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

[Umbran]

It has nothing to do with tradition; I was just taught that "he" was general, so whenever I see "she" in the general, my mind immediately tries to connect it with a specific example. If none were offered yet, it's somewhat jarring.

Well, "I was just taught...," sure sounds like tradition to me. "That's the way we've always done it," is pretty much the definition of tradition, isn't it?

In the meantime, though, I'd really rather the argument focus on "this feels more inclusive for women" than "it's sexist if you don't do this." That feels much less insulting and much more compelling, from my perspective. I totally get the first argument (which is why I've repeatedly said "go for it" to publishers), and I kinda resent the second argument (as it's untrue in my case).

Well, nobody is saying you're Snidely Whiplash, or something. But, to be honest, sometimes it takes a little bit of grating against the grain to get a point across. I'm not at all sure men should be left feeling comfortable on this one.

I'm sorry you find it insulting if we phrase it as being sexist. It is nice that you're in a position where you get to request not to be insulted, and maybe have someone listen to you, isn't it?

Interestingly, when the ladies request not to be insulted insulted by pronoun use, they're told, "But that's the rule of grammar!" or "No, because I find it jarring."

You request not to be insulted. But, women are denied when they make a similar request?

In fairness, do you really think I should honor your request?

 

[Crusadius]

Generic masculine.

I despise affected political correctness.

As a staunch traditionalist myself, using "they" dates back to the 15th century whereas the use of "he" appears to date from the 18th century. I think using "he" must have been political correctness gone mad and despise it too.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, "I was just taught...," sure sounds like tradition to me.

"I was taught this way, so it's jarring to see it another way" ≠

"That's the way we've always done it,"

Those are two very different statements. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you somehow, but I hope now it is.

is pretty much the definition of tradition, isn't it?

Yeah, the second one is an appeal tradition. The first one isn't.

Well, nobody is saying you're Snidely Whiplash, or something. But, to be honest, sometimes it takes a little bit of grating against the grain to get a point across. I'm not at all sure men should be left feeling comfortable on this one.

I'm not sure that implying people who disagree with you might be sexist, even unintentionally, is going to be civil or productive, either. It's sure a lot more likely to put me on the defensive, defending my attacked character, rather than discussing why it might be better another way (with arguments of women feeling more included, etc.).

I'm sorry you find it insulting if we phrase it as being sexist.

This is a serious question (since I do respect you): Are you sorry? If you are sorry that I find that insulting, why not avoid that?

It is nice that you're in a position where you get to request not to be insulted, and maybe have someone listen to you, isn't it?

Yes? What kind of question is this?

Interestingly, when the ladies request not to be insulted insulted by pronoun use, they're told, "But that's the rule of grammar!" or "No, because I find it jarring."

We were asked a preference in the thread, and I've stated at least three times that if publishers want to use a certain method to attract more people, then they should do so. Just to repeat that again.

But, I don't like the implication that I'm sexist if I voice my preference, even after I've said why that's my preference. I also don't like the generalization that all women find the male general to be insulting (your "the ladies" wording, above), as I know that's not the case. We can talk about how women can identify more with products that switch off pronoun use, or that use female examples, etc., and how those are good things. But I don't see how saying "a group of people are insulted about this" really takes us anywhere. No doubt there will be guys that are insulted if you swap it (cries of "political correctness", etc.). Even though I agree with their preference, it has nothing to do with them being insulted.

I'd much rather hear compelling reasons, like "here are some stats showing 85% of women find this insulting" or "studies show that it's easier to identify with something when the pronoun you identify with is used" or something. I don't find a nebulous "the ladies are insulted" to be particularly compelling; tell me why it's better to change it. Don't imply I'm a sexist.

And, in particular, don't say I'm appealing to tradition because of my preference. Because I'm not.

You request not to be insulted. But, women are denied when they make a similar request?

No. And don't put words into my mouth. I really don't appreciate it.

In fairness, do you really think I should honor your request?

I think you should go about this discussion intellectually honestly, and engage with the points I'm trying to make. I have no interesting in getting into an argument with you (or anyone else) about things that I didn't say. I hope that's clear. I have a lot of respect for your posts, but you're really twisting what I'm trying to say in this thread, and I'm asking you not to from now on. Thanks.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Interestingly, when the ladies request not to be insulted insulted by pronoun use, they're told, "But that's the rule of grammar!" or "No, because I find it jarring."

You request not to be insulted. But, women are denied when they make a similar request?

In fairness, do you really think I should honor your request?

Now you're just making stuff up. No one is is being insulted by using proper grammar.

 

[Isida Kep'Tukari]

As a female, I was rather chuffed to see female pronouns included the 3.0 D&D books. The books just alternated examples, sometimes using he in an example, sometimes using she, and that was totally fine.

Waiting for some kind of arbitrary body to adjudicate our language by the creation of some vague gender neutral pronoun means we could be waiting a long time. Languages shift naturally, with or without the guidance of some institution.

"He" may be the proper gender neutral compound in the English language right now, but those rules were also written during a time period when no one really gave two figs about using women in an example in literature. Why shouldn't we use "she" as often as "he" in writing examples when speaking generically? Because honestly, unless you're describing an exclusive gender activity (like childbirth, or describing certain things in a real-life historical or cultural manner), should it really matter what imaginary type of person is theoretically doing something? Why can't we imagine a woman doing these things?

Using "she" as a pronoun in examples sounds "unnatural" to many people because it's only relatively recently that people have made an effort to use it.

I also do not like the argument that, "Well, just imagine that a woman is doing this or that in the examples, even if it says he, because he is gender neutral." It's bothersome to me as a woman because we make up a significant portion of this hobby, and I do care about seeing examples of females right there in print. We are not some exotic, unnatural creature, and I think the familiarity that is granted by putting women more forward in print helps make our hobby both more accessible and more inclusive.

In short, boo to "gender neutral" he. Use both pronouns, because both men and women play.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I think we should come up with a symbol / hieroglyph and just replace gender pronouns with it and leave it to the reader to interpret as they see fit.

 

[Mallus]

I think we should come up with a symbol / hieroglyph and just replace gender pronouns with it and leave it to the reader to interpret as they see fit.

Dude, only Prince can get away with that!

 

[Zhaleskra]

I think it's a little disturbing that some people have the attitude that sticking to a grammar tradition somehow means "gentlemen only, ladies forbidden". At the same time sticking to a tradition simply because it is tradition ultimately makes the tradition pointless.

When I had speech therapy classes in elementary school (tongue locking stutterer and an introvert), the exercises used "he/she" or "his/her" and I chose the male mostly because the roles in the exercises were traditionally male. That said, I know a male nurse. It was convenience, not sexism.

Still, I feel using both or "their" is better.

 

[Janx]

I think it's a little disturbing that some people have the attitude that sticking to a grammar tradition somehow means "gentlemen only, ladies forbidden". At the same time sticking to a tradition simply because it is tradition ultimately makes the tradition pointless.

When I had speech therapy classes in elementary school (tongue locking stutterer and an introvert), the exercises used "he/she" or "his/her" and I chose the male mostly because the roles in the exercises were traditionally male. That said, I know a male nurse. It was convenience, not sexism.

Still, I feel using both or "their" is better.

There are women who are annoyed that video games don't offer female avatars as choices when there is no reason not to when others do so.

There are women who are annoyed that a modern RPG book doesn't include women as examples or pronouns in the writing when other texts do.

It seems they are asking to be included. I am inclined to oblige them.

As others HAVE demonstrated the ability to do so, the bar has been raised. My not doing so may appear as an act of objection to their cause to be included. My not doing so may indicate my own incompetence at keeping up with the industry if others have changed successfully and I have not. After all, how hard can it be to write a bit more inclusively, especially if somebody else has done it, that means examples of the new art exist to learn from.

If every time we talk about the Civil War and lots of people say it was about slavery, and a certain demographic always say it was about "States' Rights" (as we had that talk on EN, and it turns out it was States Right to have slaves), then what the "lots of people" hear when somebody says "States Rights" again, is that person likes slavery.

Since we all know slavery is bad nowadays, what in the name of common sense makes it a good idea to EVER keep arguing using the "States' Rights" position as it always casts you as the bad guy.

Sexism is bad. Some people are asking for a a change in writing style to be inclusive. Don't argue with them, just give it to them because Sexism is bad. There are better battles to fight over far more consequential things.

 

[billd91]

Dude, only Prince can get away with that!

I think cementing everyone's idea that he's some kind of flake may not constitute "getting away with it".