Respectful term for nonbinary people and people of unknown gender?

[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.)

Spoiler

Show

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 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.

Spoiler: They

Show

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

Spoiler: Xe

Show

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".

Spoiler: Ze

Show

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".

Spoiler: Ze, version two

Show

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".

Spoiler: Ze, version three

Show

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]

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler: They

Show

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

Spoiler: Xe

Show

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".

Spoiler: Ze

Show

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".

Spoiler: Ze, version two

Show

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".

Spoiler: Ze, version three

Show

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.