Spivak Pronouns

[Etoile]

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)

I hope you don't mean you will be skipping my posts entirely just for this reason...I don't make reference to my Daddy all the time, after all! I think it will be pretty clear when I am using them how they are meant, you probably won't have as much trouble following along as you're expecting.

 

[Etoile]

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

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!

You are exactly right on the money. I have no problem with him or her for people who identify as male or female! I'm a her, my girlfriend is a her, my boss is a him...but my Daddy doesn't fit neatly into those categories and I don't like the clunky "they/them" solution when "em" is so much neater. (Incidentally, it's "neither him nor her accurately describes em" rather than er!)

And no, I absolutely do not expect everyone else to use these. I just wanted to have this thread to establish what I'm going to be doing!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I hope you don't mean you will be skipping my posts entirely just for this reason...I don't make reference to my Daddy all the time, after all! I think it will be pretty clear when I am using them how they are meant, you probably won't have as much trouble following along as you're expecting.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say 'Daddy' every time?

 

[Etoile]

Wouldn't it be easier to just say 'Daddy' every time?

That's what I've been doing, and I don't find it easier, no.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

That's what I've been doing, and I don't find it easier, no.

Really? You find typing confusing made-up pronouns easier?

 

[Etoile]

Really? You find typing confusing made-up pronouns easier?

They're not confusing to me, and they're less confusing than people seem to think they are. And yes, I find using made-up pronouns easier than stilting my English. That's all there is to it.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

They're not confusing to me, and they're less confusing than people seem to think they are. And yes, I find using made-up pronouns easier than stilting my English. That's all there is to it.

Well...good luck with that.

 

[FungiUg]

Must be a full moon

Oooh... whose? Etoile's? Yum!

 

[FungiUg]

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

Incidentally, it's "neither him nor her accurately describes em" rather than er!

Holds out a hand so Etoile can smack it.

 

[Etoile]

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

Holds out a hand so Etoile can smack it.

Tsk tsk! *whap*

 

[WriterDom]

Daddy is a bitch, and what did you expect? Hot lesbians available for male Doms?

 

[Netzach]

Wellllll.....possible.

But probably not the male doms sitting there thinking "lesbians...mmm"

Probably more your reluctant gay doms going....well, shit, she's a girl, this is weird, but she's kinda intriguing.


It happens.


Just not much.



...I don't know how I personally would handle the pronoun problem, Spivak would not be my first, pick, but your mileage will vary.

I have several friends and loved ones who defied the gender divide, who were really not into gender binaries, even to the point of rejecting the idea of being "trans" anything.

They are the people least into pronouns that I know. They honestly don't give a rip whether I say him or her.

Both are bio females, and one is always more "her" to me the other more "he" and they leave it to the discretion of the other, which I find mighty magnanimous.

 

[Bachlum Chaam]

I hope you don't mean you will be skipping my posts entirely just for this reason...I don't make reference to my Daddy all the time, after all! I think it will be pretty clear when I am using them how they are meant, you probably won't have as much trouble following along as you're expecting.

No my lady I wouldn't do that

 

[catalina_francisco]

OK, I am not trying to be picky, and I understand E that your original post said you would use these pronouns to refer to Daddy from now on, but you also specified they are used to apply gender neutrality to language in a manner I would think is reflective of political correctness. I am confused as to why 'Daddy' is so difficult to use, especially as most are familiar with that by now....and if in the interests of political correctness so to speak by not labelling a person by gender and thus risking stereotyping, why would you not apply this courtesy to all if you feel so strongly about such issues?

Where many here already use the accepted they/them etc., I have accidently come across your posts where you continually refer to people as he/she. her/his etc. I am just puzzled, even more so now, as to your reasoning and interest in gender neutrality language. In all fairness if it is safer to use gender neautral language which you seem to support in theory, why is Daddy the only person you feel warrants this fairly common courtesy in this time? I DO believe gender neutral language is important to many and as such tend to reflect that in my language so as not to offend. I am just confused, not trying to appear judgemental.

Catalina

 

[FungiUg]

[..]you also specified they are used to apply gender neutrality to language in a manner I would think is reflective of political correctness.[..]

Actually, I've never particularly struggled to be "politically correct", but I have more than once found myself struggling with the fact that English as a language doesn't have a concept for gender-neutral singular.

Plural is fine -- "they/them" works well, and I often find myself pluralising a sentance just to get around that issue. But when you are referring to one person, "they/them" is, er, gramatically incorrect, unless that person has a problem with multiple personalities. (So it's fine for we Geminis!)

So Etoile (E? That's cool! Can I call you C?) has found a positive way around the issue, which I think is cool.

Anyway, why all the fuss? She wasn't telling or asking us to use the gender neutral terms -- just explaining what they meant. Personally, I think she's entitled to call her Daddy whatever she wishes.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Plural is fine -- "they/them" works well, and I often find myself pluralising a sentance just to get around that issue. But when you are referring to one person, "they/them" is, er, gramatically incorrect, unless that person has a problem with multiple personalities. (So it's fine for we Geminis!)

That's because we Gemini's are special.


So Etoile (E? That's cool! Can I call you C?)

Can't see why not, I do.....seems a good way to abbreviate which I have caught onto on the board.

Anyway, why all the fuss? She wasn't telling or asking us to use the gender neutral terms -- just explaining what they meant. Personally, I think she's entitled to call her Daddy whatever she wishes.

No fuss so to speak, but when something is touted as being applied as a method of not genderising language, to which I can relate in our present times, I struggle to understand why it is a situational choice based around one person. Though E said she would use it for Daddy, she also outlined gender neutral language and the huge need for it in the interests of not offending. Curious Gemini as usual.....Master has almost gotten used to me following nearly everything with 'Why?'

C

 

[Arden]

Anyway, why all the fuss? She wasn't telling or asking us to use the gender neutral terms -- just explaining what they meant. Personally, I think she's entitled to call her Daddy whatever she wishes.

Exactly. The question of why isn't important, it's a statement of her preference in titles and nothing more. Every relationship has it's own definitions, and those definitions can change with time. Moreso, it's something she feels to be important in defining her relationship. I respect her preference completely.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Exactly. The question of why isn't important, it's a statement of her preference in titles and nothing more. Every relationship has it's own definitions, and those definitions can change with time. Moreso, it's something she feels to be important in defining her relationship. I respect her preference completely.

I think you have missed my point altogether and taken it as an objection or attack which was clearly stated it was not. If I say I am using a politically correct term because I think it important not to label anyone in that particular form (which E stated also in my view anyway), I would apply it to all, not just one person.....in my thinking to do so either says I do not really mean to be politically correct or believe it important, or I think the one person I apply it to is the only one worthy of consideration.

I find both schools of thought distasteful, especially as a bisexual who actively activates in the community and also for women, and doubt this is what Etoile means it to appear as, but unlike some, I like to know these things and not just say, 'oh well, who knows'. Is not how I have grown to where I am....curiousity and interest in the worl around me is an integral part of who I am. Sorry if that is not easy to understand, but in my world, to bury my head in the sand and never seek answers means I stagnate, not to mention maintain an incorrect conception of many things just because I am not interested in communicating and clarifying to understand. I cannot exist happily in that limited way of thinking.

Maybe to make it clearer...would you give your utmost respect to your Dominant and tell every other dominant to fuck off and get a life? I doubt it....to me, if genuine and respectful, it is a matter of respect carrying through the spectrum, not just selectively to one or two.

Catalina

 

[Arden]

I think you have missed my point altogether and taken it as an objection or attack which was clearly stated it was not. If I say I am using a politically correct term because I think it important not to label anyone in that particular form (which E stated also in my view anyway), I would apply it to all, not just one person.....in my thinking to do so either says I do not really mean to be politically correct or believe it important, or I think the one person I apply it to is the only one worthy of consideration.

I find both schools of thought distasteful, especially as a bisexual who actively activates in the community and also for women, and doubt this is what Etoile means it to appear as, but unlike some, I like to know these things and not just say, 'oh well, who knows'. Is not how I have grown to where I am....curiousity and interest in the worl around me is an integral part of who I am. Sorry if that is not easy to understand, but in my world, to bury my head in the sand and never seek answers means I stagnate, not to mention maintain an incorrect conception of many things just because I am not interested in communicating and clarifying to understand. I cannot exist happily in that limited way of thinking.

Maybe to make it clearer...would you give your utmost respect to your Dominant and tell every other dominant to fuck off and get a life? I doubt it....to me, if genuine and respectful, it is a matter of respect carrying through the spectrum, not just selectively to one or two.

Catalina

My apologies if you took my words personally, Catalina. My views on this matter, of Etoile's asking to have her relationship defined in non-standard terms, had little to do with your reply other than the question "why." The "why" factor is not important in my own acceptance of her definition of roles. I don't need to understand it, only respect her choice of definitions - which I do. Politically correct terms are only appreciated by those that demand it. She asked only that we understand her choice, and I do. The motivation means nothing... but respect of her choice means everything.

I do not believe that I have a limited way of thinking. I am not bisexual, yet I respect Etoile for asking us to understand her position on things. It may be a simplistic view, but all that matters is that it works for me.

I am not sure where you were headed with your last paragraph, but I will say that I have no intrest in appeasing any other dominants. While most command some respect, I wouldn't give others the time of day. While I'd never tell a dominant to fuck off, I sure wouldn't give them my respect when not due. I don't suck up to those that don't earn respect.

I'm sorry if my last thoughts sounded harsh, but it is my honest opinion... not a personal attack.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I am not sure where you were headed with your last paragraph, but I will say that I have no intrest in appeasing any other dominants. While most comand some respect, I wouldn't give others the time of day. While I'd never tell a dominant to fuck off, I sure wouldn't give them my respect when not due. I don't suck up to those that don't earn respect.

I'm sorry if my last thoughts sounded harsh, but it is my honest opinion... not a personal attack.

Nor do I Arden...my point was meant you would not presumably go out of your way to treat every dominant that way without reason. I do not address other dominants with honorific titles, nor do I treat them differently to most other people, but as with most people I interact with, I try and afford them respect as reserved for everyone. Surprisingly, I even try and treat those who I find are distasteful, with respect. Is just my way and should never be mistaken for submissiveness or deferment, as that is far from how I interact with others. As to sucking up to others....well it has often been suggested to me it is a good way to get what you want, but somehow it just is not palateable with me, just as bad manners and outright obnoxious behaviour are not. I do admire character and strength though which unfortunately seems to be coming something you encounter less and less these days.

Catalina

 

[FungiUg]

Catalina,

Arden's already given you a full answer, but I'll post this anyway.

You completely lost me! Maybe it's late... and maybe I only have half a brain. But I can't get the gist of what you are saying at all.

Sorry.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Catalina,

Arden's already given you a full answer, but I'll post this anyway.

You completely lost me! Maybe it's late... and maybe I only have half a brain. But I can't get the gist of what you are saying at all.

Sorry.

Don't sweat it Fungi....I have from time to time moments when things are as clear as mud, but then at some point the light bulb lights up and all is clear to see. Just a fact of life.

C

 

[Etoile]

OK, I am not trying to be picky, and I understand E that your original post said you would use these pronouns to refer to Daddy from now on, but you also specified they are used to apply gender neutrality to language in a manner I would think is reflective of political correctness. I am confused as to why 'Daddy' is so difficult to use, especially as most are familiar with that by now....and if in the interests of political correctness so to speak by not labelling a person by gender and thus risking stereotyping, why would you not apply this courtesy to all if you feel so strongly about such issues?

Where many here already use the accepted they/them etc., I have accidently come across your posts where you continually refer to people as he/she. her/his etc. I am just puzzled, even more so now, as to your reasoning and interest in gender neutrality language. In all fairness if it is safer to use gender neautral language which you seem to support in theory, why is Daddy the only person you feel warrants this fairly common courtesy in this time? I DO believe gender neutral language is important to many and as such tend to reflect that in my language so as not to offend. I am just confused, not trying to appear judgemental.

Catalina

I don't see this as a matter of politically correctness, I see it as linguistic convenience. I have used "him/her" in the past but I find it unwieldy, just as I find using "Daddy" all the time rather cumbersome. Using "they/their" is a possibility, but I am used to Spivak pronouns from another online community in which I participate, so I find them more appropriate than pluralizing. I didn't mean for this thread to encompass all these issues, I was merely trying to give a heads-up for when people started seeing the pronouns (which I haven't even had occasion to use!).

Here's an example of each type:

• Daddy hailed us a cab and we got in; I asked Daddy where we were going and Daddy said we were going to Daddy's office.
• Daddy hailed us a cab and we got in; I asked them where we were going and they said we were going to their office.
• Daddy hailed us a cab and we got in; I asked him/her where we were going and he/she said we were going to his/her office.
• Daddy hailed us a cab and we got in; I asked em where we were going and e said we were going to eir office.

I find the last one most visually and linguistically appealing, so that's what I'm planning to use.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Each to their own Etoile, but to me it is not any easier (usually in language if a word is applicable several times in a sentence it is customary to use alternatives throughout the sentence to avoid the repetitiveness) and reminds me far too much of the slang and lazy language skills that have prevailed for eons, more so in some places than in others. I seem to remember a child I went to school with getting repeated detention for dropping his letters such as saying 'Let's go get em' instead of 'let's go get them'. Was painful to watch and no matter how fashionable it may become, I am happy with terms that are widely understood.

C

 

[FungiUg]

[..]reminds me far too much of the slang and lazy language skills that have prevailed for eons, more so in some places than in others. [...]

C

If you go back several hundred years (any handy time machine will do), you will find that the language you speak now is very different to what was spoken then. And much of what you speak would be considered "slang and lazy".

Also, Etoile has to deal with referring to her Daddy more often than you do. So instead of constantly fighting the language to come up with alternatives to avoid repetition and still refer to her Daddy correctly, this is a sensible alternative (well, I see it that way.) I don't think she is being lazy -- for her, the scale of the problem is somewhat larger than for you and I.

English is a living, dynamic language. It does change. And it contains many dialects, let alone accents!