🇳🇱
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
What? "They" has been used as a gender-neutral form similar to the gender neutral he for over 700 years. It is a well established part of the english language. What are you talking about?
Sorry. English is not my native language, and it shows. I have put a terrible example.
@freemo @lonelyowl @Amikke
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.