No.1459
So I'm curious about /atheism/'s thoughts on something. Maybe we can have discussions about culture here, but through a skeptical lens. It's not about atheism, but it's a topic recently, something SJWs have been pushing…
Pronouns.
Now, I'm sure you've heard of the whole "preferred pronouns" thing, but that's not what I mean. English has only 30 standard personal pronouns, and it seems like there are some gaps that aren't covered (or the covers we have are cumbersome). My specific question is: Should English get gender-indeterminate third-person pronouns?
This is something that's bugged me since I was little. Let's say you're talking about a hypothetical person. We know about this person, but we don't know their gender. We want to refer to them using a pronoun, but we want to be accurate. We can't use "he" or "she" because we don't know which would be accurate. We could use "he or she," "he/she" or "s/he" but this is unwieldy. One approach is to use "he" and "she" interchangeably, but this usually is done in reference to a group of hypothetical people comprising both genders, instead of a single person of one gender. "It" is both inaccurate in that it implies a lack of gender and denigrating in that it implies a lack of personhood. "They" is often used effectively, but in some circumstances it's ambiguous whether we're dealing with singular or plural. On top of that, "themself" is a non-standard word.
Is there a reasonable (feasible) solution to this? It seems like the language would benefit if people started using a common pronoun "set" to refer to single persons of indeterminate gender. Maybe the "preferred pronouns" silliness will eventually see the most appealing "set" bubble to the top and make its way into widespread use. Obviously that brings with it the connotations of the words. I don't think English would benefit from having separate pronouns for people you want to insult. I know it's not really possible to please people like SJWs, but I figure a gender-indeterminate and non-derogatory pronoun would make some transgender and other… different people happier in addition to providing clarity.
What do you folks think? And if you agree with it and/or have ideas, what do you think would be a good "standard set"? We've got:
Subject; Object; Possessive Determiner; Possessive Pronoun; Reflexive
I; me; my; mine; myself
you; you; your; yours; yourself
she; her; her; hers; herself
he; him, his; his; himself
; ; ; ; __self
No.1460
I'm all for "it" and "them". I don't give a shit about male/female. Just call it one thing and get it over with. I'm as a-theistic as I am a-grammatical. Just stop worrying about shit like this, there's far more important things to worry about. Take it to /english/ or some shit.
No.1471
>This is something that's bugged me since I was little. Let's say you're talking about a hypothetical person. We know about this person, but we don't know their gender. We want to refer to them using a pronoun, but we want to be accurate. We can't use "he" or "she" because we don't know which would be accurate. We could use "he or she," "he/she" or "s/he" but this is unwieldy. One approach is to use "he" and "she" interchangeably, but this usually is done in reference to a group of hypothetical people comprising both genders, instead of a single person of one gender. "It" is both inaccurate in that it implies a lack of gender and denigrating in that it implies a lack of personhood. "They" is often used effectively, but in some circumstances it's ambiguous whether we're dealing with singular or plural. On top of that, "themself" is a non-standard word.
That/this person. You can also give that person a nickname depending on what you're talking about. If the person's an idiot, you can call him/her "Chucklefuck"
I don't care about the transgendered stuff. I call it what it is.
No.1472
/tg/ dude here.
I like wordlbuilding and noticed that when referring to a abiotic, genderless, and sentient being using pronouns like 'it' become repetitive and confusing. It became even more confusing when the structures of said being were hierchal and required even further distinction between them, making a singular set of pronouns unwieldy.
I ended up creating a new set of pronouns with slightly different prefixes/suffixes to tier the beings.
Not really related to your question, but it's just my personnel experience with pronoun usage.
No.1473
>>1472OP here. As someone who worldbuilds a bit myself, I'm aware that many other languages have a lot more pronouns for things like status and "soft" gender roles. Like a mother would be referred to with different pronouns than a daughter. Also, I believe the Inuit have hundreds of impersonal pronouns for very specific situations.
No.1492
>>1472I think it is confusing since we use it for objects. In chinese 他 (ta) originally was for either gender, then some asshole came along and made a character for females so 他 only applies to men now. That's for the written Chinese; the spoken (i.e. pronoun "ta") still has the ambiguity.
As a writer. I would like to be able to not say someone's gender, when I don't know, or because it will be a twist. Japanese allows this, English not so much.
No.1551
>Should English get gender-indeterminate third-person pronouns?We have two. Singular "they" and plural "they".
"The student walked around the school, searching for their classroom"
The above sentence is pretty unambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they No.1883
>>1459I usually say "he" when talking about hypothetical people. It's wrong but I think the difference between individuals and groups is greater than the difference between male and female individuals, so in a sense it's less wrong than "they".
As for creating a new pronoun, that's not the kind of thing normal people can do without everyone rolling their eyes. The only thing to do is see if something catches on with academics and let it trickle down into mainstream culture over the course of years.
No.2684
Reminder that he can be used as a gender neutral prounoun, if the person's gender is unknown.
No.2686
>>2684Not around feminazis.
No.2688
>>1459I'm not really against it, although I know where you're coming from with SJW's, who take it way too far.
IT/its/itself would be technically correct, but in context, it's very offensive. And while a lot of people will scoff at being PC, there needs to be some level of respect for our peers. (To an extent, at least.)
I dunno what wouldn't sound completely stupid though. All of tumblr's suggestions are dumb.
No.2690
>>2688It would be nice if someone thought of something similar to an existing pronoun. "Ms" caught on in the last century to fill a void in the English language. It's now acceptable to refer to a married woman with either "Mrs or Ms." Miss was for unmarried women, but you hardly see it written that way now, and you hardly hear the plural of "misses." In America most people also use Ma'am rather than Miss to avoid patronizing. The reason being that "Mrs" implies you are owned by your husband, while "Miss" implies you're a young and naive girl.
No.2697
>>2688>>2690The ones people bandy about the most are stuff like xe and ze but to your average person that sounds like some pulpy sci fi shit and partly for that reason has the opposite effect of what's intended.
No.2700
Honestly I do understand one part of the push for a pronoun for the inbetween gender for people who inject themselves with hormones but try to be inbetween. That actually makes sense. If a depressed transgender person born with a brain like the opposite gender wants you to call them the gender they feel comfortable with I'll do that.
However, transgender people need to be stronger than their culture expects them to be. They need thicker skin.
I also refuse call someone by their special snowflake made up gender. You are not a fucking deerkin. When science can make you that, sure, but until then fuck you, because there are no grounds to that shit like there are for inbetween gender people and transgender people.
Also, people need to accept that "they" is appropriate. It should offend no one to be called that. I understand female frustration that "he" is usually used in assumption. At the same time, in male dominated things, assuming "he" is not really a cardinal sin, and it shouldn't be treated as such by feminazis.
At the same time, none of this should be forced on us by law. The law shouldn't force us to not be dicks.
No.2702
No.3226
it's fucking stupid, I don't know what else to say
almost all languages are structured like that (male, female, neutral) Reason why neutral isn't used for people is because there are no "neutral" people, therefore it sounds weird to call person "it"
we have two biological genders and they differ on cellular level, deal with it
you might as well invent pronouns for people's hobbies, favourite foods,etc. because that's also part of their identity, isn't it?
No.3243
>>1459When somebody starts railing off about pronouns, I generally just address them as "faggot"