A couple of days ago, one of Curmie’s friends posted link to a Facebook page, which in turn showed a guest essay by Bud (né Howard) Herron. Here’s the link to the original source, The Tribune in Seymour, IN, so you don’t have to mess with Facebook if you don’t want to.
Herron is reacting to a new law in Indiana (there’s one in DeSantistan Florida, too, of course, and probably elsewhere) that prohibits teachers from addressing students by their chosen names, even, apparently, by a shortened version of their “real” first name, without a signed permission slip from their parents.
This is all in the name of “parental rights,” a charming euphemism for removing rights from students and teachers and transferring that power to the state. Curmie is so old that he remembers when conservatives were in opposed to governmental interference in personal matters. This, of course, was when they didn’t control the statehouse, and therefore wailed incessantly about stuff like mandatory inoculations against measles or mentioning the fact that slavery was once a thing in a large swath this country.
The laws in question, of course, are a paean to cis-gendering at the expense of individual liberty. What passes for the argument suggests that insisting on parental control over what a child can be called will somehow preserve that kid’s retention in the ranks of the cis-gendered. It won’t, of course; it will only add another layer of stress to a young citizen trying to figure things out.
And Ron (who, being an adult, can be called “Ron” without a note from his Mom) DeSantis’s claim that this effort will eliminate the need for pronouns is nothing short of daft. A few months ago, Curmie compared the two frontrunners (or at least they were then) for the Republican nomination thus: “Donald Trump is just as wrong [as DeSantis] on the issues, just as authoritarian, and even more narcissistic, but at least he’s stupid.” Curmie hereby apologizes to Mr. Trump, who does not, in fact, have a monopoly on stupidity.
For the moment, let’s leave aside issues that involve physical actions: hormonal injections, surgery, etc. These areas are more contentious, and an argument that a 10-year-old isn’t mature enough to make that kind of decision, even with parental consent, carries a good deal of validity. Calling someone who used to be Bobby “Bobbi,” though, is a lot less permanent.
That said, if young Dana (to pick one of more than a few names that could refer to a boy or a girl) wants to be Daniel or Danielle, and the parents object… THEY’RE THE PROBLEM. Curmie shudders to contemplate the fate of children who cannot trust their parents to support them as they work through questions of identity. And now, the state wants to take away their sanctuary: adults who see them as they believe themselves to be instead of what the parents want them to be.
Curmie happens to have a nephew who used to be his niece. He remembers going to dinner with the family, and cringing as this young man, then in his mid-20s, was consistently dead-named not only by idiot cousins who thought this was all a joke, but by his own father. If, while he was still in high school, he’d sought consent to go by his chosen name, a standard non-gender-specific nickname for his middle name, it probably would have been denied. To what end?
This is the principal reason to oppose legislation like this: it’s cruel, and it denies reality. There are other arguments against this inanity, of course.
Even the authoritarian pols who support this restriction on personal liberty are smart enough to avoid mentioning the real reason for their action. They therefore insist on consent for any name other than the full first name. So young James needs parental approval to be called Jimmy, and then needs another form to shorten that to Jim, a variation on a theme that is quite common, especially among boys, generally around the tween years. It’s unclear whether teachers could still call him Jimmy after the change, so a simple slip-up could conceivably be a fire-able offense (or worse).
There are, of course, a host of names that do not automatically signal a specific gender. Curmie mentioned Dana, above. Let’s see… Curmie has also known both male and female versions of folks named Ashley (Curmie once had two Ashleys with the same surname in the same class: one male, one female), Austin, Avery, Beau, Beverly, Carson, Chandler, Christian, Cleo, Cory, Dominique, Jan, Jody, Kelly, Kim, Lauren, Lee, Lynn, Ryan, Stacy, Taylor, Tyler, Whitney. There are probably others that have slipped Curmie’s mind. Notice, Gentle Reader, that many of these names conjure up a specific gender identity… which might very well be incorrect in a specific instance.
These are just the ones that are spelled the same and pronounced the same: alternatives would be things like Angel in English or Spanish pronunciations, or Jordan/Jordyn. Then there are the standard diminutive nicknames: Alex, Andy, Chris, Mel, Mickey, Pat, Sam, Terry… that list goes on forever. Finally, there are the names that may seem to be a nickname but aren’t: Curmie has known a Betsy (not Elizabeth) and a Billy (not William, not even Bill), for example.
What this boils down to is that the rule is fundamentally unenforceable, meaning that it will inevitably be applied capriciously to punish a teacher who calls Donald “Don,” not really for that infraction, but for suggesting that no, maybe segregation wasn’t all that great an idea. Meanwhile, a more obeisant teacher in the next class continues to use a different Don’s deadname without repercussions.
And there are a lot of people who go by their middle names, or initials, or like Mr. Herron, by Bud or Butch or Bubba, to choose three examples from the same part of the alphabet.
The imposition of stupid rules won’t work, not merely because the requirements are so unwieldy, but because even self-righteous politicians can’t come up with a way to stifle the speech of children. Stephen wants to be called Stephanie; the teacher can’t do that without a permission slip, but classmates Johnny, Suzy, and all the rest are free to do so, and quite likely will. (This also, of course, increases the likelihood that a teacher might call a child the name they just heard another student use.)
There’s also the potential for embarrassment. Kids giggle and make fun. So woe betide Quint (he’s actually Hollingsworth V) or Bud, whose real name is Cantwell or something. The teacher can’t call him Bud because the parents forgot to sign the form? Really? Back when Curmie was teaching, he’d call role on the first day by reading the last name aloud and asking the student what they wanted to be called. Then he’d write it down so he’d get it right in the future. Simple, yes? Of course, Curmie was dealing with a slightly older clientele, but extending this rather rudimentary level of respect to an adolescent seems pretty damned reasonable.
Pronunciation can also be an issue. Curmie once had a young man named Sumarliði in his class. Care to take a stab at the correct pronunciation of that one, Gentle Reader? The student in question was kind enough to supply a more pronounceable (to Americans) name we could call him instead. But if he were a current high school exchange student in Indiana or Florida, he couldn’t do that without parental permission, leading to embarrassment for all concerned as every American teacher butchered his name.
At one level, the unenforceability of this legislation matters. At another, it doesn’t. The driving force of this movement is—hat-tip to Stevie (or should I say “Stephanie”?) Nicks—hauntingly familiar. The GOP, or at least its political leadership, is all about the rights of the “unborn,” coining phrases about “fetal heartbeat” when there’s no heart to beat and the transition from embryo to fetus hasn’t happened yet.
But once those kids are born, they belong to the state: they’ll will be sheltered from realities like the fact that racial prejudice currently exists, or even that it ever did. They’ll miss out on experiencing art, literature, or theatre if one loudmouthed parent in the school district doesn’t like exposing their child to ideas that might challenge their dogma, so no student can have that access. And the ability to define yourself, to forge your own path, the erstwhile central tenets of the American Dream: forget it.
Curmie is no fan of the Democratic Party or its leadership, but when the alternative is this…
No comments:
Post a Comment