Victorian Gender-Neutral Pronoun

[Vagabond GentleMan]

There have been a number of threads on this forum discussing gender and gender politics that have at least briefly mentioned the notion of multiplicative gender.  One of the problems discussing this and similar ideas is the lack of appropriate terms, specifically pronouns, in the English language necessary to colloquially acknowledge non-binary genders conveniently and in a way that avoids confusion.
There have been many proposed solutions in the modern era, but apparently one of the most successful attempts to fill this gap in the language occurred during the 19th century!  I present to y'all: Thon.

"I spoke to thon the other day..."
"That is thon's hat..."

Etc.

Aside from being useful linguistically (for instance, I have a good pseudo-Steampunk Drag King friend who's gender is slippery and situationally-dependent), it's as progressive now as it was then.

Here's the wikkipedia entry on gender-neutral pronouns, 'thon' is discussed in section 5.2.3.3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#English

[VampirateMace]

It's funny how many times English speaking people have tried to introduce a new genderless pronoun, so that we've got more of them now than genders specific ones, but nobody knows them. The oldest I know, Ou, was dropped from Middle English (as society became more male centered), dispite that it was a perfectly good word.

[pakled]

Victorian society was hardly 'gender neutral'... that being said, I remember someone in the 70s coming up with 'se' as a genderless pronoun. My teachers wouldn't let me use it...:|

[Tito Alba]

Maybe no one knows them because they aren't necessary.  The "singular they" suffices in most situations.  Its commonly accepted and understood, which is the most important thing for a language to be, and avoids the derogatory connotations of "it" or the formality of "one".  Sometimes we use it even when the gender is known.

[greensteam]

Wsnt "Thon" geographically specific? I have this idea that it would have sat beside the use of Thee and Thou, which were much more of a north of England thing.

A usage, I have picked up since moving to Scotland is "Youse" for more than one "you"

[chicar]

Maybe no one knows them because they aren't necessary. 

Wait we meet hermaphrodite alien races.....

[Tito Alba]

Maybe no one knows them because they aren't necessary. 

Wait we meet hermaphrodite alien races.....

I'll probably be too busy evaporating into a whiff of hydrogen, ozone and carbon monoxide to worry about grammar.  Perhaps "aaaarrrrrgggghhh" will suffice?

[von Corax]

Maybe no one knows them because they aren't necessary.  The "singular they" suffices in most situations.  Its commonly accepted and understood, which is the most important thing for a language to be, and avoids the derogatory connotations of "it" or the formality of "one".  Sometimes we use it even when the gender is known.

In fact, "singular they" was once considered correct usage well into the 19^th century, and today is correct "BBC English."

[Vagabond GentleMan]

The Singular they too often and quite easily results in confusion, e.g.:

"My friend Jane is hosting a Drag show tonight.  They are going to go on at 10:00 PM."

Well, little does the listener know that the show starts at 8 pm, and the Plural They start at 8 when the Singular They performs at 10.  Yes, you could spill out a sentence or two more to avoid confusion.  Yes, this is a silly example.  But with thought, one might come up with an emergency example in which spilling out more sentences wouldn't be expedient enough, or something similar.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but the Singular They is too often awkward and confusing, and does not effectively fill the gap in language left without a gender-neutral, specifically singular pronoun.
Perhaps I have more interaction with non-binary gender individuals than most, but the catalyst to my discovery of Thon was specifically the lack of efficiency of the Singular They in day-to-day conversation.

The wikkipedia entry says that Thon is a contraction of "That One" and thus has no connection to the "Intimate Second Person" Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine.  These words can only be considered regional temporally, as they've been more or less widespread depending on era, and certainly not specific to North of England...e.g. Quakers used the Intimate Second Person with everyone at all times as an expression of their belief in Universal Sibling-hood.  So, for instance, there was a time when the entirety of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania as well as pockets of New York, New Jersey, and other New Englander States used Thee and Thy exclusively.

Props for pointing out the other big gap in the Common English lexicon:  the Lack of plural Second Person...interesting that Scotland seems to be using the same colloquialism as Bostoners, New Yorkers, and many other folk in New England...Apparently a number of rural Pennsylvanians use "Yins", and as a Virginian, I use "Y'all" and sort of snuck it into the first post as an inside joke with myself in reference to that other significant gap of language... :p

[Captain Shipton Bellinger]

Props for pointing out the other big gap in the Common English lexicon:  the Lack of plural Second Person...

You could always use 'ye'*, as in 'O! Come all ye faithful'. This has roots in the Old English gé (pronounced pretty much the same, though), but seems to have fallen into disuse in modern times.

*Note: not to be confused with 'ye' as in 'ye olde tea shoppe', which is a bastardisation of OE þe. Due to the lack of the 'þ' in early printing fonts, 'y' was substituted in; thus 'the' became 'ye'. 

[von Corax]

Props for pointing out the other big gap in the Common English lexicon:  the Lack of plural Second Person...interesting that Scotland seems to be using the same colloquialism as Bostoners, New Yorkers, and many other folk in New England...

According to Robert MacNeil (of MacNeil/Lehrer fame,) in his book The Story of English, the plural form "youse" is of Gælic derivation, so it's actually the other way around — Bostonians, New Yorkers and other New Englanders (as well as Maritimers, Eastern Ontarians and some Western Ontarians) are using the same colloquialism as the Scots.

Yes, VG, your example is somewhat contrived, but does raise a valid point. "Singular they" is usually used to indicate "gender unspecified" rather than "gender none-of-the-above." English being the ornery beast it is, though, I expect this whole question will remain unresolved unless and until the need becomes commonly recognized, at which point something will catapult itself into general usage and life will go on.

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that drag performers use pronoun genders appropriate to how they happen to be presenting; that is, since Jane is hosting the show she'll almost certainly go on at 8:00 to introduce things, then do her own performance at 10:00; then in the morning she'd clean off her makeup, put on his jeans and shirt and go about his day. Your Drag King friend would do likewise, as would most transvestites, transsexuals and intersexuals (who, as I understand it, usually self-identify as one or the other conventional sex.) It's really only the devout androgynes who cause linguistic problems, and I fear they simply haven't the numbers to make an issue of it.

[The Corsair]

A usage, I have picked up since moving to Scotland is "Youse" for more than one "you"

I always associate 'youse' with a stereotypical New York bartender...
It also makes me think of the stereotypical southern pronouns. One person is 'you', 2-4 people is 'y'all', 5 or more people is 'all y'all'

[pakled]

...and I thought that 'youse' was the Northern equivalent of 'y'all'...

[Vagabond GentleMan]

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that drag performers use pronoun genders appropriate to how they happen to be presenting; that is, since Jane is hosting the show she'll almost certainly go on at 8:00 to introduce things, then do her own performance at 10:00; then in the morning she'd clean off her makeup, put on his jeans and shirt and go about his day. Your Drag King friend would do likewise, as would most transvestites, transsexuals and intersexuals (who, as I understand it, usually self-identify as one or the other conventional sex.) It's really only the devout androgynes who cause linguistic problems, and I fear they simply haven't the numbers to make an issue of it.

Perfect example!  You use "she" to describe Jane.  Although Jane is a feminine name, I didn't give Jane a gender, and you assume Jane is a "she", which may or may not be appropriate in this particular situation.  Maybe Jane is a Drag King, maybe 'Jane' is her day-to-day life female name, but when Jane is in drag, Jane is "Janus" or something, and thus, in cases referencing Jane's performances (such as the hypothetical sentence-of-confusion), should be referred to as "he", even though I used Jane's familiar name rather than Jane's stage name.

This is the type of confusion I regularly run into with my non-binary gender friends, even though it is often as you say, and my Drag King buddy is generally only "he" when performing, though thon is gender bending oftentimes even when not on stage.  It is this middle ground, where thon is dressed as a gentleman to go out on the town, even up to and including artificial facial hair, but NOT on stage in "persona", where the he/she becomes awkward and just seems lacking.  Thus, thon. 

[MWBailey]

Ooooo, fascinating discussion, here. I keep wondering, VG, does the neuter pronoun actually occur in day-to-day conversation in your neck of the woods? How do you keep track of who's which and when, and who's not right now, or will be later?

(I realize that the above probably sounds as if I'm making fun, but I'm really not; this kind of thing - names and naming and grammar et al - has fascinated me for ages).

On a slight tangent, there's a novel out now (well, recently, it was about January or so that I remember seeing it on the New Releases shelf at the local bookstore) that deals directly with the neuter gender in society (as in protagonists and other immediate characters). I'd go out and get a copy if I could remember the name, but I can't seem to recall it.

[von Corax]

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that drag performers use pronoun genders appropriate to how they happen to be presenting; that is, since Jane is hosting the show she'll almost certainly go on at 8:00 to introduce things, then do her own performance at 10:00; then in the morning she'd clean off her makeup, put on his jeans and shirt and go about his day. Your Drag King friend would do likewise, as would most transvestites, transsexuals and intersexuals (who, as I understand it, usually self-identify as one or the other conventional sex.) It's really only the devout androgynes who cause linguistic problems, and I fear they simply haven't the numbers to make an issue of it.

Perfect example!  You use "she" to describe Jane.  Although Jane is a feminine name, I didn't give Jane a gender, and you assume Jane is a "she", which may or may not be appropriate in this particular situation.  Maybe Jane is a Drag King, maybe 'Jane' is her day-to-day life female name, but when Jane is in drag, Jane is "Janus" or something, and thus, in cases referencing Jane's performances (such as the hypothetical sentence-of-confusion), should be referred to as "he", even though I used Jane's familiar name rather than Jane's stage name.

My bad. Since "Jane is hosting a drag show," I inferred that "Jane" was the stage name of a drag queen. In this case, then, an androgynous pronoun is specifically the source of confusion; had you said "Jane is hosting… and he is performing at 10:00, I would (after a slight processing delay) have inferred that "Jane" was the daily-use name of a drag king.

This is the type of confusion I regularly run into with my non-binary gender friends, even though it is often as you say, and my Drag King buddy is generally only "he" when performing, though thon is gender bending oftentimes even when not on stage.  It is this middle ground, where thon is dressed as a gentleman to go out on the town, even up to and including artificial facial hair, but NOT on stage in "persona", where the he/she becomes awkward and just seems lacking.  Thus, thon.  

Have you asked em how ey prefers to be addressed when out and about in drag? That, I think, should be the first consideration. A problem I see with "thon" is that there's only a single declension; I'm actually not sure what problems that could cause, but it offends my sense of symmetry.

On a slight tangent, there's a novel out now (well, recently, it was about January or so that I remember seeing it on the New Releases shelf at the local bookstore) that deals directly with the neuter gender in society (as in protagonists and other immediate characters). I'd go out and get a copy if I could remember the name, but I can't seem to recall it.

MW, there's a novel entitled Middlesex which my sister almost bought for our father for Christmas because it's the name of the county we've lived in since we settled here. Would that be it?

[MWBailey]

MW, there's a novel entitled Middlesex which my sister almost bought for our father for Christmas because it's the name of the county we've lived in since we settled here. Would that be it?

That sounds right! I'll google it and see.

Update: I'm not sure; the novel that I was referring to had a pastel color and was chock full of a pronoun (whether real or contrived, I'm not certain) that dealt specifically with all sexes and orientations in a neutral-collective sense. Or, at least that's how I remember it. Maybe Middlesex does that; the Wikipedia and other references to it did not cite many specific passages from the work, so I really don't know. I guess it's off to the bookstore for an exploratory expedition for me...

[Vagabond GentleMan]

Ooooo, fascinating discussion, here. I keep wondering, VG, does the neuter pronoun actually occur in day-to-day conversation in your neck of the woods? How do you keep track of who's which and when, and who's not right now, or will be later?

Hmmm...I'm not entirely sure how to answer that question...
I'm a lifestyle weirdo, full time.  As a higher-end tattoo artist in DC, I've also more a "Presence" in the various DC counter-cultures than most (for example, I've NEVER been hit on as much as when I went with some regular clients of mine to a Black Lesbian Rave...even though they DID try to hook me up with the only straight white woman in the club >SMH<).  So is there a need for G-N Pronouns in my "neck of the woods"?  Probably not...but in my SPECIFIC social day-to-day, yes.  The who's who when and whys and wherefores are conveniently circumvented with what to me are absurdly simple g-n pronouns. >shrugs<
Last week I tattooed two black M-to-F transvestite prostitutes.  This week is Pride Week, so the oft-celebrating clientelle has been oft gender-ambiguous. Today I went to DC Drag King Headliner Ken Vegas' birthday "moustache rides"-themed Drag King show extravaganza (my Lady and I made thon a REALLY nice SP tophat b-day gift...wish I'd taken pics......), with local and international Drag King stars.  I took my apprentice with me, a progressive political anarchist activist who's mother is a radical-feminist lesbian, and also took my Polyamorous Bisexual Girlfriend.  I myself am about the most Fabulous straight male you'll ever meet , and though aggressively Alpha CaveMan, also Dandy-ish enough to be regularly assumed homosexual (i.e. I'm quite happy to gesticulate wildly and pop my hip while rhythmically craning my neck back-and-forth ghetto-style and waving my index finger in yer face whilst talking about how much more gorgeous I am than you before I knock yer ass out and feed you your teeth with a right cross that'll make yer head spin clean off your ugly neck ).

"Need" is a strong word...but figuring out the rather ambiguous and often situationally-dependent or transient genders of those who surround me make the use of a gender-neutral pronoun almost a necessity...

VonCorax has good points, though.  Von Corax is smart.  I could very well just ask Ken Vegas what is and what is not an acceptable pronoun depending on the particulars of the social context...but number 1) Ken is my VERY CLOSE friend, and with me, probably doesn't care what pronoun I use, an honor that most individuals would not have, and 2) If I were to take that route, I'd have to also ask all of Ken's "family" (i.e. the other "DC Kings", who have various degrees of gender ambiguation, various degrees of Drag experience, etc.).  So, of course, I have varying degrees of intimacy with various DC Drag Kings...I've spoken with Diego, Adrian, Bona-fide, and some others, but still some others are still strangers to me.
So, for instance, I've spoke with one very attractive young lipstick who "Bio-Drags" at the DC Kings shows.  That is, she performs in Drag shows as a female, and she IS a biological female.
Ken suggested tonight that *I* Bio-Drag as ZZ Top, because I mentioned it was a Drag performance I really wanna see.  I think I might HAVE to now, on G.P.  I do believe I'm the first and only biological male offered that opportunity.  Kinda means something to me.  I gushed a little.

So yeah, a G-N pronoun really benefits me in common parlance.  Cause heck, if I decide I AM gonna bio-drag as ZZ Top in a DC Kings Drag show, that makes me, a biological male who gender-identifies AS a man, would also become a member of DC Kings, and thereby a Drag King. 
Given that situation, I actually feel like I myself would prefer folk to refer to me as "thon"...though I'd be a male "dragging" as a male, I also feel like being SO accepted into the currently ENTIRELY biologically female DC Kings "family" and adopted as a DC King EVEN THOUGH BIOLOGICALLY AND GENDER-IDENTIFYING AS MASCULINE I'd appreciate and be flattered by gender-neutral pronouns in reference to myself.

With apologies to Sartre and Seinfeld, how absurd is that!?! :p

G-N Victorian-era Pronouns wins.  That's my story, I stick to it.

[von Corax]

VG, it sounds to me like you got yourself a community there, and communities're where linguistic evolution happens. Maybe you should be having this discussion with them? (I mean, as well as here, 'cause I'm finding the whole thing quite fascinating. )

VonCorax has good points, though.  Von Corax is smart.

Meh, I get lucky once in a while…

[Hez]

I was pondering the above discussion and at first thought I didn't have much day to day need for such a pronoun since most of the people I know have stuck with their genetic gender or chosen a single one and the pronoun that goes with it - at least as far as I know.  Then I got a message that  Mom would have a visit from the resp. tech.  And I realized that I didn't have a pronoun for that person.  
English needs gender neutral pronouns because gender roles, apart from all the permutations of sexuality and lifestyle, are no longer defined.  The nurse is no longer always a she.  Until you meet Dr. Shindersplatt you don't know whether to ask about the length of his or her waitlist.  If you want to make a cold call on the owner of M I Blenderbot Inc. you won't get past the personal assistant if you call the CEO her instead of him, or vice versa.  Gender neutral pronouns would help to both skate over the unknowns and to decrease assumptions based on outdated role assignment.  And yes I do think language is powerful enough to help change societal assumptions.  Eventually.
My personal problem with thon is that I live in a city where immigrants equal if not outnumber those born here.  If I called someone Thon most people would assume it was a name.  Also you need all three whatever-the-grammatical-terms-are.  He/she/thon  him/her/?   his/her(s)/?
If you can get it into general use in your diverse community it may take off.  Good luck to you, i

[AGB]

Also you need all three whatever-the-grammatical-terms-are.  He/she/thon  him/her/?   his/her(s)/?

he/she/they, him/her/they, his/her(s)/their(s)

problem solved ;-)

[Dr von Zarkov]

The gender-free pronoun seems to be restricted to the third-person singular, replacing he, his, him, she, hers, her.
Not too long ago, infants were referred to as "it".
The impersonal "one" comes to mind, which has its counterparts "man" and "on" in German and French, respectively.

[Lady Evelyn Grey]

The Pink Triangle club at my college once put up posters detailing the different forms of honorifics (important, since the college was strange and the use of last names was the rule during classes). In addition to the standard 'Mr.' or 'Ms.' or 'Ms.' a honorific I haven't heard was used for gender neutral individuals: 'Mx.'

Has anyone ever heard of this before? It would be helpful if you wanted some of the Victorian reserve and formality when dealing with a mixed party.

[J. Wilhelm]

Funny, being a Spanish speaker (and noting Spanish has gender in nouns as well as pronouns),  the only gender neutral English pronun that makes sense in VG's mention is "ve" or "vis;" Similar to the Spanish 2nd person pronoun in "archaic" form, "vosotros/vosotras" which is NOT gender neutral ("you plural masculine"/ you plural femenine" respectively), but is often abbreviated as "vos," which then becomes gender neutral.  somewhat equivalent to "thou" in archaic English, but the form is still used in common language and common modern vernacular in Spain and South America and is standard fare for all school children's text books (meaning even if you don't use it you must learn it!)

Edit:  In modern South American vernacular vos is used as a first person gender neutral pronoun for "you" (in English we have no First/Second pronoun distinction -also know as T-V distinction (e.g. "you Fred"/ "you sir", but in Spanish it would be "Tu Fred"/ "Vos Señor" or "Vusted Señor")

The reason this attracts me is because vos is of Latin origin, and English having sufficient Latin influence would be fully justified in introducing vos without having to "invent" a word.  So we would already have a historically accurate pronoun for 2nd person in English.

[Jedediah Solomon]

  Until you meet Dr. Shindersplatt you don't know whether to ask about the length of his or her waitlist.  If you want to make a cold call on the owner of M I Blenderbot Inc. you won't get past the personal assistant if you call the CEO her instead of him, or vice versa.  Gender neutral pronouns would help to both skate over the unknowns and to decrease assumptions based on outdated role assignment.  And yes I do think language is powerful enough to help change societal assumptions. 

Of course, one could ask the receptionist/secretary/administrative assistant if one could leave a message/talk to/make an appointment with Dr, Shindersplatt/M. I. Blenderbot and then wait for the cues, such as " I'm sorry,but he is out of the office/ she is with a client/he is on another line" etc.  If , however, the response is "The Doctor is with a patient" then the game is afoot, and one must continue using the phrase "Dr, Shindersplatt' UNTIL a gender-specific reference is slipped by the receptionist/secretary/administrative assistant.  OMG... I am beginning to sound like Mx. Manners!