Non-binary identities are valid

[d4m10n]

Does this special class of people just not exist in languages that don't have gender pronouns?

Even if we eliminated all our gendered singular pronouns, we'd still have masculine roles and expectations put upon boys and men; feminine roles and expectations put upon girls and women.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Even if we eliminated all our gendered singular pronouns, we'd still have masculine roles and expectations put upon boys and men; feminine roles and expectations put upon girls and women.

You might. I don't. "We" is meaningless.

 

[Ziggurat]

You might. I don't. "We" is meaningless.

It's quite meaningful. "We" here means most people. You may exempt yourself from what society in general does, but people will keep on making distinctions between masculine and feminine roles, and keep on expecting men and women to fill them respectively, regardless of any refusal on your part to do likewise.

Gender roles and norms will persist because, despite how loathe some people are to admit it, they serve a purpose other than just enforcing patriarchy. I have some sympathy for people who don't like or fit the gender norms wanting to be unshackled from them. But they aren't special in their dissatisfaction. Ugly people wish that the world didn't judge them for their ugliness. Stupid people wish the world didn't judge them for their stupidity. Etc, etc. But at the end of the day, you have to adapt yourself to the world, the world won't adapt itself just for you.

 

[Puppycow]

https://www.psycom.net/adult-gender-dysphoria-test/

3-minute online gender dysphoria self-test. (actually you can probably do it in less than a minute, there's only 6 questions.)

Even if you answer "no" to every single question, the result seems to be "Your answers suggest a mild to moderate indication that you are experiencing symptoms common among people with gender dysphoria." IOW, it's not possible to get a result that says you don't have gender dysphoria, no matter what answers you give. Seems like BS to me.

(Don't give them your e-mail address)

 

[Puppycow]

It seemingly was what was being asked of us by the individual quoted in the OP, and so it's a moral claim worth addressing if you're into topicality.

As to whether there is an emergent de facto standard, well, it's probably "they" as well:

[qimg]https://web.archive.org/web/20181213060755im_/https://66.media.tumblr.com/b947d796d7695b354c8732f479f4fed9/tumblr_inline_o1gpg6rSYA1qesqi5_540.png[/qimg]

Source

How do you even pronounce "xe"? Is it a homonym with "she" and "Xi" (president of China)? I can use "they" as a gender-neutral option but the other ones, I just don't know and don't really feel like making the effort to learn a different new set of pronouns for each and every special snowflake.

 

[d4m10n]

I . . . don't really feel like making the effort to learn a different new set of pronouns for each and every special snowflake.

Alas, that's where I'm at just now. Feel like a ****** humanist about it but yeah.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[angrysoba]

That's not to say that they can't be used - Greg Egan is a writer who mostly deals in posthumanism, and he uses "ze" all the time. It doesn't seem contrived or odd, but that's a different context to the average bloke down the pub talking with his mates.

I thought Greg Egan used "ve", "ver" and "vis" as the subject, object and possessive pronoun respectively. I think I read it in in Distress, back in the late 1990s and it was a new idea for me at the time. Has he changed his suggestions since then?

 

[angrysoba]

https://www.psycom.net/adult-gender-dysphoria-test/

3-minute online gender dysphoria self-test. (actually you can probably do it in less than a minute, there's only 6 questions.)

Even if you answer "no" to every single question, the result seems to be "Your answers suggest a mild to moderate indication that you are experiencing symptoms common among people with gender dysphoria." IOW, it's not possible to get a result that says you don't have gender dysphoria, no matter what answers you give. Seems like BS to me.

(Don't give them your e-mail address)

Yep. And some of them are not even related to it. Let's look at this one...

Do you wish that the people in your life would treat you the same way they treat males (if your assigned gender is female) or females (if your assigned gender is male)?

Let's say you are a man and getting divorced, and someone asserts that obviously your wife should get custody of the kids because...she's a lady! Maybe you would hope to get treated the same as a woman, right?

Or the last one about feeling impaired in their social lives? Ummm...not everyone is able to navigate all social and work environments with complete confidence, so... does that mean you are suffering gender dysphoria? Huh?

Not satisfied with sexual organs or body hair etc...? Is this regardless of age and whatever other reasons other than gender dysphoria that people may have for not being completely happy with the genitals?

Yeah, BS!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I thought Greg Egan used "ve", "ver" and "vis" as the subject, object and possessive pronoun respectively. I think I read it in in Distress, back in the late 1990s and it was a new idea for me at the time. Has he changed his suggestions since then?

I think you're right, actually. It's been a while.

The point is that when you read them in context it takes zero mental energy to just accept them. And, when you're talking about post-humanism, it even side-steps all real-world considerations of non-binary or trans issues.

For example, the first chapter of the novel Diaspora describes the birth of a virtual entity, from the initial formation of virtual neurons, through its process of actualisation through social interaction, up to the moment of self-awareness (first use of the term "I"). It's a living, conscious entity, but it hasn't yet got a full-formed brain or personality, or a (virtual) "physical" form. The former means that "it" isn't really appropriate,* and the latter means assigning a gender isn't appropriate, either. There's not even any guarantee that it will settle on a gender.

And, as I said above, I think that words like "vir" work better in principle than "they", simply because "they" can be awkward and is more open to ambiguity.

For example, consider the following sentence pairs:

"They approach the group. They introduce themselves."

"Ve approaches the group. They introduce themselves."

"Ve approaches the group. Ve introduces vimself."

The first could mean the same as either the second or the third. Sure, you could write around it ("they introduce themselves to the group"/"they introduce themselves to each other"), but the very fact that you have to to avoid ambiguity demonstrates that it's a sub-optimal form of communication.

And, come to think of it, I'm not sure that you can keep basically the same structure and clearly communicate that the group introduces itself to the individual, while the individual doesn't introduce themselves to the group. With "ve" it's trivial:

"Ve approaches the group. They introduce themselves to vim/vir." That works.

"They approach the group. They introduce themselves to them." That doesn't.

Even substituting "the group" at the start of the second sentence creates problems, because then you have to start treating it as a singular you get: "They approach the group. The group introduces itself to them.", which is even more awkward. You basically have to write the whole thing differently. You may end up with better-written sentences, but the point I'm making isn't about the aesthetics of the prose, but the utility of the words.

I don't think there's an easy solution in English, really. As I say, I think that "they" will likely take hold eventually, because that's the way it's going and young people will grow up being used to using it, but I don't think it's ideal. I think that "ve"/"xe"/"e", etc. are better but, absent a huge campaign which also gets mainstream publications (newspapers, etc.) on board, I don't think it's going to happen. And I don't think it'll ever be as easy as Sweden has apparently found it, if for no other reason than because it's not the same linguistically.

*Although it's possibly worth saying that I'm re-reading some E. Nesbit children's books ATM, and she does constantly refer to the children as "it". Sentences like "each child put its hands in its pockets". I'm not suggesting this would or should ever come back, but it is interesting to read "it" being used as a gender-neutral term to describe human beings, in a mainstream childrens' book, albeit one from a long time ago.

 

[arthwollipot]

Can you remember someone's name? Then you can remember their pronouns. It's okay to forget someone's name the first few times you meet them, and it's okay to forget their pronouns the first few times too. But as you get to know a person, you will be able to remember their name and pronoun with little effort.

 

[Puppycow]

For example, consider the following sentence pairs:

"They approach the group. They introduce themselves."

"Ve approaches the group. They introduce themselves."

"Ve approaches the group. Ve introduces vimself."

When "they" is a personal pronoun and doesn't refer to a group, wouldn't it be "themself"?

 

[angrysoba]

I think you're right, actually. It's been a while.

The point is that when you read them in context it takes zero mental energy to just accept them. And, when you're talking about post-humanism, it even side-steps all real-world considerations of non-binary or trans issues.

For example, the first chapter of the novel Diaspora describes the birth of a virtual entity, from the initial formation of virtual neurons, through its process of actualisation through social interaction, up to the moment of self-awareness (first use of the term "I"). It's a living, conscious entity, but it hasn't yet got a full-formed brain or personality, or a (virtual) "physical" form. The former means that "it" isn't really appropriate,* and the latter means assigning a gender isn't appropriate, either. There's not even any guarantee that it will settle on a gender.

And, as I said above, I think that words like "vir" work better in principle than "they", simply because "they" can be awkward and is more open to ambiguity.

For example, consider the following sentence pairs:

"They approach the group. They introduce themselves."

"Ve approaches the group. They introduce themselves."

"Ve approaches the group. Ve introduces verself."

The first could mean the same as either the second or the third. Sure, you could write around it ("they introduce themselves to the group"/"they introduce themselves to each other"), but the very fact that you have to to avoid ambiguity demonstrates that it's a sub-optimal form of communication.

And, come to think of it, I'm not sure that you can keep basically the same structure and clearly communicate that the group introduces itself to the individual, while the individual doesn't introduce themselves to the group. With "ve" it's trivial:

"Ve approaches the group. They introduce themselves to ver." That works.

"They approach the group. They introduce themselves to them." That doesn't.

Even substituting "the group" at the start of the second sentence creates problems, because then you have to start treating it as a singular you get: "They approach the group. The group introduces itself to them.", which is even more awkward. You basically have to write the whole thing differently. You may end up with better-written sentences, but the point I'm making isn't about the aesthetics of the prose, but the utility of the words.

...

Just a couple of corrections if we are going by what Egan uses.

Yes, I think it makes sense to have a gender-neutral pronoun, but as with most things to do with language it often takes a lot of time before it becomes accepted.

Probably a good example is Ms instead of Miss and Mrs. Nowadays it is pretty unremarkable to use it, and in fact it is almost more remarkable if you did. If you were to ask, "Is it Miss Smith or Mrs Smith?" these days it would probably be seen as outdated or outright sexist. But in the 1970s, it was a culture war. People in their 70s today, male and female, still reach for the vapours when they hear "Ms".

As you say about "they" and "their", although it has been commonly used in a lot of places and sounds unremarkable, there are some uses which come across as weird, and they are also ambiguous. Trying to get everyone to use it in place of "he" and "she" is more of an uphill struggle than "Ms" partly because of that.

 

[angrysoba]

Can you remember someone's name? Then you can remember their pronouns. It's okay to forget someone's name the first few times you meet them, and it's okay to forget their pronouns the first few times too. But as you get to know a person, you will be able to remember their name and pronoun with little effort.

I think it is a bit naive to make that assumption, especially if we are going beyond easily identifiable gendered pronouns to more idiosyncratic ones. For a start, names of people do not have the same kind of morphological properties as pronouns. We don't have to consider if we are using the subject, object or possessive with a name. It would no longer be she/her/hers for female and he/him/his for males - it would be she/her/hers for Barbara, and Sue, and John; he/him/his for Jack, Wataru and Suzie; ve/ver/vis for Bob, Emerald and Sam; xe/xir/xis for Warren, Janes and Tim; ze/zim/zer for Greg, Stephanie and Jeff...

I can get on board with a singular gender neutral pronoun which could well be useful and make sense, but I think a program of complete choice about pronouns is something that won't take off and few people will put the mental effort into it.

 

[cullennz]

At the end of the day it would take an extremely good reason to have to remember to call different people "eir", "pers", "vis" or "xyr"

And "It makes me feel more comfortable" isn't one.

 

[angrysoba]

At the end of the day it would take an extremely good reason to have to remember to call different people "eir", "pers", "vis" or "xyr"

And "It makes me feel more comfortable" isn't one.

I don't think it will happen. A campaign to get behind a single, selected gender-neutral pronoun might work (and I would be in favour of Greg Egan's use in Distress), but some of the more idiosyncratic ones, as I say, don't even look like they are trying to solve an issue.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

When "they" is a personal pronoun and doesn't refer to a group, wouldn't it be "themself"?

I don't think so. I think it's the same as when you're talking about a singular person whose gender you don't know. Like "Allow your client to introduce themselves".

Either way it's awkward, which is the point.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Just a couple of corrections if we are going by what Egan uses.

Actually, he uses both, interchangeably. He'll refer to a single character as "vim" in one sentence, and "ver" in the next.

That, I think, is also an issue for widespread adoption. It'll have to be one or the other.

When I'm at my computer I'll have a search through my ebooks and find an example.

Probably a good example is Ms instead of Miss and Mrs. Nowadays it is pretty unremarkable to use it, and in fact it is almost more remarkable if you did. If you were to ask, "Is it Miss Smith or Mrs Smith?" these days it would probably be seen as outdated or outright sexist. But in the 1970s, it was a culture war. People in their 70s today, male and female, still reach for the vapours when they hear "Ms".

Yeah, that's a good example of something becoming commonplace simply because one generation grew up using it and replaced the generations that didn't. That's what I think will happen with the singular "they". That's also kind of why I think that this is the last chance for something else to be adopted instead. Leave it another decade or two and "they" will be too far ingrained, if it's not already.

I don't think it'll happen, but I do think it should.

Then again, I suppose, the English language is how people use it and likely as not the awkwardness and ambiguity will be resolved by people coming up with their own variations and rules.

Or it'll just forever be a situation where everybody has to explain what they mean, like they do when they use "you" in one of the many dialects that doesn't have "y'all".

 

[angrysoba]

Actually, he uses both, interchangeably. He'll refer to a single character as "vim" in one sentence, and "ver" in the next.

He does? That's a surprise, and I remember thinking at the time that he had worked it out quite well by having "ver" as analogous to "her", and "vis" as analogous to "his" to make it equally distant from male and female pronouns while also retaining a way to easily identify the meaning. Having "vim" seems redundant, confusing and wrecks the symmetry.

In fact, I have to question whether you're right about that, as there is an extract here of Diaspora, which I have never read, but which I searched for "vim" and cannot find it. It does have "ve", "ver" and "vis" though.

According to Wikipedia, Distress, which I have read, also only uses those pronouns:

Egan uses his hypothetical future to postulate the existence of not just one but five new genders, and introduces a set of new pronouns for gender neutral people. One of the central characters of the novel, Akili Kuwale, provides a demonstration of this change and its implications. As an asexual human, Akili has had all reproductive organs removed entirely. Within the scope of the novel, Egan uses the pronouns 've', 'ver', and 'vis' to represent Akili's definitive gender neutrality.

[digression]Looking through that, I was also reminded of something else that Egan ranted about in a number of his books and stories and that was about how certain Australians were so in love with being Australians. He had one story in which he slagged off Yahoo Serious's Young Einstein as being a skin-crawling celebration of Australian boorishness or something...[/digression]

I don't think it'll happen, but I do think it should.

Then again, I suppose, the English language is how people use it and likely as not the awkwardness and ambiguity will be resolved by people coming up with their own variations and rules.

Or it'll just forever be a situation where everybody has to explain what they mean, like they do when they use "you" in one of the many dialects that doesn't have "y'all".

I'd quite like it if the term was one that was first promoted in a science fiction novel.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

He does? That's a surprise, and I remember thinking at the time that he had worked it out quite well by having "ver" as analogous to "her", and "vis" as analogous to "his" to make it equally distant from male and female pronouns while also retaining a way to easily identify the meaning. Having "vim" seems redundant, confusing and wrecks the symmetry.

In fact, I have to question whether you're right about that, as there is an extract here of Diaspora, which I have never read, but which I searched for "vim" and cannot find it. It does have "ve", "ver" and "vis" though.

According to Wikipedia, Distress, which I have read, also only uses those pronouns:

Again, I could easily be misremembering. It's been a while.

I'd quite like it if the term was one that was first promoted in a science fiction novel.

Yeah, that would be cool, but perhaps buying in to the whole "people are just making it up in order to be cool" thing.¹
I've explained why I think "e" is perhaps the most viable non-they option. After that, I think that "xe" and its variants is possibly the most easy to justify, as "x" is commonly used to denote a variable or the unknown. So it can easily stand in for both "sh" and "h", and for neither. So linguistically it makes sense to me.

There is still the "you're just making it up to be cool" problem, though, and the fact that it's far enough removed from the gendered personal pronouns that it seems apart from them.

¹That said, I think that that might be a way to get an alternative to "they" into common usage, though - if there were a TV series that became Game Of Thrones-level popular and was also immensely memeable which had its own gender neutral pronouns. Add in a Marvel-level blockbuster spin-off or two, and I think there would be a chance.

I don't think Egan's works are the properties that would allow that, but I'm sure there's some epic sci-fi fantasy out there that could be the next big thing.

 

[theprestige]

Yep. And some of them are not even related to it. Let's look at this one...

Do you wish that the people in your life would treat you the same way they treat males (if your assigned gender is female) or females (if your assigned gender is male)?​

I like this one because it illustrates how closely gender dysphoria and transsexualism are linked to social constructs of gender and gender stereotypes.

If we were to somehow abolish masculinity and femininity as social constructs, and everything from fashion to careers was unisex to a very high degree... Would gender dysphoria still occur with the same frequency as now? Would dysphorics still want to receive gendered treatment even in a society that didn't have any such thing?