Jump to content

Anyone Use Gender Neutral Pronouns?


Avalon
This topic is 1239 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No. If you look or are female I will call you her/she and he/him for male. I will not refer someone as they/them just to make them feel special. Thatd be like me saying I ID as a carne asada taco so you need to start referring to me as such. It sounds stupid. Cause it is stupid. There are two genders. Not 80 or whatever those that didn't get properly fatherly love say there are.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. If you look or are female I will call you her/she and he/him for male. I will not refer someone as they/them just to make them feel special. Thatd be like me saying I ID as a carne asada taco so you need to start referring to me as such. It sounds stupid. Cause it is stupid. There are two genders. Not 80 or whatever those that didn't get properly fatherly love say there are.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

 

TOTALLY AGREE!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would initially refer to someone as "he" or "she" based upon how I perceived they wish to be seen, if they expressed a desire or comfort with being referred to as "they" I would have no issue with this.

 

I'm not understanding why that's such an inconvenience for people. Gender, like most things in life is not binary, nor should it be viewed in such a dualistic manner. A dualistic approach to life, that is putting everything in a category of this or that, right or wrong, gay or straight, for me/against me, is the cause for conflict, war, prejudice, etc. While it's perfectly natural, it's also not an evolved way of thinking, and we should strive for better.

 

You can view people that are non-binary as just wanting to be special and inconvenience you with their special pronoun, or you can believe them, support them and love them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not understanding why that's such an inconvenience for people

I find it completely self-absorbed and almost pretentious. Think about it. When you're actually talking to the person you would most often use a gender-neutral pronoun like "you." For example: "Do you want to go to the movie?" When using a pronoun such as "they" you are most likely referring to that person in a conversation you are having with someone else. So you both have to be up to speed and remember that when you say something like, "They will meet us at the movies." That you are really only talking about this one person with this special need.

 

Maybe there are other examples of witness would come into play that would make more sense to me, but I'm struggling to find them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate about whether to use they and them rather than he/she and his/hers is interesting. It's been done in standard English for hundreds of year when the gender of the person being spoken about is not known or is not relevant so it's not a new fad. But that's not what the OP was asking. Rather, he was talking about the various made up pronouns like ze and hr, and some other naming systems. I don't like them and can't see myself using them. Languages make up new words when there is a recognised need for them. Words won't catch on if no one sees the need for them, and one or two people (or even a couple of hundred) deciding that the words are needed won't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate about whether to use they and them rather than he/she and his/hers is interesting. It's been done in standard English for hundreds of year when the gender of the person being spoken about is not known or is not relevant so it's not a new fad. But that's not what the OP was asking. Rather, he was talking about the various made up pronouns like ze and hr, and some other naming systems. I don't like them and can't see myself using them. Languages make up new words when there is a recognised need for them. Words won't catch on if no one sees the need for them, and one or two people (or even a couple of hundred) deciding that the words are needed won't cut it.

Thing is referring to an individual as "they", etc, is grammatically incorrect. So there is a technical need for singular neutral pronouns. Not that a technical need will drive common usage, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is referring to an individual as "they", etc, is grammatically incorrect. So there is a technical need for singular neutral pronouns. Not that a technical need will drive common usage, unfortunately.

Technically correct, of course, but languages don't follow grammar rules (much as the Académie française might wish), and what is accepted usage changes over time. You moved from being plural to covering the singular as well so there's no reason that they won't also do that transition. I doubt it will, because it's been an accepted usage at least as far back as Shakespeare without the 'rule' changing. (Of course there already is a non-gendered third person singular pronoun that is in universal use, but for some reason people are reluctant to use it to refer to a person.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

languages don't follow grammar rules (much as the Académie française might wish), and what is accepted usage changes over time.

 

Mike is absolutely correct, IMHO. Per Dr. Anne Curzan, Professor of English at University of Michigan:

 

"What is wrong with the singular they is that someone has told us it is wrong. In fact, this usage solves a problem and is already common in speech. We have good grounds to challenge the idea that we should not use it in formal written prose."

 

I used to cringe when I spotted a sentence where the pronouns did not agree in gender or number with the subject. Not any more. Using the singular "they" solves a huge (grammatical and cultural) problem in the English lexicon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why using people's preferred pronouns (she, he or they) is any more of a big deal than calling them by the correct name or by pronouncing their name correctly. To do otherwise is to insist on your imposing your gender politics on them. I don't see the difference between that and refusing to recognize homosexuality or same-sex relationships.

 

Btw, Mike hinted at it, but singular "they" has been used by writers for centuries. He mentioned Shakespeare, but I believe I've seen examples from Chaucer.

 

Also there is no reason why "you" can't be used. The issue is what pronoun to use to refer to a specific individual when addressing another person, when "you" wouldn't be appropriate.

Nobody's free until everybody's free - Fannie Lou Hamer

 

Avatar courtesy of Chomiji; character drawn by Kazuya Minekura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why using people's preferred pronouns (she, he or they) is any more of a big deal than calling them by the correct name or by pronouncing their name correctly. To do otherwise is to insist on your imposing your gender politics on them. I don't see the difference between that and refusing to recognize homosexuality or same-sex relationships.

 

Btw, Mike hinted at it, but singular "they" has been used by writers for centuries. He mentioned Shakespeare, but I believe I've seen examples from Chaucer.

 

Also there is no reason why "you" can't be used. The issue is what pronoun to use to refer to a specific individual when addressing another person, when "you" wouldn't be appropriate.

 

What I will not do, and is call someone zim, zer or whatever made up unicorn gender word. Dont like it? There's the door. Dont let it hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of only one gender-related new term that has entered common usage in my lifetime, and it succeeded because it solved a generally recognized problem: the use of "Ms." (pronounced "miz") when the marital status of an adult female was unclear or irrelevant. Newly invented terms that don't address an issue that is perceived as real by those who are told to use them don't go much beyond threads like this one.

 

A possible second term is "gay" for "homosexual male," which is easier because it is shorter and more colloquial, but it is an appropriated term rather than an artificial one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember in a episode of "Shameless" when Trevor was introducing Ian to a group of friends and they went around the table identifying their gender and pronoun preference.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" ["Animal Farm"]

 

" ... my library was dukedom large enough" [Prospero - "The Tempest" Act 1, Scene 2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of only one gender-related new term that has entered common usage in my lifetime, and it succeeded because it solved a generally recognized problem: the use of "Ms." (pronounced "miz") when the marital status of an adult female was unclear or irrelevant. Newly invented terms that don't address an issue that is perceived as real by those who are told to use them don't go much beyond threads like this one.

 

A possible second term is "gay" for "homosexual male," which is easier because it is shorter and more colloquial, but it is an appropriated term rather than an artificial one.

 

When I hear "gay" I think only of a male homosexual. While "queer" could be used for both male and female.

 

In LGBTQ I'm not sure what the "Q" stands for. Queer or Questioning. I've even seen more letters added.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" ["Animal Farm"]

 

" ... my library was dukedom large enough" [Prospero - "The Tempest" Act 1, Scene 2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...