Dear Editor,
Re: Why are preferred pronouns controversial?, April 23
I read Tanya Ryan's column, and I have to say, it's not just off the mark, it's a perfect example of how this entire debate has been dumbed down into some kindergarten-level talk about manners.
"Just be nice." "It's like using a nickname." That's the level we're at? Really?
Let me be clear: this isn't about courtesy. It's about being told to say something you don't believe. And that's where the line gets drawn.
Using someone's name – Tanya, Bob, whatever – isn't the same as being told to call a man "she" or to refer to a single person as "they." Pronouns aren't decorative, they're categories. They communicate basic information – male or female, singular or plural.
When someone says, "These are my pronouns," what they're really saying is, "Here's how I want you to interpret reality." And you're not allowed to say no.
That's not respect. That's control.
Ryan tries to brush off the grammar argument like it's beneath her. "People don't care about commas, so who cares about pronouns?" Well, some of us do care because grammar isn't about being fancy, it's about making meaning clear. If we start warping language to serve ideology instead of clarity, we're in dangerous territory.
We've seen what happens when words stop meaning what they're supposed to mean. History isn't short on examples.
And no, please, don't tell me this is just about being kind to someone in conversation. The same movement pushing "use my pronouns" is also rewriting HR policies, pressuring institutions to punish non-compliance and reshaping school curriculums without consent.
And when people push back, we're called hateful. For what? Speaking honestly?
Ryan also casually sidesteps the real consequences of this narrative – like what it means for women's sports, privacy in vulnerable spaces or the erasure of sex-based protections – by saying, "Let's save that for another conversation."
That's convenient, but it's dishonest. You can't separate pronouns from the broader movement when they're its flagship demand.
Let me flip Ryan’s questions: What level of entitlement makes someone believe everyone else should adopt their internal self-perception – on demand – even when it contradicts biology, common sense and shared language? That's not humility. That's an unreasonable demand for universal affirmation of a personal belief.
This isn't about personal attacks or outrage, it's about drawing a line where free speech ends and compelled speech begins.
I am going to defend my right to speak the truth as I see it. And that includes the right to decline participation in a belief system I don't share.
This isn't about cruelty, it's about boundaries. It's about refusing to mislead for the sake of social approval.
And it's about saying clearly, and unapologetically, enough.
Chris Switzer
Calgary
