Today, The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist answers a reader’s question about how partners can evaluate their romantic histories together — and be honest and respectful in their assessments. My Partner Told Me About His Fights With His Ex. I Think I’m on Her Side.My partner and I each had several significant relationships before we met. We’re both in therapy and have learned a lot from that, so we’re very comfortable processing past relationships together. One of my partner’s past relationships soured quickly, which led to years of resentment and frustration before it ended. When he processes past arguments with his ex, he sometimes says she ‘‘picked a fight,’’ but when he tells the story, I quietly find that I’m often on her side. I find it odd that he, with all his otherwise tremendous self-awareness, cannot move past what to me feels like a somewhat skewed take on someone else’s valid frustrations. I love him, and I always want to be on his team. But I feel oddly guilty, as a woman, for not speaking up in defense of his ex in those moments; she sounds generally immature, but that doesn’t mean she was always wrong. It also makes me wonder if he will someday regard my own real and valid frustrations as ‘‘picking fights.’’ Is it my place to (lovingly, supportively) challenge his understanding of arguments I wasn’t there to witness? Or is it best to bite my tongue and simply listen, knowing that all perspectives are inherently skewed and limited? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: On this topic, your partner strikes you as the classic ‘‘unreliable narrator’’ who effectively testifies against himself, providing the listener with evidence that his understanding of things is wrong. What’s more, you worry that you’re seeing the future in this contested past. Your partner seems blinkered in his view of this ex, and you wonder whether the same blinkered gaze will come to rest on you. So first let’s ask why you haven’t already shared your perspective. I’m guessing that you’ve held back because you fear that your partner will feel unsupported and even betrayed if you take his ex’s side. For one thing, it’s hard to tell whether someone was ‘‘picking a fight’’ if you weren’t there to assess the emotional atmosphere and the tone in which remarks were made. He may think that loving partners will give each other the benefit of the doubt in situations like these — a fair point. For all that, you’re entitled to your interpretation of those recounted interactions. I’m inclined to agree with those philosophers who argue that we have some scope about what we believe (and that relationships may affect what we should believe), but not when the evidence is sufficiently compelling. You think what you think. You also raise the issue of solidarity with other women, which might lead you to give her the benefit of the doubt instead. I don’t know how large a role this plays in your thinking. (One counterfactual to entertain: Suppose your partner were bisexual and the ex were another man, would you have responded differently?) If this were simply a matter of the past, you could ask yourself how important it is to contest his interpretation — how important it is to get it right. But again, this is clearly also about the present and the future. That he’s assuming you’ll see things as he does suggests that he doesn’t understand you as well as you might hope. Are there other signs that you’re not entirely in accord about how people who are coupled should treat each other? Conversations about former relationships are part of your current relationship. The fact that this issue is weighing on your mind argues for finding a way to take it up — lovingly and supportively, as you say. Maybe gently contesting his interpretations of the past could lead to a larger conversation about how to move beyond it. Thoughts? If you would like to share a response to today’s dilemma with the Ethicist and other subscribers in the next newsletter, fill out this form.
Readers RespondLast week’s question was from a reader who was unsure whether to honor a family member’s request. She wrote: “I am a supporter of trans rights and refer to trans or nonbinary persons by their preferred pronouns. Recently, however, a family member stated that everyone must use the pronoun ‘they’ with her even though she does not identify as trans or nonbinary. When I asked her why, she said she chooses to use ‘they’ in solidarity with trans and nonbinary persons. I am having trouble with this because it seems to require that I, and everyone else, join her in her particular form of activism, rather than a request that I respect her identity. … But I am torn, because I have a general policy of calling people what they ask to be called, whether that is using particular pronouns, nicknames or titles.” In his response, the Ethicist noted: “When we respect the pronouns used by trans or nonbinary people, we’re doing something they reasonably ask us to do as an acknowledgment of their gender identity. Using pronouns properly is a matter of not misgendering people. … I worry that your family member’s idea of solidarity could prove self-undermining. In the account you’ve given, your relative is not trying to critique or withdraw from the sex-gender system or challenge the practice of having gendered designations, all intelligible reasons for rejecting female pronouns. Rather, your relative evidently identifies as cisgender and is motivated simply by allyship, which means treating these pronouns as a choice, detached from identity. This kind of stance could be taken as disrespectful of those who have fought to have their gender identities acknowledged and accommodated. By deploying nonbinary pronouns merely as a political badge, your relative, however well intentioned, seems misaligned with the very people she is in solidarity with — those who have asked to be recognized for who they are.” (Reread the full question and answer here.) ⬥ I am a nonbinary person who uses they/them pronouns, and I have a more generous interpretation of the person who is not trans asking friends to use they/them pronouns to refer to them. This request could provide folks who aren’t used to using they/them pronouns the space to practice and get comfortable with the language, without risking offending or distancing someone who does identify as nonbinary. It takes time to get used to using new words, and I think folks do need practice.— Jaie ⬥ In this rare instance, I disagree with the Ethicist. Think back to the introduction of the title “Ms.” — it was derided initially, but here we are now, not making women declare their marital status in order to do business or negotiate societal interactions. I would welcome the day when we have nomenclature that makes it unnecessary for people to declare their gender status as well, which I believe would be good for trans and binary folks. So in a way, everyone using “they” could hasten that day. — Beth ⬥ As much as I appreciate the desire to be a mindful ally, I agree with both the letter writer and the Ethicist. As a late-in-life transitioned person, my choice of pronouns (which I occasionally have to correct or even defend) is a deeply personal marker. As well intentioned as the family member may be, their request minimizes the struggles that gender-nonconforming individuals have faced. — Steph ⬥ I disagree with the Ethicist’s stance and do not believe he is qualified to speak on behalf of trans people in his closing remark. As a trans man myself, I find a person’s right to choose their own pronouns, whether trans or not, to be a human right. People who endure the burden of expressing political solidarity by naming their pronouns do the trans community a great service. Having family members and friends getting better acquainted with using and hearing they/them pronouns is helpful for trans and nonbinary people, so I see the actions of the letter writer’s relative as completely in alignment with the cause. The decision of the letter writer’s family member is reminiscent of the choice made by “political lesbians” in the 1970s, who pursued relationships with other women (perhaps nonsexual in nature) as a political stance. It doesn’t matter that the letter writer’s relative is not trans; their pronoun preferences shouldn’t matter any less. — Briton ⬥ While I agree with everything the Ethicist said, it also occurs to me that if cisgender individuals use they/them pronouns, they are supporting a change in the rules of the English language, which in the end can benefit the transgender community. The letter writer’s relative apparently didn’t suggest this, but the reasoning would apply nonetheless. — Leslie ⬥ I think the Ethicist raises important points, and it is also worth considering that the letter writer’s relative’s stated reason for using they/them pronouns might not be the whole story. Many people come to develop an understanding of their gender through experimentation, which may very well be what is actually happening in this scenario. While it is important to think through intent versus impact of any activism, as noted here, identities (political, gender or otherwise) are achieved over time and through trying out new ideas and ways of being. Whether this person is contemplating their gender expression or making a potentially clumsy statement of solidarity, both are personal journeys best undertaken without heavy scrutiny. — Ande
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
