h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Gender Free Pronouns - A753833
Author: Lucinda (et al) - U129960

If sie wants to know what 'sie' means, then sie should enlighten hirself by reading this entry!

I'm having 'issues' with quotations: it's currently scattered with some , some , some , some ", some ', and so on, which doesn't work terribly well. I need to find what's *official* and do that.

Other than that - feedback is welcome

Hi Lucinda. This is an interesting entry.

I might be able to clear up about the formatting a bit. Double quotes (") are only used in the Edited Guide for a quote within a quote. (Jim declared, 'If that man says "wombat" one more time, I'm leaving!') I'm pretty sure that and are not approved GuideML; in fact, I've never seen or heard of before. is approved GuideML, for sure, and it's used for, among other things, emphasis.

I'd stick with single inverted commas when isolating a word that you're talking about (the word 'word'). In the paragraphs about the chainsaw, I can see why you used italics, as inverted commas would be a bit heavy-handed there, and within the context of the second paragraph, the pronouns are just pronouns, not objects of discussion.

Content-wise, it looks good, on a first reading. You might or might not want to mention how other languages handle the problem of gendered pronouns. I don't know about many languages, but Spanish uses the masculine pronoun for indefinite gender, and Swahili doesn't have gendered pronouns at all - 'yeye' means 'he' or 'she', but not 'it'.

Hmmm, yes, interesting, lots to think about. After last week's debacle, I'll wait until the evening when my mind's normally at its sharpest.

I've switched to approved GuideML, as far as I can. I was confused by A718166 (the new guideml spec) is all: that deprecates in favour of , and I foolishly thought that this applied to Edited Entries too...

I've switched to approved GuideML, as far as I can. I was confused by A718166 (the new guideml spec) is all: that deprecates in favour of , and I foolishly thought that this applied to Edited Entries too...

I've switched to approved GuideML, as far as I can. I was confused by A718166 (the new guideml spec) is all: that deprecates in favour of , and I foolishly thought that this applied to Edited Entries too...

Hi Lucinda!

Just before I had computer problems, I was doing some research on gender neutral language, so it is interesting to find that there is an entry in PR on a similar subject. Mine was going to be a bit broader, giving information on different ways of addressing the problem and a bit on the research. I di some research a long time ago and was very interested in the work of Dale Spender and some classroom based research.

Your treatment is rather different than what I was going to do (but then it would be a boring world if we all thought the same).

There's some fascinating stuff on the origins of words. It's not long since I should have been in the land of Nod, so I'll just register an interest and come back on this one.

Hi, Lucinda!

I have to admit that the use of these particular pronouns puts my teeth on edge! Allowing for that, I still think that you underestimate the likelihood of 'they', 'them' 'themselves' becoming the standard gender-free pronouns. That usage, as you mention, has a history in English going back for a couple of hundred years. Other pronouns have widened and changed their usage in the past - look at the way that the word 'you' took over the position of 'thou', 'thee' and 'ye', in spite of the fact that 'ye' often makes a useful distinction (useful enough to survive in many dialects and for the Americans to have invented 'y'all' to fill its place as a plural).

While newly-minted words are assimilated into English all the time, I'm dubious about the likely success of the top-down imposition of new forms of such basic words as pronouns. I think the bottom-up diffusion of the 'ungrammatical' use of 'they' is rather more likely.

I find 'hir' a particularly unfortunate concoction since in local pronunciation it would be indistinguishable from 'her', which rather defeats the purpose of the exercise.

The only time I've seen these pronouns used about me, it was in a Bartonishly condescending way implying 'this person describes hirself as female but of course I'm not going to take hir word for it, so I'll continue to refer to hir as sie'.


Azara

Zed's Official Token Transsexual(tm) response. I agree with almost everything that's said above. I think that there is a need for gender free pronouns, one that's already being filled by "they" and "them". I don't really know why such a move would be pro transseuxal, as far as I can see the main use for these pronouns would be to refer to trans people in a non specific way, which is generally offensive.

I don't want to be treated as indifferent I want to be treated as male. In fact when I am treated as in between; I find it pretty offensive, for instance when I was asked if I could use the disabled toilets at work, I was offended, because a) I'm male and b) they're a five minute walk from my office. (I refused). I was also offended, when a customer wrote a letter saying she had spoken to "Steve, and s/he said..." If gender neutral pronouns were in common use I think I would find them offensive, when used to refer to me anyway, in the example you use, if George, really does prefer to be known as Georgina then she should be referred to as she. Unless they were used for everyone all the time, (which I can't see ever happening).

Zed (Scouts)s Response, as some of you may have guess I'm a sucker for long entries so I'm instantly draw to this, I think you need to express a little more of the anti argument as described but my post and the one above. (ignore mine if you want, it may just be excessive PC rubbish).

Anyway well done this is a great entry,



Z

*Gets off Soapbox* actually replace the word, offended with "mildly annouyed if I sit down and think about it, usualy I just put it down to a fact of life and have a nice cup of tea"

Another reference, one that I couldn't find in the Gender Neutral Pronoun FAQ (why isn't there a link to it from the entry btw?):

Greg Egan (Australian science fiction writer) uses (IIRC) 'Ve', 'Ver', etc, in two books, Distress and Diaspora. The first as some of the characters are asexual, the second because all of the characters are AIs. The usage becomes very natural having read through a couple of chapters.

As in 'Vat are ve going to do?'

In chronological order...

Cheers Zarquon - certainly I'd be interested in seeing anything backed by more research than this entry...

Azara - I did mention that some people find sie/hir unpleasant in my sections on their problems. I can make that sentence stronger if you think it should be?

> they/themselves

I was sure the standard usage was 'themself'. If other people use themselves even for a single person, then I'll modify the entry.

All the pronoun sets I've mentioned in the entry are routinely used, though some more than others. I'll mention that they/themself is widely used, though. Perhaps not as widely as the hideous "he or she", though.

> "I'm dubious about the likely success of the top-down imposition of new forms of such basic words as pronouns"

Who says it'll be top-down? It seems like whatever new or old pronouns are chosen, they'll be chosen by the normal bottom-up process. In particular, sie/hir has been independently reinvented a few times, which surely makes it the opposite of top-down.

I can't comment on Bartonesque comments without seeing them...

Zed - I've used the word 'transgendered', not 'transexual' - a wider category that includes those who identify with both genders or neither, and those whose gender identification changes over time. I agree that it is polite to refer to people using the pronoun that they wish to be referred to, and most transexuals prefer to be known according to their destination gender, but this does not apply to all transgendered people, or indeed all transexuals.

There is also a strong argument that because gender is as much based in society and personal history as it is in biology, that (for eg) a MTF transexual is not sufficiently female to be truthfully referred to as she. You might still use she out of politeness, but use some gender-neutral term elsewhere.

I was trying to avoid this issue in my entry, because it's a complex one, and I didn't want to get bogged down in it. From your comments it seems like I should try and put a quick paragraph in the background bit and see if that helps.

> "in the example you use, if George, really does prefer to be known as Georgina then she should be referred to as she."

Except that I don't say that George prefers to be known as Georgina, I said that she *sometimes* prefers to be known as Georgina. From the single sentence I've given, you've no idea whether Geo prefers to be referred to as he, she, or sie, or indeed whether that preference fluctuates over time.

Zed the Scout - I'm personally very biased, but I don't think this entry is. I mention a range of alternatives and describe the features of each. The only bias is the inherent one in writing the entry - that I think this is something that people should think about.

HenryS - I didn't link to the FAQ because I composed this while offline, and I forgot to put it in when I got online again.

> Greg Egan

I mentioned his ideas in this sentence: "The rest are largely historical curiosities - the failed ideas of dead people". Though I don't know if he's actually dead. A bunch of authors have used various constructions, and few survive in general usage past the book(s) they coin them in.

Hi
This is an interesting article, on a subject that I've never really thought too much about apart from a passing irritation at seeing people use made-up words and then assuming that I know what they're on about!

Someone's already mentioned that "hir" sounds far too close to "her" to be a realistic choice, and I'd agree with that. The are any number of words that could be used... "Ger" "Kir", etc.

My biggest problem with the article is this; rightly or wrongly, I came away with the feeling that the author isn't tolerant of dissent on this subject. There's nothing explicit, but the odd snippet here and there, a choice of phrase... Eg...

"women are likely to be offended" - Likely? Or just possible?
"This may just be sexism" - or it may not be. Maybe there's a valid point that's being dismissed in this way.

Like I said, there's nothing explicit, and it may be my over-sensitivity, but there's something about this entry that rankles.

Sorry. I don't enjoy being negative on Peer Review.

Geoff

Hi Geoff.

All words are made-up. Some were made-up more recently than others. Some were independantly made-up by many people. So it goes.

--

Geoff> "Someone's already mentioned that "hir" sounds far too close to "her" to be a realistic choice, and I'd agree with that."

My Entry> "They also sound similar to existing words, and this might cause confusion - especially when combined with the variety of pronounciations used"

It is traditional to read somebody's entry before criticising it. As you can see, I mention this potential objection already, under the aptly titled section "Problems with 'sie' and 'hir'".

Personally, I've always found the "A sounds too much like B" argument to be a silly one. We have huge numbers of words in English that sound *identical* to each other. We also have huge numbers of words that sound identical *and* are spelt identically to other words. Somehow we cope. If I hit a ball with a bat, I'm unlikely to be hitting someone's testicle with a winged mammal.

In this case we can cope very easily because 'sie' and 'hir' are different parts of speech to most of their sound-alikes (forgive me, I can't remember the proper name), as well as sounding slightly different. However, this is a guide entry, so I'm trying to make it impartial, and including even arguments that I personally think are a load of irrelevant garbage.

--

>> The are any number of words that could be used... "Ger" "Kir"

First you criticise people who 'make up' words, and then you try and suggest that these words are not good enough and make up alternative words to compete. Like I say in the entry, lots of people have proposed their own pronoun sets. The vast majority have completely failed to catch on, and I've essentially ignored them in this entry. I expect that your proposed 'kir' will equally fail to catch on. If I was the compiler of the GNP FAQ, I might sum them up as:

* no logical justification -> artificial in nature.
* designed to address the pronounciation issues in 'sie/hir': this task is already filled by 'zie/zir', which has a longer pedigree
* pronounciation conflicts with 'cur', 'curr' and 'care', unless pronounced with a long 'e' or 'i'.
* if pronounced with a long 'e' or 'i', then it is takes longer to pronounce than many competitors, which is important for pronouns
* uncertain pronounciation
* not currently in use, except possibly by Geoff.
* incomplete proposal: only one case has been given.

You take my point. It's essentially impossible to propose a 'perfect' set of pronouns, not least because different people wish to use them for different reasons and circumstances.

--

"Women ... are likely to take offence"

An important rule when writing a letter is *not* to use "Dear Sir", in case the recipient is female. The same goes for use of pronouns.

"this may just be displaced sexism"

That is the standard meaning of 'may', isn't it? That something may be true, or it may not. That something is a possibility, something to bear in mind, an option.

This defensiveness notwithstanding, I'll have a look at the relevant paragraphs, and see if I can't change them appropriately. They do seem slightly off what I was trying to express.

Lucinda,
You might have said in a single sentence that "hir" had potential problems, but that didn't stop you using it as an example throughout the article. (See, I did read it ) One little disclaimer doesn't really idemnify the term from being criticised.

The "ball and bat" analogy doesn't work for me, because the correct meaning of the words can be derived from context. On the other hand, if I say that an object belongs to "her", nobody has any way of knowing whether I've just said the word "hir" or "her". The context doesn't help, because while **you** might not know the the gender of the person I'm referring to, it could be that **I** know perfectly well and I'm being gender-specific. And if you already know the person I'm referring to then the gender-neutral pronoun is pretty much redundant anyway. So it's not just soundalikes, but soundalikes without the benefit of context. You might think that's irrelevant garbage, but I think that's an unworkable suggestion.


I'm not going to defend my "ger" and "kir", because they're not defensible in themselves and weren't meant to be. They were meant to indicate that if words are going to be invented, it would be advisable to invent one that didn't sound exactly like the one already in current use.

"That is the standard meaning of 'may', isn't it? That something may be true, or it may not. That something is a possibility, something to bear in mind, an option." - Agreed, but you're not presenting any other options to bear in mind at that point. The sentence read along the lines of..."Some people didn't like it, but that may be because they're prejudiced". And other reasons why they didn't like it are...?

"An important rule when writing a letter is *not* to use "Dear Sir", in case the recipient is female. The same goes for use of pronouns." - Not when I did my business writing classes! I was taught to use "Dear Sirs" and "Yours faithfully" when writing to unknown recipients.

Anyway, the individual examples weren't my point. The point was that the parts contrived to present a tone that rankled with me when I read the piece, and I'm glad that you're re-examining that.


Geoff

Lucinda,
You might have said in a single sentence that "hir" had potential problems, but that didn't stop you using it as an example throughout the article. (See, I did read it ) One little disclaimer doesn't really idemnify the term from being criticised.

The "ball and bat" analogy doesn't work for me, because the correct meaning of the words can be derived from context. On the other hand, if I say that an object belongs to "her", nobody has any way of knowing whether I've just said the word "hir" or "her". The context doesn't help, because while **you** might not know the the gender of the person I'm referring to, it could be that **I** know perfectly well and I'm being gender-specific. And if you already know the person I'm referring to then the gender-neutral pronoun is pretty much redundant anyway. So it's not just soundalikes, but soundalikes without the benefit of context. You might think that's irrelevant garbage, but I think that's an unworkable suggestion.


I'm not going to defend my "ger" and "kir", because they're not defensible in themselves and weren't meant to be. They were meant to indicate that if words are going to be invented, it would be advisable to invent one that didn't sound exactly like the one already in current use.

"That is the standard meaning of 'may', isn't it? That something may be true, or it may not. That something is a possibility, something to bear in mind, an option." - Agreed, but you're not presenting any other options to bear in mind at that point. The sentence read along the lines of..."Some people didn't like it, but that may be because they're prejudiced". And other reasons why they didn't like it are...?

"An important rule when writing a letter is *not* to use "Dear Sir", in case the recipient is female. The same goes for use of pronouns." - Not when I did my business writing classes! I was taught to use "Dear Sirs" and "Yours faithfully" when writing to unknown recipients.

Anyway, the individual examples weren't my point. The point was that the parts contrived to present a tone that rankled with me when I read the piece, and I'm glad that you're re-examining that.


Geoff

> "that didn't stop you using it as an example throughout the article."

No it didn't. I decided that the entry would be clearest if it was structured as I have done - with a case study, then discussion using that case study to help provide examples, and finally all the various alternatives.

I could have provided all the various alternatives first, and then had examples using a mixture of those alternatives. However, this would, I felt, be more confusing than having consistent examples. In addition, I felt that it was important to illustrate the various places one might wish to use gender-free pronouns before going on to discuss the alternatives. I could have foregone examples, but this would have made the thing incomprehensible, imo.

Having decided on a structure, I had to pick a pronoun set to use as a case study. I decided on sie, for a number of reasons, some of which are in the entry. The pronounciation difficulties were irrelevant to this decision, because this is a piece of writing. If I was giving a lecture, I might have chosen differently. Whatever pronouns I choose for my examples, somebody will think they are unworkable. As I said, there is no perfect pronoun set.



> "You might think that's irrelevant garbage, but I think that's an unworkable suggestion."

We have a difference of opinion. Your opinion, that there are pronounciation problems with sie and hir, is in the entry. My opinion, that the entire argument is irrelevant garbage, is not (though an opinion that neither of us share, that it is displaced sexism, is). If you carry on bitching, I might change that.

I have to write balanced entries for the guide. As much as I would love to say that such and such a pronoun set is an unworkable suggestion, I can't. Nor can I include every single argument in all its gory details - I have to pick arguments which I think are either common, or are interesting in some way.

The pronounciation argument is common, so I included it. I included a whole section explaining the various ways to pronounce 'hir' (incidentally, if you're pronouncing it as 'her', then that's decidedly non-standard), and what words sound similar to (and hence can be confused with) existing words.



If you'd like to continue to discuss sie and hir, then I invite you to do so on the forums attached to the entry, and I'll be happy to explain to you precisely where you're wrong. If you'd like to get back to talking about the entry, and how it might be changed, then I'm listening.

-Xanthia

I've revised up to just before 'problems with gendered pronouns', if anyone wants to take a look. And I've added pronounciation keys to the relevant section, though I don't expect anyone to read them.

I've revised up to just before 'problems with gendered pronouns' for balance and brevity, if anyone wants to take a look. And I've added pronounciation keys to the relevant section, though I don't expect anyone to read or understand them.