One would have a difficult time finding a more measured, considerate, honest and probing analysis of the preferred pronouns controversy than Ryan Harkins offers here. You certainly won’t get it from me: I drew a line in the sand (Remember the Alamo!) on this long ago, when I concluded that such rhetorical demands from various minority groups were cynical power plays designed to make everyone bend to their will or be branded one kind of bigot or another. Ryan’s reflections didn’t change my mind, but they did make me consider changing my mind.
Here is Ryan Harkins’ Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Dunce: The National MS Society”…
***
I have struggled with finding suitable reason to cave and use “preferred” pronouns. I can conceive of numerous reasons to reject them: using such pronouns is manipulative; using them is forcing division; using them is an effort to force the world to conform to an individual, rather than the individual accepting reality; or if none of those, using them is an effort to band-aid over and thus ignore serious issues.
I’ve been considering that maybe being willing to use someone’s preferred pronouns could be a measure of meeting them where they are. In Catholic apologetics and evangelization, that is one of the best tactics in seeking conversion. Walk with someone. Get to know him. Understand his problems. Genuinely care about him, because conversion is not a game where one keeps track of points, but where one is selflessly concerned about this person’s salvation. Furthermore, St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 9: “To the Jew, I become a Jew, to win over the Jew. To the Greek, I become a Greek, to win over the Greek. To the weak, I become weak, to win over the weak. I become all things to all people so that by all means I might save some.”









