If no one practices getting the pronouns correct then they will never become easy to use colloquially. — thewonder

Shame. :eyes:

I always forget not to say, "you guys". There have been a number of occasions when I've said something like "see you guys" to a group of either all women or people who don't identify in a binary sense. It's a strange colloquial habit that I should probably drop.

They get the preference because they have the stake in the argument. Your stubborn insistence upon maintaining the rules of English grammar does not place you in a position where you are falsely identified.

you guys — thewonder

In the New Grammar School:

Genderless Pronouns

Since there are no gender neutral pronouns in the English Language, how do we refer to antecedents whose gender is irrelevant, without resorting to clumsy constructions such as “he or she” (or should it be “she” or “he”), or by using the generic “he” and thereby maligning women, or by tiresomely repeating the original noun over and over.

We’ll have to invent the gender neutral pronouns.

But they won’t have a chance of getting used if they don’t sound right.

Right, they would have to be different enough from what they’re replacing to be distinct, but similar enough to suggest a ready parallel which could easily catch on. So, they’d still have to be a single syllable, for example, but without suggesting sounds already used for other common simple words, like the long vowel sound of “a” (the article “a”), “i” (the pronoun “I”), “o” (the exclamation “oh”), “u” (the pronoun “you”), and “y” (the adverb “why”), all of which, of course, are already taken.

Sounds tough.

It’s so tough that no such common gender pronouns have ever caught on, although many have been suggested, such as, for the third person subjective singular, “it”, singular “they”, “heesh”, and “thon” (the one). Yet, the problem of the third person subjective singular has been solved in the written word.

What is the solution?

“S(he)” or “s/he”.

Yes, I’ve seen it used; but of course orally it would still sound like “she” or “he or she”. What do you suggest?

Perhaps we can use the fact that “he” and “she” share the long “e” sound. “He or she” can simply be replaced by “e”; luckily, it’s the only unused long vowel sound left for use as a word of its own.

Let’s try it.

“The writer must carefully proofread what e writes.”

“After God created the Earth in six days, E rested on the seventh.”
“Everyone likes pizza, doesn’t e? (They sure do.)”

“E who hesitates is lost.”
“Every one of us knows e is fallible.”

“Everyone is invited, whether e is a member or not.”
“The quick-walker down the morning path gazes, to where e will be when the next trail blazes.”

Sounds good. Now, what about the third person objective singular. I don’t want to have to say “him or her”.

Since “him” and “her” have dissimilar sounds, we’ll have to somehow combine them, and perhaps utilize the fact that they each start with the same letter “h”, by either retaining it or dropping it, although we certainly don’t want to replace it.

How about “himer” or “herim” or “her-him”?

Too long. But that gives me an idea. How about “erm”, using this line of reasoning: “her-him” -> “herim” -> “erim” -> “erm”? I would have preferred “herm” but that’s a man’s name.

“The new class president gets elected tomorrow, so I’ll leave it up to erm.”
“Everyone came and I was glad to see erm.”

“Let everyone ask ermself to consider the implications of the lack of the epicene pronoun.”
“Either John or Mary should bring a schedule with erm.”

Maybe we could even shorten it to “em”, like “everyone came and I was glad to see em.”
I wish we could use it but “em” is also a contraction of “them”. Too bad, but maybe “erm” will catch on.

OK, maybe, but what about the third person possessive singular; I don’t want to have to say “his or hers”. I know we can’t use “hiser” or “their”, which is plural, although lots of people say wrong things like “One must watch their language” or “Does anyone want to read their best poem to us?”

The wrong usage of “their” gives me an idea. Perhaps we can yet use its wrongness to our advantage, since it has come to sound almost right. Since we can’t use the combination “ern” from “his” and “her” because “ern” conflicts with “earn”, how about another approach: let’s use “eir” and play off of the groundwork laid by good sound of the misuse of the plural “their”.

Let’s try it.

“Who dropped eir ticket?”

“Would each student please hang up eir coat upon entering the classroom.”
“One must watch eir language.”

“Does anyone want to read eir best poem to us?” And you know what the best thing about “e”, “erm”, and “eir”; something great that we didn’t even notice?

What is it?

They all start with the letter “e”. That will unify the set and make it easier to remember.

Hey, you’re right. Thanks, I’ll use that as a selling point.


Manglish

English, for all its large vocabulary, has some missing words. For one, there is no personal pronoun which means “he or she” in the epicene case (gender-neutral or non-gender-specific case). If there were, then we could use it when the gender was irrelevant or unknown. Worse yet, the present solution, he, is of the masculine case, although ‘he’ is used generically. Still, this causes males to be more often imaged in the reader’s or listener’s mind, thus rendering females less visible. A similar problem exists for “him or her” and “his or hers”. Substituting brand new words is not an easy task, or such words would have presented themselves through common usage, for example, youse, all of you, and you-all (y’all) have filled in for the non distinct plural form of you (used as both singular and plural).

Another problem is the gap left by corrupted feminine nouns. For example, ‘bachelor’ is a respectable term for an unmarried male, but the feminine counterparts of bachelor all had connotations (spinster, divorcee, maiden, old maid, widow), so much so that females had to adopt ‘bachelorette’, but this is still a male derived word and is also diminutive. Fortunately, this problem has been solved with the introduction of female single, or ‘femgle’. Not really. The word ‘female’ even contains ‘male’, which I suppose is the biblical ‘of the male’, or else is was meant to be ‘fee-male’, as taking a woman out usually means there is a fee (just a joke), and ‘woman’ embraces ‘man’ in it. So, let us try to turn Manglish back into English, but then we’d have to reprint all the books!

Examples of the Problems:

Each one of us loves his mother.
The writer must carefully proofread what he writes.
All men are created equal.
Let’s ask each of the poets what he thinks is his best work.
Let everyone ask himself to consider the problem of the lack of the epicene pronoun.
Man, being a mortal, breast feeds his young.
Well, Jane, you’re a real handyman.
After God created the Earth in six days, He rested on the seventh.
Mrs. Robert Jones is our new chairman.
Everyone likes pizza, doesn’t he? (They sure do.)
This is the house whose roof leaks.
She gave her jewels.
It’s time you (you-all) came to visit us.
Would everyone please hang up their coat.

Summary

E, eir, erm; ermself are certainly the mainstays of the new personal pronoun set, as they are the ones used most often, being in the third person. It is a fortunate coincidence that e, eir, erm; ermself all start with “e”. This unifies the set and makes them easier to remember. E is also the only vowel sound yet unused for an important word. ‘Eir’ suggests a parallel to “their”. ‘Erm’ combines ‘him’ and ‘her’.

The Final Words

Each person must watch eir words when e writes or speaks. Everyone(now plural) must try their best to be fair to both men and wym. The writer is urged to remind ermself to rewrite eir books and substitute the new pronouns so that fems can be imaged as well as males. Wimyn should then see sheir status improve. Shey can then truly say that all gen are created equal and that every hume is fairly represented in language. All genkind will benefit. Thank yous for yur interest in this subject. However, the pronoun ‘which’ is still without a possessive case, and therefore English is still a language whose missing words need attention.

(I have a full chart somewhere, if I can find it.)

Also:

Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
Be more or less specific.
It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
Avoid clichés like the plague—they’re old hat.
Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
Like, don’t use the word ‘like’, a lot, like in this sentence.
Foreign words are not apropos.
Contractions aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be used.
And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.
No sentence fragments.
Also, too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
Its important to be careful about it—about it’s meaning.

I always forget not to say, "you guys". There have been a number of occasions when I've said something like "see you guys" to a group of either all women or people who don't identify in a binary sense. It's a strange colloquial habit that I should probably drop. — thewonder

Oh my goodness. This is a problem of people caring too much. I often include female friends when I say "guys", as that has clearly at some point taken on a gender neutral meaning, and those taking offence are taking it too literally and being too easily offended.

They get the preference because they have the stake in the argument. Your stubborn insistence upon maintaining the rules of English grammar does not place you in a position where you are falsely identified. — thewonder

Except they don't get the preference, at least where I'm from, because thankfully I'm not from an authoritarian society with people who think like you in charge. This isn't 1984.

A group of all females could be called 'gnyos'.

Lately, I hear that there are 57 genders. Where does it ever end?

“heesh”, and “thon” — PoeticUniverse

Thanks, I got a good laugh out of that. :lol:

Let’s try it.

“The writer must carefully proofread what e writes.”

“After God created the Earth in six days, E rested on the seventh.”
“Everyone likes pizza, doesn’t e? (They sure do.)” — PoeticUniverse

Hahahaha! Yeah, and then we can all sound like we're cockneys.

"Oi gov, I ain't dun nufin. E did it, I swears".

Some thoughts.

A few years ago, I read a book by psychiatrist Stephen Mitchell. I'd heard that it was really a good book. In the preface, he indicated that he would vary the use of the third person singular when referring to people - sometimes he would use "he" and sometimes "she." I remember being annoyed and I almost didn't read the book. When I did, though, I found that the varied use of he and she made a big difference in how I thought about what he wrote. It felt like his ideas had opened up and become more three dimensional, inclusive. I started picturing women in the situations he described as well as men. It was eye-opening.

Since then, I've tried to use the same approach, although I have not been consistent. I won't use "he or she" or "he/she." It breaks the flow of the words and sounds stupid. Sometimes I'll use "it," e.g. when I'm referring to a construction contractor.

My sister's eldest child is a male who identifies himself as non-gendered. If he identified himself as a woman, I would have no problem saying "she." General principle - call people what they want to be called. But I have a hard time calling a person "they." It bothers me a lot. Makes talking about them difficult. I find myself using his name rather than using a pronoun, although that can sound goofy after a while. I call him "my sister's eldest child" rather than my nephew. I avoid the issue to the extent I can. when I'm around them because I love them both and have no desire to show disrespect. I would never say this to my former nephew, but I think it to myself - transgender people make up 0.3% of the US population. That comes to about a million people. I don't know what proportion of those consider themselves male, female, or ungendered. My point - I bothers me that we should change a major part of our language for such a small group.

There's a wonderful set of books by Anne Leckie - Ancillary Sword, Ancillary Justice, and Ancillary Mercy. It takes place in the far future in a culture where there are no distinctions based on gender. Leckie handles that by using all female pronouns - everyone is she. Grown up people are women. When they need to refer to men, they are called women with penises.

This was a lengthy and informative reply. Thanks, PoeticUniverse. I don't mean to assume that you're unaware of them, but I think that you have just rediscovered the Spivak pronouns.


Submit to the newspeak and let the queer community destroy the English language, S!


I think that I've heard of those. It sounds pretty fascinating, T Clark.

Oh my goodness. This is a problem of people caring too much. I often include female friends when I say "guys", as that has clearly at some point taken on a gender neutral meaning, and those taking offence are taking it too literally and being too easily offended. — S

Living here in the northeast US, referring to mixed groups of men and women is common. I've never seen a woman being offended by that, although I tend to hang around with a rough and tumble group of people. I have known women who are creeped out when someone will say "guys and gals."

In the south, they say "you'all" which is good, but I never feel right saying it.

This brings to mind something from the old "National Lampoon" back in the 1970s - the term they used was "vagino-Americans." I still laugh whenever I hear that.

They get the preference because they have the stake in the argument. — thewonder

What in the world does that refer to, to "have the stake in the argument"?

Your stubborn insistence upon maintaining the rules of English grammar — thewonder

??? I'm not saying anything even remotely in the vein of endorsing "the rules of English grammar."

I don't mean to assume that you're unaware of them, but I think that you have just rediscovered the Spivak pronouns. — thewonder

Yes, I was unaware; so, the rediscoveries might indicate that they would be useful.

vagino-Americans — T Clark

Shey might not go for that, plus the 'o' is kind of a male ending, such as with 'filipino' (vs filipina) which still would be good for males who have converted, leaving 'vaginas' for true females. Yes, men are 'dicks'.

Ey are asking that you respect who ey attest that ey are. You have no existential stake in the argument.

They are there, but some people have qualms with them. I think that they're pretty good.

There are not 57 genders. Gender is performative and sexuality is fluid. You perform an infinite array of gender roles whilst generally carrying on however. Someone may have counted that there are 57 different ways that people identify, but they have bound to have missed someone. There are an infinite number of genders as each one is particular to each situation.

Submit to the newspeak and let the queer community destroy the English language, S! — thewonder

You know, the "queer" community doesn't have a hive mind. There are plenty of people, including myself and a number of my close friends, who are not heterosexual, yet do not make the silly demands of some of the more outspoken members who associate themselves with the LGBT+ group, and are in fact in agreement with me, and with with the majority who have yet to lose grasp of their good sense.

There are not 57 genders. Gender is performative and sexuality is fluid. You perform an infinite array of gender roles whilst generally carrying on however. Someone may have counted that there are 57 different ways that people identify, but they have bound to have missed someone. There are an infinite number of genders as each one is particular to each situation. — thewonder

I find that last sentence hilarious. Absolutely bonkers.

Are we speaking of the queer community, the LGBT community, the LGBTQ community, or, the LGBT+ community, or the LBGTQ+ community? From my experience, the queer community does care about gender pronouns.

How is it bonkers? In so far that gender is performative (That is a claim that is not necessarily accepted by the queer community as a whole, although, from what I glean, it seems to be a consensus.), the gender that you perform is particular to the situation that you are in. There are as many genders as there are particular situations. We can, therefore, say that there are something like an infinite number of genders.

Are we speaking of the queer community, the LGBT community, the LGBTQ community, or, the LGBT+ community, or the LBGTQ+ community? — thewonder

You can't be serious.

From my experience, the queer community does care about gender pronouns. — thewonder

Well then your experience must be very limited. And regardless, you're simply not qualified to speak for the community as a whole, as though you are it's mouthpiece. It comes across as very arrogant.

Look, I'm not going to continue this discussion with someone with such an extreme set of beliefs. You're like a parody, and I can't really take you seriously. So let's just agree to disagree and leave it there. Have fun with your nonsense.

If it was all trolling, then kudos. You got me.

I have included qualifying terms in all of my arguments and have not claimed to speak for the community as a whole. I do indentify as being queer as I do accept that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid, but, as I, for all intensive purposes, am functionally straight, I just let people refer to me as being male.

What I mean is that there are a lot of internal divisions within the LGBTQ+ community, many of which revolve around the queer community. Not everyone in the LBGTQ+ community accepts Queer Theory as being valid.

I am having fun with it, but do contend that I have not maintained either an absurd or an extreme position.

Not everyone in the LBGTQ+ community accepts Queer Theory as being valid. — thewonder

It isn't. I treat that word as basically synonymous with "gay" and "homosexual" and the rest of it is just elaborate nonsense. It's as much nonsense as the following:

I do indentify as being queer as I do accept that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid, but, as I, for all intensive purposes, am functionally straight, I just let people refer to me as being male. — thewonder

Identify as being queer, but functionally straight? Lol.

I just don't understand the need to care so much about this. Why are so many people pedants when it comes to inventing pronouns when:

"humba wumba shlumba dumbha, these sounds even in the haze"
"Twas brillig and the slithy toves..."
"embiggen"

are fine. Do people see no difference between sex and gender? As it applies arbitrarily; at one point does a river in France stop having a penis and become a giant vagina? Well no of course it only applies to bodies. But that's sex, right? Gender's a social construct linked to sexed and sexualised bodies.

But then there's intersex people, demipenises and stuff (I could eat a whole box of those). And chromosomes? Intersex can change that too.

If someone wants to be a fucking genderqueer blue wolf who uses "zem" pronouns why the hell do you care.

Being queer is not at all equivalent with being "gay" or "homosexual", though. My interpretation of Queer Theory is that it posits that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid. This is what I understand from my reading of Gender Trouble. I accept this hypothesis, and, therefore, identify as being "queer". Not all of the queer community accepts this, and not all of the queer community considers for Gender Trouble to be the seminal text on Queer Theory. Some people interpret eir postulation as having quite negative results. See Gender Nihilism. My speculation (I haven't read it, but should.) upon Gender Nihilism is that, while it may be a legitimate critique of Queer Theory, it is too deterministic.

Identify as being queer, but functionally straight? Lol. — S

@thewonder is a good person here and keeps the discussions going, plus he is being forthright.

There can be degrees of 'problems' with the masculinization of the brain. All embryos begin as female.

Thanks @PoeticUniverse.

Frankly, I don't care what you say or think. You don't seem to realise that you aren't dictator of language, as though you can simply declare the universal meaning of language, and it will be so. That's simply not how it works. The word "queer" has been treated as synonymous with "gay" and "homosexual" for quite some time, whether you personally accept that or not. You need to distinguish your own personal fringe beliefs from what's generally the case irrespective of them.