ShotCaller
Well-known member
Spin the issue however you like, but its ideological.
Why is this character being refered as they instead of him?
- Thread starter Arthuvin
- Start date
- Status
Heh, don't take it so seriously. Maybe something gets lost in translation since English isn't your primary language, but as far as I can see, this has been one of the more calm and reasonable discussions on these boards in a while.
I was thinking to myself yesterday how interesting it was that we'd be having a conversation about grammatical history and correct/acceptable usage on a forum for a Dungeons and Dragons based game.
NightHiker
Well-known member
Yeah... It's not like we're discussing some really hot and controversial topic like whether Reaper difficulty should exist or who needs to be nerfed next.
Cheers,
NH
Fhrek
One Badge of Honor achieved
This discussion has been a breath of fresh air on these boards.
People are restraining themselves to the topic, been helpful and polite.
Don't regret. Let it continue!
It has not been incorrect grammar at least not for the last several hundred years. Either you are exceptionally old or you learned incorrect grammar in school.
Lazuli
Well-known member
I think it was a civilized discussion. Not everyone agrees, but if not, it wouldn't be a debate. I have found the subject interesting, because I have learned some things about English grammar that I did not know (English is not my native language).
One question, if you are so kind (speaking of current English, not the English of past centuries). If I were to use they/them to refer to a gender neutral person, should I conjugate the verb singular or plural? Am I correct if I think that in the singular?
One question, if you are so kind (speaking of current English, not the English of past centuries). If I were to use they/them to refer to a gender neutral person, should I conjugate the verb singular or plural? Am I correct if I think that in the singular?
NightHiker
Well-known member
You'd do it the same way one already does with "you". People do not say "You is", even when refering to a person in the singular. They use "You are" and nobody bats an eye at it. So you'd use "they are" as well. Context is usually sufficient to eliminate any ambiguity.
I just would like to take this answer to further emphasize a point that I think may not have been clear for some participating in this conversation:
Using "they/them" shouldn't just be thought of a way to address people that you know identify with gender neutral pronouns. I recommend trying to use the gender neutral approach for anyone you don't really know and therefore can't be sure about which pronoun they identify with. It's not mandatory, of course - and I don't think anyone will complain about the "wrong" pronoun usage unless, like some, you go out of your way and intentionally mislabel someone just to make a point.
But I think that's a good way to train ourselves to get rid of preconceived notions we've been raised with because of cultural shortcomings. There are very few situations where identifying gender is necessary. Therefore it is, or at least should be, completely irrelevant unless in those few specific contexts where it's not. So when looking at people, there's really no need to label them or even think of them as a "he" or a "she" (outside of already established conversations where you know what they'd prefer), unless maybe you're romantically interested in them and would like to know.
Cheers,
NH
Last edited:
ShotCaller
Well-known member
To your first point, it's not advisable, either, and to suggest no one will complain about is a myth I'd be happy to dispel any time you like.I recommend trying to use the gender neutral approach for anyone you don't really know and therefore can't be sure about which pronoun they identify with. It's not mandatory, of course - and I don't think anyone will complain about the "wrong" pronoun usage unless, like some, you go out of your way and intentionally mislabel someone just to make a point.
But I think that's a good way to train ourselves to get rid of preconceived notions we've been raised with because of cultural shortcomings. There are very few situations where identifying gender is necessary. Therefore it is, or at least should be, completely irrelevant unless in those few specific contexts where it's not. So when looking at people, there's really no need to label them or even think of them as a "he" or a "she" (outside of already established conversations where you know what they'd prefer), unless maybe you're romantically interested in them and would like to know.
Cheers,
NH
To your second point: what exactly are these "cultural shortcomings" you feel the need for us to unlearn? And I'm dying to hear who you think is responsible for us being collectively @#$%!* in the head in the first place...
Do people like you find things to make issues on a Sunday night so Cordovan can wake up to a train wreck on Mondays for laughs?I noticed thios character in "What Dreams May Come" is being hefered as they instead of him. Is that some typing or script error?
Have another beer
nice spelling
droid327
Well-known member
It's not improper grammar to use it when the gender of the subject is ambiguous
Applying it to deliberately obfuscate the gender is what's new and ideologically driven, and suggesting otherwise is simply a blatant motte and bailey
Presumably the GM knows what gender their NPC is (i haven't run the quest so I don't know if it's a male or female voice actor for that one - so correct use of singular their) so the singular their is not being applied in the traditional usage.
Whether it's deliberately ideological or simply sloppy copy writing carrying forward from a point where they didn't know what the npc model was going to be is plausible either way, because SSG has shown a strong propensity for both
Applying it to deliberately obfuscate the gender is what's new and ideologically driven, and suggesting otherwise is simply a blatant motte and bailey
Presumably the GM knows what gender their NPC is (i haven't run the quest so I don't know if it's a male or female voice actor for that one - so correct use of singular their) so the singular their is not being applied in the traditional usage.
Whether it's deliberately ideological or simply sloppy copy writing carrying forward from a point where they didn't know what the npc model was going to be is plausible either way, because SSG has shown a strong propensity for both
Natashaelle
Time Bandit
As someone else pointed out, it's ideological.
Biology is neither preconceived nor cultural, nor is it a shortcoming.
The point is, that when referring to a specific, individually identified person, it's not irrelevant at all.
I dont Like gimps
Well-known member
genuine question do u guys have Nothing better to do than to argue about english grammar in a video game forum? Like cant believe this turned into a 3 page discussion with quotes from hamlet and stuff about the use of they/them as singular problems aswell as the Political debate about Identity politics. but hey since this all started : I personally dont understand the whole concept of gender in the first place and as such I dont understand how people can feel outside of something that for me isnt really relatable nor comprehendable but there are obviously people who dont feel comfortable with their sex and its not a 21th century trend either theres been trans peeps for a Long time "google Magnus Hirschfeld"
and if someone doesnt feel Like their sex I dont see a reason that there arent people who dont feel like either....
Only because I dont feel or relate or understand something doesnt meant it doesnt exist... (Only cause im not scared of cats doesnt mean people who are scared of cats are faking it lol) so even if i dont quiet understand it I will atleast try to reffer to someone as they/them if its their wish
if u feel like using someones pronouns is an ideology maybe u are just a snowflake for petes sake we dont even know why they have they/them pronouns it could be a a forgotten edit (maybe there were 2 characters once idk) they could have MP or maybe the devs felt Like sneaking a bit of queer stuff into the game without offending snowflakes who will see it as "shoving down their throats" Im not exactly sure whats the problem about 1 NPC in 1 Quest that doesnt follow the "norm" heck maybe one of the devs wanted to implement themselves into the game
and if someone doesnt feel Like their sex I dont see a reason that there arent people who dont feel like either....
Only because I dont feel or relate or understand something doesnt meant it doesnt exist... (Only cause im not scared of cats doesnt mean people who are scared of cats are faking it lol) so even if i dont quiet understand it I will atleast try to reffer to someone as they/them if its their wish
if u feel like using someones pronouns is an ideology maybe u are just a snowflake for petes sake we dont even know why they have they/them pronouns it could be a a forgotten edit (maybe there were 2 characters once idk) they could have MP or maybe the devs felt Like sneaking a bit of queer stuff into the game without offending snowflakes who will see it as "shoving down their throats" Im not exactly sure whats the problem about 1 NPC in 1 Quest that doesnt follow the "norm" heck maybe one of the devs wanted to implement themselves into the game
NightHiker
Well-known member
Oh, boy, it looks like people decided to open a big can of worms now.
I'm not even gonna quote anything because it's a collective issue, so lets address it in the gender neutral plural...
First, because social and literary gender have NOTHING to do with biological sex/gender. Second, because there's actually nothing "binary" about biological sex/gender either.
I have yet to find, when discussing this and other related matters, people who bring up "biology" into the discussion who have actually studied the biology related to this matter beyond the most basic high school curriculum, if even that. To put it in words most people here should understand, saying there's only "male" and "female" when it comes to sex and gender is like saying in DDO there are only two classes you can play, "melee" and "ranged"...
I will post below a link to an article from Robert Sapolsky, a very respected and renowned biologist who's at the forefront of research into the biology of human behavior. I won't further engage with anyone who does not show they have read it, because, quite frankly, reading a relatively short essay on the matter should be the very minimum qualifier to participate in such conversation when they themselves brought it up.
Like I've said, it's OK to not know something - but if people have neither studied enough nor have actual experience in the relevant fields, then all they can possibly contribute with in this debate is their silence.
Here is the article: https://nautil.us/caitlyn-jenner-and-our-cognitive-dissonance-235605/
It touches on a lot of things about how biology and culture intertwine in matters of how we see gender and sex. But it's just a primer - I urge anyone really interested in the matter and looking forward to transcend their prejudices to do some actual research. Feel free to drop me a PM and I'll gladly provide more reading material.
Regarding the "cultural shortcomings", they're mostly derived from the fact we have a very hard time thinking outside of very defined, albeit artificial, categories. The cause is not just cultural, mind you - it's born out of very real cognitive limitations derived from how our brains have evolved and are structured.
We do that with everything, so it would not be different with gender. Take colors, for example. They don't actually exist - the electromagnetic spectrum we're able to "see" is a continuum, but we divide it into small, discreet pieces and call them "colors" so we can understand it better. For the most part that's a good trait, since the real world is too complex for the three pounds of meat we call brains to fully realize it, so it's either that or not understanding anything at all. But don't fool yourselves: EVERY category we create is, technically and ultimately, a lie. There are no discreet categories in the real world, just continuums.
That said, however, above the inate, physical limitations of our brains, there's a cultural layer. There's been several instances where culture has enabled us to transcend some inate traits, in a feedback loop where biology dictates culture which then influences biology and so on.
A great example is the adoption of animal husbandry changing our biology (by selecting people who could sinthesyze the enzyme lactase beyond childhood) so we, as a species, could better tolerate dairy after becoming adults and benefit from this new, great source of food. But there are virtually unlimited other subtle, nuanced ways into which this relationship between biology and culture works its magic.
There are also, however, instances where culture has prevented us from such transcendence. That's where we would do well in training ourselves to try and look at the world differently, instead of using biology as an excuse. For example, I don't see anyone running around throwing their feces at people and then justifying it by saying they're just primates and therefore can't help it.
Ironically, the fact we look at gender in such categorized way is not because sex is actually binary, but because of both cognitive and cultural barriers that block us from seeing the reality of it. Since the actual knowledge needed to properly understand how biological sex and gender identity work is very recent (less than a century old to begin with, and most of it just decades old), it's compehensible very few people are proficient in it.
But once they're pointed towards this knowlege, that's where their excuses end.
Cheers,
NH
I'm not even gonna quote anything because it's a collective issue, so lets address it in the gender neutral plural...
First, because social and literary gender have NOTHING to do with biological sex/gender. Second, because there's actually nothing "binary" about biological sex/gender either.
I have yet to find, when discussing this and other related matters, people who bring up "biology" into the discussion who have actually studied the biology related to this matter beyond the most basic high school curriculum, if even that. To put it in words most people here should understand, saying there's only "male" and "female" when it comes to sex and gender is like saying in DDO there are only two classes you can play, "melee" and "ranged"...
I will post below a link to an article from Robert Sapolsky, a very respected and renowned biologist who's at the forefront of research into the biology of human behavior. I won't further engage with anyone who does not show they have read it, because, quite frankly, reading a relatively short essay on the matter should be the very minimum qualifier to participate in such conversation when they themselves brought it up.
Like I've said, it's OK to not know something - but if people have neither studied enough nor have actual experience in the relevant fields, then all they can possibly contribute with in this debate is their silence.
Here is the article: https://nautil.us/caitlyn-jenner-and-our-cognitive-dissonance-235605/
It touches on a lot of things about how biology and culture intertwine in matters of how we see gender and sex. But it's just a primer - I urge anyone really interested in the matter and looking forward to transcend their prejudices to do some actual research. Feel free to drop me a PM and I'll gladly provide more reading material.
Regarding the "cultural shortcomings", they're mostly derived from the fact we have a very hard time thinking outside of very defined, albeit artificial, categories. The cause is not just cultural, mind you - it's born out of very real cognitive limitations derived from how our brains have evolved and are structured.
We do that with everything, so it would not be different with gender. Take colors, for example. They don't actually exist - the electromagnetic spectrum we're able to "see" is a continuum, but we divide it into small, discreet pieces and call them "colors" so we can understand it better. For the most part that's a good trait, since the real world is too complex for the three pounds of meat we call brains to fully realize it, so it's either that or not understanding anything at all. But don't fool yourselves: EVERY category we create is, technically and ultimately, a lie. There are no discreet categories in the real world, just continuums.
That said, however, above the inate, physical limitations of our brains, there's a cultural layer. There's been several instances where culture has enabled us to transcend some inate traits, in a feedback loop where biology dictates culture which then influences biology and so on.
A great example is the adoption of animal husbandry changing our biology (by selecting people who could sinthesyze the enzyme lactase beyond childhood) so we, as a species, could better tolerate dairy after becoming adults and benefit from this new, great source of food. But there are virtually unlimited other subtle, nuanced ways into which this relationship between biology and culture works its magic.
There are also, however, instances where culture has prevented us from such transcendence. That's where we would do well in training ourselves to try and look at the world differently, instead of using biology as an excuse. For example, I don't see anyone running around throwing their feces at people and then justifying it by saying they're just primates and therefore can't help it.
Ironically, the fact we look at gender in such categorized way is not because sex is actually binary, but because of both cognitive and cultural barriers that block us from seeing the reality of it. Since the actual knowledge needed to properly understand how biological sex and gender identity work is very recent (less than a century old to begin with, and most of it just decades old), it's compehensible very few people are proficient in it.
But once they're pointed towards this knowlege, that's where their excuses end.
Cheers,
NH
Last edited:
NightHiker
Well-known member
I personaly think it's great that a common interest in this old but great videogame brought people together to discuss something very relevant to our current society and which might lead (hopefully
) to people learning lots of interesting stuff. Cheers,
NH
Last edited:
Lazuli
Well-known member
Thanks for the grammar explanation. This was not explained to me at school, and it is useful to know. In fact, I have enjoyed the whole discussion about grammar, because I have learned a lot of things.
But I think that now the debate is slipping too much into ideological questions, and that could break the rules of the forum. Politics is also of immediate social interest, and debates about it are not allowed. Be careful how you derive the debate.
Good luck, and many 20's!
But I think that now the debate is slipping too much into ideological questions, and that could break the rules of the forum. Politics is also of immediate social interest, and debates about it are not allowed. Be careful how you derive the debate.
Good luck, and many 20's!
Shear-buckler
Well-known member
It is a bit ridicolous to say that something that is correlated to about 0.99 have nothing to do with each other....
Biological sex is binary. Male and female. It's not a spectrum just because there are occasional malfomities.
As for the OP, it's probably just a dev who wrote themselves into the story, in which case it is fine.
Last edited:
- Status