Respectful term for nonbinary people and people of unknown gender?

[Maloney]

As in Ma'am/Madam and Sir. What's an alternative if you don't know somebody's gender or they're non-binary?

[Peelee]

Could always go the Andre the Giant route and use "boss." Thay favors more casual conversation, though.

[Frozen_Feet]

Apparently, Mx., Misc. and Ind. have been around since 1970 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific), just not in wide common use.

[ve4grm]

Apparently, Mx., Misc. and Ind. have been around since 1970 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific), just not in wide common use.

That's fine when addressing them by name, but sir/madam is used to get someone's attention, and/or in place of their name. That said, from the same Wikipedia article"

Some honorifics act as complete replacements for a name, as "Sir" or "Ma'am", or "Your Honor".

Maybe go with "Your Honor"? :smallbiggrin:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Comrade
[/kidding]
Grey Wolf

[Comrade]

Comrade
[/kidding]
Grey Wolf

I have mixed feelings about this.

[Tvtyrant]

Citizen!

This is a good argument to bring back thou.

[darkrose50]

There was a comic in an older version of CHAPMIONS where there was an elf (?) saying "Greetings infidel!" . . . it always made me laugh.

I vote to greet everyone with "Greetings infidel!"

[Red Fel]

I'm partial to Peasant!, myself.

Or you could follow this guy's example:
https://pa1.narvii.com/6835/a90c3186dbe98b1448dc73da0465638e516a7716_hq.gif

To be fair, this is how I address everybody. I try not to treat someone differently just because they're nonbinary or what-have-you. People are people.

[Jon_Dahl]

Pick any of these seven options between 0:56-1:34. (https://youtu.be/dy3xB1AHkKU?t=56)

[JNAProductions]

As in Ma'am/Madam and Sir. What's an alternative if you don't know somebody's gender or they're non-binary?

If you KNOW they're non-binary, you probably know them and don't have to that formal. (If you do have a way of telling if someone's non-binary without knowing them well enough to at least have their name, by all means, share.)

If you just don't know their gender, use Ma'am or Sir as your best guess, and if you guess wrong, apologize.

If you deal with people who will explode if you get their gender wrong (I've worked customer service, but I've been lucky that the few times I've misaddressed someone, I just apologize and they're fine) try something that doesn't rely on gender? Just a basic "Excuse me, could I pass through here?" for instance.

[Rynjin]

"Hey, you" works with anyone.

[Algeh]

If you KNOW they're non-binary, you probably know them and don't have to that formal. (If you do have a way of telling if someone's non-binary without knowing them well enough to at least have their name, by all means, share.)

If you just don't know their gender, use Ma'am or Sir as your best guess, and if you guess wrong, apologize.

If you deal with people who will explode if you get their gender wrong (I've worked customer service, but I've been lucky that the few times I've misaddressed someone, I just apologize and they're fine) try something that doesn't rely on gender? Just a basic "Excuse me, could I pass through here?" for instance.

There are also generic group formal salutation situations, like saying "ladies and gentlemen" as part of an intro on stage, where it would be nice to be able to be inclusive, particularly if you know darn good and well that there are some non-binary folks in the audience. This came up at a concert series I went to earlier this year, where the Toast was trying to find some inclusive way to introduce each musician and clearly the script she'd been using historically included something like "ladies and gentlemen, I present..." but at least one of the other performers (sitting in the front row of the audience and known to the Toast) and presumably a non-zero chunk of the rest of the audience were non-binary so it wasn't as inclusive of a phrase and she tried out various alternates throughout the weekend to see if she could find something that fit better.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

According to the U.S Military; Sir is gender neutral.

[Themrys]

If you KNOW they're non-binary, you probably know them and don't have to that formal.

This. You will likely only encounter people who wear a nametag with their pronouns on it in informal settings, so "Hey you" is perfectly adequate.

In customer service, you are most likely to mainly encounter people who will be offended at being called any terms other than those that correspond to their sex. If you encounter androgynous people whose sex is really impossible to tell, just guess and apologize if needed.

If you suspect someone might have a gender identity and fear they might not like you adressing them by sex-based pronouns ... I and my short-haired, trousers-wearing makeup-free female friends also tolerate being adressed as "Your Grace", "Your Honor" "Your Highness" or "Serenity", although we might chuckle a bit. We would, however, be very hurt if you used terms that by their very nature imply you aren't sure that we are female just because we don't perform femininity.

Reasonable people won't mind honest mistakes, but intentionally pretending that you cannot see that a woman who makes no attempt at hiding her femaleness is female is like telling her she looks like a man. It's an insult.
Calling a short-haired woman "sir" can be a honest mistake by an overworked customer service person, looking at her closely and deciding she is female but not quite feminine enough to be deserving of a "madam" will not go over so well.

Even calling the prime minister of a foreign country "hey you" would be better than that.

@Algeh: "Dear humans" seems to be rather popular recently, but it sounds a bit like the speaker is an alien or robot. Perhaps it is a sign of the robot apocalypse drawing near.

[Grek]

If they have specified what to use, use that.

If they haven't indicated what to use, use their job title if practical: Dean, Mayor, Senator, CEO, etc.

If a job title isn't available, consider Sir - it's somewhat gender neutral in modern parlance.

If Sir isn't appropriate, omit titles for everyone involved, but be extra polite/welcoming/formal/hospitable elsewhere.

[Vinyadan]

"Your Lordship".

Or is that masculine?

Go with "Highness", that should be all right. Or "Excellency".

[dps]

"Hey, you!"

[Vinyadan]

On a more serious note, I think someone some time ago talked about a public transportation system that changed its greeting from "Good day, Ladies and Gentlemen" to "Hello, Everyone". It's not useful as a singular, though, and it sounds way, way more colloquial, at least to me.

[shawnhcorey]

On a more serious note, I think someone some time ago talked about a public transportation system that changed its greeting from "Good day, Ladies and Gentlemen" to "Hello, Everyone". It's not useful as a singular, though, and it sounds way, way more colloquial, at least to me.

I heard gentlefolk (https://www.wordnik.com/words/gentlefolk) used.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Through process this morning as I caught up to the thread:

"Oh, maybe a portmanteau? Good morning Sir-madam... Sadam? Yeah, that's not going to work"

Grey Wolf

[LaZodiac]

Have we considered just not saying anything?

Like, you can just say "Excuse me" and leave it at that. You don't have to call them sir or ma'am or anything, regardless of their preferred pronouns, cause 90% of the time if you're talking to someone they know you're talking to them so you don't have to constantly reiterate who they are to you.

"Hello" is just as polite as "hello sir", personally.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Have we considered just not saying anything?

Like, you can just say "Excuse me" and leave it at that. You don't have to call them sir or ma'am or anything, regardless of their preferred pronouns, cause 90% of the time if you're talking to someone they know you're talking to them so you don't have to constantly reiterate who they are to you.

"Hello" is just as polite as "hello sir", personally.

Which is all well and good until the corporation you work for sets guidelines for how to address customers that require you to use a honorific.

I suppose one could argue that it is then on the corporation to include in the guidelines how to deal with this scenario, but expecting corporations to lead on this is a bit too optimistic, especially if the agreed-upon solution doesn't exist in advance.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Which is all well and good until the corporation you work for sets guidelines for how to address customers that require you to use a honorific.

I suppose one could argue that it is then on the corporation to include in the guidelines how to deal with this scenario, but expecting corporations to lead on this is a bit too optimistic, especially if the agreed-upon solution doesn't exist in advance.

Grey Wolf

In which case Sadam is likely to be a better option that what the corporation mandates. :smalltongue:

[Themrys]

I heard gentlefolk (https://www.wordnik.com/words/gentlefolk) used.

That sounds like a species description. Perhaps it is because I only know -folk as ending from "lizardfolk" but still.

... actually, why not "Fair Folk"? That sounds like elves, but elves are often androgynous, so that fits, right?

@Grey Wolf: But you won't know that someone identifies as nonbinary unless you personally know them, anyway. Or if they complain about you calling them sir or madam. But in that case, they can just tell you what honorifics they would prefer.

... okay, I suppose if someone walks into the shop wearing a badge telling you what their ponouns are, you will have to resort to "Sadam". :smalltongue: I share the suspicion that it is probably better than what the corporation would mandate, so ...

[shawnhcorey]

That sounds like a species description. Perhaps it is because I only know -folk as ending from "lizardfolk" but still.

... actually, why not "Fair Folk"? That sounds like elves, but elves are often androgynous, so that fits, right?


I suppose you could call them gentry (https://www.wordnik.com/words/gentry) instead.

[Telonius]

I have an easy go-to on the job: "Doctor." I work at a science journal, so everybody we communicate with is a PhD until proven otherwise.

[Peelee]

I have an easy go-to on the job: "Doctor." I work at a science journal, so everybody we communicate with is a PhD until proven otherwise.

Are you Chevy Chase or Dan Aykroyd?

[Vinyadan]

Are you Chevy Chase or Dan Aykroyd?

In The Blood Of A Thousand Virgins Rises Chevy Chase! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSebapHjGo4)

[Ravens_cry]

It's rather archaic, but I like the term 'gentle' and 'gentles'. It has no implications of gender while still sounding formal enough for certain uses, unlike, say, 'folks'.

[Scarlet Knight]

People, you're looking for an answer you already know, to a situation you've already had, with a problem solved 50 years ago.

When I was young and walked into a store with my long hair, the clerk might respectfully call me "Miss" and in the 70's when my sister walked in with short hair & wearing pants, she was addressed at times as "Sir".

Like any other mistake, you can then determine if it was an honest error and react as with all honest errors and either ignore or politely correct it. But don't expect people to greet you with a word that no one uses. The fact that no universal answer has come up on this thread means none exists.

Today I work alot on phones, and can't always tell gender. I do my best with the person's name or their voice, but soemtimes I get it wrong, apologize, then use what they requested, & most people are fine with that.

If at work and they get belligerent, I have to take it because "the customer is always right" - unless they get so bad that I can defend myself to my boss.

If not at work and they get belligerent, I know they're looking for a fight and have to decide whether to engage or not. If so, I won't use a respectful term and prefer the Italian ...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

a problem solved 50 years ago.


The fact that no universal answer has come up on this thread means none exists.

A problem can't both be solved and have no solution.

Also, I'm glad most fields don't take your approach to their problems. "You've got the plague, but 50 years ago we couldn't solve it, so there is nothing I can do"

Grey Wolf

[Themrys]

A problem can't both be solved and have no solution.

Also, I'm glad most fields don't take your approach to their problems. "You've got the plague, but 50 years ago we couldn't solve it, so there is nothing I can do"

Grey Wolf

We aren't talking about treating the plague here, though.

While, sure, we might be able to construct a portmanteau of madam and sir that doesn't sound stupid, there would be very, very, very limited use for this word in customer service.

The scientific progress we are talking about here isn't antibiotics, it is mind-reading. To know whether someone you have never met before identifies as non-binary, you have to read their mind.
Allegedly, progress is being made in that area, but if I am honest, I don't really want random cashiers to have a machine with which they read my mind, just so that they know which persons to call Mair or Sadam. :smalleek:


Alternatively, all nonbinary identified people could sign an agreement in which they promise to never, ever complain about customer service people not using respectful terms, and get a t-shirt that says "Just call me 'Hey you'" in return.
That seems the easiest way to solve that problem.

[Rynjin]

Have we considered just not saying anything?

Like, you can just say "Excuse me" and leave it at that. You don't have to call them sir or ma'am or anything, regardless of their preferred pronouns, cause 90% of the time if you're talking to someone they know you're talking to them so you don't have to constantly reiterate who they are to you.

"Hello" is just as polite as "hello sir", personally.

Real talk though, this has never failed me, and "Hey you" wasn't sarcastic either.

I worked retail and sales for a good while and don't think I ever directly referred to a customer's gender when addressing them. Came especially in handy working at Marbles, where we got a lot of androgynous/ambiguously gendered people just looking to play some board games.

"Hello", "Hey you want to play some Abalone?", etc., etc. works for everyone equally.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The scientific progress we are talking about here isn't antibiotics, it is mind-reading.

No, it is merely coming up with a gender neutral term that can be used across the board. Literally the same problem as "is this woman married or not" solution, applied to everyone at once.

Grey Wolf

[veti]

Presumably you have a reason for addressing these people? That is, there's something about them that made you decide to include them in your mailshot or whatever it is?

Then that's your answer. Where I come from, it's pretty safe for a company to address its customers as "Dear Customer". A politician might use "Dear Voter". You in turn may call them "Dear Representative". Sales literature has the hardest job, and usually resolves it by dispensing with the formality, but I've seen "Dear Householder" used in this context.

All the best terms are gender neutral to begin with. After all, if the person's gender was really significant to your communication, you'd presumably already know it.

[Lord Raziere]

I'd imagine their name would be a good one to use. why not ask them?

[Themrys]

No, it is merely coming up with a gender neutral term that can be used across the board. Literally the same problem as "is this woman married or not" solution, applied to everyone at once.

Grey Wolf

With regard to the English language, married and unmarried women alike resented being adressed in a way that took into consideration whether they were married or not, so I suppose only few feel slighted by being adressed as Ms. (German just got rid of the extra word for unmarried women because it was a diminutive and clearly insulting, so there was zero problem there)

I do not share your optimism about the average person always having resented gendered forms of address and being glad to be rid of them even if that means having to get used to a word not previously used.

You might be able to get people to accept "sir" as neutral eventually if you start using it for women who don't mind one way or the other and slowly expand usage, but if you try to force people to accept it by just making it compulsory for customer service, expect complaints.

[Dire Moose]

I don’t really care as long as you don’t refer to me as the opposite of what I’m presenting as. Except “It.” I’m not an object.

[The Fury]

I'd imagine their name would be a good one to use. why not ask them?

That's what I generally default to. It's rare for me to learn that someone's non-bianary before learning their name.

[Themrys]

I don’t really care as long as you don’t refer to me as the opposite of what I’m presenting as. Except “It.” I’m not an object.

And how does one know what you are presenting as?

[Vinyadan]

German just got rid of the extra word for unmarried women because it was a diminutive and clearly insulting

[citation needed]

[Themrys]

[citation needed]

I find it insulting and know plenty people who do, too. You won't get anymore citation than that. Go ahead and find an essay by someone who misses being called Fräulein if you want to debate it.

[Ravens_cry]

I can confirm this. I used to chat in a flirty way with a native German speaker, and she directly informed me she didn't want to be called Fraulein. Liebling, however, was A-OK.👍
Anyway, as I said in the last page, gentle and gentles make good singular and plural substitutes for ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion.

[Scarlet Knight]

I can confirm this. I used to chat in a flirty way with a native German speaker, and she directly informed me she didn't want to be called Fraulein. Liebling, however, was A-OK.👍
Anyway, as I said in the last page, gentle and gentles make good singular and plural substitutes for ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion.

Is that similar to a woman who got angry at me because I called her "Ma'am" instead of "Miss" because she felt she wasn't old enough to be a "Ma'am"?

Alas "gentles" will not likely work outside of a Ren Faire.


A problem can't both be solved and have no solution.

Also, I'm glad most fields don't take your approach to their problems. "You've got the plague, but 50 years ago we couldn't solve it, so there is nothing I can do"

Grey Wolf

*calculates belligerence* I'm sorry, perhaps I should clarify. The problem of addressing people of unknown gender is something I've solved to my satisfaction 50 years ago. The problem likely existed even earlier, ever since the first bad phone connection was made. I believe we have all experienced something similar, used similar techniques and did well, solving the problem without a universal term.

The universal term is the non-existant solution I spoke of; one requested but that no one on this playground seems to be able to agree on. Thus it does not yet exist. It may in the future if enough people want it and agree on it. There are plenty of words that very few people will ever use.

Thus the problem has a solution, but the solution requested does not yet exist.

[Vinyadan]

I find it insulting and know plenty people who do, too. You won't get anymore citation than that. Go ahead and find an essay by someone who misses being called Fräulein if you want to debate it.

Why is it insulting? My experience was that it had simply been restricted to the familiar sphere (as in "Fräulein!" being the incipit when a parent was about to start a tirade), or used by "altmodische" country people, especially in dialectal forms (something like "Frollin".) Already knowing that its use has fallen out of fashion, I never tried using it on a girl.

[Aedilred]

Why is it insulting? My experience was that it had simply been restricted to the familiar sphere (as in "Fräulein!" being the incipit when a parent was about to start a tirade), or used by "altmodische" country people, especially in dialectal forms (something like "Frollin".) Already knowing that its use has fallen out of fashion, I never tried using it on a girl.

I can see how/why some women might find it insulting, particularly those of a feminist bent, but I would also be willing to wager that that sentiment is far from universally held. Admittedly, I don't know how the situation is in Germany, but with regard to the English equivalent, I have had a number of female friends who dislike "Ms" and insiste(d) on "Miss" (at least before they were married). While most tolerate "Ms", those who prefer "Ms" in all contexts have, in my experience, tended to be much older, and/or divorced.

[Themrys]

Is that similar to a woman who got angry at me because I called her "Ma'am" instead of "Miss" because she felt she wasn't old enough to be a "Ma'am"?

No. Fräulein is a diminutive. It essentially means "little woman". The ending -lein is also still used (for example, the affectionate diminutive of Schatz in the meaning of "darling" is either "Schätzchen" or "Schätzelein", apparently depending on which dialect someone speaks) so everyone in Germany is aware of this meaning.
Which is quite likely why it has fallen out of use so quickly and with less conflict than English managed to introduce "Ms" (of which I admittedly still don't know how to pronounce it)

To call an adult woman "Fräulein" is not implying that she is your elder and entitled to your respect (as with Ma'am), it implies, at best, that you don't take her seriously because she isn't married, and at worst, that you consider her to be a server in a restaurant. (The kind of person that used to be adressed as Frollein, which by now is considered rude even in that context). I strongy advise against using the word (unless asked to do so) if you are not a native speaker of German. The few contexts in which it would not be taken as insult are hard to determine if you aren't very familiar with how it was and is used.

I don't know about the etymology of "Miss", and to me as non-native speaker, it doesn't sound nearly as condescending as "Fräulein", so it may be that some women reject the "Ms", but if even that was a problem, it is easy to see how much resistance there would be against pushing gender neutral terms on everyone.

[Scarlet Knight]

Thank you ! In always equated "Frau" with "Misses" and "fraulein" with "Miss".

"Ms." is pronounced "mizz"; like "Miss" but slurred.

[Vinyadan]

@Themrys: just to put things in perspective, the reason why I put the [citation needed] was that there was no indication that you were from a German-speaking area, as I now assume you are, so I didn't know if you were speaking from experience or from something else. I wanted to make this clear, because retrospectively I realize that it can otherwise look needlessly irritating.

My impression until now had been that the word had simply fallen out of fashion because the marital status of a woman has ceased to mean anything, and because the definition of "married woman" in and of itself has become problematic.

From the "insulting" perspective, I guess that there is the unfortunate fact that, being the diminutive not of the word for "Mistress", but for "Woman", it assumes that, to be a full woman, one needs to be married or with child. This doesn't have any parallel in living languages I know*. Latin had a word (not used as a title), "muliercula", which could mean anything from little woman to prostitute to weasel.

*This is due to the evolution of the word. Like Italian "donna", Frau used to mean "Mistress" (in the non-sexual sense), not woman. (Italian Donna < Latin Domina "mistress"). However, Italian developed another form of address (signora < Lat. Senior), and Donna is now almost never used as a form of address. So, nowadays, donna = woman. In German, Frau used to mean Mistress (it was the feminine of frô, "Lord", which now only survives in some old nouns relative to religious or feudal customs). Later, this meaning shifted to mean "woman", but German, AFAIK, never created a new form of address.
And Frau also means "wife", as in other languages where the word for "woman" means "wife" (e.g. Spanish mujer).

[Themrys]

Yeah, I am a native speaker of German.

Sure, Fräulein fell out of fashion, but it did so because people considered it demeaning. Not necessarily just because of the diminutive and the fact men aren't considered lesser status when unmarried - there's also the fact that an unmarried woman used to be a woman who had to work low-wage jobs. (Isn't "maid" something like this?)

I once wrote an entire essay on why we now use "Frau" for "woman" while it previously meant "noblewoman".

If a big chunk of your society regularly talks in a demeaning way about the chunk of society they can afford to talk about like this (i.e. female adults, in this case), then the word normally used to describe that latter chunk takes on a demeaning meaning.

A man who wanted to show that, unlike other men, he respects women, would turn to the use of the word for noblewoman if talking to a not noble woman. Other men would follow, young boys would think that was the normal word for an adult person of the female sex, and use it that way. (There's a scene in Goethe's Faust where Faust tries to hit on a girl by calling her "Fräulein" despite her obviously being a commoner. I imagine that's how it started.)

So, "Weib", the previous word for a person of the female sex, fell out of use entirely and is now almost exclusively used as insult. The process was slow and natural, there was no change of law to make it so. But it would not have happened if the word had not taken on a negative meaning.

With "Fräulein", when women's marriage status actually affected their life, they logically had more important things to worry about than the word that was used to describe this undesirable situation.

(I don't think it is a coincidence Fräulein only started to be used for commoners when the difference between nobles and commoners wasn't so important anymore, too. Language follows reality. When nobles had actual power, they would not have allowed for commoners to just steal their titles. And a woman who would be forbidden from working as teacher if she was married won't be so stupid to ask people to call her "Frau" when she turns 30 and thinks she's old enough, thereby risking to lose her job over a misunderstanding.)

[halfeye]

Yeah, I am a native speaker of German.

(Isn't "maid" something like this?)

It also means virgin. Hence "old maid" being somewhat perjorative.

[Peelee]

"Young woman" and "virgin" having relatively interchangeable words seems like it could cause problems.

[halfeye]

"Young woman" and "virgin" having relatively interchangeable words seems like it could cause problems.

Yeah, I read a story once...

[snowblizz]

Yeah, I read a story once...

Does it star a carpenter because I might have heard of it too?

[halfeye]

Does it star a carpenter because I might have heard of it too?

Nah, I mainly remember they were (NSFW) then they get captured the bloke says "unhand that maid", the leader of the (bandits?) says "we saw you, she's not". I don't remember the rest, except that was near the beginning.

[The Jack]

I think you should roll with whatever's in your mind at the time. Just don't make a big deal of it.

Being patronizing is being rude. If I wanna look like a lady and still look like a bloke, don't use female pronouns like you're trying to avoid an execution, and don't go all magnanimous either; you get no points.

Stressing the gender either way is rude. I mean I get why some people do it the other way;Some people see it as an honesty thing; they'll always go with what they think's your biological sex; they think you're trying to deceive them. Other people are just wanna be mean.

Just be cool, that works with all reasonable people.

There's exceptions.
Trans people seem to have a pretty big morbidity rate with other issues. Some people want that magnanimous affirmation even if it'd come across as patronizing to most others. Some people can't see the other side of things and'll assume you're a bigot with great bigotry (All roads lead to bigotry?) if you don't give them the answer they think they deserve, regardless of how you meant it.
Those people are in an interesting spot, because on one hand you feel sorry for whatever issue they've got. On the other hand you're better off with other people.
I've been binging on RuPaul's drag race with my partner. We find ourselves alternating between thinking of everyone as he or she, usually the later, but it's largely the context that informs us. Sure, we've not gotten to the seasons where there are open trans yet, but I think it's really cool that they don't seem to care.

Treat others how you'd like to be treated. I don't think you should make a big deal out of my gender, so I don't think I should make a big deal out of your gender. If everyone had this mindset, the world'd be a happier place.

[Razade]

I propose we all use dude. Dude is gender neutral, even if used mostly for guys, and it might induce some people to chill the hell out. Either that or Chief. It's also gender neutral, a title of respect so people can't whinge about diminutives or whatever. I use both.

[halfeye]

Dude is gender neutral, even if used mostly for guys

In that case the usage has changed.

There was a song "Dude looked like a Lady". It wasn't a band I liked, but it used to be on the radio quite a lot.

[Razade]

In that case the usage has changed.

There was a song "Dude looked like a Lady". It wasn't a band I liked, but it used to be on the radio quite a lot.

It has. Dude looks like a Lady was written in 1987 and even then was sort of using an out of fashion use of the word. Dude started to trend to gender neutral in the 1970's. One can't account for how every single person uses it but dude is, in general venacular at least in the States, fairly gender neutral.

And even then. I offered two. Just call everyone Chief. Or Boss. Or Jefe. You can't go wrong with any of those.

[JNAProductions]

It has. Dude looks like a Lady was written in 1987 and even then was sort of using an out of fashion use of the word. Dude started to trend to gender neutral in the 1970's. One can't account for how every single person uses it but dude is, in general venacular at least in the States, fairly gender neutral.

And even then. I offered two. Just call everyone Chief. Or Boss. Or Jefe. You can't go wrong with any of those.

I'd say dude can be gendered on context.

For instance, if you say to a mixed-gender group "Dudes to the left, chicks to the right," it's clear you're using dude as a masculine. But if you say to the same group "Alright, you dudes ready to rock?!" then it's clear that you're asking ALL of them about their preparedness for stone.

The main issue I have with dude is that it's not terribly respectful-I'd get in trouble at work if I called everyone dude! But chief works, methinks.

[Razade]

I'd say dude can be gendered on context.

For instance, if you say to a mixed-gender group "Dudes to the left, chicks to the right," it's clear you're using dude as a masculine. But if you say to the same group "Alright, you dudes ready to rock?!" then it's clear that you're asking ALL of them about their preparedness for stone.

The main issue I have with dude is that it's not terribly respectful-I'd get in trouble at work if I called everyone dude! But chief works, methinks.

Right, I acknowledged that from the outset. I'm not sure what everyone's hang up here is. The thing is, it isn't inherently gender neutral anymore and it wouldn't be (regardless of what it was before)if it entered common parlance as a respectful way to greet someone in a non-gendered way. Which it is.

As to the "politeness" thing...that's a hang up with people. Language changes and if people started using it in a polite context then the word would change. It'd take time but it would. It'd at least dodge people whinging about people using It (because it's an object and we're not objects...except we are) or They because they (the singular they) can't wrap their heads around it not being a third person plural pronoun.

[Vinyadan]

In that case the usage has changed.

There was a song "Dude looked like a Lady". It wasn't a band I liked, but it used to be on the radio quite a lot.

What about using "Rebel"? Like in the song?

[Scarlet Knight]

In the end, there is presently no need for a gender neutral term as long as everyone is polite.

If a customer comes in, and I can't tell if it's a man with long hair, a hard woman, or someone trans, I simply greet them with a: "Hello! How are you today? Can I be of service?"

On the phone, a name or the voice answering may give me a clue but that may still be misleading so I go with "Hello! I'm Scarlet Knight with ABC company. I'd like to speak to you about XYZ. Do you have time for some quick questions?"

No need for "Boss", "Dude", "Rebel" or "Jeffe"...none of which work well with women.

[Peelee]

In the end, there is presently no need for a gender neutral term as long as everyone is polite.

If a customer comes in, and I can't tell if it's a man with long hair, a hard woman, or someone trans, I simply greet them with a: "Hello! How are you today? Can I be of service?"

On the phone, a name or the voice answering may give me a clue but that may still be misleading so I go with "Hello! I'm Scarlet Knight with ABC company. I'd like to speak to you about XYZ. Do you have time for some quick questions?"

No need for "Boss", "Dude", "Rebel" or "Jeffe"...none of which work well with women.

How does "boss" not work well with women?

[veti]

How does "boss" not work well with women?

"Boss" does not work well with anyone who isn't your boss. If someone said it to me, I'd think they were at best being overfamiliar, at worst openly mocking me.

[Peelee]

"Boss" does not work well with anyone who isn't your boss. If someone said it to me, I'd think they were at best being overfamiliar, at worst openly mocking me.

If you're talking to a client/customer/patient/any other business-like associate, it works perfectly well. In casual environment, it works well - Andre the Giant famously (and successfully) used that to address people to make them less intimidated.

[LaZodiac]

If you're talking to a client/customer/patient/any other business-like associate, it works perfectly well. In casual environment, it works well - Andre the Giant famously (and successfully) used that to address people to make them less intimidated.

Andre was also a well known lovable giant with the voice of an angel. Dave from marketing isn't going to get away with calling people boss.

[Peelee]

Andre was also a well known lovable giant with the voice of an angel. Dave from marketing isn't going to get away with calling people boss.

Lovable giant because he used "boss" to make people feel more comfortable around him. :smallamused:

Besides, Dave from marketing can totally get away with it. So long as they're not putting undue emphasis on it or overusing it, tons of people can get away with boss.

[Razade]

No need for "Boss", "Dude", "Rebel" or "Jeffe"...none of which work well with women.


How does "boss" not work well with women?

I'd like to know this as well. Since every boss I've ever had was a woman and I called them boss all the time and it seemed to work out just fine. Also it's Jefe. With one f.


Andre was also a well known lovable giant with the voice of an angel. Dave from marketing isn't going to get away with calling people boss.

I don't even work marketing and I get away with calling people boss all the time. I'm not the only one, plenty of people in my area use it. People understand that you're not using it as a power dynamic term and more as a respectful way to greet someone.

Which is what we're looking for here. Boss is gender neutral and respectful as long as you're not snotty about it. But calling someone Sir or Miss in a snotty tone is just as bad so...what's the problem?

[5crownik007]

Here's my strategy, use what seems appropriate, and if there's a correction to be made, I'll be corrected.
For a laugh, call them Doctor. It's gender neutral.


As in Ma'am/Madam and Sir. What's an alternative if you don't know somebody's gender or they're non-binary?

In some literature, I've seen military enlisted refer to military officers of any sex as "Sir", but never anywhere else, and never in any real videos of military.
For a laugh, call them sir and then claim that it's gender neutral.

The easy option is just (job)+(surname), although that gets a bit unwieldy.

In Japanese, the suffix -san works on anyone's name, but it's used for pretty much everyone you know, informally and formally. The suffix -sama is used for people of a higher status than you, people you admire, or divine beings(spirits). It is also gender neutral, but I don't feel like it's something you would call your local manager. It's sort of reserved for writing letters and nobility.
For a laugh, call them heika(you majesty). It's gender neutral.

And I've generally run out of options at this point. To be honest, I've never run into this problem and I doubt I will. If there's no honorific for my boss, I'll just say "hey boss", "hey (firstname)", "hey".
Most other honorifics work for any sex as well:
Officer (law-enforcement)
Agent (like most federal agencies?)
Military Rank
Your Honour (judges)
Your Majesty (royalty)

In other settings, if someone's getting tied up over what honorific you call them, either you're calling them something ridiculous like "High Lord Commander" or they're not cut out to work there.

[The Extinguisher]

Comrade
[/kidding]
Grey Wolf

This, but unironically.

~

why is it that its always the guy terms that get to be gender neutral? I dont want to be a dude, or a guy, or a sir or whatever. I suggest chick to be the new gender neutral word.

~

honestly, i just dont use formal language at all. I dont need to acknowledge any implicit hierarchies between people to be polite.

[veti]

Boss is gender neutral and respectful as long as you're not snotty about it. But calling someone Sir or Miss in a snotty tone is just as bad so...what's the problem?

"Boss" is a specific word implying a very specific relationship - namely, one in which you are, to some extent, obligated to listen to and, to the extent that it's within your capabilities and job description, follow instructions from the other party.

If you, a perfect stranger, address me as "boss", none of that relationship exists. You're pretending I have some kind of authority over you, but you and I both know perfectly well you have no intention of doing anything for me that requires more than, at most, a token expenditure of effort on your part. That is mockery, plain and simple.

If you're really prepared to follow even the most elementary instructions, then my first one is: don't call me "boss".

[Rynjin]

why is it that its always the guy terms that get to be gender neutral? I dont want to be a dude, or a guy, or a sir or whatever. I suggest chick to be the new gender neutral word.



I'd imagine it's because most originally female informal terms of address are pejorative or diminutive. Chick is a good example; I don't know any women who like the term.

There's an implied neutrality and lack of baggage to most traditionally male informal terms.

Nobody has ever been called "dude" with malice/disrespect. At least not enough to matter. The same cannot be said for "chick" or "babe" or similar, which have become trademark douchespeak when referring to anyone you're not already familiar with. There's a reason a guy calling a stranger a chick in a movie usually immediately codes them as a misogynist.

[Razade]

"Boss" is a specific word implying a very specific relationship - namely, one in which you are, to some extent, obligated to listen to and, to the extent that it's within your capabilities and job description, follow instructions from the other party.

Certainly one way to use that word. Here we are though, with people using it another way completely separate from the context you're expressing.


If you, a perfect stranger, address me as "boss", none of that relationship exists. You're pretending I have some kind of authority over you

No I'm not. Strange how I know what's going on in my head and you, some dude, don't. Weird. As said above, I'm using Boss in a new context. That other people seem to acknowledge because other people outside myself use it for the same context and if we all started using it in that new context then it would just be the way it's used. Language is awesome. It's plastic. It molds to its environment and even basic, simple, words have multiple uses and meanings.


but you and I both know perfectly well you have no intention of doing anything for me that requires more than, at most, a token expenditure of effort on your part. That is mockery, plain and simple.

No it isn't. You can't attribute motivations to me that I don't actually hold. You can certainly take it that way but that's a you problem, not a me problem. When I use it there's no mockery. Plain and simple. Because I express myself through more than just words but also tone, and the tone conveys the respectful intent. I could absolutely use it to poke fun at you however.

[veti]

Certainly one way to use that word. Here we are though, with people using it another way completely separate from the context you're expressing.
The whole point of words is that they have meanings. If you say that your meaning is completely independent of the original meaning, then why are you using that word at all? Why not call me, e.g., "parsnip" or "tough"?


No I'm not. Strange how I know what's going on in my head and you, some dude, don't.
See above re words. If your words are giving me a mistaken impression of what is going on in your head, and that is not your intention, then your words are failing in their function. Since the whole question of this thread was about "not giving offence", and that is precisely what this word would give me, I think that's a pretty big deal.


No it isn't. You can't attribute motivations to me that I don't actually hold.
Oh yes I can. The only window I have into your motivation is the one you choose to give me, via your choice of words. What your motivation might actually be is a secret between you and yourself, but that doesn't stop me from drawing conclusions based on what you say.


You can certainly take it that way but that's a you problem, not a me problem.
Would you make the same argument if we were talking about a once-popular racial slur? Because everything you've said could be used just as well to defend any other word. If former meanings are irrelevant, and internal attitude is all that matters, then you could equally well use "sir" or "madam" or "queen" or "rent boy".

[Peelee]

The whole point of words is that they have meanings. If you say that your meaning is completely independent of the original meaning, then why are you using that word at all? Why not call me, e.g., "parsnip" or "tough"?

Today I learned language doesn't evolve at all.

[ve4grm]

In some literature, I've seen military enlisted refer to military officers of any sex as "Sir", but never anywhere else, and never in any real videos of military.
For a laugh, call them sir and then claim that it's gender neutral.

For a somewhat serious answer, we can look to fantasy/sci-fi literature. In both Game of Thrones and Dragon Age (as well as many others, including Jack Vance's works), the word Ser is used as a gender-neutral honorific, especially (but not solely) for knights of either gender (though in GoT they are all male, the title is still used).

Apparently it's a middle english variant of Sir, possibly a shortening of the Italian "messer" (mister), but has been adopted in many fantasy novels as a genderless title.

I believe it's supposed to be pronounced "Sair" but I'm not sure how the HBO series does it. I think in Dragon Age it's closer to Sir, so it may be tricky in speech, but could work better in writing?

For more information on it and its history, including more examples of its use:
https://nonbinary.wiki/w/index.php?title=Gender_neutral_titles&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile#Ser
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/85629/where-does-the-idea-of-replacing-sir-with-ser-in-a-song-of-ice-and-fire-co
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ser#Etymology_2

[Vinyadan]

I can't help but think that the ser in the wikipedia article actually is a pronoun.

[halfeye]

Nobody has ever been called "dude" with malice/disrespect.

The phrase "Dude ranch" was originally pretty disrespectful, in some ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guest_ranch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude

[Themrys]

This, but unironically.

~

why is it that its always the guy terms that get to be gender neutral? I dont want to be a dude, or a guy, or a sir or whatever. I suggest chick to be the new gender neutral word.

~

honestly, i just dont use formal language at all. I dont need to acknowledge any implicit hierarchies between people to be polite.

Chick is already a gender neutral word. Used for baby chickens of both sexes, if I am not mistaken.


We could make "hen" a gender neutral word (I think it is used in Sweden for that very purpose) and refer to males as rooster (I tried the shorter word, but it was censored by the forum), in cases where the distinction needs to be made.

After all, referring to an adult person as baby chicken is rather rude, we should at least use adult chicken terminology. (I mean, as non-native speaker I have no idea why one would use chicken terms at all, but that's a different debate.)

[Peelee]

Chick is already a gender neutral word. Used for baby chickens of both sexes, if I am not mistaken.


We could make "hen" a gender neutral word (I think it is used in Sweden for that very purpose) and refer to males as rooster (I tried the shorter word, but it was censored by the forum), in cases where the distinction needs to be made.
https://originalflava.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Kevin-Hart-shocked-face.jpg

as non-native speaker
Oh thank god. So, now that I can see where you're coming from, I'll just say that would be a really bad idea. In, like, every possible way.

[Vinyadan]

The last explanation I read was that English chick comes from Spanish chica (=girl).

[Themrys]

Oh thank god. So, now that I can see where you're coming from, I'll just say that would be a really bad idea. In, like, every possible way.

Why do I always have to tell people I'm not a native speaker? It should be obvious from my grammar mistakes, really.

If there's a reason why that's a bad idea (and not on the same level of extremely silly as pretty much anything else suggested here) then I probably don't even want to know. I likely miss a lot of the subtleties of dirty meanings of words because those aren't discussed at university, but I prefer it that way.

@Vinyadan: That would make it sound a lot less insulting, but why it is spelled like chicken?

(In that case it would be a totally appropriate gender-neutral term, because the female ending -a has been lost)

[ve4grm]

Why do I always have to tell people I'm not a native speaker? It should be obvious from my grammar mistakes, really.

It's really not. Your grammar, while not flawless, is quite good. And many native speakers (of any language, I assume) have terrible grammar, or just don't bother to put in the effort.


If there's a reason why that's a bad idea (and not on the same level of extremely silly as pretty much anything else suggested here) then I probably don't even want to know. I likely miss a lot of the subtleties of dirty meanings of words because those aren't discussed at university, but I prefer it that way.

Hen is used (mostly in British English) as a somewhat denigrating term for women, I guess implying that they're milling about and squawking a lot. A bachelorette party, as well as some other "girls night"-ish gatherings of women is often called a "hen party."

The male version that isn't rooster... is a word for a part of male anatomy.

It's probably best to avoid those altogether.


@Vinyadan: That would make it sound a lot less insulting, but why it is spelled like chicken?

*SHRUG*

Anglicization is weird.

[Peelee]

Why do I always have to tell people I'm not a native speaker? It should be obvious from my grammar mistakes, really.
Because people who do have English as a native language have a shockingly high rate of grammar mistakes, at least online.

If there's a reason why that's a bad idea (and not on the same level of extremely silly as pretty much anything else suggested here) then I probably don't even want to know. I likely miss a lot of the subtleties of dirty meanings of words because those aren't discussed at university, but I prefer it that way.

So, in America at least, "chick" is a very gendered and misogynistic word, unless you're referring to actual baby chickens (I believe in the UK they use "bird" similarly. No idea what the correlation is). As previously said, it's fairly easy to show a character as a bad person in media by having them call women chicks. Also why Exti suggested chick to be the gender neutral word - it shows men how off-putting it is to have a clearly gendered word be made ungendered.

The alternative word for rooster is censored because that's slang for male genitalia. Men would fall into two categories: ones who don't want to be called that at all, and men who would love to be called that (and those kinds you really don't want to give that satisfaction to).

[Tvtyrant]

The whole point of words is that they have meanings. If you say that your meaning is completely independent of the original meaning, then why are you using that word at all? Why not call me, e.g., "parsnip" or "tough"?


See above re words. If your words are giving me a mistaken impression of what is going on in your head, and that is not your intention, then your words are failing in their function. Since the whole question of this thread was about "not giving offence", and that is precisely what this word would give me, I think that's a pretty big deal.


Oh yes I can. The only window I have into your motivation is the one you choose to give me, via your choice of words. What your motivation might actually be is a secret between you and yourself, but that doesn't stop me from drawing conclusions based on what you say.


Would you make the same argument if we were talking about a once-popular racial slur? Because everything you've said could be used just as well to defend any other word. If former meanings are irrelevant, and internal attitude is all that matters, then you could equally well use "sir" or "madam" or "queen" or "rent boy".

For that matter the words hearty, dear. sweety, darling, honey, champ, buddy, amigo, friend, pal, chum, partner, master, sir, madame, gentlemen, ladies, cousin, and brother are now banned from the lexicon as they are used almost exclusively against their literal definitions. Oppa Gangnam Style is now Dirty Old Wealthy Lech Style.

Boss is equivalent to Master in use, and using it in regular parlance is used to mean someone estimable and not your literal overseer.


Because people who do have English as a native language have a shockingly high rate of grammar mistakes, at least online.


So, in America at least, "chick" is a very gendered and misogynistic word, unless you're referring to actual baby chickens (I believe in the UK they use "bird" similarly. No idea what the correlation is). As previously said, it's fairly easy to show a character as a bad person in media by having them call women chicks. Also why Exti suggested chick to be the gender neutral word - it shows men how off-putting it is to have a clearly gendered word be made ungendered.

The alternative word for rooster is censored because that's slang for male genitalia. Men would fall into two categories: ones who don't want to be called that at all, and men who would love to be called that (and those kinds you really don't want to give that satisfaction to).

Gendered yes, but when and why is chica misogynistic? Chick is just from Americanizing a common Spanish form of address, I have never heard of anyone finding that offensive (and I went to two liberal arts universities in Oregon.)

[The Jack]

I really think you're all hurting yourselves from overthinking.



Points of order.
'Chick' doesn't seem to be sexist in a lot of places, like Australia. It's weird to cross borders and find a drastic change in attitude.

Chick is just from Americanizing a common Spanish form of address
I'm open to being wrong, but I don't think so. If I am wrong, i don't see the relevance. A lot of countries have interesting terms for 'black' but you don't touch that stuff with English.

'dude' is as gendered as 'guys'. But more importantly in some areas it's kind of a way to mock someone who's not cool/is trying to be cool. Regional influence applies.

Boss is just a dumb idea. Might as well call them master, or 'your majesty', and if you don't see what the problem is with that then let me and whoever you offend tell you it's a problem.



Lit just go for standard pronouns and don't make a big deal out of it. It's better for most people to go with the flow on this.

[Peelee]

Points of order. 'Chick' doesn't seem to be sexist in a lot of places, like Australia. It's weird to cross borders and find a drastic change in attitude.

Point of order: From what I've heard, in Australia the C-bomb is, if not fine, then at least common, whereas in these parts you're looking to get beat by any woman who hears it.

[Razade]

The whole point of words is that they have meanings. If you say that your meaning is completely independent of the original meaning, then why are you using that word at all? Why not call me, e.g., "parsnip" or "tough"?

Could do. But yeah, words don't have meanings. They have usages. Words are labels and they change and evolve as we use them. They just do. This isn't something you can argue because you're demonstrably wrong. You just are. We have to agree on the usage of course. Because that's also how language works. We being a collection of people. Not you and me. Because I don't give a bean what you think regarding words. You think they have meaning after all.



above re words. If your words are giving me a mistaken impression of what is going on in your head, and that is not your intention, then your words are failing in their function. Since the whole question of this thread was about "not giving offence", and that is precisely what this word would give me, I think that's a pretty big deal.

Right, see the "we have to agree on the meaning" or at least we have to have a large body of people who agree. That's why I can't just substitute words, there needs to be a consensus or at least a large usage of the words I want to change meaning other things. Which takes time. Which I've pointed out. So ya know, you're not really doing it for me here if I'm honest.



Oh yes I can. The only window I have into your motivation is the one you choose to give me, via your choice of words. What your motivation might actually be is a secret between you and yourself, but that doesn't stop me from drawing conclusions based on what you say.

No, you can assume. You can't attribute them to me if I don't hold them. You can only assume and work on those assumptions. You'd be wrong however.


Would you make the same argument if we were talking about a once-popular racial slur? Because everything you've said could be used just as well to defend any other word. If former meanings are irrelevant, and internal attitude is all that matters, then you could equally well use "sir" or "madam" or "queen" or "rent boy".

Well since I never said that

1. Former meanings are irrelevant

or

2. Internal attitudes are all that matter.

I wouldn't make those same arguments because they're not the arguments I'm making. But I would make, and have been making, the argument that words can and do change and we can change them. I'd argue that the once popular racial slur I think you're thinking of has already shifted meaning by the preponderance of it in modern rap music. So ya know, the argument I'm making has already been made and verified as accurate. Let's go down the list of other things you list shall we?

Sir: Originally sir was for knighted men. It isn't anymore so that usage has changed. It's an old change but it's a change none the less. Sir incidentally comes from Sire which isn't an English (or German) word. It's actually Latin. So..yeah. That word's changed. It may well change again.

Madam: This one is really interesting in that, like Sir, it was a noble title before it became a common title. What's even more interesting is that in Indonesia Madam is only used for women who keep their maiden name after marriage. So that usage has changed twice.

Queen: This one has a really recent change. Obviously it's used for the female leader of a country but in recent times it's been used for a variety of things. One being a very effeminate gay man. So, that context is obviously not the same. Even more recently Queen has been used to refer to a strong, independent woman. So a second change. So...what's your point here boss?

Rent Boy: As far as I know this one hasn't changed much from just a male prostitute. But we could change it.

So yeah.


Today I learned language doesn't evolve at all.

I know. Descriptivists are fun aren't they? Except that they're not and their arguments have been dead in the water since literally before they even were made because the language they needed to make those arguments evolved from languages that predate the concept.

[The Jack]

Point of order: From what I've heard, in Australia the C-bomb is, if not fine, then at least common.

It's punctuation; absolutely necessary within the right circles.

[2D8HP]

"Boss" does not work well with anyone who isn't your boss. If someone said it to me, I'd think they were at best being overfamiliar, at worst openly mocking me.


If you're talking to a client/customer/patient/any other business-like associate, it works perfectly well. In casual environment, it works well - Andre the Giant famously (and successfully) used that to address people to make them less intimidated.


Sorry @Peelee, but I remember being called "boss" by customers when I worked retail in the '90's and I indeed found it irritating.

Off the top of my head as alternatives to "Madam" and "Sir" I suggest:


"Citizen"

"Colleague"

"Comrade"

"Fellow"

"Friend"

"Good gentle"

and

"Person" or "Good person"

[The Jack]

Sorry @Peelee, but I remember being called "boss" by customers when I worked retail in the '90's and I indeed found it irritating.

Off the top of my head as alternatives to "Madam" and "Sir" I suggest:


"Citizen"

"Colleague"

"Comrade"

"Fellow"

"Friend"

"Good gentle"

and

"Person" or "Good person"




Sometimes this'll go well, but not always. If you're trying to be inoffensive, don't go for any of these.

[Peelee]

Sorry @Peelee, but I remember being called "boss" by customers when I worked retail in the '90's and I indeed found it irritating.

Eh, the 90's were a crazy time.

[halfeye]

No, you can assume. You can't attribute them to me if I don't hold them. You can only assume and work on those assumptions. You'd be wrong however.

I think you are mistaken in what you seem to thing "attribute" means. I can believe anything about anybody. If I believe something about somebody, as I understand it I am attributing that thing to that person. Attributing something to something or somebody doesn't imply that it's true, it just implies that you believe it. Believing it does imply you believe it to be true, but there's no connection between the belief and the true truth of the matter.

[The Extinguisher]

Oh thank god. So, now that I can see where you're coming from, I'll just say that would be a really bad idea. In, like, every possible way.

for the record: i support the notion to call all men 'roosters' and all people hens. i think its very funny


also, we're getting dangerously close to a prescriptivism debate and that does not go well with a conversation about gender. this isnt a peanut butter and chocolate scenario

words have meaning, but that meaning is fluid and varied

[Peelee]

for the record: i support the notion to call all men 'roosters' and all people hens. i think its very funny

Spot on there, it would definitely be funny.

[Tvtyrant]

Sometimes this'll go well, but not always. If you're trying to be inoffensive, don't go for any of these.

If you are really going for inoffensive, don't talk to people. Being offended is a hobby now, I don't think anything worse then light irritation is a reasonable response to any of that list.

[The Jack]

Light irritation can end conversations and give people poor impressions.

Yeah, being offended is a growing pastime, but regular pronouns work a whole lot better than 'boss'


(Personally I'm fond of social risks, I like to separate the wheat from the chaff, but if you're working in customer service or you're a chicken you best play it safe)

[Scarlet Knight]

Light irritation can end conversations and give people poor impressions.

Yeah, being offended is a growing pastime, but regular pronouns work a whole lot better than 'boss'


(Personally I'm fond of social risks, I like to separate the wheat from the chaff, but if you're working in customer service or you're a chicken you best play it safe)

We've probably all been called "Ace", "Honey" or "Sweetie". None are bad terms but imply a familiarity that I've disliked.

The key word in the title of this thread is "Respectful". If we cause more rather than less irritation, we've defeated our own goal. Face it, there are plenty of irritating things already in our lives.

[The Jack]

I'm not sure If you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, but I do want to point out I've lived in a region of the UK where "'RIGHT MY LUVER' is a greeting.

Regional things are always bad.

[Peelee]

I'm not sure If you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, but I do want to point out I've lived in a region of the UK where "'RIGHT MY LUVER' is a greeting.

Regional things are always bad.

Always, guv'ner?

[Unavenger]

Nobody has ever been called "dude" with malice/disrespect. At least not enough to matter.

I mean, people shouting "That's a dude!" at/about trans people is kinda malicious and disrespectful and matters. So there's that.

[Rynjin]

I mean, people shouting "That's a dude!" at/about trans people is kinda malicious and disrespectful and matters. So there's that.

Only insofar as the context implies male. It's not the word itself; saying man, bro, or any other make oriented term works just as well as an insult as dude implies in that context.

[WarKitty]

Always, guv'ner?

Scuze me, hon?

[The Extinguisher]

Only insofar as the context implies male. It's not the word itself; saying man, bro, or any other make oriented term works just as well as an insult as dude implies in that context.

like, its not better that words that mean men are seen as neutral and normal, and words that mean women are seen are derogatory. thats not a reason why dude names are considered agendered, its another problem with how we associate womenness as otherness.

its a whole Issue


If you are really going for inoffensive, don't talk to people. Being offended is a hobby now, I don't think anything worse then light irritation is a reasonable response to any of that list.

ill try not to poke myself with your edge, but this is such an over the top reaction to someone saying "hey heads up this isn't always appropriate"

[darkrose50]

Sweaty honey baby child!

Your excellency?

[rooster707]

EDIT: On second thought, I don't wanna get involved in this. Post is quoted below if you wanna see how wrong I am.

[ve4grm]

Oh, for ****’s sake. (https://m.imgur.com/gallery/e0c6w)

As long as I’m getting involved in this, I might as well ask: why do you consistently type in all lowercase? What with autocorrect and so forth it probably takes a lot more effort than writing properly, so what’s the point?

Yeesh.

1. Nobody was talking about the words' etymologies, even. Just that saying "Hey guys!" or "Hey dudes!" is considered neutral, while "Hey gals!" or "Hey chicks!" is for only women and could come across as derogatory.

2. Lowercase/no caps is part laziness, and part a generational thing. See this article: Mashable: Millennials have created a form of written English that's as expressive as spoken English (https://mashable.com/2018/04/02/millennials-written-english/)
(Note that while it says Millennials, I think it's later millennials, and in large part the next generation as well. At 35, I'm an older Millennial, and it feels like it's largely younger than me. But it's interesting. And off-topic.)

[Tvtyrant]

Yeesh.

1. Nobody was talking about the words' etymologies, even. Just that saying "Hey guys!" or "Hey dudes!" is considered neutral, while "Hey gals!" or "Hey chicks!" is for only women and could come across as derogatory.

2. Lowercase/no caps is part laziness, and part a generational thing. See this article: Mashable: Millennials have created a form of written English that's as expressive as spoken English (https://mashable.com/2018/04/02/millennials-written-english/)
(Note that while it says Millennials, I think it's later millennials, and in large part the next generation as well. At 35, I'm an older Millennial, and it feels like it's largely younger than me. But it's interesting. And off-topic.)

This felt weirdly accurate, the reading voice in my head can definitely decipher the intended tones on tweets.

[Caerulea]

This felt weirdly accurate, the reading voice in my head can definitely decipher the intended tones on tweets.
I just hear everything in either a whiny voice, an empty voice, though it hard to describe exactly what I mean by that, or somebody shouting at me. Also, the lack of punctuation becomes annoying in places (e.g. "how is it possible that i fall in love with a new boy every week can i chill please").

—Caerulea

[The Extinguisher]

i specifically type in all lower case because it frustrates language purists


using etymology to debunk systemic sexism seems like a pretty over the top reaction to girls not wanting to be called dude, but you do you. ill note that any explanation that has to invoke "coincidence" multiple times is probably not very good tho

[Rynjin]

like, its not better that words that mean men are seen as neutral and normal, and words that mean women are seen are derogatory. thats not a reason why dude names are considered agendered, its another problem with how we associate womenness as otherness.

its a whole Issue

Maybe, but the solution isn't making male-gendered terms derogatory in themselves, and in the short term "reclaiming" them isn't a viable solution for greeting random people you don't know.

[The Extinguisher]

Maybe, but the solution isn't making male-gendered terms derogatory in themselves, and in the short term "reclaiming" them isn't a viable solution for greeting random people you don't know.

no one has suggested that? like, at all? at the very most we said how dude is considered derogatory when its misgendering someone.

the only thing im saying is stop treating dude like a gender neutral word. if you want to like refer to a mixed group of people, or a person of an unknown gender, use a word that is not rooted in gendered culture and specifically gendered culture where man = neutral

i was also saying in a facetious way to "flip" the standard that currently exists and is bad, both to highlight its arbitrariness and also to give the gift of a solid chortle to any who would be so inclined

[Peelee]

I enjoyed it.

[Themrys]

1. Nobody was talking about the words' etymologies, even. Just that saying "Hey guys!" or "Hey dudes!" is considered neutral, while "Hey gals!" or "Hey chicks!" is for only women and could come across as derogatory.


Speak for yourself. I happen to be a woman and I totally feel thrown under the bus for men's benefit when I am part of a group that is then addressed with "hey guys". Because it is the same effing thing that is done in my mothertongue all the effing time. Male terms are being used, and women are asked to pretend we are being addressed, too, even though no one ever would use the male term when talking about one specific person who is female. (Might be different with "guy", but I simply learnt to recognize the term as male and it raises red flags if someone seems to forget I exist in a group.)

The only exception might be if this group consists only of women, in which case I am merely confused.

That said, I am an adult human female, so something that seems to be an abbreviation for "girl" or a word meant to describe the offspring of chickens, also isn't right and the latter comes across as derogatory.

It is high time the English language evolve some colloquial terms to address women that don't either sound like one thinks the person in question is a minor, or like the person in question is a chicken AND minor.

You will, I am afraid, have to abandon the use of "dude" and "guy" to specify someone's sex (As in "Hey, that's a dude") if you wish for non-native speakers to accept the terms as neutral. At the moment, I am simply not buying it.

[Razade]

You will, I am afraid, have to abandon the use of "dude" and "guy" to specify someone's sex (As in "Hey, that's a dude") if you wish for non-native speakers to accept the terms as neutral. At the moment, I am simply not buying it.

Speak for yourself. Dude is genderneutral here. If you don't want to adopt it, cool. But it is.

[2D8HP]

Speak for yourself. I happen to be a woman and I totally feel thrown under the bus for men's benefit when I am part of a group that is then addressed with "hey guys". Because it is the same effing thing that is done in my mothertongue all the effing time. Male terms are being used, and women are asked to pretend we are being addressed, too, even though no one ever would use the male term when talking about one specific person who is female. (Might be different with "guy", but I simply learnt to recognize the term as male and it raises red flags if someone seems to forget I exist in a group.)

The only exception might be if this group consists only of women, in which case I am merely confused...


I've been listening to

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr8l_VnRfvA and I noted that in the series the DM (a woman) collectively refers to her players (all women) both as "ladies" and "guys".(That was the first video in the series, I'm not sure if the DM calls her players "ladies" or "guys" in it, and I'm too lazy to re-listen, sorry).

Etymological it doesn't make much sense but the way I've heard it used "guy" is usually male only but "guys" often isn't, and is used as a synonym for "people" as often as a synonym for "men".

But yes to avoid confusion "person" and "people" are correct.

[Peelee]

But yes to avoid confusion "person" and "people" are correct.

Or, if you like turn of the century slang, "peeps."

[ve4grm]

Speak for yourself. I happen to be a woman and I totally feel thrown under the bus for men's benefit when I am part of a group that is then addressed with "hey guys". Because it is the same effing thing that is done in my mothertongue all the effing time. Male terms are being used, and women are asked to pretend we are being addressed, too, even though no one ever would use the male term when talking about one specific person who is female. (Might be different with "guy", but I simply learnt to recognize the term as male and it raises red flags if someone seems to forget I exist in a group.)

The only exception might be if this group consists only of women, in which case I am merely confused.

That said, I am an adult human female, so something that seems to be an abbreviation for "girl" or a word meant to describe the offspring of chickens, also isn't right and the latter comes across as derogatory.

It is high time the English language evolve some colloquial terms to address women that don't either sound like one thinks the person in question is a minor, or like the person in question is a chicken AND minor.

You will, I am afraid, have to abandon the use of "dude" and "guy" to specify someone's sex (As in "Hey, that's a dude") if you wish for non-native speakers to accept the terms as neutral. At the moment, I am simply not buying it.

Hey, no worries. I actually agree with you... mostly. It's weird sometimes, even as a man, to use "guys" for a mixed-gender group, just because I know that "guy" is gendered.

That said, whether or not any particular person doesn't like it, it is indeed largely accepted as neutral (even by many women referring to groups of only women, as 2D8HP showed with his link). Is it right? I don't know. But for lack of a better term, it is accepted as such.

I'm also with you on the infantilizing nature of slang forms for women. Guy and Dude are also a little in that direction, so I think it's meant to indicate familiarity, but it's way stronger on the female terms. That said, I think "girl" and "boy" have in recent time, while still implying youth, come to not intrinsically imply childhood. so take that for what you will.

[The Extinguisher]

Speak for yourself. Dude is genderneutral here. If you don't want to adopt it, cool. But it is.

its really not. you can insist that it is, but its only neutral in that sense that we use it for groups of guys, and mixed groups.

to test this, go around a bunch of straight men and ask them how many dudes that have slept with

[Anymage]

ill note that any explanation that has to invoke "coincidence" multiple times is probably not very good tho

Which is why nobody believes that a gajillion random happenstances could make something as complex as a human being, and therefore a creator is the only sensible assumption.


That said, I am an adult human female, so something that seems to be an abbreviation for "girl" or a word meant to describe the offspring of chickens, also isn't right and the latter comes across as derogatory.

Feminists have been trying for decades to remove gender from the language. Wanna tell me how well the gender neutral pronouns have been catching on outside of very niche subgroups?

I mean, if you really want to keep trying the same things you've been doing, I'm not going to stop you. Just know what they say about people who do that and expect different results.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Wanna tell me how well the gender neutral pronouns have been catching on outside of very niche subgroups?.

They've been in regular use since at least 1382, except for that weird prescriptivist trend in the late 1800s and early 1900s so I'd say "quite well, thanks".

Grey Wolf

[Razade]

its really not. you can insist that it is, but its only neutral in that sense that we use it for groups of guys, and mixed groups.

Except it is. It's not something you can argue because people are using it, demonstrably, as a gender neutral term. Just because it isn't in one context doesn't mean it isn't in another. Like. That's just how words work.


to test this, go around a bunch of straight men and ask them how many dudes that have slept with

By golly! Words mean different things in different context?! Who'd have thought that.

[The Jack]

They've been in regular use since at least 1382, except for that weird prescriptivist trend in the late 1800s and early 1900s so I'd say "quite well, thanks".

Grey Wolf

'regular use'
Alright. Sure. What page are we on?
Define regular, because I don't know of anything that's not about objects, or 'they'. There's no third person singular in english that's for people in regular use.



Mind, everyone, that English is one of the better languages when it comes to gender; nobody's going to insist you use the male form of table in English.

[halfeye]

Mind, everyone, that English is one of the better languages when it comes to gender; nobody's going to insist you use the male form of table in English.

I should say not. Why would you put skirts on table legs if tables were male? Clearly, if tables were male, the legs would need trousers.

[The Extinguisher]

Which is why nobody believes that a gajillion random happenstances could make something as complex as a human being, and therefore a creator is the only sensible assumption.


Yikes man, its not that deep


Except it is. It's not something you can argue because people are using it, demonstrably, as a gender neutral term. Just because it isn't in one context doesn't mean it isn't in another. Like. That's just how words work.



By golly! Words mean different things in different context?! Who'd have thought that.

I see, were being pedantic here. Okay, let me rephrase. Dude has the common conception of being gender neutral because it, like other words that refer to men, individuals or groups, are something that doesnt need to be delineated from mixed groups. This is because, and also normalizes, the notion that maleness is default, and womenness is 'other' so needs to be specified.

Dude isnt used neutrally like we use they neutrally. Dude is used neutrally like he is used neutrally. Fundamentally unhelpful and symptomatic of larger structual inequality

[137beth]

Answering the OP's question:
I've seen "ser" used as a gender-neutral alternative to "sir" or "ma'am." I don't know where it comes from.

I've also heard "mx" (pronounced "mix") as a gender-neutral alternative to mr. or ms.

[Razade]

I see, were being pedantic here. Okay, let me rephrase. Dude has the common conception of being gender neutral because it, like other words that refer to men, individuals or groups, are something that doesnt need to be delineated from mixed groups. This is because, and also normalizes, the notion that maleness is default, and womenness is 'other' so needs to be specified.

Yikes dude, it's not that deep.


Dude isnt used neutrally like we use they neutrally. Dude is used neutrally like he is used neutrally. Fundamentally unhelpful and symptomatic of larger structual inequality

Considering people object to they, I imagine there's going to be objections for any host of reasons any particular person. I am going to keep using they and dude and when people want to come at me talking about structural inequality and devaluing womanness I'm going to point out I was just trying to be polite and friendly and they're being absurd.

[Caerulea]

Yikes dude, it's not that deep.
I may be misunderstanding, but I believe The Extinguisher's point was that it is a problem that people don't think about it, and just use it out of habit and convenience. That common usage is to address a group potentially composed of a variety of genders as all men is the issue. As such, using "dude" as a neutral term reinforces (in a minor way) that male is the default gender.


Considering people object to they, I imagine there's going to be objections for any host of reasons any particular person. I am going to keep using they and dude and when people want to come at me talking about structural inequality and devaluing womanness I'm going to point out I was just trying to be polite and friendly and they're being absurd.
People, taken as a large group, rarely agree on anything and if they do, it takes a long time for consensus to develop. That objections exist is not a particularly strong argument. While your usage may be perfectly well-intended, the widespread usage of the terms does say something about culture, and is a valid thing to want to change.

In the end, you do what you like, but consider the implications. Also, we can change language however we want to (even though I dislike the practice of replacing words with letters. (e.g. you→u & are→r).)

—Caerulea

[Razade]

I may be misunderstanding, but I believe The Extinguisher's point was that it is a problem that people don't think about it, and just use it out of habit and convenience.

No, I get that. I don't particularly agree that that's a problem. That's how words take on new meaning. We drop the baggage.


That common usage is to address a group potentially composed of a variety of genders as all men is the issue. As such, using "dude" as a neutral term reinforces (in a minor way) that male is the default gender.

It's a common usage. We can acknowledge that and move on.



People, taken as a large group, rarely agree on anything and if they do, it takes a long time for consensus to develop. That objections exist is not a particularly strong argument.

It's also not my argument that we don't come up with something because people disagree. It's my argument that I, on a personal level, will use them even if people disagree. Which is as strong as it needs to be.

[The Extinguisher]

I may be misunderstanding, but I believe The Extinguisher's point was that it is a problem that people don't think about it, and just use it out of habit and convenience. That common usage is to address a group potentially composed of a variety of genders as all men is the issue. As such, using "dude" as a neutral term reinforces (in a minor way) that male is the default gender.


People, taken as a large group, rarely agree on anything and if they do, it takes a long time for consensus to develop. That objections exist is not a particularly strong argument. While your usage may be perfectly well-intended, the widespread usage of the terms does say something about culture, and is a valid thing to want to change.

In the end, you do what you like, but consider the implications. Also, we can change language however we want to (even though I dislike the practice of replacing words with letters. (e.g. you→u & are→r).)

—Caerulea

yeah basically. i like have agender language. personally, i dislike gender as a thing despite feeling a strong connection to it. ive spent years of my life examining and dealing with gender as really wish this wasnt a problem. i wish i could address a mixed group of people as dude just because dude is a fun word to say. but right now, you cant just ignore the structural foundation of the gender binary. its there, whether you want to think about it or not.

when we look at the evolution of language we cant just wash our hands of how that evolution is happening. Just saying 'dude is gender neutral because thats how its used' youre ignoring the context of what that means, the prevalence of similar 'gender neutral male words', and all social and societal issues that surround how we communicate with each other

and if all you care about is being kind and polite, if someone says, hey dont use that word in that context, its just much easier to use a different word. instead of defending the current word on a topic dedicated to finding a different word to use

[Vinyadan]

This is something that I have seen as a problem for some time: there are competing ideas about what an egalitarian language should look like, and they exclude each other. So one idea is that we should use the current masculine form of substantives for everyone, because it generally is the base form from which the feminine form is derived, and the feminine form also sometimes has a different meaning attached that implies inferiority. But then there also the idea that we should use the feminine form every time it is possible, and that we should invent new feminine forms where they are not present, because the deeds of women must be acknowledged and clearly attributed to women, so that they get the representation they deserve.

[The Extinguisher]

This is something that I have seen as a problem for some time: there are competing ideas about what an egalitarian language should look like, and they exclude each other. So one idea is that we should use the current masculine form of substantives for everyone, because it generally is the base form from which the feminine form is derived, and the feminine form also sometimes has a different meaning attached that implies inferiority. But then there also the idea that we should use the feminine form every time it is possible, and that we should invent new feminine forms where they are not present, because the deeds of women must be acknowledged and clearly attributed to women, so that they get the representation they deserve.

Interestingly, neither of those are what im suggesting - ive been vying for a third option barrelling right in the middle between the binary.

~
Just use words that dont have inherent gender. If they dont exist, you can just make them up. Were very good at making up words people do it all the time. We dont need to justify calling mixed groups dudes or chicks because you can just call people coolkids

People always seem so resistent to making new words in these cases. I could throw you (the rhetorical you) something like ootslike and youd understand what i mean. We could have a conversation about the word despite it being the first time either of us had heard it. Language is incredibly powerful at facilitating communication

But the moment it becomes about identity, that power shuts off. Suddenly "xe/xem/xer" is a bridge too far, despite looking and acting like every other third person pronoun. The walls of grammer come up, and we start talking about the need for 'clear communication' despite the fact that we both understand the word enough to debate about it

~
Look, i didnt plan to go off on grammer but its a frustrating part of these conversations everytime.

To answer the op: just call people what they want to be called. If you dont know what they want to called, be as general as possible

I like comrade

[Scarlet Knight]

"C'mon people now; smile on your brother each other.
Everybody get together,
try and love one another right now."


Of all the suggestions so far, (if we must come up with a term) I'm coming around to liking "friend". I can see using it: "Hello, friend. How are you?" Sounds like an offer, really. Maybe an Amish touch? True gender neutral, it's not a made up word so people are comfortable with it, it's less familiar than "pal/buddy/ honey/ sweetie", more respectful than "dude/ace/ kid", less foreign than "amigo/ paesan" and no bad history like "comrade".

[Razade]

Interestingly, neither of those are what im suggesting - ive been vying for a third option barrelling right in the middle between the binary.

Good luck.


Just use words that dont have inherent gender. If they dont exist, you can just make them up. Were very good at making up words people do it all the time. We dont need to justify calling mixed groups dudes or chicks because you can just call people coolkids

All words are made up. We can decouple them from the baggage. You're the one not letting go. Just let go. It's easier and more fun on the side of the pond that goes "Yeah, all that baggage we don't like? Screw it."


But the moment it becomes about identity, that power shuts off. Suddenly "xe/xem/xer" is a bridge too far, despite looking and acting like every other third person pronoun. The walls of grammer come up, and we start talking about the need for 'clear communication' despite the fact that we both understand the word enough to debate about it

Then stop making it about identity.


Look, i didnt plan to go off on grammer but its a frustrating part of these conversations everytime.

Because you make it so.



Of all the suggestions so far, (if we must come up with a term) I'm coming around to liking "friend". I can see using it: "Hello, friend. How are you?" Sounds like an offer, really. Maybe an Amish touch? True gender neutral, it's not a made up word so people are comfortable with it, it's less familiar than "pal/buddy/ honey/ sweetie", more respectful than "dude/ace/ kid", less foreign than "amigo/ paesan" and no bad history like "comrade".

I have to laugh at the fact that "amigo" is too foreign for you to use. You want to assign some level of respect to Dude/et all and won't use Boss because...they're not the boss of you. Or Hefe, because that's probably too "foriegn" to you. Forget that English has more French and Latin words in it than a liquored up Roman Soldier roaming through Gaul has rocks in his sandels, but if it's got a little cilantro and lime on it it's verboten. Or "bad history" because ya know, only the Reds use Comrade.

All of that but Friend is a-ok. I don't know you from Adam. If you come up and call me friend my first assumption is you're trying to get something from me. Of course I still wouldn't be offended, but I'd absolutely wonder what angle you're working and why you think I'm too stupid to not see you working that angle. Friend is super, overly familiar.

[druid91]

"Hey! You!" Accompany with pointing at the person.

[The Extinguisher]

Then stop making it about identity.


it never stops being about identity, is the thing
pretending its not about identity is taking a pretty firm stance regarding identity

[Razade]

it never stops being about identity, is the thing
pretending its not about identity is taking a pretty firm stance regarding identity

I'm not taking a stand against identity. Or pretending it doesn't exist. I am standing against your arguments and assertions and your demand I do or stop doing things because you want to speak on behalf of a wide range of people.

[DaOldeWolf]

My native language is spanish so I might be having the wrong impression on english but I have heard "sir" being used in a formal manner on ocassion with both genders.

I might also be wrong here but usually when I dont know someone´s gender, I just say them politely about they would prefer to be addressed as. I dont need to dwell in details and its clear (or just omit terms). Afterall, verbal language is not the only way to show respect to others.

[The Extinguisher]

I'm not taking a stand against identity. Or pretending it doesn't exist. I am standing against your arguments and assertions and your demand I do or stop doing things because you want to speak on behalf of a wide range of people.

im not demanding you do anything. im not your mother and i literally do not care what you do.

ive been suggesting re-examining the way we use certain languages, and, to be respectful and polite to people, be general if you do not know how to be specific. youre free to do whatever you want with those suggestions, the information. you can keep calling people 'dude' under the false pretense that they are okay with it, or you can even deliberately call people dude even when you know they aren't okay with it. do whatever you want

im dont want to force anyone to do anything, you can choose to do anything. but if you choose to ignore the wishes of people, then i get to think less of you. you dont have to care about that, but it that doesnt stop me from doing it

[Razade]

My native language is spanish so I might be having the wrong impression on english but I have heard "sir" being used in a formal manner on ocassion with both genders.

It happens. It isn't common by any stretch of the imagination. It's one of those things we joke about in military movies, where the women are called Sir because the military is just this big macho silly place so of course they'd just default to everyone being a man.



im not demanding you do anything. im not your mother and i literally do not care what you do.

You certainly claim that. Your words say otherwise though, maybe it's just the way you convey it. Who knows. I can't read your heart or mind. You sure think you can though.


you can keep calling people 'dude' under the false pretense that they are okay with it

Because you want to then go on and say this, without irony.

[The Extinguisher]

here, ill give you a freebie, right now. i do not like it when people call me dude, or refer to a group i am a part of as dudes. i do not want to be referred to that way.

statistically speaking, im not the only person who thinks this way. so if you want to call someone or a group of someones dude, unless you know for a fact that no one in the group thinks like me (by asking them), you risk misidentifying someone, and thats just not a cool thing to do*. you dont lose anything by using something more general, and you gain not having unintentionally hurt someone. theres no downside. look ill even give you some example terms so you cant say i never do anything for you

comrade
boss
friend
pal
coolkid
y'all
fellow youth
shark
sportsfans
literally anything that isnt rooted in gender language its not that hard
compatriot


*note: if you disagree with me on this part please say so itll save me a lot of time

[Razade]

here, ill give you a freebie, right now. i do not like it when people call me dude, or refer to a group i am a part of as dudes. i do not want to be referred to that way.

Yeah, I gathered.


statistically speaking, im not the only person who thinks this way. so if you want to call someone or a group of someones dude, unless you know for a fact that no one in the group thinks like me (by asking them), you risk misidentifying someone, and thats just not a cool thing to do*.

Only real caveat here is...they could tell me? It's a two way street right? If I can't tell then I could ask. But you could just tell me. Sure there's some considerations because people are jerks sometimes but generally speaking...it's not on me to ask. I'm not a mind reader. I have really bad social anxiety so even thinking of asking is just a nightmare for me. Other people have it worse. So can we agree here that it's on both parties? I don't even care to get into whose job it is more. That's needless. Can we just agree that the base level, it's everyone's job in some small way to make sure this information is being conveyed?

I don't want to misidentify people. But if you're just expecting, statistically speaking, me to hone in on the blend of gender expressions when the majority of people are as you say "Cis" then ya know....you might need to reevaluate some things. If you, and this is the general you not...you you, want to get up in arms that people ask for that...that's also on you. I do my part by respecting peoples gender expression because that's the right. Thing. To. Do. I support people when they're transitioning, I champion their rights to live a comfortable and happy life. That's as much as I can do.


you dont lose anything by using something more general, and you gain not having unintentionally hurt someone. theres no downside.

I've said pretty plainly that I use they/them online just as a general thing. I can't be more general than that. I still get complaints. That's on them of course but if you want to go on about how "other people statistically speaking don't care for dude" then ya know. Statistically speaking (And I can quote this thread) there are people who find They offensive. So ya know. Screwed if I do, screwed if I don't.


boss

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey, now we're talkin' boss! Don't suppose we could get rid of Comrade though, and nothing too foreign. Might scare some people.

[Comrade]

Don't suppose we could get rid of Comrade though

Whoa, hey, I'm just an innocent bystander here. I knew this username was a mistake.

Seriously though, let's not make 'boss' the go-to gender neutral term. Always weirds me out when people I know refer to me as 'boss', makes me feel like some kind of mid-level mobster.

[Razade]

Whoa, hey, I'm just an innocent bystander here. I knew this username was a mistake.

Hey! Don't look at me, I like Comrade. I support Tovarich even! But some people think it's a little too Red! Talk to Scarlet...oh. Oh....OH!


Seriously though, let's not make 'boss' the go-to gender neutral term. Always weirds me out when people I know refer to me as 'boss', makes me feel like some kind of mid-level mobster.

We don't know you're not. Boss.

[Scarlet Knight]

*Emergency message - Moscow bureau* Cover is blown! Repeat - cover is blown! Send instructions - Over!*



I have to laugh at the fact that "amigo" is too foreign for you to use. You want to assign some level of respect to Dude/et all and won't use Boss because...they're not the boss of you. Or Hefe, because that's probably too "foriegn" to you. Forget that English has more French and Latin words in it than a liquored up Roman Soldier roaming through Gaul has rocks in his sandels, but if it's got a little cilantro and lime on it it's verboten. Or "bad history" because ya know, only the Reds use Comrade.

All of that but Friend is a-ok. I don't know you from Adam. If you come up and call me friend my first assumption is you're trying to get something from me. Of course I still wouldn't be offended, but I'd absolutely wonder what angle you're working and why you think I'm too stupid to not see you working that angle. Friend is super, overly familiar.

"Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good." I doubt this will be unanimous anyway.

First, I doubt I'll use "friend" that way as I am still working with "groovy" in my vocabulary and do not think this a problem that needs a solution. I said it was less familiar than other similar terms if we are trying to find a term..

Second, at the risk of drifting into politics, "foreign things" are not particularly welcome in todays America. To ignore that is like ignoring that a word has a sexist, bigoted, or communist history. You can, but it makes acceptance by others harder.

[5crownik007]

here, ill give you a freebie, right now. i do not like it when people call me dude, or refer to a group i am a part of as dudes. i do not want to be referred to that way.

statistically speaking, im not the only person who thinks this way. so if you want to call someone or a group of someones dude, unless you know for a fact that no one in the group thinks like me (by asking them), you risk misidentifying someone, and thats just not a cool thing to do*. you dont lose anything by using something more general, and you gain not having unintentionally hurt someone. theres no downside. look ill even give you some example terms so you cant say i never do anything for you

comrade
boss
friend
pal
coolkid
y'all
fellow youth
shark
sportsfans
literally anything that isnt rooted in gender language its not that hard
compatriot


*note: if you disagree with me on this part please say so itll save me a lot of time

But it's convenient to call a group of people "dudes" or "guys". On a certain technical and tangential level, calling a group of people "men" is gender neutral, but I doubt people will know why. It's culturally understood that a group of people can be called by these words, regardless of gender, so why is it an issue? It's only mean if someone's trying to be mean. I feel like the risk of misidentifying someone is outweighed by the complete lack of consequences, physical or emotional from doing it. I wouldn't intentionally misidentify someone, because it costs me nothing to be compliant to a certain degree.

Also, which statistics?

[Vinyadan]

Whoa, hey, I'm just an innocent bystander here. I knew this username was a mistake.

Seriously though, let's not make 'boss' the go-to gender neutral term. Always weirds me out when people I know refer to me as 'boss', makes me feel like some kind of mid-level mobster.

When you'll have climbed up the ladder, they'll start calling you "Don Comrado" :smallbiggrin:

About "xe/xem/xer", it doesn't act like any other personal pronoun. It has the object form of him, but the genitive of her. And, in her, the genitive is the same as the object form, so that's another difference. And, of course, it doesn't resemble it or its in any way. (Why do I cite it? Because it's a third-person pronoun). It has some sympathy from my side because it looks like something written in the dialect of Venice, but it isn't intuitive. This is the difference with OotS-like. There is no new component in OotS-like: we know you can build adjectives that end in "like" (compare "lifelike", "childlike") starting from a name. Instead, "xe/xem/xer" assembles different forms that follow no common rule, and the only way you have to learn to use and understand them correctly is learning them by heart.

[Themrys]

But it's convenient to call a group of people "dudes" or "guys". On a certain technical and tangential level, calling a group of people "men" is gender neutral, but I doubt people will know why. It's culturally understood that a group of people can be called by these words, regardless of gender, so why is it an issue? It's only mean if someone's trying to be mean.


Sexism isn't about being "mean", most of the time. It is about treating women as an afterthought, as objects, even. You would not be mean to an object, either.

And if I am part of a group that consists of both women and men (even if there's only a single man in there) and you call this group "guys" then I will not know whether you view "guy" as neutral term, or if you simply chose to ignore my existence and feelings.

Calling a woman "hey guy" is okay, because then it is obvious you mean to use it as neutral.

Calling groups of people "men" will not be offensive if, and only if, you commonly refer to the two sexes as "wifmen and weremen". (If you are eccentric enough to do so, congrats, you get to call a group of people with me in it "men")

[druid91]

Sexism isn't about being "mean", most of the time. It is about treating women as an afterthought, as objects, even. You would not be mean to an object, either.

And if I am part of a group that consists of both women and men (even if there's only a single man in there) and you call this group "guys" then I will not know whether you view "guy" as neutral term, or if you simply chose to ignore my existence and feelings.

Calling a woman "hey guy" is okay, because then it is obvious you mean to use it as neutral.

Calling groups of people "men" will not be offensive if, and only if, you commonly refer to the two sexes as "wifmen and weremen". (If you are eccentric enough to do so, congrats, you get to call a group of people with me in it "men")

The issue with that, is you are as much responsible for interpreting the meaning of what's said as they are for the actual choosing of the initial words.

You choose how to interpret the words. So what's the harm in NOT assuming people are trying to trivialize your existence?

[ve4grm]

But the moment it becomes about identity, that power shuts off. Suddenly "xe/xem/xer" is a bridge too far

I take issue with xe/xem/xer solely because I have no idea how to pronounce them, and my first instinct is that "xe" would be rather close to "she" which would be confusing. It could also be pronounced like "ze" but if that's the case, let's just spell it "ze"?


The issue with that, is you are as much responsible for interpreting the meaning of what's said as they are for the actual choosing of the initial words.

You choose how to interpret the words. So what's the harm in NOT assuming people are trying to trivialize your existence?

My grandfather, about 20 years ago, casually referred to a black man on TV as "the N***o character" (not the worst of the N words, but still unacceptable). When we called him on it, we discovered that he legitimately thought that was the polite term, having replaced the older, worse N word. And when he was younger, he would have been correct.

If we had been out, rather than alone in his house, and he had referred to a nearby person as "the N***o man over there" and they overheard him, they would not have been at fault for thinking he was insulting or demeaning them, even though he didn't think he was at the time.

Intention is important, but how things come across is just as important, and sometimes even more important than what is intended.

The harm in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt is that then nothing changes. If we had left it alone, my grandpa would probably have kept using that word, unaware, until he died. And at some point, it might have caused an actual problem.

"Dudes" is obviously not as bad as all that. But to many people, it still has a meaning attached. Some of those people will dislike that meaning, and not appreciate being called dudes.

The purpose of this discussion is to find a term that maybe doesn't have baggage attached to it. Insisting we take an existing term and just ignore any baggage, while a potentially viable option if we take years to get everyone used to it, is not a helpful suggestion.

I could just as equally suggest that we call groups of people "commies", or "f*gs", or "a**holes". Sure, we can ignore their baggage, and maybe eventually that would work out and people would accept it. But in the meantime, a lot of folks will be right pissed off to be called any of them.

[Comrade]

I don't see any reason to use 'xe' or 'ze' or 'hir' or whatnot when folks have been using 'they' as a gender-neutral singular pronoun for a real long time. Why invent a whole new slew of pronouns that most people aren't familiar with and-- because people tend to be pretty stubborn-- probably won't want to incorporate into their regular lexicon when 'they' does the job just fine?

[Aotrs Commander]

I suggest Derbyshire slang to the rescue!

We replace each and every honorific with "duck," or perhaps especially formally, "mi'duck."

"Mate" as a less good, boring, possible alternative.

Then not only is everyone outside of Derbyshire equally offended, there is the bonus that I personally wouldn't actually have to spend any effort on trying to work out how to address humans I don't know without actual telepathy that they'd hate anyway to ascertain what title they'd like to be called, because "human" is apparently not acceptable.

Especially, since, y'know (outside of many of the people of this forum) I never get any return consideration and am constantly automatically misspeciesed and nearly 40 years of having to just shut up and smile and politely pretend I'm a human rather than try to explain at length to a populace that would be actively contemptuous and whom I can't explosively prove wrong because of many, many reasons (maintaining plausible deniability just being the first) has taken something of a toll.

Ahem. I'm apparently repressing more than I thought.

[Vinyadan]

Because you are a duck?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because you are a duck?

No, because, as the sidebar helpfully informs us, he is a male Spirit-Bound Skeletal Lich (Lawful Evil).

Grey Wolf

[Aotrs Commander]

Because you are a duck?

Taking that comment at face value, the first part of the post is unrelated to the second part. "Duck," is, in fact, a (relatively) gender-neutral generic term of address in Derbyshire.




No, because, as the sidebar helpfully informs us, he is a male Spirit-Bound Skeletal Lich (Lawful Evil).

Grey Wolf

Also this.

[Peelee]

Taking that comment at face value, the first part of the post is unrelated to the second part. "Duck," is, in fact, a (relatively) gender-neutral generic term of address in Derbyshire.

What about in the Bleak Despair battlestation?

[Aotrs Commander]

What about in the Bleak Despair battlestation?

Again, to take this at face value and because now you've started that racial tendancy to monologue:

(But, I will spare those of you who won't care (most of you, probably), at least, by spoilering it.)

Different dynamics, being both a military installation and in an environment where multispecies exists.

As I am in charge, I can pretty much address my subordinates by whatever I like (up to and including "duck" or "oi, minion") informally. Formally, of course, I use their rank; and they call me "commadore," "sir" or, informally, "boss." (If I was female, "ma'am" could replace "sir", or if I had any other particular preference, I would have politely stated that on assumption of command.)



Also, worth noting that if you think that it might be hard to tell boys from girls when alive, imagine how hard it is when dealing with skeletons, where outside of a medical expert examination it is not possible for most lesser immortals to even tell whether one was previous human, elf or even orc in some cases, let alone more esoteric humanoids or what biological sex they once were; literally all one often has to go on is the voice; and, of course, as your voice is already magically created, it will sound what you consciously or subconsiously think it should sound like from the get-go. (With that extra Lich reverb, of course.)

On top of that, there is the whole issue whereby the the very process of spirit-binding means that as you are essentially haunting your own skeleton that your physical form will adapt and change over time (Spirit-Vessel Will Reinforcement) - conveniently, by-the-by I have a detailed explanation stashed away here (https://www.fimfiction.net/blog/761440/on-the-army-of-the-red-spear-001-overview-and-spirit-bound-liches) if anyone remotely cares - so that, for example, a female (identifying) soul will, to the best of my knowledge (it is not like I make a point of asking about this sort of thing or looking it up or anything), subconsciously alter their physical form to match - for whatever that is worth for a skeleton. Non-skeletal spirit-bound Liches do exist, but are very much rarer, but the same would apply to them. I think, like I say, I am not an expert in that particular field, plus due to its very nature, the effects of spirit-binding can vary as greatly as the soul they bind.



After all the centuries, Aotrs culture is at the point that you will tend to be assigned a pronoun by somelich that doesn't know you (if they don't simply use rank, which is, to be fair by far the most common form of address to somelich you don't know) based on a) your personel file says if they know it, b) what you sound like (which occasionally lead to Hilarious Misunderstandings that no-lich actually takes seriously because), c) if it was/is that important to you and you haven't stated it outright, you simply politely correct the first time and, likely after a polite apology because It Is Easily Done (and it really can be), you will be referred to by that henseforth.

(With the occasional exceptions of an odd Lich who simply calls everyone to the same pronoun, along with a name (and occasionally rank) taken from a small subset of names they use. These sorts of individuals are usually old enough and hard enough that you don't want to argue. One chap Iknow of called everyone by one of about five, I think, Elven names and referred to everyone as "puppy.")

But no-one would take particular offense to beign referred to as "Lich" or (more likely if speaking lich to lich) "fellow Lich". (Or by race if one of the living.)

One of the things about the Aotrs is that the gender-bickering does not exist to anything the same degree compared to... Pretty much any current Earth-culture, due to literally a couple of thousands of years of cultural inertia from the top down Lord Death Despoil Does Not Approve), which makes it culturally unacceptable, combined with the great leveller of, y'know, being an animated skeleton with no hormones or biological desires and, of course, for the majority of the Aotrs military itself (as distinct from the state or the second-line garrision forces), the type of person - and personality - who is hand-picked for recruitment tends to correlate to that attitude. (The Aotrs does not have any "lose cannons" as they have the luxary of taking the right personality and taking fifty years to polish them to excellence rather than relying on some maverick who "doesn't play by the rules.")

It is, granted, something of a difficult concept to get across, even speaking as one that comes from a non-Aotrs culture to start with.

(Notably, because of the same weight of centuries of cultural inertia that paints unprofessonalism as a no-no, inter-service bickering or even banter, i.e. between Aotrs services branches (navy troops, ground forces or fighter forces) is considered EXTREMELY unprofessional and anyone making such a crack is liable to find themselves in a suddenly silent room full of hard glares. One just does not "other" one's comrades in arms because they fight in a different field. Amiable banter is conducted on a purely personal level.)

[Tvtyrant]

I take issue with xe/xem/xer solely because I have no idea how to pronounce them, and my first instinct is that "xe" would be rather close to "she" which would be confusing. It could also be pronounced like "ze" but if that's the case, let's just spell it "ze"?



My grandfather, about 20 years ago, casually referred to a black man on TV as "the N***o character" (not the worst of the N words, but still unacceptable). When we called him on it, we discovered that he legitimately thought that was the polite term, having replaced the older, worse N word. And when he was younger, he would have been correct.

If we had been out, rather than alone in his house, and he had referred to a nearby person as "the N***o man over there" and they overheard him, they would not have been at fault for thinking he was insulting or demeaning them, even though he didn't think he was at the time.

Intention is important, but how things come across is just as important, and sometimes even more important than what is intended.

The harm in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt is that then nothing changes. If we had left it alone, my grandpa would probably have kept using that word, unaware, until he died. And at some point, it might have caused an actual problem.

"Dudes" is obviously not as bad as all that. But to many people, it still has a meaning attached. Some of those people will dislike that meaning, and not appreciate being called dudes.

The purpose of this discussion is to find a term that maybe doesn't have baggage attached to it. Insisting we take an existing term and just ignore any baggage, while a potentially viable option if we take years to get everyone used to it, is not a helpful suggestion.

I could just as equally suggest that we call groups of people "commies", or "f*gs", or "a**holes". Sure, we can ignore their baggage, and maybe eventually that would work out and people would accept it. But in the meantime, a lot of folks will be right pissed off to be called any of them.

The issue is, changing the lingo is meaningless because it isn't how you describe it that is problematic but whst you are describing. There will never be a good term for African-Americans as long as that group is oppressed, the terms will simply rotate indefinitely. The same is true of LGTQ or any other disenfranchised minority, in 15 years the new terminology will be in and the old out for the sake of pretending the words matter.

[Peelee]

There will never be a good term for African-Americans as long as that group is oppressed

You mean black people? Because, ya know, the black indigenous people in Australia can't really be called African-Americans. Same for black South Africans. All of those people had massive, systemic oppression against them, but still be referred to by as simple descriptor. It's no more offensive than, say, Mexican; that some people try to use it offensively speaks more about that person than the word itself.

[Tvtyrant]

You mean black people? Because, ya know, the black indigenous people in Australia can't really be called African-Americans. Same for black South Africans. All of those people had massive, systemic oppression against them, but still be referred to by as simple descriptor. It's no more offensive than, say, Mexican; that some people try to use it offensively speaks more about that person than the word itself.

I agree in theory, in practice terms rotate in and out. Black used to be offensive and Mexican used to be acceptable, who knows what the appropriate terminology will be in thirty years.

[ve4grm]

The issue is, changing the lingo is meaningless because it isn't how you describe it that is problematic but whst you are describing. There will never be a good term for African-Americans as long as that group is oppressed, the terms will simply rotate indefinitely. The same is true of LGTQ or any other disenfranchised minority, in 15 years the new terminology will be in and the old out for the sake of pretending the words matter.


I agree in theory, in practice terms rotate in and out. Black used to be offensive and Mexican used to be acceptable, who knows what the appropriate terminology will be in thirty years.

The main way we have to get a non-problematic term for an oppressed group is to let the groups in question decide on the term. In the US, much of the black population has decided on African-American (though I know caribbean-descended folks can take exception with that). Outside of the US, much of the same population has decided that "black" is good. (Mexican also seems to be fine, as long as the person you are referring to is ACTUALLY Mexican, and not just vaguely Latinx.) (And while Black wasn't always perfect, I think it was mostly "The Blacks" as a term that was considered truly bad.)

So that's why this discussion is here. Asking if anyone knows the right terms, and then maybe if non-binary people have an opinion on what they would like as an honorific. We can offer suggestions, but in the end it's the NB community who needs to decide what they like.

(I do get your frustration, though. I mean, just look at the story I told. My grandpa was legitimately trying to be good and use polite terms, and has never had issues with the black community (though also not a lot of interaction, since we're in the very white country of Canada) but failed just due to being outdated. It's tough to keep up sometimes, but we can try, and apologize when we screw up.

[Caerulea]

About "xe/xem/xer", it doesn't act like any other personal pronoun.




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Neutral (Human)
They
Them
Their


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their



Issues: Uses the same pronoun for singular and plural.

because nearly everyday they bring battle against the Germans, either keeping them from their lands or waging war themselves in their territory. —translated from Bellum Gallicum 1.1




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Xe
Xem
Xer


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: I don't know how to pronounce them. Also, I dislike the letter "x".




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Ze
Zir
Zes


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: I dislike the letter "z".




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Ze
Zem
Zir


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: I dislike the letter "z".




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Ze
Hir
Hir


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: "Hir" looks like it would be pronounced "her." Also, I dislike the letter "z".

(Source: What I remember being advocated + Wikipedia. Also The Extinguisher. Let me know if I missed something/screwed up.)

Conclusion: Nothing will make English be consistent. Let us just steal something from another language already.

—Caerulea

[The Extinguisher]

The main way we have to get a non-problematic term for an oppressed group is to let the groups in question decide on the term. In the US, much of the black population has decided on African-American (though I know caribbean-descended folks can take exception with that). Outside of the US, much of the same population has decided that "black" is good. (Mexican also seems to be fine, as long as the person you are referring to is ACTUALLY Mexican, and not just vaguely Latinx.) (And while Black wasn't always perfect, I think it was mostly "The Blacks" as a term that was considered truly bad.)

So that's why this discussion is here. Asking if anyone knows the right terms, and then maybe if non-binary people have an opinion on what they would like as an honorific. We can offer suggestions, but in the end it's the NB community who needs to decide what they like.

(I do get your frustration, though. I mean, just look at the story I told. My grandpa was legitimately trying to be good and use polite terms, and has never had issues with the black community (though also not a lot of interaction, since we're in the very white country of Canada) but failed just due to being outdated. It's tough to keep up sometimes, but we can try, and apologize when we screw up.

this. i dont know why its so hard to just ask people instead of making assumptions towards what they want to be called.

also, Caerulea, xe or ze or any other neopronoun isnt designed to replace they in so much as it is to supplement it. its not so much gender neutral as it is specificly not binary-gendered, so like all gendered pronouns you should only use it if the person in question identifies with those pronouns.

[Caerulea]

also, Caerulea, xe or ze or any other neopronoun isnt designed to replace they in so much as it is to supplement it. its not so much gender neutral as it is specificly not binary-gendered, so like all gendered pronouns you should only use it if the person in question identifies with those pronouns.
Ahh. I misunderstood that completely then. Thank you.

—Caerulea

[Themrys]

You choose how to interpret the words. So what's the harm in NOT assuming people are trying to trivialize your existence?

I have had a man put me through attempted brainwashing via DnD because I didn't notice the red flags about his misogyny early on. (He, like many other misogynists, would never have admitted to hating women. We are simply objects to him, objects he wants to serve a specific purpose, and apparently he was greatly offended that I choose to not be a sexy submissive housewife for some male)

And I was lucky. He actually hit on another woman in that group, who fortunately wasn't interested in him for unrelated reasons.

Men usually don't understand that, for women, this is a question of safety. I actually invited that emotionally abusive a-hole to my home. What would he have done if I had asked him to leave when he finally showed his true face, instead of nodding and smiling and waiting for him to leave on his own accord and then telling him he wasn't welcome back? I don't know. But I know I wouldn't have been able to overpower him in a fight, not without using potentially lethal methods.

So, don't wave that red flag if you don't want women to run away. Just saying.


(Also, lots and lots of women are killed by doctors who just dismiss their existence when testing medication, dismiss their pain, dismiss their heart attack symptoms. We cannot right that if we do not acknowledge it exists.)

[Lissou]

My husband pointed out to me somewhat recently that I have a tendency to call him "Sir", which he dislikes. When I manage to catch myself, I now call him "human" instead. I'd probably use it as a gender neutral, too.

[Vinyadan]

Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Neutral (Human)
They
Them
Their


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their



Issues: Uses the same pronoun for singular and plural.

because nearly everyday they bring battle against the Germans, either keeping them from their lands or waging war themselves in their territory. —translated from Bellum Gallicum 1.1




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Xe
Xem
Xer


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: I don't know how to pronounce them. Also, I dislike the letter "x".




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Ze
Zir
Zes


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: I dislike the letter "z".




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Ze
Zem
Zir


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: I dislike the letter "z".




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Ze
Hir
Hir


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: "Hir" looks like it would be pronounced "her." Also, I dislike the letter "z".

(Source: What I remember being advocated + Wikipedia. Also The Extinguisher. Let me know if I missed something/screwed up.)

Conclusion: Nothing will make English be consistent. Let us just steal something from another language already.

—Caerulea

Beside the obvious congratulations for pulling off the tables in the forum, what does the Bellum Gallicum have to do with this? Latin had two big differences compared to English (well, among the others), one is that it didn't need to always add subject pronouns, and the other one is that it had reflexive possessives (Paulus et Caius amici sunt; Paulus bibit vinum eius et donat panem suum would translate to "Paul and Gaius are friends; Paul drinks Gaius's wine and offers his own bread", because the reflexive suus only refers to the subject, while eius refers to the other person).

It's what happens in the quoted phrase:

Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt, quod fere cotidianis proeliis *** Germanis contendunt, *** aut suis finibus eos prohibent aut ipsi in eorum finibus bellum gerunt.

"For which reason the Helvetii also surpass the other Gauls in courage, because they fight against the Germani in almost daily battles, when they (implicit subject) either keep them (eos, not reflexive, therefore not the subject) out from their (suis, so related to the subject) lands, or they (ipsi = they themselves) wage war in their (eorum = not reflexive, therefore someone else's than the subject's) lands."

[Caerulea]

The point was that English pronouns are terrible. The sentence is perfectly unambiguous and clear in Latin. When translated to English, you get a mess of they and them. I wanted to point out that adding yet more uses to they could lead to even more confusing sentences.

—Caerulea

[Peelee]

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

[Grey_Wolf_c]

They
Issues: Uses the same pronoun for singular and plural.

—Caerulea

So does "you", and no-one ever seems to have a problem with that.

Grey Wolf

[Caerulea]

So does "you", and no-one ever seems to have a problem with that.

Grey Wolf
Well, first off y'all should use y'all, it's underrated. Second, I prefer thing unambiguous.

—Caerulea

[The Extinguisher]

Ahh. I misunderstood that completely then. Thank you.

—Caerulea

no worries. ive got only a very basic understanding of neopronouns, but i think theyre an effective and interesting way to subvert binary thinking. not for me personally, but useful.


~
unfortunately, language will always have ambiguity. especially language divorced from context and laid out in a vacuum. its easy to pick at all the ways a phrase can be misunderstood that its also easy to forget that language only really exists as communication. we have lots of tools to help up communicate, and most importantly we can always ask for clarification.

[Vinyadan]

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

The funny part is that he died at 85, so at an unusually old age for Rome, and yet three years short of seeing Carthage destroyed.

[Peelee]

The funny part is that he died at 85, so at an unusually old age for Rome, and yet three years short of seeing Carthage destroyed.

I like to think the destruction of Carthage was a memorial.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The funny part is that he died at 85, so at an unusually old age for Rome, and yet three years short of seeing Carthage destroyed.

Pet peeve: dying past 60 wasn't that unusual. What dragged the life expectancy down was child mortality. But if you made it past age 4, you had a decent chance to make it to 60. Not as good as modern times, of course, but not that rare either. And of course, if he was able to afford being in the Senate, it meant he never lacked for food or water. No starvation for ol' Cato.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Pet peeve: dying past 60 wasn't that unusual. What dragged the life expectancy down was child mortality. But if you made it past age 4, you had a decent chance to make it to 60.

Counterpoint: 85 is still pretty far past 60.

[Lissou]

Well, first off y'all should use y'all, it's underrated. Second, I prefer thing unambiguous.

—Caerulea

But you is already the plural version. And using y'all doesn't help when people start using it as a singular, and "all y'all" as a plural. It's an endless cycle.

[Peelee]

But you is already the plural version. And using y'all doesn't help when people start using it as a singular, and "all y'all" as a plural. It's an endless cycle.

Lookie here, Oregon, all y'all is reserved for large groups. You can't just "all y'all" two or more people, it don't work like that.

[Fyraltari]

Just re-introduce thou and be be done with it! There is noting wrong with T-V distinction.

[Asmotherion]

if i don't have previous aquintance with the person i go with whatever feels more natural. i do this as respectfully as posible.

if they respectfully tell me to adress them otherwise i'll do so. if they are rude doing so i'll call on their rudness and won't adress them untill they change their tone.

i don't play the game of "how did you dare call me?". Nor will i play a guessing game.

There are some standards in society. Being an exception to those standards is a choice and it's up to you to inform that you don't want to play by the social standards; until i am informed of the fact i have to treat you by formal social etticet otherwise i'd consider myself rude towards you.

Furthermore i have bought an english title of Lord for my passport. if someone would have me address them on a weird pronoun i'd have them address me as my formal title of Lord just to have a hillarious conversation. :P

[5crownik007]

I have had a man put me through attempted brainwashing via DnD because I didn't notice the red flags about his misogyny early on. (He, like many other misogynists, would never have admitted to hating women. We are simply objects to him, objects he wants to serve a specific purpose, and apparently he was greatly offended that I choose to not be a sexy submissive housewife for some male)

And I was lucky. He actually hit on another woman in that group, who fortunately wasn't interested in him for unrelated reasons.

Men usually don't understand that, for women, this is a question of safety. I actually invited that emotionally abusive a-hole to my home. What would he have done if I had asked him to leave when he finally showed his true face, instead of nodding and smiling and waiting for him to leave on his own accord and then telling him he wasn't welcome back? I don't know. But I know I wouldn't have been able to overpower him in a fight, not without using potentially lethal methods.

So, don't wave that red flag if you don't want women to run away. Just saying.


(Also, lots and lots of women are killed by doctors who just dismiss their existence when testing medication, dismiss their pain, dismiss their heart attack symptoms. We cannot right that if we do not acknowledge it exists.)

As harrowing as that anecdote is, it is not representative of the term "dude" and a sample size of exactly one does not inspire my confidence in your study of the correlation between misidentifying someone and sociopathic tendencies.

Only women? Mostly women? Is there a study?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Just re-introduce thou and be be done with it! There is noting wrong with T-V distinction.

There is also nothing necessary about a distinction between singular and plural, anymore than there is a need for words to be gendered. Adverbs and adjectives already can fill that niche when the context might be in doubt.

Put another way: many languages have distinctive version of the first person plural - inclusive and exclusive. So if I say "we've won the lottery", in those languages you can tell if that includes you, the listener, or not. But while it's a neat characteristic, it's hardly essential - English and French both lack it, and it has yet to lead to major issues.

Genderization of language, on the other hand, does lead to issues such as reinforcement of cultural mores. So I find that using "they" as the standard pronoun for everyone would be a much better scenario than status quo, which is why I use it and bring it up every time.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Maybe I should have taken a page from Pendell’s book and signed that ‘‘tongue-in-cheek’’.

[halfeye]

etticet

Etiquette.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Maybe I should have taken a page from Pendell’s book and signed that ‘‘tongue-in-cheek’’.

Bah. Everyone knows the French are only funny when dinning with fools.

[/tongue-in-cheek]

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Bah. Everyone knows the French are only funny when dinning with fools.

[/tongue-in-cheek]

Grey Wolf

Unlike wolves who consider dining a most serious event, whatever the company.

[ve4grm]

Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Neutral (Human)
They
Them
Their


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their



Issues: Uses the same pronoun for singular and plural.

because nearly everyday they bring battle against the Germans, either keeping them from their lands or waging war themselves in their territory. —translated from Bellum Gallicum 1.1




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Xe
Xem
Xer


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: I don't know how to pronounce them. Also, I dislike the letter "x".




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Ze
Zir
Zes


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: I dislike the letter "z".




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Ze
Zem
Zir


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: I dislike the letter "z".




Singular
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Male
He
Him
His


Female
She
Her
Her


Other
Ze
Hir
Hir


Neutral (object)
It
It
Its





Plural
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive


Everything
They
Them
Their


Issues: "Hir" looks like it would be pronounced "her." Also, I dislike the letter "z".

(Source: What I remember being advocated + Wikipedia. Also The Extinguisher. Let me know if I missed something/screwed up.)

Conclusion: Nothing will make English be consistent. Let us just steal something from another language already.

—Caerulea

All valid concerns. If anyone wants some more discussion of the issues (or perceived issues) with many of the options, I enjoyed this article: https://genderneutralpronoun.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/the-need-for-a-gender-neutral-pronoun/


The point was that English pronouns are terrible. The sentence is perfectly unambiguous and clear in Latin. When translated to English, you get a mess of they and them. I wanted to point out that adding yet more uses to they could lead to even more confusing sentences.

—Caerulea

Regarding the singular they, it's already in use in many cases. This would simply be an expansion of that use.

I actually had this discussion with my mother-in-law a while back. She was concerned that "they" was specifically plural and would result in confusion. For a couple hours after that, I listed to our conversations, and pointed out where she unconsciously used the singular "they" already. After 3 or 4 times, she laughed and admitted that ok, it's already super common. It just might require some care if the context isn't clear (just like "you" does).

Some examples of current use, generally when talking about a theoretical person with no determined gender:
- Somebody left their hat on the hook.
- If this made a person sick, I'd feel bad for them.
- Even one person can make a difference by donating their time to the cause!

(Also, I just learned, singular they dates back to at least the 1300s, and includes such users as Shakespeare and Jane Austen. https://www.dictionary.com/e/they-is-a-singular-pronoun/ )


Only women? Mostly women? Is there a study?

Not only, or maybe even mostly, but at a much larger rate than men were, historically. There are, in fact, studies, though I don't have them on hand. I'd suggest reading up on the medical history of the condition known as Hysteria, aka "Women be crazy because they gots a uterus!"

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
"With so many possible symptoms, historically hysteria was considered a catchall diagnosis where any unidentifiable ailment could be assigned."
https://www.glamour.com/story/the-history-of-doctors-diagnosing-women-with-hysteria
epilepsy was frequently confused with hysteria

There are other things as well, including the fact that most medical research was done with the male body for a long time, so medical techniques just weren't developed with women in mind. These things have gotten much better in recent years, but still aren't perfect.

[2D8HP]

1) As a resident of the San Francisco bay area "Dude" hella repels me, it's an L.A.-ism and is right out no matter the genders of those addressed!

2) "Folks" instead of "Ladies and gentlemen" works fine.

3) 'Please excuse me ma'am" and "Pardon me sir" are easily substituted with "Please excuse me" and "Pardon me".

So what's the problem again?

[Peelee]

1) As a resident of the San Francisco bay area "Dude" hella repels me, it's an L.A.-ism

What about His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you’re not into the whole brevity thing?

[Vinyadan]

Isn't there a world like "hey peeps" from "people", not that I think about it?

[druid91]

Anyway, in the interests of actually contributing.

Tā in Chinese, for some reason means both He and She when spoken. Despite the words having distinctive written symbols.

Tā de = His / Her (Of Him/Her, literally translated.)

Tā = He/She

Tāmen = He/she in the plural.

[2D8HP]

What about His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you’re not into the whole brevity thing?


"His Dudeness" is passable, "Duder" is marginal, "El Duderino" is repulsive.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

"El Duderino" is repulsive.

I love Spanish, but it is the last language you want to borrow from when looking for any kind of gender-neutral word. They're so gendered, they've got genders in their genders, iykwim.

Grey Wolf

[Comrade]

Anyway, in the interests of actually contributing.

Tā in Chinese, for some reason means both He and She when spoken. Despite the words having distinctive written symbols.

Tā de = His / Her (Of Him/Her, literally translated.)

Tā = He/She

Tāmen = He/she in the plural.

Georgian and Armenian also have no gender-specific pronouns-- Armenian has the same pronoun for men and women (and presumably for non-binary people), and Georgian goes even further and has the same pronoun for pretty much any third person reference, whether it's a person of any gender, an animal, or an object.

[ve4grm]

I love Spanish, but it is the last language you want to borrow from when looking for any kind of gender-neutral word. They're so gendered, they've got genders in their genders, iykwim.

Grey Wolf

Seriously. "El Duderino" contains three separate male-gendered parts, in only two words! :smallbiggrin:

So if nothing else is accomplished here, at least we've rules out El Duderino.

[Peelee]

I love Spanish, but it is the last language you want to borrow from when looking for any kind of gender-neutral word. They're so gendered, they've got genders in their genders, iykwim.

Grey Wolf


Seriously. "El Duderino" contains three separate male-gendered parts, in only two words! :smallbiggrin:

So if nothing else is accomplished here, at least we've rules out El Duderino.

The Dude abides.

[137beth]

Here's an 18th century rant about how singular "you" (https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/146771865157/next-time-someone-complains-about-singular-they) is destroying the English language.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Here's a 17th century rant about how singular "you" (https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/146771865157/next-time-someone-complains-about-singular-they) is destroying the English language.

Plus ça change...

Grey Wolf

[Aotrs Commander]

Here's a 17th century rant about how singular "you" (https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/146771865157/next-time-someone-complains-about-singular-they) is destroying the English language.

Pahahahahahahahahaha!

I'mma remember that one.

Thanks, Mr Ellwood. Not the memorial you might have wanted, but apparently, as you're been in print since 1714 (so, 18th century, 137ben, yes I am that pedant...), so, hey.


(For the record, I do use "they" in that format if required, now I think about it, which, to be fair, I also forgot to mention in my previous rant, not that anyone was paying attention anyway...)

[Caerulea]

Regarding the singular they, it's already in use in many cases. This would simply be an expansion of that use.
Singular they is the best possible candidate, in my opinion.

—Caerulea

[Fyraltari]

Here's an 18th century rant about how singular "you" (https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/146771865157/next-time-someone-complains-about-singular-they) is destroying the English language.

Wow, talk about getting worked up over nothing.

[Vinyadan]

So, themselves or themself?

[Unavenger]

So, themselves or themself?

I use themself for a singular they. It just makes far more sense and reduces ambiguity, and the only "Drawback" is annoying linguistic prescriptivists (although my spellcheck thinks that "Themself" and indeed "Spellcheck" are words but "Prescriptivists" isn't. Not sure what the moral of that is).

[Scarlet Knight]

Here's an 18th century rant about how singular "you" (https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/146771865157/next-time-someone-complains-about-singular-they) is destroying the English language.

Huh. So that's why we treat each other so badly. Here I was blaming the internet.

[Vinyadan]

Huh. So that's why we treat each other so badly. Here I was blaming the internet.

You want to know what happened, when he began thouing and theeing his father?

"...whenever I had occasion to speak to my father, though I had no hat now to offend him [the author had stopped taking off his hat before his dad], yet my language did as much; fur I durst not say "you" to him, but "thou", or "thee" as the occasion required, and then would he be sure to fall on me with his fists.

At one of these times, I remember, when he had beaten me in that manner, he commanded me, as he commonly did at such times, to go to my chamber, which I did, and he followed me to the bottom of the stairs. Being come thither, he gave me a parting blow, and in a very angry tone said, "Sirrah, if ever I hear you say 'thou' or 'thee' to me again, I'll strike your teeth down your throat." "

[Scarlet Knight]

So if I understand correctly, Dad got offended when the author said "you" but also got offended when addressed as "thou".

Looks like Dad was looking for an excuse to be offended. Another thing I was blaming on the internet.

[Lissou]

So if I understand correctly, Dad got offended when the author said "you" but also got offended when addressed as "thou".

Looks like Dad was looking for an excuse to be offended. Another thing I was blaming on the internet.

I think the dad was only offended when addressed as "thou", which is why the child made a point to use it.