Case by case basis. But someone mentioned to me that they/them/their exists as both a plural and a singular, which is less precise. Also that they/them/their has its traditions in being neutral toward the existing gender binary, and as such is 'loaded,' so to speak.
It's not so much that certain pronouns aren't okay, but rather insufficient. New pronouns are experimental and exploratory and a way of interfacing with the abstraction that is human identity, much like names. There's a tendency to look at linguistic processes as static and technical, but it's a fluid thing.
thinking about it akin to names is interesting. i haven't considered that. one more question though, i looked at the list of pronouns in the settings and one option is "doe/deer". i don't mean to be insensitive but that seems silly to me. is there a line that can be crossed where pronouns go from a form of gender expression to what seems to me to just be a nickname of sorts? or does anything go? again i'm sorry if this is insensitive. i just don't have a lot of experience with this topic.
Assuming it's in good faith, there isn't really a "line."
Now you could say that if every single person had their own unique pronouns that, essentially, instead of there being pronouns, every individual would then possess four names. This is neither good nor bad; such conventions of language do not possess moral value, and 'efficiency' or information density is not inherently valued in language as any linguist can tell you. Again: this is exploratory, speculative, and meditative.
how would this translate to here and now though? i can't see the majority populace agreeing to refer to someone using those pronouns.
and to add, do you know if there's been any research into the neopronouns (which i just looked up the name of) we're discussing? i know that transgender and nonbinary identities are supported by science but to me that seems a far cry to referring to yourself as doe. i guess i could google this myself but i'm a lazy fuck
Does it matter if they do agree? It's not a dedicated national campaign, it's a point of personal use. On an Internet forum about a comedy podcast, no less.
Research? Maybe. Someone probably knows more in that regard than I do. But again, this isn't scientific or clinical. Think of this in the more abstract or artistic in sense-making. It's not meant to rewrite English.
it is meant to rewrite English :) how else can we deconstruct the social construct of gender while it's embedded in our language?
but yeah, research here doesn't really make sense:
there are gender identities other than male and female and the neutrality of they/them is wrong/dysphoria inducing for some people with those identities.
the only way to learn someone's gender identity and pronouns is to ask them. that means we have to trust the answers that people give us, whatever our initial feelings about the ridiculousness or "normality" of any particular identity or choice of preferred pronouns.
consequently, all science can tell us is that some people prefer some unique and uncommon pronouns. we respect them because we respect the people.
@benny I also want to challenge you to consider why your feelings about someone else's pronouns are what matters here. shouldn't we emphasize the feelings of the people who are being referred to by these pronouns? after all, they're telling you that this is how they wish to be treated.
i understand it's more about the person using these pronouns' feelings than mine. i looked through the user with the doe/deer pronouns and read deer(?) explanation, which is pretty much doe(?) just liked how it sounded. and i will respect deer(?) pronouns.
i know this is literally a bigot talking point and i don't mean it like that. but how do you discern between actual gender expression with pronouns and someone who has a mental condition. i mean, i've seen examples of people calling themselves all kinds of different things and truly believing it. i don't think the users of doe/deer and another i saw in the settings, fae/faer, believe themselves to be a four-legged mammal and a mythical creature respectively. i think i'm correct to think it's more of a coincidence (or not exactly a coincidence but not intended like that) the names are shared. and i'm pretty sure the majority of the population don't feel the need to use neopronouns. which means that people who do use them are special cases. i know correct pronoun usage can cause gender euphoria for some people, but for other people could it just be more of a normal satisfaction? like if i changed my name to something i thought sounded cooler. someone could just like the way certain pronouns sound without actually feeling any sort of gender dysphoria and just be content with their assigned gender. i think i'm just trying to question where legitimate transgender/nonbinary identities and simple preference differ. also sorry about the atrocious writing, phrasing, structure, etc. i'm kind of an idiot.
i looked through the user with the doe/deer pronouns and read deer(?) explanation, which is pretty much doe(?) just liked how it sounded. and i will respect deer(?) pronouns.
you've got this correct. and yes, isn't that plenty reason?
i know this is literally a bigot talking point and i don’t mean it like that.
so what does it mean to acknowledge this and continue forward anyway?
but how do you discern between actual gender expression with pronouns and someone who has a mental condition.
this is deeply offensive. neurodivergent people deserve to have their humanity respected as much as any of the rest of us.
i don’t think the users of doe/deer and another i saw in the settings, fae/faer, believe themselves to be a four-legged mammal and a mythical creature respectively
pronouns don't tell you anything about identity. some cis women use he/him pronouns and some cis men use she/her. there are also people who do identify as significantly non-human entities - you're looking for the term otherkin.
and i’m pretty sure the majority of the population don’t feel the need to use neopronouns. which means that people who do use them are special cases.
so what? fuck "normal". as a trans person, I'm so unbelievably sick and tired of being judged for not fitting within the straightjacket of "normality" (read cishet; this is called compulsory cisheteronormativity in the feminist literature). all power to my non-binary comrades who tear "normality" down even further.
like if i changed my name to something i thought sounded cooler. someone could just like the way certain pronouns sound without actually feeling any sort of gender dysphoria and just be content with their assigned gender.
I honestly wish more cis people did this. change your name, change your pronouns. help trans people normalize existing as a trans person.
i think i’m just trying to question where legitimate transgender/nonbinary identities and simple preference differ.
there's no difference. there's a spectrum that ranges from severe dysphoria to mild preference and it's all valid. every single person on that spectrum deserves to have their humanity respected.
you're trying to separate valid from invalid trans people and there's no such thing. validity is a cis construct, not a trans one. it's as fictitious as money, race, sex, and gender itself.
that I don't need to understand an identity in order to respect it.
and also, sex as in biological sex? now i’m pretty sure that’s not fictitious at all as you say.
it's as real as money, gender, and race -- it has real consequences on people's lives, violence is used to enforce the hierarchies it creates (do you know what's done to intersex babies to enforce the male/female binary?), and the actual reality is an infinite diversity that allows few clean categories. the parts that are real are the sex characteristics -- the phenotypic features we use to try and categorize people into the various sex boxes (male, female, intersex, these days, though that's a fairly recent change): penises and breasts and the like. but what's the appropriate sex category for someone who was born with XY chromosomes and complete androgen insensitivity, so they develop all female sex characteristics, except for the reproductive organs, which don't come out formed in quite the same way?
but everything else we build on top of those characteristics are interpretations rooted in our social and cultural context, interpretations that harm real people. we scream about genital mutilation when we talk about clitorises and foreskin but the far more savage, violent, and invisible form is what's done to make intersex genitalia look "normal", to infants who absolutely cannot consent.
that said, this is a secondary point to the main one I was making about cisheteronormativity and trans validity as a social construct. do those concepts make sense? they're more important to this discussion.
also, the reading club pinned to the top of this site is for a book that talks about all of this in much more detail. I strongly suggest taking part.
thank you for responding. you've very succinctly written out what i wanted to know.
and i know i'm kinda getting caught up in one topic here but through all of this discussion i know there is only one undeniable truth, which is that we are all human. now if i'm understanding correctly "otherkin" ranges from just feeling a spiritual affinity with a certain animal or mythological creature to truly believing they are descendants of or are the creature in question. this seems to me to be much different than one's gender identity or lack thereof. to give you some context on my beliefs i'm an athiest and don't believe in any sort of spirit, soul, etc. and i know you criticized me for
trying to separate valid from invalid trans people
thank you for responding. you’ve very succinctly written out what i wanted to know.
I'm glad to hear it :)
this seems to me to be much different than one’s gender identity or lack thereof.
gender identity is another social construct. why do man and woman need a privileged status over deerkin or whatever else? what difference does this make to anyone but the person in question?
to give you some context on my beliefs i’m an athiest and don’t believe in any sort of spirit, soul, etc.
consider it like this -- if this way of understanding themselves makes some people happy, what's the skin off your back?
moreover, gender identity is a very private thing. if someone is talking to you about their own, they're sharing something quite intimate. (in reality, someone's pronouns are also potentially very private -- this is why we only ever ask for preferences.) so do you object to the existence of people that believe they're spirits or that their souls descended from mythological creatures? would you respond to someone sharing something so personal and intimate with you with that kind of objection? you are free to believe whatever about the "objective" truth of the matter ("objective" because this is a fundamentally subjective matter, a matter fundamentally about the subjectivities that make them who they are and how they see themselves) but aren't you kind of a dick if you push that kind of existence-denying objection onto a person who has put themselves in an extremely vulnerable position in front of you?
this denial of existence is so core to the societal oppression of queer people, to the hatred and disgust that spawns so much violence against us, that everyone should always think three times before saying anything to the effect of "I don't believe that's real" when speaking of peoples' identities, and even then, probably not actually say so.
so do you object to the existence of people that believe they’re spirits or that their souls descended from mythological creatures?
well i do object to that specific belief. as well as i object to religion. i guess the best way would be to treat them as i would treat someone's religious beliefs, with respect. cause after all, the only reason "otherkin" seem much more alien to me is due to societal influence and acceptance. if the roles were to be reversed to where religion were the new idea i hadn't heard of, i presume i'd have the same qualms.
again, thank you for responding to me so much. you've really helped educate me on this topic.
right but their belief is about their own existence and their relationship with their own existence. so 1. it's fundamentally different than religion, which makes claims about the world as a whole; 2. there's no institutional authority; and 3. that means you have to be careful or what you're saying means in effect "these people don't exist".
Case by case basis. But someone mentioned to me that they/them/their exists as both a plural and a singular, which is less precise. Also that they/them/their has its traditions in being neutral toward the existing gender binary, and as such is 'loaded,' so to speak.
It's not so much that certain pronouns aren't okay, but rather insufficient. New pronouns are experimental and exploratory and a way of interfacing with the abstraction that is human identity, much like names. There's a tendency to look at linguistic processes as static and technical, but it's a fluid thing.
thinking about it akin to names is interesting. i haven't considered that. one more question though, i looked at the list of pronouns in the settings and one option is "doe/deer". i don't mean to be insensitive but that seems silly to me. is there a line that can be crossed where pronouns go from a form of gender expression to what seems to me to just be a nickname of sorts? or does anything go? again i'm sorry if this is insensitive. i just don't have a lot of experience with this topic.
Assuming it's in good faith, there isn't really a "line."
Now you could say that if every single person had their own unique pronouns that, essentially, instead of there being pronouns, every individual would then possess four names. This is neither good nor bad; such conventions of language do not possess moral value, and 'efficiency' or information density is not inherently valued in language as any linguist can tell you. Again: this is exploratory, speculative, and meditative.
how would this translate to here and now though? i can't see the majority populace agreeing to refer to someone using those pronouns.
and to add, do you know if there's been any research into the neopronouns (which i just looked up the name of) we're discussing? i know that transgender and nonbinary identities are supported by science but to me that seems a far cry to referring to yourself as doe. i guess i could google this myself but i'm a lazy fuck
Does it matter if they do agree? It's not a dedicated national campaign, it's a point of personal use. On an Internet forum about a comedy podcast, no less.
Research? Maybe. Someone probably knows more in that regard than I do. But again, this isn't scientific or clinical. Think of this in the more abstract or artistic in sense-making. It's not meant to rewrite English.
it is meant to rewrite English :) how else can we deconstruct the social construct of gender while it's embedded in our language?
but yeah, research here doesn't really make sense:
@benny I also want to challenge you to consider why your feelings about someone else's pronouns are what matters here. shouldn't we emphasize the feelings of the people who are being referred to by these pronouns? after all, they're telling you that this is how they wish to be treated.
i understand it's more about the person using these pronouns' feelings than mine. i looked through the user with the doe/deer pronouns and read deer(?) explanation, which is pretty much doe(?) just liked how it sounded. and i will respect deer(?) pronouns.
i know this is literally a bigot talking point and i don't mean it like that. but how do you discern between actual gender expression with pronouns and someone who has a mental condition. i mean, i've seen examples of people calling themselves all kinds of different things and truly believing it. i don't think the users of doe/deer and another i saw in the settings, fae/faer, believe themselves to be a four-legged mammal and a mythical creature respectively. i think i'm correct to think it's more of a coincidence (or not exactly a coincidence but not intended like that) the names are shared. and i'm pretty sure the majority of the population don't feel the need to use neopronouns. which means that people who do use them are special cases. i know correct pronoun usage can cause gender euphoria for some people, but for other people could it just be more of a normal satisfaction? like if i changed my name to something i thought sounded cooler. someone could just like the way certain pronouns sound without actually feeling any sort of gender dysphoria and just be content with their assigned gender. i think i'm just trying to question where legitimate transgender/nonbinary identities and simple preference differ. also sorry about the atrocious writing, phrasing, structure, etc. i'm kind of an idiot.
deleted by creator
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough explanation. It helped me learn as well.
thanks for the response.
Are you joining the pinned book club?
you've got this correct. and yes, isn't that plenty reason?
so what does it mean to acknowledge this and continue forward anyway?
this is deeply offensive. neurodivergent people deserve to have their humanity respected as much as any of the rest of us.
pronouns don't tell you anything about identity. some cis women use he/him pronouns and some cis men use she/her. there are also people who do identify as significantly non-human entities - you're looking for the term otherkin.
so what? fuck "normal". as a trans person, I'm so unbelievably sick and tired of being judged for not fitting within the straightjacket of "normality" (read cishet; this is called compulsory cisheteronormativity in the feminist literature). all power to my non-binary comrades who tear "normality" down even further.
I honestly wish more cis people did this. change your name, change your pronouns. help trans people normalize existing as a trans person.
there's no difference. there's a spectrum that ranges from severe dysphoria to mild preference and it's all valid. every single person on that spectrum deserves to have their humanity respected.
you're trying to separate valid from invalid trans people and there's no such thing. validity is a cis construct, not a trans one. it's as fictitious as money, race, sex, and gender itself.
what are your thoughts on otherkin? and also, sex as in biological sex? now i'm pretty sure that's not fictitious at all as you say.
that I don't need to understand an identity in order to respect it.
it's as real as money, gender, and race -- it has real consequences on people's lives, violence is used to enforce the hierarchies it creates (do you know what's done to intersex babies to enforce the male/female binary?), and the actual reality is an infinite diversity that allows few clean categories. the parts that are real are the sex characteristics -- the phenotypic features we use to try and categorize people into the various sex boxes (male, female, intersex, these days, though that's a fairly recent change): penises and breasts and the like. but what's the appropriate sex category for someone who was born with XY chromosomes and complete androgen insensitivity, so they develop all female sex characteristics, except for the reproductive organs, which don't come out formed in quite the same way?
but everything else we build on top of those characteristics are interpretations rooted in our social and cultural context, interpretations that harm real people. we scream about genital mutilation when we talk about clitorises and foreskin but the far more savage, violent, and invisible form is what's done to make intersex genitalia look "normal", to infants who absolutely cannot consent.
that said, this is a secondary point to the main one I was making about cisheteronormativity and trans validity as a social construct. do those concepts make sense? they're more important to this discussion.
also, the reading club pinned to the top of this site is for a book that talks about all of this in much more detail. I strongly suggest taking part.
thank you for responding. you've very succinctly written out what i wanted to know.
and i know i'm kinda getting caught up in one topic here but through all of this discussion i know there is only one undeniable truth, which is that we are all human. now if i'm understanding correctly "otherkin" ranges from just feeling a spiritual affinity with a certain animal or mythological creature to truly believing they are descendants of or are the creature in question. this seems to me to be much different than one's gender identity or lack thereof. to give you some context on my beliefs i'm an athiest and don't believe in any sort of spirit, soul, etc. and i know you criticized me for
but i don't feel this to be of the same issue.
I'm glad to hear it :)
gender identity is another social construct. why do man and woman need a privileged status over deerkin or whatever else? what difference does this make to anyone but the person in question?
consider it like this -- if this way of understanding themselves makes some people happy, what's the skin off your back?
moreover, gender identity is a very private thing. if someone is talking to you about their own, they're sharing something quite intimate. (in reality, someone's pronouns are also potentially very private -- this is why we only ever ask for preferences.) so do you object to the existence of people that believe they're spirits or that their souls descended from mythological creatures? would you respond to someone sharing something so personal and intimate with you with that kind of objection? you are free to believe whatever about the "objective" truth of the matter ("objective" because this is a fundamentally subjective matter, a matter fundamentally about the subjectivities that make them who they are and how they see themselves) but aren't you kind of a dick if you push that kind of existence-denying objection onto a person who has put themselves in an extremely vulnerable position in front of you?
this denial of existence is so core to the societal oppression of queer people, to the hatred and disgust that spawns so much violence against us, that everyone should always think three times before saying anything to the effect of "I don't believe that's real" when speaking of peoples' identities, and even then, probably not actually say so.
well i do object to that specific belief. as well as i object to religion. i guess the best way would be to treat them as i would treat someone's religious beliefs, with respect. cause after all, the only reason "otherkin" seem much more alien to me is due to societal influence and acceptance. if the roles were to be reversed to where religion were the new idea i hadn't heard of, i presume i'd have the same qualms.
again, thank you for responding to me so much. you've really helped educate me on this topic.
right but their belief is about their own existence and their relationship with their own existence. so 1. it's fundamentally different than religion, which makes claims about the world as a whole; 2. there's no institutional authority; and 3. that means you have to be careful or what you're saying means in effect "these people don't exist".
I see it as more additive and deepening than rewriting, if that makes sense.
sure, I'm saying deconstruction is an explicit goal
Go search the comments here doe explained why deer uses those pro nouns specifically. It may help you understand.