Pronouns are the left’s hostages, putting them through conversion therapy to mean something they don’t. This is a losing battle for conservatives who get caught up in the literal semantics.
As transgenderism is now the catalyzing front of the sexual revolution, a redefinition of words becomes necessary to bridge the gap between reality and the demands of trans-people and their allies.
The natural order of communication requires logic and rationality. Therefore, progressives must lay claim to parts of the English language to be understood. But when reality is personally determined, there is no stable ground on which to base a belief. Friendly fire abounds as the gender spectrum grows daily, antiquating yesterday’s norms for tomorrow’s epiphanies.
Conservatives and progressives are aptly named. The former is resistant to change. For them, tradition is evidence of fact. The latter seeks progress. Whatever is new is of more value than the old, so the pattern is obsolescence in the name of enlightenment. For either group, the transitional phase between tradition and enlightenment is missing.
We are witnessing that missing link. Pronouns are evolving, and words are newly being created. It is during our moment in time to decide what to do with that.
The strongest shred of ammunition Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has against the changing use of they is its potential to confuse in an emergency.
Consider this: a gender non-conforming person is trapped in a burning building. A firefighter asks someone already rescued, “Is there anyone else in there?” To preserve the dignity of the burning person’s authority to self-identify, the rescued says, “Yes, they are in the bedroom on the second story.” Not having the time to ask for more detail they implies multiple people. Thus, the firefighter spends time in great danger searching for more than just one person. Similarly, in the hospital, a patient’s anatomy may be critical information in providing timely and proper care.
These are compelling situations but, in their rarity, not overwhelming evidence that they should be preserved for plural in the face of the blitzkrieg of political correctness.
As language changes, successive generations find a way to adapt.
Have you heard the generational debate over the phatic expressions, no problem and you’re welcome? Grandpa thanks a cashier, Grayson, for processing Grandpa’s purchase. Grayson responds, “No problem.” For decades, Grandpa’s ears have been trained to hear “You’re welcome” in this situation, not Grayson’s substitute. To Grandpa, this new phrase sounds as if Grayson was inconvenienced to serve Grandpa. “Of course it’s ‘no problem’ to do what’s expected of you; what I’m paying you to do,” Grandpa thinks. However, among Grayson and his peers, there are no subtle implications. You’re welcome works just as well as no problem and only Chick-Fil-A employees say my pleasure.
Due to the presence of social justice activism, cancel culture, and the inability to live under a rock to avoid the sexual revolution, today’s high schoolers will more likely raise their children with the definitions gaining traction now than those used by their grandparents.
Concerning names, there is nothing more inherently masculine about the name Edward than Stephanie. Leslie was a common name for baby boys a century ago. To those unfamiliar with Chinese names, is Huang more obviously male than Li? Names are simply sounds with cultural attachments.
As far as the government is concerned, names are as fluid as an ocean current. When my wife and I were married, we went to the Social Security Administration thinking she would be asked my last name and begin the paperwork of changing her name. Instead, she was asked, “What do you want your name to be?” I am thankful she did not follow Phoebe’s example in Friends and call herself Princess Consuela Banana-Hammock. According to the logic of a self-identifying world, why should the name parents give the child have any weight?
There is an abundance of double standards that must go hand-in-hand with the idea of a gender spectrum. The most prevalent is that in spite of the belief in a fluidity of gender, a person will dress and talk according to the historic cultural norms of either male or female. Despite this illogic, it is important to keep pace with the thinking. Christians need to be aware of preferences and new definitions to still have a voice in society.
We may think our concerns are the culmination of a long-lasting disagreement when they might actually be discussions that will occur only in our lifetime. Each period of history has its own battles to face and time marches. The victor takes precedent, only to fight the next contender.
“Every age has its own outlook…. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions.” C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock
Identifying words will continue to change as long as people continue to believe, as pastor and author John Piper put it, “that human identity is self-constructed, not God-given.” These contrasting presuppositions are insurmountable. It is useless to argue over preferred pronouns, transgenderism, or gay rights without acknowledging Piper’s statement. The logic on either side flows completely from these polar opposite foundations - the source of identity.
Christians should not dig their heels in the ground to stop the changing use of pronouns. It is a futile action that can only be seen as out-of-touch to those who demand it.
Being omniscient, Jesus could approach anyone and with one sentence pierce through to their heart, telling them exactly what they needed to hear. In our humanity, we do not know the first thing about a stranger. This is not to say we need to start every conversation laying out pronoun preferences before saying another word. Instead, we must enter into a relationship with anyone as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 8 and 9. He became all things to all men.
Division over pronoun usage eliminates the opportunity for relationship. Correct thinking about identity will come with a greater understanding of the natural order of God’s creation. Until then, Christians should study this among themselves and speak only the gospel to those outside the fellowship.