Quick note

[V Junior]

Hi, it's V Jr. here. I'd just like to ask everyone to stop using "him" or "her" to refer to me. I've recently accepted that I am an androgyne - a person who is a mixture of male and female - so I'd prefer not to be referred to by gender. Instead, please use "zi" to refer to me ("zir" if you're using the possessive).

Oh, and those of you who I've corrected over calling me "he" instead of "she" - I was in the closet. It doesn't matter. I won't get made if you call me "he" or "she", I'll just politely correct you. And haters, don't bother hating, I won't care.

[Anxe]

I thought the typical gender neutral terms were xe and xers? Or are there more than one?

[Greenish]

I thought the typical gender neutral terms were xe and xers? Or are there more than one?There are no standardized gender-neutral terms for referring to people. Well, not in English, anyway.

[Anxe]

Just the ones I've heard thrown around before. A little confused by the zi and zir though because its using a different vowel sound.

[Nix Nihila]

I'm quite sure that both xe and ze (or in this case zi) are pronounced the same, actually. But I could be wrong.

And good for you, V!

[Juggling Goth]

Aargh, I can't find the right words.

I hope this realisation makes your life more like what you want it to be, and that your acceptance of yourself is shared by the people around you.

[Mauve Shirt]

So "Zi" is both objective and subjective? Or would objective be "zim", as wikipedia suggests?

[pffh]

I don't quite get the point of this thread instead of a similar post in the LGBTAitP thread. I mean good for you for coming to terms with what you are (I'm still working on that for myself) but I presume you've already told the people you know here through more personal means and most others won't remember and will keep on using gender pronouns for you.

[Comet]

I've always found zirs and xirs and all that stuff kind of funny. I'm not trying to be mean, it just seems odd to me. If I were between masculinity and feminity I would not want to be called a ze, it just sounds... alien? Oh gosh that is a bad choice of words but I can't come up with anything else. It's the X and the Z, they feel out of place in the english language, like a cry for attention that should not be there for something as mundane as a pronoun. Then again my native tongue does not have that gender separation in pronouns so I might not be the best person to judge this sort of stuff.

Anyway, wouldn't s/he or just she do? The possessive is kind of tricky, I admit, but for basic stuff it seems adequate.

When was the xe/ze/zi/xi/etc stuff invented, anyway? Like, in general? Genuinely interested here, seems like a neat bit of linguistic acrobatics.

[A Rainy Knight]

Anyway, wouldn't s/he or just she do? The possessive is kind of tricky, I admit, but for basic stuff it seems adequate.

When was the xe/ze/zi/xi/etc stuff invented, anyway? Like, in general? Genuinely interested here, seems like a neat bit of linguistic acrobatics.

I think it's an interesting topic, too, though I also can't shake the feeling that these pronouns sound almost painfully unnatural in actual use and are basically never going to catch on. To pitch in my two cents: how about just using a singular "they?" For instance, "If someone came into my office, I would tell them to take a seat." In my experience, this is how English speakers already naturally deal with these kinds of ambiguous situations, so it flows a lot more naturally than the invented pronouns and doesn't call attention to itself like a "him or her."

Also, the Wikipedia article is a reasonably interesting read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuter_pronoun)

[Weezer]

I've always found zirs and xirs and all that stuff kind of funny. I'm not trying to be mean, it just seems odd to me. If I were between masculinity and feminity I would not want to be called a ze, it just sounds... alien? Oh gosh that is a bad choice of words but I can't come up with anything else. It's the X and the Z, they feel out of place in the english language, like a cry for attention that should not be there for something as mundane as a pronoun. Then again my native tongue does not have that gender separation in pronouns so I might not be the best person to judge this sort of stuff.

Anyway, wouldn't s/he or just she do? The possessive is kind of tricky, I admit, but for basic stuff it seems adequate.

When was the xe/ze/zi/xi/etc stuff invented, anyway? Like, in general? Genuinely interested here, seems like a neat bit of linguistic acrobatics.

I'm kind of impatient for someone to come up with a gender neutral pronoun that sounds like it fits into the English language a bit more. It's one of the most severe deficiencies that this language has and I don't think that a gender neutral pronoun will catch on in everyday conversation until it feels far more natural than zi.

That being said, V Jr., I will do my best to remember to refer to you using zi/zir and if I slip up, please correct me.

[razark]

I'm kind of impatient for someone to come up with a gender neutral pronoun that sounds like it fits into the English language a bit more.
Frankly, English has a gender-neutral third-person pronoun in everyday usage right now.

[Weezer]

Frankly, English has a gender-neutral third-person pronoun in everyday usage right now.

Which, due to the connotations it has picked up, implies that the referent is a non-person. I don't think that we want that when referring to actual people. "It" isn't even commonly used to refer to pets or even personified inanimate objects, there is no way it would work as a word to refer to androgynes without being insulting.

[Bit Fiend]

Use "xi" instead. :xykon: With an "x" not with a "z". Z's are for wusses.

[razark]

Which, due to the connotations it has picked up, implies that the referent is a non-person. I don't think that we want that when referring to actual people. "It" isn't even commonly used to refer to pets or even personified inanimate objects, there is no way it would work as a word to refer to androgynes without being insulting.
"It" is a word, and words' definitions change over time as usage changes. I'm not suggesting that "it" be used for this purpose, just pointing out that it already exists. I don't see either "it" or one of the multiple (condense it down to one, and you might have a better shot) invented pronouns becoming common place for a long time yet.

But I do use "it" to refer to people. If I am referring to a person of unknown gender, "it" fits, and I am not a big fan of needlessly inventing words.

[Goosefeather]

Which, due to the connotations it has picked up, implies that the referent is a non-person. I don't think that we want that when referring to actual people. "It" isn't even commonly used to refer to pets or even personified inanimate objects, there is no way it would work as a word to refer to androgynes without being insulting.

I actually thought the pronoun being referred to was 'they'. It's used colloquially all the time as a generic third-person pronoun, indiscriminate of number and gender. 'It' didn't even cross my mind, probably because of how dehumanising it sounds.

[razark]

I actually thought the pronoun being referred to was 'they'.
Nope, "it" was the word. "They is plural", and "it" is singular.

[Weezer]

I actually thought the pronoun being referred to was 'they'. It's used colloquially all the time as a generic third-person pronoun, indiscriminate of number and gender. 'It' didn't even cross my mind, probably because of how dehumanising it sounds.

But it's plural... *Involuntary Grammar Nazi Twitch*
We already have one pronoun that is both singular and plural (you), we don't need another.



"It" is a word, and words' definitions change over time as usage changes. I'm not suggesting that "it" be used for this purpose, just pointing out that it already exists. I don't see either "it" or one of the multiple (condense it down to one, and you might have a better shot) invented pronouns becoming common place for a long time yet.

But I do use "it" to refer to people. If I am referring to a person of unknown gender, "it" fits, and I am not a big fan of needlessly inventing words.

Yes, "it" is a word, and it's current connotation is dehumanizing and unless that changes it's not really valid to use "it" to refer to a person.

[razark]

Yes, "it" is a word, and it's current connotation is dehumanizing and unless that changes it's not really valid to use "it" to refer to a person.
Like I said, I doubt it will change any time soon. I use "it" when it is the technically correct word. I feel that some people tend to take words too seriously at times, and treat certain words as though they have some sort of magical power.

Just to clarify: I don't use "it" to refer to a known person. I only use it to refer to an undetermined person of unknown gender.


We already have one pronoun that is both singular and plural (you), we don't need another.
"You" started out as the plural form of the second-person pronoun, and over time, usage modified it to be the singular form, as well. For consistency, perhaps I should use "thee" and "thou".

[Goosefeather]

But it's plural... *Involuntary Grammar Nazi Twitch*
We already have one pronoun that is both singular and plural (you), we don't need another.


I think my inner Grammar Nazi sees the use of a singular 'they' as a lesser evil than the creation of strange new 'x' and 'z' pronouns.

Semantically speaking, I still prefer 'they' because it:
a) doesn't have the insulting connotations of 'it'
b) blends into a given text far better than created pronouns, which by virtue of their novelty and rather un-English appearance immediately draw attention and divert the discourse towards gender issues - which might be the intention, in which case fine, but equally I can see people not wanting to make a big song and dance about the issue of their gender. Perhaps time would help, but 'they' avoids the issue from the get-go.

Edit: And as was just pointed out, there is precedence for a plural form coming to represent both singular and plural - though I doubt 'he', 'she' and 'it' will go the way of 'thou'.

[pffh]

I've seen Hir being used as a gender neutral pronoun for genderqueers if that helps anyones inner grammar nazi. I personally think it's better then the x and z variants.

[Weezer]

I've seen Hir being used as a gender neutral pronoun for genderqueers if that helps anyones inner grammar nazi. I personally think it's better then the x and z variants.

That's actually one of the better one's I've seen, how is it pronounced? Just looking at it I would go either with "her" (obviously confusing) or "here" (again, kinda confusing). But it looks good for written works at the least.

[pffh]

That's actually one of the better one's I've seen, how is it pronounced? Just looking at it I would go either with "her" (obviously confusing) or "here" (again, kinda confusing). But it looks good for written works at the least.

Never heard it pronounced but according to google it's a homophone with here and hear which is a lot less confusing then if it were pronounced like her.

"I invited hir here" is not really all that confusing in context since I doubt you can replace a gender pronoun with here or hear in many sentences without it sounding weird.

[razark]

I've seen Hir being used as a gender neutral pronoun for genderqueers if that helps anyones inner grammar nazi. I personally think it's better then the x and z variants.
I can see the strength of "hir" over the x or z versions, but does "hir" cover enough ground?

I've seen "hir" used as an object, in place of "him" and "her", but as the subject of a sentence, what takes the place of "he" or "she"?

Also, the pronunciation as "her" would be a problem for spoken speech.
Nevermind.

[Weezer]

Never heard it pronounced but according to google it's a homophone with here and hear which is a lot less confusing then if it were pronounced like her.

"I invited hir here" is not really all that confusing in context since I doubt you can replace a gender pronoun with here or hear in many sentences without it sounding weird.

Yeah, hir pronounced as "here" wouldn't be too confusing, and as I said, better than any others I've seen.

[pffh]

I can see the strength of "hir" over the x or z versions, but does "hir" cover enough ground?

I've seen "hir" used as an object, in place of "him" and "her", but as the subject of a sentence, what takes the place of "he" or "she"?

Also, the pronunciation as "her" would be a problem for spoken speech.
Nevermind.

I'm not sure. I know very little about genderqueer people (but always learning more) but if you don't mind I might quote you in the LGBTAitP thread to see what some of the people there prefer to use.

[Karen Lynn]

While I do respect gender-neutral/asexual/androgyne/LGBTiTP/so on, so forth,

Can I just ignore all this Ze/Xe/Zi/Xer/Zer/Xim/Zim crap, and just keep thinking of people as I already do, by their handles? I'm Adrian. You're V Jr. to me, and always will be. I don't even pay attention to the gender tags people place on their handle-plate(<--That thing over there).

So, is it okay to just think of/refer to you as V Jr.?

I do the same with everyone else.

[Siosilvar]

Being defensive isn't the way to get people to get people to accept you.

EDIT: This is specifically in response to the OP only, not anyone else, in case it was unclear.

[Copper]

Yeah, genderqueers! I'm in the same boat, V :smallsmile:

As far as third person pronouns go, their is xe, zi, ze, etc. My personal favorite are the Spivak pronouns, which are just the "they" form with the "th" part taken off, i.e. ey, eir, em. The problem with gender neutral third person pronouns is that there are so many and none of them are totally official so its impossible to know which ones people prefer.

[razark]

if you don't mind I might quote you in the LGBTAitP thread to see what some of the people there prefer to use.
I have no problem being quoted, except now I'll have to try to remember to check in on the other thread.


The problem with gender neutral third person pronouns is that there are so many and none of them are totally official so its impossible to know which ones people prefer.
Yeah, this. If people could get behind one set of pronouns, I think it would stand a better chance of being adopted much faster. (Aside from the fact that usage is really the only marker of what is "official" in English. Dirty little bastard of a language. You're never quite sure where it's been, or what nastyness it'll get into next.)

Have any of these pronouns been picked up by a major dictionary?

[Weezer]

Yeah, this. If people could get behind one set of pronouns, I think it would stand a better chance of being adopted much faster. (Aside from the fact that usage is really the only marker of what is "official" in English. Dirty little bastard of a language. You're never quite sure where it's been, or what nastyness it'll get into next.)

Have any of these pronouns been picked up by a major dictionary?

The problem with people getting behind one is that they are all (at least to my knowledge) proposed by various queer/gender theorists and getting academics (especially in this era of postmodernism) to agree to a single terminology is hell at best.

[turkishproverb]

Never heard it pronounced but according to google it's a homophone with here and hear which is a lot less confusing then if it were pronounced like her.

"I invited hir here" is not really all that confusing in context since I doubt you can replace a gender pronoun with here or hear in many sentences without it sounding weird.

Language is more leaning to the singular "Them They etc" as the gender neutral term. I imagine it's partly because hir and the other artificially created words tend to require oddly specific pronunciation, wheres the singular plurals were A: Already extant and coming naturally into use this way, and B: more clear-cut in it's use on singular individuals as gender neutral.

[Juggling Goth]

Some points on gender-neutral pronouns:

- Being trans or genderqueer in a cisgendered world is difficult. They have priorities other than picking a pronoun that cisgendered folk find convenient, and it is not the place of cisgendered folk to tell them how to express their identities.

- If you're academically interested in or confused by gender-neutral pronouns, Wikipedia has a decent summary here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronouns#Modern_solutions), but please be aware that there is no right answer and telling someone that their preferred form of address is wrong according to your research will only ever cause resentment.

- There's a whole world out there in which gender-neutral pronouns are considered weird or wrong. It's not a viewpoint that's going to be suppressed any time soon. How about not saying it right to people's faces when they've just come out, hmm?

[Brother Oni]

As far as third person pronouns go, their is xe, zi, ze, etc. My personal favorite are the Spivak pronouns, which are just the "they" form with the "th" part taken off, i.e. ey, eir, em.

Unfortunately they make you sound like a Devonshire yokel. :smalltongue:

[Kalmageddon]

Well this whole thread sure makes me glad to be from a country where gender neutral pronouns don't exist, so we don't have to bother with this "I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings by using correct grammar" issue.*

I'm sorry of sounding like a jerk but if you feel like you don't have a gender the correct and mature way of handling things would be not caring about what pronoun is used to refer to you, not by trying to force a non existent one into use.

I'm sure that if someone sees you and use the "he" or "she" pronoun isn't doing it to offend you in any way, much less so in a forum where people basically don't even know you.


*"Person" (persona) in Italian is female, so the "gender neutral" pronoun is the feminine one. Done, no room for complaints.

[turkishproverb]

Some points on gender-neutral pronouns:

- Being trans or genderqueer in a cisgendered world is difficult. They have priorities other than picking a pronoun that cisgendered folk find convenient, and it is not the place of cisgendered folk to tell them how to express their identities.

- If you're academically interested in or confused by gender-neutral pronouns, Wikipedia has a decent summary here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronouns#Modern_solutions), but please be aware that there is no right answer and telling someone that their preferred form of address is wrong according to your research will only ever cause resentment.

- There's a whole world out there in which gender-neutral pronouns are considered weird or wrong. It's not a viewpoint that's going to be suppressed any time soon. How about not saying it right to people's faces when they've just come out, hmm?

Was that directed at me? it was right afte rmy post, so I want to make sure if I'm being interpreted so negatively. 'cause all I did was state what was catching on in modern "lingo", and list a few reasons it might be. I didn't' judge. I didn't see any spot someone "cape out" as genderqueer/agendered/other alternate gender identity.

[Juggling Goth]

Was that directed at me?

No, it was directed at the way the thread was going in general.

[pffh]

No, it was directed at the way the thread was going in general.

But if a gender neutral pronoun enters standard usage now that would be a huge step in the right direction for the acception of genderqueers and as long as there is a split in what non-cisgender people use for themselves it means it will be that much longer until that happens.

Also it should be aesthetically pleasing to help it catching on and words starting with x rarely are and often look out of place (words starting with z suffer from this as well to some degree). The solution that would have the most chance of succeeding would probably be something that looks and sounds similar to he/she and him/her (ie starts with an H)

[Tyndmyr]

Well this whole thread sure makes me glad to be from a country where gender neutral pronouns don't exist, so we don't have to bother with this "I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings by using correct grammar" issue.*

I'm sorry of sounding like a jerk but if you feel like you don't have a gender the correct and mature way of handling things would be not caring about what pronoun is used to refer to you, not by trying to force a non existent one into use.

I'm sure that if someone sees you and use the "he" or "she" pronoun isn't doing it to offend you in any way, much less so in a forum where people basically don't even know you.


*"Person" (persona) in Italian is female, so the "gender neutral" pronoun is the feminine one. Done, no room for complaints.

Historically, English used to have a gender neutral pronoun, but yeah, it's died out long ago. The only one that really lacks gender still is "its". Unfortunately, it's a very generic pronoun. It would not be incorrect for a person to prefer being called "it", but it would be socially unusual and possibly confusing.

The universal "he" is also acceptable, but suffers from confusion with the association of maleness.

Invented pronouns that are not in common use...not so much. None of them have really attained any notable currency, and invented pronouns have never managed to catch on in English, and the use of them is invariably accompanied by much explanation and hassle. I see the whole endevour as fairly pointless as a result.

I don't care in the slightest if someone sees himself as non/dual gendered or what have you, but linguistically, you're unlikely to get anywhere by jumping on the invented pronoun bandwagon, which has failed to get anywhere in over a century of trying. It's the invented language problem on a slightly smaller scale.

[Weezer]

Some points on gender-neutral pronouns:

- Being trans or genderqueer in a cisgendered world is difficult. They have priorities other than picking a pronoun that cisgendered folk find convenient, and it is not the place of cisgendered folk to tell them how to express their identities.


The problem with this line of thinking is that if the viablity of widespread acceptance is completely ignored then you get a result where the only people using these gender neutral pronouns are those who they directly apply to, which would only serve to further separate the trans/genderqueer . It's one of those places where a compromise is best, you obviously can't bend over backwards to conform to the expectations of the cisgendered society, but you also cannot completely ignoring it when developing words/concepts/anything at all that you want to gain widespread acceptance within that very cisgendered society. Like most things, some middle ground is needed, and I think that's what people have been discussing, not any attempt to transform how trans/genderqueer express their identities, but rather a way for the manner that their identities are already being expressed to become more widely accepted. No one is saying anything about the meaning of the words in question or even questioning the need for these words to exist, merely the viability of the sounds that were chosen to express the concept.


- There's a whole world out there in which gender-neutral pronouns are considered weird or wrong. It's not a viewpoint that's going to be suppressed any time soon. How about not saying it right to people's faces when they've just come out, hmm?

I don't think anyone, I guess I shouldn't speak for everyone, I suppose I should say that I certainly haven't meant to express the idea that gender-neutral pronouns are weird or wrong. In fact my first post was that what english desperately needs are viable gender-neutral pronouns. Also, I did try to make it clear that I would use (and that everyone should use) V Jr's chosen pronouns to refer to zir because as you said how zi desires zir particular gender identity to be expressed is how it should be expressed, regardless of their likelihood of becoming a common addition to English as a whole.

[Juggling Goth]

Unfortunately, folk under the trans umbrella are generally too busy trying not to get violently assaulted in public bathrooms to convene the Meeting Where Everybody Agrees Once And For All On The Perfect Pronoun Usage. And then that meeting would have to be chaired by those who'd passed Post-Doctoral Cat Herding.

And sometimes it's not about what's likely to catch on or be perfect. It's about how a person would like to be addressed, which is something deeply personal and has possibly caused them a great deal of trouble.

[Weezer]

Unfortunately, folk under the trans umbrella are generally too busy trying not to get violently assaulted in public bathrooms to convene the Meeting Where Everybody Agrees Once And For All On The Perfect Pronoun Usage. And then that meeting would have to be chaired by those who'd passed Post-Doctoral Cat Herding.

Of course it's hard if not impossible, that's the problem with just about all invented language.


And sometimes it's not about what's likely to catch on or be perfect. It's about how a person would like to be addressed, which is something deeply personal and has possibly caused them a great deal of trouble.

And that's why I said I will refer to people in whatever way desired. There are two simultaneous things going on here, firstly a somewhat abstract discussion about how gender neutral pronouns are neededand how the current ones put forth are lacking and secondly the affirmation that I will address people in whatever way they desire. Because as you said it is deeply personal and very important for people to be addressed in a way that fits in with their own self-image.

They are two entirely different subjects, no need to get defensive, no one is getting attacked here.

[Asta Kask]

I think it's only polite to take a person's desires into consideration when addressing them.

[razark]

I think it's only polite to take a person's desires into consideration when addressing them.
To an extent. If you know what personal pronouns an individual prefers, you can address it using that particular choice. But I'm not going to ask every person I talk to "Excuse me, but what is your preference in personal pronouns today?" What is needed is a general singular third-person gender-neutral pronoun.

[Kalmageddon]

I think it's only polite to take a person's desires into consideration when addressing them.

And I agree with this.
If a girl wants to be called a woman, no problem, if a woman wants to be called a girl, no problem, if a woman wants to be called a man that's fine too but if a woman wants to be called a xyphomorphoid... Then there's a problem.
Because, unless the English language surprises me, "xyphomorphoid" is not a real word.
I'm not going to use invented words to adress someone.

[Greenish]

Because, unless the English language surprises me, "xyphomorphoid" is not a real word."Xyphomorphoid" is used to refer to the wood that forms natural xylophones as it matures.


Anyway, English has way more words than any language ever needs. A few more couldn't hurt.

[Kalmageddon]

"Xyphomorphoid" is used to refer to the wood that forms natural xylophones as it matures.


Flaxaghothrician? Does this word exists too?

Ok ok was it a joke? That may have got me! :smalltongue:

[Greenish]

Flaxaghothrician? Does this word exists too?That's a certified practitioner of flaxaghoth, which is a originally a fictional meditating technique from Star Wars Expanded Universe, now practiced in real life by followers of the Force (commonly referred to as Jedi, and fighting for recognition as a real religion in several countries). Flaxaghoth is said to have originated from the planet of Dac, where it has been practiced by the Mon Calamari for millenia.

[Edit]: Because flaxaghoth involves sticking your head into a fishbowl, it's recommended novices only practise under direct supervision of more experienced practitioners, hence the certification system.

[Soylent Dave]

Which, due to the connotations it has picked up, implies that the referent is a non-person. I don't think that we want that when referring to actual people. "It" isn't even commonly used to refer to pets or even personified inanimate objects, there is no way it would work as a word to refer to androgynes without being insulting.

"It" is pretty commonly used to refer to pets, babies and things for which we do not know the gender - although we a) usually switch to the a gender pronoun once known and b) it's notable that none of those things can understand what is being said.

I can see how 'it' could come across as a bit dehumanising - but I'm not sure it's really any more dehumanising than electing to use an invented pronoun (which is never really going to catch on, and is always going to result in this sort of discussion); it certainly achieves the 'neither male nor female' point in away that the other commonly accepted English alternative (a gender-neutral 'he') does not.

Not that people aren't allowed to call themselves whatever they want (and desire others to do likewise) - but there is a reality that those using invented pronouns are going to consistently encounter resistance to using them, and have to explain what the pronoun means - which is probably going to get tiresome.

As has been pointed out, this is exacerbated when each individual has his own preferred invented, difficult-to-pronounce, pronoun (I have wondered before how much of this is related to trans persons feeling - to some degree - unique in their own bodies, and wanting a unique form of address to match (not unreasonably).

(it's not really as an 'anti-trans' thing either, any changes to pronoun usage are resisted by users of a language - pronouns are the most commonly used and easily understood part of the language, which means that people just don't accept additions and alterations easily, if at all)

-

Probably the easiest - or most (grammatically) elegant - solution is to avoid pronoun usage altogether. As has already been suggested, (user)names are far more specific and individual than pronouns, with none of the pitfalls. It's usually possible to phrase a pronounless sentence, with a bit of effort.

[Copper]

The problem with using "it" is that it is dehumanizing, and therefore is frequently used by transphobic people almost as a slur. So, yeah, don't use "it" no matter how apt it may seem because it could turn out very badly for you.

Generally, if you're unsure, just ask the person their desired pronoun. I doubt they'll be very offended and it will make life a whole lot easier for everyone involved.

[razark]

The problem with using "it" is that it is dehumanizing, and therefore is frequently used by transphobic people almost as a slur.
"Queer" was also a dehumanizing term that has since (to my understanding) lost a lot of the baggage that was once attached. The same with "******", to some extent.

Edit:
Really? It's a word. It really does not have any magical powers. How are we supposed to discuss language if we can't even mention the words we are talking about.

[Kalmageddon]

That's a certified practitioner of flaxaghoth, which is a originally a fictional meditating technique from Star Wars Expanded Universe, now practiced in real life by followers of the Force (commonly referred to as Jedi, and fighting for recognition as a real religion in several countries). Flaxaghoth is said to have originated from the planet of Dac, where it has been practiced by the Mon Calamari for millenia.

[Edit]: Because flaxaghoth involves sticking your head into a fishbowl, it's recommended novices only practise under direct supervision of more experienced practitioners, hence the certification system.

Hahahahaha I love this! We should open a thread just for this little game!

[Qaera]

My preferred pronouns are qzxvwyis, qzxvwyer, and qzxvwyem.
Genderqueer humor!
~ ♅

[Asta Kask]

My preferred pronouns are qzxvwyis, qzxvwyer, and qzxvwyem.
Genderqueer humor!
~ ♅

Can I have a pronounciation guide with that, please?

[pffh]

Can I have a pronounciation guide with that, please?

I'm pretty sure they are pronounced exactly as they are written.

[Asta Kask]

Yes, of course, but I've forgotten if q before z is soft or not.

[Qaera]

Can I have a pronounciation guide with that, please?

Kih-zix-wav-yiss
Kih-zix-wav-yur
Kih-zix-wav-yem

Kih-zix-wah-DUHHHH :smalltongue:

~ ♅

[Dark Elf Bard]

I think the gender neutral pronoun is hir

[turkishproverb]

Artificially constructed and difficult to pronounce deliberately differently from her, thus not catching on hugely.

Like I said, most likely it's going to stick at the singular neutral plural.


Kih-zix-wav-yiss
Kih-zix-wav-yur
Kih-zix-wav-yem

Kih-zix-wah-DUHHHH :smalltongue:

~ ♅

Let me try

Kil-tips-yx-im

[Tyndmyr]

Unfortunately, folk under the trans umbrella are generally too busy trying not to get violently assaulted in public bathrooms to convene the Meeting Where Everybody Agrees Once And For All On The Perfect Pronoun Usage. And then that meeting would have to be chaired by those who'd passed Post-Doctoral Cat Herding.

Really? This seems like slight hyperbole. Sure, I get that unfortunate incidents happen, but I don't actually think that they're a significant reason we have a bunch of extremely unlikely words that nobody agrees on or uses.

A more likely reason is that invented language has a really, really poor track record for conversion to actual use. Pronouns are at the core of a language, and are pretty resistant to change. If there was ever a language effort that linguistics would describe as "doomed to failure", this is it.


And sometimes it's not about what's likely to catch on or be perfect. It's about how a person would like to be addressed, which is something deeply personal and has possibly caused them a great deal of trouble.

Words exist to convey meaning. If I insist that I be called a Splortch, that has...no actual relevant meaning to anyone else. It does not promote communication. Instead, it makes people go "Splortch? What?" There is no motivation for people to use a word without meaning.

So, practical considerations like "what words catch on" do matter quite a lot.


Honestly, in practical use, I'm lucky if I even glance at the gender symbol of a poster. Not everyone even has those, and sometimes I'll miss the ones they do have. I don't use pronouns a great deal, but when I do, it is not terribly important for any purpose save to convey what person or group I am discussing.

[Castaras]

And with all these gender neutral pronouns flying around, what's wrong with just using the singular form of "they"? :smallconfused: It's easy enough to say "Yeah, that crazy human there, they're a real barrel of laughs." or "That person there, they just stole my waffles!"

[Tyndmyr]

And with all these gender neutral pronouns flying around, what's wrong with just using the singular form of "they"? :smallconfused: It's easy enough to say "Yeah, that crazy human there, they're a real barrel of laughs." or "That person there, they just stole my waffles!"

It works great in some circumstances, but there is a plural implication generally. It's a perfectly fine genderless plural pronoun, but it's not perfect in every situation.

Meh. English isn't perfect, but it does have a *lot* of options. There's usually at least a somewhat decent word choice already existing for any idea you want to convey.

[Copper]

And with all these gender neutral pronouns flying around, what's wrong with just using the singular form of "they"? :smallconfused: It's easy enough to say "Yeah, that crazy human there, they're a real barrel of laughs." or "That person there, they just stole my waffles!"

Generally this works. Just make sure you aren't around any English teachers, cause it's not technically grammatically correct. :smallwink:

[Comet]

Generally this works. Just make sure you aren't around any English teachers, cause it's not technically grammatically correct. :smallwink:

I'd rather use the simple 'they' than contested xirs and zorgs and I don't want no prescriptive grammarians stopping me!

English teachers might know what's best for school children, but in the complicated world of adults and contemporary gender issues the schoolday book of the ABCs might not cut it :smalltongue:

All kidding and school grammar bashing aside, I happen to be a huge fan of the 'they' neutral pronoun. That said, this whole thing is a really complicated issue and I do respect every individual's wish to be called whatever they want. Unless instructed otherwise, though, I will continue to use 'they'.

[turkishproverb]

Generally this works. Just make sure you aren't around any English teachers, cause it's not technically grammatically correct. :smallwink:

At the same time, any linguist worth their salt will tell you it seems to be becoming grammatically acceptable.

[Raistlin1040]

Singular they has been in use since at LEAST Caxton in 1489. Shakespeare used it. Jane Austen used it. Mark Twain and George Bernard Shaw used it. Even recent translations of the Bible use a singular they.

I also like the generic he and generic she, depending on context. It's not a uniform preference, by any means, as he/she/they fits better depending on how the sentence is structured, but the idea that a singular they is somewhow incorrect is pushed by old, stodgy teachers who cling to The Elements of Style for the sake of tradition rather than out of any love of language.

[Soylent Dave]

I also like the generic he and generic she, depending on context.

I do as well - and you can usually tell when the writer is being generic and when he's being specific, in context.

And to be honest, I was brought up to think that it's rather rude to talk about a person who is listening as 'he' or 'she', when you know their name or title - and on a forum, that person will always be listening.

Sort of.

[Juggling Goth]

A better analogy would be with "Ms".* All the same objections apply - why weren't people happy with the existing options? How the hell do you pronounce it? It'll never catch on!

And yet it did.


* Technically, Ms was from the seventeenth century, and died out for a few hundred years before being revived. But for all practical purposes, it's an invented term.

[Tyndmyr]

At the same time, any linguist worth their salt will tell you it seems to be becoming grammatically acceptable.

It's probably a lot more likely to be accepted than some "xir" thingie ever is. The singular they is a vastly less futile effort to push. Or the generic he/she. Slightly changing an english word has a LOT of successful precedent.


A better analogy would be with "Ms".* All the same objections apply - why weren't people happy with the existing options? How the hell do you pronounce it? It'll never catch on!

And yet it did.


* Technically, Ms was from the seventeenth century, and died out for a few hundred years before being revived. But for all practical purposes, it's an invented term.

No. It's not a pronoun. Linguistically, it's not equivalent. Titles and labels are infinitely mutable in English, we have tons of them, and frequently trade them out.

Pronouns don't operate like that at all. They don't even vary between dialects, really.

[Telonius]

I'm envious of the Germans on this subject. They can just use (capital-S) "Sie." It's even the polite pronoun for a person of any gender.

Also, phonetically the same thing as the another "sie," their third-person plural pronoun. I wonder if that's where English got the habit of using a third-person plural pronoun as a singular...?

[Telonius]

I'm envious of the Germans on this subject. They can just use (capital-S) "Sie." It's even the polite pronoun for a person of any gender.

Also, phonetically the same thing as the another "sie," their third-person plural pronoun. I wonder if that's where English got the habit of using a third-person plural pronoun as a singular...?



Pronouns don't operate like that at all. They don't even vary between dialects, really.

I know some people from Pittsburgh who might disagree with yins. And all y'all wouldn't believe what some of my Southern friends say. :smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

I'm envious of the Germans on this subject. They can just use (capital-S) "Sie."Finnish doesn't even have gendered pronouns. :smallwink:

[Tyndmyr]

I know some people from Pittsburgh who might disagree with yins. And all y'all wouldn't believe what some of my Southern friends say. :smallbiggrin:

I can't speak for "yins", as I don't really hail from there, and am unfamiliar with the dialog, but y'all is a contraction of perfectly normal english, not a new word, and certainly not an invented word. It is an extremely poor parallel for what we're describing here.

All y'all is merely adding the word "all" to the pronoun to include everyone in the group specifically. It is not a different pronoun whatsoever. This is merely an exercise in contractions, not the creation of something new. The base pronoun, "you", has not changed since the 14th century.

I suspect "yins" is probably similar, and is also shorthand based off you or another extant pronoun, not the creation of a new one.

Actual change in pronouns is quite rare.