We Can Work It Out - Politics & Philosophy | Page 62 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

I think a better way to fix inequality is to have it so everyone’s application says nothing about their:

Biological sex/gender identity

Biological ethnicity/racial identity

Sexual interests (as long as it’s between consenting adults)

Disabilities (if any)

Religious/political beliefs (if any)

Weight/height

Class

Now employers have no choice but to hire solely based on their credentials. It would mean that we can no longer have interviews but it’s far better than affirmative action since now everybody has equal opportunity and an employer who might reject people based on one of these things can’t because now he won’t know until after he hires them and if she fires them based on these things, they’ll get in big trouble.

I intentionally distorted the pronouns to be as non-sexist as possible.

Although looking back, i wish i said “because now he won’t know until after she hires them and if he fires them based on these things, she’ll get in big trouble.” since that’s a better alteration.

That sounds reasonable, but also pretty tricky to implement. It’s interesting to consider though, and seems like it could be a way forward. 

Definitely. I was considering this question after watching conservative pundit Ben Shapiro talk about how he will call Caitlyn Jenner “Caitlin Jenner” but he won’t refer to her as “she” because he thinks its a lie to refer to someone with pronouns that don’t match their chromosomes.

This assumes that one’s pronouns are determined by their chromosomes, but I think this is a poor understanding of this issue and language in general. 

1) Firstly, chromosomes were only discovered in 1905, while the origins of gender specific pronouns can be traced back to around 500BC. So they’re not inherently tied together. 

2) Secondly, Ben’s argument rests on the idea that a word’s meaning is set in stone and unchangeable, what we might call a prescriptive view of language. However, most linguists recognise that the approach should actually be descriptive, as meanings of words change over time and through their use. For example, the word “straight’ has gained the additional meaning of heterosexuality through usage in that context. Therefore, if trans women live their lives as women and are referred to as “she” or “her” throughout their everyday experience, then they’re not lying. 

Another interesting way of looking at it is by comparing it to adoptive parents. They’re not parents biologically, but in every context except medical (where a doctor has to know if they are the parents biologically to properly diagnose hereditary conditions) they act as the parents, and I’m sure most everyone would have no problems referring to them as their child’s parents. The same goes for trans people as while they may be required to be treated according to chromosome medically, in every other context they can live their life as their chosen gender.