She and they
More support for Fran Cowling and indignation with Peter Tatchell. Also – coincidentally? or not? – more bad writing. This time it’s an open letter to Peter by a guy called Chris Hubley. He points out that there have been a lot of articles on the subject of Cowling v Tatchell.
However what is missing from all this is that you were never actually under attack. Fran isn’t a well known figure beyond their own circles, and they weren’t even making these comments publicly – it all happened in private emails between them and the organisers of the event. They had been invited to speak alongside you, and they responded that they didn’t want to.
Wait, I’m lost already. Who? Who weren’t? Who had? Who did?
There are actually reasons for using singular pronouns when you’re talking about one person and plural ones when you’re talking about several, reasons that have nothing to do with transphobia or snooty prescriptivism about language. Hubley seems to be serenely unaware that he’s talking about an individual and a group in the same paragraph, and that he’ll confuse us if he uses “they” when he means the one individual. Also, as I said yesterday, it’s not obvious to me why he’s calling Fran Cowling “they” at all. When it’s not obvious, maybe it’s a silly thing to do.
Now this is something which they are completely within their right to do, freedom of speech is also freedom to not engage. So then it seems the organisers forwarded the email onto you. It’s understandable that you might want to reach out to them, to see if you could talk it through. But they didn’t want to have that conversation with you, which again they are free to do.
Same again but more so. That part is even less clear. Reach out to the organizers, or Cowling? Cowling didn’t want to, or the organizers? Who knows.
Then Hubley says it was uncool of Tatchell to take it all public.
Meanwhile when you google Fran Cowling the results are dominated by articles about you. Everyone is writing about them, and the tone ranges from the mainstream broadsheets cooly reporting on your original statement to aggressive hate filled rants about how Fran represents everything that’s wrong with modern student activism. How do you think this has affected them, and will affect them in the future? So far it’s resulted in them shutting down their Twitter and LinkedIn accounts, and I’ve heard from those close to her that it’s been incredibly difficult for them…
Ooops! He slipped up there.
There’s one simple fact that you don’t seem to understand in this situation where you’ve painted yourself as the poor victim of an over-zealous oppressor, and that is that you are the one with the power in this situation. Fran is a young student activist, while you are a celebrity with a Guardian column and a foundation named after yourself. Fran Cowling is not a threat to your freedom of speech. However your actions have harmed her in a way which sends a clear message that you are not to be messed with or criticised, even in private, otherwise all hell will break loose and you’ll release the hounds/press releases. Now I don’t know about you but that sure doesn’t sound like a situation conducive to freedom of speech to me.
Ooops! He slipped up again.
As for the substance – he does have something of a point, I guess. Tatchell does have far more media power than Cowling does. But given that she was telling event organizers that he was a Particular Kind of Bad Person, I can well understand why he wanted to set the record straight. I’m not sure what to think about this one.
Hi there,
I use “they” pronouns when talking about Fran because those are the pronouns they use and I’m respectful like that. And it’s true that I’m a visual artist rather than a writer, so it is indeed likely that my writing isn’t the best quality.
Chris xx
Hi Chris
How do you know what pronouns Fran uses? It doesn’t seem to be public information.
I’m not sure how respectful I think it is, overall. I have doubts about how respectful it is overall for women to stop using female pronouns, because that just helps hide the existence and presence of women in public life, and there’s too much of that already. On the other hand it’s rude to refuse to address people as they want to be addressed. On the third hand there has to be some limit to that rule if we want to be able to have coherent conversations. I do think calling Fran “them” while talking about a group of people in the same paragraphs injects pointless confusion.
Easy solution: Use their name.
Also, I’d be rather surprised if Fran used the pronoun “they” to refer to themself.
An easy solution, maybe, but it leads to prose that’s a real slog.
Claims of powerlessness seem to have become the go-to defense whenever the excesses of student activism are pointed out. I’ve frequently seen it deployed on Twitter regarding US incidents (e.g. the culturally appropriative college cafeteria) and I guess it’s also caught on in the UK. “These are just college kids! They don’t have any power and you’re shaming them! What are they hurting, anyway? They’re just college kids, you bully!”
To me, this argument would seem to raise the question of why they are bothering to engage in activism if they are powerless and their actions bring about no consequences.
As for whether this defense applies to Fran in specific: Generally speaking, I’d say that people convinced of their powerlessness do not try to pull off clandestine chicanery aimed at damaging someone else’s reputation without the target ever hearing about it directly. That’s the sort of thing you try when you think you DO have power, no? The fact that this was done “privately” (a euphemism for “behind Tatchell’s back”) isn’t necessarily as robust a defense as Hubley seems to imagine. A public statement wouldn’t have had the air of sneakiness about it.
That’s why I specified media power. I think it’s fair to point out that Tatchell has more of it than Cowling does. But do I think he has to just smile and take it when she tells people he’s something he’s not? No.
All good points, by the way, GGP @ 6.
The worst is when claims of powerlessness are used to deflect attention from someone expressing that they’ve actually been hurt.
Dear Mr Hubley,
Does Fran use the royal ‘we’ when referring to herself?
Chris Hubley@No.1 : you’ll find that Ophelia and the commenters here are also respectful of correct pronoun usage: bonus points for snippiness though! xxo
Using pronouns like they and xie has the extra added benefit of making us all understand how difficult life is for people who have difficulty reading. I have to slow my reading down to word-by-word whenever non-standard pronouns are used, and have to read over two or three times before I feel I fully comprehend it.
I am not yet convinced this is the optimal outcome.
Tatchell was under attack. Cowling flat out stated he should be no platformed for his offensive views. Is he supposed to just sit quietly while his reputation is smeared?
Sue it.
Ophelia, I know what pronouns Fran uses because I have friends who know them.
Ah. So it’s not public information – but then wouldn’t it make sense to say you’re using a non-standard pronoun, and why? As opposed to just treating it as self-evident? It’s not self-evident. It’s also, as I said, confusing in a piece in which you’re talking about a plural set of people at the very same time – it’s far from clear which “they/them” you’re talking about at any particular time.
I think the pronoun debate is interesting, because the proponents of identity politics (unsurprisingly) take them to be entirely a matter of personal choice, so that using the pronouns that people choose – no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how confusing, no matter how dissonant with ordinary language use – is seen as necessary for respecting people and respecting their identities.
But of course pronouns actually perform a linguistic function, and language is a social, collective enterprise. Pronouns aren’t simply a matter of personal choice and don’t primarily exist to validate people’s self-perception and self-identity. They exist to facilitate communication, and as you point out Ophelia, if the rule we follow is “always use a person’s chosen pronouns” then sometimes that will thwart communication and impede understanding.
I will, as a matter of courtesy and respect, try to use a person’s chosen pronouns wherever I can. He, she and the singular they all seem to me to be reasonable requests, though as Ophelia points out, the singular they will often cause confusion, and in those cases I would probably just use the person’s name repeatedly. But the move towards neo-pronouns and people expecting others to use their own, special, unique pronouns just strikes me as absurd. Individuals can’t expect a socially shared and owned language to bend to their whims. And quite why you need your own special pronouns when you already have your own name is never quite explained – if you don’t want he or she, why can’t I just use your name over and over, rather than being expected to remember both your name, and your own special pronouns?
Of course the fact that pronouns actually perform a linguistic function, and language is a social, collective enterprise, is the very reason it’s so important to have one’s own special ones – it’s a quick easy way to force people to pay extra attention to one’s own special Selfness. Pronouns are common and pervasive, so if you have your own special ones, you can exact an extra little jolt of attention every time someone has to refer to you. It’s a little Attention Tax.
Not inevitably. Just for writing that’s done without attention.
The allegations Cowling made about Tatchell are very damaging, especially in left-wing liberal circles. If Tatchell left it unchallenged he would risk people believing that he is racist and transphobic. He only criticised Cowling and set the record straight. He didn’t resort to threats, harassment or abuse.
Secondly, Cowling is an activist giving public speeches and thus actively seeking publicity. Anyone doing this has to be prepared to face criticism. That doesn’t mean that anything said to or about them is OK but criticism is a normal part of public discourse.
A lot of people also seem to be confused on the topic of rights. Anyone is entitled to refuse to share a platform with someone else. In some cases, it is commendable to do so. However, no-one is entitled to immunity from criticism over their decision. That would interfere with other people’s freedom of speech.