Respectful term for nonbinary people and people of unknown gender?

[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.

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?t...iew_mobile#Ser
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/ques...ce-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.

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.