›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

The lack of a gender neutral pronoun in English that isn't awkward to use

2

Comments

  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    Yeah, Anglo is not jazzy enough.
  • captainbrasscaptainbrass

    Vandro - They also always forget the Jutes.


    I suppose part of the problem is that there is the potential for confusion with people from the German state of Saxony (which is nowhere near where most of the Germanic people who ended up in England came from anyway).

  • vandrovandro
    He who laments and can't let go of the past is forever doomed to solitude.
    they'd just ask you to call them "women" and would label themselves as "women, not as transgendered".

    The latter I concede but the former...That's the whole point of calling them she/her.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    Yeah, the former is some bad wording that got out. The statement should only have the latter part, sorry.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    It'll probably get ninja'd to hell, but here's where I stand on things.

    I just think it's best if we describe sex, race, and nationality accurately when we can and not get bent out of shape about details that are irrelevant for the situation or relating it to personal identification.

    I'm a male citizen of the U.S. with genes inherited from those associated with Europe for as far back as I know. That has some effect on my personality, I'm sure, but I'm not forbidden from living elsewhere or behaving differently from other people of whom the same can be said.

    If someone described me as a woman, or un-American, or not a white person, I would assume that it was meant as an insult. Not because it's a denial of how I would describe myself, but because I would take it to be an example of someone using the "bad X is not X" manner of speaking. If I lived somewhere else for a long time and someone said I wasn't, let's say Canadian after living in Canada, even for decades, I wouldn't think I'd be especially offended since I'd take that usage as an example of a definition of "Canadian" to mean a native-born person or one who was raised in the culture, unless it was clear from the context that they meant it insultingly.

    It reminds me of something I've heard about regarding classification of languages. Some "languages" are mutually intelligible and are perhaps more accurately described as dialects of the same language, but speakers may insist that they are different languages and will get very offended if told otherwise. This strikes me as absurd. I can tolerate someone having a different definition of man or woman than I do, and it'd be unreasonable of me not to since there are grey areas even if you go by physical sex at birth. What I object to is not being given the same lenience to use language in a way that I understand to be clearer. I'll be willing to clarify if asked, but to say that what I intend to say is not a possible interpretation of what I am saying when there are dictionaries that can support me, seems unfair.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    I'm not saying that it's impossible or even unreasonable to see things in that way. I just feel it's disrespectful towards people who, imo, deserve a chance and get the label they want so bad. 

    I mean, you mention the Canada example. Tell me, if a man was raised as a girl her whole life, would you be OK with calling her a girl? I know it's a bit of a bad example, as it relies on the boy never knowing the difference between boys and girls good and proper or something, but the point stands, I think. 
  • RedEyedAbyssRedEyedAbyss
    edited 2011-12-09 13:23:42
    I am reminded of the whole trend of movies where a white person ends up living with a "foreign" culture and ultimately becomes its saviour (or in other words, white guilt indulgence fantasies). This is the kind of thing that makes me suspicious of labels that do not match up with one's biology or ancestry.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    I would not describe a man raised as a girl as a girl, no.

    If I were to describe him, I would not say that I met a girl with a man's body. That would sound as though I was describing a woman with masculine features. If he were to ask me if I thought of him as a girl, I would say no. If he were to insist I treat him as a girl, I may use female pronouns to describe him in his presence to keep him from making a fuss, but I wouldn't bother doing that to describe him elsewhere.
  • SaigyoujiSaigyouji
    edited 2011-12-09 13:59:21
    But you never had any to begin with.
    So, even if they were utterly indistinguishable from a cisperson of the same gender as their identity, you'd still base pronouns on sex? What would you use to determine sex? Genitalia? Oops, SRS. Chromosomes? Oops, one of a myriad of chromosomal disorders.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    Your condescending tone suggests that I wasn't aware of such things. I've already said that it can be a grey area.
  • SaigyoujiSaigyouji
    But you never had any to begin with.
    Because deliberately referring to someone by the wrong pronoun in the name of "honesty" is not condescending at all?
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    My use of pronouns isn't meant to be condescending, it's meant to be consistent with my definitions. I don't consider being politically correct to be a more important pursuit.
  • SaigyoujiSaigyouji
    But you never had any to begin with.
    There's a difference between political correctness and recognising how somebody identifies.
  • captainbrasscaptainbrass
    There's also the minor point of politeness. To be honest, if someone clearly wants to be called "she", I don't care if they're six foot tall, bearded, wear a plaid shirt and cut down trees for a living, I'll run with it. You can get too hung up on consistency.
  • GelzoGelzo
    edited 2011-12-09 15:05:24
    Pony Sleuth
    I can recognize it, but I don't necessarily have to act as though I agree with their interpretation of their identity. And even if it turned out that I did agree, I'm allowed to have definitions of things that are subtly different from theirs.

    ^Politeness can be a concern, sure. But I think I prefer to not be misleading towards outsiders. If this were real life and I barely knew the person, I would try to oblige. Since this is the internet and I can leave a lengthy reason for why I do what I do, and there isn't any horrible consequence to me for allowing someone to be unfairly offended, I'm going to stick to what I do.
  • SaigyoujiSaigyouji
    But you never had any to begin with.
    You also have to consider that, if someone is presenting as male/female (delete as applicable), and you refer to them by the wrong pronoun, you're outing them to anyone you mention them to. To say that's dickish is an understatement.
  • LouieWLouieW
    edited 2011-12-09 15:06:48
    Loser
    I feel like the amount of effort it takes to accommodate someone's wishes in terms of gender pronouns is minimal enough (especially online), that it is quite reasonable and easy to do it. I might have some bias here because of my own preferences when it comes to gendered pronouns (or lack thereof), but I do not think that bias totally takes out my reasoning here.

    Just as I do not believe it is not really my business per se to judge whether people are really asexual, bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual as they claim, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to stop them from defining their own identities.

    As for the topic at hand, I think it would be nice to have a gender neutral pronoun, partially because there are plenty of times when I do not know someone's gender (or sex) and I often do not know what pronoun to use.
  • Naas_HumanNaas_Human
    edited 2011-12-09 15:06:29
    (...)I'm allowed to have definitions of things that are subtly different from theirs.
    I"'m going to define the word "key" as "a small piece of metal".
    Whenever I talk about small pieces of metal, I will call them keys,
    because I choose to define the word key differently than other people
    might"





    That the kind of thing you were going for?


    As for the topic at hand, I think it would be nice to have a gender
    neutral pronoun, partially because there are plenty of times when I do
    not know someone's gender (or sex) and I often do not know what pronoun to use.

    On that topic, I like "they" the best.
  • GelzoGelzo
    edited 2011-12-09 15:10:30
    Pony Sleuth
    ^^^If I know it, it's already been public knowledge at some point.

    ^That's clearly absurd. Definitions are a tricky thing, and the implications of my using a gendered pronoun aren't much different from how I believe most people use them. If it were otherwise, I might speak differently.
  • SaigyoujiSaigyouji
    edited 2011-12-09 15:09:23
    But you never had any to begin with.
    ...What.

    You realise this kind of oversight is something that gets people killed, right?
  • Naas_HumanNaas_Human
    edited 2011-12-09 15:14:00

    ^That's clearly absurd. Definitions are a tricky thing, and the
    implications of my using a gendered pronoun aren't much different from
    how I believe most people use them. If it were otherwise, I might speak
    differently.

    ^^ I'm pretty sure most if not all people who know what transgenderism is define gender as "personal identity" and not "biological sex". What are you getting at with "most people"?
  • SaigyoujiSaigyouji
    But you never had any to begin with.
    I'm pretty sure most if not all people who know what transgenderism is
    define gender as "personal identity" and not "biological sex".

    Sadly, not the case.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    It would be unexpected for someone I know personally in real life to refer to someone with a male body as female, so I choose to not speak in a way that would to me be intentionally misleading.

    As to my getting people killed, I hardly think that's realistic.
  • SaigyoujiSaigyouji
    edited 2011-12-09 15:21:32
    But you never had any to begin with.
    You'll know less than 500 people throughout your life?

    And a trans person is killed every 3 days for their identity. It is very much a reality.
  • Naas_HumanNaas_Human
    ^^ How is that misleading? Wiktionary has:

    The mental analog of sex: one's maleness, femaleness, etc., as seen from their own perspective.


    Merriam-Webster puts gender as both "SEX" and "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex", Cambridge dictionary has " the physical and/or social condition of being male or female". At least as the British definition.

    Defining gender as separate from biological sex is at least acknowledged by a few dictionaries. It's not exactly misleading.
  • GelzoGelzo
    edited 2011-12-09 15:31:18
    Pony Sleuth
    Even assuming your sources are accurate, I doubt that what I say in real life or on the internet is going to inspire a murder. If it were so, then it's the responsibility of the person with this information to let me know it's a secret and that they fear for their safety. I don't make a habit over lying for no reason or to spare feelings.

    I'm sure that trans-people are killed for being so, but I don't see that as especially relevant to what I'm saying here.

    ^It would be misleading in many cases according to my definition and how I expect many others to define that. I understand my definition might be misleading in the same way to others, but I count them in the minority of people I interact with. In any case, after having this discussion you all will know what I intend.
  • captainbrasscaptainbrass
    Gelzo - The film "Boys Don't Cry" was based on a famous case of a transsexual who was murdered when his "friends" found out. It really does happen, although the risk online is probably low. More realistically, it might lead to someone being socially excluded or harassed.
  • SaigyoujiSaigyouji
    But you never had any to begin with.
    If it were so, then it's the responsibility of the person with this
    information to let me know it's a secret and that they fear for their
    safety.

    What, they should assume you have a personal dictionary?

  • GelzoGelzo
    edited 2011-12-09 15:37:36
    Pony Sleuth
    ^^I understand that it happens, but as I said, I'd expect myself or the other person to be able to judge whether there's a credible threat in the local culture and for one to let the other know.

    I don't think there's significant chance here of the person being excluded socially. I'm meeting with more flak from my use of pronouns than I've ever seen someone get from their gender identity.

    ^My having a "personal dictionary" isn't unique. No two people define words exactly the same way. I'd expect them to let me know whether it was a secret so that I don't mention it in casual conversation to someone else, at least.
  • SaigyoujiSaigyouji
    But you never had any to begin with.
    I'm meeting with more flak from my use of pronouns than I've ever seen someone get from their gender identity.

    ...
This discussion has been closed.