Spivak Pronouns

[Etoile]

Please excuse me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall you telling us in more than one post that 'Daddy' was female, so why the need now to make them seem genderless in an effort to disguise something we all knew already?

C

Nope. I don't believe I have ever said that. If you can point me to the post, I'd be very interested to see it. What I have said is that I identify as a lesbian. Perhaps you inferred it from that? I'm not attempting to disguise anything because I haven't said anything! I have been careful to keep Daddy's gender private.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Nope. I don't believe I have ever said that. If you can point me to the post, I'd be very interested to see it. What I have said is that I identify as a lesbian. Perhaps you inferred it from that? I'm not attempting to disguise anything because I haven't said anything! I have been careful to keep Daddy's gender private.

Have more to do with my time than research your posts one by one E, but I seem to recall apart from your signature statement along the same lines you pointing out that 'Daddy' does not necessarily mean male, and that yours was an older female you met initially while seperated from your SO....such hints as you make in each post sig tend to make peope assume female and IMO that is your intent and desire, for whatever reason. Perhaps they are transgender, I don't know, but then that also can be female identifying.

I also may be mistaken, but thought I had read a post where you said you had never been sexually involved with a male, and you have told us you are sexually involved with Daddy so I presume they are female perhaps? All too confusing to me I'm afraid. Most of my posts are gender neutral too in a widely recognised manner, (which Spivak seems to have borrowed from and just dropped the fore front letters which is not too creative as I see it), and I personally have never had a problem with identifying myself as having sex with either gender.....just see there is more in life to worry about and if I am with someone I want to be proud and open about it, not feel I have to play cloak and dagger 'can you guess' games. Just my opinion and way I know and I respect your choice to be otherwise.

Catalina

 

[FungiUg]

I can't tell if you're misunderstanding the use of spivak pronouns, or if you're deliberately messing with me.

Me? Would I do such a thing?

 

[Daedalus77]

Etoile it would be easier for me if you put Spivak pronoun translations at the top of your sig line rather than a link. That way I could just scroll up and down until I got the hang of them.

 

[Etoile]

Etoile it would be easier for me if you put Spivak pronoun translations at the top of your sig line rather than a link. That way I could just scroll up and down until I got the hang of them.

Wouldn't that be kind of big, though? I could give it a try.

 

[Daedalus77]

Wouldn't that be kind of big, though? I could give it a try.

It's few lines. I think it would help other people that never saw this thread (how long before this thread sinks to the bottom?) figure out what you are doing. I had never heard of Spivak pronouns before.

 

[Bachlum Chaam]

My lady forgive me but being older Spivak or whatever its called is nonsense to me, the thing is if Daddy isn't male why be Daddy and not Mummy, *sigh* now I know I'm old, for the most part because a) who cares and b) whos business is it

My apologies I don't mean to offend but tis nonsense to me

 

[Etoile]

My lady forgive me but being older Spivak or whatever its called is nonsense to me, the thing is if Daddy isn't male why be Daddy and not Mummy, *sigh* now I know I'm old, for the most part because a) who cares and b) whos business is it

My apologies I don't mean to offend but tis nonsense to me

Hi BC - this thread might explain "why be Daddy and not Mummy" - the short form is, some butch women identify as Daddies. It's not uncommon in queer circles. As I said, though, I'm not saying what Daddy is, only that we are a Daddy/girl relationship. Not everybody fits into binary gender categories.

 

[Etoile]

It's few lines. I think it would help other people that never saw this thread (how long before this thread sinks to the bottom?) figure out what you are doing. I had never heard of Spivak pronouns before.

Okay, I tweaked it...looks okay to me now. I trust I'll get feedback on the change.

 

[Daedalus77]

Okay, I tweaked it...looks okay to me now. I trust I'll get feedback on the change.

I like it. Damn you're clever.

 

[Arden]

It's great, Etoile... thanks!

 

[janus40s]

Thank you!

Thank you, Etoile!

I've been looking for a way around the annoying "she/he" or "they" method of referring to persons of undetermined gender. I'm not sure if this will work for me but I'm going to try it.

... A gentle kiss from whichever of the three faces of Janus you prefer.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

O gomf yjsy yjr ejp;r yjomh od yjr [tpfivy pg s ,omf yjsy od dpomh ypp ;oyy;e yjomlomh.

 

[wolf2002]

O gomf yjsy yjr ejp;r yjomh od yjr [tpfivy pg s ,omf yjsy od dpomh ypp ;oyy;e yjomlomh.

No point in hiding... even I know you are a guy

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

No point in hiding... even I know you are a guy

Well, I figured, as long as people are just making up language as they go along....what a stupid, stupid concept.

 

[wolf2002]

what a stupid, stupid concept.

Well, I understand her motives, I just don;t think it will work... it's like with Esperanto... great concept, but try to order a drink in it....

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Well, I understand her motives, I just don;t think it will work... it's like with Esperanto... great concept, but try to order a drink in it....

Yeah, motives...the motive is to change reality by changing language. The problem is that changing the language on your own doesn't work. It just makes you look a bit...jeez, how to say things without flaming Etoile...like kids in their clubhouse with codewords and secret handshakes?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Yeah, motives...the motive is to change reality by changing language. The problem is that changing the language on your own doesn't work. It just makes you look a bit...jeez, how to say things without flaming Etoile...like kids in their clubhouse with codewords and secret handshakes?

And reality is not that easily changed, so offensivebness can just as easily translate. I am assuming the english speaking world's widely recognised form of gender neutrality in language is now to be considered offensive in some way by those who think this Spivak conception an innovative miracle. Mmmmmm. Well I try not to applaud anyone who plagiarizes or supports a plagiarist which is what I see this as. Why? 'Their' and 'them' are not acceptable, but the 'invented' 'eir' and 'em' from our brainy creator is? To me it is not in the least creative to drop the first letters from existing words and call them new and inoffensive, nor is it a change as I see it.

Maybe the board should go in the direction of everyone speaking their own language (Spanish, German, Thai etc.) or even some of the Star Trek languages....not a lot of communication happening, but would be interesting and at least original and not some form plaguerised and passed off as new and original in thought and creation. Just my opinion of course, and I realise many here are astounded at the discovery of Spivak, but I am not normally dazzled by all that glitters and is not gold so much I do not look past the fancy claims which disguise the bland reality.

Catalina

 

[wolf2002]

The motive is to change reality by changing language. The problem is that changing the language on your own doesn't work.

Yeah, but perhaps we should look at it from the gay point of view (or omnisexual, if you wish)... they have struggle for decades to get a little recognition in the straight world... language is just another barrier to take...

Maybe the board should go in the direction of everyone speaking their own language (Spanish, German, Thai etc.) or even some of the Star Trek languages....

We don;t have to talk her language, just accept hers...

Look, now I am defending mr. Spivak... this wasn;t my intention... I just think Etoile has a point.... if you want to chance soemthing, you have to start somewhere....

 

[catalina_francisco]

Yeah, but perhaps we should look at it from the gay point of view (or omnisexual, if you wish)... they have struggle for decades to get a little recognition in the straight world... language is just another barrier to take...

I, as a long time member of the gay community (I am bi), and active advocate who has personally, professionally, and publicly in person (not just print) put my future and reputation on the line for the progression of gay rights and the community am aware of the struggles of both gays and women, and as such have experienced the negative consequences often, firsthand and with friends. Like many in the community, I was happy to see academic institutions insist on the use of gender neutral language, and as such much useage in the general community being adopted.

I admit, I find it personally and community offensive to have someone then come along and claim they are the ones to have given the world a gender neutral form of language when all they have done is taken a well recognised form of language, also gender neutral, dropped a couple of letters off the front, then promoted themselves as an innovator with honorable intentions.

To me they are an attention seeker who have not an ounce of creativity, but want to be put on a pedestal as a savior when they have IMHO done nothing but steal/plageurize. I personally try to distance myself from such people as they rarely have anyone elses interests at heart except their own. From life experience, I have found most like this, when the shit happens, are the first to run for the door and claim they were never there. I prefer character and standing up for beliefs and rights, even if it means suffering in the process.



We don;t have to talk her language, just accept hers...

Look, now I am defending mr. Spivak... this wasn;t my intention... I just think Etoile has a point.... if you want to chance soemthing, you have to start somewhere....

This is true and I won't be adopting it partly for the reasons I have stated. I also remember this was raised (by E if I am correct, apologies E if it was another but my memory rarely fails me in these things) in another thread a matter of months ago and was not seen then as necessary on Lit BDSM Forum to replace the already used and easily recognised/understood gender neutral language.

If E feels strongly about it, by all means go ahead and use it, but I would think there are bigger, more defining demons in the area of gay rights to address that are not at this point respected in any form or adequately addressed. I am into progress, not wasting time and energy covering ground which has already been conquered years ago...that can come if necessary when gays have the same rights as straights, and can live each day in safety and respect. In my experience, adopting ideas such as Spivak pronouns promotes divisiveness, more than promoting freedom, and provides targets for attack or ridicule when trying to make rational and important milestones in the fight for equality.

Catalina

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Yeah, but perhaps we should look at it from the gay point of view (or omnisexual, if you wish)... they have struggle for decades to get a little recognition in the straight world... language is just another barrier to take...



.

Fuck that. They way to gain equality is not to accentuate differences, and speaking in tongues or Kingon or whatever nonsense someone comes up with just highlights those differences.

 

[yourdestonie]

I have made a decision and gotten my Daddy's approval on this. In the past I have been careful not to indicate my Daddy's gender. This is by Daddy's own request, and relates to the fact that not everybody fits neatly into the two societally-accepted gender categories of male and female. There are a bunch of alternative pronouns to take the place of 'he' and 'she' but I've never used those. It makes it a lot harder to refer to Daddy - I'm constantly saying 'Daddy this' and 'Daddy that'...no longer. I'm now going to be using Spivak pronouns to refer to Daddy.

The Spivak pronouns were created by mathematician Michael Spivak in his textbooks (which included the utterly fascinating Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry). They are gender-neutral third-person pronouns and are used whenever someone's gender is not known (e.g., "the reader"). People sometimes use them online when they prefer not to reveal what gender they are.

Here are how they are used:
subject: I - you - he - she - e
object: me - you - him - her - em
possessive: my/mine - your/yours/ - his - hers - eir/eirs
reflexive: myself - yourself - himself - herself - emself
...and so on.

So from now on, this is how I'll be referring to my Daddy. Just so you're aware.

I have a question on this?

If someone were to say to you,


Give em the Ball.

Who would recieve the Ball? Especially if there were yourself and say 3 others in the room.

I'm not trying to denounce the use of these words as I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed comment. But I'm thinking it could get confusing.

 

[niteshade]

I think the info in your sig line will really help. Ty.

 

[Etoile]

Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

I have a question on this?

If someone were to say to you,


Give em the Ball.

Who would recieve the Ball? Especially if there were yourself and say 3 others in the room.

I'm not trying to denounce the use of these words as I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed comment. But I'm thinking it could get confusing.

That would be the same as saying Give him the ball or give her the ball - you'd still have to specify which person you meant. It's the same as saying Give Daddy the ball. Give it to em. Does that help?

 

[FungiUg]

Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

I have a question on this?

If someone were to say to you,

Give em the Ball.

Who would recieve the Ball? Especially if there were yourself and say 3 others in the room.

I'm not trying to denounce the use of these words as I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed comment. But I'm thinking it could get confusing.

I think the point is that you don't need genderised language. In this case Tonie, you could specify who you wish the ball given to by name, rather than gender. So no confusion.

Your "Give em the ball" is the same as "give someone/anyone the ball"... neither really specifies who would receive it.