Non-binary identities are valid

[cullennz]

I mean a bit of realism.

Prospective employee - Mr Smith. Good credentials.

Prospective employee - Ms Jones Good credentials.

Prospective employee - Mx Smith
Good credentials.

Can only do two interviews.

Which do people think won't get one due to potential hassle?

 

[angrysoba]

Which do people think won't get one due to potential hassle?

It depends. Did you write one of the CVs?

 

[cullennz]

It depends. Did you write one of the CVs?

Nope

The potential employees obviously did

 

[angrysoba]

Nope

The potential employees obviously did

Well, then, as I think you were implying, the way of the world [don't look at me guv, it's just the way it is] dictates that the potential employer is going to hire the bloke, because who wants to hire a woman who might end up taking days off with her periods and gossiping all day in the office, and getting pregnant and wanting maternity leave?

Unless of course you were implying that political correctness has gone mad and the potential employer has inverted the natural order to such an extent that only the diversity hires get an interview.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No one will use it. Except maybe a handful.

No one will use it. Other than the governments and major organisations that already are, or those who will in the future.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I literally don't care.

Clearly.

Be non binary. I don't care. Some people obviously can't be ***** working out what they are.

Just don't expect me to make an effort to pander to laziness.

I'll give you this - this is a new one.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I doubt Mx will take off here apart from a few sjws.

And the government. And Air New Zealand. And Southern Cross Health Insurance. And Otago university. And ASB. And Sovereign Health Insurance. And...

Then again, I suppose none of them are true Scotsmen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But I ask this: what purpose does a title serve? In the case of the three mentioned, they indicate a position of authority. But what purpose do Mr and Mrs serve that cannot be served by simply using the person's name?

It's an indicator of formality, used when addressing a person by their surname. It serves to separate it from the casual familiarity that comes with using a person's first name. It's a term of respect granted without necessarily implying authority in any given circumstance.

If I wished it, I could ask people to call me "Fellow Cat" rather than "M. Cat" and rather than "Emily". Fellow is my actual professional title. But it's cumbersome, and it always ends up with me needing to explain what the heck a "fellow" is in the first place, then what the heck an actuary is too. So I'm pretty much okay with "M. Cat" or "Ms. Cat" in professional or formal settings where some stranger being overly casual with my first name isn't preferred.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I mean a bit of realism.

Prospective employee - Mr Smith. Good credentials.

Prospective employee - Ms Jones Good credentials.

Prospective employee - Mx Smith
Good credentials.

Can only do two interviews.

Which do people think won't get one due to potential hassle?

I am more inclined to interview potential employees who give only their first initial instead of their whole first name. All else being equal, I'd be more likely to interview "E. Cat" than to interview "Emily's Cat".

 

[theprestige]

And the government. And Air New Zealand. And Southern Cross Health Insurance. And Otago university. And ASB. And Sovereign Health Insurance. And...

Then again, I suppose none of them are true Scotsmen.

Aside from Air New Zealand, are any of them actually taking off, though? Coca-Cola totally made New Coke an option, but it never really took off. Ford made the Edsel an option, but it never really took off.

Southern Cross Health Insurance et al. made "Mx" an option... but is it ever really going to take off? cullennz thinks not, but only time will tell.

 

[d4m10n]

I doubt Mx will take off here apart from a few sjws.

I'm not a huge fan of neologisms in general or neopronouns in particular, but it would make everything so much simpler if we could refer to everyone (trans, cis, non-binary, etc.) as Mx. Jones or Mx. Smith.

(What is the preferred pronunciation, though?)

 

[angrysoba]

Aside from Air New Zealand, are any of them actually taking off, though?l.

Heh heh! “Taking off”.

 

[arthwollipot]

However, it is notable that it works much better in some constructions rather than others, and that while it might trip off the tongue in a situation where the gender is unknown or the number is irrelevant such as "If someone comes in, tell them I am busy" but it does not do so easily in the examples Squeegee gave where number becomes confusing.




That's right, and that is mostly because it is already in common use, sounds natural (in some contexts) and has been for a long time.

But it is difficult to overhaul very common words in the English language in a way that gains widespread acceptance. Titles such as Ms, are fairly low-frequency words so they are not a major mental imposition, but pronouns are used everyday by everyone, often several times in a sentence, and they come with challenges of subject-verb agreement. I mean it is bad enough for some people who have been mistaught that they need to always say "you and I" instead of the far more natural, and in many cases actually correct, "you and me". To get prescriptive about pronoun use in the way that you argue is way, way more onerous than you seem to realize!

No, I realise how difficult it is for some people to acknowledge that "themself" is now a valid word. However, as has been pointed out, new words and new constructions are coined all the time, and people seem to be able to cope.

I literally don't care.

Be non binary. I don't care. Some people obviously can't be ***** working out what they are.

Just don't expect me to make an effort to pander to laziness.

What I read here is "Avoiding momentary inconvenience is more important to me than your wellbeing."

 

[angrysoba]

No, I realise how difficult it is for some people to acknowledge that "themself" is now a valid word. However, as has been pointed out, new words and new constructions are coined all the time, and people seem to be able to cope.

A valid word in the sense that it is used by people, yes. Apparently this has been a valid word used by people for some time, just as many other forms of "they" or "them" have been.

But my point is that these constructions are and were common part of people's intuitive sense of grammar.

However, prescribing language forms which don't come easy to people is a different matter. This is especially true when the constructions are high-frequency and require some morphological manipulation to use. People tend to speak quickly, and if they have to constantly think about whether or not they are using the correct pronoun according to gender, and according to subject-verb agreement, and according to whether or not it is subject, object or possessive, the work demanded of them may be too much.

You cannot dismiss this as trivial.

 

[theprestige]

No, I realise how difficult it is for some people to acknowledge that "themself" is now a valid word. However, as has been pointed out, new words and new constructions are coined all the time, and people seem to be able to cope.

Neologisms are coined all the time. Some succeed at entering common usage. Many do not. People don't really have to "cope" with the ones that succeed, because they succeeded. They filled some linguistic need for a broad majority of people. Not many neologisms succeed through being forced by their few adherents.

Alternative pronouns etc. fulfill a linguistic need for a very small percentage of the population. A vocal minority is trying to convince the rest of us that we share that need and must fulfill it by adopting the neologisms. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. But "some neologisms succeed; this is a neologism; this will succeed!" is a stupid argument.

 

[angrysoba]

No, I realise how difficult it is for some people to acknowledge that "themself" is now a valid word.

Re-reading this, I think that you misunderstand my point in a fundamental way. The problem I am pointing out is not that some people will refuse to believe that "themself" is a valid word (though some people no doubt will do that). That would be a prescriptivist concern. I don't have those concerns.

The point is that while people can stand on the sidelines saying, "NO, your use of language is wrong! You must speak like this!" this type of thing is usually ignored by the majority of the population. This is why we have all those worthless books by Lynne Truss, Simon Heffer, Strunk & White etc... telling people how they are supposed to write which get ignored. They're literally pissing in the wind.

Neologisms are coined all the time. Some succeed at entering common usage. Many do not. People don't really have to "cope" with the ones that succeed, because they succeeded. They filled some linguistic need for a broad majority of people. Not many neologisms succeed through being forced by their few adherents.

Alternative pronouns etc. fulfill a linguistic need for a very small percentage of the population. A vocal minority is trying to convince the rest of us that we share that need and must fulfill it by adopting the neologisms. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. But "some neologisms succeed; this is a neologism; this will succeed!" is a stupid argument.

Indeed, and even if you succeed in getting a neologism out there into the world and used by people, once it is out you are no longer an authority on how it gets used. Ask that guy who thinks his invention is pronounced "Jiff". Sorry, everyone else calls it "Gif".

 

[arthwollipot]

...You cannot dismiss this as trivial.

I'm not dismissing it as trivial. I'm acknowledging that it can be difficult.

But "some neologisms succeed; this is a neologism; this will succeed!" is a stupid argument.

I agree - that is a stupid argument. Which is why it's not an argument I'm making.

The point is that while people can stand on the sidelines saying, "NO, your use of language is wrong! You must speak like this!" this type of thing is usually ignored by the majority of the population. This is why we have all those worthless books by Lynne Truss, Simon Heffer, Strunk & White etc... telling people how they are supposed to write which get ignored. They're literally pissing in the wind.

No-one's standing on the sidelines saying that. All people are asking is that their identity be recognised with appropriate pronouns.

And just for the record, Style Guides are employed by publishers all over the world. They are literally books that tell people how to write.

Indeed, and even if you succeed in getting a neologism out there into the world and used by people, once it is out you are no longer an authority on how it gets used. Ask that guy who thinks his invention is pronounced "Jiff". Sorry, everyone else calls it "Gif".

Sure, but I'm struggling to see the connection to pronouns here. Maybe the topic drifted a little too much.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not dismissing it as trivial. I'm acknowledging that it can be difficult.

No-one's standing on the sidelines saying that. All people are asking is that their identity be recognised with appropriate pronouns.

Sure, but "all people are asking" is the tricky bit. It's a big ask.

To accept and recognize what is already pretty common usage of the third-person singular "they / them / their" is a victory which is in everyone's grasp. But that is a victory for descriptivism not prescriptivism.

Even then it will require some mental rewiring.

The one that Greg Egan proposed (ve/ver/vis) would have to be a generational thing. It simply won't catch on with people over the age of, say, 30. But maybe the kids will love it.

Idiosyncratic pronouns? Well, that is something I foresee will never take off. Insisting that people recognize pronouns that are as individual as names will be storing up a lot of anguish.

And just for the record, Style Guides are employed by publishers all over the world. They are literally books that tell people how to write.

The books I mention are those aimed at the general public rather than in-house style-guides.

Sure, but I'm struggling to see the connection to pronouns here. Maybe the topic drifted a little too much.

It's related to the problem of herding everyone into linguistic agreement. Nouns are the easy ones, because they are low-frequency. I can go all month without saying GIF or having someone dispute my use of it. I don't think I can go a few sentences in a conversation without using pronouns.

 

[arthwollipot]

Sure, but "all people are asking" is the tricky bit. It's a big ask.

It's really not.

Do you know anyone who has undergone a change of name? Do you have any trouble remembering their new name? It's really the same thing.

Idiosyncratic pronouns? Well, that is something I foresee will never take off. Insisting that people recognize pronouns that are as individual as names will be storing up a lot of anguish.

I agree. Which is why I think that you will find that the number of people who insist on idiosyncratic pronouns is very small and will continue to get smaller, and that you will not get into too much trouble if you just use they/them.

It's related to the problem of herding everyone into linguistic agreement. Nouns are the easy ones, because they are low-frequency. I can go all month without saying GIF or having someone dispute my use of it. I don't think I can go a few sentences in a conversation without using pronouns.

Should be easy enough to remember through repetition then.

 

[angrysoba]

It's really not.

Do you know anyone who has undergone a change of name? Do you have any trouble remembering their new name? It's really the same thing.

I've already explained why names and pronouns are not the same and how pronouns present more problems then you seem to be acknowledging. This is why I said you are dismissing it. You say you are not dismissing, and acknowledge it is hard. Now, you are back to saying it is easy.