Rolling For Gender

[JNAProductions]

How would people feel about making characters and then rolling on Red Fel's Gender Chart (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20407280&postcount=127) or some similar chart for determining characters' genders? Randomizing it a little (okay, a lot) and perhaps forcing some people out of their comfort zones?

Modified gender chart:



1-9
Male


10-18
Female


19
Intersex


20
Genderless



Modified to be a little more reflective of real life percentages. Most people are born with a biological gender of male or female.

According to Google, about 1 in 1500 to 2000 people are born intersex, so the 5% on the chart is still significantly above the actual number. (But no one wants to roll a d1500. That's just awkward.) Basic Google did not get me numbers on genderless births, but 5% does seem like it's probably larger than the actual as well.

Chart II, Electric Boogaloo



1-5
Male


6-10
Female


11-13
Intersex


14-16
Genderless


17-18
Belt Sander Accident


18
Roll Three More Times


19
Great Old One (On Vacation)


20
Attack Helicopter

[Red Fel]

How would people feel about making characters and then rolling on Red Fel's Gender Chart (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20407280&postcount=127) or some similar chart for determining characters' genders? Randomizing it a little (okay, a lot) and perhaps forcing some people out of their comfort zones?

I honestly made the thing in jest. I'm kind of shocked people are actually still referring to it. Flattered, but surprised.

I mean, you could just as easily do 1d6, with 1-2 being male, 3-4 being female, 5 being intersex and 6 being genderless. I just threw extra stuff in because I'm a sick, horrible person.

That said, aside from a result of 8, I don't see most of the outcomes having a substantial impact on the vast majority of character concepts. Unless you're in a setting where gender impacts your options (e.g. medieval patriarchal), or of a race or culture where gender conveys status (e.g. Drow), or of a class or profession which is understandably restricted by gender (e.g. eunuch), your character concept should be able to adapt to either gender (or intersex) with minimum alteration to backstory.

Obviously, rolling an 8 and having multiple sets of genitalia (i.e. more than two) would have a fairly substantial impact on anybody's life. But that's completely understandable and occasionally haunts my nightmares.

Also, "Red Fel's Gender Chart." Ladies and gentlemen (and members of other genders), this is my definitive contribution to the forums. Not the comprehensive guide to Lawful Evil, not an array of advice on how to write villains, not even a number of lovely pieces of homebrew dedicated to my awesome personage - a 1d8 table of what goes between your character's legs.

Mic drop. Fel out.

[JNAProductions]

See, this is why you should participate more in the 5E subforum! I'd know you better! :P

I do agree, it should likely be modified, but I think that's kinda the point-that it wouldn't effect most concepts overmuch.

[hymer]

How would people feel about making characters and then rolling on Red Fel's Gender Chart (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20407280&postcount=127) or some similar chart for determining characters' genders? Randomizing it a little (okay, a lot) and perhaps forcing some people out of their comfort zones?

No thanks. I don't like randomizing much of anything in character creation, I even dislike rolling for starting gold. I think random character traits is worse than random game mechanics. If someone wants to do it at my table it's their choice. If I can avoid it, I will.
I think I get as much inspiration looking at a list of possibilities as I do from actually rolling on the table. And I don't usually need to look high and low for inspiration. I'm more likely to have character concepts waiting to get used.

[nedz]

Back in the days of 1E: I used to do this whenever someone was reincarnated — though not using Red Fel's table - that would be evil. After the first few occasions this got to be quite an old joke - they died quite a lot back in the olden days.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Just depends on the game. If I was forewarned that we were going to be playing randomized characters, fair enough. What I dislike is being given a week or w/e to conceive of a character I want to play, write it up, and then get told when I arrive "oh sorry, we're doing open rolls only, and you have to assign your ability scores as you roll them; also randomly roll for race, sex, age, height and weight...." that sucks. It's important to avoid miscommunication, especially on the Gamemaster's part---the onus is on the GM to reach an agreement with everyone beforehand as to how they expect character creation to work in their game, the parameters of what's allowed, and definitely include information about the game itself. For example -

"This is more of a story-focused game where it's important you all come from this city and fall within this group of races and need to be from this range of social classes in order for the premise to work"

vs

"This is just a dungeoncrawl with a focus on combat and puzzle solving so your races or backgrounds aren't too important; if it's under EL 3 and not too cheesy I'll allow it, but don't get too attached to your characters or write a 10 page backstory because this isn't Vampire the Masquerade!"

As far as rolling for gender goes I'd see it as just one more randomized element akin to height, age, and character stats. I've played characters of both sexes before and found it really only matters as much as you want it to---and while playing a character born intersex would require a little more thought, it doesn't have to be a big deal if you don't want. You could present as one gender or the other and presumably it would never come up---I mean people aren't prone in my experience to stopping someone and going "now waitaminute, do you have a penis or a vagina???"

[JNAProductions]

This would definitely be with forewarning. It would be something to bring up during character creation.

[Feddlefew]

At my table, if you can't decide on cosmetic traits (including gender/sex) within a reasonable amount of time, I start pulling out the population tables and you start rolling d100s. I made them to quickly throw together NPC descriptions, but they work just as well for PCs.

In most groups, this only applies to the little things like eye and hair color. In one of my groups, after about 40 minutes of EVERYONE waffling on their character's appearance, we ended up running with completely randomized descriptions.

[GorinichSerpant]

Personally if I'm rolling for gender, then I'm going full hog and rolling for everything that the character doesn't have control over, including physical traits, family, race and what have you. Then I'd build up everything else from there. If I'm playing a character who's gender isn't relevant to their story, then I'd usually make them male because that's my real life gender.

[Nifft]

There is only one reason why I'd support rolling for this.

"Ha ha! Roy has boobies!"

Which is to say: it might be fun to mock someone who was uncomfortable with his or her character's assigned gender.

I recognize that this is not a good reason. In fact, as reasons go, it is rather towards the lower third of the alignment grid.

Thus, I don't think this is a good idea in a "serious" game.

[Donnadogsoth]

This kind of thing seems more germane for Gamma World, where radiation is magic.

[goto124]

Where's tragic belt-sander accident? :smalltongue:

I thought rolling for gender happened if the player just couldn't pick a gender. Or was low on inspiration and wanted to let the dice decide.

[JNAProductions]

Well, I might run a game on here (once my other games have run their course) where characters are required to commit a concept sans gender, then roll for it.

But yeah, that's probably actually the best use.

And tragic belt-sander means you used to be a (wo)man. No longer.

[Red Fel]

And tragic belt-sander means you used to be a (wo)man. No longer.

Out of all of them, I personally think that "tragic belt-sander accident" has the most potential for backstory expansion and plot hooks.

"I can't go back there! That was where... Where... It happened."

"It's you! You were supposed to be operating the safety... On that day..."

"This is about more than me... More than us... More than justice... It's about belt-sander users everywhere!"

Lot of potential, s'what I'm saying.

[Illven]

Well, I might run a game on here (once my other games have run their course) where characters are required to commit a concept sans gender, then roll for it.

But yeah, that's probably actually the best use.

And tragic belt-sander means you used to be a (wo)man. No longer.

If you're going to do that, you should probably make them roll for height, weight, etc, etc.

[BWR]

Some of us already do determine sex and/or randomly at character creation if we are unsure what to play.

[The Glyphstone]

That chart has a depressing lack of 'Attack Helicopter'.

[JNAProductions]

Added to Chart II-Electric Boogaloo.

[Feddlefew]

I submit "Great Old One on Vacation" for the list.

Edit: Yes, that's another "Keep, Roll again."

[Elxir_Breauer]

As long as accommodations can be made for whatever is rolled {i.e.: Attack Helicopter needing Fuel and Ammo for whatever weapons it carries, or Sanity rules for Great Old One (on Vacation)} this would be an interesting way to run. Glob help the GM if two players happen to roll one each of the above examples, that's turning into a CoC game real quick, lol. If those are both in the "Keep and roll again" camp, imagine two Great Old Ones vacationing as Attack Helicopters and falling in love with each other; or other, more normal characters... :smalleek: I think I just scared myself awake...

[goto124]

Actually, that sounds like the best romantic comedy ever.

[SpectralDerp]

I think most people would respond with "Take your stupid political correctness and get away my pen and paper game".

Also, your chart mangles the distinction between gender and sex. Intersex is not a gender, it's a medical condition where sex is ambiguous and most transgender individuals are not intersex. Is sex rolled for as well? What about race and species, are there transblack and transowlbear character? Are there fictionkin? Your lack of inclusivity is offensive and I am triggered.

[Madbox]

Hm, so 50% of all people whose gender is "Belt Sander Accident" also have additional genders? I feel bad for the 1 in 8000 or so whose gender is Triple Belt Sander :smalleek:. Although Belt Sander Attack Helicopter Genderless makes sense. It clearly got a new paint job at some point.

[Frozen_Feet]

I was toying around with an idea like this:

You need two d10, one red, one blue. Roll both at once.

If red die rolls higher, your character is physically male. If the blue die rolls higher, the character is physically female. If the dice are even, the character is intersex.

Now pick up the die which scored lower, or pick one in case of intersex character. Reroll it. If the new roll is higher than the roll which decided your sex, you identify as the opposite sex. In the case of an intersex character, the die you picked determines what you identify as. If it is even, you identify as genderfluid.

The magnitude of the rolls tells how strong your physical characteristic and identity are. 0 is mildest, while 9 is strongest.

Example 1: you roll Red 2 and Blue 1. The character is hence a man, but not very masculine. You reroll the blue dice and get Blue 9. This means the character very strongly identifies as a woman. In essence, you have rolled a transsexual character.

Example 2: you roll Red 0 and Blue 0. This means your character is intersex, with a very ambiguous physiology. (Possibly child-like or non-human.) You pick the red die and roll Red 0. This means the character doesn't really have a sexual identity. In essence you have created a character who is both asexual and genderless.

Example 3: you roll Red 2 and Blue 8. The character is hence a woman and very feminine. You reroll the red die and get Red 7. This means the character identifies as a woman, but is otherwise quite masculine in behaviour. This could be described as a feminine looking tomboy.


If you're going to do that, you should probably make them roll for height, weight, etc, etc.

Funnily enough, rolls for height and weight are more common game elements than rolling for sex and gender.

---

@SpectralDerp: random generation of character facets isn't a political issue. There are a lot of people who might want to treat it as one, but really, having rules like this is no sign the game maker or game master are aiming for "political correctness". It might as well be satire or parody of such attitudes.

If anything, since so many players have been brainwashed into hating random character generation, I'd argue tye very concept of rolling for sex and gender is politically incorrect within the hobby. :smalltongue:

[PersonMan]

Then someone rolls (Roll three times) and gets triple 20s.

How do you balance a game where one character is three attack helicopters?

[Madbox]

Then someone rolls (Roll three times) and gets triple 20s.

How do you balance a game where one character is three attack helicopters?

Oil embargos. No fuel. :smalltongue:

[SpectralDerp]

@SpectralDerp: random generation of character facets isn't a political issue.

"Political correctness" does not only refer to government politics, it refers to general courses of actions ("policies").


Oil embargos. No fuel. :smalltongue:

What a bigoted thing to say. What if the attack helicopter is a gluten-free atheist vegan who seeks to boycott the oil industry because it's an oppressive tool in the rapehouse of the patriarchy?

[goto124]

The magnitude of the rolls tells how strong your physical characteristic and identity are. 0 is mildest, while 9 is strongest.

Example 3: you roll Red 2 and Blue 8. The character is hence a woman and very feminine. You reroll the red die and get Red 7. This means the character identifies as a woman, but is otherwise quite masculine in behaviour. This could be described as a feminine looking tomboy.

To be honest, I personally dislike rolling for something as complicated as 'feminine' or 'masculine' behavior. I imagine it'll lead to arguments much like those alignment threads we see online ("My character is Lawful Good due to A and B!" "But C and D, so Chaotic Evil!" "How about E and F, making for Neutral Good?" "No! Evil because..."), but worse because sex and gender come into play :smalleek:

Then again, I'm someone who believes in dislodging different types of behaviors and traits from 'feminine' and 'masculine'. From what I know, making such connections between behavior and sex/gender plays heavily into sexism and enforcement of gender roles.

[nedz]

Where's tragic belt-sander accident? :smalltongue:

IIRC it was a Darwin Award.

[Feddlefew]

IIRC it was a Darwin Award.

A Darwin Award? :smallconfused:

I'm pretty certain it happens a few times a year.

[Khatoblepas]

That chart has a depressing lack of 'Attack Helicopter'.

I'm kind of disappointed that a moderator would bring this up, considering that meme was created entirely to mock trans and nonbinary people*. :\ I mean, could we not please?

This thread seems to be headed for the "let's make fun of marginalised people" direction, rather than in any constructive direction. I already see a sarcastic "check your privilege" on the horizon.

*Before anyone says anything, no, this isn't about people who identify as attack helicopters, it's just that this is used almost exclusively as a mocking response to people identifying as agender/bigender/genderfluid/trans - to say that their identities are ridiculous. It's just the modern equivalent to the South Park dolphin thing.

[goto124]

*Before anyone says anything, no, this isn't about people who identify as attack helicopters, it's just that this is used almost exclusively as a mocking response to people identifying as agender/bigender/genderfluid/trans - to say that their identities are ridiculous.

I'll be honest, and say I have not actually seen the phrase used to mock non-gender-binary people.

I have only seen it used to comment on how cool attack helicopters are.

Meanwhile, tragic belt-sander accident. A few times a year, really?

[Frozen_Feet]

@Goto124: if people want to make a fuzz about common words, that's their problem. :smalltongue: Especially since this is in a context of game.

Players don't need to absolutely agree on what every little thing is or is not in the real world. They only need to agree on what is what within the game universe. Maybe color red, virtue of strength and swords are masculine qualities, while color blue, virtue of wisdom and bows are feminine qualities. While color green, virtue of courage and slingshots are neither, or reserved for children.

It isn't hard. I've made the exact same argument about Alignment for roughly million times.

[Feddlefew]

Meanwhile, tragic belt-sander accident. A few times a year, really?

Surprisingly, groin-height and handheld power tools cause a lot of injuries to the nether regions each year.

[Rater202]

So, after reading this whole thing on a study break, I have to say that I've developed an urge to play a shapeshifter who doesn't have a gender identity, or at least not much of one, so every so often they literally roll on a chart to decide if they're a man or a woman that day.

[JNAProductions]

I'm kind of disappointed that a moderator would bring this up, considering that meme was created entirely to mock trans and nonbinary people*. :\ I mean, could we not please?

This thread seems to be headed for the "let's make fun of marginalised people" direction, rather than in any constructive direction. I already see a sarcastic "check your privilege" on the horizon.

*Before anyone says anything, no, this isn't about people who identify as attack helicopters, it's just that this is used almost exclusively as a mocking response to people identifying as agender/bigender/genderfluid/trans - to say that their identities are ridiculous. It's just the modern equivalent to the South Park dolphin thing.

I've never heard that used mockingly. I thought it was just a joke.


So, after reading this whole thing on a study break, I have to say that I've developed an urge to play a shapeshifter who doesn't have a gender identity, or at least not much of one, so every so often they literally roll on a chart to decide if they're a man or a woman that day.

Approved 100%.

[Feddlefew]

So, after reading this whole thing on a study break, I have to say that I've developed an urge to play a shapeshifter who doesn't have a gender identity, or at least not much of one, so every so often they literally roll on a chart to decide if they're a man or a woman that day.

I've done this! It's the most fun when you don't tell the other party members that you're a shapeshifter.

[dps]

Generally opposed to the idea. In a game where gender makes a difference mechanically, I'd like more control; in a game where it doesn't make a mechanical difference and is just fluff, it's kind of a waste of time. Plus, there's the issue of potentially forcing someone to play a gender they're not comfortable playing.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm kind of disappointed that a moderator would bring this up, considering that meme was created entirely to mock trans and nonbinary people*. :\ I mean, could we not please?

This thread seems to be headed for the "let's make fun of marginalised people" direction, rather than in any constructive direction. I already see a sarcastic "check your privilege" on the horizon.

*Before anyone says anything, no, this isn't about people who identify as attack helicopters, it's just that this is used almost exclusively as a mocking response to people identifying as agender/bigender/genderfluid/trans - to say that their identities are ridiculous. It's just the modern equivalent to the South Park dolphin thing.


I've never heard that used mockingly. I thought it was just a joke.Approved 100%.


Indeed. I've never heard of it being used in any serious mocking/insulting context. It's possible someone somewhere has either taken offense from it, or used it with offensive intent, but not in my experience, and I do apologize for any unintentional slight you may have suffered in the process.

[Zale]

d20
Sex


1-9
Male


10-18
Female


19-20
Intersex





d20
Gender


1-9
Male


10-18
Female


19-20
Nonbinary





d6
Nonbinary Gender


1
Genderqueer


2
Genderfluid


3
Bigender


4
Neutrois


5
Agender


6
Demigender



If the resultant character has a different sex and gender, they are transgender.

This is over reductive; the math is way off (you're very likely to get a transgender character because I can't weigh the fact that most people are cisgender), but it is the best I can come up with in ten minutes on my phone. I apologize in advance and welcome feedback if I forgot anyone or if I'm misusing the terms- feel free to correct me.

[Feddlefew]

I would recommend using D% instead of smaller dice.

[Mastikator]

I'm kind of disappointed that a moderator would bring this up, considering that meme was created entirely to mock trans and nonbinary people*. :\ I mean, could we not please?

This thread seems to be headed for the "let's make fun of marginalised people" direction, rather than in any constructive direction.

A constructive thing to say could be that 3d10 could be used to model that 1 in 1500 statistic. It would still be 2/3rds more likely that you get non-binary, but that is an improvement over 75 times.
Something like 1-499 male, 500-998 female, 999 intersex, 1000 genderless.
If you get intersex, roll 1d100 (2d10) where 1 = very masculine & 100 = very feminine

[Frozen_Feet]

So, after reading this whole thing on a study break, I have to say that I've developed an urge to play a shapeshifter who doesn't have a gender identity, or at least not much of one, so every so often they literally roll on a chart to decide if they're a man or a woman that day.

This reminds me of a BitP character I used to play. After making the description, I could not decide what sex the character was. So I asked other players to vote. The vote tied. So since I didn't know, and they didn't know, I decided no-one knows.

I then proceed to torture English language by never referring to the character with a pronoun.

[JNAProductions]

This reminds me of a BitP character I used to play. After making the description, I could not decide what sex the character was. So I asked other players to vote. The vote tied. So since I didn't know, and they didn't know, I decided no-one knows.

I then proceed to torture English language by never referring to the character with a pronoun.

They, them, etc. Works just fine.

[Mastikator]

This reminds me of a BitP character I used to play. After making the description, I could not decide what sex the character was. So I asked other players to vote. The vote tied. So since I didn't know, and they didn't know, I decided no-one knows.

I then proceed to torture English language by never referring to the character with a pronoun.

What was the character's name?

[The Glyphstone]

This reminds me of a BitP character I used to play. After making the description, I could not decide what sex the character was. So I asked other players to vote. The vote tied. So since I didn't know, and they didn't know, I decided no-one knows.

I then proceed to torture English language by never referring to the character with a pronoun.

Heh. I remember one PbP character I played who was basically an exile from the Far Realms, bound into a mostly-humanoid shape. Not only did it not have a gender, it didn't recognize the concept of gender in anyone else, so it referred to everyone and everything else specifically by name (it also had no concept of plural nouns, but that was another issue). One of the other players commented that I'd created the first character they had ever seen who spoke Uncommon as a native language.


What was the character's name?

Vaarsuvius?

[hymer]

What was the character's name?

Morgan? Riley? Cody? :smallwink:

[Nifft]

I then proceed to torture English language by never referring to the character with a pronoun.
When I was working on the Dungeon Crawl roguelike game, we did exactly the same thing for each of the gods.

None of the gods had an explicit gender (or sex), and we went out of our way to write descriptive text which avoided any need for a pronoun.

It took some effort, but I think the result was natural enough that nobody noticed until they looked for it.


They, them, etc. Works just fine.
They doesn't.

The above sentence illustrates why.

[JNAProductions]

It's a little awkward, but I've found it to be less clunky than avoiding pronouns entirely.

But, to each their own.

[Nifft]

It's a little awkward, but I've found it to be less clunky than avoiding pronouns entirely.

But, to each their own.

IMHO if your character can't use "he" or "she" (or "it" for something like a Warforged), then I'd suggest making up a new pronoun, or using one of the (several) new pronouns which have been invented for such purpose, like "xe".

This is also my preference for fantasy races which have more than 2 sexes and/or genders: invent new pronouns as necessary.

[Mastikator]

IMHO if your character can't use "he" or "she" (or "it" for something like a Warforged), then I'd suggest making up a new pronoun, or using one of the (several) new pronouns which have been invented for such purpose, like "xe".

This is also my preference for fantasy races which have more than 2 sexes and/or genders: invent new pronouns as necessary.

This reminds me of an alien race I made for a sci-fi game setting, they had 3 genders and none of the genders were male or female. The three genders looked indistinguishable to humans, but it took one of each for reproduction to occur and their family unit was traditionally 3 parents + some number of children.

[Madbox]

This reminds me of an alien race I made for a sci-fi game setting, they had 3 genders and none of the genders were male or female. The three genders looked indistinguishable to humans, but it took one of each for reproduction to occur and their family unit was traditionally 3 parents + some number of children.

That sort of sounds like something from an old book series I read called the Four Lords of the Diamond. There's an alien race in that series that reproduces with one parent that produces an egg, one that fertilizes it, and one that incubates it, or something like that.

[JNAProductions]

Then there's the alien race from EGS.

[The Glyphstone]

That sort of sounds like something from an old book series I read called the Four Lords of the Diamond. There's an alien race in that series that reproduces with one parent that produces an egg, one that fertilizes it, and one that incubates it, or something like that.

Tri-gendered races seem pretty common in Sci-fi, actually. I'm reminded in particular of the Glatun from the Troy Rising trilogy, with non-sapient male/females and a third gender of sapient neuters who incubated the young in a marsupial-like pouch (and basically ran the rest of society).

[Nifft]

On the subject of alien races, there was a "race" in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved which was made of former humans who sacrificed their humanity for the power of dragons: the Mojh.

With their humanity, they also sacrificed their ability to reproduce -- unlike a dragon, a Mojh had no trace of sexual organs, and after transformation the character could only asexually bud (the buds produced Kobolds).

They were portrayed as dangerous, powerful, and arrogant: at least some of them would totally want their own pronoun, if only to assert that they're better than you mere humans.

[Rater202]

On the subject of alien races, there was a "race" in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved which was made of former humans who sacrificed their humanity for the power of dragons: the Mojh.

With their humanity, they also sacrificed their ability to reproduce -- unlike a dragon, a Mojh had no trace of sexual organs, and after transformation the character could only asexually bud (the buds produced Kobolds).

They were portrayed as dangerous, powerful, and arrogant: at least some of them would totally want their own pronoun, if only to assert that they're better than you mere humans.

But are they a player option?

[Nifft]

But are they a player option?

Yes.

Google could have told you that -- why ask me?

Also, not sure why it matters -- PCs will be expected to talk to, and to talk about, creatures which are not player options.

[Rater202]

Yes.

Google could have told you that -- why ask me?

Also, not sure why it matters -- PCs will be expected to talk to, and to talk about, creatures which are not player options.

I'm both lazy and busy, and the concept of humans gaining the power of dragons appeals to me.

[JadedDM]

I wouldn't mind rolling for gender, but I wouldn't make my own PCs do it. I don't make them roll for height, weight, or age, either. Those things, I feel, fall into the player's domain of free choice.

But something I have been doing lately, and I recommend for others, is to roll for the gender of NPCs. I never realized how locked my thinking was in gender roles until I started rolling for sex. Before that, my smiths, guards, innkeepers, stablehands and soldiers were overwhelmingly men and my tailors, healers, tavern servers, and prostitutes were overwhelmingly women. And I never noticed this.

So assuming you are playing in a gender equal setting, I definitely recommend rolling gender for NPCs. It really helps break up the stereotypes you may be following without even realizing it.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I roll for my character's sex fairly frequently when I can't think of what I prefer, but I wouldn't force my players to do so any more than I'd force them to roll for race or height or political ideology. Up to the player, entirely.

The d8 table you listed is pretty obviously a joke, but I don't know if I like your d20 table because intersex and genderless, aside from referring to two different aspects of a character (sex and gender), are also fairly specific identities for such a condensed list. I'd probably just leave 19 and 20 as simply "non-binary" and let the player decide if that means the player is trans or intersex or what have you.


I was toying around with an idea like this:

You need two d10, one red, one blue. Roll both at once.

If red die rolls higher, your character is physically male. If the blue die rolls higher, the character is physically female. If the dice are even, the character is intersex.

Now pick up the die which scored lower, or pick one in case of intersex character. Reroll it. If the new roll is higher than the roll which decided your sex, you identify as the opposite sex. In the case of an intersex character, the die you picked determines what you identify as. If it is even, you identify as genderfluid.

The magnitude of the rolls tells how strong your physical characteristic and identity are. 0 is mildest, while 9 is strongest.

Example 1: you roll Red 2 and Blue 1. The character is hence a man, but not very masculine. You reroll the blue dice and get Blue 9. This means the character very strongly identifies as a woman. In essence, you have rolled a transsexual character.

Example 2: you roll Red 0 and Blue 0. This means your character is intersex, with a very ambiguous physiology. (Possibly child-like or non-human.) You pick the red die and roll Red 0. This means the character doesn't really have a sexual identity. In essence you have created a character who is both asexual and genderless.

Example 3: you roll Red 2 and Blue 8. The character is hence a woman and very feminine. You reroll the red die and get Red 7. This means the character identifies as a woman, but is otherwise quite masculine in behaviour. This could be described as a feminine looking tomboy.

This is an interesting idea since it naturally gives a wide range of identities without getting bogged down trying to enumerate them all, and also leaves what exactly the character's identity means to the player. I feel like it has a tendency to give trans characters far more often than would be statistically accurate unless you require a pretty big gulf in the rolls to actually be trans.

[ImNotTrevor]

IMHO if your character can't use "he" or "she" (or "it" for something like a Warforged), then I'd suggest making up a new pronoun, or using one of the (several) new pronouns which have been invented for such purpose, like "xe".

This is also my preference for fantasy races which have more than 2 sexes and/or genders: invent new pronouns as necessary.

I personally don't like using new pronouns. It connects too closely to the tumblr phenomenon of "Look how many genders I have! And I'm also pokemonkin and elfkin and Narutokin and also I have all of these mental illnessess aren't I special and unique?!" *rabid frothing about cismale whites being literal satan*

Which is so demeaning to people that actually have issues that I find myself feeling the need to repeatedly bang my head into a wall.

Using "They, Them, etc" is exactly as linguistically valid as making up new words. I haven't learned much that is helful from my Usage class, but that is one thing that is. So long as it is understood by the recipient of the communication, you're technically just fine. Maybe not in strictly academic speech, but in casual conversation there's nothing wrong with that usage. Just like how pronouncing the word "Coupon" as "COOP-on" is just as valid as saying "KYOO-pon." And when talking with your friends they might say "And Jeff was like, 'I don't want pizza' and I was like 'Of course you don't, you scrub!'" Which would be really ugly in academic papers, but is fine in casual speech. I'm from Texas, so when talking to other Texans I have access to Y'all as a plural 2nd person pronoun. When writing an article for the New York Times, I better not use it except sarcastically.

Usage.

So use They, Them, etc. So long as people understand it, and the setting is casual (such as when playing D&D and eating cheetos) then you can use it as much as you want. (In fact, the moment a party/event features cheetos, you can assume Proper English is out the door.)

[Nifft]

I personally don't like using new pronouns. It connects too closely to the tumblr phenomenon of "Look how many genders I have! And I'm also pokemonkin and elfkin and Narutokin and also I have all of these mental illnessess aren't I special and unique?!" *rabid frothing about cismale whites being literal satan*

Many stupid people would agree that hammers are good for hitting nails.

You shouldn't discount a tool just because someone dumb also likes that tool.

Evaluate the tool on its merits.

[The Glyphstone]

I was toying around with an idea like this:

You need two d10, one red, one blue. Roll both at once.

If red die rolls higher, your character is physically male. If the blue die rolls higher, the character is physically female. If the dice are even, the character is intersex.

Now pick up the die which scored lower, or pick one in case of intersex character. Reroll it. If the new roll is higher than the roll which decided your sex, you identify as the opposite sex. In the case of an intersex character, the die you picked determines what you identify as. If it is even, you identify as genderfluid.

The magnitude of the rolls tells how strong your physical characteristic and identity are. 0 is mildest, while 9 is strongest.

Example 1: you roll Red 2 and Blue 1. The character is hence a man, but not very masculine. You reroll the blue dice and get Blue 9. This means the character very strongly identifies as a woman. In essence, you have rolled a transsexual character.

Example 2: you roll Red 0 and Blue 0. This means your character is intersex, with a very ambiguous physiology. (Possibly child-like or non-human.) You pick the red die and roll Red 0. This means the character doesn't really have a sexual identity. In essence you have created a character who is both asexual and genderless.

Example 3: you roll Red 2 and Blue 8. The character is hence a woman and very feminine. You reroll the red die and get Red 7. This means the character identifies as a woman, but is otherwise quite masculine in behaviour. This could be described as a feminine looking tomboy.



Funnily enough, rolls for height and weight are more common game elements than rolling for sex and gender.

---

@SpectralDerp: random generation of character facets isn't a political issue. There are a lot of people who might want to treat it as one, but really, having rules like this is no sign the game maker or game master are aiming for "political correctness". It might as well be satire or parody of such attitudes.

If anything, since so many players have been brainwashed into hating random character generation, I'd argue tye very concept of rolling for sex and gender is politically incorrect within the hobby. :smalltongue:




This is an interesting idea since it naturally gives a wide range of identities without getting bogged down trying to enumerate them all, and also leaves what exactly the character's identity means to the player. I feel like it has a tendency to give trans characters far more often than would be statistically accurate unless you require a pretty big gulf in the rolls to actually be trans.

That is pretty interesting, I agree. I'd have to do some number-crunching to analyze the odds of rolling cis/trans in this manner, but it's not like I have anything else to do right now, and sometimes math can be a good way to shut my brain off before going to bed.

EDIT: Spreadsheet says as follows, ignoring the result of the first low die since it affects appearance/personality, not identity:
1% chance of Agendered (Triple 0)
9% chance of Intersex Woman
9% chance of Intersex Man
22.5% chance of Cisman
22.5% chance of Ciswoman
18% chance of Transman
18% chance of Transwoman

In all, a 36% chance to be Trans, 45% to be cisgender, 18% to be intersex with a gender identity, and 1% to be totally agender. That does seem a bit high with regards to RL demographics. Maybe adjust so that it takes a margin of, say, 5+ to be Trans, otherwise you just strongly display traits usually associated with the other gender, what we'd stereotype as 'camp' or 'butch'? (Note that this is not to determine actual orientation, simply how strongly the character acts/behaves as per the chart's intent).

That'd change demographics to:

1% chance of Agendered (Triple 0)
9% chance of Intersex Woman
9% chance of Intersex Man
22.5% chance of Cisman
13% chance of Hyper-feminine Man
22.5% chance of Ciswoman
13% chance of Hyper-masculine Woman
5% chance of Transman
5% chance of Transwoman

Down to a 10% chance of Trans, and 71% to be some flavor of cisgender, with the intersex/agender ratios unchanged.

[goto124]

I then proceed to torture English language by never referring to the character with a pronoun.

Been there, done that. It's all part of the fun! :smalltongue:

I had a character who started off as 'she'*, sometimes changed to 'he', at one point was 'sie' and 'hir', and other times was pronounless. I can't seem to make up my mind.

* At that time, I thought of the character as "male who looks a lot like a female and gave up trying to convince people otherwise". It was mostly an exercise in how long I could keep the pretense up... but then stuff happened.

[Rater202]

One of the characters I've premade the fluff aspects of, for if I ever get a chance to play in the Marvel Universe, is a Symbiote/Klyntar host who goes by the name Snuggles*

Snuggles would consistently refer to themselves using plural pronouns and in the narrative would alternate between plural, feminine, and "it" pronouns depending on if one is referring to the host, klyntar, or both.

They would answer to all three.

I can not deny that I wouldn't take advantage of this to confuse people.

*Snuggles is a combination of a number of concepts, one of which was "Anti-Carnage." The word carnage brings to mind anger, brutality, and violence. The opposite of that is peace and love. Thus, Snuggles. Also being able to sprout tentacles and grow extra arms makes you really good at hugs.

[Feddlefew]

I use singular they for gender neutral, and xe for creatures which reproduce using arbitrary mating types and thus can't really be classified as male and/or female.

[nedz]

That is pretty interesting, I agree. I'd have to do some number-crunching to analyze the odds of rolling cis/trans in this manner, but it's not like I have anything else to do right now, and sometimes math can be a good way to shut my brain off before going to bed.

EDIT: Spreadsheet says as follows, ignoring the result of the first low die since it affects appearance/personality, not identity:
1% chance of Agendered (Triple 0)
9% chance of Intersex Woman
9% chance of Intersex Man
22.5% chance of Cisman
22.5% chance of Ciswoman
18% chance of Transman
18% chance of Transwoman

In all, a 36% chance to be Trans, 45% to be cisgender, 18% to be intersex with a gender identity, and 1% to be totally agender. That does seem a bit high with regards to RL demographics. Maybe adjust so that it takes a margin of, say, 5+ to be Trans, otherwise you just strongly display traits usually associated with the other gender, what we'd stereotype as 'camp' or 'butch'? (Note that this is not to determine actual orientation, simply how strongly the character acts/behaves as per the chart's intent).

That'd change demographics to:

1% chance of Agendered (Triple 0)
9% chance of Intersex Woman
9% chance of Intersex Man
22.5% chance of Cisman
13% chance of Hyper-feminine Man
22.5% chance of Ciswoman
13% chance of Hyper-masculine Woman
5% chance of Transman
5% chance of Transwoman

Down to a 10% chance of Trans, and 71% to be some flavor of cisgender, with the intersex/agender ratios unchanged.

I was going to suggest something like this - only based on a different source.

This is an Old School approach.


Take some academic list of sexual preferences, oh I don't know: Kinsey say, whatever
Cut and paste into a table
Write some % numbers down the side: 01-99, perhaps taken from the academic stuff - whatever this is just a game and your fantasy world may be different
Add "00 Roll twice above" in a row at the bottom


The more modern style of play, post 1978 say, would be to let players choose their characters preferences. It's OK - this is just a different play-style - all are valid.

[ImNotTrevor]

Many stupid people would agree that hammers are good for hitting nails.

You shouldn't discount a tool just because someone dumb also likes that tool.

Evaluate the tool on its merits.

I'm not saying that my decision is correct, or even logical. It's just the decision I make. But I will assert that trying to say that using "They" is strictly incorrect is not really anymore valid an argument than saying "Dont use Xe because that's not an actual word in the English language." Which would be exactly as correct. Once we're in the realm of "just make up a new rule!" then "Just use 'singular they' as a pronoun" counts as a new rule being made up and is just as valid as making up a smorgasbord of new words. (Also easier.)

[Anonymouswizard]

Many stupid people would agree that hammers are good for hitting nails.

You shouldn't discount a tool just because someone dumb also likes that tool.

Evaluate the tool on its merits.

I'd say the situation is more using a screwdriver, and then you come along and say 'use this power screwdriver instead'. Sure, it might be more efficient, but I'm used to my normal screwdriver, and would prefer to use it. That's my personal situation with they versus things like xe/xir, and why I default to they.

When writing a genderless/sexless person's thoughts it depends, I once started some collaborative storytelling with 'Alex wasn't sure if it had always been sexless...'

For the chart, I love it as an option, but not everyone wants to play a Great Old One (on vacation) Attack Helicopter that suffered a tragic belt sander accident, so it shouldn't be enforced. When randomising my gender I tend to use odds/evens.

[Eldan]

I was going to suggest something like this - only based on a different source.

This is an Old School approach.


Take some academic list of sexual preferences, oh I don't know: Kinsey say, whatever
Cut and paste into a table
Write some % numbers down the side: 01-99, perhaps taken from the academic stuff - whatever this is just a game and your fantasy world may be different
Add "00 Roll twice above" in a row at the bottom


The more modern style of play, post 1978 say, would be to let players choose their characters preferences. It's OK - this is just a different play-style - all are valid.

See, I'm a statistician. If I did something like this (and i wouldn't ever, forcing people to play something other than what they want seems uncomfortable), I'd be using bell curves and probability distributions.

[goto124]

I still need to work out how one has a gender of attack helicopter, and what that entails.

[nedz]

See, I'm a statistician. If I did something like this (and i wouldn't ever, forcing people to play something other than what they want seems uncomfortable), I'd be using bell curves and probability distributions.

My suggestion was tongue in cheek, but fully in-line with the various charts produced in the early days - or even more recently: take a look at DMG [3.5] Table 4-24 ONE HUNDRED TRAITS p128 :smallsmile:

[Frozen_Feet]

@Glyphstone & Dark Fiddler: I wasn't really thinking of the distribution when I came up with the mechanic. Rather, I was aiming to create a mnemonic which allows you to get a lot of information from few rolls.

[AMFV]

That'd change demographics to:

1% chance of Agendered (Triple 0)
9% chance of Intersex Woman
9% chance of Intersex Man
22.5% chance of Cisman
13% chance of Hyper-feminine Man
22.5% chance of Ciswoman
13% chance of Hyper-masculine Woman
5% chance of Transman
5% chance of Transwoman

Down to a 10% chance of Trans, and 71% to be some flavor of cisgender, with the intersex/agender ratios unchanged.

To be fair if you're using a spectrum, you might want to include hyper-masculine men and hyper-feminine women as well. Although that might have some danger of stereotyping, but it would give more of the feel of a spectrum, and more of an interesting roleplay dynamic. But again that could potentially have some stereotyping issues, so it might not be good to include, it would be interesting though.

[Frozen_Feet]

Like my butch lesbian friend said when I was embarrassed by her flaming gay brother's behaviour, "stereotypes exist for a reason".

If your random character generator allows for stereotypical characters to exists as part of a probability cloud including as many or more non-stereotypical characters, that's not something to lose your sleep over.

[Nifft]

I'm not saying that my decision is correct, or even logical. It's just the decision I make. But I will assert that trying to say that using "They" is strictly incorrect is not really anymore valid an argument than saying "Dont use Xe because that's not an actual word in the English language." Which would be exactly as correct. Once we're in the realm of "just make up a new rule!" then "Just use 'singular they' as a pronoun" counts as a new rule being made up and is just as valid as making up a smorgasbord of new words.
The reason why I advise against singular they is not merely because it's (usually) incorrect. (But that's also true.)

The reason why I advise against singular they is because it's ambiguous in two separate ways -- gender and number -- while usually you don't want to be ambiguous in one of those ways, or the other.

That's the same reason why I advise against using "literally" to mean anything other than its original meaning -- if that meaning gets polluted, we won't have a word for that thing any more.

- - -

The realm you're in right now is that you're using a plural pronoun and a plural verb to indicate a singular person. Adding one new word to the language is a smaller change than changing two other things. So, yeah, any doctrine of minimal necessary change seems like it would pretty clearly be on the side of "xe" (or whatever new word you prefer).

English adds words all the time. Hundreds every year. Any argument about a word being "incorrect" because the word is new is highly suspect.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The realm you're in right now is that you're using a plural pronoun and a plural verb to indicate a singular person. Adding one new word to the language is a smaller change than changing two other things. So, yeah, any doctrine of minimal necessary change seems like it would pretty clearly be on the side of "xe" (or whatever new word you prefer).

English adds words all the time. Hundreds every year. Any argument about a word being "incorrect" because the word is new is highly suspect.
However, English (or any other language) doesn't add a lot of pronouns to the general circulation, nor does it add or change core non-referential items (function words) regularly, not even on a decadely basis. It's not accurate to say that the addition of 'xe', or any other new pronoun, is on the same level as the incorporation of a fancy new word for a self-taken picture.

Secondly, why should minimal change be the target? The target (insofar there is a target in language evolution) is more likely some 'efficiency' metric. In this case, it might be that gender and number will no longer be marked on the verb or pronoun at all, and that information is carried by other words, instead.

[Nifft]

However, English (or any other language) doesn't add a lot of pronouns to the general circulation, nor does it add or change core non-referential items (function words) regularly, not even on a decadely basis.
It sounds like you're saying pronouns are few and precious, thus we should preserve them rather than polluting their meaning, since we have very few of them.

Is this correct?

If not, could you explain why you favor pollution?


Secondly, why should minimal change be the target?
Because we are using English to communicate.

Therefore, if change hal'xic to the max themhester Englitity, for ex prontimos, an'ot go alunentic us-talkify.

(Is it self-explanatory why maximizing change is not a clever idea, or do you need me to use a less implicit argument?)

[Anonymouswizard]

It sounds like you're saying pronouns are few and precious, thus we should preserve them rather than polluting their meaning, since we have very few of them.

Is this correct?

If not, could you explain why you favor pollution?

My personal theory for why the singular they is alright is nothing to do with preserving it's meaning or polluting it, it's because I've never actually seen they as being specifically plural or singular. I think I used it as both from a young-ish age, and I certainly hear it used more often than xe/xir/blah combined in real life, so I'd say it's better to go with the version already in general use.

In practice there's generally very little confusion about whether it's they (singular) or they (plural) because of context.


Because we are using English to communicate.

Therefore, if change hal'xic to the max themhester Englitity, for ex prontimos, an'ot go alunentic us-talkify.

(Is it self-explanatory why maximizing change is not a clever idea, or do you need me to use a less implicit argument?)

Okay, then we should never change English. Keep it exactly the same as it is now, no new pronouns, no new nouns, no new contractions, no new words of any sort. It's obvious that this is impractical.

I think ExLibrisMortis has a good idea with the target probably being efficiency. If I have to remember a new pronoun for each gender, then I'm going to end up with having to remember a bunch of new pronouns before I even get to the one for 'tragic belt sander accident'. I think that it would be better to just drop any idea of gendered pronouns so that communication can be simplified.

[Nifft]

In practice there's generally very little confusion about whether it's they (singular) or they (plural) because of context.

I've seen it cause problems in communication.

That's exactly why I am advocating against it.


Okay, then we should never change English. (...) It's obvious that this is impractical.

Indeed, you have correctly discerned that small changes are beneficial.

Which is what I'm advocating.

Good work?

[Mastikator]

See, I'm a statistician. If I did something like this (and i wouldn't ever, forcing people to play something other than what they want seems uncomfortable), I'd be using bell curves and probability distributions.
That is a bell curve though, you don't need a multiple dice to make a bell curve, just make the odds of getting the various options along a bell curve distribution.



To be fair if you're using a spectrum, you might want to include hyper-masculine men and hyper-feminine women as well. Although that might have some danger of stereotyping, but it would give more of the feel of a spectrum, and more of an interesting roleplay dynamic. But again that could potentially have some stereotyping issues, so it might not be good to include, it would be interesting though.
If you're worried about things like stereotyping then you should not roll of gender, you could just as easily (probably more easily) end up stereotyping the non-cis options. The best option in that case is to NOT roll for gender and just let players write what they want.

[ExLibrisMortis]

It sounds like you're saying pronouns are few and precious, thus we should preserve them rather than polluting their meaning, since we have very few of them.

Is this correct?

If not, could you explain why you favor pollution?

Because we are using English to communicate.

Therefore, if change hal'xic to the max themhester Englitity, for ex prontimos, an'ot go alunentic us-talkify.

(Is it self-explanatory why maximizing change is not a clever idea, or do you need me to use a less implicit argument?)
I wrote up a very angry reply to this. I'm going to keep it short now, but I have to say this: I don't like moralistic prescriptionists with crackpot theories about 'language pollution', and not an iota of linguistic education (although the latter point is arguably a plus, as the same with linguistic education is even worse).

1. No, it's very far from correct. I don't care one way or another about pronouns.
2. Pronouns, as often-used functional words, are amongst the slowest-changing words in a given language.
3. Attempting to add a word to a 'closed class', like the class of pronouns, is like attempting to add a random person to the Pentagon board room. It's not impossible, theoretically, but is it really worth the effort, compared to sending a couple of lobbyists into the right bar?
4. Overall, it's probably much easier to repurpose 'they', than to add a new pronoun.
5. English remains perfectly clear if you use 'they' as unmarked third-person pronoun*. There are other ways to add gender and number, if they are required. If they don't exist yet, they will soon.
6. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as 'pollution' of language, only change, and change is interesting.
7. Language can look after itself. If there's one human invention that's never broken down or been lost, it's language**. My advice: don't worry about it, and just use language as suits your preference, without judging others.

*Compare: singular 'you' and plural 'you', inclusive 'we' (you and me) and exclusive 'we' (me and this other person, but not you).
**Except, possibly, in cases of mass extinction, where every other invention was also lost, so that's hardly language's fault.

[Donnadogsoth]

I wrote up a very angry reply to this. I'm going to keep it short now, but I have to say this: I don't like moralistic prescriptionists with crackpot theories about 'language pollution', and not an iota of linguistic education (although the latter point is arguably a plus, as the same with linguistic education is even worse).

7. Language can look after itself. If there's one human invention that's never broken down or been lost, it's language**. My advice: don't worry about it, and just use language as suits your preference, without judging others.

Don't forget how language can be strategically tended in order to bear cultural fruit.

Petrarch, the Language-Maker
http://schillerinstitute.org/fidelio_archive/2003/fidv12n03-2003Fa/fidv12n03-2003Fa_054-appendix_petrarch_the_language_m.pdf

[Feddlefew]

Everyone here knows that singular they has already been a thing in English for thousands of years, right? :smallconfused:

It's "pollution" from Latin-based languages which lead to it falling out of favor it the first place, just like how "man" used to refer to both sexes, and we had two other words to refer to male and female humans.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Don't forget how language can be strategically tended in order to bear cultural fruit.

Petrarch, the Language-Maker
http://schillerinstitute.org/fidelio_archive/2003/fidv12n03-2003Fa/fidv12n03-2003Fa_054-appendix_petrarch_the_language_m.pdf
Uh, I'm not sure I like your imagery here, particularly because it sounds like you think that there is a cultural 'fruit' (a good thing) opposite a lack of 'fruit' (a bad thing), and that there should be someone to decide about that ('strategically'). But let's leave that implication aside for a bit, as it's open to more positive interpretations.

Yes, it's possible to change language, and even create new languages (as Esperanto, and to some degree, modern Hebrew demonstrate). No, there is no evidence that any given language is better-suited to art/science/culture than any other. Yes, some languages have more attested words/more complicated case systems/more intricate word orders. No, that doesn't mean those languages can express more meaning/beauty/truth. But I think that's pretty well-known by now.

Changing culture through the referential part of the lexicon* (which is, of course, a big part of culture) is, in my opinion, very iffy business. It works, to some degree, of course - language is a very powerful way of influencing people - but it's not all that reliable. There are loads of people who've tried to change language, and failed, and there are loads (more?) people who haven't tried, but succeeded (a lot of fashionable words might be created as jokes, for example).

As a funny example, look at Volapük (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volap%C3%BCk), and specifically at this bit: "A language without umlauts sounds monotonous, harsh, and boring" (http://www.berfrois.com/2012/12/truth-beauty-volapyk-arika-okrent/). I'm not sure that quote is literal, but it gets the point across. Does it sound silly that this German fellow thinks umlauts, of all things, are crucial to a beautiful language?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Volapuk_1.gif
Be very careful when talking about 'good' language, 'proper' language, and 'strategically tending language in order to bear cultural fruit'. It's easy to sound either creepy or silly :smalltongue:.


*Changing culture through language in a narrower sense, that is, syntax and phonology, is just plain madness, I think it's reasonable to say.

[goto124]

(There should be a Friendly Banter thread for linguistics.)

Back on topic! If I play a shapeshifter character, do I have to roll for gender identity?

[JNAProductions]

Does the shapeshifter race have gender? Then probably.

Does the shifter race not have any gender? Then of course not.

[Donnadogsoth]

Uh, I'm not sure I like your imagery here, particularly because it sounds like you think that there is a cultural 'fruit' (a good thing) opposite a lack of 'fruit' (a bad thing), and that there should be someone to decide about that ('strategically'). But let's leave that implication aside for a bit, as it's open to more positive interpretations.

Yes, it's possible to change language, and even create new languages (as Esperanto, and to some degree, modern Hebrew demonstrate). No, there is no evidence that any given language is better-suited to art/science/culture than any other. Yes, some languages have more attested words/more complicated case systems/more intricate word orders. No, that doesn't mean those languages can express more meaning/beauty/truth. But I think that's pretty well-known by now.

Changing culture through the referential part of the lexicon* (which is, of course, a big part of culture) is, in my opinion, very iffy business. It works, to some degree, of course - language is a very powerful way of influencing people - but it's not all that reliable. There are loads of people who've tried to change language, and failed, and there are loads (more?) people who haven't tried, but succeeded (a lot of fashionable words might be created as jokes, for example).

As a funny example, look at Volapük (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volap%C3%BCk), and specifically at this bit: "A language without umlauts sounds monotonous, harsh, and boring" (http://www.berfrois.com/2012/12/truth-beauty-volapyk-arika-okrent/). I'm not sure that quote is literal, but it gets the point across. Does it sound silly that this German fellow thinks umlauts, of all things, are crucial to a beautiful language?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Volapuk_1.gif
Be very careful when talking about 'good' language, 'proper' language, and 'strategically tending language in order to bear cultural fruit'. It's easy to sound either creepy or silly :smalltongue:.


*Changing culture through language in a narrower sense, that is, syntax and phonology, is just plain madness, I think it's reasonable to say.

Madness, silly, creepy, be very careful...?

Any sufficiently advanced technical field requires, and will develop, a technical language. Scientific fields, engineering, pharmacology, mechanics, (classical) music, and other artistic fields develop their languages. We can take a nation's culture as a whole and consider it, as part of an ongoing dialogue of great ideas, as a technical field in which language can be developed, not through casual calculation but through artistic genius (e.g., Shakespeare). 1984-speak would be an example of intentionally impoverishing a language so as to prevent great ideas from being discussed. Dante and Shakespeare would contend to travel in the opposite direction. Not all languages are equal; if they were, "enrichment" of a language would be impossible, and no one argues that we shouldn't enrich things, do they?

[Mastikator]

Uh, I'm not sure I like your imagery here, particularly because it sounds like you think that there is a cultural 'fruit' (a good thing) opposite a lack of 'fruit' (a bad thing), and that there should be someone to decide about that ('strategically'). But let's leave that implication aside for a bit, as it's open to more positive interpretations.

Even if you take away language being beautiful (which I agree on) having pronouns that are unambiguously a person but ambiguously in other ways is a plus simply because it adds more options. Language is how we think, the more words we have the more ways of thinking we have. There's very little bad you can do by adding words strategically unless those words are hate speech. That said, there's more bad you can do if you ban words on the premise that they're hate speech.

[ImNotTrevor]

I've seen it cause problems in communication.

That's exactly why I am advocating against it.



Indeed, you have correctly discerned that small changes are beneficial.

Which is what I'm advocating.

Good work?

There are linguists who would agree with you.
But there are just as many (or more) who would chuckle at you, pat you on the head and say "Good luck with that." Because as hard as Academia tries, it cannot prevent language change. Language changes by popular opinion. End of story. End of report. Period.

"You" used to mean the same thing that the Texan word "Y'all" does. In the 1500s and 1600s, it began to shift until it fell entirely into singular use and the word Thou was dropped from the language. You can still find articles from those old linguists and scholars saying that anyone who talked like that was an idiot.

And yet it changed anyway.

Trust me, you can try to fight the inexorable march of linguistic change, but you will not be able to stop it any more than a man might stop the approach of high tide with his own arms. Few will think you're noble for it, and most will think you're being very silly.

[YossarianLives]

Why is this even a discussion? Just let people use whatever pronouns they're most comfortable with and be done.

[goto124]

It's for people who can't decide what pronouns to use. I think.

[Mastikator]

It's for people who can't decide what pronouns to use. I think.

Can't decide... geez it's not like you're getting married to it.

[goto124]

*points at LGBTAI thread in Friendly Banter section*

*hops away*

[JoeJ]

It's for people who can't decide what pronouns to use. I think.

Can we come up with a table to roll for favored pronoun?

1d4
1. Traditional he/she
2. They
3. Xie
4. Character refers to individuals (including self) only by name. "Thog go now."

[ExLibrisMortis]

This will be my last contribution on the topic of language. I will leave the final word to other posters.
We can take a nation's culture as a whole and consider it, as part of an ongoing dialogue of great ideas, as a technical field in which language can be developed, not through casual calculation but through artistic genius (e.g., Shakespeare). 1984-speak would be an example of intentionally impoverishing a language so as to prevent great ideas from being discussed. Dante and Shakespeare would contend to travel in the opposite direction. Not all languages are equal; if they were, "enrichment" of a language would be impossible, and no one argues that we shouldn't enrich things, do they?
1984 is a classic science fiction book, with the emphasis on fiction. The strong version of linguistic relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity), that the book takes as true, has not, generally, been verified by experiments. In other words, 1984 is not realistic, in this regard. If you wanted to bring 1984 into practice, you would achieve the limitations on expressed thought mostly by keeping people uninformed and uneducated, and punishing those who do speak out; these are all measures having little to do with specific language in use. However, it is possible for a supposed 'enrichment' of the specific language - initially only about the language, not politically motivated - to turn discriminatory, which is why I say:

Be very careful when talking about 'good' language, 'proper' language, and 'strategically tending language in order to bear cultural fruit'. It's easy to sound either creepy or silly :smalltongue:..
As an example, take the following non-specific scenario, in a much abstracted form:
1. Language X needs to have properties Y and Z, for good reasons, so we're promoting (the use of) Y and Z!
2. Dialect X' of X does not have Y and Z!
(...time passes...
3. Dialect X' still does not have Y and Z!)
4. Dialect X' must be bad, and its speakers evil!
Do note that discrimination based on language is a real thing, and it's no joke. I'm not saying that you shouldn't talk about good or proper language, but you should be careful. Keep an open mind, always consider that your personal preference is entirely subjective, and probably not all that relevant to others' preferences. There is no absolute standard of 'rich' language.

What you claim Dante and Shakespeare did for the 'enrichment' of language, is more of an ad-hoc romanticization of their work, than anything they (could have) planned for. Language does change in 'trends' and 'fashions', and that Shakespeare (or a given writer) was popular in his time (or any time), has certainly left its mark on English (or could have left its mark on any language).

All languages are, in principle, equal, having access to the same conceptual space, but mapping outputs to that space in different manners, possibly having different efficiency in different domains. In that sense, 'enrichment' is indeed not possible, because the conceptual space is already definitively defined, and only improvements in efficiency are possible (such as through jargon, as you mention).

To use the metaphor of conceptual 'space' to its fullest: You might not think to look in certain corners of the conceptual space, if you didn't first have them pointed out to you - that's (part of) the basis of philosophy, amongst other things. The corners that you are aware of being visited by previous users of your language are part of your culture and education. However, there is no need for these corners to have their own words, as long as they can be accessed through some combination of other words. Only the need for commonly-visited concepts to have direct access route makes it useful to have words for many different things.

Your final point does not follow. Where do you get the 'should' from, in the first parts of the sentence? As written, it doesn't even make sense. Since this is my final post on the matter, I'm going to let it lie.


Language is how we think, the more words we have the more ways of thinking we have.
I wouldn't say that. Consider Frege (and Wittgenstein): "[...] never to ask for the meaning of a word in isolation, but only in the context (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_principle) of a proposition, [...]". That is, if it's about the number of possible thoughts, it's certainly not about the number of words, but about the number of propositions, which is infinite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_infinity), as long as - at a minimum - the combinatorial basis of syntax is maintained, possibly along with a certain minimal lexicon.

The number of words you have is not very relevant to what you can think. It is probably quicker to have words for commonly-used concepts, including complex concepts that might otherwise be expressed in many sentences, but that's a quantitative difference (in speed of access), rather than a qualitative difference (in breadth of accessability).


On the thread's actual topic: How about a roll/result for 'secondary sex characteristics of A, primary sex characteristics of B'?

[Frozen_Feet]

At times like these, I pity you speakers of inferior languages. :smalltongue:

[Donnadogsoth]

This will be my last contribution on the topic of language. I will leave the final word to other posters.
1984 is a classic science fiction book, with the emphasis on fiction. The strong version of linguistic relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity), that the book takes as true, has not, generally, been verified by experiments. In other words, 1984 is not realistic, in this regard. If you wanted to bring 1984 into practice, you would achieve the limitations on expressed thought mostly by keeping people uninformed and uneducated, and punishing those who do speak out; these are all measures having little to do with specific language in use. However, it is possible for a supposed 'enrichment' of the specific language - initially only about the language, not politically motivated - to turn discriminatory, which is why I say:

As an example, take the following non-specific scenario, in a much abstracted form:
1. Language X needs to have properties Y and Z, for good reasons, so we're promoting (the use of) Y and Z!
2. Dialect X' of X does not have Y and Z!
(...time passes...
3. Dialect X' still does not have Y and Z!)
4. Dialect X' must be bad, and its speakers evil!
Do note that discrimination based on language is a real thing, and it's no joke. I'm not saying that you shouldn't talk about good or proper language, but you should be careful. Keep an open mind, always consider that your personal preference is entirely subjective, and probably not all that relevant to others' preferences. There is no absolute standard of 'rich' language.

What you claim Dante and Shakespeare did for the 'enrichment' of language, is more of an ad-hoc romanticization of their work, than anything they (could have) planned for. Language does change in 'trends' and 'fashions', and that Shakespeare (or a given writer) was popular in his time (or any time), has certainly left its mark on English (or could have left its mark on any language).

All languages are, in principle, equal, having access to the same conceptual space, but mapping outputs to that space in different manners, possibly having different efficiency in different domains. In that sense, 'enrichment' is indeed not possible, because the conceptual space is already definitively defined, and only improvements in efficiency are possible (such as through jargon, as you mention).

To use the metaphor of conceptual 'space' to its fullest: You might not think to look in certain corners of the conceptual space, if you didn't first have them pointed out to you - that's (part of) the basis of philosophy, amongst other things. The corners that you are aware of being visited by previous users of your language are part of your culture and education. However, there is no need for these corners to have their own words, as long as they can be accessed through some combination of other words. Only the need for commonly-visited concepts to have direct access route makes it useful to have words for many different things.

Your final point does not follow. Where do you get the 'should' from, in the first parts of the sentence? As written, it doesn't even make sense. Since this is my final post on the matter, I'm going to let it lie.


I wouldn't say that. Consider Frege (and Wittgenstein): "[...] never to ask for the meaning of a word in isolation, but only in the context (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_principle) of a proposition, [...]". That is, if it's about the number of possible thoughts, it's certainly not about the number of words, but about the number of propositions, which is infinite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_infinity), as long as - at a minimum - the combinatorial basis of syntax is maintained, possibly along with a certain minimal lexicon.

The number of words you have is not very relevant to what you can think. It is probably quicker to have words for commonly-used concepts, including complex concepts that might otherwise be expressed in many sentences, but that's a quantitative difference (in speed of access), rather than a qualitative difference (in breadth of accessability).


On the thread's actual topic: How about a roll/result for 'secondary sex characteristics of A, primary sex characteristics of B'?

I think you're underestimating the strategic intent and power of writers like Dante and Shakespeare. People think Shakespeare wrote nice plays and isn't that nice. Or, he was interested deeply in his society and wanted to influence it. Did he? Outside the scope of the thread, but a worthy question to look into.

As I wrote, try being a pharmacist or a mechanic without having a technical vocabulary. I see no reason not to view (Schiller) the "imparting of profound and impassioned concepts regarding man and nature" as like. Yes, people without this ability, imparted through their education are at a loss, they have been denied something important and valuable. Bad people?? No, not necessarily, but people can have bad language, to the detriment of their discoveries of principle. I'm not talking about which language is best as such, I'm talking about literacy versus illiteracy, the flowing of sophistication versus the frustrations of the simple. I know enough about the latter to appreciate the former. Orwell was right: ignorance is a method of control.

[goto124]

Can we come up with a table to roll for favored pronoun?

1d4
1. Traditional he/she
2. They
3. Xie
4. Character refers to individuals (including self) only by name. "Thog go now."

I misread that as 'flavored pronoun'.

1d4
1. Vanilla
2. Chocolate
3. Wild Berries
4. Cow Tongue (it's a thing, google it yourself :smalleek:)

[Rater202]

I misread that as 'flavored pronoun'.

1d4
1. Vanilla
2. Chocolate
3. Wild Berries
4. Cow Tongue (it's a thing, google it yourself :smalleek:)

1d12
1. Vanilla
2. Chocolate
3. Wild Berries
4. Cow Tongue
5. Spinach
6. Grass
7: Neapolitan
8: Chicken Taco
9. Root Beer
10. Real Beer.
11. Mixed Grape
12. Strawberry Surprise*

*One part Russian vodka, one part police grade pepper spray. The surprise is it's nothing like strawberries and everything like pain.

[GorinichSerpant]

12. Strawberry Surprise*

*One part Russian vodka, one part police grade pepper spray. The surprise is it's nothing like strawberries and everything like pain.

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting that.

[Velaryon]

I still need to work out how one has a gender of attack helicopter, and what that entails.

Since nobody answered this, as far as I could see: it's a meme (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-sexually-identify-as-an-attack-helicopter). I didn't know either until someone complained about it on the first page.

That said, playing a character that's an attack helicopter sounds like a whole lot of fun. Although I'd probably get tired of my friends (okay, and me too) shouting "GET TO THE CHOPPA!" every ten seconds or so during the game.

As for the idea of rolling for gender, to each their own. I would never do this, nor would I play in a game where it's required, unless I could roll on the chart that has Great Old One and Attack Helicopter as possibilities. And then I would have my characters suicide until I landed one of these two options.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

So that's what "gender rolls" are...

[Eldan]

As a funny example, look at Volapük (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volap%C3%BCk), and specifically at this bit: "A language without umlauts sounds monotonous, harsh, and boring" (http://www.berfrois.com/2012/12/truth-beauty-volapyk-arika-okrent/). I'm not sure that quote is literal, but it gets the point across. Does it sound silly that this German fellow thinks umlauts, of all things, are crucial to a beautiful language?

To be fair, I think that can probably generalized away from a German viewpoint to say that more vowel sounds make a more beautiful language. German is spelt phonetically, so if you only use aeiou, you have exactly five possible vowel sounds. English already uses things closely approximating "ä" (usually spelt "a", as in "thanks") and at least in the general vicinity of "ö" (usually spelt "e", I'd say. As in "err").

[oshi]

I have no strong opinion about it in a situation where everyone knows about it up front, most of the stories I want to tell with characters are gender neutral.

[goto124]

So that's what "gender rolls" are...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/51/151449508_d73a1c8fee.jpg

http://40.media.tumblr.com/9e0ed7a2b260864fdb64afc9e29987a8/tumblr_mp14b3OcL51r3b0kio2_1280.jpg

We still need more examples of rolling for gender, or non-"female,male" genders in games.

[Kalmageddon]

Randomization of features is nothing new to tabletop rpgs, I am pretty sure it has been alrady done before in multiple systems, am I missing something with this thread?
Is it because suddendly gender and pronouns are a big deal in today's society? :smallconfused:

Honestly, I don't think rolling for gender is a bigger deal than rolling for race, class, background and so on. It's either a symptom that you are undecided and need a bit of input or that you don't care enough to come up with a character on your own.

[digiman619]

Personally, I feel that if you roll for gender, you should only roll for the physical attributes. In the same way that rolling for height shouldn't determine how aggressive your character is. Sure, you can have it influence that choice; have it inspire your design, but it shouldn't have to play my character a specific way because of a random roll.

[goto124]

Physical attributes? That's rolling for sex :smalltongue:
And what of rolling for gender identity? :smallamused:

[Anonymouswizard]

Although I'd probably get tired of my friends (okay, and me too) shouting "GET TO THE CHOPPA!" every ten seconds or so during the game.

...I now want to play an Ork attack helicopter.


Physical attributes? That's rolling for sex :smalltongue:

The sorcerer in our group will be doing that a lot in-game :smalltongue: no, she's not a shapeshifter

[GorinichSerpant]

...I now want to play an Ork attack helicopter.


That is amazing. Now I'm imagining that orks have identities based around the most important of things. Like guns, fists, the act of stabbing, meat, explosive powders, space ships, the sky's the limit.

[Dire Moose]

I might actually do this when creating my next character.

[digiman619]

Physical attributes? That's rolling for sex :smalltongue:
And what of rolling for gender identity? :smallamused:

My point is that random generation rolls shouldn't change the way you roleplay the character; sexual orientation and gender identity are important aspects of a character, not their body. If I rolled up a random, say, dwarf, that may determine my height, weight, and eye color, as well as my stats. None of that will change the way I'd roleplay the character. Gender identity and sexual preference, on the other hand, can really affect the way I play the character. Something like that shouldn't be determined by die rolls.

[ImNotTrevor]

What if I play an alien with no concept of Gender at all, only of sex. Their species doesn't happen to have the "Gender" phenomena and thinks that it is either A. Incomprehensible or B. The stupidest thing they've ever heard of, and fail to understand why any sane, intelligent being would get worked up about their body genitals vs. Their brain genitals...feelings genitals? Whatever, it's all stupid and these humans spend too much damn time on it.

Humans are either Fertilizers (their part in the reproductive process would be to fertilize eggs) or Gestators (their part in the reproductive process would be to gestate the young) or Neuter (Born with no genitalia whatsoever.) If born with both sets, whichever one actually functions correctly would win the title. (It's based on reproductive function, after all. Not even genetics.) If neither set works right, Neuter. All the other pronouns would be replaced with "it." Across the board.

Or at least, I think that's a more realistic approach than "creatures without a concept of gender would be ultra accepting of ALL genders!" BS. They would find all of them baffling and/or a waste of time to try and comprehend. They wouldn't necessarily be douchenuggets about it, but they might be really bewildered when Caitlyn Jenner flips out for being referred to as a "Fertilizer." By which they mean, if she were to reproduce she would be contributing (Look away now, grade schoolers!) Sperm to fertilize Eggs.

*This poster absolves himself of any claims that he is transphobic or a horrible, bad, nasty, insensitive prick who needs to be chucked into a woodchipper. This species is a thought exercise, and not a representation of this poster's actual feelings on gender/sex/transpersons.

**however this poster would like to note that the fact that the internet climate is such that he feels the need to put this disclaimer on at all is BS but not really the topic of discussion here.

[Cazero]

All the other pronouns would be replaced with "it." Across the board.
Why do you think people keep coming up with 'they' or 'xe'? 'It' as a problem for common use : in the english language, 'it' is not strongly associated with gender neutral and can be interpreted as sapience impaired. The common use of 'it' is for objects, not people. That's insensitive at best and gets dismissive very quickly.

[Frozen_Feet]

My point is that random generation rolls shouldn't change the way you roleplay the character.

I don't think that's much of a point. You can incorporate personality traits and, you know, the actual role of a character in random generation. Then, it's part of the allure when the rolls tell what you're playing as.

Saying it "shouldn't be done" really doesn't follow from anything but taste. In improvised acting, we occasionally drew lots to see who gets which role. RPGs don't have to be different.

[goto124]

What if I play an alien with no concept of Gender at all, only of sex. Their species doesn't happen to have the "Gender" phenomena and thinks that it is either A. Incomprehensible or B. The stupidest thing they've ever heard of, and fail to understand why any sane, intelligent being would get worked up about their body genitals vs. Their brain genitals...feelings genitals? Whatever, it's all stupid and these humans spend too much damn time on it.

I think there might be humans who feel the same way :smalltongue:

It's kind of funny how English has a 'male' pronoun and a 'female' pronoun, while other languages have a gender-neutral pronoun that doesn't imply lack of sapience.

A poster brought up this: if gender is unimportant, there's no point to rolling it; if gender is important, let the player choose because it's too important to leave to chance. This could apply to anything, bringing another question:

How important (and in what ways) should gender be important, to make the best of rolling?

Especially for, say, going with "male body, female gender identity" (transwoman) instead of "female body, female gender identity" (ciswoman) or "male body, male gender identity" (cisman).

How would sex (and gender, and gender identity) be important enough that the entire party and the GM would gladly spend some amount of time over it, as opposed to "kill the dragon already" or "negotiate with the cult leader already"?

[Satinavian]

I think there might be humans who feel the same way :smalltongue:
Indeed.

Growing up with a language that doesn't have a word for gender, only for biological sex and where male and female is always understood to refer primarily to biological sex, i had an extremely hard time to wrap my head around the "gender"-idea as it exists in the English language. And even after finally getting it, i find it rather silly.

It's kind of funny how English has a 'male' pronoun and a 'female' pronoun, while other languages have a gender-neutral pronoun that doesn't imply lack of sapience.That is also true. When i first had contact with "xe" and singular "they", it seemed natural to use "it" instead. It took a while to understand that there are implications for that word in English that make it less useful as an option.


How would sex (and gender, and gender identity) be important enough that the entire party and the GM would gladly spend some amount of time over it, as opposed to "kill the dragon already" or "negotiate with the cult leader already"?By having the game not revolve around figthing dragons but around social and political interactions, where both gender roles and family ties/dynastic aspirations are far more important.
Of course as all of my games take place in a language without a word for gender, only one for biological sex, it is most often only the last one that is ever stated for a PC.

Transgender PCs have only make sense in settings with strong gender roles. And even then they are most likely not even remotely similar to modern trans perople as modern gender roles are usually completely different ones. The only exception are modern settings.

[Segev]

This thread has reminded me of a novel by Mercedes Lackey and Piers Anthony (and if that combination of authors doesn't give you an idea of why...well...) called If I Pay Thee Not In Gold. I will put the reason why behind spoilers if people are intrigued enough to read it that they don't want a further explanation until they do. IIRC, the following is revealed about 2/3 of the way into the book: In this setting, demons look like normal humans, but have an interesting quirk as a species: each time they have sex, they swap physical sex immediately thereafter.

[JoeJ]

A poster brought up this: if gender is unimportant, there's no point to rolling it; if gender is important, let the player choose because it's too important to leave to chance.

Mental traits like intelligence and force of personality (charisma) are important, yet those are rolled for in a lot of games.


How would sex (and gender, and gender identity) be important enough that the entire party and the GM would gladly spend some amount of time over it, as opposed to "kill the dragon already" or "negotiate with the cult leader already"?

In games that are heavy on social interaction, politics, and negotiation, issues of who is attracted to whom and how strongly could be very important. And in any society that has defined gender roles, a PC of one gender might be able to do things that a PC of another gender would not, which can facilitate the team aspect of play (especially if every gender has an advantage in some circumstances).

[Raimun]

I like to choose not only my character's gender but other background related things as well. Actually, I don't really like randomization in character generation in the first place. Have you ever heard of film or book characters who were made by rolling on random table? That was a rhetoric question.

That said, I'd really like to play an attack helicopter Human Wizard.

[ImNotTrevor]

Why do you think people keep coming up with 'they' or 'xe'? 'It' as a problem for common use : in the english language, 'it' is not strongly associated with gender neutral and can be interpreted as sapience impaired. The common use of 'it' is for objects, not people. That's insensitive at best and gets dismissive very quickly.

That is exceptionally true in Human society.

The problem with this argument is, I'm not talking about humans. I'm talking about an entity that does not think like Humans do. Why would this being use "xe?" It wouldn't. It has no such concept as "a specific pronoun for a specific sort of gender (whatever that is) that is also not one of those gender things.

Remember: this hypothetical character is a separate entity from myself/whosoever were to play it. I don't refer to people as "it." But then again I don't speak like a southern belle or a grizzled drunk russian, either. It's a character. A very alien one at that. Using "it" is meant to add to its alien-ness.

Again, this hypothetical entity is not myself nor is it anyone who has played it. I could roleplay as racist old man without being racist myself. I can roleplay a woman without being transgender. I can also, therefore, roleplay as an alien that refers to people in sentences like "The Marcus is correct in its assumptions. This one suggests that we..." without being insensitive to people's sentience/pronouns myself.

[Cazero]

That is exceptionally true in Human society.
Nah, it's not about human society in that specific case. It's about language.


Why would this being use "xe?"
Because they recognize three sexes. There are only three ways to go from there.
The english way has one pronoun for each sex plus one pronoun for objects. Simple and straightforward.
The french way has one pronoun for each sex and asexual things like objects being arbitrarily associated with a specific sex.
The third way is certainly represented in a language or five out there that I don't know about and would have only one general pronoun covering every sex.

You can certainly conceive more complicated variants (german comes to mind), but the general rules would be the same.


It's a character. A very alien one at that. Using "it" is meant to add to its alien-ness.
And in a way, that would work. Because the character would be misusing language, showing us that the character doesn't understand it.
Just like when american make a "le thing" visual joke to indicate something is french. French people cringe at it. They have three words for "le", the other two being a female variant for female nouns and an abbreviated variant when preceding vowel sounds.

EDIT : But the message you would be conveying will not be "Darn, those alien are very alien, they don't understand gender". No, it would be "Darn, those alien are uneducated and rude, they didn't bother to learn our language properly".

[ImNotTrevor]

Nah, it's not about human society in that specific case. It's about language.

Uh huh. Ok. Aliens will all share our opinions about English.



Because they recognize three sexes. There are only three ways to go from there.
The english way has one pronoun for each sex plus one pronoun for objects. Simple and straightforward.
The french way has one pronoun for each sex and asexual things like objects being arbitrarily associated with a specific sex.
The third way is certainly represented in a language or five out there that I don't know about and would have only one general pronoun covering every sex.

They have terms for those already. (And I never talked about how many sexes this species had, just how many they had identified in Humans. We know of mold species with as many as 12 sexes, but we didn't go out of our way to develop pronouns for them.)
Again, The alien doesn't have time nor energy to learn the entire linguistic ettiquette of the entire planet just to get across a simple message without you throwing a tantrum over it.



And in a way, that would work. Because the character would be misusing language, showing us that the character doesn't understand it.
Just like when american make a "le thing" visual joke to indicate something is french. French people cringe at it. They have three words for "le", the other two being a female variant for female nouns and an abbreviated variant when preceding vowel sounds.

Damn this alien that possibly communicates through digital translator because it communicates by vibrating its face-antlers! Why won't it just use perfect English like on my Star Trek Shows?



EDIT : But the message you would be conveying will not be "Darn, those alien are very alien, they don't understand gender". No, it would be "Darn, those alien are uneducated and rude, they didn't bother to learn our language properly".

Yes, all aliens must learn Human Tongue or be branded idiots and heretics! Also, mexicans who don't speak perfect English while living in America are rude and uneducated and didn't bother to learn our language properly! PRAISE GOD-EMPEROR TRUMP! MAKE TERRA GOLDEN AGAIN!

[Anonymouswizard]

PRAISE GOD-EMPEROR TRUMP! MAKE TERRA GOLDEN AGAIN!

You know, this doesn't sound too bad, if we can skip to after the siege of Terra and have him confined to the golden throne.

[Dire Moose]

That is amazing. Now I'm imagining that orks have identities based around the most important of things. Like guns, fists, the act of stabbing, meat, explosive powders, space ships, the sky's the limit.

Actually, the "I'm having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body" part is one I could see happening with Orks.

[goto124]

Is that normal for Shadowrunners as well?

[Anonymouswizard]

Is that normal for Shadowrunners as well?

Pink Mohawk or Mirrorshades?

[goto124]

I decided to do a bit of googling:

Mirrorshades: Far more professional and strict. Lots of planning, detail, contacts used, preparation, and use of the mind. Corruption is strife, however, and unless you've gone on a double-digit murder spree of security and police officers, freedom is only a bribe to the right person away.

Pink Mohawk: Full out Punk, the good guys never win, the bad guys are worse than the sociopaths, and over-the-top action is how you do things. Bring lots of drugs and even more ammo! You typically break into buildings by blowing the wall open with high explosives, and shouting “Hello <city name>, are you ready to rock?” at the top of your lungs. Followed by writing your name in the wall with your assault rifle and looting whatever you want.

So... rather normal for the Pink Mohawks, then.

[Anonymouswizard]

I decided to do a bit of googling:

Mirrorshades: Far more professional and strict. Lots of planning, detail, contacts used, preparation, and use of the mind. Corruption is strife, however, and unless you've gone on a double-digit murder spree of security and police officers, freedom is only a bribe to the right person away.

Pink Mohawk: Full out Punk, the good guys never win, the bad guys are worse than the sociopaths, and over-the-top action is how you do things. Bring lots of drugs and even more ammo! You typically break into buildings by blowing the wall open with high explosives, and shouting “Hello <city name>, are you ready to rock?” at the top of your lungs. Followed by writing your name in the wall with your assault rifle and looting whatever you want.

So... rather normal for the Pink Mohawks, then.

Pretty much. My games tend towards what I call 'trenchcoat', where the PCs are generally Mohawks who start with Mirrorshades jobs, and either grow out of it or do the rubbish jobs.

Note that a Mirrorshades character can be heavily auged (mostly subtle stuff and common things like cybereyes and datajacks).

Also note that 1e to 3e expects a more Mirrorshades style, while 4e and 5e are more Pink Mohawk friendly. Not really a rules thing, although 5e reprices an essence-cheap initiative enhancer that used to cost far more Nuyen than Wired Reflexes did, but more of a setting assumption (pre 4e is more anti-collateral damage).

[goto124]

Note that a Mirrorshades character can be heavily auged (mostly subtle stuff and common things like cybereyes and datajacks).

But would they be auged with rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on their bodies?

[Segev]

You know, this doesn't sound too bad, if we can skip to after the siege of Terra and have him confined to the golden throne.

Can you imagine trying to fit a crown-helm around that HAIR?

I'm sure he has people to do that, now that I think about it.

Still, while I am prone to join in on the Trump jokes (because I think he's a distant third in the list of candidates we currently have running in terms of how well he'd do as President), it probably is not wise to be making them for the same reason that I avoid making Hillary and Bernie jokes; enough people will find them unfunny and want to de-rail on what they feel are perfectly legitimate "correct the misconceptions inherent to the joke" grounds that it just isn't a good idea to bring them into this thread.

[Anonymouswizard]

But would they be auged with rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on their bodies?

The short answer? No.

The long one? It depends, but probably not. If operating in a lawless area a troll not having some heavy ordinance could draw stares, but generally implanted gear is going to be more useful, and anyone smaller than an Ork won't have more than a pistol implanted. The real reason a Mirrorshades wouldn't is because if you don't need it, it's safer not to have it.

For rotor blades, if they gave flight a Mirrorshades might get them implanted, but not if they are just fashion.

[ImNotTrevor]

You know, this doesn't sound too bad, if we can skip to after the siege of Terra and have him confined to the golden throne.

Nonsense. We have to build a wall around Terra to keep all those Xenos out.



Can you imagine trying to fit a crown-helm around that HAIR?
*Hysterical Sororitas Weeping*
Stop teasing the Bolter B**ches with such lewdness.



I'm sure he has people to do that, now that I think about it.

Still, while I am prone to join in on the Trump jokes (because I think he's a distant third in the list of candidates we currently have running in terms of how well he'd do as President), it probably is not wise to be making them for the same reason that I avoid making Hillary and Bernie jokes; enough people will find them unfunny and want to de-rail on what they feel are perfectly legitimate "correct the misconceptions inherent to the joke" grounds that it just isn't a good idea to bring them into this thread.

I agree. I'll stop as well.
(Even though I find that joke HILARIOUS.)

[dspeyer]

The only sentient attack helicopter I know of (http://skin-horse.com/comic/said-the-man-in-2/) is affirmatively male.

But since I've had tables running through my head ever since I first saw the typo "gender rolls":

If you are of a species with two sexes, roll d% :

1-49Male
50-98Female
99-100Intersex

If Male or Female, roll d%:


1-30Affirmatively cis, conformant
31-50Affirmatively cis, nonconformant
51-70Cis-by-default, conformant
71-90Cis-by-default, nonconformant
91-94Trans, conformant
95-96Trans, nonconformant
97Affirmatively agender
98Genderqueer
99Genderfluid, roll once per day
100Genderfluid, roll once per round


If your culture has no expectations of gender to conform to (dwarves and surface elves in standard d&d), ignore the conformant/nonconformant specification.

If your character is lawful, 31-40 and 71-80 become conformant.

If your character is chaotic, 21-30 and 61-70 become nonconformant, and 85-90 become anti-conformant.

If intersex, roll:

1-10Affirmatively male
11-35Male by convenience
36-45Affirmatively agender
46-55Genderfluid
56-65Genderqueer
66-90Female by convenience
91-100Affirmatively female

[goto124]

100Genderfluid, roll once per round


Woah woah, a human doing this?

[Rater202]

Woah woah, a human doing this?

Gender fluidity means that your gender identity is somewhere between male and female and fluctuates between which of the two it's most similar to, if either, overtime based on numerous factors including but not limited to how the individual feels at particular time.

It is a known phenomena in human beings.

Though mandating a roll each round seems a tad extreme.

[goto124]

Though mandating a roll each round seems a tad extreme.

I bolded "per round", so this is what I meant.

[Cazero]

Gender fluidity means that your gender identity is somewhere between male and female and fluctuates between which of the two it's most similar to, if either, overtime based on numerous factors including but not limited to how the individual feels at particular time.

It is a known phenomena in human beings.

Though mandating a roll each round seems a tad extreme.

Also, it will be a completely useless information during most rounds. If you're not socialy interacting with something, your gender identity fluctuation is unlikely to have any mechanical impact.
Unless your stats change in the middle of a sword swing?

[goto124]

Or... social combat! In a game where gender matters!

...

I'm not sure if this really works...


Well, having sex (not gender) change in the middle of combat for highly sexually dimorphic creatures (e.g. driders) can be interesting. In fact, a sex change may cause a human to trip and fall, just because the center of gravity has shifted.

"All of a sudden, your hips shrink and your shoulders broaden. Make an Acrobatics check against falling."

[Lorsa]

They doesn't.

The above sentence illustrates why.

How?

Since does refers to singular, it is quite obvious that they in this case must refer to a singular individual of unknown gender (or nonbinary), otherwise (s)he would have been used.

I think the above sentence illustrates quite well why they works.

[goto124]

Google is not letting me find a guide to using the singular they, someone please help me?


I think the above sentence illustrates quite well why they works.

... it works?

[Segev]

New headcanon: the singular "they" are the "them" behind every conspiracy.

[Nifft]

"You" used to mean the same thing that the Texan word "Y'all" does. In the 1500s and 1600s, it began to shift until it fell entirely into singular use and the word Thou was dropped from the language. You can still find articles from those old linguists and scholars saying that anyone who talked like that was an idiot.

And yet it changed anyway.
Heh, that's a cute example.

"Thou" vs. "You" was not a matter of number, it was a matter of power.

Royalty and aristocracy were called "you". Worthless common people were "thou".

When "you" and "thou" became conflated, it was to both the consternation and delight of egalitarians such as the 1500's Quaker community -- who were occasionally imprisoned for addressing their "betters" as thou.

The universally applicable ascendancy of "you" was not a matter of linguistic evolution, it was a matter of class warfare -- one of the few such cases which benefited mankind, I'll note with sadness. So yeah, not really seeing any generally applicable trend -- just seeing that you might want to drink deeper of history, so you don't come out on the wrong side of it next time.



How?
Subject-verb agreement, that's how.

Here (http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/Subject-Verb-Agreement.htm) is a quick guide, in case English isn't your first language. (English can be a difficult language even though it's also rather wonton in its affection -- there's no shame in being wrong about such things.)

[goto124]

Royalty and aristocracy were called "you". Worthless common people were "thou".

Now this is interesting. So if "thou" is used to address higher-class people and it's treated as normal, it's a case of Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe?

[Nifft]

Now this is interesting. So if "thou" is used to address higher-class people and it's treated as normal, it's a case of Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe?

That's backwards.

"You" was for the upper classes.

(It's the same case as the "royal We", or "editorial We" -- preserved in German, for an external example.)

"Thou" was for commoners.

Quakers were revolutionary for using "thou" to address even the Queen Herself (capitalization deliberate). Also they were exiled. It was good to be the Queen.

[goto124]

Whoops, big miscommunication. Let me rephrase:


So if, in a story written by a modern writer, "thou" is used by a lower-class character to address higher-class characters and it's treated as normal, it's a case of Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe?

[Rater202]

I was under the impression that Thou was informal-to be used among people of equal station you were familiar with, but also to people of lower station, while you was the formal, to be used against people of higher station but also among equals who were unfamiliar?

[ImNotTrevor]

That's backwards.

"You" was for the upper classes.

(It's the same case as the "royal We", or "editorial We" -- preserved in German, for an external example.)

"Thou" was for commoners.

Quakers were revolutionary for using "thou" to address even the Queen Herself (capitalization deliberate). Also they were exiled. It was good to be the Queen.

And yet, it changed. The reason it changed is essentially irrelevant to this discussion.

Language changes. Academia can try to make that not happen, but they have a long history of not succeeding.

So again, good luck trying to ensure a static English Language. It won't happen, because that's how language works. And what will rock your argument every time is the linguistic principal of Usage.

Essentially, it doesn't matter that They as a singular is grammatically incorrect, so long as whoever you are communicating with understands it.

Do you fail to understand the phrase "Where you at?" No? Then it is linguistically valid. Not grammatically correct, but if its meaning is communicated and the receiver of this communication doesn't shirk it, then Usage asserts that nothing wrong has occurred. You could not use that phrase in Academia because it would not be allowed. But if I call my friend and use it, I'm fine in doing so.

In other words, so long as I use They as a singular outside of academic use, and no one I'm speaking to cares, then I'm successfully communicating in English. (English Speakers are understanding my meaning, after all, and would generally agree that I'm speaking English.) So the reason Academia can't stop the change is the common use. It doesn't matter how intensely you frown at the word Y'all. Texans use it. Daily. And understand it. And most english speakers also understand it now. So while I can't use it in an essay, I can still use it to communicate.

So basically, what Academia says English should be only counts as far as Academic Writing/Lectures and other forms of strictly Academic Communication. Outside of that realm?
YouHaveNoPowerHere.gif

[Nifft]

And yet, it changed. The reason it changed is essentially irrelevant to this discussion.

It's really not.

The reason why that this specific language changed was political.

If you're trying to make a non-political argument for equivalent linguistic change, you're simply ignorant.

Ignorance is not a reputable argument.

This has nothing to do with academics vs. non-academics -- in fact, some (notably awful) academics were on ~your~ side of this argument, trying to change the language to use singular "he" for gender-neutral case instead of not having a gender-neutral singular.

Those academics were wrong, just as you are wrong.

[ImNotTrevor]

It's really not.

The reason why that this specific language changed was political.

If you're trying to make a non-political argument for equivalent linguistic change, you're simply ignorant.

Ignorance is not a reputable argument.

This has nothing to do with academics vs. non-academics -- in fact, some (notably awful) academics were on ~your~ side of this argument, trying to change the language to use singular "he" for gender-neutral case instead of not having a gender-neutral singular.

Those academics were wrong, just as you are wrong.

According to.... English Majors?

Or Linguists? (Hint: mostly the first.)

Because the "English Must Remain Pure, Untouched By Heresy" is held mostly by English professors who aren't linguists, and a relatively small number of linguists who really like grammar. The principal of Usage laughs you to scorn and dares you to prove why.

No, really. WHY is it wrong to use 'They' as a singular.

And saying "Because it's wrong" doesn't count because that's not a reason.

Nor does "Because it is plural" because that's only by concensus and no one ever explained WHY. Only that it was what it was.

And "This is what professors say!" Doesn't count either, because they never explain explicitly why the combination of sounds rendered by the four symbols that comprise the word "They" must be plural, and only plural. It just currently is plural, because someone wrote it down in a book a long time ago.

The real reason why it has been plural for so long is that the majority of English-speaking persons have used it as a plural. Once that changes, the whole thing crashes because the ACTUAL why disappears.

So tell me:
Why is this single word of a language built on common consensus (as all languages are) suddenly exempt from common consensus? Did the hand of God decree it? Is there a great eldritch force being held at bay by the general agreement that "They" is a plural term?

If the UK adopts "They" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, will they no longer be speaking English? Why? According to whom? If I am perfectly able to understand them without studying their language or using a translator, can they really be said to be speaking a different language?

Why? Give me a real, concrete reason outside of "Because grammar books say so." English Usage dictionaries disagree with a lot of those, and they're published by well respected linguistic institutions. So quoting a book gets you nowhere.

Why? If I understand the meaning, and communication of the idea occurs without confusion, then it is linguistically functional. It's not nonsense. It's communicative.

So Why, pray tell, must "They" be only a plural pronoun, even though many, many English speakers use it as a singular pronoun in verbal communication?

Any reasons? Any at all?

[Segev]

I will say this: I vastly prefer "they"-as-singular to most of the made-up, awkward-sounding pronouns used by some to dodge the question of what sex the person being spoken of may have.


Since we're on the subject, I will add that there is a valid linguistic purpose for a gender-neutral singular pronoun suite, even outside of any "cause"-related efforts to shift the English language forcefully. This is especially true in sci-fi and similar writings involving alien races which may have more than two sexes, or sexes which distinctly cannot be characterized as "male" or "female" (though the latter case is one around which I have I have a harder time wrapping my head). I once wrote about a species of insect-looking aliens whose male and female sexes were physically incompatible; their larval stage was a shapeshifting hermaphrodite that serves as an intermediary. For them, I chose to use "hi," "hir," and "hirs," (pronounced to sound like "he," "her," and "hers") as the relevant pronoun. It still seems a lot less awkward, to me, to use and a lot less forced than "xe" or "cze" or "ze."

[Bohandas]

At any rate, whether it's "they" or something stupid, what we need is a single catchall pronoun - AND gender - like the dwarves of Discworld before they were tainted by human culture.

[goto124]

... What are the dwarves of discworld like?

[Bohandas]

They just have a single pronoun (generally translated as "he", no doubt due to reluctance to use singular "they") and a single way of dressing, behaving, etc. for both males and females - to the point where the two are indistinguishable even to the dwarves themselves.

A large part of dwarf courtship is said to consist of discreetly trting to figure out the sex of a potential partner.

[goto124]

Reminds me of a documentry about a certain species of yellow frog that lives near a river. When a male goes searching for a mate, he look for another frog of the same species, and jumps on said frog. Sometimes, "said frog" turns out to be male too, and they (awkwardly?) part ways to continue looking for a female.

Must be pretty hard for certain RL species that aren't so sexually dimorphic. How do penguins tell each other apart?

[137beth]

I've never rolled for a PC's gender. However, I almost always roll for the gender of NPCs. On a d200, 1-99 is male, 100-198 is female, and 199-200 is other. I don't normally intentionally create trans NPCs. However, if I have to roll for an NPC's gender in the middle of a session, and I forget to write it down, I will often forget that I had assigned a gender at all to that NPC. If the same NPC reappears later, I'll then reroll for their gender, leading to a possibility that an NPC will present themselves as a different gender in a later session than they did in their first appearance. If a player points it out, I could retroactively decide that the NPC is trans and hadn't yet come to terms with their identity the last time the PCs encountered them (or I could decide they are genderfluid).

[goto124]

... you have a d200. You use a d200.

[137beth]

... you have a d200. You use a d200.

Actually I use a laptop when I am running a session, and use a PRNG. If I did have a physical d200, I'd use it. Alas, I don't:smallfrown:

(As an aside, I find it useful to use a PRNG on my laptop for rolls that I want to be secret, such as the hide and move silently checks made by an enemy hiding from the PCs. If I just click something on my computer, the players don't necessarily know that I even rolled, which is good when their characters shouldn't know something roll-worthy is happening.)

If you don't have a phsyical d200 and don't want to use a PRNG or hardware RNG or any other similar method of getting random data, you can get the same effect with the following method:
1.Roll 1d20:
2. If you get a 1-18, your character is one of the binary genders: either male (an odd number) or female (an even number)
3. If the result of the previous roll was a 19 or 20, roll another d10.
4. If the d10 resulted in a 10, the character is nonbinary gender (overall it happens 1% of the time).
5. If you rolled a 19 followed by anything other than a 10, the character is male.
6. If you rolled a 20 followed by anything other than a 10, the character is female.

[JoeJ]

(As an aside, I find it useful to use a PRNG on my laptop for rolls that I want to be secret, such as the hide and move silently checks made by an enemy hiding from the PCs. If I just click something on my computer, the players don't necessarily know that I even rolled, which is good when their characters shouldn't know something roll-worthy is happening.)

OTOH, by using physical dice you get to increase player paranoia by simply rolling a die and not telling them what it's for.

[goto124]

Every use of the dice roller should also play psycho strings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfthzU3V4zo&gl=SG&hl=en-GB) :smalltongue:

[ImNotTrevor]

They just have a single pronoun (generally translated as "he", no doubt due to reluctance to use singular "they") and a single way of dressing, behaving, etc. for both males and females - to the point where the two are indistinguishable even to the dwarves themselves.

A large part of dwarf courtship is said to consist of discreetly trting to figure out the sex of a potential partner.

If I recall correctly, it was mostly because all the dwarves are bearded and look male, and it was done for goofy humor rather than commentary on gender pronouns. (When that book came out, such things weren't even a distant blip on the radar.) I would be hesitant in looking too deeply for hidden social commentary in Discworld books. They wear their commentary on their sleeve....well, that's not true. They beat you over the head with it in a very pleasant way.

Anyways, the Dwarves are all He because they are all bearded, stout, low-voiced, hairy, and ridiculously masculine in all things. It becomes a major element of Dwarven societal change that female dwarves begin to style their beards with ribbons and wear chainmail dresses once the whole "Femininity" idea wafts its way into the tunnels. *shrug*

Cultural Exchange. It can cause weird things to happen.

[goto124]

What's the difference between a chainmail tunic and a chainmail dress? *hides in a corner*

[Eldan]

It evolved a bit over the books and it was adressed with more or less tact and skill by Pratchett depending on the point in his writing career. Later on, you have dwarves who begin to like the idea of human gender and start braiding their beards and wearing high heels and make-up with their chainmail and axes, while also referring to themselves as "she". The main objection from other dwarves seems to be that this is unnecessarily human.

[Satinavian]

So tell me:
Why is this single word of a language built on common consensus (as all languages are) suddenly exempt from common consensus? Did the hand of God decree it? Is there a great eldritch force being held at bay by the general agreement that "They" is a plural term? It is not.

But unless there is a common consensus, the word remains wrong. That is the problem with the usage justification. Until the word is actually adopted and used this way, the argument fails. And a couple of people trying to adopt it is not enough. There were many many moves to change a language that eventually failed because people stubbornly stuck to the old ways.

If the UK adopts "They" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, will they no longer be speaking English? Why? According to whom? If I am perfectly able to understand them without studying their language or using a translator, can they really be said to be speaking a different language? That is how dialects start. And later languages. Eventually you will need a translator. But if that happens, the UK will probably retain the name "English" while you can no longer clame it to be your language.


So Why, pray tell, must "They" be only a plural pronoun, even though many, many English speakers use it as a singular pronoun in verbal communication? Because far more English speakers don't use it and many don't even understand it when used that way. We wouldn't have this conversation if the word were established already.

[goto124]

https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/dictionary/dos-and-donts-for-singular-they/

I finally found the answer to my question: Do use plural verbs with the singular they.

Why? Because "you" is a singular pronoun that uses plural verbs anyway. This has the added benefit of sounding nicer. Use "themself" instead of "themselves" though.

In the end, I slice up my paragraphs to avoid pronouns anyway :smalltongue: Habit of mine.

[ImNotTrevor]

It is not.

But unless there is a common consensus, the word remains wrong. That is the problem with the usage justification. Until the word is actually adopted and used this way, the argument fails. And a couple of people trying to adopt it is not enough. There were many many moves to change a language that eventually failed because people stubbornly stuck to the old ways.
That is how dialects start. And later languages. Eventually you will need a translator. But if that happens, the UK will probably retain the name "English" while you can no longer clame it to be your language.

Because far more English speakers don't use it and many don't even understand it when used that way. We wouldn't have this conversation if the word were established already.

I think you wildly underestimate how common Singular They already is. I hear it in casual speech a lot.
"Have you seen Dave?"
"Not since 8."
"I wonder where they went?"

Just one example of the kind of usage I'm talking about. It's not that uncommon. Just not common as a pronoun specifically. But Singular They has been around for a long while. (That's why so many people find it so easy to use. They already use it in different contexts.) Keep an ear out for it. You'll start to hear it.

More examples:
People tend to use Singular They in place of the more grammatically correct "He or She"

Examples:
A Paladin may find that they aren't as powerful as hoped. (Singular They replacing "He or She")

Whenever a Fighter draws their sword, you know things are going to get ugly. (Singular Their replacing His or Her)

This happens often in speech and casual writing.

[goto124]

More examples:

Everyone should learn to cook their own food.

A researcher must be unbiased in their studies.

If your child is thinking of picking up boxing, they can visit our website.


The word "they" is the most natural-sounding gender-neutral pronoun, is already in unconscious use (which is great news!) and most likely to be re-picked up.

[Satinavian]

I honestly have never heard it in use in my whole life, as far as i know. I only ever have seen it on the internet. And even then not exactly often. That is why i didn't understand it the first or second time i read it. But as the meaning is pretty often explained, when used (which wouldn't be necessary if people understood it most of the time), that changed rather quickly.

And if i hadn't read on the internet that some people use singular they, i would simply not understand your example. I would ask myself, who is with Dave, as he obviously can't be by himself. Maybe there is a chance, that i did hear something like this but falsely assumed the statement would refer to several people.


There probably is a local component to current usage, but i really doubt, it is in common use as far as the English-speaking world is concerned.

[goto124]

Back on topic:

Roll 1d6 to see what pronoun your character prefers.

1 - She
2 - He
3 - They
4 - It
5 - Sie/hir
6 - Xie/xir
Falls off the table* - GM invents a new pronoun for you.

* Or "computer crashes" if you're using a dice roller.

[Feddlefew]

No "we" on that chart?

[goto124]

Does that fall under "they"?

Because using "we" would be like asking other people to use "I" when referring to you.

*checks Feddlefew's gender*

"She went to... I mean, I went to... what..."

[Rater202]

We would be identifying as more than one individual, I think.

I think up thread I mentioned one of my character ideas, "Snuggles" would consistently refer to her/them/itself in the plural due to the human half and the klyntar* half thinking of themselves as being close enough to count as a single being but respectful enough to acknowledged the other half.

*According to Guardians of the Galaxy and Venom: Space Knight, this would be the actual name of the race the symbiotes from Spider-Man are.

[goto124]

So... plural they!


Table 1.5e
Roll 1d6 to see what pronoun your character prefers.

1 - She
2 - He
3 - It
4 - They (themself)
5 - They (themselves)
6 - Xie
Falls off the table* - GM invents a new pronoun for you.

* Or "computer crashes" if you're using a dice roller.


The plural they would be interesting to roll though...

[Bohandas]

I honestly have never heard it in use in my whole life, as far as i know. I only ever have seen it on the internet. And even then not exactly often. That is why i didn't understand it the first or second time i read it. But as the meaning is pretty often explained, when used (which wouldn't be necessary if people understood it most of the time), that changed rather quickly.

And if i hadn't read on the internet that some people use singular they, i would simply not understand your example. I would ask myself, who is with Dave, as he obviously can't be by himself. Maybe there is a chance, that i did hear something like this but falsely assumed the statement would refer to several people.


Then what on earth do you do when you don't know the sex of the person referred to in a sentence?

[Segev]

Then what on earth do you do when you don't know the sex of the person referred to in a sentence?

Use the already-extant gender-neutral/ambiguous singular pronoun suite: "he," "him," "his."

Because it's overloaded as the masculine singular pronoun, it leads to people "correcting" it when they know the correct gender to be female, but it is still correct usage.

[Satinavian]

Then what on earth do you do when you don't know the sex of the person referred to in a sentence?
a) "he or she"
b) avoid pronouns
c) generic masculine or (rarely) generic feminine as convention dictates

depending on circumstances.

[goto124]

Use the already-extant gender-neutral/ambiguous singular pronoun suite: "he," "him," "his."

Because it's overloaded as the masculine singular pronoun, it leads to people "correcting" it when they know the correct gender to be female, but it is still correct usage.

I figured "he" was already ruled out, but since you mentioned it, here's a link explaining why people are moving away from using "he" the way you do it. (https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/300287)

Essentially, such usage of "he" enforced Men Are Generic, Women Are Special. Using "he" conjures an image of a man in people's minds, thus neglecting women unless women are specifically brought up. Notice how e.g. Hollywood movies have so few female characters? It's because a character is a man unless there's a reason to be an woman (needs to be a sympathetic victim, be a love interest to the male lead, etc). We take "men" to be the "default", and "women" to be something that exist to serve "men". Instead of seeing women as living breathing humans, we define them as being objects with no importance other than some relationship to men. It's called androcentrism, and there're plenty of articles on it - try Google.

*breathes*

Besides, gender-neutral pronouns are used not for just "I don't know what gender Alex is", but also for sentences such as "Everyone must protect [himself/herself/themself]", and (in fantasy/sci-fi novels and games] aliens and other creatures that don't fall into the sex or gender binary.

[Satinavian]

I figured "he" was already ruled out, but since you mentioned it, here's a link explaining why people are moving away from using "he" the way you do it. (https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/300287)

Essentially, such usage of "he" enforced Men Are Generic, Women Are Special. Using "he" conjures an image of a man in people's minds, thus neglecting women unless women are specifically brought up. Notice how e.g. Hollywood movies have so few female characters? It's because a character is a man unless there's a reason to be an woman (needs to be a sympathetic victim, be a love interest to the male lead, etc). We take "men" to be the "default", and "women" to be something that exist to serve "men". Instead of seeing women as living breathing humans, we define them as being objects with no importance other than some relationship to men. It's called androcentrism, and there're plenty of articles on it - try Google.I know this argument. But that boils down to "Change the language for political reason and to make people think differently"

That is something i am utterly opposed to. Language change has to come from usage alone, never be described to further a political agenda or to change society. Everything else is an attempt to control what people think. This must not happen. (Not that all the totilatarian regimes that tried, where particularly successful.)

As an aside note : While generic masculine once was the proper way, generic feminine popped into existence as soon as groups were associated more with women than with men. Which is used seems to fluctuate according to what people associate with whatever is talked about. It seemed natural and people used it and didn't care if some linguists said that generic masculine is the proper way and doesn't really imply a sex.

So it is not that generic masculine enforces and promotes "Men Are Generic", it is the other way around. As long as "Men Are Generic" is a thing, generic masculine will be more prominent that generic feminine.


Besides, gender-neutral pronouns are used not for just "I don't know what gender Alex is", but also for sentences such as "Everyone must protect [himself/herself/themself]", and (in fantasy/sci-fi novels and games] aliens and other creatures that don't fall into the sex or gender binary.Which is another reason to avoid singular they. People would assume to not have a case of unknown gender but one of neither male nor female. Or the other way around.

[Lorsa]

I know this argument. But that boils down to "Change the language for political reason and to make people think differently"

That is something i am utterly opposed to. Language change has to come from usage alone, never be described to further a political agenda or to change society. Everything else is an attempt to control what people think. This must not happen. (Not that all the totilatarian regimes that tried, where particularly successful.)

People use language different for all sorts of reasons, including political and ideological.

Why are you opposed to people attempting to change society? Are you so fond of the status quo?

If society is somehow flawed, the natural is to try to enact change. If this change is best accomplished by using language different, why is this such a bad thing?

[goto124]

Rolling 1d6 for the gender of a salad golem:

1 - Mayonnaise
2 - Italian
3 - Thousand Island
4 - Soy Sauce
5 - Vinaigrette
6 - Hummus

I might expand this to a 1d20 later on.

[Satinavian]

People use language different for all sorts of reasons, including political and ideological.

Why are you opposed to people attempting to change society? Are you so fond of the status quo?

If society is somehow flawed, the natural is to try to enact change. If this change is best accomplished by using language different, why is this such a bad thing?
If you use language differently to express your personal point of view : Go ahead
If you try to change the language of the society to bring people to think differently then they normally would : Welcome to a 1984 nightmare. Doen't matter of your goals are noble, your methods are simply wrong.

Also it doesn't work. Language follows thinking, not the other way around. The only thing you actually accomplish is contempt and hostility for the politics you try to promote. A lot of tyrrannies around the world have tried it.

[Bohandas]

If you use language differently to express your personal point of view : Go ahead
If you try to change the language of the society to bring people to think differently then they normally would : Welcome to a 1984 nightmare. Doen't matter of your goals are noble, your methods are simply wrong.

Also it doesn't work. Language follows thinking, not the other way around. The only thing you actually accomplish is contempt and hostility for the politics you try to promote. A lot of tyrrannies around the world have tried it.



I've gotta agree here. It can definitely breed contempt.

[Segev]

The argument that "men are Generic; women are Special" is inherently pro-man and anti-woman is also a bit specious. I could easily see it argued to prove exactly the opposite point: because "he" is the generic pronoun, it is the common one. It would be insulting to women everywhere to call a man by the superlative pronoun "she," so the default is to use "he." That's why people are so quick to correct when "she" is actually the right pronoun to use, lest one give offense to the socially superior sex. But it is still better to risk offending one woman temporarily than offending all women everywhere by ascribing the pronoun above a man's station to a man.

After all, women are special. They are superior. They are not common, everyday men. If you see a female character, you know she's going to be somebody important, as is the place of women in society. Men are the throw-away sex; it takes special attention from the writer/cameraman/director to make a male character stand out as important rather than scenery. Men exist to be props for women, who are the important characters, after all.


Obviously, this is a crock in our society, but the fact that a society dominated by women could use the same linguistic construct, and have that construct come under attack because it enforces the Matriarchy, indicates to me that the argument is nonsense. When the same thing can be used to prove opposite points, it is a case of confirmation bias, not actual logic. If something is both evidence of a thing and of its opposite, it is not really evidence at all.

[dspeyer]

Rolling 1d6 for the gender of a salad golem:

1 - Mayonnaise
2 - Italian
3 - Thousand Island
4 - Soy Sauce
5 - Vinaigrette
6 - Hummus

I might expand this to a 1d20 later on.

There's more to gender than how one is dressed.

(No, I don't have a point, just a pun)

[goto124]

I listed salad dressings. dspeyer is talking about how one is dressed.

Rolling 1d20 for the gender of a salad golem:

01 - Mayonnaise
02 - Italian
03 - Thousand Island
04 - Soy Sauce
05 - Vinaigrette
06 - Hummus
07 - French
08 - Blue Cheese
09 - Ranch
10 - Caesar
11 - Mustard
12 - Greek
13 - Louis
14 - Sour Cream
15 - Tahini
16 - Russian
17 - Sesame
18 - Thai Peanut
19 - Guacamole
20 - Sweet Chili

How did I do?

[JoeJ]

Back on topic:

Roll 1d6 to see what pronoun your character prefers.

1 - She
2 - He
3 - They
4 - It
5 - Sie/hir
6 - Xie/xir
Falls off the table* - GM invents a new pronoun for you.

* Or "computer crashes" if you're using a dice roller.

7. Doesn't use pronouns. Ever
8. Hodor

[Eldan]

There's more to gender than how one is dressed.

(No, I don't have a point, just a pun)

Salad expression
1-Plain green
2-With olives
3-With nuts
4-With croutons
5-With cheese
6-With seeds
7-With sprouts
8-Reroll three times

[goto124]

7. Doesn't use pronouns. Ever
8. Hodor

9. I am Groot

[Piedmon_Sama]

This seems silly. I've never in my life seen masculine pronouns used in a gender-neutral sense. If I said "the bailiff is coming and he's going to expect a fee for his time payed upon arrival, the bastard" everybody would be (quite rightly) surprised when the bailiff turned out to be a woman.

In some languages (LIKE SUPERIOR NIHONGO) it is easy to refer to someone in the third person without reference to their gender, but English just isn't really equipped for that. Using a singular "they" is a perfectly fine stopgap but it does run into problems (using "they were" to refer to a single individual is somewhat misleading/confusing). "One" seems to me from a stylistic P.O.V like a much better way to do this ("one comes for dinner today," instead of "he is coming for dinner today,") but it does sound, uh, antiquated and weird.

Let someone use "they" if they want and don't be a prick about it IMO, but also don't blow up if someone uses words like actress, heroine, authoress, etc. Maybe just be chill and be the change you want to see (or don't want to see) without getting all het up about it.

e: I fell way behind the thread didn't I

womp womp

[goto124]

A quick look on Google images says bailiffs tend to be male. I saw only 4females: two strippers, one rich ex-model bailiff , and one female character from a TV show.

For NPCs, rolling for gender/sex with 50/50 chance of either gender/sex can be a quick way to reflect a gender-equal society.

Also, my mind keeps telling me bailiffs are a type of whale. Why?

[Rater202]

Also, my mind keeps telling me bailiffs are a type of whale. Why?

Baleen whales are a thing.

[Segev]

Let someone use "they" if they want and don't be a prick about it IMO, but also don't blow up if someone uses words like actress, heroine, authoress, etc. Maybe just be chill and be the change you want to see (or don't want to see) without getting all het up about it.


See, this, I can get behind. I think people only get up in arms about things like "they" as a singular because it is in reaction to the fact that the same subcultural push to make that "a thing" (as opposed to somebody who merely does it) is the source of "how dare you call her a stewardess! She's a flight attendant, you sexist tool of the patriarchy!"

If, in general, people don't push silly, awkward things, and just use natural-sounding ones, they'll probably meet less resistance and more acceptance. Most people don't like being told, "my way is superior and if you don't do it you're an inferior human being for disagreeing with my fundamental premise." But are pretty, as Piedmon says, chill about others doing whatever, as long as they're not making demands with it.

[Feddlefew]

We say "flight attendant" where I'm from because a "steward(ess)" is generally used to refer to someone who handles logistics for social events or locations and keeps the other staff on point, but that's a probably a local thing, now that I think about it.

[Segev]

We say "flight attendant" where I'm from because a "steward(ess)" is generally used to refer to someone who handles logistics for social events or locations and keeps the other staff on point, but that's a probably a local thing, now that I think about it.

And, honestly, calling the position "flight attendant" doesn't hurt nor offend; it's only when it's insisted upon that it becomes grating.

[goto124]

I've heard somewhere that "actors" gets used a lot as a gender-neutral term. Would this be acceptable? How about "heroes" and "gods"?

[Segev]

I've heard somewhere that "actors" gets used a lot as a gender-neutral term. Would this be acceptable? How about "heroes" and "gods"?

It falls into the same category as "he."

[Satinavian]

Well, here English does have a distinct advantage. There are other languages where all nouns carry gender informations and those kind of discussions are far more common.

Recently i have come around a discussion in German, what the gender neutral and feminine version of "apostle" should be. The existing word is male only but there is some feminist pastor insisting on using both male and (so far unestablished) female versions despite the people talked about were all men. People have settled for a female word for "pope" for some time now, but there is still lacking a gender neutral one. And there are regularly discussions about what a female "knight" should be called as their are at least 3 different opinions what the correct form should be. In French there are several established words for female knights which carry different additional meanings about social hierarchy and rights/duties - which most people con't really know about.

[Lacco]

Well, here English does have a distinct advantage. There are other languages where all nouns carry gender informations and those kind of discussions are far more common.

Recently i have come around a discussion in German, what the gender neutral and feminine version of "apostle" should be. The existing word is male only but there is some feminist pastor insisting on using both male and (so far unestablished) female versions despite the people talked about were all men. People have settled for a female word for "pope" for some tome now, but there is still lacking a gender neutral one. And there are regularly discussions about what a female "knight" should be called as their are at least 3 different opinions what the correct form should be. In French there are several established words for female knights which carry different additional meanings about social hierarchy and rights/duties - which most people con't really know about.

While Slovak language is one of those where all nouns (and also verbs and adjectives) carry gender information, we don't have such discussions - at least not usually or on such scale that it's noticed by a person that doesn't watch TV (that would be me). That may be because we are kind of backwards in these things :smallsmile:. Or we just don't care - usually if the anyone asks me to call "him" a "her", I have no problem with it. I just like when people point it out politely so I don't call them the opposite. But these occurences were quite rare, at least for me.

[Eldan]

That said, I've seen it argued that English is sexist in that regard, since the terms it tends to use as gender neutral, especially for professions, are etymologically male. But then, no one really wants to start talking about, I don't know, teachers and teacheresses now.

[goto124]

And there are regularly discussions about what a female "knight" should be called as their are at least 3 different opinions what the correct form should be.

There was a discussion about this in the context of a gender-equal fantasy medieval society.

One idea was brought up - knights of all genders would be referred to as Ser Whatever (not sure how this would sound different from Sir Whatever).

And really, creating more 'feminine' words doesn't really help. The words that are currently "kinda-sorta-masculine-leaning gender-neutral" gets turned into "masculine", and become even more unsuitable for referring to females.

[ImNotTrevor]

That said, I've seen it argued that English is sexist in that regard, since the terms it tends to use as gender neutral, especially for professions, are etymologically male. But then, no one really wants to start talking about, I don't know, teachers and teacheresses now.

A language can't be sexist any more than a brick can be racist. Who on earth argues this and thinks it makes sense?

[Eldan]

Idiots? But yeah, once you know a few other languages that are related to English, you can't really shake the feeling that English uses male forms for everything.

[goto124]

How? What languages makes you feel that? Why exactly?

[Eldan]

I speak French and German and ever so often, I still stumble over trying to find a female word in English that just doesn't exist because you use the male one as a generic.

[Lacco]

I speak French and German and ever so often, I still stumble over trying to find a female word in English that just doesn't exist because you use the male one as a generic.

Could you provide an example? Ideally from German, I speak that a bit... I am asking because I never noticed myself, but I must say that my command of English leaves a lot to be desired...

[Bohandas]

Heh. I remember one PbP character I played who was basically an exile from the Far Realms, bound into a mostly-humanoid shape. Not only did it not have a gender, it didn't recognize the concept of gender in anyone else, so it referred to everyone and everything else specifically by name (it also had no concept of plural nouns, but that was another issue).

This woulf also be a good concept for a Lord of Blades cultist

[Segev]

If Doctor Who, a BBC production, isn't misleading me about the styles used in Britain, the female style for a knight is "Dame."

Sir Doctor, of Tardis, and Dame Rose of the Powell Estate.

[ImNotTrevor]

Idiots? But yeah, once you know a few other languages that are related to English, you can't really shake the feeling that English uses male forms for everything.

OOH OOH OOH! I can answer this one:

Its because English contains heavy French/Latin influence, so some words retain male/female versions while others either never had them or lost one or the other.

Teacher comes from proto-germanic language, specifically from a verb that carries no gender. So that word has no gender.

Wheras Host (and Hostess) come from French roots, which has gendered nouns.

Then you have the hodge-podge words where both were thrown in a blender.

Basically: Everything weird about english is explained by the fact that it's a hodge-podge language made by mugging other languages in dark alleys and stealing their syntax and stuff.

[Segev]

Everything weird about english is explained by the fact that it's a hodge-podge language made by mugging other languages in dark alleys and stealing their syntax and stuff.

Good. Goood. Now, don't forget to rifle through the lexicon while you've got it unconscious in that alley.

[Rater202]

There's a reason why it's called a pirate language.

[nedz]

If Doctor Who, a BBC production, isn't misleading me about the styles used in Britain, the female style for a knight is "Dame."

Sir Doctor, of Tardis, and Dame Rose of the Powell Estate.

Dame is the female style for Lord. Knights were warriors, some of whom were Lords.

[Rater202]

Dame is the female style for Lord. Knights were warriors, some of whom were Lords.

I personally prefer dame, but I've also had fictional examples of female Knights answering to "Lady" or insisting upon being addressed as "Sir"

And also one memorable case of character calling a female knight "Sir Lady Knight."

[Piedmon_Sama]

In my games female knights use the title Dame; female members of the gentry are addressed as Mistress so-and-so; peerswomen are of course addressed as "My Lady," "Your Ladyship," "O Ladyness," "Lay Lady Lay," and so on.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

A language can't be sexist any more than a brick can be racist. Who on earth argues this and thinks it makes sense?

I can carve a brick into a pretty sexist caricature...

As for the title: in the last thread on this subject the consensus was that Dame is indeed the feminine equivalent of Sir. A Lady is the wife of a Sir.

[ImNotTrevor]

I can carve a brick into a pretty sexist caricature...

As for the title: in the last thread on this subject the consensus was that Dame is indeed the feminine equivalent of Sir. A Lady is the wife of a Sir.

But the brick still isn't sexist. The message it portrays is, but the carved up brick is incapable of being sexist because it is incapable of any form of thought. It just happens to be the medium for a sexist message. But the brick itself? Nope.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

But the brick still isn't sexist. The message it portrays is, but the carved up brick is incapable of being sexist because it is incapable of any form of thought. It just happens to be the medium for a sexist message. But the brick itself? Nope.

Fine, in that case people say English has been shaped to be the medium of the sexist message that male is the default gender without actually being sexist itself.

Gotta love semantics discussions while everybody knows what everyone else means.

[ImNotTrevor]

Fine, in that case people say English has been shaped to be the medium of the sexist message that male is the default gender without actually being sexist itself.

Gotta love semantics discussions while everybody knows what everyone else means.

Well, so long as we're riding the Pedantic Semantic Fantastic Intergalactic Transit, English is by its nature a means to give messages and is only as sexist as the messages formed by it. English has a wide array of horrible words for people of various races, but isn't racist in and of itself. Just like how setting the default pronoun to He in absence of a neutral one isn't any more inherently sexist as setting it to She. (Also it saves a letter and is a slightly simpler sound to produce which give it those advantages as a word of choice between the two, but that's a different discussion)

Though in reality giving the assertion any sort of legitimacy is stupid, and pretty much everyone agrees that the notion is ridiculous, so at this point we would just be angrily agreeing with eachother from different angles.

[Bohandas]

And "This is what professors say!" Doesn't count either, because they never explain explicitly why the combination of sounds rendered by the four symbols that comprise the word "They" must be plural, and only plural. It just currently is plural, because someone wrote it down in a book a long time ago.

Besides, English professors generally aren't real scholars anyway, unless they're one of the few specializing in a legitimate field like etymology or descriptive linguistics.

[Bohandas]

As for pronouns, we definitely need to get rid of "he" and "she" in favor of something ungendered. This will not only make the language more egalitarian but also less eurotrash :smallbiggrin:

[nedz]

Dame is the female style for Lord. Knights were warriors, some of whom were Lords.

Nope, apparently I'm wrong :smallredface:

Dame is the female style for Knight - but only since 1917 - and this is only really a British thing.

It used to mean the Wife of a Knight.

[Segev]

Dame is the female style for Lord. Knights were warriors, some of whom were Lords.
Huh. I'd always thought "Lady" was the female style for "Lord."

Nope, apparently I'm wrong :smallredface:

Dame is the female style for Knight - but only since 1917 - and this is only really a British thing.

It used to mean the Wife of a Knight.

--ah, well then.

Interestingly, it was the BBC's depiction of Queen Victoria, definitely acting prior to 1917, who dubbed Dame Rose of the Powell Estate a Knight. Guess they didn't research their own historical styles!

[goto124]

Dame is the female style for Knight - but only since 1917 - and this is only really a British thing.

It used to mean the Wife of a Knight.

Well, Mistress did mean a female Master, but then things kinda changed.

[Segev]

Well, Mistress did mean a female Master, but then things kinda changed.

It still does. Context can just give it a different ... connotation.

I mean, the reason it got the "new" meaning is because the insinuation is that the woman with whom he was having the affair ruled his life. She was his "real mistress," as compared to other things which should be taking precedence.

[Frozen_Feet]

As for pronouns, we definitely need to get rid of "he" and "she" in favor of something ungendered. This will not only make the language more egalitarian but also less eurotrash :smallbiggrin:

Just take the easier way: abandon your inferior language entirely and learn to speak Finnish. :smalltongue:

[Morcleon]

Just like how setting the default pronoun to He in absence of a neutral one isn't any more inherently sexist as setting it to She.

"They" is a neutral pronoun. :smalltongue:

[goto124]

We already went over the 'they' argument, let's not get back to that state.

Many plants have both male and female flowers, and even flowers with both male and female bits. What gender would a plant have?

[GAAD]

We already went over the 'they' argument, let's not get back to that state.

Many plants have both male and female flowers, and even flowers with both male and female bits. What gender would a plant have?

Well, seeing as gender (as opposed to sex) is a mental construct and a plant has no mind or consciousness with which to comprehend such a thing, plants have both sexes but no gender.

[Bohandas]

Well, seeing as gender (as opposed to sex) is a mental construct and a plant has no mind or consciousness with which to comprehend such a thing, plants have both sexes but no gender.

What about Treebeard?

[GAAD]

We already went over the 'they' argument, let's not get back to that state.

Many plants have both male and female flowers, and even flowers with both male and female bits. What gender would a plant have?


What about Treebeard?

The question relates to plants with both male and female anatomy. Tolkien's Ents have only male or female parts, and may not actually BE plants. Treebeard both is and identifies as male.

[ImNotTrevor]

We already went over the 'they' argument, let's not get back to that state.

Many plants have both male and female flowers, and even flowers with both male and female bits. What gender would a plant have?

Gender is (apparently) a social construct. Flowers don't have a society so no gender.

(Even though we're now seeing that trans people are born with different brains, to MtF trans people habe Female brains, so now we have to figure out if we want to stick with the Gender is Social thing or not. Because we can't have it both ways.)

[Cazero]

Gender is (apparently) a social construct. Flowers don't have a society so no gender.

(Even though we're now seeing that trans people are born with different brains, to MtF trans people habe Female brains, so now we have to figure out if we want to stick with the Gender is Social thing or not. Because we can't have it both ways.)

Meh, just add a layer. It's already complicated. It won't get worse if you add a brain-sex to the genitalia-sex and persona-sex combo.

[JoeJ]

Gender is (apparently) a social construct. Flowers don't have a society so no gender.

A society can assign gender to flowers. This might not agree with the flower's own assessment of itself, but that can happen with humans too.

[Segev]

Plants, in the real world, having less personality than even the basest animal, tend to be linguistically treated as objects. They're singular pronoun tends to be "it."

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Well, so long as we're riding the Pedantic Semantic Fantastic Intergalactic Transit, English is by its nature a means to give messages and is only as sexist as the messages formed by it. English has a wide array of horrible words for people of various races, but isn't racist in and of itself. Just like how setting the default pronoun to He in absence of a neutral one isn't any more inherently sexist as setting it to She. (Also it saves a letter and is a slightly simpler sound to produce which give it those advantages as a word of choice between the two, but that's a different discussion)
Exactly, he is shorter than she, just like pretty much every word for a female anything is longer than the male version, which is used as the default. (Although to be fair a lot of English words don't really have a female equivalent, there's things like prince and princess, which even needs an extra s because the plural male comes first, but you don't have like a bakester or a playster, so English is ahead of most European languages there.)

I'm not arguing for change, I'm just saying it's really not that ridiculous to see differences between how communities using languages have formalized their treatment of men and women. Because they are treated differently by default in most languages.

Like all other social constructs, language is a tool which can help us achieve social effects, and tools all have their own properties and strengths. Some tools are better at making you hurt your own fingers than others, I wouldn't say a hammer is not dangerous for fingers merely because it will only hurt if someone untrained in the hammering arts is holding it. It's clearly a thing that can happen more easily with a hammer than with a roll of tape. Most languages, including English, are pretty good for making a distinction between men and women, much more than say between black and white people. Whether one gender gets the short end of the stick, that's a value judgment.

[Bohandas]

Gender is (apparently) a social construct. Flowers don't have a society so no gender.

(Even though we're now seeing that trans people are born with different brains, to MtF trans people habe Female brains, so now we have to figure out if we want to stick with the Gender is Social thing or not. Because we can't have it both ways.)

Which means that "LGBTI" is redundant since it seems that trans- is a subset of intersex

EDIT:
Speaking of which, "intersex" is a word that needs replacing, because while sociological gender is a nebulous feel-good concept, biological sex is a hard binary based solely on gamete production; if you make eggs but not sperm then biologically you are female and are not male, no matter how big your penis is (see any article on spotted hyena mating habits and reproduction for more information)

[JoeJ]

Plants, in the real world, having less personality than even the basest animal, tend to be linguistically treated as objects. They're singular pronoun tends to be "it."

In Spanish, plants are feminine. La planta.

[Segev]

In Spanish, plants are feminine. La planta.

True. I should have explicitly stated I was speaking of the English language, specifically.

[Bohandas]

As I said before, this is another reason we need to start using singular "they". Gendered pronouns violate the spirit of the English language

[ImNotTrevor]

In Spanish, plants are feminine. La planta.

*coughs quietly*
El Arbol. The Tree
El arbusto The Bush/Shrub

Git gud

[digiman619]

*coughs quietly*
El Arbol. The Tree
El arbusto The Bush/Shrub

Git gud

Then again, TV can be either; la televicion or el televisor, so English isn't the only language that's a bit off.

[ImNotTrevor]

Then again, TV can be either; la televicion or el televisor, so English isn't the only language that's a bit off.

Well, gendering in Spanish and other languages doesn't mean what English speakers think it means 90% of the time.

The Rock is La Roca.

After talking to a Peruvian and lifelong Spanish speaker about it, I pretty much realized that thinking of it as Feminine and Masculine is stupid because that's not the thought process of native speakers.

He doesn't look at a rock and thing "la roca. Rocks are feminine." Or "El Limón. Lemons are masculine."

They're just a rock and a lemon. Neithet feminine nor masculine. It's just a way to clarify objects being spoken of when using pronouns.

"Hay Un Limón y Una Lima. Quiero eso." Now, it doesn't matter where he points. He wants the El object, which is the Lemon, and not the Lime. If he wanted the Lime, he'd say "Quiero esa."

He doesn't need to point or specify in this case because the pronoun carries that data on its own. It's not a perfect system, but it's a good one.

[JoeJ]

*coughs quietly*
El Arbol. The Tree
El arbusto The Bush/Shrub

Git gud

True, but the given word was "plant" not "tree" or "bush."

[goto124]

To be honest I was thinking of sapient plants such as treants.

[ImNotTrevor]

True, but the given word was "plant" not "tree" or "bush."

Sure, but you can't just go with "all plants are feminine."
What's more, that's not what the distinction means, anyways. Gendered words coincide with male/female but don't imply maleness or femaleness in other objects.

[JoeJ]

Sure, but you can't just go with "all plants are feminine."
What's more, that's not what the distinction means, anyways. Gendered words coincide with male/female but don't imply maleness or femaleness in other objects.

I know. I was just being silly about the word, and having fun with the difference between gendered nouns and gendered people.

[Segev]

As I said before, this is another reason we need to start using singular "they". Gendered pronouns violate the spirit of the English language

Nonsense!

Besides, to be in the spirit of the English language, we need to find a language with a suitable singular gender-neutral pronoun, follow it down a dark alley, club it over the head, and steal the word for ourselves.

[Feddlefew]

Which means that "LGBTI" is redundant since it seems that trans- is a subset of intersex

EDIT:
Speaking of which, "intersex" is a word that needs replacing, because while sociological gender is a nebulous feel-good concept, biological sex is a hard binary based solely on gamete production; if you make eggs but not sperm then biologically you are female and are not male, no matter how big your penis is (see any article on spotted hyena mating habits and reproduction for more information)

"Intersex" refers to a medical condition where an individual has genitalia between male and female. It's surprisingly common, it's just usually corrected at birth, although this is controversial. Sex in humans is more of a bimodal distribution than a binary, since it's determined by hormone levels during development instead of being an on/off switch. Depending on how close to the middle the individual is, they may be sterile if they have undifferentiated gonads.

[Bohandas]

"Intersex" refers to a medical condition where an individual has genitalia between male and female. It's surprisingly common, it's just usually corrected at birth, although this is controversial. Sex in humans is more of a bimodal distribution than a binary, since it's determined by hormone levels during development instead of being an on/off switch. Depending on how close to the middle the individual is, they may be sterile if they have undifferentiated gonads.
I know what it means. I'm just saying that it was a poor choice of name..

Also, the word "corrected" shoukd be in quotation marks in that paragraph.