Authors
Daniel Wodak
University of Pennsylvania
Robin Dembroff
Yale University
Abstract
In this paper, we defend two main claims. The first is a moderate claim: we have a negative duty to not use binary gender-specific pronouns he or she to refer to genderqueer individuals. We defend this with an argument by analogy. It was gravely wrong for Mark Latham to refer to Catherine McGregor, a transgender woman, using the pronoun he; we argue that such cases of misgendering are morally analogous to referring to Angel Haze, who identifies as genderqueer, as he or she. The second is a radical claim: we have a negative duty to not use any gender-specific pronouns to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender identity. We offer three arguments in favor of this claim (which appeal to concerns about inegalitarianism and risk, invasions of privacy, and reinforcing essentialist ideologies). We also show why the radical claim is compatible with the moderate claim. Before concluding, we examine common concerns about incorporating either they or a neologism such as ze as a third-person singular gender-neutral pronoun. These concerns, we argue, do not provide sufficient reason to reject either the moderate or radical claim.
Keywords feminism  language  gender
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0005.014
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Gender and Gender Terms1.Elizabeth Barnes - 2020 - Noûs 54 (3):704-730.

View all 39 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Moving Beyond Mismatch.Robin Dembroff - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (2):60-63.
Moral Constraints on Gender Concepts.N. G. Laskowski - 2020 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 23 (1):39-51.
The Expressive Case Against Plurality Rule.Daniel Wodak - 2019 - Journal of Political Philosophy 27 (3):363-387.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Does ‘Legal Obligation’ Mean?Daniel Wodak - 2018 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99 (4):790-816.
What If Well-Being Measurements Are Non-Linear?Daniel Wodak - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (1):29-45.
Expressivism and Varieties of Normativity.Daniel Wodak - 2017 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 12:265-293.
Moral Perception, Inference, and Intuition.Daniel Wodak - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (6):1495-1512.
The Expressive Case Against Plurality Rule.Daniel Wodak - 2019 - Journal of Political Philosophy 27 (3):363-387.
Can Objectivists Account for Subjective Reasons?Daniel Wodak - 2017 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 12 (3):259-279.
Resolving Judicial Dilemmas.Alexander Sarch & Daniel Wodak - 2018 - Virginia Journal of Criminal Law 6:93-181.
Mere Formalities: Normative Fictions and Normative Authority.Daniel Wodak - forthcoming - Canadian Journal of Philosophy:1-23.
The Mark of the Plural: Generic Generalizations and Race.Daniel Wodak & Sarah-Jane Leslie - 2017 - In Paul C. Taylor, Linda Martín Alcoff & Luvell Anderson (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Race. Routledge. pp. 277-289.
What Is Sexual Orientation?Robin A. Dembroff - 2016 - Philosophers' Imprint 16.
Why Realists Must Reject Normative Quietism.Daniel Wodak - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (11):2795-2817.
Wodak , dir. Language, power and ideology : studies in political discourse. [REVIEW]John Reighard - 1991 - Revue Belge de Philologie Et D’Histoire 69 (3):651-655.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-03-08

Total views
5,524 ( #267 of 2,381,226 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
923 ( #205 of 2,381,226 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes