Quote from: Yenneffer on May 07, 2015, 04:10:31 PM
guess im sissy then but i like being cute.

Nothing wrong with that!

-

Regarding the gender-neutral pronoun thing. I was thinking, someday we should have a poll, with all the proposed variations. Wouldn't it be sweet to finally see what people in the community like best? Just a nice idea

Quote from: Majj Wynn on May 07, 2015, 04:17:21 PM
Nothing wrong with that!

-

Regarding the gender-neutral pronoun thing. I was thinking, someday we should have a poll, with all the proposed variations. Wouldn't it be sweet to finally see what people in the community like best? Just a nice idea

hehe yea it would be

Quote from: Majj Wynn on May 07, 2015, 04:17:21 PM
Nothing wrong with that!

-

Regarding the gender-neutral pronoun thing. I was thinking, someday we should have a poll, with all the proposed variations. Wouldn't it be sweet to finally see what people in the community like best? Just a nice idea

Ouch, that would be a real test of nerves   

L Katy

OK, I'll be even more radical. I'd say that what the language needs is a set of genderless pronouns that everyone uses all the time, regardless of whether someone is non-binary. Otherwise non-binary people are always going to be correcting people or headaching about coming up with a presentation that makes it clear to people that neither male nor female pronouns will suit.

I can dig it, Suzi.

I think "it" should really only be applied to yourself, I'd not suggest to try to intergrate it into the general non-binary identity, because for a lot of non-binary people it could even be viewed as a slur.

A couple weeks ago I might not have been sympathetic, but recently my thoughts on everything have really opened up and though I personally wouldn't want to identify as "it," I don't think being referred to by that would bother me.  There's almost something sexy, mysterious, and unfathomable in that someone would, in trying to make sense of things and grasp for a word, but have to grasp for "it." 

I think "it" can come to have an affirming meaning, and this may be one of the healthiest things to do with words of hatred: make them into words of affirmation.

The "big bang" theory was called so actually as a pejorative term by someone who didn't believe in the theory, and now the words are used without question.

"It" could be both powerful and expressing ineffability!

I am in the "label yourself as you like" camp.

It, they, he, she, hir, xie, other, duck, whatever.

I tend to call unidentified/unlabeled/unsure parties by some shortened form of their name.  First three letters usually, until otherwise instructed.

FWIW, one of the presenters at the Philadelphia Trans Health Conference specifically stated preferring to be referred to as "it."  It was a very nice person and was good at organizing the two sessions I saw it at.  Its presentation was decidedly gender-neutral: long hair (pony-tail?), black lipstick, light colored vest with a dark necktie.  The name it went by was about as neutral as you can get: "Null".

+ + +

* Writing the above was hard -- chalk-screeching-on-blackboard hard.  Every time I used the pronoun, I had to force myself, because I felt like I was denying Null's humanity.
* I wonder if it would be a little bit easier if we used the convention of always captializing "It" (or "Its") when the antecedent is a person.

+ + +

This got me to thinking about the whole "preferred pronoun" thing.

Language (well, spoken language) is a way of assigning meanings to sounds so that the person hearing something will understand what the speaker intended them to understand.  The critical thing is that the speaker and the hearer have to agree on what those sounds (words, phrases, etc.) mean.  Not just interms of abstract meaning, but in terms of their social effect.  (Language is at its root a social phenomenon and is fundamentally about regulating social behavior.)

So when someone announces that they wish to be referred to with a particular pronoun - whether "he", "she", "they", "it", or "ze", or whatever, the question is: what does that mean, esp., what does that say about how that someone wishes for us to interact with him/her/it/zer/whatever?

We generally think we know for "he" and "she."  After all, in non-trans society, if someone is called "she" (or has a female-identified name), we assume the person is female, and we have a whole repertoire of behaviors (being a computer person, I call it a "protocol") for interacting with them.  If that someone is called "he", we have a different set of behaviors.  So if someone whose appearance or history would incline us to use "she" to refer to them tells us they prefer "he," we (rightly or wrongly) assume they mean they want us to use the male protocols with them and not the female protocols we would have unthinkingly used if they hadn't said anything.

But if someone says they prefer "they," we don't have a set of protocols for interacting with a specific human of unspecified or neutral gender.  Invented gender-neutral pronouns have the same problem, but add that people have to learn new grammar rules.  This isn't to say that we can't have a generally understood way of interacting with gender neutral humans, but coming up with one and getting it widely accepted is certainly a much bigger project that just asking people to use a different pronoun.

For "it", we do kind of have protocols, but are about treating the antecedent as an object, something with no agency and which we don't listen to.  (Would it occur to us to respect the agency of a doorknob.?)

So when someone (e.g., Null) asks us to refer to him-/her-/their-/zir-/itself as "it", how exactly does It want us to interact with It, and how does it differ from what It would expect if we agreed to use "him" , "her," or "them"?

(Yes, it would have been a good thing to ask them, uh, It, at the conference.  Except that it was a mob scene and I was punch-drunk from 3 days of interacting with thousands of strangers.  And I didn't think of it until now.)

I finally figured out (perhaps) why this is more troubling to others than it is to me!  I was raised in an environment where all things were believed to possess spirit.  Animals, plants, rocks... every thing is a spiritual being.  While I haven't bought into any amount of spirituality for many years, I guess the perspective has stuck with me: people are things, and things are people.

I personally wouldn't like to be called "it", mostly due to the previously mentioned association as a pronoun used for objects and not people. I go with singular they instead. I feel that it has a better chance of acceptance by most people, as singular they is easier to wrap one's tongue around than GN pronouns such as "ze/ze/zem". It's actually gotten to the point where I refer to almost everyone by "they", unless they've stated another preference. It feels more respectful, to me, to avoid gendering a person by their appearance, given that gender expression and gender identity aren't always congruent.

In addition, singular they has been used since at least Shakespeare's time, so it has the weight of several centuries of usage behind it. Sure, it fell out of favour in the nineteenth century, but it's making a comeback. I've noticed (as a *very* general trend) that people seem more inclined to wrap their heads around singular they when you point out its grammatical history - kind of a "well, if it's been around that long, I guess it's fine to use" thing. Part of this, I think, is due to the nature of language - people have less resistance to a word when it arises spontaneously/has a history of being in use, rather than when it is constructed (just look at how popular fully constructed languages aren't).

And yes, while word meanings change over time, that seems to have happened much less with pronouns than with other parts of speech. The only pronoun example I can think of is "you", which used to be the plural second person form back in the Middle Ages ("thou" was the singular second person).

Logically it makes sense. It is nongendered , singular and everyone knows how to use it. Emotionally though... That would hurt.

Side note, referring to it with it is amusing use of English.

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet using Tapatalk

I also almost like it though... I will have to do my own considering......


Sent from my SHIELD Tablet using Tapatalk

'it' derives from the Old English pronoun 'hit', which is etymologically closer to 'he', both in sense and use ('hit' has a more animate connotation) than the contemporary 'it'. Perhaps this would be a good compromise, pseudowning 'it' without activating its (two senses) dehumanizing semantics.

Quote from: katrinaw on May 05, 2015, 11:43:11 PM
Yes over the years many derogatory words have been defined and used collectively... But "it" is IMHO the worst because its suggesting that the person or animal (pet for example) defies any recognition or identifiable grouping.

That's exactly how I feel about myself. I defy any identifiable grouping. Other people may identify me as male or female, because that is what everyone is used to doing. But I have characteristics of both, wholly identifying not as one or the other. Right now I just say queer or questioning because there doesn't seem to be another term for me, that makes sense to me entirely. I don't strictly belong to the 'he' collective, nor do I strictly belong to the 'she' category. If I don't feel like I fit into any existing category, if I defy fitting into any category, why not use 'it'?

If I ask you to refer to me as 'it', then you are respecting me to do so. To do otherwise would be offensive. If you feel like you're disrespecting me by doing what I request, you've got your perspective mixed up.

It's like visiting other cultures. When you visit a foreign country, you are expected to act by their customs, follow their etiquette, because to do otherwise would be offending them, even if you're following your native culture's sense of etiquette.

Also, this.

Quote from: sparrow on June 13, 2015, 04:22:50 PM
I finally figured out (perhaps) why this is more troubling to others than it is to me!  I was raised in an environment where all things were believed to possess spirit.  Animals, plants, rocks... every thing is a spiritual being.  While I haven't bought into any amount of spirituality for many years, I guess the perspective has stuck with me: people are things, and things are people.

Objects aren't just inanimate tools to use however you want. Take care of objects, they last longer. Utilize objects appropriately and responsibly, they work better. Are you going to ask a stone of it wants a drink? No, but you might ask your teddy bear to join you for tea. Also, 'it' isn't the only pronoun used for objects. It's not uncommon for people to refer to their vehicles, stuffed animals, statues, and more as 'he' or 'she'. Using 'it' doesn't have to be dehumanizing, if you recognize that person (or object really) as worthy of respect and treat them accordingly.

I like 'one' for generic unknown person. ("One feels better when one takes care of oneself".) And singular 'they' for specific person with unknown gender identity. But these are generic, not necessarily gender neutral, a gender, or androgynous (all of which are also different things). So 'it' makes perfect sense for singular specific of non-binary gender.

Having been on the end of being called 'it' as an insult I think it would take me a while to feel comfortable about having 'it' as my pronoun.  Then on the other hand I regard being called 'he' as an even bigger insult so perhaps I could get used to it.

They/theirs/them can sound a little clunky sometimes, but I have used that form of speech reasonably often without any problems.  Here in New Zealand gender diverse folk can officially choose 'X' instead of 'M' or 'F' which makes me wonder about xe/xyr/xyrs/xem as a possible option.

Quote from: sparrow on May 06, 2015, 12:10:16 AM
"I'm not a  'he'.  I'm not a 'she'.  Call me 'it'."

Discuss.

For me, not much to discuss, you ask me to call you "it" as a pronoun andI will do my dangest to get it right the way i would with any other "he", "she" "they" request.

That being said "they" "Their" "themselves" and "them" are perfectly acceptable as a gendered pronouns. Punch the grammer Nazis in the butt if they get fussy, it's a vernacular that has been used/abused as singular by many for a looooong time!

Quote from: sparrow on May 05, 2015, 10:29:52 PM
English has a perfectly good neuter pronoun: 'it'.

The term "queer" was super offensive when I grew up.  But we've owned the term, and many of us identify that way.  For some, it's a comfortable umbrella term that works while they're figuring themselves out, and others are just happy to leave it at that.

The pronoun "it" is used for all sorts of gendered stuff.  Power plug?  "it".  Even though it's a female.  Cute puppy? "it".  Baby in appropriately nongendered attire? "Is it a boy or a girl?"  IT!  Why can't we talk about people this way?  Bugs me.  We can use "it" to describe anything at all, except a person.  Why?  What a stupid exception!

I say we own it.  But I'm not going to go around saying to use that pronoun just yet.  I hate to think what'll happen if I acclimate some people to using that pronoun, and they try it out when they meet another trans person.  So I'd like to hear from the offended.  Everybody, really.  But I tend to learn more from people who disagree with me.

If it helps, I know a nb person who prefers the pronoun "it". So people do do this. I respect its pronoun preferences, but I wouldn't be comfortable with someone using "it" of me.

As you say, "it" has connotations with being a thing, or a baby/puppy/not an equal human worthy of respect.

That said, as a community we've managed to put "they" back into common use as a gender-neutral pronoun. So, it's doable certainly.

Hey neat, this thread came back.  This was one of the first things I posted here.  Since then... I've started to come around on them/they.  I've been trying to figure language out for myself.  I hate all the names.  I hate all the pronouns.  I just want to crawl into a hole and escape it all.

I've been living out for a while now, and I've come to understand vulnerability in a way that a "hetero"/cis/white guy never could (even though I was almost strictly closeted about my sexuality... I didn't even recognize that I was in the closet due to vulnerability).  At this point in time, I don't feel that I could own "it" because of how it would alter peoples' perception of me -- I now feel that it would be an open invitation to dehumanize me.  I'm already dealing with enough of that day to day.