🇳🇱
I have always tried to respect peoples choice on pronouns. I never really had any objections to it as long as it was one of the standard language pronouns (he, she, they).
But as I sit here reflecting I keep coming to the conclusion that it shouldnt exactly work that way. We should of course have the right to pick whatever gender we want (including non-binary). Likewise we have the right to demand of people they use the language that matches our gender (which may be different from our sex). What we dont have a right to do is dictate to them what language they use, or what pronouns for that matter.
If a woman is addressed by a person it is my right as the speaker addressing them to decide if i want to use "She, ma'am, lady, hey you" whatever I want to express what i want to express. ma'am showing more respect than she, etc. No one has a right to dictate to me how I address anyone, but you do have a right to demand I treat you like the person you are, and the gender you are.
For the most part that wont be a problem. I think most people who are not CIS-gender would be ok so long as they are addressed according to their gender. I think the times this might get offensive to some are 1) when people want to use exotic pronouns like Xir, they wont get what they want and probably be mad about it 2) when addressing non-binary people there are two gender-neutral pronouns considered acceptable in english "they" and "he" (yes he is gender-neutral in some contexts, and masculin in others)... the non-binary case could be problematic when a gender-neutral "he" is used because some people dont know its gender neutral and may erroneously assume it was used to represent male gendering. That said, thats a matter of education.
You seem to be confusing the term "natural human rights" witht he term "right"... all natural human rights are rights, not all rights are natural human rights (some come from law).
Here we are talking about legal rights, not natural rights.
That said I would say that yes, it absolutely is a natural right as well.
> No one has the right to demand any such thing. You can want that, and others may want to accommodate you for a variety of reasons. But calling this a right has real implications.
I am not demanding anything of anyone... By default I'd have every right to walk around with metal formed into any shape I want. The idea that when metal is in certain shapes it should be illegal seems quite the violation of natural rights.
Now you have the ability to take away that right, and demand that the population restrict what shapes of metal I can have, sure... but to say its your right to tell me I cant own certain lumps of metal and cant even cut certain lumps of metal into certain shapes.... now that is something you do not have the right to do.
@freemo gendered language was a mistake. There's apparently a language that has "ö" as all the pronouns, avoids all problems on all sides of that topic. Shame that trying to shoehorn this type of gender neutrality into gendered languages usually ends up incredibly cursed and nobody bar radical activists wants to actually use it.
@Amikke I disagree, genered language has far more utility in the arts than non-gendered language as it has the ability to be more expressive in more ways.
@freemo sure, every overcomplication of a language has the ability to be more expressive, one of the reasons why adapting an artificial language as common isn't a well liked idea. This particular case causes more problems than it's worth though. It's kinda like with languages where every noun is gendered, for native speakers it's natural and positive due to more expression, for everyone else it's pointless and stupid even if it has some charm. And I say that as a native speaker of one of them.
> sure, every overcomplication of a language has the ability to be more expressive.
If it serves a function in expressing certain ideas more accurately then it has utility. Therefore it wouldnt be an **over**complication (that is when something is complicated without benefit)... what you meant to say is an increase in complication.
@freemo overcomplication often has some benefit or reason, it's *over*complication when that benefit is overshadowed by downsides.
Gendered language helps in expressing one idea: gender. It has charm, especially with things like calling a ship or other vessel "she", but with being a mandatory inherent part of the language it causes disproportionally more problems.
@Amikke Ok so you are talking about languages which have mandatory gender for non-gendered things.... ok on that we agree its an overcomplication. But we are talking about english, so that doesnt apply.
All genders in english are it except for things that actually have gender, in which case its the gender... So there is no complication to it, you know somethings gender by looking at it.
It just has the added benefit that when we want to be poetic we can call somethign that should be an "it" a "she"... it isnt complicated because there are no rules, you can just do it to sound nice. Its not like german where scissors are male all the time.
@freemo nah, I used languages with gendered nouns as an example less natural to a native English speaker. Having gendered pronouns is fundamentally very similar, you're just used to it.
Also
> All genders in english are it except for things that actually have gender, in which case its the gender…
the ship example disagrees.
She is not considered proper english for a shit. The proper pronoun for a shit is "it".. so no it does not disagree.
That said, people do sometimes call a ship "she", which is improper, for the poetic reasons I mentioned before. Among people who have particular respect for their ship they usually call it "she" because of the poetic notion that women are treated with more care, compassion, and respect by men than other men... its more of an inside poetic license nod.... The proper gender for a ship in formal english is NOT she though, it is it.
English speakers are lucky. In Spanish, gender appears everywhere. Even tables and forks have gender. If gender in pronouns is hard, try speaking a language in which all adjectives have gender.
It's not the only language with that kind of trouble; and it is very likely others have it worse; but it is the one I speak.
By the way the act of calling something "he" or "she" when the correct pronoun is "it" is so special and out of the ordinary in english that when someone applies it, say to a ship by saying "she", this is called "personification". It is done to show a closeness or respect to the object. It is never proper english and can be done with any objects. Its just very common among sailors because their life is so closely dependent on the ship keeping them safe.
Like if they're some background objects of inanimate nature.
I'll better call a bird "they" if i don't know what sex they are.
You dont call them it, that wouldnt be proper english.
The rules in english are is something has gender, but you dont know which gender it is, then you are to use he which is gender neutral. You may also use "they" which has been valid from before modern times too.
We do the same with humans, if you talk about a person but dont know their gender, you should default to a gender neutral "he" or if you prefer to be more explicit "they".
This has always been the english grammar rules.
A clear example of Speciesism!
it is sometimes taught as the gender neutral for gendered things with unknown gender, but this is simply wrong. Some sources will tell you to use "he" or "it" some will give you the correct advice.
Language rules are always changing. Nowadays, the main problem with gender-neutrality is that we don't really know when and how the rules are going to stabilize. Only time will tell.
but the rules arent changing, and there is nothing to stabalize... Virtually everyone is claiming is new gender language rules have been part of this language for many hundreds of years.
The only thing you can honestly say is new is "Xir" and other exotic pronouns... but those are mostly a joke and certainly isnt adopted on anywhere near the level to constitute a change in english rules .
Rules start to "change" when people stops following them and makes up new ones, and stabilize when the change is so widespread that is formally accepted and taught (i.e., when rules "change" officially). Every year, new words and meanings are accepted; grammar changes are not so frequent, but still happen. The only exception are dead languages.
Never heard before about 'Xir', but I think retroactively changing history is a really nasty way of changing things, borderline fascist.
Common mistake. That is a rule that has existed for quite a while, at least the 1800s and probably earlier.
Really, nobody really respects all standard rules in his own language. Each country, community, region and echo chamber makes up their own dialect, with its own non-written rules including vocabulary, pronunciation...
Spanish orthography, for example, is one of the most formalized and rational there is and it has been more of less the same for centuries. But it has changed in many little ways since I was a kid.
The only constant is change.
> Rules start to "change" when people stops following them and makes up new ones, and stabilize when the change is so widespread that is formally accepted and taught (i.e., when rules "change" officially).
Sure, thats correct... but no one is making up new english rules, and no one is following them. So what are you talking about? Weve had pronouns and gender forever, nothing about this is a change or new....
> Every year, new words and meanings are accepted; grammar changes are not so frequent, but still happen. The only exception are dead languages.
Sure, and we do have new words and occasionally grammar rules. I certainly agree they **can** chance. But unless your talking about something I am unaware of at the moment there are no significant changes being considered to english's grammar. Even its rules around pronouns are the same as always, and no new proposals there I know of (except for "Xir" stuff which has almost no adoption)
For example, if you start using 'they' as a non-gender replacement for 'he', you are making up your own rule, because you are not using 'they' as the established rules say. If this change gets widespread enough, it will get into dictionaries and formal education, becoming the new established rule. When you ask everybody to refer to you as 'they', you are not only making up a new rule for you, you are pushing for your new rule to become the established one, effectively making up a new English rule, if successful.
The point is in Spanish we don't have gender-neutral pronouns at all. So the usual way to neutralize the old "Ellos" ('They'), or replacing it by "Ellos y ellas" or "Ellas y ellos". Which is tiresome, and makes you wonder if you should say first the feminine ("Ellas") or the masculine ("Ellos"). Same for adjectives or nouns, since they are gendered too.
It is a modern pain since 30 years ago nobody cared about gender-neutrality, so this was not an issue.
I'm all in for respecting all genders, but at the same time, I find difficult to believe that any of the proposed solutions for achieving it in Spanish is going to be successful.
@torparskytt @freemo knowing Hungary probably not lol, I like that feature tho. Not even as much because it's friendly to non-binaries, but more because it avoids the whole subconscious assumptions bullshit and comprehending things differently depending on what gender is used.
