Gender Neutral Pronouns

[Emerald Dreams]

There are two problems that make this situation complicated: 1. there are deviations from the norm, and 2. gender and sex are not the same thing.

Using biology to determine sex means you will have to allow for more than two unique sexes. If you look at chromosomes, there are people with XX, XY, XYY, XXY, etc. and each could be considering unique from the rest. If you consider purely genitalia, there are males, females, and those with differing combinations of both. And now that surgeries exist, someone who initially had identifying characteristics of one sex can change to have the characteristics of another. Naturally, sex is not a paradigm of male/female, those are just the two most common occurrences.

The other problem is entirely social. Gender is how the groups of male, female, etc. are viewed in the popular imagination. So while all males physically have a penis, males with respect to gender are dominant, physically strong, tall, aggressive, etc. Common physical traits of males become associated with the male gender. But being physically male is not an indication of height, body weight, strength, etc. The gender male is basically an association of the normative traits of the physically male members of the species.

However, since gender is just an "image" and not a real thing, it is quite mutable and influenced by popular opinion. A physical male is not by definition physically strong, however society has adopted the position that males are normally physically strong, and this creates expectations for how males should be and act. Humans are social creatures, and most of our knowledge, learning, and beliefs come from the people with whom we have experience. Religions and sciences do not exist without people informing other people about them. And so stereotypes and normative ideologies exist to streamline the communication of information, so it is easily transmitted to millions of different people in an understandable way.

But the problem with stereotypes is that they have no room for individuals. Most people realize that stereotypes are a guideline and an efficient way to communicate knowledge, but they influence our thoughts and ideas greatly. Especially considering they create pressure to conform to a normative mode of action and existence; males who are not physically strong often feel pressure, subconsciously or consciously, to be strong, and therefore that their current mode of existence is wrong or unacceptable.

This becomes a larger problem for people who deviate even further from the norm. In terms of gender, this means that anyone physically male feels pressure to conform to the expectations of the male gender. And our genders are fairly strongly divided - males are not supposed to behave like females and vice versa. So anyone born with a physical male body who personally identifies with traits ascribed to the female gender is socially out of place and "strange." As you can imagine, this can have incredibly negative affects on a person, especially over the course of an entire lifetime. It is even worse for those who cannot easily identify with either the gender associated with their physical sex or who do not have a distinctly male or female physical sex.

That is why it is so important to recognize and affirm an individual's sense of identity. Recognizing and supporting gender neutrality eases the pressure of a male/female only dichotomy. Language is at the heart of our existence, and is the main way we interact with the people around us. So focusing on changing gendered ideas about language I believe is quite an important endeavor indeed.

 

[Nixie]

I think it is ridiculous to not understand that the US is patriarchial. Please! How long did it take for women to get the right to vote? Ever hear of the sufferage movement? What is the big controversy over abortion? Why no outcry against vasectomies but questions about birth control and the day after bill?

I can't speak for Natives overall [MENTION=362]Reon[/MENTION] but I do have an opinion. I think there is a bit more acceptance of lesbianism than homosexualiy. On the flip side, I think that there is a lesser degree of acceptance for a woman to change her body than a man. Women are the caretakes of the family and the source of continuaiton of the family and the trible. One can understand why a man might want to be a woman but not why a woman would want to be a man.

 

[acd]

So. Much. Face palming. Where. To. Begin??

 

[This]

I think it is ridiculous to not understand that the US is patriarchial. Please! How long did it take for women to get the right to vote? Ever hear of the sufferage movement? What is the big controversy over abortion? Why no outcry against vasectomies but questions about birth control and the day after bill?

Fair enough, but, in a lot of ways the US is also matriarchal, if a draft is initiated guess who's not going to war? we gleefully chop parts of non-consenting baby male's penises off and no one even blinks, men are basically up shit creek without a paddle in all custody cases unless the mother is a meth head or something, and if two college students get really really drunk and have sex it's considered to be rape perpetrated by the male even if both are equally drunk and equally willing. Many times abusive wives are considered a joke.

one of the biggest problems with patriarchy though is that religion is patriarchal, it is the religious people that are contesting stuff like birth control pills. It seems to me if we want to break these things down we need to go to the root and disconnect Catholicism from politics.

 

[acd]

Fair enough, but, in a lot of ways the US is also matriarchal, if a draft is initiated guess who's not going to war? we gleefully chop parts of non-consenting baby male's penises off and no one even blinks, men are basically up shit creek without a paddle in all custody cases unless the mother is a meth head or something, and if two college students get really really drunk and have sex it's considered to be rape perpetrated by the male even if both are equally drunk and equally willing. Many times abusive wives are considered a joke.

one of the biggest problems with patriarchy though is that religion is patriarchal, it is the religious people that are contesting stuff like birth control pills. It seems to me if we want to break these things down we need to go to the root and disconnect Catholicism from politics.

The ironic thing is that the examples you give wouldnt exist at all if patriarchy had never existed. People are now more likely to take your examples more seriously because these times lean toward being egalitarian. So if you feel things are unfair toward men-- it is only the fallout from an oppressive system collapsing.

 

[Nixie]

Well that is somewhat true. Some of the things you talk about were long fought legal battles and modern phenomena--like really modern--not even a generation old. It is the way with our laws that we tend to swing the pendulum in wide arcs. My mother can tell me about the day in the 1970's that as a woman working for the government she was ALLOWED to wear pants to work. Ask a woman in the 50's if she was able to prove that she was date raped? Your male outrage is realtively new and not nearly as horrific as the things women faced at the hands of the law and the men in their lives in the not so distant past.

I would replace Catholic with Christian in your last sentence. We are not a Christian country.

 

[This]

The ironic thing is that the examples you give wouldnt exist at all if patriarchy had never existed. People are now more likely to take your examples more seriously because these times lean toward egalitarian.

I have no doubt that patriarchy DID exist, I just have a hard time seeing much of it in our current culture aside from what the ultra religious like to push.

 

[This]

I would replace Catholic with Christian in your last sentence. We are not a Christian country.

That is true, I see christianity as mostly influenced by the catholic church is the reason I phrased it that way.

 

[Blind Bandit]

Fair enough, but, in a lot of ways the US is also matriarchal, if a draft is initiated guess who's not going to war? we gleefully chop parts of non-consenting baby male's penises off and no one even blinks, men are basically up shit creek without a paddle in all custody cases unless the mother is a meth head or something, and if two college students get really really drunk and have sex it's considered to be rape perpetrated by the male even if both are equally drunk and equally willing. Many times abusive wives are considered a joke.

one of the biggest problems with patriarchy though is that religion is patriarchal, it is the religious people that are contesting stuff like birth control pills. It seems to me if we want to break these things down we need to go to the root and disconnect Catholicism from politics.

Its interesting the amount of backlash feminism has seen fit to hit men with. It reminds me of white guilt. Funny enough a group of women in one of our sociology courses (social stratification) pretty much tore down every man in the class room and the women went on to imply any man offering any rebuttal as men being defensive or not allowing women their right to speak. One went so fair as to speak up that men should just shut up and take it.

Feminism refuses to acknowledge money as in the power elite as the ones with privilege. I can't help but think if women made up the top 1% of the population as fair as wealth and power we would be in the same place as we are now. Money privilege exits as dose gender privilege but money surpasses pretty much anything else.

 

[Blind Bandit]

Well that is somewhat true. Some of the things you talk about were long fought legal battles and modern phenomena--like really modern--not even a generation old. It is the way with our laws that we tend to swing the pendulum in wide arcs. My mother can tell me about the day in the 1970's that as a woman working for the government she was ALLOWED to wear pants to work. Ask a woman in the 50's if she was able to prove that she was date raped? Your male outrage is realtively new and not nearly as horrific as the things women faced at the hands of the law and the men in their lives in the not so distant past.

I would replace Catholic with Christian in your last sentence. We are not a Christian country.

I have to disagree. The most hated and untrusted people in this country are Atheists. We aren't official christian. But we are close as you can get.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

I had the actual journal some where I just have to find where I saved it too.

 

[acd]

I have no doubt that patriarchy DID exist, I just have a hard time seeing much of it in our current culture aside from what the ultra religious like to push.

It still permeates much of our culture. Look at fashion magazines, how the male and female models are posed. Who is in the more vulnerable and passive position? Some ads look like a gang bang about to happen. Advertisers fetishizes it and package it and it sells. How could it sell otherwise, if people didn't still accept it in some form?

 

[Nixie]

Well if men didn't have an enormous head start on being able to own land and wealth, I'm sure theere would be more wealthy women. You have a hard point to win here. The idea isn't to villify but to understand there is an economic historical process that influences money and power. White males have been overly privledged in this regard in the US. It isn't about blame but understanding that we need to move toward parity. Every group will have it's fringe element and those with a negative message, including femanism.

Back to topic. I think you are seeing the influence of gender and power dynamics in how we identify things. I'm sure that GNP would have the ability to lesson the gap between genders/sex but you are fighting against a long history of language. I'm not sure of how linguistic timelines evolve but I'm sure it is measured in generations, not years.

 

[This]

"He" is often used as a gender neutral pronoun, but "she" never is.

Not to discount the rest of your point, because I do see what you are saying but this little tidbit was driving me nuts as I do see people using "she" all the time as a gender neutral pronoun, especially in books about business. Assuming the book was published after about 1995 Bosses/executives/CEOs/etc are almost always referred to as a "her" or they alternate between the two him/her/he/she. In fairness to your point I'm sure they are doing this intentionally to appear pro-feminist however.

 

[Saru Inc]

Post-modern gender hate is such a waste of time.


if you have a penis youre a man

if you have a vagina or ovaries yourre a woman

if you have boobs but a penis youre a tranny

if you have a vagina and no boobs youre a victim in a malpractice lawsuit

if you have a human body youre a human


its all you need to know. if they're dressed like how a man usually dresses so you call them bro and they cry because their a girl then sorry. we can't slow down for all these people changing all these genders.


next thing you know women are gonna wanna be let outta the kitchen

I made this post in exaggeration to prove a point. It IS this simple. However,

Not true in all cases.

Yeah, I don't got time for that shit. People don't want to cater to the one percent financially, yet they'll cater to the one percent of hermaphrodites out there?

Or, idk, maybe the one girl on TV who was born with her legs sewn together who had no sexual organs? In this case we'll call them what they look like based on cultural norms.

See statement below for more information.

I've fine with change. I'm just tired of people seeing malice and intent to be mean when its not there. Sometimes people simply don't know what call someone new. A good example is the use of African American vs black. I don't what people like to be called. I will use either just don't jump down my throat for not knowing what you like to be called. I'm not ignorant I just don't know what every person wishes to be addressed as. Its kinda like asking someone to call you a nickname instead. Its fine you just have let people know. And not flip out when they use the wrong name the first time.

Exactly. Back in eight grade, we for some reason started talking about interracial families. And this black girl in my class said something like "nah we ain't all the same kind" and I said "Oh interesting, so is it a lot of family that isn't black?" (Meaning like one half of it, etc. She was mixed color) She said "oh no." I'm like "oh ok so....?" "I got aunt and uncle on that are white on my moms/dads side. And the rest of my family isn't black" I replied "isn't black..?" "We're african american."


OH COME ON!!!!


Its so dumb. She said it like I thought anyone who wasn't white was a) inferior, and b) was just "some other color" its so obnoxious.

Look, if you're a hermaphrodite, or someone with no sex organs, or no lower half of the body or WHATEVER.... If you dress like how a man normally dresses, or dresses like how a woman normally dresses you will be called accordingly. If you "identify" with some other gender than make it known. If, like I once experienced IRL, you're a man who identifies as a woman, dresses like a women, and yet has a mad muscular body and facial hair, dont' be offended if I'm like "ummmmmmmmmm" when coming up with a pronoun. (That was one of the weirdest moments of my life. And "she" was completely serious, they were a man but identified as a woman but felt no need to not work out trim facial hair etc.)

Its just like... We're not saying there's anything WRONG with associating with the other gender, but we cannot read minds.
—¹Ã¢â‚¬”¹

 

[Reon]

I think it is ridiculous to not understand that the US is patriarchial. Please! How long did it take for women to get the right to vote? Ever hear of the sufferage movement? What is the big controversy over abortion? Why no outcry against vasectomies but questions about birth control and the day after bill?

I can't speak for Natives overall @Reon but I do have an opinion. I think there is a bit more acceptance of lesbianism than homosexualiy. On the flip side, I think that there is a lesser degree of acceptance for a woman to change her body than a man. Women are the caretakes of the family and the source of continuaiton of the family and the trible. One can understand why a man might want to be a woman but not why a woman would want to be a man.

I see. That's interesting. I'll have to think on that some. Thank you

Fair enough, but, in a lot of ways the US is also matriarchal, if a draft is initiated guess who's not going to war? we gleefully chop parts of non-consenting baby male's penises off and no one even blinks, men are basically up shit creek without a paddle in all custody cases unless the mother is a meth head or something, and if two college students get really really drunk and have sex it's considered to be rape perpetrated by the male even if both are equally drunk and equally willing. Many times abusive wives are considered a joke.

one of the biggest problems with patriarchy though is that religion is patriarchal, it is the religious people that are contesting stuff like birth control pills. It seems to me if we want to break these things down we need to go to the root and disconnect Catholicism from politics.

A few points that are completely off topic
I wouldn't be so quick to make the proclamation that since women are required to go to war, they are not serving; especially during WW 1 and 2. Women had to raise a child, have a job (and later in WWII the jobs their husbands had left) and then deal with the psychological and physical effects of the wars on their men. Men who were battered and bruised and often emotionally volatile and violent. All of this while having reduce influence on anything going on around them. I wouldn't say that's exactly easy, I would say that they serve just as well as their husbands did in the way that they could.

Circumcision is based on the parents point of view which can go either way.

That is true but that's because we raise women and men with the mentality that men work and women take care of the house and the children. With that being said, I believe a custody reform is coming soon, to fix some of the issues with the divorce reform done in the U.S. recently.

The last is true but that's a very specific situation in comparision to the amount of women that are actually raped during alcohol intoxication. Honestly, we will never know 100% on situations like that.

There are a lot of issues but I don't believe by raising a counter issue, you erase the problem that occurs more frequently.

I have to disagree. The most hated and untrusted people in this country are Atheists. We aren't official christian. But we are close as you can get.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

I had the actual journal some where I just have to find where I saved it too.

Would you happen to know if U of M published a follow up study?

@EvilByte said exactly what I've been trying to say, much better than I could.

I'd also like to add that patriarchy shows in our most casual, unconscious attitudes towards gender. Things we take for granted are usually significant indicators of our beliefs. Have you ever noticed how male is treated as a general category, and female is treated as specific? It's hard to explain exactly what I mean by that, but for example, note how many more male protagonists there are in movies. I don't just mean the blockbuster action heroes, but in general. A lot of those characters could just as easily be women, but the assumption is that if the protagonist were female she would automatically be less relatable to a lot of people. A male character can be relatable to both men and women; male is just a neutral category, much like "human," while female is treated as a subset with its own special interests. When you look at the movies that do have female protagonists, the fact that they're a woman is somehow integral to the plot—it's almost never the case that the character just happens to be a woman. You could easily replace many male protagonists with female protagonists without changing the story, but it's not true the other way around.

I'm a huge Pixar fan, but I'm so disappointed that they finally have a female protagonist, and the plot revolves around her being female. Yeah yeah, girl power and all—but why do we constantly have to compensate for the fact that a character is female by making her overly tough and rebellious? If a woman were to show the same amount of vulnerability and emotion as a male character, she would automatically be seen as more vulnerable and weak than the man because of this bias.

Language reflects this hierarchy of "male = set, female = subset." "He" is often used as a gender neutral pronoun, but "she" never is.

It's a prominent part of film making. White men tend to go see movies more than any other group of people, supposedly studies say. If you make a main character that is both white and male, you make the viewer who is most likely white and male feel like he is one with the actor and that he could be him in a way.

Well if men didn't have an enormous head start on being able to own land and wealth, I'm sure theere would be more wealthy women. You have a hard point to win here. The idea isn't to villify but to understand there is an economic historical process that influences money and power. White males have been overly privledged in this regard in the US. It isn't about blame but understanding that we need to move toward parity. Every group will have it's fringe element and those with a negative message, including femanism.

Back to topic. I think you are seeing the influence of gender and power dynamics in how we identify things. I'm sure that GNP would have the ability to lesson the gap between genders/sex but you are fighting against a long history of language. I'm not sure of how linguistic timelines evolve but I'm sure it is measured in generations, not years.

Agree. I think it's important to realize that the past allows for privilege. You could always make the case that if some other group was better than others and basically history swap some shit, we'd be complaining about something else but that's not exactly the point.

 

[Saru Inc]

I still don't see what oversensitive people have to do at all with the issue. Yeah, some people will get unreasonably offended because you called them by the wrong pronoun. But what does that have to do with anything? No one is saying we should use gender neutral pronouns so as not to offend those people. We're saying that there should be gender neutral pronouns simply because it would be logical have them.

What is all this crap about catering to people's inferiority complexes, or "the 1%" of all things? It would be no trouble to anyone to simply add a few pronouns to the English dictionary. I don't see what the big deal is.

If you're resistant to the idea of gender neutral pronouns for a valid reason, fine. But citing how you dislike certain people is not a valid case against GNPs at all.

These are my objective thoughts on the issue, all human-related concerns aside: all we need to know is that sex doesn't stop with male and female. There are biological variations. This is a fact. Therefore, language should reflect this fact. It's that simple. It's irrelevant how uncommon this occurrence is.

1) Logic is a human system, so to say across the board that something is/isn't logical can be quite illogical.

2) Its a simple truth to you, because you agree with the pronouns. Just like someone for gaybros marrying saying to the people against it "OH COME ON WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH YOU?"

Well then, as you were so eager to point out the other sides ignorance - you just showed your own. To assume they have no reason to be against gay marriage, or they know its not a big deall but still are against it is as foolish as it is faulty. You fundamentally do not understand their side, and yet complain that its their fault they don't understand your side.

Please note - the 'you' doesn't refer to you - seraphim, but simply One who might be in that conversation. At the same time, I am making an analogy so it still applies, to just say "it really isn't a big deal" technically invalidates both sides of the argument, why? Because it than makes the value of the deal wholly arbitrary, and even worse, wholly deficient in all things, and worthless.

 

[magister343]

There's a lot of feminist scholarship out there on how God/Lord/He are quite damaging to the feminine image. And this is not so much a problem for Christianity, as God is definitely male there so using "He" makes total sense.

God is most certainly not male. It is far from orthodox to consider God as being either male or female in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. The closest one can come to saying that God is male is to say that Christ was incarnated in a male body. The other two persons of the trinity were never incarnated and so have no physical gender.

Much of the confusion comes from the fact that the Hebrew language cannot express anything in gender neutral terms. It does not even have a neuter gender, so everything must be masculine or feminine. As such, most names of God happen to be grammatically masculine, although there are a few that are grammatically feminine. Some even think that the word "Elohim" tries to emphasize that God is beyond gender, as it appears to use a masculine plural ending added to the feminine singular of the word for god/mighty one.

(Personally I prefer the argument that it is actual dual in number rather than an irregular plural of majesty though. Dual doesn't actually have to refer to groups of two in Hebrew. It is used not only for the legs of bipeds like humans but also for the legs of dogs and centipedes. It is also used for bodies of water or other fluids that cannot easily be broken down into discrete countable components. The dual was already on its way out by the time the old testament was written, and so no longer had any verb or adjective forms. That could help explain why Elohim usually uses singular verbs and adjectives but sometimes uses plural ones.)

The Koran makes a point to randomly alternate pronouns used to describe the divine, to emphasize that the concept of gender makes no sense when applied to God.

It is worth noting that the word for spirit in Hebrew is grammatically feminine, and in Greek is grammatically neuter. It is also worth noting that Christ declared that the Father is spirit, thus making two thirds of the trinity grammatically neuter or even feminine. It was not until the bible was translated into Latin that all three persons of the trinity were considered even grammatically male. It is thus hard to argue that the writers of the bible intended for every person of the trinity to be considered male. It is also worth noting that the word for woman in Greek is grammatically masculine. Grammatical gender really does no tell us anything about natural gender.


There are those who think that grammatical gender did not originally have anything to do with natural gender. (Technically the word gender comes from the Latin genus, meaning kind, which does not necessarily have any sexual connotations.) Some theorize that they were just arbitrary groups of words that were declined in different was, which over time came to be associated with particular genders. There are languages that have noun classes comparable to gender but which are separated by very different criteria (e.g., animacy vs inanimacy, plants vs animals, concrete vs abstract, general vs specific, small solid objects vs large solid objects plus liquids, etc).


Most English bible translators translators have argued for the use of He rather than Itnot on the grounds of gender, but because in English the neuter is considered to denote a lack of animacy or personhood.

 

[Emerald Dreams]

I would agree that grammatical gender seems strangely linked to physical sex, and that it probably did not originate from a gendered worldview. However, I would say that the existence of grammatical gender has certainly influenced conceptions of gender. I don't necessarily have a problem with grammatical gender, I have a problem when it's used in ways to promote hurtful discrimination, or support things like a patriarchal system of society.

I would also push for believers of all different faiths to be familiar with their religious texts and doctrines, and to try to understand the original authors' intentions. However, this is not the general case. Religious texts become reinterpreted over time and their words reapplied to different cultures and situations over the generations. Therefore, the original beliefs and intent of the authors, while theologically being interesting, may have little or no impact on the current generation of adherents. Other things stay unchanged forever (i.e. the belief in only one God).

For the Hebrew Scriptures, I would say that though YHWH is not defined as physically male (or "physically" anything at all), He does become more associated with the male gender. YHWH made a physical man in his image, so it is imaginable that the original authors had some picture of a being that resembled a physical man in their minds when thinking of Him. Judaism is also a patriarchal religion, even though it was matrilinear, so authority mostly rests with the males - most of the heroes/ancestors and the Kings were male. Israel is even described as the bride of YHWH. So while YHWH may have been beyond physical sex, He is mostly associated with the male gender.

The same sort of logic applies to the modern Christian concept of God, except it is more complicated by the existence of the Holy Trinity. But all imagery of God is distinctly male. He is the Father and Jesus is the Son. In the Catholic Church, the structure is completely patriarchal, with a male Pope, bishops, etc. While God is not physically male (even though Jesus is, as far as Jesus was a man in addition to being God), He is still completely associated with the male gender. The main woman of importance in Christianity is Mary, who is defined by her virginity and motherhood, which emphasizes that a woman's sexuality is bad, and places a woman's role primarily as a mother for children. She's not a very independently powerful figure like God and Jesus are. I'm not extremely well versed in feminist literature on Christianity, but I'm sure the idea of the most powerful and important figures in a religion and culture being male are quite damaging to feminine equality.

The problem of gendered pronouns is that they reinforce that inequality. If YHWH/God is truly genderless, then it would be necessary to refer to Them that way to make sure no gender associations happen. By the time Jerome's Vulgate came around, God was already distinctly masculine, even though Latin has a neuter. It would be fine to have a masculine deity if a society weren't influenced by it, but in patriarchal societies it just further reinforces male dominance. For things as important as creators of the universe and the foundations of religion, I think it makes sense to take extra care in reinforcing a genderlessness, if that is the case. I agree that "It" is not a good substitute, and that is why we should have one to refer to people and ultimate beings.

 

[Vict]

Why is "it" not good enough?

 

[hush]

People should be called whatever they want to be called. No skin off my arse, if they prefer to be called he, she, ze, it, one, thon, whatever.

What people came with when they entered the world is only the foundations of who they are - if they want, they can build off of it, and grow in any number of directions - or, they can tear the foundations down and start over entirely, changing their physical form to match who they know they are, so that the two are congruent. Sometimes I feel like the external doesn't matter as much, so it interests me to see people change their external to match who they are internally; because if their true identity is what's inside, it shouldn't matter. It's important to them, though, so that's all that truly matters. I can see the merit in wanting your body to be in sync with your mind, and desiring how you're addressed to be in sync with the two, as well. Language is a powerful force and can make or break or person or group, so I tend to place importance on addressing people how they would like to be addressed, and as a result not inadvertently rejecting their identity or demeaning them through my speech. A lot of damage can be done in this sense, considering that people who are non-gendered or whose anatomical biology isn't aligned with their gender often go through life with family and friends continuing to call them "she," or "he" because they refuse to affirm and show acceptance to the identities of their loved ones.

Even if I feel or believe something contrary to who they profess to be, I am in position to deny them such a simple thing. This is especially true considering I am only familiar with one of over 6 billion worlds existing concurrently on this planet. I can't claim to know theirs with only my own limited experience to guide me.