![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
memevectorI have this idea that my LJ is going to be a gender-pronoun-free zone.
One possible objection to my plan would be that particular people may have a personal objection to being referred to without including their gender. So I'm open to requests from individuals to use a traditional gendered pronoun for them personally, or indeed a particular ungendered pronoun of their choice.
As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
36 pointed out in a recent essay, gendered pronouns are a way of continually referring to people's gender even when it's irrelevant to all other content of the discussion; and we (f.s.v.o. "we") would consider it strange and probably rather suspect if someone was doing that with race or body size.
So if I refer to someone by an ungendered pronoun, then I'm not implying some particular experience (or opinion) of their own personal gender. My choice of words is correlated not with something about them, but with my view that it would be better not to drag gender - any gender - into things when it's not relevant.
(The logical exception to that is if I were in a conversation using mostly gendered pronouns and then began to refer to someone who rejects them, in which case I would be choosing an ungendered pronoun precisely in order to correspond with their sense of themself - but that scenario requires gendered pronouns as the default, so the idea is that shan't happen here.)
I know there's no general consensus of what the ungendered singular pronouns should be, but I don't think that's an important objection. After all, lots of words have synonyms. And language changes, and different words become popular, and over time some fall into disuse. So, despite what some people say, I don't think it's necessary to decide in advance which pronouns are "the ones". I think we just need to be clear with each other about what we mean by them. And over time, some will catch on more than others (as has of course already happened in this area on a small scale).
As to the actual words:
I have given this a lot of thought over the years, and been in several discussions about it recently <waves at36 and D>, and my current faves are:
ze (where one might otherwise have said he, she or they)
em (where one might have said him, her or them)
zeir (where one might have said his, hers or their)
(I think I might have made up "zeir". But maybe not. Anyway I mean it to rhyme with "their". Sort of like someone with a French accent saying "their".)
or they / them / their, if and when such usage seems fitting & wouldn't be ambiguous.
This is only where I'm at with it right now, not a commitment that I'm sticking to those, or an implied demand for other people to start using them.
My criteria were/are:
- similarity/logical correlation with other words already in general use as pronouns
- sufficiently clear difference from other words already in general use to mean other things.
What I found is, it's easy to make up words that are distinctive enough in writing, but in conversational speech it's much more of a challenge. Most of the alternatives that I rejected were ditched mainly or entirely because of their limitations in that area.
Some people say that the sound of Z is hard to pronounce, and I'd agree that it is slightly more effort than some other consonants. (N is an easy one, for instance.) But then again I've never heard anyone complain about what hard work it is to say the words "zoo" or "zebra", let alone "isn't" or "doesn't". And both Dutch and German use the Z sound all over the place, including at the beginning of lots of words. So I can't help suspecting that the source of that complaint is mostly simple unfamiliarity and lack of practice with the words.
(Another source of some complaints aimed at particular words is an unacknowledged discomfort with the meaning - as when people claim that the word "chairperson" is clumsy or say "But "Lesbian" is such an ugly word".)
Pronouns are often said in a very condensed way - he sometimes becomes 'e; she (said fast in the middle of a sentence) is more like sh'; they becomes more like th'. Her becomes 'er, him becomes 'im, and them becomes 'em. But we still recognise them all, partly by context and partly by the remaining little sound. I wanted pronouns that would still work when they were squashed down like that. So the alleged/arguable slight drawback in ease of pronunciation of Z is counterbalanced for me by its distinctive sound.
I will add that in the long run, I think e has a promising future, but it sounds so much like the abbreviated he that I think it'll only come into its own if&when he has become unfashionable.
I could say much more about exactly why I rejected every single other contender I'd heard of and chose those, but I can't be bothered right now! If you think another one is better, then I'd like you to use it, and if it sounds better to me then I'll adopt it instead :-)
One possible objection to my plan would be that particular people may have a personal objection to being referred to without including their gender. So I'm open to requests from individuals to use a traditional gendered pronoun for them personally, or indeed a particular ungendered pronoun of their choice.
As
36 pointed out in a recent essay, gendered pronouns are a way of continually referring to people's gender even when it's irrelevant to all other content of the discussion; and we (f.s.v.o. "we") would consider it strange and probably rather suspect if someone was doing that with race or body size. So if I refer to someone by an ungendered pronoun, then I'm not implying some particular experience (or opinion) of their own personal gender. My choice of words is correlated not with something about them, but with my view that it would be better not to drag gender - any gender - into things when it's not relevant.
(The logical exception to that is if I were in a conversation using mostly gendered pronouns and then began to refer to someone who rejects them, in which case I would be choosing an ungendered pronoun precisely in order to correspond with their sense of themself - but that scenario requires gendered pronouns as the default, so the idea is that shan't happen here.)
I know there's no general consensus of what the ungendered singular pronouns should be, but I don't think that's an important objection. After all, lots of words have synonyms. And language changes, and different words become popular, and over time some fall into disuse. So, despite what some people say, I don't think it's necessary to decide in advance which pronouns are "the ones". I think we just need to be clear with each other about what we mean by them. And over time, some will catch on more than others (as has of course already happened in this area on a small scale).
As to the actual words:
I have given this a lot of thought over the years, and been in several discussions about it recently <waves at
36 and D>, and my current faves are:ze (where one might otherwise have said he, she or they)
em (where one might have said him, her or them)
zeir (where one might have said his, hers or their)
(I think I might have made up "zeir". But maybe not. Anyway I mean it to rhyme with "their". Sort of like someone with a French accent saying "their".)
or they / them / their, if and when such usage seems fitting & wouldn't be ambiguous.
This is only where I'm at with it right now, not a commitment that I'm sticking to those, or an implied demand for other people to start using them.
My criteria were/are:
- similarity/logical correlation with other words already in general use as pronouns
- sufficiently clear difference from other words already in general use to mean other things.
What I found is, it's easy to make up words that are distinctive enough in writing, but in conversational speech it's much more of a challenge. Most of the alternatives that I rejected were ditched mainly or entirely because of their limitations in that area.
Some people say that the sound of Z is hard to pronounce, and I'd agree that it is slightly more effort than some other consonants. (N is an easy one, for instance.) But then again I've never heard anyone complain about what hard work it is to say the words "zoo" or "zebra", let alone "isn't" or "doesn't". And both Dutch and German use the Z sound all over the place, including at the beginning of lots of words. So I can't help suspecting that the source of that complaint is mostly simple unfamiliarity and lack of practice with the words.
(Another source of some complaints aimed at particular words is an unacknowledged discomfort with the meaning - as when people claim that the word "chairperson" is clumsy or say "But "Lesbian" is such an ugly word".)
Pronouns are often said in a very condensed way - he sometimes becomes 'e; she (said fast in the middle of a sentence) is more like sh'; they becomes more like th'. Her becomes 'er, him becomes 'im, and them becomes 'em. But we still recognise them all, partly by context and partly by the remaining little sound. I wanted pronouns that would still work when they were squashed down like that. So the alleged/arguable slight drawback in ease of pronunciation of Z is counterbalanced for me by its distinctive sound.
I will add that in the long run, I think e has a promising future, but it sounds so much like the abbreviated he that I think it'll only come into its own if&when he has become unfashionable.
I could say much more about exactly why I rejected every single other contender I'd heard of and chose those, but I can't be bothered right now! If you think another one is better, then I'd like you to use it, and if it sounds better to me then I'll adopt it instead :-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Errm...
Date: 2002-02-20 05:44 am (UTC):-)
Cheers
Definatly Male Jules.
Re: Errm...
Date: 2002-02-20 06:11 am (UTC)Scuse the chem reference.... But its not presuming anything about ur gender,just giving u the freedom to be the way u are.
Admittedly I don't really like gender neutral pronouns in speech cos they do sound disjointed and they screw up lipreading patterns something chronic... cos the sounds I pick u aren't what i expect, so i get confused as my brain tries to parse them.
I opt for the using GN pronouns only when I am unsure of someones gender and I wouldn't wanna offend or presume anything...
If osmoene asks me to use them for them specifically I would try and remember.
My 2p worth
Natalya
Re: Errm...
Date: 2002-02-20 06:28 am (UTC)But basically, its down to previous associations and ideals I don't believe in, or don't agree with.
So - I do not wish to be associated with those ideals - and hence, wish to not be confused by being refered to as a "zie" or whatever.
I have never had an issue with gender within myself, so have never had any need to be "fuzzy logic" with things, and so might not be able to comprehend.
If someone asked me to use that when talking about them, I would ask for a couple of years leeway to get it right, and if they got too anal, I would just opt out of refering to them.
Call me "ignorant" or whatever,
But my progress has been knocked back alot recently.
Laterz
Re: Errm...
Date: 2002-02-20 06:53 am (UTC)i suppose I dont' really care what tohers do, I wouldnt use them in daily conv but am generally not too fussed about them.
my main reservation is making a prat out of myself if i get it all horribly wrong as people are apt to do.
Laterz
Natalya
Re: Errm...
Date: 2002-02-20 07:14 am (UTC)And as to making a "prat" of oneself? How so?
If at the end of the day, do you mean out of terms of presentation / identity disparities?
Or as in ambiguous people?
Laterz
Jules
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-21 01:23 pm (UTC)its down to previous associations and ideals I don't believe in, or don't agree with.
<intrigued>
do tell! :-)
not wishing to ask for a justification, but I must confess I am curious about how that looks from your perspective.
So - I do not wish to be associated with those ideals - and hence, wish to not be confused by being refered to as a "zie" or whatever.
do you mean someone else might think you were a transgender person? or do you mean you'd get confused in some way?
I'm wondering like: e.g. suppose I were to say "I know someone who's really into cars", meaning you. Well, I haven't specifically alluded to your maleness there, but it's not like I'm denying it.
but from what you're saying it sounds like that would be significantly different from if I said "I know someone and ze's really into cars" meaning you. True? and if so, how does that feel different or mean something different to you?
basically I'm curious about what that language means in your world and how it misfits and what kind of experience it is to be spoken of in that way. E.g. would it be similar to how you might feel if someone assumed you were straight? or something like that? or what?
[not asking in order to start a "who's right, who's wrong" kind of argument - just v interested in this kind of thing]
Re: Errm...
Date: 2002-02-23 09:58 am (UTC)Re: Errm...
Date: 2002-02-25 04:31 pm (UTC)err not really sure... I haven't spent a lot of time lipreading one set - possibly.....
i mean in sign its the sdame word for he/she but the lipreading is sublty differenyt.... I am not sure if it makes a huge difference specifying gender or not....
sign is not my first language - but I'll ask and see if anyone knows....
the lipreading this is just me, and mainly in relation to hir being used, cos it dsounds like soeone is mumbling her.... I know Jules thought it was a speech impediment when he first heard it.
laterz
Natalya
Re: Errm...
Date: 2002-02-20 06:57 am (UTC)I do use gendered pronouns in speech and writing because it's how the language works but I get them wrong all the time... It's just odd having your thought process totally derailed because you can't remember what gender the person you're referring to is supposed to be. ::shrug:: I suppose there's more important things to remember about a person.
Re: Errm...
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-20 07:28 am (UTC)Do you mind if I pass the URL of this entry on to the Sphere list? There's currently a discussion in progress touching on many of the areas of interest you cover above.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-21 01:23 pm (UTC)ha-haa!
<does a little self-celebratory dance>
yay original thinking!
The pronunciation thing is the songwriting influence. I've had cause to spend a lot of time considering the comprehensibility of different words, in particular as affected by the rhythm with which they're said (or indeed sung).
Do you mind if I pass the URL of this entry on to the Sphere list?
not at all - I would say "go ahead" but you already did :-)
There's currently a discussion in progress touching on many of the areas of interest you cover above.
yeah I've been lurking on sphere for the last couple of weeks (since you asked KH to sort out what was happening with my subscription, for which thanks). It was quite handy that that discussion came along when I was writing the post, 'cause it reminded me of a couple of things I wanted to say. E.g. to explicitly comment on the thing about whether we have to wait till we've all agreed before we can begin using them.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-02-23 09:55 am (UTC)Wow!
Date: 2003-03-21 04:13 am (UTC)I am really impressed by what you've said here. I've only read the post where you refer to Tony Blair gender-neutrally, and I think its fabulous. I don't have time to read back through your journal at the moment, but I'm going to add you, if you don't mind, because I'm really interested.
Fion!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-07 01:59 am (UTC)As a trans person, I know the importance of being assigned the correct pronouns, unless a person is gender-neutral and therefore chooses gender-neutral pronouns. However, I can really see the advantage of the way you refer to EVERYBODY in the same way. I understand you're treating everyone equally, and I think that's fantastic.
I would like to do the same, but I wouldn't want to offend anyone who likes the gendered pronouns. Especially trans people at the beginning of their transition. Personally, I think I've come to a point where I'd be happy with gender-neutral pronouns, but I know a year or so ago I would have felt threatened. But then I can't refer to everyone except for trans people with gender-neutral pronouns because then it would become obvious which of my friends are trans!
I think this is all a problem of our language. I know in other European languages the pronouns are sometimes gendered by the object rather than the subject, but even that is not ideal. In many of my posts I try to avoid pronouns altogether, but it becomes difficult after a while.
I would like to join your good work for rectifying this problem in the English language, but I don't want to offend anybody ...! I wonder what I should do? How has the whole thing worked out in your experience?
Aimee.