Non-binary identities are valid

[angrysoba]

It is in no way restricted to inanimate objects. There is only one specific object (well actually 7 billion+) for which that pronoun is frowned upon by convention. That object is the human being. And the reason is that humans mistakenly think they are too special to be lumped in with everything else that exists.

It is not a mistake, after all who or what is doing the lumping? Humans! The fact that society conventionally separates humans from rocks is all that you need to know that humans get special treatment.

Humans get to eat in fancy restaurants, go to the gym, make and watch movies, vote, get admitted to hospitals and argue with each other on internet forums. Of course these are "fictions" of a kind as objectively you have no more value than a rock, but you would be a fool to declare that you wanted to be treated like one. That's the Golden Rule.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Just in reference to earlier discussions, I've found myself wondering whether the term "LGBTQ" is going to stay the course. As it is, there are variations on a theme (LGBT, and LGBTQ+ likely being the most common). But the biggest thing, I think, is that it's trivial to type out, but a mouthful to say.

I rather like "QUILTBAG" (queer, undecided, intersex, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, asexual, gay), but it doesn't include enbys and, because it's got a somewhat silly aspect to it, I'm not surprised that it didn't really take root.

"Queer" is quite a good catch-all, but it does suffer from the "it's a word for us to describe us, not for outsiders to use to describe us" syndrome, having previously (and sometimes still) been a slur.

There's also the possibility of turning the acronym into a word: "elby", to be compared with "enby". But then that runs afoul of two groups being prioritised/represented while others aren't.

So I wonder if a new word will be coined at some point. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this happened in the next decade or two.

More relevant to the more recent discussion, as I said above I don't think "it" will take hold as a non-gendered pronoun, but I'm currently re-reading E. Nesbit's children's books, and she uses it liberally. Things like this: "The children looked at each other. Each of them had mud all over its face, hands, and clothes". So there was definitely a time when that was perfectly acceptable language.

 

[angrysoba]

More relevant to the more recent discussion, as I said above I don't think "it" will take hold as a non-gendered pronoun, but I'm currently re-reading E. Nesbit's children's books, and she uses it liberally. Things like this: "The children looked at each other. Each of them had mud all over its face, hands, and clothes". So there was definitely a time when that was perfectly acceptable language.

The problem for any changes in the way the English speaking world's population uses pronouns is in making it natural enough that it doesn't take effort every time someone speaks.

The reason why some people would like new ways of using pronouns to be second nature is because they find the current ways to be insulting in some way.

Steve's "solution" is to introduce an unnatural way of talking that insults more people.

In other words, it isn't any kind of solution at all.

 

[theprestige]

It's a solution that works for Steve. If I understand the premise correctly, you need to respect Steve's solution and adhere to it when dealing with Steve.

 

[angrysoba]

It's a solution that works for Steve. If I understand the premise correctly, you need to respect Steve's solution and adhere to it when dealing with Steve.

You'll have to explain what you mean. Which premise? Whose premise?

I've already said that idiosyncratic pronouns are probably not going to work.

 

[Steve]

The problem for any changes in the way the English speaking world's population uses pronouns is in making it natural enough that it doesn't take effort every time someone speaks.

The reason why some people would like new ways of using pronouns to be second nature is because they find the current ways to be insulting in some way.

Steve's "solution" is to introduce an unnatural way of talking that insults more people.

In other words, it isn't any kind of solution at all.

Exactly. Some few people concentrated in a few relatively isolated communities. People that I have never encountered IRL or outside of discussions in this forum. People who will never have the opportunity to be offended or insulted by any pronoun I use. If people within those communities want to tie themselves in knots fretting about pronouns that is their business. More power to them.

If I use exactly the same pronoun for every single person either everyone should be insulted or no one should be. Either way there are no special categories to be singled out. Equal treatment for all is, IMO, a positive thing. If a person feels insulted because they are not singled out for special treatment then the problem is entirely theirs.

Compare your first quoted sentence to your third. In the first you suggest that effort is required to make the use of different pronouns “natural”. The implication is that they are initially unnatural. In your third sentence you criticize my suggested pronoun as unnatural. Is the effort to make the neutral pronoun they natural in any way different from the effort to make the neutral pronoun it natural. It actually has the advantage of working better in context because it is obviously singular whereas they can also be plural. The words are equally useful in context.

 

[Steve]

It's a solution that works for Steve. If I understand the premise correctly, you need to respect Steve's solution and adhere to it when dealing with Steve.

I don’t care a whit if people use my suggestion or not. People can use whatever words they want when “dealing with Steve”. The status quo works perfectly well in my world. I am just making suggestions that I think are logical and simple to those few people who think that me making pronoun changes is crucial to the future of the human race.

 

[angrysoba]

Exactly. Some few people concentrated in a few relatively isolated communities. People that I have never encountered IRL or outside of discussions in this forum. People who will never have the opportunity to be offended or insulted by any pronoun I use. If people within those communities want to tie themselves in knots fretting about pronouns that is their business. More power to them.

If I use exactly the same pronoun for every single person either everyone should be insulted or no one should be. Either way there are no special categories to be singled out. Equal treatment for all is, IMO, a positive thing. If a person feels insulted because they are not singled out for special treatment then the problem is entirely theirs.

I think that's a mistake. Let's say quadraplegic people want to compete in sports. It's a very very small number of people, really. Hardly worth worrying about.

One solution could be to create some sports for them to compete in and even set up a Paralympics sport for the really good ones and for something for the others to look up to and be inspired by.

Or another solution could be to make everyone paralysed so that everyone is equal and no one is special.

Making everyone equal is not actually a good thing, particularly if it means reducing everyone's living standards. It's actually the worst of all possible solutions.

Compare your first quoted sentence to your third. In the first you suggest that effort is required to make the use of different pronouns “natural”. The implication is that they are initially unnatural.

No. You misunderstand my point. He, she etc... trips off the tongue naturally. They also sounds natural if I say "If someone wants it they can have it."

What sounds unnatural? Well, saying "If Steve wants it, they can have it." People get confused with that. Who is they?

And people consider words like "ve", "ver" and "vim" to be unnatural as well, because they are not commonly used at all.

In your third sentence you criticize my suggested pronoun as unnatural. Is the effort to make the neutral pronoun they natural in any way different from the effort to make the neutral pronoun it natural. It actually has the advantage of working better in context because it is obviously singular whereas they can also be plural. The words are equally useful in context.

I'm pointing out that they are similarly unnatural, but "it" has no upside.

 

[angrysoba]

I don’t care a whit if people use my suggestion or not. People can use whatever words they want when “dealing with Steve”. The status quo works perfectly well in my world. I am just making suggestions that I think are logical and simple to those few people who think that me making pronoun changes is crucial to the future of the human race.

I do not think any of these changes is crucial to the future of the human race. This kind of melodramatic hyperbole is just silly.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problem for any changes in the way the English speaking world's population uses pronouns is in making it natural enough that it doesn't take effort every time someone speaks.

The reason why some people would like new ways of using pronouns to be second nature is because they find the current ways to be insulting in some way.

Steve's "solution" is to introduce an unnatural way of talking that insults more people.

In other words, it isn't any kind of solution at all.

As I said, I don't think it's going to take hold (or even be pushed for), because it's seen as dehumanising. I'm just pointing out that it has actually been used before, even if perhaps by only one author - albeit a very well-known and popular author.

Here's an actual quote from The Story Of The Amulet, rather than one of my made-up sentences:

"I hope you notice that they were not cowardly enough to cry till their Father had gone; they knew he had quite enough to upset him without that. But when he was gone every one felt as if it had been trying not to cry all its life, and that it must cry now, if it died for it. So they cried."

This blog post, where I got that quote from, is an interesting dive into Nesbit's use of "it" as a pronoun. There are also links to a few further blogs on the singular "they".

The Wikipedia page about it as a pronoun is interesting, too, and notes that Coleridge advocated for it to be used as a gender-neutral personal pronoun. And, although it's not written entirely clearly, seems to suggest that Middle English had the gender-neutral personal pronoun "hit".

I've also found this page, which I find fascinating. I'll quote the most interesting parts:

There were two gender neutral pronouns native to English, ou and a, but they have long since died out, save for minor use in some British dialects. According to Dennis Baron’s Grammar and Gender:

In 1789, William H. Marshall records the existence of a dialectal English epicene pronoun, singular ou : “‘Ou will’ expresses either he will, she will, or it will.” Marshall traces ou to Middle English epicene a, used by the fourteenth-century English writer John of Trevisa, and both the OED and Wright’s English Dialect Dictionary confirm the use of a for he, she, it, they, and even I.

The dialectal epicene pronoun a is a reduced form of the Old and Middle English masculine and feminine pronouns he and heo. By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the masculine and feminine pronouns had developed to a point where, according to the OED, they were “almost or wholly indistinguishable in pronunciation.” The modern feminine pronoun she, which first appears in the mid twelfth century, seems to have been drafted at least partly to reduce the increasing ambiguity of the pronoun system….

I wonder if a campaign for "ou" or "a" could gain any ground?

Also of particular interest, in light of earlier comments in this thread, is that "she" is one of those "made-up words", specifically coined to distinguish women from men because the pronunciation of the masculine "he" and the feminine "heo" had become indistinguishable. So to be consistent, anybody who objects to words like "xe" or "ve" on the grounds that they're "made-up words" must also object to the word "she".

 

[d4m10n]

...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

I think that's a mistake. Let's say quadraplegic people want to compete in sports. It's a very very small number of people, really. Hardly worth worrying about.

One solution could be to create some sports for them to compete in and even set up a Paralympics sport for the really good ones and for something for the others to look up to and be inspired by.

Or another solution could be to make everyone paralysed so that everyone is equal and no one is special.

Making everyone equal is not actually a good thing, particularly if it means reducing everyone's living standards. It's actually the worst of all possible solutions.

You may discover upon re-reading that I said nothing about making people equal. I actually wrote of treating people equally.

No. You misunderstand my point. He, she etc... trips off the tongue naturally. They also sounds natural if I say "If someone wants it they can have it."
What sounds unnatural? Well, saying "If Steve wants it, they can have it." People get confused with that. Who is they?

And people consider words like "ve", "ver" and "vim" to be unnatural as well, because they are not commonly used at all.

I guess I still misunderstand your point. I see no difference between the two hilites. Both seem clumsy to me

I'm pointing out that they are similarly unnatural, but "it" has no upside.

It would have no downside if people agreed to use it it it’s simple form without perceived baggage. ie; use it simply in place of previously used words just as proposed by some who think the singular use of they/them is the answer. Too many people appear to have taken the dialog in Silence of the Lambs far too seriously (yes, this is a joke/hyperbole/not serious/whatever. No one needs to point out the obvious)

 

[Steve]

I do not think any of these changes is crucial to the future of the human race. This kind of melodramatic hyperbole is just silly.

Wow! You sure were on the ball here. That was definitely the defining point of my post. I am properly chastised and ashamed!

 

[angrysoba]

You may discover upon re-reading that I said nothing about making people equal. I actually wrote of treating people equally.

Making everyone paraplegic is treating everyone equally. What's wrong with that?

I guess I still misunderstand your point. I see no difference between the two hilites. Both seem clumsy to me

Maybe they both seem clumsy to you, but the first is commonly used even by people with no ideological skin in the game. Would you tell a person they were wrong to use it that way?

The second is far less common, and may well require an over-riding of people's ideas about what is grammatical if it is going to take off among generations not still going through school.

It would have no downside if people agreed to use it

That's a big if which is what I was explaining to you earlier.

 

[Belz...]

Making everyone paraplegic is treating everyone equally.

No it isn't. Treating everyone equally means despite their different abilities.

 

[d4m10n]

No it isn't. Treating everyone equally means despite their different abilities.

I've lost the plot here. Are non-binary folks somehow differently abled?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Belz...]

I've lost the plot here. Are non-binary folks somehow differently abled?

I was responding to a comment about paraplegics. The point of treating people equally is not that they are the same, or have the same capacities, but to act as if they are all equally valued.

 

[d4m10n]

Okay but what's the analogy supposed to tell us?

Is using "it" as a catchall pronoun undesirable since most people prefer to have [something analogous to] working limbs?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

I was responding to a comment about paraplegics. The point of treating people equally is not that they are the same, or have the same capacities, but to act as if they are all equally valued.

... Equally valued in what sense, though? The truth is that while people should be equally valued in some senses, they should not be equally valued in other senses.

 

[Belz...]

... Equally valued in what sense, though?

In the legal and moral sense.