saying, "you know, whatshisname who lives here and is over there" for my husband of more than 25 years.

Also, I find the comments about race and ethnicity puzzling, since surely pronouns are not signifiers of race or ethnicity.

They are connected in my mind as categories for which an individual can state their preference, but really aren't under the individual's control to enforce how other people categorize based on observable features.  For example, I had an interesting encounter recently with a student who asked how he could support the underrepresented people in our field.  This student was very earnest in his desire to help a specific group member feel comfortable in the field.  I managed to not state what I was thinking along the lines of "you are a traditional age, recent BS graduate who checks more boxes in any combination of underrepresented/at risk/non-standard observed behavioral norms than that individual.  What makes you think you are in a position to help and that the individual needs your help?"

Pronouns, race, and ethnicity also are connected in my mind as basically irrelevant to the classroom settings where I taught.  revert79's description of what a classroom should be as a way to explore identity bears almost no resemblance to how I experienced college as either a student or professor.  Yes, we're all learners together, but the relevant identity is aspiring scientist/engineer or informed citizen who is capable in math and science.  All the other fine identities one might have are not really up for exploration in today's lesson of how to solve for the final position of the ball or balance the chemical equation. 

I grew up in a large extended family and almost never was called either my legal name or a nickname I chose.  Thus, I'm pretty unsympathetic to the idea that one gets to dictate terms for things that don't matter in the context at hand to others who have almost no long-term investment in the individual.  Yes, it's nice to be an individual in small groups, but realistically, in larger groups the best one can hope is to have the grades recorded to the appropriate record.

[wuggish]

Of the two (possibly) trans students I've been aware of, one had been in several of my labs as "Bob", and was registered as "Bob", but signed everything as "Alice" in my course. Many of the students in the course would have been in many of the previous (and small) courses with "Bob". "Alice" had no obvious changes in physical appearance from "Bob".
Given all of that, the former identity of "Bob" is a ridiculously poorly kept secret, so it's hard to see how pronoun use is going to affect that.

Transition is a long process. Alice wasn't trying to keep the "secret" (!) that she used to be Bob, Alice was at an early stage in social transition.

[downer]

See, this doesn't address the question; we are not trying to "clearly understand" the person, we are simply attempting to choose a pronoun to which they will not feel a strong objection. We aren't choosing pronouns that will indicate if they like shopping for clothes, or enjoy watching football; just one of a small set of options.

In most of the discussion I've heard, it's not one of a "small set" of options; it's "whatever the person wishes", which is an entirely different thing.

Isn't that the situation in most interpersonal interaction? You ask their name, and they can get you calling them just about whatever they like. And these days, they can tell you their pronouns too. There is some possibility of chaos. But in fact things work out fine. Even in place like Northampton MA or Berkeley CA.

It only works out as long as only a very small number of people do it. Imagine in a class of 200 (or even 20 for that matter) where everyone wants their own specific pronoun. It becomes impossible to remember them all, and it's easier to just omit pronouns entirely.

There have been many discussions of these sort of "tragedy of the commons" accommodation requests on the old fora, and the consensus is often that fairness requires avoiding any special treatment that cannot be given to all. There is no guarantee that someone who requests special treatment has any more (or even as much) reason as someone who accepts the rules as given but doesn't ask because they are mature enough to accept the rules, whether they like them or not .

More hypotheticals. I can imagine all sorts of disasters. My point remains though. I haven't heard of one case where there's actually been a practical problem to the extent that an instructor has offended a student and there have been complaints. The only complaints from students I have heard about are where instructors have been douche bags about it for ideological reasons.

[marshwiggle]

Isn't that the situation in most interpersonal interaction? You ask their name, and they can get you calling them just about whatever they like. And these days, they can tell you their pronouns too. There is some possibility of chaos. But in fact things work out fine. Even in place like Northampton MA or Berkeley CA.

It only works out as long as only a very small number of people do it. Imagine in a class of 200 (or even 20 for that matter) where everyone wants their own specific pronoun. It becomes impossible to remember them all, and it's easier to just omit pronouns entirely.

There have been many discussions of these sort of "tragedy of the commons" accommodation requests on the old fora, and the consensus is often that fairness requires avoiding any special treatment that cannot be given to all. There is no guarantee that someone who requests special treatment has any more (or even as much) reason as someone who accepts the rules as given but doesn't ask because they are mature enough to accept the rules, whether they like them or not .

More hypotheticals. I can imagine all sorts of disasters. My point remains though. I haven't heard of one case where there's actually been a practical problem to the extent that an instructor has offended a student and there have been complaints. The only complaints from students I have heard about are where instructors have been douche bags about it for ideological reasons.

Since when did taking an idea to its logical conclusion become frowned upon in an academic discussion? Institutions of higher learning were traditionally the places where envisioning the future was normal; it was traditionally governments and businesses that were focused on the practical conditions of the moment.

Any activity which is totally unregulated will eventually proliferate. (Think of any industry that has undergone "deregulation" and what ensued.) Making consistent, universal rules that can scale is the way to prevent chaos in the longer term.

[downer]

Isn't that the situation in most interpersonal interaction? You ask their name, and they can get you calling them just about whatever they like. And these days, they can tell you their pronouns too. There is some possibility of chaos. But in fact things work out fine. Even in place like Northampton MA or Berkeley CA.

It only works out as long as only a very small number of people do it. Imagine in a class of 200 (or even 20 for that matter) where everyone wants their own specific pronoun. It becomes impossible to remember them all, and it's easier to just omit pronouns entirely.

There have been many discussions of these sort of "tragedy of the commons" accommodation requests on the old fora, and the consensus is often that fairness requires avoiding any special treatment that cannot be given to all. There is no guarantee that someone who requests special treatment has any more (or even as much) reason as someone who accepts the rules as given but doesn't ask because they are mature enough to accept the rules, whether they like them or not .

More hypotheticals. I can imagine all sorts of disasters. My point remains though. I haven't heard of one case where there's actually been a practical problem to the extent that an instructor has offended a student and there have been complaints. The only complaints from students I have heard about are where instructors have been douche bags about it for ideological reasons.

Since when did taking an idea to its logical conclusion become frowned upon in an academic discussion? Institutions of higher learning were traditionally the places where envisioning the future was normal; it was traditionally governments and businesses that were focused on the practical conditions of the moment.

Any activity which is totally unregulated will eventually proliferate. (Think of any industry that has undergone "deregulation" and what ensued.) Making consistent, universal rules that can scale is the way to prevent chaos in the longer term.

Meh. It's like most older men having prostate cancer: that's not what is going to kill most of them. Something else will get them. There are many other sources of real problems that already cause difficulty for instructors, and they are much more likely to escalate and cause chaos. Issues about pronouns are at worst a minor irritation.

As for universal rules about how to treat students, sure that's a nice idea, but apart from cultivating an attitude of mutual respect in the classroom, I've not seen good candidates for a universal rule of interaction with students. Teaching is a matter of pragmatics.

[Caracal]

Since when did taking an idea to its logical conclusion become frowned upon in an academic discussion? Institutions of higher learning were traditionally the places where envisioning the future was normal; it was traditionally governments and businesses that were focused on the practical conditions of the moment.

Any activity which is totally unregulated will eventually proliferate. (Think of any industry that has undergone "deregulation" and what ensued.) Making consistent, universal rules that can scale is the way to prevent chaos in the longer term.

Good lord, there's a logical fallacy for exactly what you're doing.

At any rate, this isn't really new, its just an extension of a previous convention-which is that we get to be known by the name we prefer. It would be more convenient if we didn't have this convention. Poly doesn't seem to like it much, but most of us, I think, would prefer our classes feel less, not more, like the social security office. Basically the societal consensus is that we put up with a small amount of trouble because we think the ability to choose how other's address you is important.

This doesn't lead to chaos because people really don't generally want to have their names be offensive or objects of ridicule. Even names that might seem a bit silly generally aren't totally absurd. I've yet to encounter a student who wanted me to call them "Big dog."

So ok, it might take some minor adjustments to do this with pronouns too, but it isn't that hard and won't generally be that difficult because all of the same incentives apply. You seem to believe this is all about some desire to stand out. Generally, I don't think that's true. The vast majority of people requesting something different in terms of their pronouns just want something that jibes better with their identity and is as simple as possible for everyone else. This is exactly why "their" is becoming standard for people who don't want the other two options. People don't want their own special pronoun, they would just like one that works ok and will cause a minimum amount of fuss and bother.

[revert79]

Good. Now I'm clearer about the options.

Has anyone stuck to using last names and used "Mx Smith" in class, rather than Mr or Ms? (Pronounced "mix" apparently.)

I never have. Of course, I am terrible with names and faces, to the point where I can't reliably get more than five or six of the 90+ students in the semester down by the end of the semester. I mean, I try to keep track, but it just doesn't stick.

I don't even get my own kid's name right and I only have the one who doesn't change every few months.  I have had to resort to saying, "you know, whatshisname who lives here and is over there" for my husband of more than 25 years.

Also, I find the comments about race and ethnicity puzzling, since surely pronouns are not signifiers of race or ethnicity.

They are connected in my mind as categories for which an individual can state their preference, but really aren't under the individual's control to enforce how other people categorize based on observable features.  For example, I had an interesting encounter recently with a student who asked how he could support the underrepresented people in our field.  This student was very earnest in his desire to help a specific group member feel comfortable in the field.  I managed to not state what I was thinking along the lines of "you are a traditional age, recent BS graduate who checks more boxes in any combination of underrepresented/at risk/non-standard observed behavioral norms than that individual.  What makes you think you are in a position to help and that the individual needs your help?"

Pronouns, race, and ethnicity also are connected in my mind as basically irrelevant to the classroom settings where I taught. revert79's description of what a classroom should be as a way to explore identity bears almost no resemblance to how I experienced college as either a student or professor.  Yes, we're all learners together, but the relevant identity is aspiring scientist/engineer or informed citizen who is capable in math and science.  All the other fine identities one might have are not really up for exploration in today's lesson of how to solve for the final position of the ball or balance the chemical equation

I grew up in a large extended family and almost never was called either my legal name or a nickname I chose.  Thus, I'm pretty unsympathetic to the idea that one gets to dictate terms for things that don't matter in the context at hand to others who have almost no long-term investment in the individual.  Yes, it's nice to be an individual in small groups, but realistically, in larger groups the best one can hope is to have the grades recorded to the appropriate record.

I think some of this must have to do with context.  My students are art students at a selective private art school in the Northeast, so it stands to reason that their experience of education will differ from the experience of students in schools and academic fields which operate quite differently.  Interesctionalism and the role of identity make up a substantial part of the critical discourse in which an art student is expected to be conversant; i think that finding parallels in their personal lives is a natural outgrowth of that expectation. 

Have I found this environment frustrating in many ways?  Yes, of course.  The phrase "navel-gazing" pops into my mind quite easily.  But I feel like I owe it to my students to treat them with the respect they are asking for, even if I have difficulty on the levels of memory and common sense (I try to leave issues of taste, preference, and bias out of classroom interactions).  After all, I am also asking for their respect for me and for each other—I want to be taken seriously just like they do, and a quick way to lose the trust of your students is to show that you don't trust them either. 

Unlike Marshwiggle, who has only had two trans/genderqueer  students, I have probably had at least 50 or 60 and probably more.  In the context of art school, it's not a responsible option to break the contract of mutual respect by shutting down conversations related to identity and personal narrative—after all, these are important thematic elements in the discourse surrounding visual art.  I think it's fair to say it is probably totally different in other academic settings.  To be a successful artist is to find a bridge between form and content in one's studio practice, and autobiography and identity are really understandable starting places for young artists.  For young engineers or beginning nuclear physicists, these questions won't necessarily be relevant to their excellence in the field. "Identity" will have a different role.   But even still, people are always people...and we all want to be treated well, and to feel comfortable being who we are.

[ciao_yall]

They are connected in my mind as categories for which an individual can state their preference, but really aren't under the individual's control to enforce how other people categorize based on observable features.  For example, I had an interesting encounter recently with a student who asked how he could support the underrepresented people in our field.  This student was very earnest in his desire to help a specific group member feel comfortable in the field.  I managed to not state what I was thinking along the lines of "you are a traditional age, recent BS graduate who checks more boxes in any combination of underrepresented/at risk/non-standard observed behavioral norms than that individual.  What makes you think you are in a position to help and that the individual needs your help?"

Okay. I R confused.

Are you saying that because this person had more "boxes to check" he was, by definition, unable to be of support to someone who had fewer of these "boxes to check?"

Like it's a score or something? And whomever has more/fewer "points" can't be aware of someone else's sensitivities?
 

[xerprofrn]

Granted, I haven't read all the replies in this thread.

An easy fix is tent cards at the beginning of the semester.  I ask students to put the name they would like to be referred to and their preferred pronouns.  I then collect them at the end of each class session.  I hand them out, testing my memory, at the five minutes before the start of each subsequent class session.

This serves multiple purposes:  students are able to identify themselves any way they want.  If they want to change their names/pronouns mid terms, they update their cards--and usually they say that they are going to.  It helps me remember their names and pronouns, and if they change, I get fair warning without soliciting it. 

I have been able to learn the names of 100+ students per term with this approach.  It creates an environment of mutual respect and collegiality.

[tuxedo_cat]

Thanks for the suggestion! Can I ask what kind of cards you use to create tent cards?