Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Non-binary nomenclature.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Non-binary nomenclature.

    There was a fascinating "Thought For the Day" today from a rabbi whose daughter now identified as non-gender and, instead of 'he' or 'she', preferred to be referred to as "they". I have absolutely no problem with that and, obviously, it is up to people how they self-refer. However, "they", "their" and especially "them" seemed to be quite confusing. I couldn't, for the life of me, think of an viable alternative - certainly 'it' isn't - which is possibly why "they/eir/em" was settled upon. Obviously, just using someone's name is the perfect solution but pronouns are needed on occasion.

    #2
    "What's your pronoun?" is going to become as ubiquitous an introductory question as "What's your sign?" was in the sixties.

    Comment


      #3
      I know a non binary couple hoping to marry in Belfast at some point.

      Deccy & Mal

      Comment


        #4
        I have seen "ze" used on Twitter - each to their own, but "they" at least arouses less confusion.

        Comment


          #5
          I’d already use they in essays etc when talking about folk in singular, so don’t find that much of a stretch to say in person.

          Comment


            #6
            Ze/Zir/Hir are the common set I have encountered, mostly surrounding the whole TERF problems.

            Comment


              #7
              ‘Oi!’ and ‘You there’ should surely sort you out without causing any offence.

              Comment


                #8
                This is a hot subject, rightly so, and I think the right side is winning. I was writing something about this just the other day regarding my area, music, where it is as you might expect a much-discussed area.

                A few observations.

                1) We all use "they" as a singular pronoun sometimes, often without realising it. "I'll leave the package here, and when the courier comes tomorrow, they will pick it up." That feels very natural to me and I think most people.

                2) English has fudged pronouns before when it comes to singular versus plural etc. There used to be a second person singular pronoun, thou. As time went on, I understand people started to use what was then the second person plural, you, instead, as in certain cases it could be more polite, as it addressed someone as it they were or might be the representative of a wider group: "I have listened to what [all of] you are saying", etc. So, you is now ambiguous, but that happened as people found the ambiguity useful.

                3) It can feel a bit awkward having to rewrite articles using various different terms their, them, etc. But most of the time there's some way around it. And I think context in language gets you 90% of the way there 90% of the time without too much problem.

                4) Finally and most importantly, the problem some profess to have with the singular pronoun "they" is that it is ambiguous. This misses the crucial point that ambiguity is the very reason some people choose it.

                I guess the problem with ze etc is that it is really rare to find words which are essentially invented and go on to be used widely. Most of the time, some other word is used/adapted etc.

                Comment


                  #9
                  I would have to go through the piece again but there was one sentence where the pronoun sounded clunky (and, I think, confusing if I hadn't realised the subject). I don't think it was "they" or "their" as, as has been mentioned, they (ha) are pretty regularly used anyway as 'singular' It's here, by the way, if you want a listen.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I really dislike the use of 'they/their' in the singular - as has been documented on these fair pages once or twice. In written (and spoken) English, it can cause considerable confusion when not being used in the plural.

                    As has been covered on that other concurrent thread, new words and phrases are created all the time. Now that non-specific gender has finally been accepted, would it not be beyond the pale to create a gender-neutral pronoun?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                      I really dislike the use of 'they/their' in the singular - as has been documented on these fair pages once or twice. In written (and spoken) English, it can cause considerable confusion when not being used in the plural.

                      As has been covered on that other concurrent thread, new words and phrases are created all the time. Now that non-specific gender has finally been accepted, would it not be beyond the pale to create a gender-neutral pronoun?
                      But we use singular "they" all the time without thinking about it. Here's Professor Lobster-brain himself inadvertently using "they/them/their" pronouns in the singular while discussing his refusal to use gender neutral pronouns for his students.

                      That's right. I don't recognize that. I don't recognize another person's right to decide what words I'm going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people. They might have a point but I'm not going to say their words for them.
                      I can think of certain situations where "they" as a pronoun is confusing (in the example about, the final three usages could ambiguously refer to either "another person" or "a small coterie of ideologically motivated people") but I can also think of just as many situations where *any* pronoun might be ambiguous. Equally it's not clear how the singular they could be avoided there.

                      I like singular "they" as a pronoun. I remember that I used it a lot as a kid when telling stories especially to adults. I would tend to "my friend" and "they" - which would always prompt demands from the adult that I identify and gender "my friend" - which always seemed weird as that information wasn't relevant to the story and referred to a person they didn't know.

                      Little reminder that the conventions of binary gender aren't reflective of a natural reality but are coercively applied to us from a young age.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Those are all generics rather than singulars. Each refers either to an unknown number or unknown individuals or both.

                        English is actually unusually ungendered for a European language. Most have developed where almost everything must be assigned a gender, from a choice of two which English does not have much of and is not so rigid about even when it does. A ship might be 'she' but 'it' also works, etc. Given that, it ought to be one of the easier ones to create a new term reflecting a changed cultural perception.
                        Last edited by Janik; 10-10-2018, 07:29.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          And even in cases where gender existed in certain words we have done a pretty good job in recent years of dumping that (actress, waitress, etc)

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Bizarre Löw Triangle View Post
                            But we use singular "they" all the time without thinking about it.
                            That's as maybe. I (personally) don't, because I don't like it. I don't like it because it exposes a failing in the language (ie, not in the people that use it).

                            You're of course correct that ambiguous use of any pronoun can cause confusion ('my aunt told my sister that she was overweight'), but when the actual number of individuals cannot immediately be determined, well, to me that's at another level entirely.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Finnish is a very ungendered language. Not only are there no genders for eg objects, but he and she are the same word, 'hän', it doesn't distinguish, and informally people use the word 'se', which is the word 'it'. "When will Dave arrive" – "it should be here at eight" etc.

                              Society miraculously does not collapse.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                If one-size-fits-all, then it probably won't do.

                                Our issues stem from the language being 'incomplete'.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Well, on the issue of completeness, I do my best to popularise the extremely useful second person plural pronoun "y'all" in British English wherever I can.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Let me tell you about the dual meaning of 'on' in French. It's supposed to be a third-person-singular pronoun like he/she, only used for a person (never an object or a thing), and most often used as such in popular sayings, or to refer to a hypothetical or indeterminate person. Probably closest to 'one' in English, and similarly a bit archaic-sounding when used as a singular pronoun.

                                    Now this is actually a bit weirder than 'they' because in addition to shifting from singular to plural, 'on' has also shifted from third to first person: in addition to its more traditional use, it is also widely used nowadays as an informal synonym for 'nous' (we), even though the verbs that follow it are still conjugated as singular. In spoken French, most people would use 'on' (followed by a singular verb) rather than 'nous' (followed by a plural verb) as a matter of course to mean 'we', unless in a situation that requires formal language.

                                    Anyway my point is, this causes zero confusion in French as the context makes it obvious which meaning is intended. So I struggle to think of a situation where using 'they' as singular would cause "considerable confusion" to be honest.
                                    Last edited by Fussbudget; 10-10-2018, 12:18.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by diggedy derek View Post
                                      Well, on the issue of completeness, I do my best to popularise the extremely useful second person plural pronoun "y'all" in British English wherever I can.
                                      That would be 'youse' around these parts.

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Fussbudget View Post
                                        Let me tell you about the dual meaning of 'on' in French. It's supposed to be a third-person-singular pronoun like he/she, only used for a person (never an object or a thing), and most often used as such in popular sayings, or to refer to a hypothetical or indeterminate person. Probably closest to 'one' in English, and similarly a bit archaic-sounding when used as a singular pronoun.

                                        Now this is actually a bit weirder than 'they' because in addition to shifting from singular to plural, 'on' has also shifted from third to first person: in addition to its more traditional use, it is also widely used nowadays as an informal synonym for 'nous' (we), even though the verbs that follow it are still conjugated as singular. In spoken French, most people would use 'on' (followed by a singular verb) rather than 'nous' (followed by a plural verb) as a matter of course to mean 'we', unless in a situation that requires formal language.

                                        Anyway my point is, this causes zero confusion in French as the context makes it obvious which meaning is intended. So I struggle to think of a situation where using 'they' as singular would cause "considerable confusion" to be honest.
                                        "One" tends to be used in English by people who assume that "I" is not sufficient to express that not just "I", but by extension everybody, feels the same way about something. Therefore, in a hugely passive aggressive way, shutting down any argument that "one" might be fucking mistaken. See also Royals referring to themselves in the first person as "we" - if anyone looks around the room and asks "we? Who else is there?" the implied answer is "all of my right-minded subjects".

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Also New Yawk and environs. "Yinz" in and around Pittsburgh.

                                          And what Fussbudget said about "on".

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by Fussbudget View Post
                                            Anyway my point is, this causes zero confusion in French as the context makes it obvious which meaning is intended. So I struggle to think of a situation where using 'they' as singular would cause "considerable confusion" to be honest.
                                            'On' - to my understanding - has a more general usage than 'they' in English, which (for most, it seems) has the two specific references we've covered. I'll concede that the confusion is more in written English than spoken, where 'one' has time to explain away any ambiguity.

                                            I personally don't find it efficient, is all. Viz: 'One of the new schoolteachers was talking to your parents and they didn't seem happy.' Who? The new teacher or your parents?

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Surely that's precisely as inefficient/ambiguous as the entirely parallel construction, 'One of the new schoolteachers was talking to your mum and she didn't seem happy.', though?

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Perhaps my example wasn't the best, but in yours both parties are 'female singular' anyway, so differentiation would always be necessary - what I'm trying to illustrate is an ambiguity between singular and plural, which shouldn't really need to exist.

                                                I don't think many will agree, but to my mind at least, this highlights a flaw in the language.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  We don't actually know if the teacher is female in VA's example.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X