Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Genderless/Gender-neutral pronouns, "he", "she", "them" and "they", and broader gender issues in language.

Page: (1)2 3 4 5

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:48 / 18.11.02

this thread, although comic in intent, has thrown up some interesting thoughts on genderless or gender-inclusive pronouns. It occurs to me that this might be a decent launch-pad for a discussion at a slightly higher level of the same questions.

So...perhaps a decent launch-pad might be the consideration that it was established, but not really addressed, that if the use of genderless or gender-inclusive pronouns was in some way "wrong", so was the use of the pronoun "they". However, the champions of "they" seem to be arguiong that it is better to be wrong in a particular way, id est the way that involves "misusing" words rather than inventing new ones. That's a pretty interesting position in itsef. Also, nobody seems to have twigged yet that the "correct" (although not, of course politically correct) universal pronoun is, of course, "he", because men do things. Therefore, when a man loves a woman, he don't need nobody else, but if somebody climbs into this thread, he should climb out as quickly as he can. If somebody else is giving birth, she is protected by the specificity of action.

So, why gender-sensitive pronouns, which gender-sensitive pronouns, and are there broader linguistic and extra-linguistic implications at work here?

16:14 / 18.11.02

I tend to use various contortions of "they", "them" etc, though quite possibly not strictly correct, because if I were to use "ze" in casual conversation nobody would know what the fuck I was talking about. While we do of course have different vocabularies for different audiences, I'd rather not have to change something as basic as the pronouns that I use. So, comprehensibility and convenience, basically.

On the other thread there was some talk about grammar being more malleable than vocabulary; I think in the context of conversation, that's true. It is easier to understand mangled grammar than new vocabulary, because people mangle grammar constantly. It's part of our language skills to interpret structure, deal with ambiguity etc. With an unfamiliar regional dialect, the grammar might be quite different but it's when there is also a different vocabulary that you really start having trouble with it.

Are there languages that have gender-neutral pronouns that can be used to apply to human beings (that haven't been invented recently)?

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:36 / 18.11.02

I'm interested by the use of "strictly" there. What is that little adverb trying to do? What is the difference between correct and strictly correct?

16:45 / 18.11.02

I think that "strictly" is distinguishing between OK usage that everyone will understand and the arbitrary dictates of some amorphous noumenal Correct English as distinct from the speech of the rest of us plebes. If the use of "they" in the singular is wrong, it's not wrong in that no one will understand the sentence, it's wrong according to prescriptivist grammar. I don't know about the UK, but it's hardly even wrong in the states anymore. And I think most syntacticians would consider that use of "they" closer to the invention of a new word than the "misuse" of an old one. Mangled grammar is worse than you think...

16:47 / 18.11.02

Plain "correct" speech, to me, means correct according the context that it is being spoken. By "strictly" I am referring to a standard over and above this, "proper English", you know, the one the Grammar Police enforce, the one that's supposed to be a standard for all use of English in all circumstances.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:56 / 18.11.02

Ah, and the "grammar police" are....who? Liek the PC police? Upholders of an insane and unreasonable standard of behaviour? Enforcers of a standard of accepted but unnecessarily strict behaviours? Interesting metaphor...is that how we think of the actual police police also? This being BArbelith, perhaps so...

16:59 / 18.11.02

I don't like ze/hir because, and I'm repeating myself a little, it will be appropriated by conservatives in the same way as "Ms." This, added to the effort of propagating two new words to brains and computers all over the world, means it will be a waste of time. Especially as we already have a working alternative in the use of the plural.

17:03 / 18.11.02

It's simple, really. The only people who use words like "ze" or "hir" or "per"(the one I learned from an overly zealous high school teacher, which has somehow failed to catch flame), or construtions like "he or she" or "one..." are over-educated bookwormy sorts. The plebes use "they" almost exclusively.

Unpacking, when one (...) uses,say, "ze" in conversation, one is beating ze's listeners over the head with the facts that (a) I've had a post-secondary school education, and probably one that's more extensive than yours (b) I want to make it clear that I'm certainly not a sexist (c) and I want to do so in a way that wouldn't make me seem like a cretin unaware of the basic rules of English grammar.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:04 / 18.11.02

Except, of course, it doesn't work, because it communicates a sense of pkurality that does not in fact exist. "Would you kill a clown?" "Yes, I would kill them". Makes no sense.

So....let's look at:

I don't like ze/hir because, and I'm repeating myself a little, it will be appropriated by conservatives in the same way as "Ms."

What is meant by this? That the conservative element will use it to deride what they perceive as "political correctness"?

17:12 / 18.11.02

The Grammar Police are a different branch to the PC Police, but are both part of the Liberal Nanny State Enforcement Division. Related to the Feminazis, you know.

Yeah, it's a caricature of people who try to uphold the sort of prescriptivist grammar that lolita is talking about. Grammar and usage generally are interesting in that way, though. There are rules somewhere, and people recognise that there are rules, and they try to formalise them for descriptive purposes, but since the language is derived from society by describing them they become prescriptive, and you get a feedback loop. Unless you never publish anything, in which case you get no funding and you starve. Linguistics might be getting round this by (a) concentrating on structure rather than usage and (b) being almost completely opaque to any non-linguist.

17:14 / 18.11.02

I don't like ze/hir because, and I'm repeating myself a little, it will be appropriated by conservatives in the same way as "Ms."

What is meant by this? That the conservative element will use it to deride what they perceive as "political correctness"?

Yes, and in addition conservatives will use it to discredit individuals. And for Todd's reasons. I don't want to be objectified, I want people to listen.

17:17 / 18.11.02

What is meant by this? That the conservative element will use it to deride what they perceive as "political correctness"?

If anyone tried seriously to introduce "ze" into common usage, you know the piss would be taken mercilessly... and I think the introduction would fail. Use of the plural has grown up more organically.

The "clown" example I actually think you could get away with, though it sounds slightly odd - the question sounds odd in itself. Or try "What would you do if someone killed your dog?" "I'd kill them."

17:22 / 18.11.02

Somewhat serious question: How come we don't use "it" as our gender-neutral third person singular pronoun of choice? Sure, if I use "it" to refer to a person now, I might get some strange looks ("it takes the lotion from the basket and puts it on its skin!"). But surely that's just human chauvinism. If I refer to say, a fish of indeterminate gender, I would use "it" without a care in the world. Or a monkey, even. Why not humans?

17:25 / 18.11.02

"Would you kill a clown?" "Yes, I would kill them". Makes no sense.

Well it makes sense to me. What perhaps wouldn't make sense would be:

"Yes, I would kill hir."

"What, here, in front of everybody?"

"No, hir.

Etc. But I'm picking on a specific when we are arguing principles.

17:27 / 18.11.02

People do often use 'it' when referring to a baby, don't they? Even when the gender of the baby is known to them. Presumably the gender differentiation in language only becomes automatic when the gender difference is visual (e.g. little girl in pinafore with doll, little boy in dungarees with tank - to be extremely crude about it).

17:28 / 18.11.02

Well, it's inherently dehumanising/depersonalising, isn't it? People will insist on calling their pets he or she. I've never heard even the worst racist use "it" when referring to the targets of their racism.

I call tr*lls of indeterminate gender, and often babies, "it" (the latter not in the presence of their parents obviously).

Besides, there can be a lot of potential "it"s, could be very confusing. At least gender pronouns help narrow your reference down a bit.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:35 / 18.11.02

What is meant by this? That the conservative element will use it to deride what they perceive as "political correctness"?

Yes, and in addition conservatives will use it to discredit individuals.

Discredit them how? I don't understand...

17:37 / 18.11.02

"Would you kill a clown?" "Yes, I would kill them"

See, that's fine to me. Kill all the clowns. Because clowns? Scary. Arf. I admit to keeping my grammar sloppy, as a matter of sociolinguistic principle, but to me "I would kill him/her" sounds just as bad right there. Maybe if you changed it to "this clown." I don't know. I think people don't use 'it' for exactly that reason Todd - it's so often an expletive or a dummy pronoun that it would get confusing.

17:40 / 18.11.02

Discredit them how? I don't understand...

E.g., by framing them as a commie/lezza/feminist. "Hey guess what now? "Ze"'s demanding a creche in the office."

Thus, all your hard work will become undone.

17:43 / 18.11.02

...it will be appropriated by conservatives in the same way as "Ms." – Ignatius J.

I'm also not sure what Ignatius is talking about here. The term "Ms." has become common usage in the past 25-30 years, which really isn't such a long time at all. Why can't "hir" or "ze", if enough people use it?

The plebes use "they" almost exclusively. – Todd

If people become accustomed to hearing the usage of a term, they'll start to use it in time. look at slang terms: who used the term "phat" 25 years ago? Only a select group of people. It's pratically passé now, but a wider range of people are aware of the term, use it and know what it means. It's certainly doable with pronouns, especially as variant concepts of gender become more a part of mainstream awareness.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:43 / 18.11.02

Plus, of course, "it" is specifically neuter, while "ze", "hir", "per", "s/he" etc are specifically gender-neutral. Two very different things; "it" would be like self-consciously using "her" when the gender of the clown has not been established - a curious choice of gender.

Unless it's Dave Pelzer, of course.

Another spinoff - Jack is the only person to have mentioned using "hir" in everyday conversation so far. Is this a largely textual question, in which case the complaints that they sound a bit like other words are presumably invalid, and the question then has to come up of why they are primarily textual? Because it's too hard to remember in speech? Because they are alien to the rhythm of spoken English?

17:49 / 18.11.02

"I don't know who it is, but somebody keeps sending spam about Nigerians who need viagra for some reason."

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:50 / 18.11.02

And, a couple more things to consider.

How long, to pick up on Badbh's point, has "they" been used? Some people seem to be assuming that it has ever been thus, but I'm pretty sure it's within my living memory that it began to supplant "him", in a piece of political correctness gone mad, as the generic singular...

As for the "lezza/commie" thing, is it then reasonable not to have found different words for "n***er" or "sodomite", on the grounds that they can be used by conservatives? "Oh, our resident gentleman of colour would like to share our executive washroom, would he?", for example? I don't see the distinction. Much like Fridge's "This is the pronoun my mates use, I do not want to have to change my choice of pronouns", this seems to me to be an attempt to halt the development of language at the point where the individual is used to it, because that *feels* normal and natural, and thus presumably *is* normal and natural.

btw, Todd - could you expalin the linguistic principle being illustrated by your previous post?

17:57 / 18.11.02

In fact, adopting "it" might even be more progressive than adopting ze, as the usage of "ze" (as pointed out above) self-consciously points to the utterer's circumspection about the gender of the clown (to adopt the current example), thus making gender the "elephant in the room", whereas 'it', due to its "depersonalizing" connotations (sexy, kind of) does no such thing, because as opposed to "ze", "it" wasn't specifically invented to address such issues. Everytime one uses "ze", the subject of the conversation is explicitly gender.

17:59 / 18.11.02

I'm also not sure what Ignatius is talking about here. The term "Ms." has become common usage in the past 25-30 years, which really isn't such a long time at all. Why can't "hir" or "ze", if enough people use it?

No particular reason, but I think they would face greater problems. "Ms" sounds similar to "Miss" and "Mrs" so it's not that far to go, but it's audibly different. I'm not convinced that "hir" is quite as distinct. Ms is also a title rather than a basic part of speech; we have a selection of titles, we don't use them casually and just adding one is not so much of a problem. And finally, people are going to think you're just making a fuss when the use of the plural exists as a viable alternative.

This is the pronoun my mates use, I do not want to have to change my choice of pronouns

Well, that wasn't exactly what I said. But what, really, is the point in adding "hir" and "ze" if, like myself and apparently a lot of other people here, you are quite happy using the plural?

What advantage do these words have? Will they reduce confusion? Are they more socially inclusive? Are they shorter to say? Why bother? It seems that this is just a question of whether you're used to using the plural or not. If you're not then sure, you might want more words, but the alternatives exist already.

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:01 / 18.11.02

Actually, I think "it" in the above refers to the agent rather than the person, which is a little bit different, but notwithstanding - coudl you tie that into the question about the conservative applications of "ze", please, Todd; the assumption that the use of a non-gender-specific pronoun is aimed primarily at making a statement rather than completing a sense-unit seems to be something of a shiboleth...

18:03 / 18.11.02

Yes, Haus, I thought you were being deliberately obtuse.

But we didn't actually invent words as alternatives to "nigger" or "sodomite." The people who chose, and fought for, the alternatives had the good sense not to alienate themselves from their audience by using gibberish.

And I think you are being unfair to Fridge by using phrases like "the pronoun my mates use." I'm sure you know what he's saying is more complex than that. And like I said in the other thread, the use of the plural has been suggested and used by academics for some time, so it's not solely a vernacular use of the word.

18:18 / 18.11.02

Hmmmm....I don't care much about the "p.c." side of things, though I suppose I can see how one could think my argument was related.

But, um, certainly the creation of "ze" as a gender-non-specific pronoun was politically motivated (perhaps contrarily to my plumping for "it" above, "ze" may have been created to deliberately foreground the heterosexism of English grammer). So I can't see how you can say that the argument that its used primarly to make a statement is a "shiboleth." On the contrary, the use of "ze" seems to be the shiboleth here - it lets you know who is part of the non-sexist tribe in an overt fashion.

Which is not really objectionable in my book,speaking as a guilt-ridden white male, which is why I wouldn't like being lumped in with the anti-P.C. police. However, to disregard the academic genesis of the word is disingenuous at best. It may indeed function to complete a sense unit, but that's not its only, or primary, function.

18:26 / 18.11.02

(While I assume that the creation of "ze" was politically motivated, in order to cover the 1% of my ass that feels unsafe because of that statement, I will admit I don't actually know who created/popularized this particular word. Perhaps it was some genial lexiographer who saw a gap and tried to fill it. Someone enligthen me, perhaps?)

18:29 / 18.11.02

It may indeed function to complete a sense unit, but that's not its only, or primary, function.

...not to mention it just sounds stupid. Perhaps the problem with the current usage of the plural for gender neutrality is that it doesn't allow people to feel avant garde when using it?

18:30 / 18.11.02

Laurence, don't you go and fucking sidetrack my argument by calling something "stupid."

19:05 / 18.11.02

Sorry, but when it comes to language sound is an important component. I wasn't being facetious. Try getting Joe Blow from Illinois to start using "ze" in his daily speech. It just isn't going to happen.

19:15 / 18.11.02

Everytime one uses "ze", the subject of the conversation is explicitly gender. – Todd

Ah, but back in the 70's, Perhaps the above sentence would have read, "Everytime one uses Ms., the subject of the conversation becomes feminism." Now no-one really even thinks about it.

If enough people got up the courage to use "ze" or "hir" in their everyday conversations, explaining what the words meant and why they were using them, they would probably be more widely used in a decade or so. If the media took them up, perhaps earlier.

19:31 / 18.11.02

'Tis true, Badbh.

Suppose the New York Times added "ze" to its style guide. It becomes de riguer for the "paper of record." Would they be adopting it to clarify a "sense unit" or because they're sympathetic to the political goals of the creators of the world?

No time now for me to investigate now, but what happened when they adopted "ms."? was it after the fact? Or was there uproar?

19:34 / 18.11.02

Sorry, but when it comes to language sound is an important component.

You're kidding! Oh - you meant your personal opinion of how things sound. You should get to MIT right now, dude. Think how much work you could save the phonologists! Seriously, that statement is ridiculous. New words will come into a language wherever there is a need for them. Irrespective of what some or other people think about how they sound.

Page: (1)2 3 4 5