|
Post by faythofdragons on Sept 1, 2010 13:05:24 GMT -5
The problem is, you have to work against the fact that most people would really rather not be referred to as "it", the association with inanimate objects, and animals who are not considered important enough to have genders. Most people seem to prefer the singular "they" as a solution, but that's technically ungrammatical. Well, 'he' has been used as the agender noun of choice for a while. I really fail to see why we're making up words when the male nominative is traditionally accepted when talking about an unknown gender. Yeah, English sucks for this stuff. But using 'zir' sounds pretentious because of phonetic similarities to 'sir'. Or is it one of those crazy things I don't understand where the LGBT community gets super offended by being called by the wrong gender? Because if people are whining about something like that, then it moves into the realm of "Politically correct shit I think is ridiculous" or, "You're acting like a five-year-old." Then again, I've been using 'he' for a while, and nobody's complained about it. Really, is there something I'm missing?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 1, 2010 13:05:50 GMT -5
Most people seem to prefer the singular "they" as a solution, but that's technically ungrammatical. While not being technically correct, it is all ready used that way and understood by all most everyone. Any new gender neutral pronoun would not be technically correct and my not be understood.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 1, 2010 13:24:56 GMT -5
Most people seem to prefer the singular "they" as a solution, but that's technically ungrammatical. While not being technically correct, it is all ready used that way and understood by all most everyone. Any new gender neutral pronoun would not be technically correct and my not be understood. Since when? The few cases in which I've heard of referring to someone in a gender neutral standpoint use "it." "I want to be referred to in a gender neutral sense, but I don't want to use the perfectly acceptable English pronoun that does just fucking that, because of completely imaginary implications."
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 1, 2010 13:33:16 GMT -5
Since when? The few cases in which I've heard of referring to someone in a gender neutral standpoint use "it." For some time, but you may not have even recognized it. Example, "Any person who feels they may be affected should consult their doctor." or "The person in question, did they leave a note." Gender neutral, understandable and yet grammatically incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Sept 1, 2010 13:34:19 GMT -5
Well, 'he' has been used as the agender noun of choice for a while. I really fail to see why we're making up words when the male nominative is traditionally accepted when talking about an unknown gender. Yeah, English sucks for this stuff. But using 'zir' sounds pretentious because of phonetic similarities to 'sir'. Or is it one of those crazy things I don't understand where the LGBT community gets super offended by being called by the wrong gender? Because if people are whining about something like that, then it moves into the realm of "Politically correct shit I think is ridiculous" or, "You're acting like a five-year-old." Then again, I've been using 'he' for a while, and nobody's complained about it. Really, is there something I'm missing? Okay, but how do you then deal with a person who identifies as either androgynous or agendered, and would like to at least have people acknowledge that? The gender of that person is technically known, but it does not fit into either category, nor does the person want to be put into either he/she category. Would you still use 'he' in this situation despite the person's wishes? Or is that going to go under 'acting like a five year old'? Besides, if someone got your gender wrong, correcting them is hardly a 'five-year old' thing to do. Also, just because something is traditionally accepted doesn't necessarily make it the best choice. As for zir, again, if there are better sounding alternatives, I'm more than open to use them. One could use shi/hir, but that's a little too close to she/her and as such has more feminine connotations, though it does get used in places. ETA: For some time, but you may not have even recognized it. Example, "Any person who feels they may be affected should consult their doctor." or "The person in question, did they leave a note." Gender neutral, understandable and yet grammatically incorrect. Given enough time and usage, it will become 'grammatically correct'. ;P
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Sept 1, 2010 13:58:16 GMT -5
Okay, but how do you then deal with a person who identifies as either androgynous or agendered, and would like to at least have people acknowledge that? The gender of that person is technically known, but it does not fit into either category, nor does the person want to be put into either he/she category. Would you still use 'he' in this situation despite the person's wishes? Or is that going to go under 'acting like a five year old'? Besides, if someone got your gender wrong, correcting them is hardly a 'five-year old' thing to do. Personally I gave up attempting to satisfy other people a long time ago, I use the pronoun that my mind associates with someone, be it he, she or it. If someone wants to be called something, and acts that way, odds are I'll pick up on it and not think twice about it. For instance Oriet, it took me a while to even realize my mind had classified her as a she. For the other end of things, there is at least one person who I can hardly bring myself to refer to by their chosen gender because it just plain doesn't fit them based on my interactions. It doesn't click in my mind so when I refer to them I don't use it, and I really don't consider such things most of the time. I say this as a 300 lb 6' 2" man with some decent facial hair who still gets mistaken for a woman from time to time. Getting pissy about pronouns is a waste of time. Unless someone is intentionally being an ass about it, which is typically fairly obvious, I fail to see the problem. It's not like people can just flip a switch and change their image of someone, I don't know why someone would expect people to.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Sept 1, 2010 14:17:24 GMT -5
A few somewhat disjointed comments:
English enjoyed an effulgence of creativity in Elizabethan times. Since then it continues to degenerate. We are probably only a few generations from caveman grunts.
"He" has been used as the gender-neutral pronoun since Middle English --- say 1,000 years, give or take. It has worked just fine. It's merely a device, with no offense intended. Anyone whose sensitivity is so keen that he objects to "he" in this grammatical usage is probably on the wrong planet.
However, the point seems academic. "They" has taken over, to the point where there's no going back. Unfortunately for me I flinch every time I encounter it. PC run amok.
Zie/zir will get as far as did calling atheists "brights."
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Sept 1, 2010 15:23:35 GMT -5
Or is it one of those crazy things I don't understand where the LGBT community gets super offended by being called by the wrong gender? Because if people are whining about something like that, then it moves into the realm of "Politically correct shit I think is ridiculous" or, "You're acting like a five-year-old." It's called respect. I think I may refer to you exclusively as male from now on since it's no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by faythofdragons on Sept 1, 2010 15:37:49 GMT -5
It's called respect. I think I may refer to you exclusively as male from now on since it's no big deal. Yes, because using 'he' in situations of indeterminate gender is so terribly disrespectful. And you can do that. Whatever floats your boat man. Or, is calling you 'man' or 'dude' going to horribly offend your sensitivities?
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Sept 1, 2010 15:38:50 GMT -5
Or is it one of those crazy things I don't understand where the LGBT community gets super offended by being called by the wrong gender? Because if people are whining about something like that, then it moves into the realm of "Politically correct shit I think is ridiculous" or, "You're acting like a five-year-old." It's called respect. I think I may refer to you exclusively as male from now on since it's no big deal. So it's respect for them to carefully chose the pronoun you want them to, but it's no problem to demand people use the exact word you want them to when they don't associate that word with you? And it's totally respectable to respond to that by going out of your way to use an incorrect pronoun? You have to have respect for others before you'll get any, and frankly their image of you is probably going to determine what pro-noun they use. It takes time for things like that to change, and it typically requires a fairly drastic change in behavior for someone's image of you to change anyway. The same way you're always you're parent's kid, they think of you that way and may well still treat you like a child long after you aren't anymore. Is it because of a lack of respect or because that is how they see you? To call someone something other than how I see them is just about the same level as asking lying to them in my book. If I don't think of you as female or male, calling you that requires a disjoint in my train of thought specific to 'Oh yea, they want to be called X'. Which really is a PC filter that you're expecting people to put in place to meet your expectations. Now, if people actually think of you as female then you may get called by female pronouns. It's a matter of how people think of you, not if they respect you.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 1, 2010 15:40:34 GMT -5
The biggest hassle I have with skeptics being openly and obnoxiously dickish is that it harms their reputation as robust and clear-thinking skeptics. I'm thinking specifically of this Thunderf00t vid I mentioned in a previous thread. Losing your cool can lead to logical fallacies, and yeah, I've been guilty of that myself in the past. As for Zie/Zir. I've no problem with it, the English language is extremely mutable and changes all the time but if you want to promote it's use you have to go beyond saying "naughty, naughty" when people don't adopt it. That didn't exactly work wonders for words like "wimmin/womyn."
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Sept 1, 2010 15:44:11 GMT -5
I personally use "they" often when talking about people who's gender I am not aware of, I don't entirely like it but it's the best option I have.
I don't get offended by people that use "he" as a neuter pronoun I just prefer to avoid that usage myself.
And re: Transgendered persons, I would personally attempt to refer to them by their preferred pronouns, but I might slip up occasionally if somebody I already knew got a sex change or if some transgendered didn't really look terribly like the gender they wanted to be called, I'd expect them to be patient and not get all butthurt by people making mistakes or getting confused.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Sept 1, 2010 15:44:56 GMT -5
Distind, most people are understanding of slipping with pronouns, especially if they are pre-transition. However, deliberately using the wrong pronouns for them is just asshole behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Sept 1, 2010 15:51:17 GMT -5
Blarg, too many points raised to quote each and every one of them.
"Being a dick", in the context of New Atheist/Accomodationist argument, means not offering unwarranted respect and mocking what deserves to be mocked. Nobody anyone pays attention to argues you should go through life slinging insults.
Good Sceptic Bad Sceptic is the position I personally think is best. That is, be a dick only when necessary.
"It" is exclusively used to refer to things that lack personhood. Hence why you can refer to a clearly male or female animal as "it" and nobody thinks anything of it.
Making up new words is often easier than redefining old ones. You use a word somebody doesn't know in conversation, they ask what it means. You use a word that has a prior meaning, they assume it's used in the typical meaning.
Male as default always smacked me as rather sexist.
I don't care what pronouns are used to refer to me. I'm not representative of other people, though.
What pronoun you're called shouldn't be a big deal, if you have no negative associations with it. Unfortunately, for some people being referred to as a certain gender can have very bad associations. It's easier to change one word than to fix deep-seated psychology.
And, just to tie both subjects together: Does calling someone by a pronoun they have explicitly requested not to count as being a dick?
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Sept 1, 2010 15:55:34 GMT -5
If you do it deliberately then I think it does. But like I said, people are going to slip up with that sort of thing, and the person needs to be understanding, and not get all butthurt over people occasionally slipping up. Because it's not going to encourage people to make the effort if you make talking to you a constant nightmare of anxiety caused by fear that they might slip up and get ranted at. They just won't want to talk to you anymore.
|
|