‘PGPs’: Whose right is upheld or violated?

Kay Rivera’s Oct. 16, column, “He, she, it, they,” promotes the use of “preferred gender pronouns” (PGPs) and gives as an example Aiza Seguerra’s preference for others to use the pronoun “he” when referring to her. Rivera argues that the use of PGP is the humane thing to do, out of respect for the person’s right to self-expression.

Rivera seems to have forgotten one thing: In expressing our thoughts and emotions, we use gender-neutral, first-person pronouns (e.g., “I” or “me”).

“He” and “she” are in the third person. One uses them not to describe one’s self, thoughts or emotions. They are used to refer to other people. They, therefore, express how a person sees another, not to express one’s self. To impose the use of PGPs on someone else is to prevent other people from adverting to the proper biological designation of the person referred to.

Gender designation is not a matter of choice. I may want to become a woman within every fiber of my being, but the fact that I was born a man means that I will always be a man. Allowing me to change my gender just because I don’t identify as such would not be any different from allowing me to no longer consider myself human just because I really want to become a dinosaur. No matter what kind of treatment or surgery I take, it won’t turn me into a T-rex.

Allowing gender to be a matter of choice will lead to confusion or even deceit. For example, being a heterosexual male, I personally would not want to have any romantic association with other males. Giving “transmen” the choice to refer to themselves as “she” could lead to a situation where I could develop a romantic relation with a trans-man simply because I am not aware that he is biologically male.

Contrary to Rivera’s proposition, the issue on PGPs is not just about respecting the transpeople’s right to self-expression. It’s about being accurate. It’s that plain and simple.

The English language itself supports this idea. Third persons being referred to would have to be identified based on certain circumstances which include the reference pronoun used. Unlike when I’m using the second person pronoun, “you” which is gender neutral, as the first person is. With the first and second person pronouns, the gender identity I’m talking to is not relevant since there is no doubt as to who I am referring to.

Besides, proper gender designations have practical and legal merits. They make it easier to distinguish who the speaker is referring to; they give the idea that the person being referred to possesses certain characteristics that may be relevant to the communication. And they invite the application of certain legal principles affecting behavior.

In conclusion, the issue on PGPs is not about rejecting a person’s understanding of his own identity, or preventing somebody from expressing his/herself. It’s not about rejecting the person who chooses to identify himself or herself in a certain manner. It’s about referring to another person without any unnecessary ambiguity.

It’s not about stopping people from exercising the right to self-expression. It’s about enforcing my own right to express myself clearly. It’s really about my right to not make myself a liar.

—JOSEPH MICHAEL REYES, Pasig City