Also you don't get to decide how language works. Language evolves on its own naturally through usage. English speakers are not giving up "he" and "she" anytime soon.
This article, low-quality though it is, is part of the evolutionary process though, right? This is the only article that I have seen that argues that everyone should use gender neutral terms basically all the time. This seems to be pretty much the opposite of the gender rights movement because they advocate that everyone has the basic human right to be addressed as the gender they identify with.
Even though I don't agree with it, I think this article belongs in the conversation. I think this article and others like it drive language evolution. We need language to evolve now. We need well-recognized, gender-neutral terms for people that identify with a non-binary gender.
I have a friend with a teenage child that uses they to refer to themself. I also know writers who argue about this because there is no good solution in English if you want something singular and gender-neutral. I think they is winning out over ey, ve and ze, but there are other words in use.
What is a gender-neutral pronoun? What does English need a new pronoun for, anyway? Many people have expressed the need for a singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun: that is, a pronoun to use when someone’s gender is unknown or when the individual is neither male or female. Such instances occur when addressing transgender and genderqueer people who don’t feel comfortable being addressed with masculine or feminine pronouns, computers or robots with artificial intelligence, sexless fictional creatures, angels, and the God of many monotheistic religions. “He,” “she,” or “it” won’t do, “one” doesn’t work when speaking of a specific person, e.g. “Samus washed one’s dishes,” and in some cases even a singular “they” just won’t work – specifically when a name is used, e.g. “Charlie tied their shoes” or “Sam thought they were late to the party.” (For more information, check out the comprehensive links page.)
Over the centuries, hundreds of new words, or neologisms, have been proposed, with the vast majority being abandoned by all but their creators. There are a few exceptions: the pronoun “co” used by residents of the Twin Oaks Intentional Community, “zie/hir” and its derivatives used by people in the transgender/genderqueer community, and Spivak pronouns (ey/em/eir) used in the genderqueer community as well as in some text-based online games and computer textbooks. There is some valid argument by linguists that it’d be extremely difficult for the English language to pick up new pronouns at all, but in the Internet age, sometimes your only clue toward someone’s gender is a username, and, like the long-awaited adoption of the honorific “Ms.”, the need for a gender-free pronoun may overcome the barrier of language limits. (I originally found the comparison of epicene pronouns and “Ms.” in an essay by Jed Hartman.)
One of the biggest problems facing the adoption of a new gender-neutral pronoun is the lack of unity and organization among supporters of the idea. People propose new pronouns without knowing about the scores of previous ones, and people interested in using gender-neutral pronouns can’t find any they like, or can’t figure out why they like or dislike certain forms. My aim is to compare and contrast the most usable epicene pronouns, and also provide text with the pronouns inserted so those curious can see each pronoun in action. My criteria were influenced by that of the two most in-depth comparisons of gender-free pronouns I’ve found: one in the Evaluation page of the Gender-Neutral Pronoun FAQ, and the other in the Pronouns article on the Footnotes site. I’ve included a couple variations that neither of them explored, but their arguments were very influential to mine.
The title of each pronoun links to the first few pages (and concluding paragraph) of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, available for free from Project Gutenberg. I did this not because I think Alice should be made gender-neutral, but so that the readers have the opportunity to see for themselves how each pronoun fits into a larger narrative, one many of them may already be familiar with.
Post by meshaliuknits on Dec 7, 2015 14:33:26 GMT -5
I would prefer a word that doesn't imply plural because I think in more complex writing (like heyjude's earlier post) it can confuse the meaning trying to be conveyed. I have no expectation of zie or zis to mean plural so if that's how we wanna roll I'm cool.
I apparently don't identify that strongly as female? Because being referred to with a gender neutral pronoun wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I have no particular attachment to she/her. I would be bothered by he/him. But neutral doesn't bother me.
I never thought about it.
They as a casual form of gender neutral pronoun seems reasonable and fairly natural. It's used so often in casual speech that the grammatical issue doesn't grate on me, except in situations where it causes confusion, as heyjude's post illustrated. (though it's not like ambiguous pronouns in English are new, what with our insistence of rejecting 2nd person plurals as incorrect. I'm a fan of y'all personally)
I think that's kinda dumb. "They" really is it necessary? Pretty lame
obviously it IS necessary--there are millions of people who do not conform to a particular gender. You saying it is lame just goes to show the discrimination that these minorities have to face all the time. Let's do something that is easy and simple like use the terms they are requesting us to use when describing them.
I will respect and comply with whatever someone wants to be called. I will however ask for their patience as I make that transition because I know I will slip in the beginning.
I really don't think ANYONE is suggesting that we get rid of her/him/he/she. If that's what you want to be called, you SHOULD be called that. It's what I want to be called when being addressed personally. I think the bigger issue is that we SHOULD have a word to describe people when we are talking about people generally that does not automatically assume that all humans are all one or the other.
I will respect and comply with whatever someone wants to be called. I will however ask for their patience as I make that transition because I know I will slip in the beginning.
in my experience, non cisgender people are fairly understanding of the "he, crap SHE! (sorry)" transitional period. I'm sure there's the occasional asshole who isn't - all genders come in the asshole flavor afterall - but they aren't stupid and can differentiate between non-intentional habits of speech and people who don't respect their identity.
And to the pp that said to bear with them while they get the preferred terms right, I think the individual would just appreciate you trying. I'm part of the LGBTQ community and an attempt at understanding means the world.
A good family friend of mine is mid 50s, and just within the last 3 years went about transitioning and coming out as tramsgender, MTF. My dad is so cute about it. Our friends male name and female name begin with the first letter (let's say Jack and Jill) and my dad will be talking about how he got together with her, did this, Jack was so great and offered this... and then "damnit. Did I just say Jack? No. Jill. I feel so bad, because I still slip and I don't want to hurt her feelings! Jill, Jill, Jill." I know our friend would laugh it off, but my dad wants SO badly to make sure she's comfortable and I find it so sweet.
And oddly, for that, I always say emex. I lack consistency.
for @mx the x is actually a click, isn't it? I forget which African language it is, but the old full version of her SN is a common male name, and the x is a side mouth click (like you're asking a horse to go). I think. I looked this up a million years ago because I was curious after she mentioned that it was a name in an unrelated post.
I'm a huge nerd, and I own a top rated mechanical keyboard, with switches that are "Cherry MX". I always see her name and think "emex" like I'd say the switch name. Lol.
And oddly, for that, I always say emex. I lack consistency.
for @mx the x is actually a click, isn't it? I forget which African language it is, but the old full version of her SN is a common male name, and the x is a side mouth click (like you're asking a horse to go). I think. I looked this up a million years ago because I was curious after she mentioned that it was a name in an unrelated post.
I thought it was similar to mick. @mx come clarify.
Also, thanks to your post I realized I can only really horse click on one side.
As for the op, no one is saying you can't call yourself whatever you damn well please. Just recognize not everyone identifies as he or she. And that gender may not be at all important to a story, so a neutral term as default may be an important goal in writing.
15 years ago I was teaching writing courses and banging my head that people didn't understand how race may be completely irrelevant as a descriptor (of course, it's only ever mentioned if it's a non white race). I also tried to convince them that it wasn't necessary to refer to the "girls" at the front desk. Just day receptionist or whatever title. A gender neutral pronoun is just an offshoot of these concepts that have existed for years. If it angers you, maybe you should figure out what really is the issue
However, if I had anyone in my life that preferred a different pronoun, I would have no issue using it. I am just not okay with being "they." I say. Today. Hooray!
I would like to see how many more posts we can have where someone announces they are not a they. 5 more? 10? Let's see how long we can beat that horse.
I would like to see how many more posts we can have where someone announces they are not a they. 5 more? 10? Let's see how long we can beat that horse.
I understand what you're saying, but the title of the article is really misleading in that regard.
I would like to see how many more posts we can have where someone announces they are not a they. 5 more? 10? Let's see how long we can beat that horse.
I meant if this became kind of a politically correct thing I would find it silly. If someone's gender isn't obviously absolutely say they, I just can't see why this would become a thing if someone is visibly male or fem.
I meant if this became kind of a politically correct thing I would find it silly. If someone's gender isn't obviously absolutely say they, I just can't see why this would become a thing if someone is visibly male or fem.
I think that's kinda dumb. "They" really is it necessary? Pretty lame
Eesh.
Look, I am against a gender-neutral terms, automatically for everyone. Mostly because I prefer being called a she/her. But to call gender neutral pronouns "kinda dumb" is disrespectful to anyone who prefers to be addressed as such.
If someone wants to be called they it's fine but I was talkin about making it insensitive to now identify a person as they gender they appear. Like if I say Sir and I should have not said Sir because they'd prefer something else. I'm ok with calling people what they want but I don't want to be expected to refrain from identifying people by their visible gender because well I'm used to it.