Proper use of gender in writing?

[jjimm]

“Although Madonna, Boy George, and Debbie Gibson all produced terrible music, each had their own fan club during the eighties.”

Seems acceptable to me.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*Originally posted by Scott Dickerson *
**Until someone popularizes “hse” (pronounced “see”) as an alternative to he/she, I will use “he” in the old-fashioned way, and allow the picketing crowds to do what they may.

But I do now use “hirs” for his/hers. How about “hirm” for him/her? (The idea is to find something that sounds enough like either one that the listener plugs in what hse pleases!) **

The ones I’ve always heard (For either gender-neutral or mixed/hermaphroditic genders) were:

Sie - He/She
Hir - Him/Her
Hirs - His/Hers

Or more accurately, I should say I’ve always -seen- those. I usually only see them online. One of my friends and I recently had a conversation about them, in reference to a roleplaying character, but that about the only time I’ve heard it. If you’re looking to -reduce- confusion, I don’t think they’re going to help much While “they” is technically incorrect, it’s probably a much simpler solution.

[hazel-rah]

If the change can get past the likes of me and the Linguistic Lords accept the change as proper, then I’ll pat the proponents of such change on the back and give them a hearty “Well done!” I’ll even start using “they” as a singular pronoun, though I’ll do it grumpily.

Some quotes from our linguistic purist friend ElJeffe:

“I’m sure that everyone has “false positives” when it comes to love at first sight - you see someone, you think it’s love, then you get to know them, and find you were wrong. But sometimes, just through sheer random chance, you get to know them, and it is love.” (here)

“How does this explain a person finding something funny even when they know what’s going to happen?” (here)

“But if you were to see someone rant for 20 minutes about how those damn darkies were ruining the nation, and they should all take their ignorant, inept, genetically inferior asses back to Africa where they came from, and then they claimed that they weren’t racist… well, would you need any sort of magic mind-reading True Motivation Indicator to figure out what they really thought?” (here)

-fh

[smiling_bandit]

As Scylla patiently explains, there is no problem and there is no reason for debate. That is, there is no problem if you are remembering that the antecedent must come first and a pronoun always refers to the person or animal last mentioned.

No, there is a reason. See, the problem is, that in this case, I need pronouns for the word flow (in order not to overuse “the character”). However, “the character” is only a theoretical construct which will have an ambiguous gender consciously or unconsciously selected by the reader. Standard English does not have an appropriate case - which is well understandable, as I don’t think any language does.

I think I’m gonna say, to heck with it, and just use “their”. Since its implicit in the text that every reader will have a seperate theoretical character (actually, several dozen, none of which last longer than the paragraph), to refer in the plural makes a scertain amount of sense.

[biqu]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
However, “the character” is only a theoretical construct which will have an ambiguous gender consciously or unconsciously selected by the reader. Standard English does not have an appropriate case - which is well understandable, as I don’t think any language does.

(bolding mine)

Would German have the possible solution? Just call your theoretical character “die Figur” and refer to him/her in the feminine.

Mark Twain wrote an interesting essay where one can find humorous examples of English prose structured almost exactly as one would parse written German. References to “das Maedchen” (young woman) with a neuter pronoun especially grate on the native English speaker’s ear.

[Shade]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
However, “the character” is only a theoretical construct which will have an ambiguous gender consciously or unconsciously selected by the reader.

Couldn’t you have told us some of this to start with? Never mind.

Depending on what you’re doing, could you rework it so the gender is assigned? Or if ‘an abstract figure’ would ‘it’ work?

But yes, ‘They’ is normally an acceptible solution. The grammarians here would have to help me explain this, but I find ‘they’ used more for an abstract person.

[smiling_bandit]

Would German have the possible solution? Just call your theoretical character “die Figur” and refer to him/her in the feminine.

I am not writing it in German, and anyway, your idea, although technically correct, does not actually address my complaint. Languages are not set up to handle ambiguous sex, as it is almost quite obvious in the real world…

Couldn’t you have told us some of this to start with? Never mind.

Depending on what you’re doing, could you rework it so the gender is assigned? Or if ‘an abstract figure’ would ‘it’ work?

1. I didn’t think people would understand.
2. I cannot rewrite it like that, as it destroys the whole point.
3. Nope.
4. They seems to work well enough, and it looks like it accepted enough nowadays.

[hazel-rah]

Languages are not set up to handle ambiguous sex, as it is almost quite obvious in the real world…

Well, English and most Romance languages might have gendered pronouns but there are plenty of languages that don’t have any. Others have gender distinctions, but they aren’t masculine/feminine. Either of these types of languages could handle ambiguous sex just fine.