Spivak Pronouns

[yourdestonie]

Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

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?

Some but not all the way.

I'm sorry but I see things in a different way I guess. If there were two men and two women in the room them the use of em would encompas all of the above.

If you used the word him or her it would reduce the numbers to half . I guess What I'm saying is that gender to me is nothing more than a discriptive term such as Give the blonde the ball or give the person in the red shirt the ball. I'm really trying to understand the need to have non discriptive terms.

 

[Etoile]

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?

By the way, Johnny, thanks for trying to keep from flaming me. It worked, and I appreciate it.

 

[FungiUg]

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

Actually, people adapt the English language all the time. That's what Jargon and accents and so on are all about.

English is a very dynamic language, and even grammar changes to reflect this. While we can understand Elizabethan (Shakespearian) English, we no longer speak it.

Of course, changing the language by fiat is a whole 'nother ball game (unless you are French). And sad to say, not likely to happen. There was a whole big thing 10 years ago about sexist/genderised language in common use, and it seems to have had little impact. This seems to be more of the same.

English is an imperfect language, but it is a real, working and flexible language. For all the faults it has (including overuse of genderised pronouns), it has many good points as well (including its dynamism.)

By the way Etoile, I've also seen the term "hir" used as a non-gender specific version of "him/her".

 

[FungiUg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

If there were two men and two women in the room them the use of em would encompas all of the above.

Yes it would, quite correct. To be specific, you would need to NAME someone. And this is still the case if you are using genderised terms. So the use of a gendered HIM isn't enough to actually specify which person you want the ball passed to. So the value of using a gendered term is... nothing.

The point isn't that genderised terms are bad. The point is that we overuse them because we don't have non-genderised terms. In your example, by using a NAME, you needn't specify the gender of a person, as it adds no value.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Actually, people adapt the English language all the time. That's what Jargon and accents and so on are all about.

English is a very dynamic language, and even grammar changes to reflect this. While we can understand Elizabethan (Shakespearian) English, we no longer speak it.

Of course, changing the language by fiat is a whole 'nother ball game (unless you are French). And sad to say, not likely to happen. There was a whole big thing 10 years ago about sexist/genderised language in common use, and it seems to have had little impact. This seems to be more of the same.

English is an imperfect language, but it is a real, working and flexible language. For all the faults it has (including overuse of genderised pronouns), it has many good points as well (including its dynamism.)

By the way Etoile, I've also seen the term "hir" used as a non-gender specific version of "him/her".

Then there is herstory in place of history....personkind or humankind instead of mankind.....

 

[Etoile]

By the way Etoile, I've also seen the term "hir" used as a non-gender specific version of "him/her".

Yep, there's hir, there's also zie...I like the Spivak pronouns because they can be adapted to any position in a sentence or form. Subject, object, possessive, etc. But there certainly have been plenty of attempts to devise (and impress upon the public) alternate non-gendered pronouns...and it's true, none of them work. Society isn't ready to accept anything other than a binary gender system, but that still leaves a lot of people (transgender, transsexual, intersexual, androgynous, defiant) out in the cold in terms of pronouns.

 

[FungiUg]

Then there is herstory in place of history....personkind or humankind instead of mankind.....

Precisely. And many people I think now use the term "person" more frequently than "man" and "humankind" more than "mankind", but there's still a lot of resistance to terms like "herstory"... which only replace one genderised term for another.

 

[FungiUg]

Society isn't ready to accept anything other than a binary gender system

Not entirely true, since other languages do have non-genderised terms.

However, we humans do have a penchant for "black and wbite" solutions, yes.

Oooh... colourised terms! Is that next?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

The point isn't that genderised terms are bad. The point is that we overuse them because we don't have non-genderised terms. In your example, by using a NAME, you needn't specify the gender of a person, as it adds no value.

I disagree that genderised terms are overused by all....some perhaps, but then there are things many people do not meaning to offend, just not realising for a variety of reasons....beating them over the head for it initially, only serves to lose your argument for change. While in university in Australia, the use of genderised language without a well argued reason (which was difficult to provide) meant instant failure of the paper presented. There are no gender terms readily available and have been for at least 20 years that I am aware of.

C

 

[catalina_francisco]

Precisely. And many people I think now use the term "person" more frequently than "man" and "humankind" more than "mankind", but there's still a lot of resistance to terms like "herstory"... which only replace one genderised term for another.

And in this I agree...is similar to the recent witchhunts to outlaw the recital of Baa Baa Black Sheep etc., as it is supposedly offensive to people of racial difference to the Anglo world....now in NZ that may be so come to think of it.

C

 

[Bachlum Chaam]

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.

Ok my lady the explanaition you give is fine. I get the idea of it, but in truth I don't see the relevance whether Daddy is male or female so again I'm left with who cares and whos business it is, the plainly obvious thing is you have a deep and good relationship to whoever Daddy is.
So gender doesn't matter in whatever information you impart to us as a community. For myself I have trouble understanding the queens English so to make up some dopy language will only make it difficult. Leading to people skipping your posts which before now I have found enlightening and interesting.
Bachlum Chaam (still no idea)

 

[yourdestonie]

Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

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.

Actually Fungi thats my point exactly. I'm trying to understand why using a discriptive term is a bad thing.

And according to the list "em" means me/you him/her Not someone or anyone.

I think before I say something I would not be able to take back I'll just read and see on my own. Thanks for your time.

 

[yourdestonie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

Yes it would, quite correct. To be specific, you would need to NAME someone. And this is still the case if you are using genderised terms. So the use of a gendered HIM isn't enough to actually specify which person you want the ball passed to. So the value of using a gendered term is... nothing.

The point isn't that genderised terms are bad. The point is that we overuse them because we don't have non-genderised terms. In your example, by using a NAME, you needn't specify the gender of a person, as it adds no value.

I have to dissagree with you Fungi.

Using gendered terms may be bad to some I agree. But I'm VERY VERY Proud of being a her, she or any other term used to describe a woman. Why should I be forced as a part of the whole to surender my woman hood just because some don't want to be refered to by gender? And using gender terms to describe me is not bad.

And we don't always know someones name. So that don't work eather.

Any time we make a sweeping change like this someone gets something taken away. Fixing one percieved problem while causing another one isn't the answer to the problem

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

I have to dissagree with you Fungi.

Using gendered terms may be bad to some I agree. But I'm VERY VERY Proud of being a her, she or any other term used to describe a woman. Why should I be forced as a part of the whole to surender my woman hood just because some don't want to be refered to by gender? And using gender terms to describe me is not bad.

And we don't always know someones name. So that don't work eather.

Any time we make a sweeping change like this someone gets something taken away. Fixing one percieved problem while causing another one isn't the answer to the problem

I always wonder why it has become politically correct to use the term actor to apply to both female and male as actress is genderised...I always thought actor was the male counterpart so why is it politically correct and non genderised to apply actor as a blanket term now?

C

 

[Ebonyfire]

Spivak, Schmivak.

 

[FungiUg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

I have to dissagree with you Fungi.

Using gendered terms may be bad to some I agree.

Tonie, I never said genderised terms are bad. I only said they are overused.

But I'm VERY VERY Proud of being a her, she or any other term used to describe a woman. Why should I be forced as a part of the whole to surender my woman hood just because some don't want to be refered to by gender? And using gender terms to describe me is not bad.

So if I call you a person, am I denying your gender? No, I'm simply not referring to it.

And we don't always know someones name. So that don't work eather.

True. But nor do we always know someone's gender. So "pass it to that person over there" or more simply "pass it to er" works.

Any time we make a sweeping change like this someone gets something taken away. Fixing one percieved problem while causing another one isn't the answer to the problem

This isn't sacrifing genderised terms. Nor replacing them. I think that's the point you're not getting Tonie. If you know someone is a man, and wish to refer to him as a "him" rather than an "er", then there's no harm, and you would be correct in doing so.

All Etoile's suggesting is that in the case of her Daddy, neither "him" nor "her" appropriately describes er in terms of gender identity. So instead, "er" works.

There's no suggestion of taking away genderised terms. Instead, the suggestion is that by adding non-genderised terms, we can better describe some people who don't fall into the simple categories of "him" and "her", instead of having to use the plural non-genderised form of "them".

So feel free to call yourself a "her", and trust me, I will continue to do the same!

 

[FungiUg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

I always wonder why it has become politically correct to use the term actor to apply to both female and male as actress is genderised...I always thought actor was the male counterpart so why is it politically correct and non genderised to apply actor as a blanket term now?

C

Well, technically actor isn't a gender specific term, but it was becoming so. Similarly with "waiter", or "diver" (a divetress?) or "performer" or...

Anyway, who really cares? If someone wants to be called something and it doesn't hurt me, then fine.

 

[Daedalus77]

Isn't this kind of like the Mrs., Miss. or Ms. argument? Why should gender or marital status be announced by the language being used?

 

[yourdestonie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

Well, technically actor isn't[/b] a gender specific term, but it was becoming so. Similarly with "waiter", or "diver" (a divetress?) or "performer" or...

Anyway, who really cares? If someone wants to be called something and it doesn't hurt me, then fine. [/B]

This is all true as long as the rest of society isn't expected to know at a glance what to call someone. Thats my point. We've all been put through all the politically correct stuff these days its almost impossable to have a conversation without mis stating something and offending someone.

Now don't get me wrong I don't think some words should be used to describe anyone at anytime, and those should be struck from the english language.

 

[James G 5]

I guess I see 2 issues on the "con" side here
First, destonie talked about people denying her her gender. What unfortunately tends to hppen with things like this is such changes are sometimes forced on people in the name or "correctness" or tolerance. I remember back in the big wave of "political correctness" "waiter and waitress" were considered bad because of a lack of gender neutrality and "sever" was considered demeaning, so the word "waitron" was proposed....that's just sorta SILLY to me.
Second, several folks have mentioned stigmatizing peopel or further alienating them in some respects. Some of my fave authors/educators/leaders in both the queer & BDSM communities have been talking lately about how, as the groups have become more public and accepted & more conected with more resources available, diversity is being LOST....Listz & Hardy both discuss in their newest books how when they were getting in to BDSM the queers, the straights, the CDs, EVERYONE came together to work & play & study & learn and socialize
Now that the communities have grown & the 'net it out there, it's more & more fragmented and people are seperating themselves more & more
I think something like the Spivak pronouns would only ever be used by a small group, and their use of them (as Johhny notes) would become like a secret handshake deal or a way of seperating themselves from others, which in the long run might lead to stigmatizing them further

 

[catalina_francisco]

I guess I see 2 issues on the "con" side here
First, destonie talked about people denying her her gender. What unfortunately tends to hppen with things like this is such changes are sometimes forced on people in the name or "correctness" or tolerance. I remember back in the big wave of "political correctness" "waiter and waitress" were considered bad because of a lack of gender neutrality and "sever" was considered demeaning, so the word "waitron" was proposed....that's just sorta SILLY to me.
Second, several folks have mentioned stigmatizing peopel or further alienating them in some respects. Some of my fave authors/educators/leaders in both the queer & BDSM communities have been talking lately about how, as the groups have become more public and accepted & more conected with more resources available, diversity is being LOST....Listz & Hardy both discuss in their newest books how when they were getting in to BDSM the queers, the straights, the CDs, EVERYONE came together to work & play & study & learn and socialize
Now that the communities have grown & the 'net it out there, it's more & more fragmented and people are seperating themselves more & more
I think something like the Spivak pronouns would only ever be used by a small group, and their use of them (as Johhny notes) would become like a secret handshake deal or a way of seperating themselves from others, which in the long run might lead to stigmatizing them further

Hey, we agree again!! What's happening here?

Catalina

 

[FungiUg]

I think something like the Spivak pronouns would only ever be used by a small group, and their use of them (as Johhny notes) would become like a secret handshake deal or a way of seperating themselves from others, which in the long run might lead to stigmatizing them further

Quite possibly true. On the other hand, if small groups get out there and bring something to everyone's attention, changes can be made. As an example, more wide-spread acceptance of BDSM...

I don't object to the concept of extending the english language in ways like this, although I'm unlikely to use the terms myself. On the other hand, that annoying thing of Capitalising certain words and not capitalising some nouns... that's drives me batty!

I don't think Etoile was seeking our permission for her use of Spivak prounouns. I think she was simply keeping us informed and explaining why she has chosen to use them.

I'm all for supporting people and what they try to do, provided it's not offensive or against my moral principals. This is neither.

So can we be accepting, and accept that Etoile plans to use them? I don't think she was trying to convince everyone to use them. If others wish to fine, but that didn't seem to me to be her intention.

I see nothing to complain about with Etoile using them, and I'm grateful she posted a thread to explain what they mean and why she is using them.

 

[FungiUg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spivak Pronouns

This is all true as long as the rest of society isn't expected to know at a glance what to call someone.

I have met some people I can't at first or even second glance tell whether to call "him" or "her". Haven't you?

Thats my point. We've all been put through all the politically correct stuff these days its almost impossable to have a conversation without mis stating something and offending someone.

Hmmm... I'm not sure the motivation here is to be "politically correct". More technically correct perhaps, since referring to someone as a him or her who isn't really either isn't correct.

Now don't get me wrong I don't think some words should be used to describe anyone at anytime, and those should be struck from the english language.

There was no mention of removing words here. Just adding some.

 

[James G 5]

Hey, we agree again!! What's happening here?

Catalina

Must be a full moon

 

[James G 5]

Quite possibly true. On the other hand, if small groups get out there and bring something to everyone's attention, changes can be made. As an example, more wide-spread acceptance of BDSM...

I don't object to the concept of extending the english language in ways like this, although I'm unlikely to use the terms myself. On the other hand, that annoying thing of Capitalising certain words and not capitalising some nouns... that's drives me batty!

I don't think Etoile was seeking our permission for her use of Spivak prounouns. I think she was simply keeping us informed and explaining why she has chosen to use them.

I'm all for supporting people and what they try to do, provided it's not offensive or against my moral principals. This is neither.

So can we be accepting, and accept that Etoile plans to use them? I don't think she was trying to convince everyone to use them. If others wish to fine, but that didn't seem to me to be her intention.

I see nothing to complain about with Etoile using them, and I'm grateful she posted a thread to explain what they mean and why she is using them.

No complaints, just weighing in on the idea of the value...I have more to say about this later, not enough time to talk it out this morn