Sweden Adopts Gender Neutral Pronoun

[natty dread]

If people wanted to speak finnish this conversation would be going on in that forum. You don't even want to speak finnish. So post pics of the thong or get out.

There's only like 5 or 6 finnish people on this site and most of them don't visit the forums...

Which is kind of odd, because most of the internets is flooded with finnish people. We're everywhere. Your neighbor probably is a secret finnishperson.

[saxitoxin]

If people wanted to speak finnish this conversation would be going on in that forum. You don't even want to speak finnish. So post pics of the thong or get out.

There's only like 5 or 6 finnish people on this site and most of them don't visit the forums...

Which is kind of odd, because most of the internets is flooded with finnish people. We're everywhere. Your neighbor probably is a secret finnishperson.

No, I have a telescope at my window with which I can peer into my neighbor's house without him knowing so I've been able to independently verify he is not a Finn.

[2dimes]

Well thon and yo sibling are blonde. I should probably ask next time I see yo.

[pancakemix]

I bet you guys all wished you speaked finnish. We only have gender neutral pronouns.

But hey, don't worry english speaking dudes - you can always use thon!

Thon approves.

[BigBallinStalin]

This pretty much annoys me about this certain kind of feminism. They assume that we are the product of our culture, so subjective meanings of words like "he" and "she" somehow (like magic) promote this gender inequality. Never mind that the subjective meaning will differ. To many of them, it's like my saying "the employer hired 10 workers. He then did...." magically promotes gender inequality. Why? Because according to them we have very little agency. We just respond to things like robots and think the same as these feminists presume.

Ok that's not really it, you're kind of misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding the whole argument there...

The problem is really only in situations where people don't know the gender of the person that is being referenced, and the language convention usually always defaults to "he". Kind of like male gender is the default assumption. It's not about not having agency, or gendered pronouns magically making people hate women or anything. It's more about creating an environment that is inclusive to all genders, you can still use gendered pronouns when referring to a person whose gender is known.

It's kind of like if you were a black person, and there'd be different pronouns for white and black people, and people would always default to using the white-people-pronoun... I bet that wouldn't feel too good for you.

No one's claiming that adopting gender-neutral pronouns is going to somehow magically fix gender inequality, it's more of a gesture or courtesy towards people of other than male gender, that their existence is acknowledged and so on...

Another thing is, that stereotypes and cultural conventions do affect the behaviour of people - even if you consciously know that men and women are equal, or white and black people are equal, or straight and gay people are equal etc. there's tons of assumptions about gender, race, sexuality etc. hidden in the cultural narrative, which you can internalize even without consciously realizing it. They usually manifest as unconscious assumptions, or things everyone just takes for granted... it's only when you really think to question those assumptions that you'll notice that there's really no basis for them.

I understand all that, and I agree that my criticism is might be misplaced regarding the topic; however, this particular method reminds me of this strand of American feminism, which behaves very similar to Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments excerpt about the chessboard.

There's these kind of feminists, who are the "men of the system," (to use his 1759 way of speaking) and there's the chess pieces. The men of the system design plans which they try to impose on the people, i.e. the chess pieces. It works if the chess pieces already want to move that way. It creates conflict when the chess pieces want to move toward a place different from the designed plan.

(see: http://cafehayek.com/2008/12/the-human-chess.html)

No one's claiming that adopting gender-neutral pronouns is going to somehow magically fix gender inequality, it's more of a gesture or courtesy towards people of other than male gender, that their existence is acknowledged and so on...

I understand this, and it's a better move as oppose to forcing people through the government to change their behavior. Neverthless, their plan won't matter if people are geared toward interpreting the meaning of words in a certain way.

In other words, if you supply a word, then the demand will follow; however, this demand is still constrained by the demanders' already established interpretation of the meaning of words.

Another thing is, that stereotypes and cultural conventions do affect the behaviour of people - even if you consciously know that men and women are equal, or white and black people are equal, or straight and gay people are equal etc. there's tons of assumptions about gender, race, sexuality etc. hidden in the cultural narrative, which you can internalize even without consciously realizing it. They usually manifest as unconscious assumptions, or things everyone just takes for granted... it's only when you really think to question those assumptions that you'll notice that there's really no basis for them.

I agree that this effect has some magnitude of unknown proportion on some unknown proportion of people and their behavior. Regarding the underlined, I agree, but only because it depends on how one's mind filters through the information received. That's the approach I'm in favor of--the change within. The other approach in the OP is supplying a word to language which allegedly lacked it (they didn't have "that person")?


The approach in the OP is between external and internal change, and they're free to change dictionaries and children's books only if those producers voluntary agree to make these changes (i.e. no government interference).

My concern is that some people see this internal-external type change and then justify their own plans which require implementation and enforcement by the government (i.e. total external change). That approach typically describes this particular group of American feminists' MO (modus operandi). They exaggerate the external cultural effects, downplay the individual's agency, and overestimate the effectiveness of imposing external change. That's my main point.

[Symmetry]

BBS- this seems a little bit like a strawperson argument you're setting up here, or that you're alluding to unrelated issues that you have a beef with.

You kind of got increasingly vague as your post went on though. Which group of American feminists don't want internal change?

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS- this seems a little bit like a strawperson argument you're setting up here, or that you're alluding to unrelated issues that you have a beef with.

You kind of got increasingly vague as your post went on though. Which group of American feminists don't want internal change?

A good test is to see what a feminist thinks about Camille Paglia.

[saxitoxin]

This topic doesn't interest me a ton, except for the fact that Sweden can actually artificially change their language since there's a regulatory authority for Swedish, like most languages have. There's no way to change English except through natural evolution.

Is this good or is this bad?

[Symmetry]

BBS- this seems a little bit like a strawperson argument you're setting up here, or that you're alluding to unrelated issues that you have a beef with.

You kind of got increasingly vague as your post went on though. Which group of American feminists don't want internal change?

A good test is to see what a feminist thinks about Camille Paglia.

Not sure what your point is.

Would you call yourself an American feminist?

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS- this seems a little bit like a strawperson argument you're setting up here, or that you're alluding to unrelated issues that you have a beef with.

You kind of got increasingly vague as your post went on though. Which group of American feminists don't want internal change?

A good test is to see what a feminist thinks about Camille Paglia.

Not sure what your point is.

The Camille Paglia test is a good start. She's also a feminist, but she doesn't accept mainstream feminist thought. Maybe you're not familiar with the field, and I don't on-hand have a neat and accurate summary of the history of feminism in the US. If you really care, I could find one later and recommend it to you.

Would you call yourself an American feminist?

Not of the kind I've been talking about.

[Symmetry]

BBS- this seems a little bit like a strawperson argument you're setting up here, or that you're alluding to unrelated issues that you have a beef with.

You kind of got increasingly vague as your post went on though. Which group of American feminists don't want internal change?

A good test is to see what a feminist thinks about Camille Paglia.

Not sure what your point is.

The Camille Paglia test is a good start. She's also a feminist, but she doesn't accept mainstream feminist thought. Maybe you're not familiar with the field, and I don't on-hand have a neat and accurate summary of the history of feminism in the US. If you really care, I could find one later and recommend it to you.

Would you call yourself an American feminist?

Not of the kind I've been talking about.

I'm reasonably familiar, and have read some of Paglia's stuff, but she's kind of a weird example to use, and you still haven't specified which group of feminists you particularly dislike. Do you mean feminists that Paglia dislikes?

She's kind of a broadside cannon with her arguments.

If you had to identify with a group of American feminists, other than Paglia, where would you see yourself? Or would you not see yourself as as an American feminist at all?

[BigBallinStalin]

"you still haven't specified which group of feminists you particularly dislike."

Sure, I have:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169713&view=unread#p3707072

"She's kind of a broadside cannon with her arguments"

People who adhere to that discourse rooted in Marxism really dislike it. Poor holistic thinkers! Much of this I already explained here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169375&p=3701262&hilit=Marxist+discourse#p3701262

"If you had to identify with a group of American feminists, other than Paglia, where would you see yourself? Or would you not see yourself as as an American feminist at all?"

As an individual, it's best not reduce someone's identity to stereotypes and "common sense" thinking. Instead it's more practical to give someone the benefit of the doubt. As in, you don't really know who someone really is--even if you know their skin color, gender, etc. A more accurate approach is to listen to what the person says, how that person behaves, etc. But in some cases, that approach might not be the most effective only by itself, but this caveat is mostly related to national security.


As a feminist or any feminist group marginally shifts toward exaggerating the effects of an exogenous culture, downplaying the individual's agency, and overestimating the effectiveness of imposing change through the state, then I marginally shift away from that type of feminism.

[Symmetry]

"you still haven't specified which group of feminists you particularly dislike."

Sure, I have:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169713&view=unread#p3707072

"She's kind of a broadside cannon with her arguments"

People who adhere to that discourse rooted in Marxism really dislike it. Poor holistic thinkers! Much of this I already explained here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169375&p=3701262&hilit=Marxist+discourse#p3701262

"If you had to identify with a group of American feminists, other than Paglia, where would you see yourself? Or would you not see yourself as as an American feminist at all?"

As an individual, it's best not reduce someone's identity to stereotypes and "common sense" thinking. Instead it's more practical to give someone the benefit of the doubt. As in, you don't really know who someone really is--even if you know their skin color, gender, etc. A more accurate approach is to listen to what the person says, how that person behaves, etc. But in some cases, that approach might not be the most effective only by itself, but this caveat is mostly related to national security.


As a feminist or any feminist group marginally shifts toward exaggerating the effects of an exogenous culture, downplaying the individual's agency, and overestimating the effectiveness of imposing change through the state, then I marginally shift away from that type of feminism.

Nah, you simply said that you don't like certain feminists who argue in a certain way, without specifying any group or even individual feminist who argues in that way. Bit of a cop out, condemning feminism for an argument that, at best, you feel "some feminists"(unspecified) make.

Now even if you do genuinely believe that some feminists (unspecified) make the argument you object to, why the resistance to identifying yourself with American feminism? You don't object to feminism in total do you?

[thegreekdog]

I read through two pages of this thread and no one brought up that the word is "hen."

Hen.

A female chicken.

A female chicken.

A female chicken.

I'm so disappointed in youse.*

*youse - gender neutral pronoun; I could have also used "y'all" or "all y'all" or "yins."

[BigBallinStalin]

I read through two pages of this thread and no one brought up that the word is "hen."

Hen.

A female chicken.

A female chicken.

A female chicken.

I'm so disappointed in youse.*

*youse - gender neutral pronoun; I could have also used "y'all" or "all y'all" or "yins."

The invisible hand of patriarchy is at it again!!!

[thegreekdog]

I think you mean henriarchy.

I'm debating whether to use "hen" as a substitute for all gender-specific words for a while. I'm leaning towards yes. What do you hens think?

[BigBallinStalin]

I think you mean henriarchy.

I'm debating whether to use "hen" as a substitute for all gender-specific words for a while. I'm leaning towards yes. What do you hens think?

Stop it with your henrarchical language! You're making me scared!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

I thought these conditions were pretty clear: "exaggerating the effects of an exogenous culture, downplaying the individual's agency, and overestimating the effectiveness of imposing change through the state."

I guess they aren't for you? I'm not sure. Most self-labeled feminists and feminist scholars, with whom I have enjoyed conversing, exemplify the above conditions.

Now even if you do genuinely believe that some feminists (unspecified) make the argument you object to, why the resistance to identifying yourself with American feminism? You don't object to feminism in total do you?

(1) Because of the conditions already stated above, and because my 2nd to last paragraph here.


(2) What exactly does "feminism in total" (a.k.a. "totes feminism") mean?

[Symmetry]

I thought these conditions were pretty clear: "exaggerating the effects of an exogenous culture, downplaying the individual's agency, and overestimating the effectiveness of imposing change through the state."

I guess they aren't for you? I'm not sure. Most self-labeled feminists and feminist scholars, with whom I have enjoyed conversing, exemplify the above conditions.

Now even if you do genuinely believe that some feminists (unspecified) make the argument you object to, why the resistance to identifying yourself with American feminism? You don't object to feminism in total do you?

(1) Because of the conditions already stated above, and because my 2nd to last paragraph here.


(2) What exactly does "feminism in total" (a.k.a. "totes feminism") mean?

Fairly simple- would you, in a general sense, identify as an American feminist?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, okay, the machete is growing very dull from beating around the bush. I'm sure you're aware of the various waves and branches of feminism, so the term "feminism" can vary in meaning.

By "American," I mean "in the US," which does not exclude non-US influences on American feminism. I just haven't discussed feminism with any non-American feminists.


So, why don't you define "American feminism" or if you want "feminism"?

[Symmetry]

Haha, okay, the machete is growing very dull from beating around the bush. I'm sure you're aware of the various waves and branches of feminism, so the term "feminism" can vary in meaning.

By "American," I mean "in the US," which does not exclude non-US influences on American feminism. I just haven't discussed feminism with any non-American feminists.


So, why don't you define "American feminism" or if you want "feminism"?

American feminism is your term, and I find it kind of ill defined within your posts, but the question is simple:

Would you identify as:

a) A feminist.
b) An American feminist.
c) neither.

...?

This wasn't intended as a troublesome question, and I can't define the way that you identify yourself, I can only ask the same question in different ways.

It boils down to- are you a feminist?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, okay, the machete is growing very dull from beating around the bush. I'm sure you're aware of the various waves and branches of feminism, so the term "feminism" can vary in meaning.

By "American," I mean "in the US," which does not exclude non-US influences on American feminism. I just haven't discussed feminism with any non-American feminists.


So, why don't you define "American feminism" or if you want "feminism"?

American feminism is your term, and I find it kind of ill defined within your posts, but the question is simple:

Would you identify as:

a) A feminist.
b) An American feminist.
c) neither.

...?

This wasn't intended as a troublesome question, and I can't define the way that you identify yourself, I can only ask the same question in different ways.

It boils down to- are you a feminist?

Haha! This is rapidly reaching diminishing returns. I've already made my position clearer in regard to whatever question you like to keep changing.

Anyway, do you want to define "feminism" in order for me to answer that? Or shall we continue riding Symmetry's Merry-Go-Round?

[Symmetry]

Haha, okay, the machete is growing very dull from beating around the bush. I'm sure you're aware of the various waves and branches of feminism, so the term "feminism" can vary in meaning.

By "American," I mean "in the US," which does not exclude non-US influences on American feminism. I just haven't discussed feminism with any non-American feminists.


So, why don't you define "American feminism" or if you want "feminism"?

American feminism is your term, and I find it kind of ill defined within your posts, but the question is simple:

Would you identify as:

a) A feminist.
b) An American feminist.
c) neither.

...?

This wasn't intended as a troublesome question, and I can't define the way that you identify yourself, I can only ask the same question in different ways.

It boils down to- are you a feminist?

Haha! This is rapidly reaching diminishing returns. I've already made my position clearer in regard to whatever question you like to keep changing.

Anyway, do you want to define "feminism" in order for me to answer that? Or shall we continue riding Symmetry's Merry-Go-Round?

Surely not a merry-go-round? A simple question-

Are you an American feminist?

With a simple follow up- are you a feminist?

I'll add a third question, if not, why not? To both.

Your position has not been made clear, as of yet.

Dude, if you don't want to answer the questions, that's fine. Say so.

[Army of GOD]

Peyton Personning

[Symmetry]

Somehow I expect I won't be getting much in the ways of yays or nays.