Jump to content
  • Welcome to the TransPulse Forums!

    We offer a safe, inclusive community for transgender and gender non-conforming folks, as well as their loved ones, to find support and information.  Join today!

'They' VS Gender-Neutral Pronouns


Guest trickster

Recommended Posts

Guest trickster

I prefer 'they', because it's a gender-neutral term that already exists in the English language. I figure that my gender-identity is already hard for people to wrap their minds around – asking them to add words to their language seems like it would just complicate matters.

My husband thinks I should use gender-neutral pronouns; he says the word 'they' can get confusing.

What pronouns do you guys use?

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator

Speaking from my androgyne point of view I have no real issue with either male or female pronouns although I can understand the problems in the outside world. I do not really like gender neutral pronouns.

I don't think people would really get used to anything outside the norm unless they knew you really well and in that context it does not matter (at least to me). I answer to both genders or either Tracy or birth name without issue.

Tracy

Link to comment
Guest Nicodeme

I tried xe for a while. Nobody would do xe. But nobody would do "they" either because people are argumentative jerks.

Created gender neutral pronouns DID, once upon a time, stand a chance, until people started going "LOOK HOW EASY IT IS JUST USE A NOUN" and people took it 100% seriously and just validated the complaint that we somehow expect people to "remember 50+ genders."

Yes I am bitter. :I

I gave up and switched to "they" and I continue to rearrange the crap out of my sentences to avoid having to use the reflexive form. Because how the hell does that work? Is it themself? Themselves?

Link to comment
Guest Micha

I like "they."

I'm used to male pronouns, I'm tickled when I get female pronouns, but neither are really accurate.

And the only way for anyone to get used to it, is to start using it.

Link to comment

I tried xe for a while. Nobody would do xe. But nobody would do "they" either because people are argumentative jerks.

Created gender neutral pronouns DID, once upon a time, stand a chance, until people started going "LOOK HOW EASY IT IS JUST USE A NOUN" and people took it 100% seriously and just validated the complaint that we somehow expect people to "remember 50+ genders."

Yes I am bitter. :I

I gave up and switched to "they" and I continue to rearrange the crap out of my sentences to avoid having to use the reflexive form. Because how the hell does that work? Is it themself? Themselves?

If you follow the grammatical convention when "you" shifted from strictly plural usage to singular and plural, the verb stays in the plural form (to the extent it would change), and "themself" would be the appropriate reflexive pronoun (just as we say "yourself" and "yourselves" depending on number).

So:

Singular:

I am me myself

You are you yourself

He/she/it is him/her/it himself/herself/itself

They are them themself.

And plural:

We are us ourselves.

You are you yourselves.

They are them themselves.

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 years later...

Well... I would like to use it/its pronouns but they aren't "okay" so I would use neutral pronouns like ze or xe rather than they. It's because I live in Germany and our pronouns are like that:

I = Ich

You = du

he/ she/ it = er/ sie/ es

We = wir

you = ihr

they = sie

You see the trouble? I can't use they in German because it's the same as she. That's why I would prefer ze or xe. I'm using my "cis-pronouns" because I'm used to it and people get confused.

Link to comment
  • 4 years later...

I prefer they

 

I've noticed that I get a little eye twitchy when I read something that says "he or she..."

-it's like, I know you did this for feminism reasons (big pat on the back) but seriously, why not use they? it's easier and more inclusive 🙄

Link to comment

@Querencia I have a similar reaction to "he or she". I'm a member of a union for work, and our collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is full of he/she's, him/her's, etc. At the same time, the ostensible culture at work is such that we claim to value inclusivity. I'm tempted to suggest for the next bargaining cycle that we change all the pronouns in the document. I predict some academic "purists" may protest. But honestly, people need to realize that language has always been and will continue to be a living, dynamic thing. 

 

I prefer they/them, but as such have not yet accessed the power to ask folks irl for this. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Vidanjali said:

I prefer they/them, but as such have not yet accessed the power to ask folks irl for this. 

 

I prefer they/them as well, and it would indeed be better if CBAs and other written communication used "they/them". Maybe that practice, if it were eventually to become much more commonplace, would lead to *spoken* communication following suit, but I'm not holding my breath.  I'm particularly thinking of the several times a day that we are likely to come into contact with people who themselves are binary but who don't know us personally (store assistants, a reference librarian, etc.).

 

It's as if we who are non-binary are in a Catch-22 situation.  If we appear non-binary -- in an androgynous manner -- then binary folks we meet usually make a guess and use either "sir" and "he" or "ma'm" and "she", and I at least inwardly wince each time this is done. ( Happily, this seldom happens with genderqueer people I meet for the first time, as they are aware how important personal address can be.) If on the other hand we appear distinctly female or male, and are addressed with the "matching" female or male pronouns, our appearance is not congruent with our non-binary-ness.

 

I will never be out to literally everyone, because I continually come into contact with with strangers pretty much every day.  I am not inclined to wear a "they/them" lapel pin -- and few strangers would take note of it.  Correcting strangers to use "they" becomes an eternal whack-a-mole experience.

 

I have concluded, reluctantly, that the course of least resistance with strangers works best for me: that is, accepting any civil form of address (masculine, feminine, or neutral) and moving on with whatever conversation we're having. It may (and does) sting a little, but life isn't perfect.  For close friends and professionals such as my doctors, I do share that I am non-binary and prefer "they/them".   There is one situation I dread, however (and thankfully it doesn't come up much):  what to do when in a meeting that includes both strangers and close friends?  At least in Zoom, I can include "they/them" after my name.  In person, it's not that easy.

 

Astrid

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Astrid said:

Correcting strangers to use "they" becomes an eternal whack-a-mole experience.

 

Today, as I was checking out at the dentist's office after having my teeth cleaned, I heard a voice behind me, "excuse me, ma'am". I assumed the person was trying to get the attention of one of the (ostensible) women behind the desk. But, no one acknowledged the voice, and I heard him say again, "excuse me, ma'am". I tensed up and thought, "he can't be talking about me...please don't be me..." After the third "excuse me, ma'am", the person behind the desk I was dealing with addressed me by my name and pointed somewhere behind me. I turned around and was surprised to find a person in a wheelchair who was trying to get by (the space in front of the checkout desk is just a small hallway). I begged the person's pardon and moved out of the hallway to let him pass. It was very strange - I felt like a real heel for being in his way and not acknowledging him because I did not want to entertain the idea that I was the "ma'am" in question. Was my self-righteousness (??) further inconveniencing someone who obviously already had challenges? Sigh. I wondered what would have made more sense to me. I thought that if he'd left the ma'am out, and instead asserted his request "can you please let me by", that I would have much more quickly realized he was addressing me. That is, I would have more readily identified with "person who is in the way" over "ma'am". Of course, on the other hand, if I can't bring myself to ask people to call me them, why should I expect him to feel empowered to assert himself? Would it be better to always respond to "ma'am" just in case it is me being called to? This seems awfully distasteful. But, I don't want to hurt or inconvenience anyone. It certainly can be sticky. 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

I really like using they/them for myself, because it's really the only pronoun that fits right to me. He and she stick out like sore thumbs in a sentence and I just don't like the little spike of anxiety they give me every time someone uses them now. I have a friend that calls me they/them and believe me when I say I love it. Still hard to not refer to myself as a woman though, as I've learned you can misgender yourself. Slowly breaking myself of that habit.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 130 Guests (See full list)

    • tracy_j
    • Breanne_O
    • AllieJ
    • VickySGV
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      80.7k
    • Total Posts
      768.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      12,024
    • Most Online
      8,356

    JamesyGreen
    Newest Member
    JamesyGreen
    Joined
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Alscully
      Alscully
      (35 years old)
    2. floruisse
      floruisse
      (40 years old)
    3. Jasmine25
      Jasmine25
      (22 years old)
    4. Trev0rK
      Trev0rK
      (26 years old)
  • Posts

    • EasyE
      Republicans have long committed grave errors by emphasizing their social agenda and moral issues instead of just focusing on the economy, lowering taxes, keeping the public safe, building a strong national defense, promoting business, touting reasonable immigration policies, etc.   The country would thrive economically under Trump's tax and business policies. That's a fact. Another four years of Biden will run this country into the ground financially (including all of our 401Ks and IRAs). But the GOP continues to play right into the Dems' hands by leading with their moral crusades instead of staying the course and trusting their fiscal policies to win the day... 
    • Carolyn Marie
      https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/hundreds-athletes-urge-ncaa-not-ban-trans-athletes-womens-sports-rcna149033     Carolyn Marie
    • KymmieL
      Well first day is over and now getting ready for bed soon. Work was OK.   Don't know why but I am feeling down. I am heading to bed. Good Night.   Kymmie
    • Adrianna Danielle
      Boyfriend and I our time at my place.Both admit our sex life is good,got intimate for the 2nd time and he is good at it
    • Abigail Genevieve
      Thanks.  I will look those up in the document, hopefully tomorrow.   I always look at the source on stuff like this, not what someone, particularly those adversarial, have to say. 
    • MaeBe
      LGBTQ rights Project 2025 takes extreme positions against LGBTQ rights, seeking to eliminate federal protections for queer people and pursue research into conversion therapies in order to encourage gender and sexuality conformity. The policy book also lays out plans to criminalize being transgender and prohibit federal programs from supporting queer people through various policies. The project partnered with anti-LGBTQ groups the Family Policy Alliance, the Center for Family and Human Rights, and the Family Research Council. Project 2025 calls for the next secretary of Health and Human Services to “immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism,” which includes removing terms related to gender and sexual identity from “every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.” The Trump administration proposed a similar idea in 2018 that would have resulted in trans people losing protections under anti-discrimination laws. [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; The New Republic, 2/8/24] Similarly, the policy book calls for HHS to stop all research related to gender identity unless the purpose is conformity to one's sex assigned at birth. The New Republic explains: “That is, research on gender-nonconforming children and teenagers should be funded by the government, but only for the purpose of studying what will make them conform, such as denying them gender-affirming care and instead trying to change their identities through ‘counseling,’ which is a form of conversion therapy.” [The New Republic, 2/8/24] The policy book’s foreword by Kevin Roberts describes “the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” as “pornography” that “should be outlawed,” adding, “The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned.” Roberts also says that “educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023] Roberts’ foreword states that “allowing parents or physicians to ‘reassign’ the sex of a minor is child abuse and must end.” Echoing ongoing right-wing attacks on trans athletes, Roberts also claims, “Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; TIME magazine, 5/16/22] Dame Magazine reports that Project 2025 plans to use the Department of Justice to crack down on states that “do not charge LGBTQ people and their allies with crimes under the pretense that they are breaking federal and state laws against exposing minors to pornography.” [Dame Magazine, 8/14/23] Project 2025 also calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to repeat “its 2016 decision that CMS could not issue a National Coverage Determination (NCD) regarding ‘gender reassignment surgery’ for Medicare beneficiaries.” The policy book’s HHS chapter continues: “In doing so, CMS should acknowledge the growing body of evidence that such interventions are dangerous and acknowledge that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support such coverage in state plans.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023] Going further, Project 2025 also demands that the next GOP administration “reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military.” The policy book’s chapter on the Defense Department claims: “Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries … for servicemembers should be ended.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023]   …summaries of what’s within the rest of the document re: LGBTQ+ concerns. A person can believe their gender is fixed but incongruent with their physiology, but the authors and Trump (by his own words) just see the incongruity of an “expressed gender” that conflicts with what was/is in a person’s pants.
    • Mmindy
      Good catch… I took care of it.
    • Sally Stone
      I'm tired of the two-party system.  It has degraded to a system where there are only two diametrically opposed views, neither of which supports me.  I have conservative views regarding big government and government spending but I have very liberal views when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals.  And just elections of the past, I am stuck with two choices, neither of which I support. With only two parties, each with agendas that are off the left and right scales, I am not adequately represented.    Finally, I'm okay with party affiliated politicians running for office using their party views, but once elected to office, they are obligated to support the entire electorate not just the electorate members that voted for them.  Plain and simple, our government system is broken and dysfunctional.  I'll step down from my soapbox now.     
    • Sally Stone
      Thanks Mae.  She was an amazing friend and I grew to love her like a sister.
    • Sally Stone
      I did Ashley.  Non-rev travel was one of the major factors for taking the job.  At the time, US Airways had the best non-rev policy in the industry.  It cost $10 to fly coach and $25 to fly first class.  We flew first class whenever there were seats available.  
    • Abigail Genevieve
      You should have a moderator fix what you meant to write as "birth certificate".  Ooops.   I've gone over that verse and am wholly and completely dissatisfied with the SBC exegesis of it, so much so that it was one of the things that helped me break out of a mindset of guit.  Sometime I may strut by stuff as a Hebraist and show what it really means.
    • Abigail Genevieve
      I found this   — 450 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Goal #1: Protecting Life, Conscience, and Bodily Integrity. The Secretary should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect con- science rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology. From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care. A robust respect for the sacred rights of conscience, both at HHS and among gov- ernments and institutions funded by it, increases choices for patients and program beneficiaries and furthers pluralism and tolerance. The Secretary must protect Americans’ civil rights by ensuring that HHS programs and activities follow the letter and spirit of religious freedom and conscience-protection laws. Radical actors inside and outside government are promoting harmful identity politics that replaces biological sex with subjective notions of “gender identity” and bases a person’s worth on his or her race, sex, or other identities. This destructive dogma, under the guise of “equity,” threatens American’s fundamental liberties as well as the health and well-being of children and adults alike. The next Secretary must ensure that HHS programs protect children’s minds and bodies and that HHS programs respect parents’ basic right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.   https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-14.pdf   First, that is not much, if that is all that is of concern.  Secondly, I have seen all sorts of anti-Trump slander, including the Steele dossier and the lawfare he is now undergoing, to be cynical of any criticism against him, and indirectly this document.    He deserves some of what he is getting, but not all.  Thirdly, I bolded one statement of concern.   I don't think gender identity is subjective.  "Radical actors" is name calling, and there is a lot of that going around.  Maybe I am not seeing everything of concern or reading this right, but i would discuss with the author of this document concerning this.
    • Willow
      Good evening   well I finally finished reading my textbook.  Yeah.  But I still have a lot more to go for the class.     My endocrinologist always asks me about lactation.  And yes I have had some very small amounts of leakage but not on any regular basis.  I figure I blocked the discharge Duce when I pierced my nipples with scare tissue.  But who knows.  I also get asked about mammograms.  I e had my first or baseline and this fall I will need to schedule my second.   As someone in the midst of studying the Old Testament, I can say that I haven’t found any mention of pending damnation for being transgender or intersex.  The closest it comes is a verse that says men should not wear women’s clothing.  Now I don’t know each and everyone’s particulars, but I know I meet the medical definition of female gender, and even in Ohio, a State that until recently refused to allow birth certificates to be changed, I meet the criteria.  Therefore I can only conclude I am not a man wearing women’s clothing.  But there is a somewhat different scholarly explanation of that law that it should not be taken as literally as the haters want.  Mostly men should not pretend to be women to ex ape from their enemies. Or tried to hide from God.     willow
    • Abigail Genevieve
      Well, the left wing has been doing that.    I read a few things while trying to find out what the problem is and liked what I read.  But I am a conservative.    Is there something specific in there that is of concern?  Does it promise somewhere to erase trans folk? That would be problematic.
    • Ivy
      It's a plan to basically completely take over the government by the right wing.
  • Upcoming Events

Contact TransPulse

TransPulse can be contacted in the following ways:

Email: Click Here.

To report an error on this page.

Legal

Your use of this site is subject to the following rules and policies, whether you have read them or not.

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Community Rules

Hosting

Upstream hosting for TransPulse provided by QnEZ.

Sponsorship

Special consideration for TransPulse is kindly provided by The Breast Form Store.
×
×
  • Create New...