Pronoun question

[Avianmosquito]

Just a quick pronoun question for my campaign setting. Say a creature is a hermaphrodite, and it has external female genitalia and its male genitalia are inexplicably located in its digestive tract. Do I use male or female pronouns? I've been using female pronouns strictly because their female genitalia is visible so they appear female, but their male genitalia get by far more use as most of these creatures are constantly impregnating mortals. What pronouns make the most sense here? Help an old man out.

[T-Mick]

Use the second person. That'd be really unique.

Language is arbitrary. Slap a pronoun on it and be done. He, she, it, that, they, quivis sic est.

[danzibr]

Ooooh I like this question. I see merits of different pronouns.

she: doesn't give anything away. They appear female, call 'em she's.
it: may or may not give stuff away, could be rude.
they: some people dislike using they for singular, but I don't mind. The "word" themself is catching on, I hear.

[warty goblin]

Why would this species even have a concept of gender?

[Red Fel]

Why would this species even have a concept of gender?

Going with this. For all we know, they don't even refer to themselves with a gender pronoun - either by name, or by distinction ("that one over there," "the one by the rock wall," "you in the funny hat").

Alternatively, if one of these hermaphrodites enters a society with genders and gendered pronouns, why not let them choose? Why not let them say, for example, "I think I identify more with those ones, over there. You may call me 'she' if you prefer."

[Keltest]

Why would this species even have a concept of gender?

Whether or not they themselves would, other species using other languages do, and would thus use their gendered pronouns to refer to this species.

I think the pronouns used would be heavily dependent on how close they are to humanity/elfdom/dwarfdom in appearance and physical proximity. If theyre super bizarre looking and not well liked, or are physically distant as a culture, they would probably be "it". If theyre Bizarre but well liked or otherwise in a position to make a fuss if relations sour, they would probably be "they/them/you" second person pronouns. If they don't look that bizarre, they would probably be a combination of "she" and the second person pronouns, varying by region and education level.

[Telonius]

If this creature has a native language, the language probably would not have a split between pronouns. If it did have one, it would most likely be a special case, for how the individual is acting at the time. ("He" would only be used when you're talking about actual reproduction, for example).

In dealing with other languages, the creature would need to translate. How that translation would work, would partially depend on how secretive the creature is being. If they're trying to hide their own existence or blend in to the society around them, they'd probably go with "she" (as the pronoun that would cause the least confusion based on how they're usually presenting). If they're well-known and trying to integrate, it would depend on what their language did about pronouns: it would probably be "they" (or polite-form "Sie," if Common is German), with the possibility of "he" when talking about reproduction.

[factotum]

In dealing with other languages, the creature would need to translate. How that translation would work, would partially depend on how secretive the creature is being.

And also what language they're translating into. English doesn't have gender-neutral pronouns, so male tends to get used by default in circumstances where there's any doubt. Some other languages might use a gender-neutral pronoun instead.

[Aedilred]

I think it is worth drawing attention to the distinction between gender as a linguistic concept and as a social concept.

In linguistic terms, gender is simply a means of categorising words and does not have anything intrinsically to do with sex. At some relatively early point in our (Indo-European) linguistic development it was apparently determined that males and females should be distinguished by gender, and so were placed into different categories. But this is a relatively small part of what can comprise a grammatical gender, and was not inevitable. English, being a pretty lazy language, has ended up retaining gender basically only for male and female humans and throwing almost everything else into the "neuter" bin, to the extent that where everything but pronouns and one or two exceptional nouns and adjectives, the language is basically genderless. Our current conception of gender is thus almost intrinsically linked to that of sex, because we don't use gender for anything else.

But the distinction is more obvious if you look at languages more inflected than English, which is most of them. French, English's principal superstrate, assigns every object one of three genders without much regard to what sex it is or indeed whether it has a sex at all. The Frisian languages, English's closest relatives, have only two genders: common (a fusion of the masculine and feminine) and neuter. Some languages have more than three genders, and some have not associated gender with sex at all, instead having genders which correspond to animate/inanimate, or something else.

For the language society which has evolved without any real concept of sex, their use of gender is probably entirely dissociated from it, and the categories will be built along other lines. Animate/inanimate is the other common one among humans, but there's no particular reason that there couldn't be two animate genders distinguished by age, with different genders for the young and the adult, or all genders distinguished by colour, or all sorts of other things.

How such a language would translate to English is really down to the translator. It seems likely that an English-speaker trying to decipher such a language would make certain assumptions and very likely treat the gender corresponding to the character as the one which seems most obvious (e.g. feminine, if they appear female). This sort of thing can stick quite hard, but if tolerance, understanding and a more nuanced approach towards language were applied you would probably eventually see such characters choosing their own pronoun, or even introducing a new one to the language. It is hard to say to what extent one language would influence the other, as humans have no practical experience of using language to communicate with non-humans, and so all our interactions to date have been rooted in a lot of common factors which wouldn't necessarily be the case for another species altogether. So whether humans (English-speaking humans, given that's the language I presume is going to be used to portray the situation) would insist on trying to accommodate these new developments within its existing grammar, or altering its grammar, is hard to tell.

It probably also depends in part on when in the linguistic development of English meaningful contact was made. If it had happened a hundred years ago, changing the grammar would have been a massive effort and most likely this species would have been accounted for within the existing grammar somehow. If it had been two thousand years ago or longer, there's a good chance that it would have been intrinsically built into the language as it developed, and maybe our whole concept of gender would end up being different. If it were to happen today, that gender issues are already the subject of attention would probably help make it a live topic in the same way that pronouns already are, although it's impossible to say how that would/will shake out because it hasn't yet.

[Vinyadan]

In RL languages with gender (not English), it's normal to use gender as not related to sex. So e.g. in Italian tiger, panther, giraffe, quail are always grammatically feminine, independently from biological sex, while in German the word for girl is neutral.
So you can have different people referring to these creatures with different pronouns, depending on their own or their own culture's vision of them.
As for the creatures, if they have to speak about their own, they might use gender unrelated to sexual gender and referring instead to function. Again, e.g. in Italian guard is always feminine, while other professions are always masculine, independently of whether the worker is male or female.

[Icewraith]

Just a quick pronoun question for my campaign setting. Say a creature is a hermaphrodite, and it has external female genitalia and its male genitalia are inexplicably located in its digestive tract. Do I use male or female pronouns? I've been using female pronouns strictly because their female genitalia is visible so they appear female, but their male genitalia get by far more use as most of these creatures are constantly impregnating mortals. What pronouns make the most sense here? Help an old man out.

I don't think a society of hermaphrodites would invent gendered pronouns. However, translators or observers from a society with gendered pronouns would be likely to settle on "she" if the physical appearance of the species has visible characteristics consistent with females from the translating species.

Just remember that since this is your setting, you can't be wrong here. Find some reasoning you like and roll with it.

[Eldan]

Why would this species even have a concept of gender?

The first hermaphrodite I can think of, snails, do sort of have a gender. During mating, many species will fight and the loser will have to take a "female" role, namely being the one providing the eggs, which takes much more energy. So gender in hermaphrodites might still be a thing.

[Eldan]

In RL languages with gender (not English), it's normal to use gender as not related to sex. So e.g. in Italian tiger, panther, giraffe, quail are always grammatically feminine, independently from biological sex, while in German the word for girl is neutral.
So you can have different people referring to these creatures with different pronouns, depending on their own or their own culture's vision of them.
As for the creatures, if they have to speak about their own, they might use gender unrelated to sexual gender and referring instead to function. Again, e.g. in Italian guard is always feminine, while other professions are always masculine, independently of whether the worker is male or female.

Though the word for "girl" that is commonly used (Mädchen) is only feminine because it is a diminutive form of an older word for girl (Magd), which is feminine, and that only because diminutives are always neuter. German is weird.

[AliceLost]

I'd like to point out that the concept of determining an individual's gender by their genitalia is considered an outdated concept at best (biology can determine sex, but gender is a social characteristic), and only practical in this case if these creatures are near-human in appearance, and also naked. In most interactions, people don't get to inspect the genitalia of the person they're conversing with (and, if they're some alien creature, may not be able to understand or interpret those genitalia), and so pronouns and other social elements of gender are determined through conversation.

So even if these creatures have no concept of gender and will use whichever pronouns the humans they are interacting with prefer, there's no inherent reason to imagine that those humans would perceive them as "female" because of their genitalia.

[Avianmosquito]

I'm going to file that last claim under real-world religion and get out before the fighting and abuse of the report button starts. You kids have fun, and leave me out of it.

[SirKazum]

I'm going to file that last claim under real-world religion and get out before the fighting and abuse of the report button starts. You kids have fun, and leave me out of it.

oooookay... I guess that refers to a deleted post then.


In most interactions, people don't get to inspect the genitalia of the person they're conversing with (and, if they're some alien creature, may not be able to understand or interpret those genitalia), and so pronouns and other social elements of gender are determined through conversation.

This is a very good point. Especially when you're talking about creatures with an alien biology with different reproduction than mammals and no real biological sexual division. I'd think that alienness kinda trumps which genitalia is external and which is internal there when it comes to giving such creatures grammatical categorization. Heck, we mostly ignore that for real-world animals that have clearly male and female individuals (you don't see people inspecting a fish's genitalia to refer to it by its proper gender when ordering a fillet), making a big issue of that for beings where gender shouldn't really apply sounds rather unnecessary to me. Although, I don't know, maybe those creatures *look* just like human females (wouldn't be out of place in a fantasy setting)? If that's the case, that look, rather than genitalia, would be much more relevant and would probably lead most people to use the feminine.

As for suggestions, people have covered it pretty thoroughly in this thread, but here's my two cents: there are actually three angles you should consider here. One is how these beings refer to themselves, in their own language. As many have said, their language probably wouldn't have grammatical gender linked to biological sex, since all individuals are the same in that regard (if I got that right). It might still have gender linked to other characteristics - Aedilred suggested age, but for one hermaphroditic race I'm working on for my campaign setting (the Vukhars), I'm thinking of having pronouns for closer and further people/objects (the same way we have masculine and feminine pronouns), as well as grammatical gender separation between "greater" and "lesser" beings (since they're enormous and very powerful monstrosities that enslave humanoids in large numbers). Of course, one might imagine any number of gender separations, if there's any at all - Chinese, for example, doesn't have any kind of gender built into its grammar, even in pronouns (there's a way to write the third-person pronoun "ta" in the feminine, which doesn't change its pronunciation, but IIRC that's a neologism).

The other two things to consider are how other races refer to these creatures, and how *you* (as well as your players, ideally) refer to them, when narrating and describing things. I think those two can be generally the same for the sake of simplicity, but it's an interesting "easter egg" to consider when speaking in character as an NPC - perhaps that NPC is ignorant about that race, and makes unwarranted assumptions about them that changes the pronouns used. For my own setting, I've decided to refer to genderless or hermaphroditic beings as "they", even in the singular - I like this usage, I think it's a very elegant solution, and it's got some linguistic support behind it. When writing dialogue in English, I'd have most characters adhere to the same usage, but who knows, some people might diverge from that for a variety of reasons. For example, the hermaphroditic Eblians look somewhat like human males (not that much, but considerably more than like human females, say), so it's easy for a human who's unfamiliar with them to refer to an Eblian as "he". (Since Eblians don't pay a lot of attention to that distinction in other races, they might actually let that stand and even continue that usage themselves.)

[AliceLost]

oooookay... I guess that refers to a deleted post then.

I think it was aimed at my revolutionary claim that biological sex and gender may be different things. I get the impression from the OP first post that this may not be a distinction that they are familiar with, hence the need for the question.

[SirKazum]

I think it was aimed at my revolutionary claim that biological sex and gender may be different things. I get the impression from the OP first post that this may not be a distinction that they are familiar with, hence the need for the question.

I see how that might be the case, but I decided to go with a more charitable interpretation, given that saying it's about "real-world religion" and there's some flame war going on makes no sense at all :smalltongue:

[Avianmosquito]

I think it was aimed at my revolutionary claim that biological sex and gender may be different things. I get the impression from the OP first post that this may not be a distinction that they are familiar with, hence the need for the question.

No, it was referring to your claim that they are totally unrelated because one very small sample size in one species found that 0.3% of its members had opposite-sex hormones. Never mind that it's still an indicator with 99.7% accuracy even in that one context. I am VERY familiar with this claim, and I find it quite insulting that you would assume I must not know about it just because I disagree. If that isn't the claim you're making, now's the time to clarify your position. If it is, leave me out of it. Either way, that's not the subject of this thread.

This thread is about pronouns us creatures with two sexes would use for a very specific brand of hermaphroditic creatures we can't communicate with well enough to ask their opinion. This is a discussion STRICTLY on language, the rest is just tolerably off-topic. And for the record, I don't need to settle on one "right" answer, and intend to use three totally separate options.

[Keltest]

we can't communicate with well enough to ask their opinion.

Oh. That's kind of important.

Quick question, is this setting fantasy or Sci-fi based?

[Avianmosquito]

Oh. That's kind of important.

Quick question, is this setting fantasy or Sci-fi based?

Fantasy, in the more advanced reaches early industrial, but these creatures are great old ones and their offspring. The three primitive cultures aware of them, everybody else is blissfully unaware of them and great lengths are taken to keep it that way, are the ones giving out pronouns here.

[Jormengand]

This thread is about pronouns us creatures with two sexes would use for a very specific brand of hermaphroditic creatures we can't communicate with well enough to ask their opinion. This is a discussion STRICTLY on language, the rest is just tolerably off-topic. And for the record, I don't need to settle on one "right" answer, and intend to use three totally separate options.

Notwithstanding whether "Two sexes" is really true either, I for one would use "They" for anyone I couldn't communicate with well enough to know what gender they preferred.

[Avianmosquito]

Notwithstanding whether "Two sexes" is really true either,

What extra sex are you seeing? Hermaphodites? Because in gonochroristic species like humans, hermaphrodites are male. The body defaults to female, so if somebody is genetically male and not all of their genitals get the memo you end up with a hermaphrodite.


I for one would use "They" for anyone I couldn't communicate with well enough to know what gender they preferred.

And do you think this would occur to tribals?

[Jormengand]

What extra sex are you seeing? Hermaphodites? Because in gonochroristic species like humans, hermaphrodites are male. The body defaults to female, so if somebody is genetically male and not all of their genitals get the memo you end up with a hermaphrodite.

I mean technically hermaphrodites don't actually exist in humans, but the existence of intersexuality and the wide array of chromosomes as well as the fact that no-one quite agrees on what physical sex actually is makes this more difficult than it's worth, hence my saying notwithstanding it.


And do you think this would occur to tribals?

Maybe? I mean, different tribal cultures had different ideas about gender anyway (the native americans apparently recognised five, and while I haven't actually seen this cited it hardly stretches plausibility and doesn't seem disputed), and as noted that previously different languages result in different pronoun use irrespective of the circumstances. It's entirely possible, for example, that a language would lack gendered pronouns, or lack gender-neutral pronouns. In fact, grammatical gender is a really weird concept so I don't see that the distinction between pronouns for different genders would necessarily even be a thing for speakers of that language (some languages have different pronouns for things depending on where they are and whether or not they can be seen and whether or not they're alive, but if you asked someone whether they'd use alive or not-alive pronouns for undead they'd probably respond with some variant on "What?").

I mean, it just depends completely on the attitudes of the tribes, the origins of their languages and their understanding of the creatures they saw. You could come up with a convincing argument for practically any pronoun.

[enderlord99]

No, it was referring to your claim that they are totally unrelated because one very small sample size in one species found that 0.3% of its members had opposite-sex hormones. Never mind that it's still an indicator with 99.7% accuracy even in that one context. I am VERY familiar with this claim, and I find it quite insulting that you would assume I must not know about it just because I disagree. If that isn't the claim you're making, now's the time to clarify your position. If it is, leave me out of it. Either way, that's not the subject of this thread.

This thread is about pronouns us creatures with two sexes would use for a very specific brand of hermaphroditic creatures we can't communicate with well enough to ask their opinion. This is a discussion STRICTLY on language, the rest is just tolerably off-topic. And for the record, I don't need to settle on one "right" answer, and intend to use three totally separate options.

:smallconfused: What does that have to do with religion, exactly?

[Avianmosquito]

I mean technically hermaphrodites don't actually exist in humans, but the existence of intersexuality and the wide array of chromosomes as well as the fact that no-one quite agrees on what physical sex actually is makes this more difficult than it's worth, hence my saying notwithstanding it.

There's no real argument about physical sex. It's gender people waste their time arguing about.


Maybe? I mean, different tribal cultures had different ideas about gender anyway (the native americans apparently recognised five, and while I haven't actually seen this cited it hardly stretches plausibility and doesn't seem disputed),

The actual truth of that claim is that some Native American languages have as many as five grammatical genders. That isn't that many, English has three.


and as noted that previously different languages result in different pronoun use irrespective of the circumstances. It's entirely possible, for example, that a language would lack gendered pronouns, or lack gender-neutral pronouns. In fact, grammatical gender is a really weird concept so I don't see that the distinction between pronouns for different genders would necessarily even be a thing for speakers of that language (some languages have different pronouns for things depending on where they are and whether or not they can be seen and whether or not they're alive, but if you asked someone whether they'd use alive or not-alive pronouns for undead they'd probably respond with some variant on "What?").

Truth be told, I friggin' hate grammatical gender. Especially how it's used in English. It makes things REALLY complicated that don't need to be at all complicated.


I mean, it just depends completely on the attitudes of the tribes, the origins of their languages and their understanding of the creatures they saw. You could come up with a convincing argument for practically any pronoun.

I ended up going with the sahuagin using female pronouns, halflings determining it by context and hobgoblins not having grammatical gender. Those three's conlangs are the most important.

[Avianmosquito]

:smallconfused: What does that have to do with religion, exactly?

It's a dogmatic belief with strong emotional investment that is almost without fail part of a larger structure of such beliefs. "Religion" may be overly harsh, but whatever it is it is a subject that is hard to have a civil discussion on. That's the same reason religion and politics are off limits here, whether that is a good policy or not is irrelevant. The rules don't specifically forbid this exact topic, but the mods won't be happy if it turns into a flame war and I guarantee you I would take the blame even if I remain civil throughout. I don't care if I get insulted, but I'm not interested in being banned.

If that is her position, as her words and attitude so far have indicated, I will not discuss it with her. If it isn't her position I'm curious what her position actually is but it's still off topic and probably has the same problem. So let's just not get into it either way.

[Vinyadan]

About languages without neuter pronouns: Italian doesn't have a neutral gender. French also has only feminine and masculine, as far as I have seen.

Hermaphrodites as a character was masculine in Greek.

Also, we may not verify a fish for its sex before we eat it, but bears do (they prefer females, because they like eggs).

About Mädchen, I've been told that Bulgarian has the same thing: the word meaning girl is a neuter and a diminutive.

[danzibr]

Also, we may not verify a fish for its sex before we eat it, but bears do (they prefer females, because they like eggs).
Huh. The things you learn.

[Aedilred]

The actual truth of that claim is that some Native American languages have as many as five grammatical genders. That isn't that many, English has three.
In one sense, yes. In another sense, having four arms isn't that many, because humans have two. Most languages have only three genders or fewer, and in many of those languages which have more than three (such as Bantu languages, which is probably the largest group that commonly has them) the noun classes are often not referred to as genders, but as something else. So by linguistic standards, five is quite a lot.


Truth be told, I friggin' hate grammatical gender. Especially how it's used in English. It makes things REALLY complicated that don't need to be at all complicated.
I think that depends on perspective, and whether you consider a short list of exceptions to be more complicated than an exhaustive list of regular rules. As a native speaker, I am obviously biased, but I think of all the languages I've studied English has by far the easiest gender system, because it really is just the pronouns, and even they only really apply to humans (it's true, they are also used for animals, but generally in doing so the animal is being partially anthopormorphised, and "it" is almost always acceptable for animals).

If you mean the arguments and discussions about gender that it causes, well, I can see your point. But I think the real issue there is not that English's gender system is too complicated but that one way or another it isn't complicated enough; it's humans that are too complicated for the language we've created.



It's a dogmatic belief with strong emotional investment that is almost without fail part of a larger structure of such beliefs. "Religion" may be overly harsh, but whatever it is it is a subject that is hard to have a civil discussion on. That's the same reason religion and politics are off limits here, whether that is a good policy or not is irrelevant. The rules don't specifically forbid this exact topic, but the mods won't be happy if it turns into a flame war and I guarantee you I would take the blame even if I remain civil throughout. I don't care if I get insulted, but I'm not interested in being banned.

Relation to religion and politics aside, gender is a topic which is, in practice, actively encouraged on the board. Obviously flame wars are bad whatever the topic, but if you're trusting that when discussion of social gender comes up then the mods will shut things down for getting too close to forbidden topics, you're going to be disappointed. And I think in this case given your OP, social gender/biological sex/their relation is pretty much on-topic, even if you'd rather it wasn't.

[Scarlet Knight]

The actual truth of that claim is that some Native American languages have as many as five grammatical genders. That isn't that many, English has three...
Truth be told, I friggin' hate grammatical gender. Especially how it's used in English. It makes things REALLY complicated that don't need to be at all complicated.


As has been said, it's a fantasy world, so you can do what you want, including making one up. "We call ourselves ' blurps'. There is not a good translation in your language...the closest is 'sperm coughers'."

I am curious why the male genitalia is in the digestive tract? So they can impregnate females with cunninglingus ? :smallconfused:

But since you're using English (as would the creature), the correct word is "it". Limited choices make choosing easy ( Neither A nor B leaves only C).

[Aedilred]

About languages without neuter pronouns: Italian doesn't have a neutral gender. French also has only feminine and masculine, as far as I have seen.


French does have a neuter gender, but it's much smaller than the other two, and there aren't any specifically neuter pronouns. Unlike English, though, the reflexive, disjunctive and indirect-object pronouns are the same regardless of gender: this could thus be compared to uses of "them, themselves" etc. in English and so are neuter/genderless in practice if not by classification. There is also the strange case of on.

[Lycunadari]

Singular they has already been mentioned and is the oldest and probably best known option (it has been used since the 14th century or earlier), but there are actually quite a lot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Alternatives_to_generic_he) of neutral pronouns in English, most of them having been used since the 70s or 80s (one of them was even coined in 1884). Personally, I'm a fan of Spivak pronouns (ey/em/eir) because they are easy to use (like they) while avoiding the possible confusion of singular they, and of ze/hir/hirs because of the similarity to more traditional pronouns (it's basically a mix of male and female pronouns).

[Vinyadan]

I am just curious, can you give an example of neutrum in French? I have had the impression that it is like Italian, with some elements that are historically Latin neuter, but flowed into masculine when their identifying labels became the same.

About the reflexives, I don't really see them as neuter or genderless. This is evident if you attach an adjective or participle to them. I'd rather call them inflexible. It's like je and tu, they don't change, but they aren't actually genderless, since adjectives are still gendered in accordance to the subject (tu es belle, tu es beau).

Of course, there are some impersonal forms which don't have interest in gender, but those are impersonal, rather than neuter: there is IMHO a large difference between them, since an impersonal form doesn't specify the subject, while a neuter form specifies the fact that it's neuter.

It's possible that I'm making some assumptions here, since I never studied French systematically, but these are some interesting things.

[T-Mick]

I'm doing wagers early this thread, since my gut says it's going to go long. I'm putting myself down as "locked after six pages, but before it reaches ten." Any takers?

Also, I don't like the word "neuter" as a description of gender, since the etymology implies binary gender distinctions. (Ne-Uter = Not-Either) :smallsmile:

[Avianmosquito]

As has been said, it's a fantasy world, so you can do what you want, including making one up. "We call ourselves ' blurps'. There is not a good translation in your language...the closest is 'sperm coughers'."

You missed the "can't commumicate" bit, huh.


I am curious why the male genitalia is in the digestive tract? So they can impregnate females with cunninglingus ? :smallconfused:

We may never know... Except that they're all huge, gargantuan or colossal and can somehow impregnate terrestrial sophonts of drastically reduced girth. Even if they're infertile, or outside of breeding age, or ovoviviparous. Really, as long as they're female it works no matter how much it shouldn't. Their male reproductive organs are all the way in their stomach, by the way, and their stomach really seems to be used for everything. Eating, obviously, it houses their male reproductive anatomy, it can heal people and it can raise the dead. One must imagine mating is difficult for them, but circumstances ensured that anyway.


But since you're using English (as would the creature), the correct word is "it". Limited choices make choosing easy ( Neither A nor B leaves only C).

Actually, the speakers wouldn't be speaking English. They'd be speaking their own languages, players and DMs are translating. The creatures also don't talk. Not to us, at least. Maybe not in a way we can perceive, either.

[Keltest]

Actually, the speakers wouldn't be speaking English. They'd be speaking their own languages, players and DMs are translating. The creatures also don't talk. Not to us, at least. Maybe not in a way we can perceive, either.

So now its potentially multiple different groups each independently making a decision?

The solution then is to let your players pick their own pronouns. Whos going to tell them differently? The things that cant communicate?

[Aedilred]

Singular they has already been mentioned and is the oldest and probably best known option (it has been used since the 14th century or earlier), but there are actually quite a lot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Alternatives_to_generic_he) of neutral pronouns in English, most of them having been used since the 70s or 80s (one of them was even coined in 1884). Personally, I'm a fan of Spivak pronouns (ey/em/eir) because they are easy to use (like they) while avoiding the possible confusion of singular they, and of ze/hir/hirs because of the similarity to more traditional pronouns (it's basically a mix of male and female pronouns).
The problem with all of these pronouns is that they're not in sufficiently general circulation; even if they date back over a hundred years in coinage they've never penetrated the language sufficiently for them to be adopted into it at a natural-learning level. They're things people add to their vocabulary deliberately, usually as adults, and consequently usage in doing so is far from universal even within a given dialectical community let alone across the whole Anglosphere. While I've been hanging out on GitP long enough to be familiar with at least some of them, I don't think I've ever heard one used in conversation, and even were I to use them myself I would have no confidence that most people would know what I mean, which means I'd need to clarify. Especially when those pronouns are homophones with other words or common exclamations (which can vary by dialect).

The other issue of course is that there are just way too many different ones. If English had a single, generally-agreed, gender-neutral singular pronoun, it would stand a much better chance of adoption than the four or five moderately prevalent ones, and the potentially dozens of more esoteric ones, currently do.

If we could all agree on "they" then I think everything would be much simpler, apart from the occasional instance of number confusion which isn't really any worse than what we currently have. And in the long run I think that's probably what's going to happen. But I also suspect it's going to take a while.

It is hard to tell how this could change were we to introduce a clearly distinctive separate sentient species into the mix which wanted/was assigned its own pronoun. Part of the issue with adopting new pronouns as it is is that it's largely assigned/decided at an individual level, there's no common standard, and it's almost always possible to shove people into one of the existing pronoun groups and have people know what you mean - whether that person likes it or not. Something where that isn't the case, like an asexual/intersex nonhuman (notwithstanding any female appearance or masculine-default that would likely have an effect early on), might have sufficient general applicability to push an additional pronoun into the language if it could be agreed what it was. But that's not something we can test. And if this species can't actually communicate with humans, it seems unlikely to happen at all.

From a purely practical perspective at the gaming table, it's going to depend on player-group. Some will likely have fun with or readily adopt the idea of a particular pronoun to refer to such a fantasy species, but I would imagine that in most cases it's going to be easier to use an existing pronoun, be that he, she or they. Otherwise it'll just be a constant battle with players to remind them to use the pronoun for not a lot of benefit, and it's hard enough to get players to use appropriate names and vocabulary a lot of the time even when it does matter.

I am just curious, can you give an example of neutrum in French? I have had the impression that it is like Italian, with some elements that are historically Latin neuter, but flowed into masculine when their identifying labels became the same.

About the reflexives, I don't really see them as neuter or genderless. This is evident if you attach an adjective or participle to them. I'd rather call them inflexible. It's like je and tu, they don't change, but they aren't actually genderless, since adjectives are still gendered in accordance to the subject (tu es belle, tu es beau).

Of course, there are some impersonal forms which don't have interest in gender, but those are impersonal, rather than neuter: there is IMHO a large difference between them, since an impersonal form doesn't specify the subject, while a neuter form specifies the fact that it's neuter.

It's possible that I'm making some assumptions here, since I never studied French systematically, but these are some interesting things.
So I was certain that I encountered some neuter nouns in French when I studied it, but that was a long time ago and I can't remember what any of them are. I don't have my big-ass French dictionary with me, and Google has failed me. So maybe I misremember.

"le" seems to be the closest thing to a neuter pronoun that Google has thrown up (the pronoun, not the article, that is), as in the sense of "je le suis" - I am [that], used in a conditional or responsive sense, but that's also basically impersonal.

[SirKazum]

Wait, if these creatures are enormous, obviously non-human, "great ancients" that don't communicate with the more common species in the setting at all (a rather interesting concept, I'd add), then it seems less and less likely that those lesser humanoids would insist on inspecting their genitalia before deciding on how to refer to them. IMO, the whole gender issue would be more likely to pop up if they could (or did) communicate and express in what way the concept does or does not apply to them (which is why it's a thing with hermaphroditic species in my own setting; those do talk to humans), but in this case? I'm having a hard time imagining most cultures really seeing past "those huge, mysterious things that (in many cases) we see as gods or what have you". Some cultures might see them as female, some might see them as male, some might see them as both or neither, for purely cultural reasons, the same way different Earth cultures have different mythological interpretations for the gender of the sun or moon or mountains or the ocean. Of course, that's the way I'd go about it - bottom line is, it's your setting, there's really no wrong answer here. As others have said, one thing to consider is practicality, how are you going to implement this with your players, and how much importance are you going to give to that detail. "Hey, Rodrik is almost dead, we could stick him in that big weird thing's stomach so it heals him." "NO! There's a VAGINA, therefore, you MUST use a feminine pronoun!" *storms off*

By the way...


It's a dogmatic belief with strong emotional investment that is almost without fail part of a larger structure of such beliefs. "Religion" may be overly harsh, but whatever it is it is a subject that is hard to have a civil discussion on. That's the same reason religion and politics are off limits here, whether that is a good policy or not is irrelevant. The rules don't specifically forbid this exact topic, but the mods won't be happy if it turns into a flame war and I guarantee you I would take the blame even if I remain civil throughout. I don't care if I get insulted, but I'm not interested in being banned.

I dunno... I made sure to go back to AliceLost's post and check. She politely pointed out that tying people's gender to genitalia is "considered outdated at best", and then made an argument for why it shouldn't really apply anyway in the specific case of the OP (a point I happen to agree with, in fact). While, in response, you just about called the forum SWAT on her for talking about a forbidden topic (nevermind the fact that, as Aedilred has pointed out, it's a very common topic in these boards) and in later responses made it obvious that you did so because you vehemently disagree with her position and won't even countenance it in a discussion (and yes, again, as pointed out by others, it IS completely pertinent to a discussion of which pronouns to use for a species that doesn't quite conform to our notion of gender). I mean, I don't know that she's the dogmatic one here, just saying.

[factotum]

Wait, if these creatures are enormous, obviously non-human, "great ancients" that don't communicate with the more common species in the setting at all

If this is the case--e.g. these guys literally have no way whatsoever of communicating--then how does anyone know they're actually intelligent? Some people might not believe that they are, and would thus refer to them in the way we'd refer to animals. Adds a whole 'nother level of confusion to the mix.

[Avianmosquito]

Wait, if these creatures are enormous, obviously non-human, "great ancients" that don't communicate with the more common species in the setting at all (a rather interesting concept, I'd add), then it seems less and less likely that those lesser humanoids would insist on inspecting their genitalia before deciding on how to refer to them.

Strawman argument, right there. They don't "insist on inspecting their genitalia" so much as the genitalia are right there and somebody is bound to notice. They don't exactly wear clothing. It doesn't fit their size, lifestyle, body layout or general apathy to the concept.


IMO, the whole gender issue would be more likely to pop up if they could (or did) communicate and express in what way the concept does or does not apply to them (which is why it's a thing with hermaphroditic species in my own setting; those do talk to humans), but in this case? I'm having a hard time imagining most cultures really seeing past "those huge, mysterious things that (in many cases) we see as gods or what have you".

Even deifying them, they need pronouns. Especially for the ones they gave really long names. Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep, for instance. Imagine that everytime you wanted to talk about Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep you had to write Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep or say Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep every time you were referrig to Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep. "Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep lives in Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep's temple in the capital. Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep is a great healer, Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep can even raise the dead, but Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep demands payment, so we feed Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep and have volunteers bear Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep's children, who tend to Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep and Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep's temple until they come of age." (Oh, and the apostrophes and dashes in Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep are short and long clicks. Good luck!)

Yeah. Gets old really fast, doesn't it? The only question is what pronoun, and I settled on neutral-only for that entire language. Unfortunately, there's still three entire additional cultures.


Some cultures might see them as female, some might see them as male, some might see them as both or neither, for purely cultural reasons, the same way different Earth cultures have different mythological interpretations for the gender of the sun or moon or mountains or the ocean. Of course, that's the way I'd go about it - bottom line is, it's your setting, there's really no wrong answer here.

I intend to use different options for each of the relevant cultures.


As others have said, one thing to consider is practicality, how are you going to implement this with your players, and how much importance are you going to give to that detail.

The importance is what pronouns the book will use and the NPCs will use. That's it.


"Hey, Rodrik is almost dead, we could stick him in that big weird thing's stomach so it heals him." "NO! There's a VAGINA, therefore, you MUST use a feminine pronoun!" *storms off*

Mr Strawman, give me a break.


I dunno... I made sure to go back to AliceLost's post and check. She politely pointed out that tying people's gender to genitalia is "considered outdated at best", and then made an argument for why it shouldn't really apply anyway in the specific case of the OP (a point I happen to agree with, in fact). While, in response, you just about called the forum SWAT on her for talking about a forbidden topic (nevermind the fact that, as Aedilred has pointed out, it's a very common topic in these boards) and in later responses made it obvious that you did so because you vehemently disagree with her position and won't even countenance it in a discussion (and yes, again, as pointed out by others, it IS completely pertinent to a discussion of which pronouns to use for a species that doesn't quite conform to our notion of gender). I mean, I don't know that she's the dogmatic one here, just saying.

Uh, no. I chose not to discuss it with her not because I am opposed to a civil discussion on the topic, but because I am convinced a civil discussion is impossible. I've been through this before, and I know how it goes. First they insult you, then they gang up on you, then they try to silence you with whatever means the forum provides. In this case, it would be abusing the report button in an attempt to get the discussion shut down and everyone they disagree with banned.

That belief is irrational, holds up to no scrutiny, its holders are emotionally invested in it and it comes as part of a larger belief structure full of equally irrational beliefs. These include the belief that anybody who disagrees must be stupid, poorly educated and evil, which she has demonstrated well enough to be a belief she holds. Check out her second post on that one, where she strawmanned my position and claimed I must have never heard of her position entirely on the basis that I didn't agree with her. She is not going to have a civil discussion on this topic, so why should I try?

I see no reason to engage her and allow this to escalate. Now can this digression be over, please?


If this is the case--e.g. these guys literally have no way whatsoever of communicating--then how does anyone know they're actually intelligent? Some people might not believe that they are, and would thus refer to them in the way we'd refer to animals.

Context and interaction would reveal sapience pretty readily. Though only to those who interacted with them, and from there it falls on them to convey that information.


Adds a whole 'nother level of confusion to the mix.

Confusion is fine. If anything, it supports the aesthetic.

[enderlord99]

As someone who probably has no internal sense of gender and definitely has no idea what the heck such a thing even means, Avianmosquito appears significantly more emotionally invested than AliceLost. Also more strawman-ish.

Back on topic, I would say that either female or inanimate pronouns would be used, but I really have no idea.

[Aedilred]

Strawman argument, right there. They don't "insist on inspecting their genitalia" so much as the genitalia are right there and somebody is bound to notice. They don't exactly wear clothing. It doesn't fit their size, lifestyle, body layout or general apathy to the concept.
I do kind of feel you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner here. You've created these creatures which you've decided have visible human-like genitalia, even though they are not actually sexed like humans, and also can't communicate with humans, and then you ask for help deciding on what pronouns to give them, even though you don't want to talk about gender in anything but a strictly linguistic sense.

I'm not sure how we were ever going to untangle that one to your complete satisfaction, to be honest.


Even deifying them, they need pronouns. Especially for the ones they gave really long names. Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep, for instance. Imagine that everytime you wanted to talk about Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep you had to write Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep or say Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep every time you were referrig to Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep. "Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep lives in Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep's temple in the capital. Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep is a great healer, Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep can even raise the dead, but Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep demands payment, so we feed Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep and have volunteers bear Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep's children, who tend to Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep and Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep's temple until they come of age." (Oh, and the apostrophes and dashes in Sha'nit-Feek'it-La'kep are short and long clicks. Good luck!)
You'd imagine that they'd probably give them shorter names pretty quickly.

But yeah, even when talking about deities, people tend to use pronouns, even if those pronouns are capitalised.

Also, friends don't let friends use clicks in their languages. If you or your players actually speak a click-language, then that's one thing, but they're really hard for anyone else to manage coherently and when they're used gratuitously they rapidly become obnoxious.


Yeah. Gets old really fast, doesn't it? The only question is what pronoun, and I settled on neutral-only for that entire language. Unfortunately, there's still three entire additional cultures.
As a point of pedantry, the third (i.e. non-masculine/feminine) gender is neuter, rather than "neutral". "Neutral gender" has a somewhat different meaning from "neuter gender": the latter is actually a gender, whereas the former is a form of expression where you try to avoid using gendered pronouns (and/or other gendered words).

Purely as rhetorical advice, you might want to cut down on the use of "strawman". Whether or not it's accurate, seeing it three times in one post just draws attention to the way you're using it as a first line of defence. Generally in my experience if someone is crying strawman that frequently, they're either belabouring the point, or they're unaware of how they're actually coming across. Either way, they're not expressing themselves well.

[Avianmosquito]

I do kind of feel you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner here. You've created these creatures which you've decided have visible human-like genitalia, even though they are not actually sexed like humans, and also can't communicate with humans, and then you ask for help deciding on what pronouns to give them, even though you don't want to talk about gender in anything but a strictly linguistic sense.

No, I asked a very simple question about what pronouns seemed likely for people to settle on in this circumstance. I didn't provide enough information, but even still enough people got it.


I'm not sure how we were ever going to untangle that one to your complete satisfaction, to be honest.

Actually, you may have missed a very important post.


I ended up going with the sahuagin using female pronouns, halflings determining it by context and hobgoblins not having grammatical gender. Those three's conlangs are the most important.

Yeah, that's the one. It's already done, I made my decision on the first page based on responses I had already received. The thread worked just fine for what it needed to do, and it really isn't serving any purpose anymore.


You'd imagine that they'd probably give them shorter names pretty quickly.

That one got nicknamed Shep.


But yeah, even when talking about deities, people tend to use pronouns, even if those pronouns are capitalised.

Yeah, that was my point.


Also, friends don't let friends use clicks in their languages. If you or your players actually speak a click-language, then that's one thing, but they're really hard for anyone else to manage coherently and when they're used gratuitously they rapidly become obnoxious.

There's a trope I was going for with that name. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnpronounceable) There was also a trope I was going for with the hobgoblin language in which that name exists. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishLanguage)


As a point of pedantry, the third (i.e. non-masculine/feminine) gender is neuter, rather than "neutral". "Neutral gender" has a somewhat different meaning from "neuter gender": the latter is actually a gender, whereas the former is a form of expression where you try to avoid using gendered pronouns (and/or other gendered words).

Well, I see your nit picker is very well maintained. Good show, old chap.


Purely as rhetorical advice, you might want to cut down on the use of "strawman". Whether or not it's accurate, seeing it three times in one post just draws attention to the way you're using it as a first line of defence. Generally in my experience if someone is crying strawman that frequently, they're either belabouring the point, or they're unaware of how they're actually coming across. Either way, they're not expressing themselves well.

Oh, really? Because in my experience when somebody frequently points out strawman arguments its because they're being frequently subjected to strawman arguments. It's almost like most people resort to strawman arguments immediately the moment anybody disagrees with them, and don't have a clue what's wrong with that because they don't understand debate at all. It's almost like, *GASP*, most people are lazy, intellectually dishonest, uneducated and stupid! Why, that explains so much about the world. Why didn't I realize this sooner?

Misanthropy aside, strawman arguments are more common than actual arguments, they're the first thing you'll get out of people, and they are incredibly obnoxious and impossible to deal with. Ordinarily I just link them to the song "Mr Strawman" and move on to any actual points they may have made, but I get the distinct impression that wouldn't go over well on this site.

[RabbitHoleLost]

No, I asked a very simple question about what pronouns seemed likely for people to settle on in this circumstance. I didn't provide enough information, but even still enough people got it.


The unfortunate reality is that there is no "simple" with pronouns and gender, and I'm confused as to why you didn't expect such responses considering our very large and involved LGBTQ+ community on this board, who have discussed this and other similar topics near to death

[Avianmosquito]

The unfortunate reality is that there is no "simple" with pronouns and gender, and I'm confused as to why you didn't expect such responses considering our very large and involved LGBTQ+ community on this board, who have discussed this and other similar topics near to death

I stay out of those threads because while most people are reasonable on these subjects, there are crazies out there and they are VERY vocal. I don't intend to find out what the ratio is on this site, or how the crazies are received. There's a definite difference between being pro-trans and trying to pretend gender and sex are completely unrelated. There's also a difference between taking a reasonable position and an unreasonable extreme on accommodation. That is, there's a difference between taking a progressive position and being somebody like Milo Stewart, Ash Hardell, or Riley Dennis. (Or anybody on Witchwind.)

Somebody who tries to drag non-binary nonsense into a thread on language that has nothing to do with human gender at all probably isn't a very reasonable person. And no, I did not expect unreasonable people. Should I have?

[Razade]

I stay out of those threads because while most people are reasonable on these subjects, there are crazies out there and they are VERY vocal.

Irony sure is thick around these parts.


I don't intend to find out what the ratio is on this site, or how the crazies are received. There's a definite difference between being pro-trans and trying to pretend gender and sex are completely unrelated. There's also a difference between taking a reasonable position and an unreasonable extreme on accommodation.

No one's made that claim. Even Alice.


That is, there's a difference between taking a progressive position and being somebody like Milo Stewart, Ash Hardell, or Riley Dennis. (Or anybody on Witchwind.)

No one has even come close to saying anything Milo Stewart has said. And man, what an obscure reference that most people on this forum aren't even going to get. I got you though.


Somebody who tries to drag non-binary nonsense into a thread on language that has nothing to do with human gender at all probably isn't a very reasonable person. And no, I did not expect unreasonable people. Should I have?

This being the site that it is? Yeah, probably should have.

[Avianmosquito]

No one's made that claim. Even Alice.

Oh?


I'd like to point out that the concept of determining an individual's gender by their genitalia is considered an outdated concept at best (biology can determine sex, but gender is a social characteristic)

What's that Alice? Are you saying you don't believe there's a relation between sex and gender despite the hormones determining gender being produced by the genitals? Why, that seems like an unreasonable position there, Alice. Especially since the genitals also produce opposite-sex hormones and, surprise surprise, trans people naturally have hormone levels more akin to the opposite sex. Oh, and wait, you don't suppose the responsible organs, the ovaries and testes, are actually the same organs in early fetal development... They are? I don't know what you see that I don't.


I think it was aimed at my revolutionary claim that biological sex and gender may be different things. I get the impression from the OP first post that this may not be a distinction that they are familiar with, hence the need for the question.

Well Alice, it sure seems like I got your position right.


No one has even come close to saying anything Milo Stewart has said.

I didn't say they did. That was part of my explanation of why I avoid those threads. I have a strongly pro-gay and pro-trans stance, but I know how those lunatics are going to treat me regardless. Avoiding those threads means not finding out how many crazies there are here.


And man, what an obscure reference that most people on this forum aren't even going to get. I got you though.

Yeah, he's got what, 10,000 subs? That may be the least obscure of the four, but I named four in hopes people would get at least one.


This being the site that it is? Yeah, probably should have.

I was joking, but you're right.

[AliceLost]

I...really don't know what to make of this thread. I came here to answer a question about how to gender a species with unique sexual characteristics, and I made reference to the relatively uncontroversial suggestion that biological sex and social gender are separate.

If that's a belief you want to debate, you're welcome to do so. I haven't done anything to indicate that I wouldn't be open to discussing it.
If you don't want to debate it, you could have let it go. Instead, you're putting words in my mouth, insulting me, and blaming it on my apparent fervor, while protesting about how much you don't want to talk about it.

I've remained out of this thread since my first posts since it's been clear that you are determined to argue and act persecuted, but I'm popping my head back in to ask you to please tone down your aggression.

If you'd like to discuss the issue of gender, I'm happy to do so in a civil manner. If you don't want to, you can just stop bringing it up, as you keep claiming you want to. Please stop using me in your strawman arguments.

[Avianmosquito]

I...really don't know what to make of this thread. I came here to answer a question about how to gender a species with unique sexual characteristics, and I made reference to the relatively uncontroversial suggestion that biological sex and social gender are separate.

You didn't just say they were different. You said they were unrelated. If you just meant different you should have said that and we would have had no argument. I asked you to clarify your position to be sure AND offered to apologize if you did, and you didn't. I took that to mean I got it right the first time.


If that's a belief you want to debate, you're welcome to do so. I haven't done anything to indicate that I wouldn't be open to discussing it.

Your second post lead me to believe debating it with you would be a waste of time. Might be confirmation bias.


If you don't want to debate it, you could have let it go. Instead, you're putting words in my mouth, insulting me, and blaming it on my apparent fervor, while protesting about how much you don't want to talk about it.

I would have never brought it up again if every third person wasn't. You're going to be brought up in this because you brought it up, and if you think me calling your position "unreasonable" is insulting, you're proving me right.


I've remained out of this thread since my first posts since it's been clear that you are determined to argue and act persecuted, but I'm popping my head back in to ask you to please tone down your aggression.

I DON'T want to argue, but I am not opposed to discussion, now that the thread has served it's purpose I don't mind the digression either and this hasn't devolved into screaming, mass flagging and rape accusations either. That's better than normal.

I only started responding after I was done with the thread. I returned your hostility and called your position unreasonable. Once I was certain I was not in error, I did mock you a little in that last post. I have yet to directly insult YOU. Your position, but not YOU.


If you'd like to discuss the issue of gender, I'm happy to do so in a civil manner.

As the thread has served its purpose, and this is MUCH more civil than usual, I don't see why not.


If you don't want to, you can just stop bringing it up, as you keep claiming you want to. Please stop using me in your strawman arguments.

If that was not your position you should have said so when I asked you to clarify. You can clarify now as well. Otherwise I stand by the opinions I have expressed of your position.

[AliceLost]

You didn't just say they were different. You said they were unrelated. If you just meant different you should have said that and we would have had no argument. I asked you to clarify your position to be sure AND offered to apologize if you did, and you didn't. I took that to mean I got it right the first time.

The desire for a civil discussion goes both ways, and putting words in someone else's mouth is not conducive to a productive conversation. Please quote for me the post where I said that sex and gender were "unrelated". In fact, I'll put my earlier posts here for comparison, and you can just point out the section that you're talking about:

I'd like to point out that the concept of determining an individual's gender by their genitalia is considered an outdated concept at best (biology can determine sex, but gender is a social characteristic), and only practical in this case if these creatures are near-human in appearance, and also naked. In most interactions, people don't get to inspect the genitalia of the person they're conversing with (and, if they're some alien creature, may not be able to understand or interpret those genitalia), and so pronouns and other social elements of gender are determined through conversation.

So even if these creatures have no concept of gender and will use whichever pronouns the humans they are interacting with prefer, there's no inherent reason to imagine that those humans would perceive them as "female" because of their genitalia.


I think it was aimed at my revolutionary claim that biological sex and gender may be different things. I get the impression from the OP first post that this may not be a distinction that they are familiar with, hence the need for the question.

I'll follow that up by quoting your responses, which did two things. One, it put more words and arguments in my mouth, that I never posted:

No, it was referring to your claim that they are totally unrelated because one very small sample size in one species found that 0.3% of its members had opposite-sex hormones. Never mind that it's still an indicator with 99.7% accuracy even in that one context. I am VERY familiar with this claim, and I find it quite insulting that you would assume I must not know about it just because I disagree. If that isn't the claim you're making, now's the time to clarify your position. If it is, leave me out of it. Either way, that's not the subject of this thread.

This thread is about pronouns us creatures with two sexes would use for a very specific brand of hermaphroditic creatures we can't communicate with well enough to ask their opinion. This is a discussion STRICTLY on language, the rest is just tolerably off-topic. And for the record, I don't need to settle on one "right" answer, and intend to use three totally separate options.


It's a dogmatic belief with strong emotional investment that is almost without fail part of a larger structure of such beliefs. "Religion" may be overly harsh, but whatever it is it is a subject that is hard to have a civil discussion on. That's the same reason religion and politics are off limits here, whether that is a good policy or not is irrelevant. The rules don't specifically forbid this exact topic, but the mods won't be happy if it turns into a flame war and I guarantee you I would take the blame even if I remain civil throughout. I don't care if I get insulted, but I'm not interested in being banned.

If that is her position, as her words and attitude so far have indicated, I will not discuss it with her. If it isn't her position I'm curious what her position actually is but it's still off topic and probably has the same problem. So let's just not get into it either way.
and two, it does not contain an offer of an apology. Now we both know that you originally posted the offer of an apology if you had misunderstood me, but you quickly edited that out, which in fact does more to suggest that you have no intention of apologizing than if you hadn't mentioned it at all.

The remainder of your post continues your hostile and condescending tone, and I have difficulty believing that anything that I say to you here will be taken seriously and not completely rewritten.


Your second post lead me to believe debating it with you would be a waste of time. Might be confirmation bias.
I would have never brought it up again if every third person wasn't. You're going to be brought up in this because you brought it up, and if you think me calling your position "unreasonable" is insulting, you're proving me right.
I DON'T want to argue, but I am not opposed to discussion, now that the thread has served it's purpose I don't mind the digression either and this hasn't devolved into screaming, mass flagging and rape accusations either. That's better than normal.
I only started responding after I was done with the thread. I returned your hostility and called your position unreasonable. Once I was certain I was not in error, I did mock you a little in that last post. I have yet to directly insult YOU. Your position, but not YOU.
As the thread has served its purpose, and this is MUCH more civil than usual, I don't see why not.
If that was not your position you should have said so when I asked you to clarify. You can clarify now as well. Otherwise I stand by the opinions I have expressed of your position.

The idea that gender is a social construct separate from biological sex is hardly a groundbreaking claim in this day and age, since gender is a collection of social traits that we loosely lump together, few of which have any reasonable correlation to physiology (women wear makeup, men have higher sex drives, girls like pink, boys don't wear dresses), which are all influenced by our cultural history and have no basis in anything absolute, as evidenced by the fluidity of these gender stereotypes over time (makeup has been common and gender-neutral in many time periods, women were considered to have the higher, uncontrollable sex drives for centuries in Western thought, pink used to be a male colour appropriate for young boys, and all children used to wear dresses until they were around 8 or 9).
The entire concept of accepting trans and other non-binary identities is based around the understanding that genitalia, hormones and secondary sex characteristics do not determine someone's social gender (and in fact can all be altered with modern medicine anyway), and since those absolute methods of determining sex are no longer deemed sufficient for assessing gender, gender becomes a vague and abstract set of categories that are entirely self-defined. I'm honestly not sure what school of trans-inclusive thought exists that believes that one's gender is determined by one's sexual characteristics.

If you'd like to discuss this, even disagree with me, civilly, I'll be happy to continue the conversation. But if you're going to insist that I have said things that I did not say, and address me condescendingly and aggressively, then I will have to believe that, in your own words, debating it with you would be a waste of time.

[Avianmosquito]

The desire for a civil discussion goes both ways, and putting words in someone else's mouth is not conducive to a productive conversation. Please quote for me the post where I said that sex and gender were "unrelated". In fact, I'll put my earlier posts here for comparison, and you can just point out the section that you're talking about:



(biology can determine sex, but gender is a social characteristic)

Oh hey, look at that. And you confirm it later in this post, too.


I'll follow that up by quoting your responses, which did two things. One, it put more words and arguments in my mouth, that I never posted:

Yeah, no. I'll go point by point when I get home.

Edit: No I won't. I'm getting bored of this even when I have nothing else to do, I definitely won't care then.


and two, it does not contain an offer of an apology. Now we both know that you originally posted the offer of an apology if you had misunderstood me, but you quickly edited that out, which in fact does more to suggest that you have no intention of apologizing than if you hadn't mentioned it at all.

No, I edited it out to rephrase that paragraph and forgot to put it back. You know I said it, that's good enough. It's a moot point anyway, I was right on your position.


The remainder of your post continues your hostile and condescending tone, and I have difficulty believing that anything that I say to you here will be taken seriously and not completely rewritten.

That's funny, insisting not buying your crap means I must never have heard of it, then calling ME condescending. Oh, you never said that?


I get the impression from the OP first post that this may not be a distinction that they are familiar with, hence the need for the question.

Yes you did.


The idea that gender is a social construct separate from biological sex is hardly a groundbreaking claim in this day and age,

It's also wrong. The first part, at least. It isn't the same as sex, but it also isn't a social construct. Brain chemistry and its effect on behaviour are 100% real, and you don't get to reject reality and substitute your own.


since gender is a collection of social traits that we loosely lump together, few of which have any reasonable correlation to physiology

No see, you're confusing gender ROLES with actual gender.


(women wear makeup, men have higher sex drives, girls like pink, boys don't wear dresses), which are all influenced by our cultural history and have no basis in anything absolute, as evidenced by the fluidity of these gender stereotypes over time (makeup has been common and gender-neutral in many time periods, women were considered to have the higher, uncontrollable sex drives for centuries in Western thought, pink used to be a male colour appropriate for young boys, and all children used to wear dresses until they were around 8 or 9).

"Style changes, therefore gender has no concrete basis!"

That's your argument? You're just going to flat-out ignore the brain entirely here because of fashion?


The entire concept of accepting trans and other non-binary

Called it.


identities is based around the understanding that genitalia, hormones and secondary sex characteristics do not determine someone's social gender

Social gender is not a thing. That would be gender roles, and they're bull****. (I'm in the "stop making up labels and let people do what they want" category. Which makes us enemies, I see.)


(and in fact can all be altered with modern medicine anyway),

Transsexual and transgender are different things. One topic at a time.


and since those absolute methods of determining sex are no longer deemed sufficient for assessing gender,

By who, exactly? Hormones heavily impact the personality traits of actual gender, and they get flipped in 0.3% of people. Binary trans people are 0.3% of the population. Tests confirm the correlation. This works fine for real trans people, just not snowflakes who want to decide their own gender. Blaire Whites, but not Milo Stewarts.


gender becomes a vague and abstract set of categories that are entirely self-defined. I'm honestly not sure what school of trans-inclusive thought exists that believes that one's gender is determined by one's sexual characteristics.

The one where 0.3% of the population is trans and we can explain why and how in detail. You know, the one where trans people are a fact and not an opinion, and didn't have a choice in the matter.


If you'd like to discuss this, even disagree with me, civilly, I'll be happy to continue the conversation. But if you're going to insist that I have said things that I did not say, and address me condescendingly and aggressively, then I will have to believe that, in your own words, debating it with you would be a waste of time.

Civility is in the eye of the beholder. This is my tone. My level of detail will increase once I get home, but my tone will not change. You decide if that's civil enough.

Edit:
Hey look, somebody dropped in, called me a bigot for disagreeing with them, and deleted it. That's what I get for having an opinion. Not buying into the Tumblr definition of gender makes me transphobic, apparently. Never mind me actually being pro-trans. Supporting the actual people just isn't as important, I guess.

Edit2:
Oh hey, they replaced it with a longer post of declarative statements with no backing. Allow me to respond with an equally well supported rebuttal: "I am not."

If you want to make an argument, go ahead. But pretending I'm a screaming lunatic bigot because I disagree with you isn't helping your case.

[Serpentine]

Just so's we're clear here, Avianmosquito isn't the one here who is victim to being "insulted", "abused", "silenced" and met with "hostility" by "very vocal" "unreasonable", "irrational" "lunatics" and "crazies" whose "dogmatic belief" and "strong emotional investment" leads them to make "strawman" arguments against them* and declaring that they* "must be stupid, poorly educated and evil", ensuring that "civil discussion is impossible" :smallwink:


*Oh look, a perfectly acceptable, reasonable and well-established English singular gender-neutral pronoun being used in an appropriate and relevant manner! How useful.


edit: Backing: Please see thread, above (and probably below, we'll see).

(for the record, my previous post was due to a mis-click, nothing more and nothing less)

[Scarlet Knight]

I'm doing wagers early this thread, since my gut says it's going to go long. I'm putting myself down as "locked after six pages, but before it reaches ten." Any takers?



200 quatloos on "Under 6" !

[Avianmosquito]

200 quatloos on "Under 6" !

This thread will die a natural death shortly after I lose interest and stop responding. Which will be when I get home in about two hours. The only reason I'm posting now is I'm stuck at work and there is no work to do. So, do you win that bet if it never gets locked, but never reaches six? Or does nobody win?

[Serpentine]

Oh, on a more important note: AliceLost, I hope you're not letting all this get to you too much. You could never have expected that such an innocuous attempt to help would generate this sort of reaction, and in my opinion you've largely handled it with aplomb.

[Kalmageddon]

You missed the "can't commumicate" bit, huh.



We may never know... Except that they're all huge, gargantuan or colossal and can somehow impregnate terrestrial sophonts of drastically reduced girth. Even if they're infertile, or outside of breeding age, or ovoviviparous. Really, as long as they're female it works no matter how much it shouldn't. Their male reproductive organs are all the way in their stomach, by the way, and their stomach really seems to be used for everything. Eating, obviously, it houses their male reproductive anatomy, it can heal people and it can raise the dead. One must imagine mating is difficult for them, but circumstances ensured that anyway.



Actually, the speakers wouldn't be speaking English. They'd be speaking their own languages, players and DMs are translating. The creatures also don't talk. Not to us, at least. Maybe not in a way we can perceive, either.

I think it's important to to understand what the reputation of these creatures is with those that need to find a way to refer to them. From what you are saying, it looks like you are going for a bit of a Lovecraftian vibe towards these creatures, which would probably go a long way towards dehumanizing them enough to use "it". Otherwise if people in general don't know enough about their internal anatomy and they look obviously female from the outside, I'd go with "she". They look like females, so that's how they would be referred as by the common folk.
Otherwise, if they go around clothed or with their primary and secondary sexual characteristics hidden, or if they simply look like monsters, but people don't want to use "it", I'd go with "he". If something is not feminine in a way we could recognize (vagina and mammary glands mainly), the default tends to be treating it as if it was male. Especially if these things are huge or threatening. Like, for example, we don't call xenomorphs from Aliens "she", even though being based on eusocial insects, that's what they probably are. Beside, from the bits of lore you've written here, it seems like they get buisy with human females often enough to be recognized as males, since, you know, they get females pregnant.
All things considered, I'd go with "it".
Hope it helps.

[Delicious Taffy]

I tried reading the other replies, I promise you I did, but it's the same thing it always ends up being, so I'm not going to bother checking the second page.

The important questions to ask are "How sentient are these things?" and "Do they even bother with this sort of quandry?" If they're only shuffling about in a mindless haze, only doing what it takes to keep the species alive, their pronouns are completely irrelevant. If they have human-like intelligence, make sure their culture would reasonably put any degree of importance on pronouns before deciding. If they have Advanced Knowledge(tm), you're rapidly approaching sentient-light levels and the pronouns start to diminish in importance again. Individual names and personal pronouns such as mine, me, and myself seem like they'd work at any level.

[Telonius]

Okay, my earlier post was before the "can't communicate" issue came up.


The importance is what pronouns the book will use and the NPCs will use. That's it.

If it's a campaign setting book (and you don't want to reveal too much about the sex/gender), just try to avoid using pronouns, or use plurals whenever possible. If the creatures are supposed to be unknown and mysterious, it's completely okay to just leave out any items on sex, gender, and reproduction. "Not much is known about (creature name) biology or culture" might be kind of a cop-out, but if it's accurate in-game, there's nothing wrong with leaving it a mystery.

[Aedilred]

Oh, really? Because in my experience when somebody frequently points out strawman arguments its because they're being frequently subjected to strawman arguments. It's almost like most people resort to strawman arguments immediately the moment anybody disagrees with them, and don't have a clue what's wrong with that because they don't understand debate at all. It's almost like, *GASP*, most people are lazy, intellectually dishonest, uneducated and stupid! Why, that explains so much about the world. Why didn't I realize this sooner?

Misanthropy aside, strawman arguments are more common than actual arguments, they're the first thing you'll get out of people, and they are incredibly obnoxious and impossible to deal with. Ordinarily I just link them to the song "Mr Strawman" and move on to any actual points they may have made, but I get the distinct impression that wouldn't go over well on this site.
See "belabouring the point". Even if people are reducing your arguments to straw men, by the third time you've complained about it in the same post it's hard not to wonder if there's a better way you could be making your point. Just about the straw men, if nothing else.

Going back and looking over the three instances of straw men that you asserted, too, I'm not convinced that they actually were straw men. On SirKazum's first one, your initial point seemed to be predicated on the idea that the genitalia of these creatures would be relevant to the way they were referred to in terms of pronouns. His approach obviously stretched things a bit but was otherwise completely in keeping with the concept you'd presented to us.

The second one was obvious hyperbole in order to try to draw attention to the question of how important (or unimportant) these pronouns were going to be at the gaming table. That you took it as a serious suggestion for the way you might behave and cried straw man says more about the way you've approached disagreement in this thread than it does about anything he said.

All AliceLost did was say your OP "implied you might not be familiar with the concept". I'm not even sure that's a straw man at all, to be honest. And you know what, when I re-read it, she's right. Apart from anything else, the reference to "male" and "female" pronouns (as opposed to "masculine and feminine") is a blurring of the sex-gender line that is not only suggestive* of a hazy understanding of that distinction, but is also dragging that distinction into the equation in a way that you later claim you didn't want.

Honestly I don't think AliceLost was anything but polite in her first post, and given how rude your response was**, her second was more tolerant and polite than I'd have expected. Again, the hostility you appear to have read into her (and others') posts isn't actually all that visible and, as with the cries of straw man, says more about your attitudes than about hers (and others').

*note that "suggest", "indicate" and "confirm" are different verbs.
**This theme has continued from that point onwards.

[SaintRidley]

No, it was referring to your claim that they are totally unrelated because one very small sample size in one species found that 0.3% of its members had opposite-sex hormones. Never mind that it's still an indicator with 99.7% accuracy even in that one context. I am VERY familiar with this claim, and I find it quite insulting that you would assume I must not know about it just because I disagree. If that isn't the claim you're making, now's the time to clarify your position. If it is, leave me out of it. Either way, that's not the subject of this thread.

This thread is about pronouns us creatures with two sexes would use for a very specific brand of hermaphroditic creatures we can't communicate with well enough to ask their opinion. This is a discussion STRICTLY on language, the rest is just tolerably off-topic. And for the record, I don't need to settle on one "right" answer, and intend to use three totally separate options.

Yeah, but there's no concept of gender as humans understand it without language, so the sample size of humans is all that matters. And it is the subject of this thread, clearly. It's about gender and pronouns.

By the way, you could try looking at Asimov's Solarians for an answer to your initial question.

To other points raised - modern English doesn't really use grammatical gender. Grammatical gender and gender identity are not really related, despite the same term. And other stuff, I'm sure.

[AliceLost]

Social gender is not a thing. That would be gender roles, and they're bull****. (I'm in the "stop making up labels and let people do what they want" category. Which makes us enemies, I see.)

That turns out to be an unwarranted assumption (although you do seem determined that someone be your enemy). I wholeheartedly support the idea of ending gender roles entirely, because as I said above they are arbitrary and pointless. However, just because I'd like to see an end to the concept of gender doesn't mean I'm unaware of how people define it when they talk about it.

I think we've both made our opinions clear, and I've explained my understanding of the definition of sex and gender. If you want to continue this conversation, which you've been outspoken on not wanting to, I think some onus falls to you to likewise define your terms. I can't really address the difference between gender roles (which are bull****, but presumably not affected by hormones?), gender (which is affected by hormones), and social gender (which doesn't exist) without understanding what you see those terms as meaning. And since you seem to have a clear line drawn about who qualifies as a "real" trans person and who doesn't, those all seem like important distinctions for people to know.


Oh, on a more important note: AliceLost, I hope you're not letting all this get to you too much. You could never have expected that such an innocuous attempt to help would generate this sort of reaction, and in my opinion you've largely handled it with aplomb.

Aww, thanks sweetie! I'm doing just fine, I wouldn't have offered to keep talking with Avianmosquito otherwise. It's been rather satisfying to take the higher moral ground and demonstrate that people can disagree with him civilly. Everyone else in here has been super nice. This is why I love this forum.

[Teddy]

Oh hey, look at that. And you confirm it later in this post, too.

"Separate" and "unrelated" are two different words. Based on the way AliceLost uses "separate", I wager that she means "not a perfect predictor of (nor perfectly predicted by)" rather than "unrelated".