When treating people with respect is just too difficult for some.

[drumdude]

I have to admit that I use the term Mormon intentionally when I am interacting with active LDS, which sort of illustrates the conflict here. I consider myself "Mormon" and, I also think those LDS with whom I am interacting also fit that definition, even though they may have stated they wish to be called "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Sometimes I may be in a group where there are people who still prefer 'Mormon' and others who do not. Do I have to right to expect LDS members to call me a Mormon even though the church has told them not to do so? Is it being disrespectful to shout at King Charles that he isn't your king as we have seen in New Zealand recently? If you ran into Russell Nelson, would you call him "President"? He's not my president.


When and how is it okay to disagree with how someone else wishes to be identified? Isn't acknowledging someone else's claims of identity also supporting that claim?

This is a good point. If you’re a member of the community you have more leeway.

[Marcus]

I do think it is possible.

The interesting thing is that Auntie’s stress and discomfort is easily resolved with the use of a ‘they/them/their’ pronoun, as this lets her avoid acknowledging the child’s decision or gender preference, if that’s what’s truly bothering her. She uses the exact same pronouns without issue anyway when talking about two or more people.

Refusing that solution is Auntie’s way of not sweeping this under the rug, or resolving her conflict, nor ever intending to. Rather, it’s Auntie’s way to display her passive aggression during any occasion she could have chosen otherwise. Auntie is intent on keeping the issue alive so that she can play the victim for a problem that she would no longer be able to define.

Well said.

[Gadianton]

... For example: Maybe the author doesn't think someone can change their gender ... Maybe this someone doesn't think it's possible to change gender and that it is not kind and/or loving to go along with pretending something that the Text author does not believe is true. Rather, maybe the text author believes it's actually harmful to the niece/nephew do so.

‘They/them/their’.
Problem solved.

That’s like saying “happy holidays”.
Problem much worse.

[I Have Questions]

The only way to successfully resolve the issue of the Aunt passively aggressively attacking the “kid” is for the “kid” (we don’t know their age) or the parent of the “kid” to proactively remove the Aunt from their life.

Then the Aunt is spared the mental and emotional stress, and the “kid” and the parent of the “kid” don’t have to put up with a toxic relative spoiling their life experience.

[canpakes]

‘They/them/their’.
Problem solved.

That’s like saying “happy holidays”.
Problem much worse.

[Res Ipsa]

Hi Ceebs,

Hey Res

I think you’re way off here.

I'm listening and open to being way off here.

This was a note to the authors niece or nephew. What loving and respectful aunt would insist on calling a niece or nephew by a name that was a complete rejection of who that person is? Calling a person by their preferred name, regardless of their legal name, is a simple matter of courtesy that we extend to each other all the time. Who actually demands to see a friend or family member’s driver’s license and refuses to address them as they have asked to be addressed?

For a transfolk, calling them by their deadname is not only rude, it’s a denial of their identity. In the current environment in which political and religious leaders are denying that trans folk even exist, it’s a slap in the face.

If extending the common courtesy that we commonly extend to strangers is so traumatic, then it’s best that she not interact with her niece/nephew. But to just announce that she refuses to call them by their preferred name and pronouns, blaming emotional stress without even acknowledging the emotional stress on her niece/nephew is both passive aggressive and toxic as hell.

I hear what you're saying and if I was ever asked to call someone by a certain name of a specific pronoun, I can't imagine not doing so.

But, I am not the author of the text, and I can see why some people land where they do on this topic. For example: Maybe the author doesn't think someone can change their gender (I'm not interested in getting into a debate around gender fluidity, or how many genders there are, and/or if it is possible for someone to change their gender - These things are not relevant to the specific example I am offering here) - Maybe this someone doesn't think it's possible to change gender and that it is not kind and/or loving to go along with pretending something that the Text author does not believe is true. Rather, maybe the text author believes it's actually harmful to the niece/nephew do so.

Anyway, all I am saying is that I can understand how someone could write the OP text, and I do not believe it is malicious/mean/hateful or disrespectful.

I can completely understand how someone, especially a faithful member of the COJCOLDS, could write that text. Identifying as trans is a sin that, if I recall correctly, warrants exclusion. For the aunt, this is an existential threat to the family because one of the core promises of her religion is that families will be together in the top tier of heaven forever.

But that sincerity does not change the fact that declaring “I don’t care that you identify as a woman. I will insist that you a man by using male pronouns and calling by a male name” is rude, disrespectful, and harmful. One can be both completely sincere and unspeakably rude. It often happens when people cross personal boundaries.

Sincere religious beliefs are not a justifiable excuse for causing harm to a fellow bit of carbon. The aunt doesn’t get to define who her niece/nephew is. Forcing her definition of who they are through her written line in the sand is way, way out of bounds. An equivalent might be the nephew telling her that she isn’t a Christian multiple times every time they interact.

There are millions of sincere Christians who believe homosexuality should be punished by death. That sincerely held belief does not justify the intentional infliction of harm. While the magnitude of the harm may differ, the principle is the same: the sincerity of belief does not justify the intentional infliction of harm.

And the aunt does not get to decide what is harmful to her niece/nephew. That’s an imposition of her religious beliefs on another against their will. It’s just as disrespectful as deadnaming them.

These kinds of boundary issues are very problematic in LDS culture. In a very real sense, it is moral to cause harm to another in the name of God. To me, justifying harm to a fellow bit of carbon by invoking God is the opposite of moral.

Taking the aunt at her word that using her niece/nephew’s choice of name and pronoun causes her mental and emotional harm, she has several options. A very simple one is don’t say anything in their presence that requires use of a name or pronoun. Our second person pronouns are not gendered, so talking to the niece/nephew is no problem. Similarly, as any person who is bad with names knows, it is trivially simple to have long, meaningful conversations with someone without ever using their name. The aunt avoids the harm to herself without inflicting harm on her nephew.

The notion of requiring folks to be tolerant of intolerance is to give license to extreme intolerance.

[Dwight]

I'm glad Ceebs will stop calling me a moron, since he will respect my deeply held belief about calling out racist thoughts and actions. After all it isn't difficult to treat people with respect, including respecting deeply held beliefs.

And if one of my deeply held beliefs is that you're a moron - do you respect that? Or is this respect thing only granted to virtuous people like you who use your super-powers to find and call out the racists among us?

I'm not the one trying to claim you must be tolerant of people's intolerance. I know the paradox of tolerance, that the only thing you can't tolerate is intolerance otherwise the entire house falls down. You have already exposed yourself though, you can be intolerant of people who want to use the N word, you just think it is acceptable to misgender and deadname people.

[Res Ipsa]

The only way to successfully resolve the issue of the Aunt passively aggressively attacking the “kid” is for the “kid” (we don’t know their age) or the parent of the “kid” to proactively remove the Aunt from their life.

Then the Aunt is spared the mental and emotional stress, and the “kid” and the parent of the “kid” don’t have to put up with a toxic relative spoiling their life experience.

I don’t think cutting the aunt out is the only option. It’s not clear how old the niece/nephew is, and that would be important to me. As the e-mail was directed to the niece/nephew, I think the best option would be to hammer them respond. If my daughter showed me an e-mail like that, I would have a long talk to her about how the e-mail made her feel and how best to communicate that feeling to the aunt (if she chose to do so). If the hurt was sufficient to lead her to have no further contact, so be it.

The problem, of course, is that my daughter may be deprived of contact with others in the family at gatherings if she lets the presence of the aunt dictate whether or not she attends. Again, her decision, but she has choices. One would be to firmly but politely correct the aunt when she uses her deadname or opposite pronouns. And do it over and over in the same manner. That establishes the boundary. The aunt isn’t forced to use the preferred name and pronouns — only to stop addressing the person with the wrong name and pronouns.

Trans folks are today fighting a battle that other non-binary folks fought and won — acceptance of their existence. I don’t think my daughter can win that battle by hiding from those who actively deny her identity. It’s her choice, of course, but I doubt she can do that by hiding from transphobes. I don’t think that avoidance is mentally and emotionally healthy either. I think that firm but polite assertion of her identity in interactions with others would more mentally healthy. Again, her decision.

Come to think of it, I’m going to let her read this thread and get her reaction. I’ll return and report.

[Jersey Girl]

I've re-read the OP and I think I may have reached a different take on the situation. I think there's another way to manage the matter with family relationships intact going forward without rejecting or cutting out either the Aunt or the Niece/Nephew. Need a little time to mull it over once more then I'll give it a shot here. Probably no one is going to like or agree with it. So be it. Holding myself accountable to followup with this post here.

Wasn't this an intellectually stimulating read?

[Marcus]

I went back to the thread I quoted this from, here's some additional information:

My 19 year old has been out as a transgender man for 2 years. Everyone on my husband’s side of the family has virtually ignored him since, while he has continued to show up at family gatherings so he can continue to have relationships with his cousins and also to assert his right to exist in the family.

This SIL [ quoted in the OP] was the one family member who was consistently respectful and used his correct name and pronouns. Now this text came out of the blue this week. I don’t know how to respond as the parent of a barely adult child. What would you do?