Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Same gender romance discussion

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore
Same gender romance discussion
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

copperjack's Avatar


copperjack
11.13.2013 , 04:05 PM | #2371
No, I'm saying that it's pointless to try and create new words when there is already a word for what they want. It's also a word that has no negative connotations attached, like "it" would, and it's been in use for a long time.

Osetto's Avatar


Osetto
11.13.2013 , 04:16 PM | #2372
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
I had assumed Copperjack was talking about scenarios in which our hypothetical lazy moron had been informed of the person's pronouns, but refuses to use them. This is, unfortunately, a thing that happens. Usually out of spite and ignorance, though.
Adding to such a scenario, I believe a contributing factor is the somewhat petulant desire for validity. For correctness. If someone desires a particular pronoun or moniker, but it is only them who desires it, it's much easier for someone to dismiss it as invalid. Your choice, your preference, is ignored, so long as it clashes with the standard.

"Something needs backing. Something needs coordination. Something can't be right just because you say it is."

It stops being a question of good or bad, right and wrong (in a morality sense), and more a question of correct and incorrect. When someone begins viewing something through such a lens, it can become just as easy if not easier to justify actions and thoughts than if motivated purely by ideals. If something is defined, and someone strays from that definition, the problem is with the one who strays, not the one who believes in the sanctity of the status quo.

After all, the use of 'they' to refer to a singular individual was called incorrect. Not unrecommended, or ill-advised, or not traditionally accepted. Incorrect. Because words. Because language. Approximating it to such a purpose is somewhat overly simple, and might lead to some confusion, but it provides something where otherwise there would be nothing. And the fact that so many people believe nothing continues to exists in that realm, they'll choose the something that is simplest and easiest. Even if people are informed otherwise, that there is in fact something there for them to recognize and learn from, so long as it is beyond their threshold of validity, it will remain as nothing in their eyes.

People aren't ignorant because it's difficult. They're ignorant because it's extremely easy. And until the alternative become easier, they'll likely remain fixed in their ways. Therefore, sometimes the simplest solution is best, even if only for the time being, if only to lower the barrier for entry, for when you need to get across something truly difficult.

Quote: Originally Posted by copperjack View Post
No, I'm saying that it's pointless to try and create new words when there is already a word for what they want. It's also a word that has no negative connotations attached, like "it" would, and it's been in use for a long time.
There's always a point. English is my first and only language. I've used it, molded it, to craft worlds and characters and stories. But it is not perfect. There is always room for new additions. Always room for improvement. Tradition is simultaneously the strongest and weakest wall that stands in front of progress. If nothing more than 'it's been that way' can be said in opposition, then it should not be opposed. We needn't recklessly butcher the means by which we communicate, but neither should we remain content with what we have.

Tatile's Avatar


Tatile
11.13.2013 , 04:17 PM | #2373
Quote: Originally Posted by copperjack View Post
No, I'm saying that it's pointless to try and create new words when there is already a word for what they want. It's also a word that has no negative connotations attached, like "it" would, and it's been in use for a long time.

And I'm saying that's misunderstanding what people want when they use language to define themselves. "They" is useful for when the individual's gender is unknown, but in this case, the gender is known, but it's not one of the binary genders. It is totally appropriate to invent new language when one feels existing lexicons are inadequate.

Edit: Quote for clarity because apparently I type like slow

Palar's Avatar


Palar
11.13.2013 , 04:25 PM | #2374
Quote: Originally Posted by copperjack View Post
No, I'm saying that it's pointless to try and create new words when there is already a word for what they want. It's also a word that has no negative connotations attached, like "it" would, and it's been in use for a long time.
At best, singular 'they' is a lazy placeholder. Given what a bastardised language English is, creating new words is better than the current trend of forcing a word to mean polar opposites. But, as someone once said:

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

Tatile's Avatar


Tatile
11.13.2013 , 04:34 PM | #2375
So, if we use ze, zir and zirs to refer to someone who's agender (as she, her and hers are for women), "they" still remains a gender neutral pronoun, but we end up with a new pronoun.

Actually, here's an article I just found which lists several that have occurred, mentions the history and the issues of introducing pronouns to English:

http://genderneutralpronoun.wordpres...ag/ze-and-zir/

It might not be particularly easy when your biased visual cues kick in, but it's still something that could be adopted into the language, if the effort is made by all parties.

Osetto's Avatar


Osetto
11.13.2013 , 05:17 PM | #2376
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
So, if we use ze, zir and zirs to refer to someone who's agender (as she, her and hers are for women), "they" still remains a gender neutral pronoun, but we end up with a new pronoun.

Actually, here's an article I just found which lists several that have occurred, mentions the history and the issues of introducing pronouns to English:

http://genderneutralpronoun.wordpres...ag/ze-and-zir/

It might not be particularly easy when your biased visual cues kick in, but it's still something that could be adopted into the language, if the effort is made by all parties.
I quite like the ne/nem/nir option. Its awkward getting over the hard beginning of each (he and her being so soft to often sound like 'e and 'er), as well as coming off an 'n' (Ne's on nir way), but it seems less stressful than the 'z' sound found in both ze/zir and xe/xir.

If it served as a neutral option, I wonder if it would cover agender bases, or merely serve as an identifier of the unknown. Is not bringing gender into the question at all the same as addressing someone without gender or someone who doesn't associate with one of the two binary options? Would we require a fourth set, perhaps more?

Tatile's Avatar


Tatile
11.13.2013 , 05:26 PM | #2377
Quite possibly - it depends on whether any "formal" gender-fluid and bigender* groups come forth and decide that such a thing is necessary for their charges. Ne/nir/nim could be gender-neutral, ze/zir/zirs agender and etc.

It all sounds terribly sci-fi, doesn't it? Like something out of Star Trek, if Roddenberry were still behind it and giving us something to think about, rather than Abrams trying to blind us with lens flares so that we might ignore the problematic female officer's uniforms and Khan's whitewashing. Hm ^.^

God I want to watch Voyager again.


*I've been having so much *********** trouble with the local council I keep writing bingender

copperjack's Avatar


copperjack
11.13.2013 , 07:04 PM | #2378
"They" isn't being forced to mean its polar opposite and it's not only used for when people's gender is unknown. There are plenty of non-binary people who use they as a pronoun. If eventually people agree on a different gender neutral pronoun then I'll use that, but right now they is the best and most used option.

This might make me sound like a massive jerk, but I'm honestly not sure that some of these things such as bigender and genderfluid are actual genders. They seem more like gender expressions. I mean, transsexuality is a medical condition with specific causes, but I don't think there's something that would cause the brain to flip flop between genders. I don't think there's anything wrong with flexible gender expression but I don't think it's a gender in and of itself or in need of new pronouns.

Sacrmeno's Avatar


Sacrmeno
11.13.2013 , 07:11 PM | #2379
Sorry, but I'm 'cisgender' (although I don't get why people obsess over what they're called, like someone could call me a girl and I'd be fine), so what is all this gender stuff, and why does it happen?
Tharbine Valros, Mandolore's Chosen--Darth Xodrai Valros-- Captain Carturio Valros-

copperjack's Avatar


copperjack
11.13.2013 , 07:24 PM | #2380
Quote: Originally Posted by Sacrmeno View Post
Sorry, but I'm 'cisgender' (although I don't get why people obsess over what they're called, like someone could call me a girl and I'd be fine), so what is all this gender stuff, and why does it happen?
Which part exactly were you wondering about?