Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?

[Sadras]

No, they can't force you to call them what they would prefer.

But it is an exemplary litmus test to distinguish between the tolerant and the intolerant.

I look at it this way: what is the opportunity cost by calling them their pronoun of choice? What do you in this context, lose by referring to people by their preferred pronoun?

I mean, by simple virtue of being on this forum we do it all the time without even blinking an eye. Hint: they're called usernames.

I believe this is a bad analogy.

Usernames are not pronouns they are names hence the word names in the word usernames.
I'm not entirely convinced we use each other's usernames because we are tolerant or necessarily respectful of each other. We primarily use them because of the notification software that exists on Enworld.

As for 'forcing' the way one addresses another in comparison to real life, this board has rules we have to subscribe to when addressing each other.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm forced to admit that these are completely fascinating. And surprised I hadn't heard about them before, given the implications they have. Thank you for indulging me.

I'll also admit that I'm not entirely sold, but then I'm fairly heavily entrenched in the nurture>nature camp (which shouldn't be surprising, given that I am a sociologist, which is probably why I also shouldn't be that surprised I hadn't seen these studies make the rounds). But then I should also know better by now that the human being is way too complex to make hyperbolic absolutist statements about them.

I believe the articles in question. It seems to me that gender differences still occur in places like the Middle East, where society very strongly pressures against it. To do that, it seems to me that there would have to be a biological component to gender. A person's genes, hormones, and/or physiological make-up would determine the gender(s) a person is prone to, and society would then influence things. In a place like the Middle East, a person may or may not be able to come to an understanding of what gender they are, or might come to an incorrect understanding that is close to what they feel. In a place like America where it's becoming much more accepted, the person would more easily be able to figure the gender out.

What convinces me the most, though, is that you can't "pray the gay(or gender) away." Attempts to do so almost universally fail or cause deep psychological harm to the person making the attempt. For example, the male children who feel that they are females in a male body could be "cured" if there wasn't a biological component. Instead, attempts to do so(and there are lots of attempts) cause clashes as the child feels one way and society around them pushes them to feel another. Many hurt or kill themselves. If it were only psychological or sociological, attempts to "cure" should have a much higher success rate.

 

[Gradine]

You seem to be attributing the resistance to malice, though, so it's pertinent to point out that there are deeper linguistic explanations for it.

I do attribute the resistance primarily to malice, yes, given the extreme lack of tolerance non-gender-conforming people still often face, and I don't think it unreasonable to expect a certain amount of evidence to attribute the resistance to some other, less nefarious reason. At best, we are talking about a callous disregard for the respect and dignity of fellow human beings over... what, exactly? Digging ones heels in regarding language that is constantly morphing and shifting? I'm not saying that the malice is always intentional, but this is one of those instances where the impact matters more than the intention behind it.

I can predict, with quite a high degree of confidence, that "xe" will not be a regular English third-person singular pronoun in a hundred years. But I can also predict, with comparable confidence, that "they" will be. As the need for a gender-neutral pronoun has increased, "they" has observably, measurably expanded in use to meet that need, and "xe" has made no such progress. Why fight an uphill battle -- more like running into a cliffside, really -- when you don't have to?

"They" is pretty much already a regular English third-person singular pronoun, as it has been for centuries (despite a comparatively brief period of falling out of favor). The arguments that it is "unclear" or "clunky" are patently absurd, given that the most commonly cited alternatives are the generic "he", which blessedly fewer and fewer people seem to be in favor of for reasons that should be obvious; and "he or she", which is just as likely to be unclear, is definitely clunkier, and is more likely to be inaccurate. There can be no sensible reason to continue to resist singular "they" other than a defense of either the patriarchy or the gender binary, depending on one's favored "neutral" singular pronoun. I don't deny that there are people that continue to cling to that resistance for entirely nonsensical reasons; the "backfire effect" is a thing that exists, and not too long ago a small but significant subset of the American population was treating a change in light bulb design to be a serious threat to their way of life, so I can't say I don't understand people throwing up resistance over something a little more serious as language. But I can fault them for it, and suggest that there might be some bias, either conscious or unconscious, underlying it.

As for "xe" and its ilk, well, no, I don't expect to see a new pronoun hit the common parlance, at least not until the community comes together a chooses a single set, which seems unlikely now but whose to say what will happen later? Of course, I'm talking about neither formal English dictionaries nor informal English vernacular. I'm talking about a living, breathing, human being, asking others to refer to them, a single individual, as "xe" and "hir", because those are hir preferred pronouns. And rather than those same people, rather than realizing that treating this individual with the respect and dignity costs them literally nothing, as Sunseeker above just pointed out, they instead go into histrionics about {free speech.. grammar}.

(And the generic "he" isn't from Latin.)

Not according to this article, though I realize that etymology is often disputed:
"Generic he first derived its authority from a rule about Latin gender that was applied to English even though gender in Latin, which has to do with word classes and suffixes, has nothing in common with gender in modern English, which is based entirely on chromosomes and social construction."

 

[Gradine]

I believe the articles in question. It seems to me that gender differences still occur in places like the Middle East, where society very strongly pressures against it. To do that, it seems to me that there would have to be a biological component to gender. A person's genes, hormones, and/or physiological make-up would determine the gender(s) a person is prone to, and society would then influence things. In a place like the Middle East, a person may or may not be able to come to an understanding of what gender they are, or might come to an incorrect understanding that is close to what they feel. In a place like America where it's becoming much more accepted, the person would more easily be able to figure the gender out.

What convinces me the most, though, is that you can't "pray the gay(or gender) away." Attempts to do so almost universally fail or cause deep psychological harm to the person making the attempt. For example, the male children who feel that they are females in a male body could be "cured" if there wasn't a biological component. Instead, attempts to do so(and there are lots of attempts) cause clashes as the child feels one way and society around them pushes them to feel another. Many hurt or kill themselves. If it were only psychological or sociological, attempts to "cure" should have a much higher success rate.

Oh no, that all totally makes sense, and I agree 100% with all of it. I think I'm mostly just recovering from the cognitive dissonance that my natural mindset forced myself into in this instance. It's a major paradigm shift that is taking my head a little bit longer to fully wrap itself around.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

And rather than those same people, rather than realizing that treating this individual with the respect and dignity costs them literally nothing, as Sunseeker above just pointed out, they instead go into histrionics about {free speech.. grammar}.

You're kind of going into histrionics yourself. We're not talking on the same wavelength here yet.

Not according to this article, though I realize that etymology is often disputed:
"Generic he first derived its authority from a rule about Latin gender that was applied to English even though gender in Latin, which has to do with word classes and suffixes, has nothing in common with gender in modern English, which is based entirely on chromosomes and social construction."

With all due respect to a Professor of English... the article would apparently have us believe that the English language began in the 16th Century, doesn't actually cite a word of Latin, and has a very strident polemical tone which, even if you agree with its overall goals (I certainly do), should set off all kinds of warning bells in your head for biased analysis.

In fact: (a) the generic "he" is in Old English; (b) the generic "they" is not and could not be, because Old English plural pronouns were also gendered; and (c) English pronouns have no etymological connection to Latin pronouns beyond the most distant Indo-European relationship.

 

[Mouseferatu]

There is a biological component to most aspects of identity, gender included. But it's in the brain, not the body.

They've recently done tests--I forget precisely which tests, so I won't make a guess and risk obscuring my actual point--which show that the brains of trans individuals tend to work/behave much more like the gender with which they identify than the one they were assigned at birth.

(I apologize for using "identify." I know that term is losing favor, and for good reason, but I'm not sure how better to phrase it in this particular instance.)

So, a trans woman's brain works more like a cis woman's brain than like a man's, and vice-versa.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

There is a biological component to most aspects of identity, gender included. But it's in the brain, not the body.

They've recently done tests--I forget precisely which tests, so I won't make a guess and risk obscuring my actual point--which show that the brains of trans individuals tend to work/behave much more like the gender with which they identify than the one they were assigned at birth.

(I apologize for using "identify." I know that term is losing favor, and for good reason, but I'm not sure how better to phrase it in this particular instance.)

So, a trans woman's brain works more like a cis woman's brain than like a man's, and vice-versa.

Here's a good overview:

"Are the Brains of Transgender People Different from Those of Cisgender People?"

From my (layman's) reading of the neuroscience, I'd call it a simplification to say that "a trans woman's brain works more like a cis woman's brain than like a man's, and vice-versa." There's something going on in the brain, it's definitely not just sociological, but, like everything brain-related... it's complicated. Sometimes they're more like one cis gender, sometimes they're more like the other, sometimes they seem to be just doing their own thing.

But for our purposes as a society, the only really relevant part of the science is establishing that trans people are "born this way" (or, possibly, "developed this way"-- doesn't matter), that it's not a choice they make or something culturally imposed upon them. The details don't affect how we should move forward. A trans man could have an absolutely standard issue biologically female brain except for the one bit that says "I am a man", and that still wouldn't we should make him wear a dress, because we shouldn't make anyone wear a dress unless they want to, that's just rude.

 

[Satyrn]

A trans man could have an absolutely standard issue biologically female brain except for the one bit that says "I am a man", and that still wouldn't we should make him wear a real green dress, because we shouldn't make anyone wear a real green dress unless they want to, that's mean just rude.

FTFa Bare Naked Ladies reference.

 

[Gradine]

You're kind of going into histrionics yourself. We're not talking on the same wavelength here yet.

I think the biggest reason we aren't the same wavelength is that I'm trying to talk about the implications of interpersonal interactions, and why some people seem to care more about resisting change in something that is ever-changing than in treating their fellow humans with respects. Again, as much as etymology is fascinating to me, it's not really the main point of what I'm trying to get at here.

With all due respect to a Professor of English... the article would apparently have us believe that the English language began in the 16th Century, doesn't actually cite a word of Latin, and has a very strident polemical tone which, even if you agree with its overall goals (I certainly do), should set off all kinds of warning bells in your head for biased analysis.

In fact: (a) the generic "he" is in Old English; (b) the generic "they" is not and could not be, because Old English plural pronouns were also gendered; and (c) English pronouns have no etymological connection to Latin pronouns beyond the most distant Indo-European relationship.

I'm not entirely sure what article you're reading, because nowhere in the article I linked to does the author discuss the formation of the English language (he, at one point very early in the article, refers to "modern English"). Secondly, subjectivity is not, by itself, any sort of red flag when it comes to academia. I happen be of the opinion, not as widely shared as I would hope I'm sure, that there is no such thing as true objectivity in humanities or social sciences. I actually prefer such works where the author's bias is clear, even when I disagree with it; I place significantly less trust in authors who pretend towards "objectivity". It should also be noted that this is a blog and not a published article (something I probably should have noted before citing it, but then this is also a web forum and not a forensics regional), which probably explains why the tone is less staid and academic, and more, well... readable.

I'm also going to ask for citations for what you have to say about Old English, because every source I've been able to find in my admittedly short jaunt through internet research land has proven completely contradictory to what you're saying. Everything I've found suggests that Old English specifically had Neuter single personal pronouns (though, granted, lined up with the masculine pronouns for "him" and "his", but not for what we would consider today as "he"), and no gender distinction in plural pronouns (which, in fact, sometimes mirrored feminine pronouns but never the masculine). Once again, I understand that etymology is subjective and contested, so I'd be happy to read from other sources that contradict these.

e: The original post came off as more hostile than I had intended.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm not entirely sure what article you're reading, because nowhere in the article I linked to does the author discuss the formation of the English language (he, at one point very early in the article, refers to "modern English").

If the claim is that the generic "he" was imported to English from Latin, then it seems like a relevant fact that it was present in Old English long before these modern grammarians began their alleged meddling.

"I accuse Miss Scarlet of killing Mr. Boddy last night!"
"Mr. Boddy has been dead for three years..."

I actually prefer such works where the author's bias is clear, even when I disagree with it; I place significantly less trust in authors who pretend towards "objectivity".

While certainly there can be horrendously biased works hiding behind a pseudo-objective tone, I find (and psychologists agree) that we tend to move towards what we pretend to be. Pretend to be angry and you'll make yourself angry; pretend to be calm and you make yourself calm. Wear your bias on your sleeve and you'll make yourself more biased; aspire to objectivity and, even though you'll never be perfect, you will get better at it.

Everything I've found suggests that Old English specifically had Neuter single personal pronouns (though, granted, lined up with the masculine pronouns for "him" and "his", but not for what we would consider today as "he")...

Old English did have a neuter singular pronoun. The same neuter singular pronoun that would evolve into the modern English neuter singular pronoun "it", and with the same non-person connotation.

...and no gender distinction in plural pronouns (which, in fact, sometimes mirrored feminine pronouns but never the masculine).

Not sure who compiled that table on Wikipedia, but it's incomplete. That's the paradigm for masculine plurals you see. Wikipedia's other table shows the feminine plurals. Because of the "generic he" rule, masculine plurals were used for mixed and neuter groups, so that could be one reason for the omission of the feminine forms.

It is interesting that you should mention genderless plurals mirroring the feminine singular paradigm, though, because that's exactly what happens in German.