WTF? Did you really just call her 'it'? Where others can see that you did so?
(I don't know why she was arrested in the first place -- it might have been for a good reason, or it might not have been. In some places, all it takes is 'looking different' and being insufficiently obsequious to the officer hassling you.)
My point is, linguistically speaking (and to a linguist, the way the word is used matters more than the way people think it should be used), it is only used to refer to non-persons, like pets and things. When used to refer to people, it's usually an insult meant to dehumanize.
i've never met or spoken to a person who used that as their preferred pronoun, even though i've known/talked with a number of people who preferred gender neutral pronouns.
But English does not have other singular gender-neutral pronouns other than "they", and "they" is an abomination in the face of language because of its numerical ambiguity.
People do use it as a singular pronoun though. It's less awkward than phrasing like s/he and he meaning is often understood in context. Plus, you don't have to worry about comitting the abomination of either assigning a default male gender to every singular person or referring to them as non-persons by the pronoun it.
Yah, I hate the singular 'they' too, for similar reasons, despite knowing that it's technically correct. I use it anyhow, mostly in situations where 'one' doesn't fit cleanly, "she or he" gets too awkward, rephrasing to go the long way 'round is too much of a PITA, and I don't think my audience will swallow 'sie' (or would be too distracted by the process of learning to get used to it).
Fortunately, one can sometimes reword around the pronoun given a pause to think. Unfortunately, it's not always worth the trouble.
Semantic quibble: 'it' is not truly gender-neutral, it is the neuter gender, which is different enough to be, as you point out, inappropriate in this case (or in any other case involving a living human acknowledged as having personhood, unless one is being very deliberately insulting (and even then, there's the question of whether being so insulting can be considered "appropriate") -- a corpse can be 'it', as can a foetus, though either can be referred to by masculine or feminine pronouns as well if the speaker wishes, though doing so may carry additional connotations to be careful of). Note that, barring an explicit statement that sie doesn't mind it, using 'it' even to refer to a 'nullo' (someone who has undergone sexual nullification modifications -- presumably to conform to a neuter gender identity) would still be unacceptable, even though that's as 'neuter' as a living human gets.
Pronouns or constructions such as 'sie', 'ze', 'ey', s/he', 'he or she', 'she or he', and the singular 'they', sidestep gender without denying gender or personhood -- they indicate one or more of:
the individual's gender is not pertinent here
the individual's gender is not known to the speaker
the speaker does not wish to reveal the individual's gender
the individual is a hypothetical example who could be of any gender (close cousin to 'not pertinent')
the individual has a gender that is not male or female
the individual has made it known that they do not wish to be referred to by gendered pronouns and the speaker is honouring that request, or
the speaker finds the individual's gender identity confusing, at least in terms of how to label it, and doesn't want to put his or her foot in her/his mouth.
(Did I leave any out?)
As I think you too would generalize, 'it' is an inappropriate choice for any of those situations. 'They' works some of the time, 'she or he' a different some-of-the-time, and 'one' somewhat less often.
Note that in the case of an individual whose gender does not match hir sex, if a gendered pronoun is used it should be chosen based on the person's gender identity not anatomy.
Do you seriously consider me a genuinely bad person based on this utterance, even in this context?
I figured you were fucking with me, actually. It's not unusual, and I don't take it personally.
(And I really do see very little difference between "semiliterate, not smart, and still posting to the internet" and "evil". But that's an aside.)
I'd really like to think that I've already demonstrated literacy[*], if not intelligence, in this and other comment threads. Which would suggest, unless I've been coming across really badly otherwise in this thred, that you're so wedded to this perception that only simpletons use it that you'll disregard contrary evidence before you. Which in turn suggests a "real reason" for your objection based on some other reason for finding the word distasteful.
As I said, I figured you were just using it deliberately to annoy me, and I didn't think it was funny. Apart from that, I did say I use it as a litmus test. It's the kind of thing where, unless I have a different reason to consider the person smart, I will see the first usage of and *immediately* stop reading.
It's historical influence, like saying "nuke-you-lar".
Ah. I can see that interpretation, yes. Oy, timing.
So, uh, did that unfortunate usage invalidate my arguments about the difference between "neuter" and "gender neutral", and the reasons why a gender-neutral pronoun other than 'it' or 'one' would be very useful ... or were those already uninteresting or unworthy of response before that?
And a question I'm actually more interested in: is your objection specific to 'sie'/'hir', or are all related, not yet universally recognized, gender-neutral personal pronouns included?
I was already writing that when you posted your other comment, so I didn't see your objection to 'hir' until after I'd already posted this.
I also take issue with your declaration that it "defines" me as a Bad Person, given that a) you stated a correlation to "semiliterate" and "not bright" rather than evil, and b) I'd really like to think that I've already demonstrated literacy[*], if not intelligence, in this and other comment threads. Which would suggest, unless I've been coming across really badly otherwise in this thread, that you're so wedded to this perception that only simpletons use it that you'll disregard contrary evidence before you. Which in turn suggests a "real reason" for your objection based on some other reason for finding the word distasteful. And that's about as far as the armchair psychoanalysis can safely betaken (if not already too far), so I'll leave that hanging there as an invitation for deeper examination (and, I hope, elucidation) of your feelings about this particular gender-neutral [not-very-neo] neologism.
Do you seriously consider me a genuinely bad person based on this utterance, even in this context?
[*] Modulo an admitted unfortunate tendency toward run-on sentences.
English has a few good, general purpose, gender neutral pronouns. It needs for one of those to finally catch on widely enough to be generally acceptable and understood.
It also has several mediocre ones, also not widely enough used yet. And a couple of ... problematic ones, which are accepted as correct and transparently understood by most people, but which engender confusion in certain circumstances and constructions, or wind up sounding bloody awkward in longish sentences.
I personally favour 'sie' (nominative) / 'hir' (posessive and accusative) because they're the most familiar to me, but if 'ze'/'zir' reached a threshold of not-just-in-group usage first, I'd switch. I really don't care for 'ey'/'em' (I don't know the posessive of that one; 'eir' perhaps? I should look it up...), but it's out there too.
If one wishes to restrict oneself to pronouns with the weight of long tradition attached, one can use 'one', but it really only works for hypothetical persons or implied second-person, not for a known person of unknown (or deliberately unspecified, or unusual) gender.
But if someone isn't mixing singular and plural references in the same paragraph, they can always fall back on the disliked-by-me-but-officially-correct (for a few hundred years longer than I've been alive) singular-'they'. Alas, if they're talking about an interaction between a singular "they" and a plural "they", 'they' gets confusing quickly.
IOW, I agree wholeheartedly that English Has A Need, but feel I must point out that there are partial solutions that work some of the time (not enough, but they're there); and that some good ones have been introduced multiple times over the last couple hundred years (yes, that long, really) but have not caught on, partly because a lot of people keep insisting that English doesn't need them and that they'll belittle anyone who uses them; and partly because editors insist that since not enough other people are already familiar with them they can't be used yet (Catch 22).
If you succeed in pushing a good, generally useful, gender neutral, English pronoun out there, be it a neologism or a resurrection of something old, then I'll cheer you whether it winds up being my own favourite or not. If it works, I'll adapt.
But then "it" is also dehumanizing. The reason i want to cause bodily harm to moody_mcswing isn't because of incorrect usage, it's because "it" is not a pronoun that one applies to someone they consider a person.
It occurs to me that part of the reason the reaction to being called 'it' is so visceral is because it carries an implied threat. Denying someone's personhood is so often a first step to excusing violence (note how in wartime, the enemy is often dehumanized; and also how oppressed minorities are often dehumanized by those who would do violence to them or who wish to goad others into doing so).
It conveys a subtext of, "You're not covered by the protections civilization extends to people for being people; if I kill you it's just vandalism."
Then you're clearly not hanging out in the places where I've most often seen them used, where the correlation goes the opposite direction. (I'm not claiming that your observation is incorrect, as I don't know the groups you've observed; I'm suggesting that our observations have been made on very different samples.)
My own choice whether to use 'sie'/'hir' in any given situation depends on what I know about my audience. And partly on whether precision or eloquence is the greater priority at the time.
According to http://www.lgbthatecrimes.org/doku.php/duanna-johnson (http://www.lgbthatecrimes.org/doku.php/duanna-johnson) :
On February 12, 2008, Johnson was arrested on a charge of prostitution, which was later dropped. Johnson was seen walking near Claybrook and Madison in Memphis, and later said that she believes the officer arrested her simply for being transgender in an area known to be frequented by transgender sex-workers. Johnson's lawyer said that the required elements for a prostitution arrest — a john, an exchange of sex for money — were absent in Johnson's arrest.
If that is accurate, then even her initial arrest may have been an injustice, even before the beating.
"Not a very upstanding citizen"? How do you know one way or t'other? Or do you assume that anybody detained must already be guilty and little things like trials (or the DA deciding whether to proceed or not) are wastes of time?
oh no no, i don't assume guilt unless the suspect is caught in the act. there is a severe lack of information in the article, so i questioned it. being arrested in a known problem area is an easily avoidable situation.
upon further research, it looks like ALL involved parties made really bad decisions. at least the rookie cop got fired.
being arrested in a known problem area is an easily avoidable situation.
Unless you live there.
Or you work there.
Or you have business there.
"She was in a bad place and so she deserved to be arrested and beaten" is just SLIGHTLY blaming the victim - but you wouldn't say that, would you? No, you'd call her "it" instead while you blamed her for being arrested and beaten by bigoted cops.
I can't speak for everyoe offended, but speaking for myself I accept your apology in the sincere belief that it indicates either that your "it" was inadvertent or that you wrote it in ignorance and you've since come to realize why it was offensive. Thank you.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 10:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 11:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 05:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 12:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 05:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 01:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 03:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 06:55 am (UTC)why was it arrested in the first place? not a very upstanding citizen... specially now! LOL
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 08:51 am (UTC)(I don't know why she was arrested in the first place -- it might have been for a good reason, or it might not have been. In some places, all it takes is 'looking different' and being insufficiently obsequious to the officer hassling you.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 10:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:16 am (UTC)i've never met or spoken to a person who used that as their preferred pronoun, even though i've known/talked with a number of people who preferred gender neutral pronouns.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:24 am (UTC)ironic typo.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 01:22 am (UTC)Fortunately, one can sometimes reword around the pronoun given a pause to think. Unfortunately, it's not always worth the trouble.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:30 am (UTC)Pronouns or constructions such as 'sie', 'ze', 'ey', s/he', 'he or she', 'she or he', and the singular 'they', sidestep gender without denying gender or personhood -- they indicate one or more of:
- the individual's gender is not pertinent here
- the individual's gender is not known to the speaker
- the speaker does not wish to reveal the individual's gender
- the individual is a hypothetical example who could be of any gender (close cousin to 'not pertinent')
- the individual has a gender that is not male or female
- the individual has made it known that they do not wish to be referred to by gendered pronouns and the speaker is honouring that request, or
- the speaker finds the individual's gender identity confusing, at least in terms of how to label it, and doesn't want to put his or her foot in her/his mouth.
(Did I leave any out?)As I think you too would generalize, 'it' is an inappropriate choice for any of those situations. 'They' works some of the time, 'she or he' a different some-of-the-time, and 'one' somewhat less often.
Note that in the case of an individual whose gender does not match hir sex, if a gendered pronoun is used it should be chosen based on the person's gender identity not anatomy.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:42 am (UTC)I was very serious about how this usage *automatically* defines you as being a genuinely bad person.
Was I unclear?
Did I stutter?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 01:19 am (UTC)I figured you were fucking with me, actually. It's not unusual, and I don't take it personally.
(And I really do see very little difference between "semiliterate, not smart, and still posting to the internet" and "evil". But that's an aside.)
I'd really like to think that I've already demonstrated literacy[*], if not intelligence, in this and other comment threads. Which would suggest, unless I've been coming across really badly otherwise in this thred, that you're so wedded to this perception that only simpletons use it that you'll disregard contrary evidence before you. Which in turn suggests a "real reason" for your objection based on some other reason for finding the word distasteful.
As I said, I figured you were just using it deliberately to annoy me, and I didn't think it was funny. Apart from that, I did say I use it as a litmus test. It's the kind of thing where, unless I have a different reason to consider the person smart, I will see the first usage of and *immediately* stop reading.
It's historical influence, like saying "nuke-you-lar".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 01:34 am (UTC)Ah. I can see that interpretation, yes. Oy, timing.
So, uh, did that unfortunate usage invalidate my arguments about the difference between "neuter" and "gender neutral", and the reasons why a gender-neutral pronoun other than 'it' or 'one' would be very useful ... or were those already uninteresting or unworthy of response before that?
And a question I'm actually more interested in: is your objection specific to 'sie'/'hir', or are all related, not yet universally recognized, gender-neutral personal pronouns included?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 03:50 am (UTC)My objection is to "sie/hir", exclusively because its proponents are extremely stupid.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 01:12 am (UTC)I also take issue with your declaration that it "defines" me as a Bad Person, given that a) you stated a correlation to "semiliterate" and "not bright" rather than evil, and b) I'd really like to think that I've already demonstrated literacy[*], if not intelligence, in this and other comment threads. Which would suggest, unless I've been coming across really badly otherwise in this thread, that you're so wedded to this perception that only simpletons use it that you'll disregard contrary evidence before you. Which in turn suggests a "real reason" for your objection based on some other reason for finding the word distasteful. And that's about as far as the armchair psychoanalysis can safely betaken (if not already too far), so I'll leave that hanging there as an invitation for deeper examination (and, I hope, elucidation) of your feelings about this particular gender-neutral [not-very-neo] neologism.
Do you seriously consider me a genuinely bad person based on this utterance, even in this context?
[*] Modulo an admitted unfortunate tendency toward run-on sentences.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:03 am (UTC)It also has several mediocre ones, also not widely enough used yet. And a couple of ... problematic ones, which are accepted as correct and transparently understood by most people, but which engender confusion in certain circumstances and constructions, or wind up sounding bloody awkward in longish sentences.
I personally favour 'sie' (nominative) / 'hir' (posessive and accusative) because they're the most familiar to me, but if 'ze'/'zir' reached a threshold of not-just-in-group usage first, I'd switch. I really don't care for 'ey'/'em' (I don't know the posessive of that one; 'eir' perhaps? I should look it up...), but it's out there too.
If one wishes to restrict oneself to pronouns with the weight of long tradition attached, one can use 'one', but it really only works for hypothetical persons or implied second-person, not for a known person of unknown (or deliberately unspecified, or unusual) gender.
But if someone isn't mixing singular and plural references in the same paragraph, they can always fall back on the disliked-by-me-but-officially-correct (for a few hundred years longer than I've been alive) singular-'they'. Alas, if they're talking about an interaction between a singular "they" and a plural "they", 'they' gets confusing quickly.
IOW, I agree wholeheartedly that English Has A Need, but feel I must point out that there are partial solutions that work some of the time (not enough, but they're there); and that some good ones have been introduced multiple times over the last couple hundred years (yes, that long, really) but have not caught on, partly because a lot of people keep insisting that English doesn't need them and that they'll belittle anyone who uses them; and partly because editors insist that since not enough other people are already familiar with them they can't be used yet (Catch 22).
If you succeed in pushing a good, generally useful, gender neutral, English pronoun out there, be it a neologism or a resurrection of something old, then I'll cheer you whether it winds up being my own favourite or not. If it works, I'll adapt.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:12 am (UTC)This is because, consistently, the people who I see use them are semiliterate and not very smart.
The correct English singular gender-neutral pronoun is "it".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:19 am (UTC)I usually stick with "they."
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:44 am (UTC)It conveys a subtext of, "You're not covered by the protections civilization extends to people for being people; if I kill you it's just vandalism."
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:38 am (UTC)My own choice whether to use 'sie'/'hir' in any given situation depends on what I know about my audience. And partly on whether precision or eloquence is the greater priority at the time.
Apres Google ...
Date: 2008-11-11 09:12 am (UTC)"Not a very upstanding citizen"? How do you know one way or t'other? Or do you assume that anybody detained must already be guilty and little things like trials (or the DA deciding whether to proceed or not) are wastes of time?
[sorry about multiple copies -- fixing typos]
Re: Apres Google ...
Date: 2008-11-11 01:26 pm (UTC)upon further research, it looks like ALL involved parties made really bad decisions. at least the rookie cop got fired.
Re: Apres Google ...
Date: 2008-11-11 01:32 pm (UTC)Unless you live there.
Or you work there.
Or you have business there.
"She was in a bad place and so she deserved to be arrested and beaten" is just SLIGHTLY blaming the victim - but you wouldn't say that, would you? No, you'd call her "it" instead while you blamed her for being arrested and beaten by bigoted cops.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 09:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 12:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 03:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 01:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:49 am (UTC)