# Utilizing Gender-Neutral Pronouns; Why It Doesn't Work In Literature (And Ideas To Make It Work)



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

The proposals for gender-neutral pronouns in literature has, unsurprisingly, made a lot of literature difficult to read, awkward to speak, and are unsuitable for literature.
Yeah, it turns out replacing "He and her" with "Ve and Ver" doesn't really have the same results to a reader.  It turns out using specific gendered pronouns when writing is quite important to actually understand the story.





According to Lore, Exasas is a part of the Adeptus Mechanicus; aka humans who have turned themselves so mechanical that they no longer human, thus genderless machines.
While in lore this is true that they do not have a gender and do not identify even as a human, the fact that it was written in the context that it was confuses the reader; thus we get to the main issue.
The main issue isn't the fact that the author is utilizing gender-neutral pronouns in a story; the issue was the way it went about it.
The author insisted on shoving every pronoun referring to Exasas as "ve, vir, vis" and while that's all fine and dandy, it was simply lazy.  This sort of writing is going to confuse the reader, and it comes at the cost of comprehending the story better, thus hindering the reader's ability to comprehend and the reader's patience.
Here is what I would recommend if you're planning on putting gender-neutral pronouns in the story:
*A) Keep it constrained in dialogue use.*
"That's vis toaster, you can't steal that!"
Keep the use of gender-neutral pronouns to dialogue.  While it will still look awkward, it won't be as eye-shatteringly noticeable, and it won't feel as shoved in to serve a political message; it will feel more a part of the story.
There's a reason you don't use an invented alien language to explain what's going on, likewise, you shouldn't utilize words that are not standard.
*B) Explain why the use of the pronoun is the way it is in-universe.*
After utilizing a gender-neutral pronoun, try and find a way to explain its use in-universe and why they bother.  Try and find a more interesting and unique way to explain it other than "political motivation" or "because the character feels that way" try and integrate it into the culture of the character, the livelihood.   If they're alien, that's all the better, as you can more easily get away with genderless species and thus gender-neutral pronouns in which they use for themselves.  This allows for creative use of gender-neutral pronouns in a way that is commendable rather than confusing.
*C) If you must refer to a gender-neutral character in your author voice in a neutral way, find a more natural word rather than simply inventing a new pronoun nobody has heard of.*
Unless you want to be mistaken for a misprint, try and utilize words that refer to a character as "neutral" without using made-up neutral pronouns.  They and them is an obvious example but even those can confuse the reader.  Remember that this isn't like casual conversation, where you can point and say them and mean one person; there's a lot more context visually, verbally, physically, et cetera.  Reading you only have one context clue; the description.  If you use they and them in literature with no context it may end up confusing a reader even more than using a pronoun that they think is a misprint.
I would recommend using "it" if you're using alien species or machines.  Try and be creative, see what you can find, but if nothing else, just attribute a pronoun based on how they look rather than what the character feels.  You're in the eyes of the protagonist most of the time, thus it should be from their point of view; if they see a feminine alien who has no gender the natural reaction is to assign one.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Don't let the desire to "change things up" or be "political and shape the world with your one book that uses gender-neutral pronouns" be at the cost of everything else.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (May 15, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> *B) Explain why the use of the pronoun is the way it is in-universe.*
> After utilizing a gender-neutral pronoun, try and find a way to explain its use in-universe and why they bother. Try and find a more interesting and unique way to explain it other than "political motivation" or "because the character feels that way" try and integrate it into the culture of the character, the livelihood. If they're alien, that's all the better, as you can more easily get away with genderless species and thus gender-neutral pronouns in which they use for themselves. This allows for creative use of gender-neutral pronouns in a way that is commendable rather than confusing.


This, very much so. I would be alright with Gav's decision to pull this off if he, instead of simply being lazy and throwing external sources at the reader just for them to understand what is being presented, briefly explained the nuances of Binary, AM's lingua franca, when it comes to gender and how (well) it translates over.

For all we know, Binary's gender system and pronoun derivatives are not based on biological sex (i.e. masculine, feminine, and objective neuter in English), but rather on an object being animate or inanimate; organic or machine; and whether or not it has a soul. Then maybe it can be justified that the ve/verself/vis pronouns could be the ones used to reference an animate machine with a soul (cyborgs would be machines in AM's worldview). As we've yet to receive that explanation however, this idea of mine can only be serviced as personal headcanon and nothing else.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> This, very much so. I would be alright with Gav's decision to pull this off if he, instead of simply being lazy and throwing external sources at the reader just for them to understand what is being presented, briefly explained the nuances of Binary, AM's lingua franca, when it comes to gender and how (well) it translates over.
> 
> For all we know, Binary's gender system and pronoun derivatives are not based on biological sex (i.e. masculine, feminine, and objective neuter in English), but rather on an object being animate or inanimate; organic or machine; and whether or not it has a soul. Then maybe it can be justified that the ve/verself/vis pronouns could be the ones used to reference an animate machine with a soul (cyborgs would be machines in AM's worldview). As we've yet to receive that explanation however, this idea of mine can only be serviced as personal headcanon and nothing else.


See, that's far more interesting than just shoving alternative pronouns in there and expecting people to just be okay with it.
What, did he not think people would question it?


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 22, 2018)

Provided the quote from the reader is accurately reproduced, it does look like the passage _also_ contains a typographical error - "the sockets that studded vis smaller form" should be "the sockets that studded ver smaller form". This also follows the form of "verself" - if "vis" was possessive I'd have expected "vimself" or "vemself" for the reflexive pronoun.

Honestly, it sounds more like the reader is not entirely cut out for reading science fiction containing _any_ neologisms. The pronoun is obviously a pronoun based on both form and context - it follows extant third-person pronouns in form closely enough that it shouldn't be particularly jarring. Inferring the general meaning of words ("this is a pronoun used for this character/race") is a fairly basic reading skill, even if some of the specifics ("it is a gender neutral pronoun because these characters consider themselves genderless") would be dependent on additional exposition. This is the beauty of language - you don't need to have previous knowledge of a word to be able to sort it into grammatical/functional categories, if you see it in use. Often you may even be able to catch some general idea of lexical meaning, as well. This is literally how we learn language - we pick things up based on context.

If it fits your story, use constructed gender-neutral pronouns. If it fits your story, give some background information. But it's a lot more jarring to get exposition on some random aspect of a character's culture when there's no outsider there to explain to (reader excluded). I don't stop to marvel over how shirts have the right number of holes for my arms and neck when I'm writing in my journal. In the Vorkosigan Saga, Lois McMaster Bujold uses the fact that one of the major locations is pretty damn backwater (and isolationist) to make exposition on new concepts feel natural - characters brought up on this planet are still finding this knowledge new and novel, too.


----------



## Kumali (May 22, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Honestly, it sounds more like the reader is not entirely cut out for reading science fiction containing _any_ neologisms. The pronoun is obviously a pronoun based on both form and context - it follows extant third-person pronouns in form closely enough that it shouldn't be particularly jarring. Inferring the general meaning of words ("this is a pronoun used for this character/race") is a fairly basic reading skill, even if some of the specifics ("it is a gender neutral pronoun because these characters consider themselves genderless") would be dependent on additional exposition. *This is the beauty of language - you don't need to have previous knowledge of a word to be able to sort it into grammatical/functional categories, if you see it in use.* Often you may even be able to catch some general idea of lexical meaning, as well. This is literally how we learn language - we pick things up based on context.



Indeed. Exhibit A: _A Clockwork Orange_ by Anthony Burgess.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (May 22, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Honestly, it sounds more like the reader is not entirely cut out for reading science fiction containing _any_ neologisms. The pronoun is obviously a pronoun based on both form and context - it follows extant third-person pronouns in form closely enough that it shouldn't be particularly jarring. Inferring the general meaning of words ("this is a pronoun used for this character/race") is a fairly basic reading skill, even if some of the specifics ("it is a gender neutral pronoun because these characters consider themselves genderless") would be dependent on additional exposition. This is the beauty of language - you don't need to have previous knowledge of a word to be able to sort it into grammatical/functional categories, if you see it in use. Often you may even be able to catch some general idea of lexical meaning, as well. This is literally how we learn language - we pick things up based on context.


Whilst I haven't read the book itself beyond the excerpt that's currently the subject of debate, the fact that the reader had to ask the author to clarify what the deal was with the pronoun set gives me the impression that there wasn't any in-story context given for it. Granted, not that it would have been important anyway in a story setting where the average person is ultimately little more than a disposable cog in a vast machine, but there could have been a better way to imply that said character was genderless than via choice of pronoun.

As an aside and given what little context Gav's "Word of God" response has provided, I still find it rather jarring that an objective narration of all things persists on referring to a genderless character with these custom pronouns, considering that standard English habitually makes use of an already-existing gender-neutral pronoun set (they/them/their) in addition to masculine and feminine.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Whilst I haven't read the book itself beyond the excerpt that's currently the subject of debate, the fact that the reader had to ask the author to clarify what the deal was with the pronoun set gives me the impression that there wasn't any in-story context given for it. Granted, not that it would have been important anyway in a story setting where the average person is ultimately little more than a disposable cog in a vast machine, but there could have been a better way to imply that said character was genderless than via choice of pronoun.
> 
> As an aside and given what little context Gav's "Word of God" response has provided, I still find it rather jarring that an objective narration of all things persists on referring to a genderless character with these custom pronouns, considering that standard English habitually makes use of an already-existing gender-neutral pronoun set (they/them/their) in addition to masculine and feminine.



Not to mention that this is likey the first time that a gender neutral pronoun had been used in this universe (at least from what I know of) so anyone who IS familiar with the universe still would probably find this jarring.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 24, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Whilst I haven't read the book itself beyond the excerpt that's currently the subject of debate, the fact that the reader had to ask the author to clarify what the deal was with the pronoun set gives me the impression that there wasn't any in-story context given for it.


I haven't read the book beyond the excerpt, either. I had to go back and re-read the question because it is so obvious from sentence structure (grammatical context) and form that "ve" is a pronoun that I thought I must have misread. There is enough context just in the excerpt itself, the reader in question just seems to be rigid in their expectations of vocabulary. Which isn't exactly a good way to be when you choose to read speculative fiction. 



ChapterAquila92 said:


> As an aside and given what little context Gav's "Word of God" response has provided, I still find it rather jarring that an objective narration of all things persists on referring to a genderless character with these custom pronouns, considering that standard English habitually makes use of an already-existing gender-neutral pronoun set (they/them/their) in addition to masculine and feminine.


Objective narration should use the pronouns a character uses for themselves. I have a World Tree character who is a both-female (basically hermaphrodite/intersex - it's an accident of biology that makes them functionally able to serve two different reproductive roles) Herethroy (a race of bug-people with three sexes). In-world standard pronoun for "unknown gender" is zie. In-world standard for co-lovers (their third sex) is "zie". Stickseed identifies as female, rejects the social expectation that she as both-female should take the role as co-lover in a triad, and it would be inappropriate to refer to her with pronouns other than she/her given that is how she sees and has chosen to present herself.

If you have an explicit narrator character, of course their biases will enter into how they speak about the characters in a story, but an objective/omniscient narrator has no excuse for misidentifying characters.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (May 24, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Objective narration should use the pronouns a character uses for themselves. I have a World Tree character who is a both-female (basically hermaphrodite/intersex - it's an accident of biology that makes them functionally able to serve two different reproductive roles) Herethroy (a race of bug-people with three sexes). In-world standard pronoun for "unknown gender" is zie. In-world standard for co-lovers (their third sex) is "zie". Stickseed identifies as female, rejects the social expectation that she as both-female should take the role as co-lover in a triad, and it would be inappropriate to refer to her with pronouns other than she/her given that is how she sees and has chosen to present herself.
> 
> If you have an explicit narrator character, of course their biases will enter into how they speak about the characters in a story, but an objective/omniscient narrator has no excuse for misidentifying characters.


A species with three or more viable sexes will likely have more valid reasons for adopting such gender systems than anglophones will ever have for obscure pronoun preferences that boil down to too many attempts at refining a personified neuter gender with little collaboration with others and no linguistic consensus. The two circumstances aren't comparable.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 25, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> A species with three or more viable sexes will likely have more valid reasons for adopting such gender systems than anglophones will ever have for obscure pronoun preferences that boil down to too many attempts at refining a personified neuter gender with little collaboration with others and no linguistic consensus. The two circumstances aren't comparable.


I disagree. The character comes from a species with three viable sexes (all needed for reproduction, incidentally), and chooses to use a pronoun/gender identity other than what is the social default for her sex. It's a pronoun preference, and an objective narrator should respect it because a person's preferred pronouns _are_ the correct pronouns for them. 

Now, you may debate the author's specific choice of neutral pronoun, but given that the setting apparently has a significant population of these characters, all of whom consider themselves genderless, it makes perfect sense for them to have adopted _something_ to explicitly mark this. Keep in mind that singular "they" is _also_ used when you don't know a person's gender; it's a valid choice for a nonbinary individual, but I don't think expecting language to not evolve with technology when technology gives rise to a population of individuals who have essentially transcended their humanity, including human sex/gender designation, is a realistic view of how language develops. At some point, it's perfectly reasonable for some of these individuals to say "Hey, we're not okay with having a dehumanizing option (it) and an option that also is used to note indeterminate gender (they)." Eventually, one such effort is liable to catch on large-scale.


----------



## metafang (May 25, 2018)

lol

trans people have always existed 

we existed before written language 

we exist everywhere 

we globally PREDATE the english language, not to mention its dominance exerted by colonists on the rest of us


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (May 25, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I disagree. The character comes from a species with three viable sexes (all needed for reproduction, incidentally), and chooses to use a pronoun/gender identity other than what is the social default for her sex. It's a pronoun preference, and an objective narrator should respect it because a person's preferred pronouns _are_ the correct pronouns for them.


Correct based on what criteria? Author fiat? If a character is misgendered with the "wrong" pronoun set, let alone in a language that follows completely different rules from their own, and they're not around to hear it, does it matter?


> Now, you may debate the author's specific choice of neutral pronoun, but given that the setting apparently has a significant population of these characters, all of whom consider themselves genderless, it makes perfect sense for them to have adopted _something_ to explicitly mark this. Keep in mind that singular "they" is _also_ used when you don't know a person's gender.


Hence, the use of neuter in languages such as English and German: to denote an object's gender as being either indeterminate or non-existent. Compare this with the romance languages (i.e. Spanish, French, Italian) in which everything has to be either masculine or feminine.

The irony of people wanting their language to denote a non-binary opinion is that the ones complaining the loudest seem to already speak a language in which that option is available to them.

As for its use in the story, with the full understanding that Low Gothic, let alone Binary, is most likely not at all anything like any modern spoken language, it's up to the author to do the best job they can at what amounts to writing a translation of the lingua franca. There is no way of getting around the fact that things are bound to be lost in translation.


> At some point, it's perfectly reasonable for some of these individuals to say "Hey, we're not okay with having a dehumanizing option (it) and an option that also is used to note indeterminate gender (they)." Eventually, one such effort is liable to catch on large-scale.


With the utilitarian level of standardization for modern languages being what they are, this is a very unlikely occurrence outside of a very isolated population, as much as I'm in favour of a standard personified neutral lingustic gender. You don't have to like it, but it's what we have to make do with.


----------



## Kumali (May 25, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> The irony of people wanting their language to denote a non-binary opinion is that the ones complaining the loudest seem to already speak a language in which that option is available to them.



"It"?



ChapterAquila92 said:


> this is a very unlikely occurrence outside of a very isolated population, as much as I'm in favour of a standard personified neutral lingustic gender. *You don't have to like it, but it's what we have to make do with.*



As was no doubt said before every other step forward in social progress.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 25, 2018)

Lol. Of all the things to get butthurt about.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 25, 2018)

Is this even a thing? Lol.

Let authors use whatever pronouns they want to. No one likes compelled speech.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (May 25, 2018)

Kumali said:


> "It"?


Nice to see that someone barely skimmed over what I've previously said on the matter, if at all. Chances are that someone addressing someone else as an "it" thinks of them as little more than an object, whereas "they" at least implies an understanding that the other person is in fact a person.


> As was no doubt said before every other step forward in social progress.


The wiser option in this case is to make up your own language to force upon others, but that's none of my business.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 25, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Is this even a thing? Lol.
> 
> Let authors use whatever pronouns they want to. No one likes compelled speech.


Authors are free to write what they want to as I am free to criticise it.
My criticism is that, without any prior context or worldbuilding, utilizing a neutral or different pronoun that nobody knows in order to adhere to an imaginary preference of a character is pointless, confusing, and adds nothing to the story except a political push.
I even explained what better ways to implement such a system into a story without it feeling forced or unnatural.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 25, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Lol. Of all the things to get butthurt about.


I've explained ways to make such things work in literature in a way that is more natural and not forced.  Ergo, I don't see how I can be getting "butthurt" considering I have proposed solutions to something I saw as a problem.
-
I don't appreciate people coming in here and starting to stir shit up so please don't start.


----------



## Troj (May 25, 2018)

It strikes me that the basic rules of worldbuilding also apply here.

When creating a different species, race, or culture, you've got to consider their economic system, food, technology, language, social norms, clothing, political system, and biology--even _if_ you don't plan to flesh out or elaborate on all of these elements equally--and have a plausible, believable in-universe reason for things being the way they are.

Alien species provide a great opportunity to explore gender and sexuality in new and different ways. See: Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis series, for example.


----------



## Kumali (May 25, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Nice to see that someone barely skimmed over what I've previously said on the matter, if at all. Chances are that someone addressing someone else as an "it" thinks of them as little more than an object, whereas "they" at least implies an understanding that the other person is in fact a person.



Yes, I saw where you said:



ChapterAquila92 said:


> I still find it rather jarring that an objective narration of all things persists on referring to a genderless character with these custom pronouns, considering that standard English habitually makes use of an already-existing gender-neutral pronoun set (they/them/their) in addition to masculine and feminine.



My point (which, granted, I was making by implication) is that standard English does _not_, as yet, have a _singular_ gender-neutral third-person personal pronoun. "They/them/their" is plural. Its increasing use as a singular gender-neutral third-person personal pronoun is for lack of anything better for the time being (or at least that's how it seems to me). It's better than nothing, but as gender identity becomes more fluid it'd be nice to see something new develop, English being the living and evolving language that it is. A stubborn insistence on the linguistic status quo isn't going to help. 

(Shall we bring back the informal "thou"? Or make "to remember" a reflexive verb again, as it was in Shakespeare's English and still is in modern French? How inflexible do you want to be about the ongoing evolution of our language?)


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 25, 2018)

Kumali said:


> My point (which, granted, I was making by implication) is that standard English does _not_, as yet, have a _singular_ gender-neutral third-person personal pronoun. "They/them/their" is plural. Its increasing use as a singular gender-neutral third-person personal pronoun is for lack of anything better for the time being (or at least that's how it seems to me). It's better than nothing, but as gender identity becomes more fluid it'd be nice to see something new develop, English being the living and evolving language that it is. A stubborn insistence on the linguistic status quo isn't going to help.
> 
> (Shall we bring back the informal "thou"? Or make "to remember" a reflexive verb again, as it was in Shakespeare's English and still is in modern French? How inflexible do you want to be about the ongoing evolution of our language?)


Idk a single word in the English language that has been introduced by force-feeding the general populace with words they don't know.  It would be one thing if those who identified as "gender-neutral" actually decided on a word they could use, even if it were temporary.  But as it stands, it seems every gender-neutral individual has their own take on a pronoun they would liked used.  Zer, Ze, Ve, Vis...




It's like studying for a pop quiz._  This isn't how language evolves_.  Then again I'm not a linguist.  Perhaps language has always evolved by brute forcing words onto people who are not familiar with them.  But a big contention I have is the_ expectation_ to know and understand these words that are being made on the fly, and the readers themselves are being blamed for not understanding wtf xyr means.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 25, 2018)

Troj said:


> It strikes me that the basic rules of worldbuilding also apply here.
> 
> When creating a different species, race, or culture, you've got to consider their economic system, food, technology, language, social norms, clothing, political system, and biology--even _if_ you don't plan to flesh out or elaborate on all of these elements equally--and have a plausible, believable in-universe reason for things being the way they are.
> 
> Alien species provide a great opportunity to explore gender and sexuality in new and different ways. See: Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis series, for example.


Exactly.  There shouldn't be an expectation on the reader to just know stuff.  Especially since Gender Neutral pronouns have only been considered fairly recently and are still not mainstream.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (May 25, 2018)

Kumali said:


> My point (which, granted, I was making by implication) is that standard English does _not_, as yet, have a _singular_ gender-neutral third-person personal pronoun. "They/them/their" is plural. Its increasing use as a singular gender-neutral third-person personal pronoun is for lack of anything better for the time being (or at least that's how it seems to me).


You say that like it's a bad thing. Quite frankly, the more voluntary and widespread adoption of they/them/their as a universal third-person pronoun set is more indicative of an emerging gender-neutral (i.e. neuter) in the English language than the fifty+ proposals that a small vocal minority invents on a daily basis primarily to make themselves stand out from the crowd.


> It's better than nothing, but as gender identity becomes more fluid it'd be nice to see something new develop, English being the living and evolving language that it is.


Something new doesn't always mean something better, and it may certainly not always go in the way some folks try to steer it. The people today advocating for fifty+ genders may be horrified to find that their gender actually means nothing in a post-gender society that only differentiates between object and person.


> A stubborn insistence on the linguistic status quo isn't going to help.


Neither is the insistence that everyone and their dog has to be their own gender. At that point you may as well throw out the concept of pronouns altogether and simply refer to people by their names when speaking of them in the 3rd person.


> (Shall we bring back the informal "thou"? Or make "to remember" a reflexive verb again, as it was in Shakespeare's English and still is in modern French? How inflexible do you want to be about the ongoing evolution of our language?)


That depends on how petty and condescending you want to make your arguments.


----------



## Kumali (May 25, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing. Quite frankly, the more voluntary and widespread adoption of they/them/their as a universal third-person pronoun set is more indicative of an emerging gender-neutral (i.e. neuter) in the English language than the fifty+ proposals that a small vocal minority invents on a daily basis primarily to make themselves stand out from the crowd.



Well, I'm certainly not opposed to the adoption of they/them/their as a singular third-person pronoun. If that proves to be the best and most universally agreed-upon option, then so be it.

As I said, English is a living and evolving language - I was all hardcore for a long time about refusing to use "hopefully" in its now-universal sense meaning "it is to be hoped that," and finally decided, ya know what, that _is_ what it means now, even if it didn't before. _Vox populi, vox dei._ (Still getting used to "grow" as a transitive verb, as in "to grow a business," but I'll get there...) 



ChapterAquila92 said:


> Something new doesn't always mean something better, and it may certainly not always go in the way some folks try to steer it.



No, it may not...or it may. Time will tell, as it always does.



ChapterAquila92 said:


> The people today advocating for fifty+ genders may be horrified to find that their gender actually means nothing in a post-gender society that only differentiates between object and person.





ChapterAquila92 said:


> Neither is the insistence that everyone and their dog has to be their own gender. At that point you may as well throw out the concept of pronouns altogether and simply refer to people by their names when speaking of them in the 3rd person.



Running all the way to the other extreme here, aren't you? Is there no reasonable middle ground or room for civilized discussion?



ChapterAquila92 said:


> That depends on how petty and condescending you want to make your arguments.



Projection much? (See your two quotes immediately above.)


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 25, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I've explained ways to make such things work in literature in a way that is more natural and not forced.  Ergo, I don't see how I can be getting "butthurt" considering I have proposed solutions to something I saw as a problem.
> -
> I don't appreciate people coming in here and starting to stir shit up so please don't start.



You're clearly upset over people using gender neutral pronouns. That seems pretty silly.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 25, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> You're clearly upset over people using gender neutral pronouns. That seems pretty silly.


Can you stop trying to start a shitfire again?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 25, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Can you stop trying to start a shitfire again?



"Again?" I'm not the one who's been making a long slew of controversial threads. Not that I care. I usually don't start them, I just jump in when the occur. So don't blame me for that.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 25, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> "Again?" I'm not the one who's been making a long slew of controversial threads. Not that I care. I usually don't start them, I just jump in when the occur. So don't blame me for that.


Using a thread's controversy to justify jumping in and acting like an asshole is a pretty shitty excuse.
-
I'm reporting you, I'm not dealing with this.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 25, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Using a thread's controversy to justify jumping in and acting like an asshole is a pretty shitty excuse.
> -
> I'm reporting you, I'm not dealing with this.



You could have asked politely for me to withdraw. But no, you have to make it personal. I've got as much if not more reason to report this post. Anyway I'm out of here since I'm just getting personally attacked now.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (May 25, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Running all the way to the other extreme here, aren't you? Is there no reasonable middle ground or room for civilized discussion?


There certainly can be grounds for a civil discussion, but I won't casually dismiss the fact that there are people who genuinely think that way.

I jokingly ride on the 50+ genders comment on the basis that nearly all of them and their pronoun sets seem to have been conceived in a void without much understanding of the linguistic development you yourself have alluded to. Words and phrases in modern lexicons don't naturally pop out of thin air when we want them to but instead are adopted and adapted from previous iterations, be they portmanteaus, contractions, acronyms, habitual misuses by association (i.e. the Canadian use of the word "hydro" to refer to electric power, presumably of the hydroelectric variety), or transcriptions from another language.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 26, 2018)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Words and phrases in modern lexicons don't naturally pop out of thin air when we want them to but instead are adopted and adapted from previous iterations, be they portmanteaus, contractions, acronyms, habitual misuses by association (i.e. the Canadian use of the word "hydro" to refer to electric power, presumably of the hydroelectric variety), or transcriptions from another language.


While loan words and lexical shifts may be more common, yes, words actually do get made up out of (relatively) whole cloth from time to time. And most neopronouns are not, strictly, pulled out of thin air, either, as they tend to largely emulate the form of extant pronouns. The difference between a coinage that catches on and one that doesn't is basically dissemination.


----------



## Troj (May 26, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Exactly. There shouldn't be an expectation on the reader to just know stuff. Especially since Gender Neutral pronouns have only been considered fairly recently and are still not mainstream.



Well, as with all worldbuilding, there's a balancing act.

If your aliens or creatures have a different conception of gender, typically, your main choices are to make sure you provide plenty of contextual clues so that readers can make sense of what's going on, or have an outsider or newbie character who needs to have these things explained to them.


----------

