this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
71 points (94.9% liked)

Asklemmy

44148 readers
1234 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 57 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

We don't need more pronouns. We need less of them.

In my native language there is no even he/she pronouns. The word is “hän” and it’s gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and you’re still called “hän”. You can identify as anything you like and "hän" already includes you.

[–] antimidas@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

And we've nowadays taken it even further, in spoken Finnish we've even got rid of the "hän" and mostly use "se", which is the Finnish word for "it". The same pronoun is used for people in all forms, animals, items, institutions and so on, and in practice the only case for "hän" is people trying to remind others they consider their pets human.

Context will tell which one it is.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I feel the same but with genders. To be clear if anyone identifies to a specific gender, I'll respect that. However I don't see why genders are necessary. We are all unique human beings and there's no need to label everyone to a specific gender.

[–] Jakylla@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

We should remove the gender information from ID and other documents unrelated to the gender

(Maybe kept the XX or XY mark on medical papers though, may be useful to avoid death from medical poisoning, but even your gender and sexual preferences have nothing to do here, so no gender mark neither)

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

yeah I agree that's completely unnecessary apart from medical reasons

[–] scout10290@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

I just like the thought of removing genders.

You are what you are and what you want to be.

The only difference is you over there have a vagina and you over there have a penis.

[–] diannetea@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think a little bit it's just that people typically like labels. They want to fit neatly into their little labeled box and the more labels they have, the more unique and/or complete they feel.

I really rejected labels as a teen, I hated the idea of it. Now I realize they can be useful for some things, and you know, if my trans brother feels better because his label is now male, that's fine it doesn't hurt me any to call him what makes him feel good.

[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

the more labels they have, the more unique and/or complete they feel.

That sounds completely bonkers to me but you might be right.

if my trans brother feels better because his label is now male, that's fine

No, of course if you don't like the body you have and you want to change your "gender-defining" features, you should. It's a bit like changing your haircut - although more impactful. You didn't like your looks/body before, so you changed it and now you feel better so that's perfect!

Before I learned about the LGBTQ community, I thought of gender as something you were born with and that described your body type: masculine or feminine. Aside from that, I don't and never believed that it defines what kind of person you are, it only defines a part of your looks.

Now with the community there are people who describe themselves as non-binary or agender and again, I'll totally respect that. However when I tried to think about what my gender really was, I started to realize that the whole concept of gender didn't really make sense to me. What does it really mean to be non-binary? Heck, what does it even mean to be male or female? If it's not just your body-type then what is it? Why do we need it? Isn't it easier to not assign any genders at all? Just be who you want to be and love who you want to love!

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 1 year ago

However I don’t see why genders are necessary. We are all unique human beings and there’s no need to label everyone to a specific gender.

And if many people (specially, even if not exclusively, in a certain country whose name I'll avoid mentioning) didn't have as their favorite passtime "kill the freak", where "freak" is anyone not belonging to their narrow definition of acceptability, difference would truly be unremarkable. However, reality doesn't seem to be working well for those folks, and they need a way to identify each other to provide community and to feel less alone and, maybe, to defend each other.

[–] Damaskox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

FELLOW FINNISH PERSON

[–] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'll go one further: I get (and respect) the utility of they/them pronouns for a singular entity, but it IS clunky and confusing. English is ever evolving but when I hear a "they" it is still very much more abstract and plural than a more specific he or she.

Whatever: it's my shit and I'll gladly deal with a nanosecond of confusion and adjust if it allows people to maintain their dignity. Point is, by insisting that there's nothing confusing about they/them in reference to a single entity feels disingenuous. I know moderate people who are otherwise live and let live as well as receptive to basic human dignity who are turned off by the confusing abstraction, switching tenses, etc.

They/them isn't the elegant, seamless drop in that people say it is and it hurts the messaging. I get that being rigid and forceful is necessary with the rampant transphobia and "i'm just asking (bad faith) questions" going on, but I still fuck up semantics and tenses like whoa

[–] my_hat_stinks@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This argument has never made sense simply because of the fact that singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries. It's even reasonable to say it's always been in use considering singular they/them was in use in the 14th century and modern English formed around 14-17th. I can guarantee you have never batted an eye when you heard something like "someone called but they didn't leave a message".

There are only two differences with recent usage: people are less likely to assume genders so use they/them more freely; and people identifying specifically as they/them. The words themselves haven't really changed, they're just more common now. Opposition to singular they/them is almost entirely political.

[–] gjoel@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries

Even if has been in use since forever, a more appropriate word can be introduced now.

[–] Makeshift@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Thank you.

It’s not people using the neutral that bothers me, it’s the fact that the neutral is both singular and plural while the non neutrals are only singular/plural.

and the plural part also alters the entire sentence structure to plural.

“He is over there” - Singular and easy to understand

“They is over there” - Just sounds wrong.

“They are over there” - Both singular and plural. Is it a person of unspecified nature or multiple people of mixed ones?

English could use a popularization of a strictly singular neutral that doesn’t carry implications of being an object rather than a being (“It is over there”)

[–] Squirrel@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That sounds like a solution that should make everyone happy. However, the crowd arguing against more pronouns would also argue against this, just because they're impossible to appease.

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't be surprised if the (mostly) political right that seems all these new pronouns as stupid would also ironically be against giving up on their own gender specific pronoun for a gender neutral one.