Pronouns in D&D - How should gender be handled?

[Scrivener of Doom]

Not the ones who object to Stewardess, Waitress, history, or man hole covers.

These are the kind of topics where somebody's going to take a statement and assume your sexist.

Is sticking to the guns of "it is the best standard to always use the male masculine when referring to a person or role generically" really worth it?

Writing in a style that incorporates both genders naturally seems more like better, inclusive writing than capitulating to an equal respect cause.

Personally, I find the alternating he/she to be jarring and I prefer the standard rule of generic male pronouns.

Does that make me sexist? I don't know nor do I care. And if someone starts accusing me of being sexist for having this as my opinion, I know how to use the ignore button... and they no doubt do as well.

 

[Zhaleskra]

And while not technically wrong, singular "they" just sounds silly.

 

[Umbran]

Is sticking to the guns of "it is the best standard to always use the male masculine when referring to a person or role generically" really worth it?

Writing in a style that incorporates both genders naturally seems more like better, inclusive writing than capitulating to an equal respect cause.

There's a point where one should note that, though it may be a standard, it is an incredibly old standard, and maybe not a very good one for the current culture in which the language is used.

A rule unexamined is not worth following

 

[Mallus]

Alternate pronouns freely.

Making masculine pronouns the default is needless. It doesn't make the writing sound any better, and plenty of people find it sexist. They occasional "they" is fine.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

There's a point where one should note that, though it may be a standard, it is an incredibly old standard, and maybe not a very good one for the current culture in which the language is used.

A rule unexamined is not worth following

I would also suggest, however, that language evolves as the people and culture that use it evolve. You don't achieve changes in gender attitudes by changing the language. The only examples of that sort of thing I can think of are BAD examples. Examples we don't want to emulate for good reason. You can't force idealogical changes on people by telling them what to say and how to say it; by telling them they are bad people for using masculine pronouns by default in speech or writing (especially when the language doesn't HAVE gender neutral pronouns that are interchangeable without actually forcing changes to a more stilted sentence structure. I mean, how much more Orwellian can you get?) At least, I rather thought that doing so shouldn't be how you want to change people's thinking. You want to change their thinking because your ideas are found to be better; to change because they WANT to change, not because they simply had their choice removed. First convince the English speaking world that even using masculine pronouns in place of neutral pronouns is WRONG - THEN propose changes to the language and its usage if it doesn't develop on its own.

Ever see Serenity? Give a whole planets population the same chemical to create a less violent person, and by unintended consequences kill 99.9% of them and turn the remaining 1/10th percent into hyper-violent cannibals that plague the galaxy. While this is not a matter of life and death the principle strikes me as precisely simliar. You have a group who believes they can MAKE people better, make them think the way they want them to think, act the way they want them to act, not because it's right but by introducing chemicals into their atmosphere, enforcing eugenics, conducting political re-education - or starting small by simply controlling how they are publicly allowed to use pronouns. Maybe that's why I have such a strong negative reaction to this sort of thing.

 

[Mallus]

I would also suggest, however, that language evolves as the people and culture that use it evolve.

Yes, and a change toward gender-inclusive language -- or, at the very least, a move away from the reflexive use of the masculine pronoun as the default-- reflects how we're evolving as an English-speaking culture.

In the same way we're moving away from calling things gay when we mean 'bad' or 'silly', or retarded when we mean 'stupid'. As a guy who grew up in New Jersey in the 1970s/1980s, those usages where absolutely part of my everyday speech. They're not anymore, and I'm the better for it. It's not like a had some cherished and inherent right taken away. Well, you could argue the right to sound like a jackhole *is* a cherished right in New Jersey, but let's not go there.

You don't achieve changes in gender attitudes by changing the language.

No, but we do make things more polite and inclusive. Not a bad starting point.

You can't force idealogical changes on people by telling them what to say and how to say it...

Not defaulting to 'he' hardly constitutes forcing anyone to do anything.

... by telling them they are bad people for using masculine pronouns by default in speech or writing...

You aren't necessarily a bad person for using 'gay' or 'retard' casually, either. But that doesn't mean you should do it, or refrain from suggesting people refrain from doing so. Especially in the text of a published rule book.

... especially when the language doesn't HAVE gender neutral pronouns that are interchangeable without actually forcing changes to a more stilted sentence structure...

What's so wrong with just mixing up the pronouns?

I mean, how much more Orwellian can you get?

Quite a bit. Seeing as Orwell's novel described a all-encompassing, soul-crushing police state with a whole branch devoted to changing language in order to prevent any expression of dissent against it. That's pretty far from "Sometimes use she when referring to the warrior".

First convince the English speaking world that even using masculine pronouns in place of neutral pronouns is WRONG - THEN propose changes to the language and its usage if it doesn't develop on its own.

Or you just use 'she' occasionally when referring to a warrior.

Ever see Serenity?

Sure. Great film!

Give a whole planets population the same chemical to create a less violent person, and by unintended consequences kill 99.9% of them and turn the remaining 1/10th percent into hyper-violent cannibals that plague the galaxy. While this is not a matter of life and death the principle strikes me as precisely simliar.

So encouraging people to use --slightly-- different phrasing is similar to dosing entire, unsuspecting, planetary populations with experimental drugs? That's a use of 'precisely similar' I'm unfamiliar with...

Maybe that's why I have such a strong negative reaction to this sort of thing.

Because you like equating radically dissimilar things?

The way I see, this is no different from the way various kinds of racist language fell out of favor in polite & public conversation. No, we're not all magically not-racist now, but at least on some fronts we're moving toward a place of greater respect.

(I have a kind of strong reaction to this, too -- hence all the multiquoting)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Personally I am fine with whatever the writer is comfortable using. If the writer wants to use He as generic, that's cool. If the writer want's to use she as generic or alternate, that is also cool. They usually feels a bit off to me, but not always. "He or she" and "He/She" feel clunky and awkward as well, as does avoiding pronouns. I think it really needs to be left up to the writer. The language just doesn't have a good gender neutral third person singular pronoun (people have created them, but they've never caught on enough to be useable by writers) so it really is one of the bigger challenges for writers to do in a way that feels comfortable and the audience accepts (because whatever direction you go, it generally will anger someone out there). Every language is a bit different on this front (I remember having to learn masculine and feminine dual pronouns once for another language and it was a nightmare because the closest we have in English I would think of is "you two guys"). In the case of a game like pathfinder or D&D, I expect them to continue with the trend of alternating, as it is established and it is a design team.

 

[billd91]

I would also suggest, however, that language evolves as the people and culture that use it evolve. You don't achieve changes in gender attitudes by changing the language. The only examples of that sort of thing I can think of are BAD examples. Examples we don't want to emulate for good reason. You can't force idealogical changes on people by telling them what to say and how to say it; by telling them they are bad people for using masculine pronouns by default in speech or writing (especially when the language doesn't HAVE gender neutral pronouns that are interchangeable without actually forcing changes to a more stilted sentence structure. I mean, how much more Orwellian can you get?) At least, I rather thought that doing so shouldn't be how you want to change people's thinking. You want to change their thinking because your ideas are found to be better; to change because they WANT to change, not because they simply had their choice removed. First convince the English speaking world that even using masculine pronouns in place of neutral pronouns is WRONG - THEN propose changes to the language and its usage if it doesn't develop on its own.

Don't underestimate how the language we use affects how we think or perceive the world around us. Even Cracked delved into this recently.
5 Insane Ways Words Can Control Your Mind

 

[Shemeska]

I like the way WotC and Paizo have switched between male and female pronouns based on the sex of the iconic character. I thought that was a pretty natural way to do it.

I too like this. And in situations when there isn't an iconic to reference to determine it, just switch between using male and female pronouns with each such instance. And as it applies, I also like using the non-specific 'they'.


Edit:

And I just noticed that as of the time I'm posting this, 41% or so want to use masculine pronouns as a generic. Seriously? D&D isn't a boys only club, and while that generic usage isn't by itself overtly or intentionally sexist, it's not exactly an embrace of widening the D&D audience and player base. I don't expect everyone to agree with me here, nor can or should I force anyone to use one or another pronoun set in their own games at home or even published material, but removing casual assumptions of player gender is a step, albeit tiny, IMO towards growing the RPG market and catering to a less select and assumed audience than in the past.

 

[billd91]

I too like this. And in situations when there isn't an iconic to reference to determine it, just switch between using male and female pronouns with each such instance. And as it applies, I also like using the non-specific 'they'.

WotC also did a lot of "you" for the rules. Also, I think, a good way to deal with the issue.