Language Usage to Demarginalize Gender Minorities?

[mjules]

So I've been wondering if our current language limitations - ie, third-person specific pronouns that only support two genders - is further marginalizing gender minorities in our society. I mean, when you have someone who is transgendered, pre- or post-op, or even if they never have an operation, are you going to refer to them by their biological birth gender, or by what they self-identify as? And what if they don't identify as the absolute of either gender, but rather - like myself - somewhere in between?

Being called "she" sometimes makes me feel a certain pressure to conform to a feminine stereotype; being called "he" would make me feel deprived of my feminine qualities.

So what if there were, in common usage, a set of pronouns that were gender non-specific? Would that help at all, do we think? And how probable do we think this is, as an eventuality for society at large?

If you want to look at some specific examples of these pronouns and some discussion on their usage and application, here are a couple of links.

http://mjules.livejournal.com/338990.html - This is a link to my blog, wherein I rambled for a good bit about this.

http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/faq.html - This is the essay a friend sent me to that started my whole pondering.

So, what do y'all think? Practical or problematic? Necessary or extraneous?

[Alecto]

Oddly, I've seen a combination of zie and hirself. 0_0

I think if the neuter were somehow anthropomorphized, it would solve the problem, but I don't know how to go about that. "It" is offensive right now, but...shouldn't be. Given that I don't know how to solve that problem, I do think that these alternatives are helpful, and make more sense (I hate writing essays and having to write out "his or hers" repeatedly; a nuetral pronoun makes for more concise language). I don't know about getting them to catch on, and I also have some doubts about some of them that, when spoken, tend to be indistinguishable from "her" or "she".

In general, I think the concept makes sense; I just don't know about the implementation.

[andrewlittle]

I, too, applaud the effort. I try to be very aware of gender bias, especially when writing and preaching, and even more especially when I refer to God or Jesus. Jenna tries to help me make sure I never use a pronoun in those instances.

The sensitivity to transgendered is something I have unfortunately not thought about - but, I agree, it is a very good point. I will read the links you posted more fully after this weekend and give my humble opinion. I will state now, however, that any difficulty I may bring up won't come from "should we" but "how do we".

[BruceChris]

Mjules:

I have always been opposed to a belief in absolute gender, but that is material for a whole 'nother thread.

As I learned it, the polite thing is to learn just how an individual wishes to be addressed, and then act accordingly. And of course I have known many queens who are offended if you do not call them "she" in private conversations, but accept "he" in public settings.

I cannot see our society supporting additional gendered pronouns.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[mjules]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I think if the neuter were somehow anthropomorphized, it would solve the problem, but I don't know how to go about that. "It" is offensive right now, but...shouldn't be. Given that I don't know how to solve that problem, I do think that these alternatives are helpful, and make more sense (I hate writing essays and having to write out "his or hers" repeatedly; a nuetral pronoun makes for more concise language). I don't know about getting them to catch on, and I also have some doubts about some of them that, when spoken, tend to be indistinguishable from "her" or "she".

In general, I think the concept makes sense; I just don't know about the implementation.

*nod* The writing of classical-type papers is a very practical example of an application for this idea. In current usage, "it" bears the connotation of being impersonal, of applying to an object instead of a person. And also, as the author of that article points out, makes it very difficult to differentiate between people and the objects they are using. "I told it to put it down." Things like that.

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

I, too, applaud the effort. I try to be very aware of gender bias, especially when writing and preaching, and even more especially when I refer to God or Jesus. Jenna tries to help me make sure I never use a pronoun in those instances.

The sensitivity to transgendered is something I have unfortunately not thought about - but, I agree, it is a very good point. I will read the links you posted more fully after this weekend and give my humble opinion. I will state now, however, that any difficulty I may bring up won't come from "should we" but "how do we".

"How" is a huge question. One that still has me scratching my head.

Originally Posted by BruceChris

Mjules:

I have always been opposed to a belief in absolute gender, but that is material for a whole 'nother thread.

As I learned it, the polite thing is to learn just how an individual wishes to be addressed, and then act accordingly. And of course I have known many queens who are offended if you do not call them "she" in private conversations, but accept "he" in public settings.

I cannot see our society supporting additional gendered pronouns.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

I won't say there is an absolute gender for sure, but I won't say there isn't. I know for a fact that I am not an absolute gender, rather more fluid, but I wouldn't presume to say that there aren't any people who don't feel "absolute." I don't know. *shrug*

I would definitely agree that the polite thing is to learn how an individual wishes to be addressed, even if non-gender specific articles were in common usage. In such a situation, I think the gender-neutral pronouns would be more helpful in the beginning or unfamiliar stages of getting to know someone, especially someone who is very androgynous in appearance. I know several people like that who come into the coffee shop where I work, and I've always been very uncomfortable to referring to them in the third person to my coworkers while they are around, because it's nearly impossible to tell which biological gender they are and I don't want to offend them. Also, I don't know their names, so I cannot refer to them specifically; I'm forced to use a third-person pronoun. So, asking my co-workers, "Did you make her drink already?" gets very uncomfortable when I'm simply not sure if the person is male or female. In such a case, having a gender-neutral article to fall back on would be helpful, I think.

As far as society supporting the use of gender neutral pronouns ... well, it would be a long road to hoe, but I wouldn't say it's impossible. Say, for example, it gets picked up in the lingo of a popular television series, or supported by visible public figures whom a majority of society admires. I think in that case, it would become familiar, and with a positive association at that. People might not use it at large at first, but it would seem less strange to them. And the more people are familiar with something, the more likely they are to implement it. I definitely don't think it could happen over night, but I wouldn't say it's impossible, or even improbable. It would just take the right atmosphere and sequence of events, I think. Or at least, that's my current theory. My theories are prone to change at a moment's notice.

[BruceChris]

MJ: Maybe you should talk to Pat, who used to appear on Saturday Night Live, or perhaps talk to Pat, and Pat's significant other, Chris. Perhaps they could advise you.

P&L, BC

[RedneckDyke]

This thread remind me of the Scholhouse rock episode on pronouns. There are little cartoon people who say "Rufus Xavier SAsparilla has a hippopotamous and Regina Sasparilla has an aarvark and Andreas Armadillo has a rhinocerous" and then they say "I could also say he has him and she has her and they have us and we've got pronouns"

Or something like that