6 ms·

Languages do exist with gender-neutral pronouns. Is Hungarian full of "sjw" crap? Adding a gender neutral pronoun to English isn't a crazy idea- "sibling" is a

Languages do exist with gender-neutral pronouns. Is Hungarian full of "sjw" crap? Adding a gender neutral pronoun to English isn't a crazy idea- "sibling" is a gender-neutral 20th Century invention and it fits in fine. I'm partial to "they" as the easiest option (it has a long history of being used in the singular) but constructed pronouns would work too.

komali2 11y ago
They is the easiest, and already fully adopted, option. Why bother trying to add another?
- ajkjk 11y ago
  Are you unable to think of an argument? It's not hard to list some ways in which using 'they' as a singular pronoun when gender is ambiguous is confusing and undesirable. It's not a stretch to then argue we should have a better alternative.
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    It's like how some languages don't have ternary operators. We just have to muddle through and sometimes "take the long way" to describe someone without implying a gender or sex or other attribute.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Yeah, I get that. I normally use they/them/their. But then I'm stuck in plural. That does generally flow better, but sometimes... Anyway, I used to like s/he, but there's nothing elegant for him/her and his/hers.
komali2 11y ago
They is the easiest, and already fully adopted, option. Why bother trying to add another?
xg15 11y ago
That might be, however languages usually evolve on their own. Simply inventing a new word and expecting that suddenly everyone understands it feels arrogant and leads to discussion derailments like this one. I would also agree that "they" is the best choice.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  I would argue that languages evolve when someone needs to express a concept and reaches for a word, finds nothing, and improvises. The first person who does it always stands out, but if other people around them have the same need, the word catches on. Eventually, the perception of arrogance mellows and it becomes an ordinary word. I don't like artificial pronouns either, they stick in my mouth and feel weird, and I'm lazy so I use they. But other people have other preferences or needs so I try to tamp down any unproductive instinctive reaction in myself- who am I to say in a hundred years we won't be using them? After all, our post-singularity AI offspring won't have the same idea of gender as we do...
return0 11y ago
"They" has a logical connotation that it translates to "either he or she" (hence the plural). Something like "ve" seems to imply "neither he nor she" , as if, "something else". That's why it may alienate ppl.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Doesn't "they" mean more than one person, without specifying gender?
randommodnar 11y ago
It's not crazy. English speakers tend to use "they" when they need a gender-neutral option. This just sounds like some edgy teenager... ooh look at me, I'm using some invented new pronouns because of the injustices I've never actually faced myself.
- intopieces 11y ago
  Why does someone have to face injustice themself to do something about it? White people faught for abolition and in the civil rights movement, straight people are the reason we have gay marriage... Or is it just that you fundamentally disagree with the "need" for gender neutral pronouns and this is your way of ridiculing it? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic at all.
randommodnar 11y ago
Also, sibling is not a 20th century invention in gender neutrality. Sibling is an old English word meaning a kinsmen or relative. It simply saw a revival in the 20th century and had its meaning narrowed to mean only brother or sister.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  You're right, but when people began to hear it again in the 20th century, they didn't think "ah, I know that word! It's Old English." It wasn't, at the beginning of the 20th Century, an English word at all. I'm not sure reintroducing a word from a long-dead language (even if it's an antecedent to your own) is much different from just making a new word up, other than it might sound a bit better if the language is related. Words can come from anywhere; why not invent the ones you need? Laser radar quark...

komali2 11y ago

They is the easiest, and already fully adopted, option. Why bother trying to add another?

ajkjk 11y ago
Are you unable to think of an argument? It's not hard to list some ways in which using 'they' as a singular pronoun when gender is ambiguous is confusing and undesirable. It's not a stretch to then argue we should have a better alternative.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  It's like how some languages don't have ternary operators. We just have to muddle through and sometimes "take the long way" to describe someone without implying a gender or sex or other attribute.
mirimir 11y ago
Yeah, I get that. I normally use they/them/their. But then I'm stuck in plural. That does generally flow better, but sometimes... Anyway, I used to like s/he, but there's nothing elegant for him/her and his/hers.

komali2 11y ago

They is the easiest, and already fully adopted, option. Why bother trying to add another?

xg15 11y ago

That might be, however languages usually evolve on their own. Simply inventing a new word and expecting that suddenly everyone understands it feels arrogant and leads to discussion derailments like this one. I would also agree that "they" is the best choice.

roywiggins 11y ago
I would argue that languages evolve when someone needs to express a concept and reaches for a word, finds nothing, and improvises. The first person who does it always stands out, but if other people around them have the same need, the word catches on. Eventually, the perception of arrogance mellows and it becomes an ordinary word. I don't like artificial pronouns either, they stick in my mouth and feel weird, and I'm lazy so I use they. But other people have other preferences or needs so I try to tamp down any unproductive instinctive reaction in myself- who am I to say in a hundred years we won't be using them? After all, our post-singularity AI offspring won't have the same idea of gender as we do...

return0 11y ago

"They" has a logical connotation that it translates to "either he or she" (hence the plural). Something like "ve" seems to imply "neither he nor she" , as if, "something else". That's why it may alienate ppl.

mirimir 11y ago
Doesn't "they" mean more than one person, without specifying gender?

randommodnar 11y ago

It's not crazy. English speakers tend to use "they" when they need a gender-neutral option. This just sounds like some edgy teenager... ooh look at me, I'm using some invented new pronouns because of the injustices I've never actually faced myself.

intopieces 11y ago
Why does someone have to face injustice themself to do something about it? White people faught for abolition and in the civil rights movement, straight people are the reason we have gay marriage... Or is it just that you fundamentally disagree with the "need" for gender neutral pronouns and this is your way of ridiculing it? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic at all.

randommodnar 11y ago

Also, sibling is not a 20th century invention in gender neutrality. Sibling is an old English word meaning a kinsmen or relative. It simply saw a revival in the 20th century and had its meaning narrowed to mean only brother or sister.

roywiggins 11y ago
You're right, but when people began to hear it again in the 20th century, they didn't think "ah, I know that word! It's Old English." It wasn't, at the beginning of the 20th Century, an English word at all. I'm not sure reintroducing a word from a long-dead language (even if it's an antecedent to your own) is much different from just making a new word up, other than it might sound a bit better if the language is related. Words can come from anywhere; why not invent the ones you need? Laser radar quark...