WATE.com:UT Knoxville encourages students to use gender-neutral pronouns

[Zguy28]

UT Knoxville encourages students to use gender-neutral pronouns

 

http://wate.com/2015/08/27/ut-knoxville-encourages-students-to-use-gender-neutral-pronouns/

 

 

KNOXVILLE (WATE) – The University of Tennessee is asking students to use “ze, hir, hirs, and xe, xem, xyr.”

No, those words are not another language. They’re actually the gender-neutral singular versions of pronouns.

 

For the first week of classes, Braquet is also asking teachers to ask everyone to provide their name and pronoun instead of calling roll. “The name a student uses may not be the one on the official roster, and the roster name may not be the same gender as the one the student now uses,” ze said.

“These may sound a little funny at first, but only because they are new,” Braquet said. “The she and he pronouns would sound strange too if we had been taught ze when growing up.”

 

Rest at link.

 

 

I laughed. I cried. It was better than cats!

 

[Riggo-toni]

Brilliant.

I remember back when I was in grad school during the Gulf War, a college newspaper had to alter the caption under a picture of students harassing an Arab student from "Racist Students harass Arab Student" to "Two Racist Students and a Euro - influenced African-American student harassing Arab Student" because it was so well known amongst academia that blacks can't be racist.

Political correctness seems to go to absurd extremes at universities.

[Larry]

I laughed. I cried. It was better than cats!

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll kiss $50,000 goodbye. (Movie reference).

[PF Chang]

Braquet said if students and faculty cannot use ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask. “’Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask,” ze said.

 

 

 

We're getting to the point where any communication requires a script. I feel like a server asking about food allergies. Hi, nice to meet you. Are there any over-sensitive things you're offended by? 

 

(is "you" still ok?)

[Destino]

Do they have to hoot at students that identify as owlkin?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Well, it finally had to happen.

 

I am officially a bigger grammar snob than I am a progressive libertine.

[s0crates]

I doubt this catches on, but I do see an ongoing effort to use more gender neutral language. In many ways this is all well and good. For example we now say "flight attendant" instead of "stewardess" and "server" instead of "waitress."

The trouble comes with singular pronouns and possessives which are gender specific (eg "he," she," "his," hers," etc). Different people have different ideas as to how (or if) we should address this. The creation of new pronouns is one such idea, but I don't see that taking hold as readily as gender neutral job titles like "congressperson."

It seems to me there is a sort of linguistic need here though. I see a lot of young people using "them" and "their" in singular constructions. So they'll often say, for example, "to each their own" instead of "to each his own," which to me is a grammatical horror, but I see why they do it, they're trying to avoid gender specific language. My bet is that this trend of using plural pronouns and possessives in the singular is most likely to catch on.

My own preference is to use feminine constructions in the singular, so I'd say "to each her own." We've defaulted to the masculine for hundreds of years, so just switch it up, using "she," "her," and "hers" in ambiguous cases. So I'll say things like "treat every person always as an ends in herself" (although I'm not sure how Kant would feel about that).

Another option is just to convert sentences to the plural, something like "to them their own." It doesn't involve inventing new words, and manages to remain gender neutral and grammatically correct.

[Kilmer17]

I propose using gender neutral obscenities instead.

 

So "She went to the store"  becomes "that f****r went to the store"  And "I went to the store with him" becomes I went to the store with that a*****e"

[PF Chang]

Do they have to hoot at students that identify as owlkin?

 

It's always the cool ones. Lot of wolfkin and dragonkin, not so much antkin, snailkin, slugkin, ratkin. 

[grego]

(is "you" still ok?)

Not in Marine Corps boot camp. Unless you're calling the DI a female sheep.

[s0crates]

Not in Marine Corps boot camp. Unless you're calling the DI a female sheep.

Good point. "Sir" and "ma'am" is another problem . . .

[tshile]

My own preference is to use feminine constructions in the singular, so I'd say "to each her own." We've defaulted to the masculine for hundreds of years, so just switch it up, using "she," "her," and "hers" in ambiguous cases.

 

This seems so silly to me. The complaint is that one gender is being used over the other, so the answer is to use another gender specific term because it doesn't have a history of being used in such a way? This goes in the 'it's only racist if a white person does it' class of ridiculousness for me...

 

As for the main topic, I don't get it. This whole thing is nuts to me. Now you're not the gender your born as, and if someone else refers to you as your biological gender it's offensive. Not only that, but we have to reconstruct our language for 1% of the population that has an issue with the gender they were born as.

[pjfootballer]

Who Boy.  

[s0crates]

This seems so silly to me. The complaint is that one gender is being used over the other, so the answer is to use another gender specific term because it doesn't have a history of being used in such a way? This goes in the 'it's only racist if a white person does it' class of ridiculousness for me...

If you had to read dozens of freshman papers that use "them," "their," and "theirs" in the singular, then you might feel otherwise. "A person can do as they want" sounds horrible to me, but I see that kind of thing all the time. I'm proposing "A person can do as she wants" as an alternative. I think it sounds much better, and deals with the underlying issue of our language being misogynistic, which I think is what motivates the aforementioned poor grammatical constructions.

[grego]

When I was in college, I had a history professor who had to stop using terms like "mankind" because a nutty student complained about it.

[s0crates]

When I was in college, I had a history professor who had to stop using terms like "mankind" because a nutty student complained about it.

I don't mind saying "humankind" instead of "mankind." Do you think that's a bad thing?

I think saying "All humans are created equal" is more accurate anyway. Do you disagree?

[tshile]

If you had to read dozens of freshman papers that use "them," "their," and "theirs" in the singular, then you might feel otherwise. "A person can do as they want" sounds horrible to me, but I see that kind of thing all the time. I'm proposing "A person can do as she wants" as an alternative. I think it sounds much better, and deals with underlying issue of our language being misogynistic, which I think is what motivates the aforementioned poor grammatical constructions.

 

But that's a different issue. You're speaking to the incorrect use of a word.

 

The rest of your comment was about preferring her/she over him/he because of sensitivities by some people.

 

Your complaint is that the language has given preference to one gender over another, so your solution is to just give preference to one gender over another....

 

My solution is to stop being so sensitive... but no one wants to consider that.

[s0crates]

I propose using gender neutral obscenities instead.

So "She went to the store" becomes "that f****r went to the store" And "I went to the store with him" becomes I went to the store with that a*****e"

I don't know. Obscenities tend to be gender specific. Men are assholes and ****ers. Women are ****es and ****s.

[PF Chang]

I don't mind saying "humankind" instead of "mankind."

 

Really I don't have a problem using these random jumbled letter pronouns either. The problem for me is that if you did 'slip up' and say mankind, some Tumblr brigade thinks you're basically the scum of the earth. 

 

Also, generally replacing "him" with "her" just seems to acknowledge a problem without correcting it. Neither term is gender neutral. 

[Zguy28]

I doubt this catches on, but I do see an ongoing effort to use more gender neutral language. In many ways this is all well and good. For example we now say "flight attendant" instead of "stewardess" and "server" instead of "waitress."

 

This is how it all started. Instead of just using "Steward" or "Waiter", we dumped gender specific versions altogether. Anyways... what is ironic about the whole thing is that probably most transgender folks still want he/she pronouns, because otherwise, it defeats their transient nature. If they want to do away with them, then become androgynous.

[s0crates]

But that's a different issue. You're speaking to the incorrect use of a word.

The rest of your comment was about preferring her/she over him/he because of sensitivities by some people.

Your complaint is that the language has given preference to one gender over another, so your solution is to just give preference to one gender over another....

My solution is to stop being so sensitive... but no one wants to consider that.

You misunderstand my motivation. My main complaint is that young people are committing grammatical horrors in an effort to use gender neutral language. Rather than fight the trend of being gender neutral in our language, I'm proposing ways of using gender neutral language that don't involve grammatical horrors.

As far as whether or not the increased use of gender neutral language is just political correctness gone awry, I'm not overly concerned one way or another.

Although I do tend to prefer the word "humankind" to "mankind," and other similar moves, but that is mainly for the sake of clarity.

[tshile]

You misunderstand my motivation. My main complaint is that young people are committing grammatical horrors in an effort to use gender neutral language. Rather than fight the trend of being gender neutral in our language, I'm proposing ways of allowing gender neutral language that don't involve grammatical horrors.

As far as whether or not the increased use of gender neutral language is just political correctness gone awry, I'm not overly concerned one way or another. Although I do tend to prefer the word "humankind" to "mankind," and other similar moves.

 

your solution isn't gender neutral.

 

it just doesn't offend the people that are claiming offense. the 'why' to that can lead to an interesting discussion, but I'm just not up for having it here anymore.

[Larry]

I doubt this catches on, but I do see an ongoing effort to use more gender neutral language. In many ways this is all well and good. For example we now say "flight attendant" instead of "stewardess" and "server" instead of "waitress."

The trouble comes with singular pronouns and possessives which are gender specific (eg "he," she," "his," hers," etc). Different people have different ideas as to how (or if) we should address this. The creation of new pronouns is one such idea, but I don't see that taking hold as readily as gender neutral job titles like "congressperson."

It seems to me there is a sort of linguistic need here though. I see a lot of young people using "them" and "their" in singular constructions. So they'll often say, for example, "to each their own" instead of "to each his own," which to me is a grammatical horror, but I see why they do it, they're trying to avoid gender specific language. My bet is that this trend of using plural pronouns and possessives in the singular is most likely to catch on.

My own preference is to use feminine constructions in the singular, so I'd say "to each her own." We've defaulted to the masculine for hundreds of years, so just switch it up, using "she," "her," and "hers" in ambiguous cases. So I'll say things like "treat every person always as an ends in herself" (although I'm not sure how Kant would feel about that).

Another option is just to convert sentences to the plural, something like "to them their own." It doesn't involve inventing new words, and manages to remain gender neutral and grammatically correct.

Or we could simply follow the rules of English grammar. (At least the way I was taught them).

When referring to a person of unspecified gender, use the masculine pronoun.

"If anybody comes through that door, shoot him" does not assert that the next person through the door will be male.

[Zguy28]

You misunderstand my motivation. My main complaint is that young people are committing grammatical horrors in an effort to use gender neutral language. Rather than fight the trend of being gender neutral in our language, I'm proposing ways of allowing gender neutral language that don't involve grammatical horrors.

As far as whether or not the increased use of gender neutral language is just political correctness gone awry, I'm not overly concerned one way or another. Although I do tend to prefer the word "humankind" to "mankind," and other similar moves.

OK, I lol'd at "grammatical horrors". Sorry.

 

Do you believe that gender specific pronouns that occur in original literature should be modified to be gender-neutral in translation? This is an ongoing debate in bible translation with new translations sometimes ditching male pronouns that are in the original in favor of neutral.

[Larry]

Who Boy.  

I see what you did there.