Victorian Gender-Neutral Pronoun

[Flightless Phoenix]

This is a really interesting discussion and I do feel that a gender-neutral pronoun would be helpful.

I was speaking to a lovely individual at a club a while ago who is in the process of transitioning. They mentioned not knowing what pronoun to apply to his/herself at the moment, so having a gender neutral would solve this problem.

Perhaps thon is the answer.

[Vagabond GentleMan]

To Von Corax:  Ha!  You assume I *haven't* brought this up with the community of which I am a part!  But I certainly have...Ken's with me at least, and thon has begun to use 'thon' as a community colloquialism when appropriate. 

To AGB:  Sorry, comrade!  We've already discussed the flaws with the "singular they"...

To Wilhelm:  Spectacular post, friend!  Well done, with applause.  Indeed, somewhere around 45% to 65% of English is Latin-Based, so a Latin gender-neutral pronoun would fix things.  As noted earlier, though, English *itself* (i.e. relatively independent from Latinate influence) has a history of G-N pronouns, "ou".
However, I started this G-N pronoun thread specifically because the most successful modern-english solution to this particular language gap and the ONLY one to make it into Webster's happened to be a product of the Victorian Era, and thereby thematically appropriate to this forum...basically, it's interesting and Steampunky, in that Steampunk (as a subculture) looks back to what was GOOD about the Victorian era in order to look forward with a progressive eye...dig?

To Lady Grey: How does one pronounce "Mx." if spoken?  Or was it only used in written form?

[Professor J. Cogsworthy]

am I the only one wondering 'why?'

[AGB]

To AGB:  Sorry, comrade!  We've already discussed the flaws with the "singular they"...

Well, yes; hence the smiley.
Having had this (or similar) conversation many, many times, nobody has yet managed to convince me that getting the Man on the Clapham Omnibus to accept and use a new word they've not come across before is easier than getting them to use a lesser known meaning of a word they are familiar with.

[Lady Evelyn Grey]

To Lady Grey: How does one pronounce "Mx." if spoken?  Or was it only used in written form?

Upon asking that very question, the answer was revealed to be something like "Mix" or "Myx." The 'i' was abbreviated somewhat. Unfortunately, it didn't quite work at school...

am I the only one wondering 'why?'

No, Professor. The thought has come to my mind as well. A brief inquiry to the Great God Google did unearth this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://blog.oup.com/2010/08/gender-neutral-pronoun/

Which is quite an interesting read about the history of the search for a gender neutral pronoun which did begin in the Victorian Era. Not for the same reasons however. What I understand from this article, the appeal of a gender neutral pronoun is partially aesthetic and partially women's liberation. Using 'his and her' or 'he and she' in a sentence is clunky while the problems with 'they' have been expressed. But having a word like 'nis' (my favorite suggestion) also eliminates the dominant masculine universality of 'his.' Non-binary genders probably weren't a common enough phenomena to engender the debate.

Still, is this the place to ask why? If these have been questions and considerations since the 1850's, why hasn't something caught on?

[von Corax]

Still, is this the place to ask why? If these have been questions and considerations since the 1850's, why hasn't something caught on?

Simply this: the English language is descriptive (ie. words, grammar etc. come into common use merely by being commonly used) rather than prescriptive (as in French, where a word does not exist until the Académie française says it exists.) English by its very nature vigorously resists attempts to impose usage on it by any minority, and as the vast majority of English speakers have absolutely no accquaintances who identify as "gender none-of-the-above," there has never been sufficient demand for gender-neutral pronouns to come into common usage.

[MWBailey]

Still, is this the place to ask why? If these have been questions and considerations since the 1850's, why hasn't something caught on?

Simply this: the English language is descriptive (ie. words, grammar etc. come into common use merely by being commonly used) rather than prescriptive (as in French, where a word does not exist until the Académie française says it exists.) English by its very nature vigorously resists attempts to impose usage on it by any minority, and as the vast majority of English speakers have absolutely no accquaintances who identify as "gender none-of-the-above," there has never been sufficient demand for gender-neutral pronouns to come into common usage.

The proper English-language term for this group of phenomenae is "convention," which itself boils down to the usage of a word becoming accepted through usage by the majority. Convention only governs the usage of a word, however, rather than conferring the status of existence as a word; that is to say, it does not confer existence, but merely determines the "proper" usage of the word in question. This fact brings an issue to the forefront of my fevered brain that probably means absolutely nil to most people, but which I feel is an important point to make.

In the last several years, I've noticed a marked increase in the tendency to declare that an unfamiliar collection of letters and sounds is "not a word" (which in and of itself is an idiotic pronouncement). The simple fact that one has not heard of it before does not belie a word's existence.

All that a word requires in order to be a word is for it to have meaning to the person who uses it.

In other words, Yes. We could just simply string some letters and sounds together (say, "yigg" as a hypothetical example) and call it a gender-neutral personal pronoun. Whether or not it would become accepted as such in common usage is the job of convention. Never mind that words such as "you" already serve part of the purpose, or that "yigg" does not really address the OP's original question; it's still a word, simply because it is sounds strung together, and has had a meaning assigned to it, albeit merely for the purpose of example. The failure of a word to do so does not cause it to cease to exist as a word. There are myriad words that are not, are no longer, or never were, used in daily discourse (Science is fairly bursting with such terms). Those criteria do not lessen the words' level of existence.

Convention will decide whether or not "yigg" or "thon" passes into regular usage. "Thon" seems to me to be the more likely candidate, since it's a word that has already been used thus; such re-institutions of "old" words happen all the time. The unfortunate part of it all is that it might take decades or even a century or more for either word, or a completely different one, to do so -- or only a few days. It's by no means an exact process.

Gaaaaggghhhh... Pardon the novella.

[Captain Lyerly]

I am wondering what one* would find to be the problem.

*Is this not a pronoun?  It certainly seems to have no gender.



Z

[von Corax]

I am wondering what one* would find to be the problem.

*Is this not a pronoun?  It certainly seems to have no gender.



Z

It's awkward, stilted and somewhat dispersonal. Try it for a while and see if you don't agree.

[J. Wilhelm]

*Deleted for bad joke*  

But yes "one" doesn't quite work for second person, does it?  Only in third person does it make sense...

[Vagabond GentleMan]

I am wondering what one* would find to be the problem.

*Is this not a pronoun?  It certainly seems to have no gender.



Z

"I was hanging out with my hermaphrodite friend yesterday, and one was telling me about one's experiences with one's partner..."

That's why "one" doesn't work. It doesn't replace 'he' and 'she'...and 'thon'.

[von Corax]

I still think "Thon" is the Maître d' at my favorite Thai restaurant.

(Mind you, Thon is rather androgynous, so it might still be applicable…)

[Professor J. Cogsworthy]

Pronouns are by their nature not specific. If you have something that must be defined in a specific
way a pronoun is not a good choice.

Some situations require specificity due to their nature. Trying to force them into a nonspecific
category is always going to fall short.



Tom went to the cheese shop and Bill went to the Chemist. He then went to the pub.

Who went to the pub?



There are just some times a pronoun is not the right choice. English being a flexible
language can deal with it.

Tracy, the hermaphrodite, was an agreeable sort, but he was not to be trifled with.

No.....

Tracy, the hermaphrodite, was an agreeable sort, but not one to be trifled with.

Yes.

[Jedediah Solomon]

Tom went to the cheese shop and Bill went to the Chemist. He then went to the pub.

Who went to the pub?



There are just some times a pronoun is not the right choice. English being a flexible
language can deal with it.

Tracy, the hermaphrodite, was an agreeable sort, but he was not to be trifled with.

No.....

Tracy, the hermaphrodite, was an agreeable sort, but not one to be trifled with.

Yes.

Obviously, in the example of Cheese, Pubs and Apothecaries, Bill seems to be exhibiting evidence of a dependancy, but more to the point, whether g-n or not, a pronoun (such as the "he" from your example, or insert "thon" or "Yigg" or whatever) will always reference the most recently named individual. Placing androgenous names or pronouns (both) would compound the complexity o the sentence, but one must simply jump off that bridge when one arrives.Pat went to the Ice-cream parlour, while Chris went to the mall. Thon later attended a Rock Concert.  No indication as to either person's sexual bent, it is still Chris going to the concert.  Why does anyone CARE if Chris is male, female, or other?   WAY too much emphasis on trying to place a gender on individuals, and I am sure that if I were approached and asked "excuse me, miss, but where is the washroom?" (in spite of a rather hairy upper lip and  hopefully masculine physique ) I would be gracious enough to give the visually impaired person the answer "The washrooms are down this hallway, the men's room is first on the left, the women's room is just past it, also on the left" (if that is where they are)

[Jedediah Solomon]

Pronouns are by their nature not specific. If you have something that must be defined in a specific
way a pronoun is not a good choice.

And yes, Professor, some Pronouns are gender-specific. It would sound odd to say  "I went with Hank to the swap meet and she bought a new radiator for her T-Bird"  (I was going to type that Hank bought a Tranny, but in this thread, it may conjure images of the sex-slave situation.) or "Cynthia and I went to the Opera, in spite of the fact that he was working an early shift the next morning"

Yes, there is a need for G-N pronouns. I do not believe we will solve it in this forum, but God help us, we can try!

[Professor J. Cogsworthy]

Pronouns are by their nature not specific. If you have something that must be defined in a specific
way a pronoun is not a good choice.

And yes, Professor, some Pronouns are gender-specific.

I didn't say they were not gender specific I tried to say they are not PERSON specific AND there are
some situations where they do not work even if they are gender specific.

Pronouns do not work everywhere, gender specific or not.

[Daedalus Forge]

am I the only one wondering 'why?'

No, you're not.

[Hez]

Are you really using thon as a gender neutral pronoun?  It seems to be a another gender as it is used in some threads.  He - singular masculine, She - singular feminine, Thon - singular non-binary, One - singular formal gender neutral, They - plural or singular informal gender neutral.

In any case I doubt this is an issue that can be decided in less than a decade.  Ms. was a deliberately chosen alternative that took a long time for the mainstream to feel comfortable with.  It hasn't taken over and eliminated Mrs. and Miss as it was intended to but it certainly survives in daily use.  If a small group start using any word it will either catch on spontaneously e.g. LOL, or it will die out.  It cannot be mandated but it can be turned loose to flop or fly on it's own.
Certainly lots of alternatives have been suggested, check out wiki but none have caught on yet.



And then there is Andre Norton's singularly inappropriate suggestion for a gender specific but species neutral honorifics of Gentle Fem and Gentle Homo.

[Jedediah Solomon]

I personally believe that one should be cautious when in a situation in which gender-specific pronouns are sure to offend, although in my own circle of friends the matter would probably not be a reason for consideration however in such an event, I would simply continue to reference the person of either unspecified or doubtful gender (remember "Pat " from SNL?) by the name that was used during introduction until a blank is filled in that seems to assuage the situation to thons acceptance. Please remember that one must not intentionally cause or allow another to feel embarrassed or uncomfortable, it's just not good manners.

[von Corax]

I personally believe that one should be cautious when in a situation in which gender-specific pronouns are sure to offend, although in my own circle of friends the matter would probably not be a reason for consideration however in such an event, I would simply continue to reference the person of either unspecified or doubtful gender (remember "Pat " from SNL?) by the name that was used during introduction until a blank is filled in that seems to assuage the situation to thons acceptance. Please remember that one must not intentionally cause or allow another to feel embarrassed or uncomfortable, it's just not good manners.

And if they're allowing you to feel uncomfortable by leaving you uncertain what pronoun to use? This rule does go both ways, after all.

(Personally, if I found myself "in a situation in which gender-specific pronouns are sure to offend," I'd run like hell in the other direction. I have absolutely no patience for political correctivism, and anyone who knows me understands this. Politeness is about making everyone feel comfortable in a particular social context; political correctivism is nothing more than bullying.)

[Lady Evelyn Grey]

Since my own circle of friends is rather limited in genders, I'm not sure of the ettiquette. But would it be rude to ask someone- assuming if they've been introduced in such a way to make the confusion apparent- which pronoun they would prefer?

[Jedediah Solomon]

I wholeheartedly agree, and while it is true that it is rude on their part,Von Corax, I would prefer not to stoop to the same level. It's just not proper. And although I personally do not agree with someone's lifestyle, or the way they leave one wondering at times, it is gracious to extend them the respect that is not returned in kind. is this not true? In keeping with true Victorian Etiquette, we must behave properly, and turn a blind eye to such petty offenses. Stiff upper lip, and all.

[Crescat Scientia]

This is a really interesting discussion and I do feel that a gender-neutral pronoun would be helpful.

I was speaking to a lovely individual at a club a while ago who is in the process of transitioning. They mentioned not knowing what pronoun to apply to his/herself at the moment, so having a gender neutral would solve this problem.

Perhaps thon is the answer.

I had always gone with however the person self-identified.  I suppose it's trickier if the person is self-unsure.

I know "it" often has negative connotations (such as the nineteenth-century medical text I haven't been able to track down, where the author referred to men as "he" and women as "it"), but I have also seen it used perfectly respectfully about preadolescent children as late as the 1930s.

It may be a colloquialism, but I have heard "that one" used without the distance of "one."  An example would be "That one is hard on shoes."  However, I've only heard it refer to children.

[Jedediah Solomon]

How I long for the good ol days, as aptly put by Archie and Edith Bunker in the song "Those Were The Days" (All In The Family, 1968-1979, American comedy).... the line is "And you knew what you were then,   Girls were girls and Men were Men"

[Crescat Scientia]

Indeed, but how to refer to a person unknown?

One cannot assume gender from profession, status, or even name sometimes.