Life

[tegan]

I think that's it, I don't need to understand. I just have to be supportive if I meet a trans person.

Basically my original point. I'd feel awkward saying "ze" and it'll never leave my mouth. 

 

I'm sure you'd do an absolutely fantastic job of being supportive by immediately refusing to use their preferred pronouns.

 

In regards to gender neutral words. I think pushing for entirely new words is a bit of a fruitless endeavour. Typically I always just use they're, their, they, and such.

 

I only use home-grown free-range organic words, not any of these crazy newfangled words cooked up in a lab.

 

 

 

Seriously, it is hilariously easy to get straight peeps to use bullshit made-up words to describe things, but suddenly it gets fucking crazy when trans or genderqueer people get involved. Like, people will pretty much unquestionably indulge in people like Ben Haggerty or Stephani Germanata's desire to be called things like "Macklemore" and "Lady Gaga". In the case of this forum specifically, we're mostly willing to adopt idiotic-sounding descriptors like "metroidvania" or "roguelite" if it fills a void in language that makes it more conducive to the needs of our discussion, which is exactly what gender-neutral pronouns do. I get that "ze" and other gender-neutral pronouns sound silly, but I guarantee you're not setting a new precedent for stupid shit you're willing to say when you adopt them. Agreeing to use them in the unlikely hypothetical situation where it would make someone more comfortable is literally the least you can possibly do to support that person.

[Griddlelol]

I'm sure you'd do an absolutely fantastic job of being supportive by immediately refusing to use their preferred pronouns.

 

You're probably right about that, although I'm sure if someone made it clear to me that it's what they preferred, I wouldn't be stubborn enough to actively choose other words. I wasn't intending to be hostile, but "ze" still sounds like someone pretending to be French. 

There are also perfectly serviceable words to use, which aren't over complicated or phrases. If there's already a single word for something, why replace it with something that sounds weird?

[Ben X]

Is there a language that already has non-gendered single pronouns which would map well? I always thought it might seem less sci-fi/made-up/whatever else if there were and we used those.

[SuperBiasedMan]

This is not that, but Swedish added hen (han is he, hon is her) to be a gender indefinite word and vague reports I've heard say that it's going well.

[dibs]

Maori has only neutral pronouns. Which incidentally i learned today while reading a piece about gendering in national anthems.

[SecretAsianMan]

Is there a language that already has non-gendered single pronouns which would map well? I always thought it might seem less sci-fi/made-up/whatever else if there were and we used those.

 

I posted about this a long time ago somewhere else on the forum, but Chinese sort of does this.  The written form of him and her are different, but both are pronounced the same.  The same with them.

[deleted user]

_

[SuperBiasedMan]

You also act as if there's no price or reason in using or not using certain words. Around the parts I grew up in, the way you spoke decided whether or not a group of 8 people would gather round and kick your shin bones till they broke.

You recognise this is the exact case where you could show solidarity, right? Especially given the fact that people are even more disposed to kicking in the shins of trans people in.

[Bjorn]

My only issue with ze is that every time I see it, I get a picture of Ze Frank's head in my mind. 
 
We went to a presentation by the Kansas City Anti-Violence Project a couple of weeks ago.  Before anyone spoke, they were asked to introduce themselves and list the pronouns they preferred be used.  As a cis-male, it was an interesting experience just having to state outloud that I prefer he, him and his as pronouns. That's not a thing I've ever had to do vocally before.  There were several parts of that program that were kind of like that, getting cis people to approach the world, even briefly, slightly more like someone who isn't cis.  It struck me as the kind of exercise that if it were institutionalized even a bit (in school, or some business settings), would get people over the uncomfortablness and awkwardness of different pronouns. 

[tegan]

It'd be one thing if there was a consensus on this, but there isn't at the moment. I'm not going to start calling everyone "ze" because a small minority wants to be called it. I have no problem using whatever pronouns someone wants after talking to them, but if I don't know, I'm going to stick with "them". And I know straight people are the opposite of a persecuted class, but I don't think generalizing ALL straight people is a good way to go about things.

 

You also act as if there's no price or reason in using or not using certain words. Around the parts I grew up in, the way you spoke decided whether or not a group of 8 people would gather round and kick your shin bones till they broke.

 

1) you're misinterpreting me, because that's exactly what I'm saying. Nobody wants you to refer to all people as "ze," just the ones who want it. What made me object to griddlelol's post was that he made every indication that he wouldn't use it if someone to whom it applied asked for it.

2) yeah, I feel real fuckin' bad for straight people. I've definitely never been in a situation where I've had to hold my tongue for fear of violence like that at all, for sure. Protip: the "I'm an ally, so it's hard for me too and you should be fucking grateful for it" approach is not a good approach. Next tell me something about "not all men."

[Apple Cider]

I apologize if this question is stupid for some reason, but what are some cases where this doesn't map to genitalia? (I'm not saying there are none, I just don't know.) Isn't that how your gender is assigned at birth, and therefore what causes the assignation to match or not match to your internal conception of yourself? 

 

I could imagine that an example of this would be people who are born with sex organs associated with more than one gender, but I imagine this is statistically relatively uncommon and your post makes me think that's probably not the only case you mean.

 

Again, I'm cis so take this with a grain of salt but a lot of my remarks were born from the idea that you're "not trans" unless you want to go through a lengthy process of XYZ surgeries or feel dysphoria, which admittedly a lot of people don't want or feel. How gender (or rather, sex) is assigned at birth is due to genitalia but that doesn't mean that all trans people need/want to change their genitalia in order to feel like the gender they are. This is why the fixation on it by cis people is really weird/invasive - people asking trans folks if they "got the surgery (referring to genitalia)" or if they have X or Y when it's not their business and not related to what gender they present as. It's also why there's a movement to not make certain body parts essential to a gender - you can be a woman without a uterus or vagina, for example (which includes cis women who don't have them, but also trans women!)

 

If anything, that's the biggest takeaway here is moving towards a world where someone's gender isn't immediately tied to what genitalia they have or other physical characteristics but how they feel they are. Some trans people want "top" surgery, some don't, some take hormones, some don't, some have bottom surgery, some don't, some get facial surgery - all of it is what people feel comfortable with or what is needed for them to look the way they want to. 

[Griddlelol]

Please always point out when I say something sexist/transphobic/homophobic. I don't consider myself to be any of those things but I am, and this forum is a great place for me to learn about it which is why I keep coming back.

I'm not well versed in the ideals and such, but I want to better myself in that way, so while people get angry at certain things I say, I always appreciate it when they tell me why.

So yeah, on even more thought, disregard my previous post. You are 100% right Tegan, and I need to ruminate on why I have such a problem with a couple of dumb words.

[Deadpan]

I have weird feelings about this pronoun business. They might be gross on some level I don't recognize, so I also feel like pointing out in advance that obviously people should be in charge of their own identity and I don't want to get in the way of that  Also my passing familiarity with linguistics makes me pretty keenly aware of how absurd the grumbling you sometimes encounter about this and that being "not a real word" is. New words are created all the time and for all sorts of reasons! If people use it and understand each other when they do, then what business have I complaining about it.

 

At other times, however, I feel like some folk are asking for a pretty substantial reworking of language, which may be well-intentioned, but I'm not sure how feasible it is. This may sound as hysterical as the people who respond to being told that there's more than two genders with their concern that they'll have to learn a million words for a million different genders, but I actually encounter that desire to make pronouns an entirely individualistic, everybody-gets-their-own affair sometimes.

 

Tegan makes the comparison to names above and how nobody has any complaints about learning a unique one for each new person they meet there, and there's a lot of truth in that, but also the entire point of this word class is to reduce the mental and communication workload by giving us a way to refer to people with shorthand for "person previously mentioned." For some reason a lot of languages created gender-specific variants for a concept as universal as "person," which really shows how deeply embedded this mess is in our culture. That definitely needs to be addressed with neutral forms and a larger variety of forms in general, I'm just not sure that the change should go as far as altering the basic goal of the word class of being the "easy way" of referring to somebody else.

 

A lot of my complaint boils down to "seems like it would be a lot of work," and that probably means, given my trajectory so far, that it's an idea that I've just not fully embraced yet, but will be preaching myself soon. This is just something that makes me a little uncomfortable at the moment, because it's an area where I might cause somebody else grief without meaning to, and I'd generally like to avoid that. Like, I'm not that good with names, but as awkward as forgetting those can be, it doesn't tend to be read as denying somebody else their identity.

[Nachimir]

Does anyone know if there's good writings about how and why people are hostile to their categorisation of the world being challenged? It seems like that's part of transphobia, people don't want to accept that there is more to gender than a binary system. Not always that it's just hard to grasp, it seems like an affront to some. I'm curious if there's been a good exploration of that.

 

I've not read anything on this, but I did lose a friend over it last year. It started with talk of sports and the Olympic committee demanding that people have surgery or not compete, then went into gender differences not meaning gender is binary. When I mentioned the variety of chromosonal conditions that lead to gender complications or abnormalities he looked really troubled by the idea and went quiet. He really wanted to cling to binary gender, but couldn't argue for it, and ended our friendship within a few months.

 

I don't think needing the gender binary is a condition these people have, but it's embedded so deeply in so many people's identities that it'll take a lot of education, time and people's stories to shift this.

 

I only use home-grown free-range organic words, not any of these crazy newfangled words cooked up in a lab.

 

<3

[Patrick R]

Before I knew many trans*/genderqueer people it seemed like learning pronouns would be a lot of work, and thought a lot of it felt ridiculous and unnecessary but in practice it's been pretty simple. My partner is genderqueer and saying "they" is just natural to me now. We have a friend who uses ze and zir. You make a few mistakes at first, you apologize, but soon you don't have to think about it. 

 

The biggest problem isn't with your use, but when you venture outside your cool trans-friendly bubble, like at work. I use the words "partner" and "they" and it feels very conspicuous. I'd say about 50% don't care and don't ask, 30% ask why I use those words and then accept the explanation no problem, and 20% keep pushing and demand to know what kind of genitals my partner has. Which can suck because at that point I just walk away and let them realize on their own they committed a big faux pas, but I still have to work with them so it can be awkward.

[tberton]

Using the pronoun that somebody asks you to use is not a lot of work. It's making a slightly different sound with your mouth, drawing a different symbol with a pen or typing a different key on the keyboard. I can think of few things that are less work. Breathing, maybe.

[Deadpan]

Definitely didn't want to suggest that I wouldn't honor somebody's wishes, glob forbid, or that I'm flummoxed by the existence singular they, just that I have some concerns about how practical the very varied neologisms of the radical queer groups I hang out with would be outside of personal conversation. I get that this is a histrionic complaint to make, but it's also not ideal that the bespoke pronoun situation depends slightly on not too many people in your life asking for one.

 

I don't want to look like I'm parroting language conservationism here, I'm all for neutral pronouns and more pronouns in general, I'm just not sure at the moment that some of the suggestions I have heard about this aren't going against the point of having words that refer to humans and are universal and not specific, particularly when you pile these ideas on top of each other. That line definitely hasn't been reached yet, but I figure it exists.

[Nachimir]

and 20% keep pushing and demand to know what kind of genitals my partner has.

 

Ugh, sorry to hear that. I remember being a bit like that and cringe at my past self. Likewise the way some cis/het people edge toward asking bi people indirect questions that amount to "So when you're in a relationship with a woman, do you pine for cock?". I think it's most often non-hostile curiosity, compounded by the effort of thinking beyond cisnormative and gender binary stuff, but still gross.

 

Using the pronoun that somebody asks you to use is not a lot of work. It's making a slightly different sound with your mouth, drawing a different symbol with a pen or typing a different key on the keyboard. I can think of few things that are less work. Breathing, maybe.

 

As Tegan pointed out, it doesn't really have any more cognitive load than remembering and using someone's name.

[SuperBiasedMan]

I mean, by contrast it's a real effort to avoid various sexist and racist behaviours that you have subconsciously learned but I'd expect most people here think it's worthwhile to make that effort.

[eot]

This is not that, but Swedish added hen (han is he, hon is her) to be a gender indefinite word and vague reports I've heard say that it's going well.

You do see it a bit, but it's still far from being the norm. However, I think it's at least at the point where if you use it people will understand what you mean.

[Deadpan]

As Tegan pointed out, it doesn't really have any more cognitive load than remembering and using someone's name.

 

Not wanting to dig myself in any further here, I'm not convinced they are entirely equal on that matter (although my linguist cred is flimsy undergrad stuff). If there's no benefit to it, why come up with a pronoun system in the first place rather than just using names all the time forever? The difference is completely minor, I'm sure, but these are also the kind of words we use with immense frequency. That's also part of the reason these word classes (prepositions too, for instance) tend to be more restrictive about new entries compared to nouns, verbs etc. where an individual member of the class might not come up all that often (say, kangaroo).

 

And I don't want to suggest everything language does or the way it's evolved is necessarily ideal, just that when you look at it from a systemic perspective, there always tends to be a reason for what's going on with it.

 

EDIT: Although, I guess your point was it not being more taxing than calling up somebody's name, and I'm talking about something else. I'm silly.

[tberton]

I definitely agree that pronouns are more resistant to linguistic change than other word classes (although it totally happens - people don't say "thou" anymore, for instance), but we're not talking about changing the whole language here. It's about asking somebody what they'd like you to call them - or having them tell you - and then respecting their desire. That's totally different, and much easier.

 

As far as languages that get around this issue, the one that comes to my mind is American Sign Language. Pronouns in ASL work just by gesturing the person, or if they're not present, gesturing to an empty space that represents them. I don't know if it's common to gender these references, but I imagine it wouldn't be too hard not to.

[deleted user]

_

[SuperBiasedMan]

I don't know about you, but I like my shins in one piece.

 

EDIT: Two, pieces I guess.

That's fine, I just want you to acknowledge that this is selfish rather than supportive.

[Badfinger]

This is something I really struggle to wrap my head around because I'm cis. I can't empathise with dysphoria because I've not even close to experienced it. I'm me, I don't feel like I need to be someone or something else. 

 

I don't even believe I could sit and think "does 'being a man' still feel like something I am?" I barely understand the question.

 

I assume this is why transphobia so so prevalent, it's impossible for some people to understand. While homosexuality is pretty easy to understand because everyone has experienced being attracted to someone that their peers aren't (or vice versa).

 

This is exactly the thing I was attempting to say, by the way. It's not that I don't understand conceptually, I just can't relate in any way.

 

Apple Cider, I had originally omitted the words "genitals" and "wrong" because I didn't want my post to be about them, but it read better for me when I included them. As to why I said genitalia, it's because nearly 20 years ago I took a class that explained that Boys have a Penis and Girls have a Vagina. it's just a base way of introducing my misgivings to the conversation.

 

As to "it still feels good to sit and think "does 'being a woman' still feel like something I am?" and it is!", I honestly can't even grasp this. Within myself, that's never been a question I've ever had to ask. And maybe it's ignorance or stubbornness, but I don't know that it's something I need to ask of myself. But like I said, it's my frustration at grasping the whole thing that makes me want to share that to a group who do. I'm not opposed to thinking those things of other people or respecting who they are. I am in favor of it.

 

As Tegan pointed out, it doesn't really have any more cognitive load than remembering and using someone's name.

 

As someone who sometimes goes out of their way to not have to say people's names, and on occasion having to work really hard to remember the names of people I would call good friends, that is not actually the tension-easing thought you think it is.