Ms Lovato is non-binary

The BBC news website has reported that Demi Lovato is non-binary and is changing pronouns to they/them. Their report includes this observation:

Many fans have said they're "proud" of Demi's announcement, with some describing the singer as a "role model".

Another comment in the report quotes a fan of Demi Lovato as now feeling able to speak about their gender identity to their parents in a way that they had not felt able to do before.

I do wonder, though, whether there are other narratives that are not being reported - of young people who would otherwise happily have a certainty in a conventional gender identity as they experience puberty but who now feel that they should question that certainty; not because they are in themselves uncertain, but because the surrounding culture is telling them that they should be uncertain.

Interestingly, the report is being carried in the Newsbeat section of the BBC site, part of BBC news  programming (for Radio 1 and Radio 1 Extra) aimed at younger listeners  and particularly carrying news relating to entertainment and social media.

My first thought is one that I have expressed before on this blog. There is a common courtesy in addressing another person in the manner in which they wish to be addressed, and this represents a respect for their person, precisely as person. This would certainly apply to someone who was a work colleague, for example, and would stand alongside such a simple thing as someone like myself having a preference for being addressed as "Joe" or "Joseph". 

But Ms Lovato's very public announcement, and widespread media following, provide an added complication to this principle. From the point of view of Ms Lovato, is there an intention in making the announcement that those who adopt the use of the preferred pronouns, particularly in the media, are in effect being asked to consent in the public domain to an underlying ideology of gender? Is there, not just an announcement of a personal decision, but an intention to promote for acceptance in wider society a particular ideology of gender? Whilst Ms Lovato is due the respect of my using her preferred pronouns as a question of respect for her person, at what point does that also become an expression of belief on my part in a notion of gender fluidity to which I do not subscribe (and therefore come into conflict with my own conscientiously held belief)?

Too often the term gender is conflated with that of biological sex, to the extent that the part to be played by biological sex is disregarded in discussions of gender identity. If gender can be considered as being determined by social conventions and roles, biological sex is not - it is determined by the physiology of a human body. So, whilst I might accept non-binary as being Ms Lovato's identification in terms of gender, I would still wish to say that she is a person of the female sex.

Once the question of biological sex is included in the conversation, we can then ask if  the pronouns that are used of people should, objectively speaking, follow their identified gender or follow their biological sex - the question cannot, of course, be asked if gender and sex are conflated together. The usage of language by the vast majority, if we are honest about it, is that pronouns follow from the biological sex of people; and for those who do not subscribe to gender ideology this is of added significance. If we wish to adopt a use of language that is consistent with this, we should still be able to use female pronouns to refer to Ms Lovato without that being seen as disrespectful towards her or towards others who identify as non-binary at the level of gender. Rather it is a recognition by us of her female sex and not an adverse comment about her identified gender; a statement about what we believe rather than an attack on Ms Lovato.