# non-binary gender pronouns?



## quillman (Mar 20, 2019)

While I have not seen any actual usage of these yet, I wonder if others here have, or whether writers here are using them?

Also, I wonder whether it’s too soon to know what impact their use will have on everyday writing?

I recall reading in HS about “thon” - a proposed gender-neutral pronoun dating from the mid-19th century. Clearly it never caught on. 

While I certainly respect the rights and feelings of those who do want to use them, I’d be interested in a discussion about whether the time for them has arrived, whether they’ll see only niche usage, etc.

I am still adhering to the convention of he, she, they when I am talking about a he, a she or a they; I don’t use “they” in place of he or she..even though it’s mighty tempting sometimes...

Thanks for any thoughts!


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 20, 2019)

quillman said:


> While I have not seen any actual usage of these yet, I wonder if others here have, or whether writers here are using them?
> 
> Also, I wonder whether it’s too soon to know what impact their use will have on everyday writing?
> 
> ...



First: *Trigger Warning*

I feel like as a society, we are still struggling to engage with basic, accurate representation/treatment of (binary) male and female characters in writing. 

Like you, I fully support 'rights and feelings', but we must be pragmatic. The non-binary/trans community are a really tiny minority and barring some massive shift, probably always will be. All the 'wokeness' in the world doesn't make a difference to the utility of language. Elective complexity in vocabulary defies the very evolutionary mechanics of language while political ideology in itself has never once ensured widespread appeal. _Kiom da homoj parolas Esperanto?_

Even if the philosophy is universally accepted, and unfortunately it isn't, a shift occurring solely to accommodate the imagined preferences of a group that is smaller in number than the membership of Costco and with little media and virtually no political presence or clout is pretty nutty. Especially given it is 2019 and we are still trying to eradicate daily usage of the friggin' 'n-word' among a still-large chunk of knuckle-draggers and THAT effort only began, what now?, half a century ago?  So no, I'm willing to bet 90%+ of the population don't care enough, including many of those who loudly insist they do.

I _would_ read a book that uses alternative pronouns, or whatever other inclusive terminology was deemed worthwhile. It wouldn't _bother_ me at all. Not so long as it fit the narrative and was consistent (you know, like any 'normal' pronoun). If it actually made a difference to inclusivity that'd be great, too.  

The thing is, I don't actually believe it would do that. I don't think most non-binary people are sufficiently simplistic or sensitive enough to believe that throwing around a few 'thons' or whatever would make any real improvement to their literary, let alone their real, lives. So the idea this kind of thing could or frankly should become a topic to be taken seriously in (mainstream) writing anytime soon is, I think, quite ridiculous.

But as always YMMV.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 20, 2019)

I use the singular "they" if gender is uncertain or undeclared. Like if a suspect in a case is being talked about, but their gender isn't yet known. For example:

"They clearly did everything they could to wipe their fingerprints off the screen," said the detective, gesturing at the laptop. "But," he added with a grin, "they missed a spot."​
I've also seen it used in mainstream fiction for gender-neutral characters (Victoria Schwab's _Monsters of Verity_ series, for example, has a non-binary character who's referred to as "they" instead of "he" or "she").

Though, I don't use _zhe_ or any of those—I think it'd be more confusing than anything. :grief: "They" is already iffy enough with some readers.


----------



## Velvet Belly (Mar 20, 2019)

To address luckyscars point, it seems to rest on the assumption that we can only address one form of prejudice at a time when it comes to our use of language, which is quite an odd thing to assume. Improving language around trans and non-binary identities in no way prevents us from addressing sexism, poor representation of binary genders, or the completely unrelated issue of racial slurs - I'm not sure I follow your logic.

The gender neutral pronoun most non-binary people you'll meet in real life are trying to increase the uptake of is the singular 'they'. Accepting that 'they' can be used in the singular does nothing to complicate the language and requires no significant adjustment; we already use 'they' as a singular without thinking in numerous contexts, such as Kyle's fine example. So I can't really see any valid argument against using it to respect people's identities. I think it's past time we adjusted to its use.

I doubt we'll see any of the more "out there" pronouns coming into mainstream usage, given this is not something many non-binary people pursue.

As a final point, trans and non-binary people are estimated to comprise around 1% of the population of the UK. As a percentage that might look small, but that still equates to over 660 000 people or 77 million globally. Quite a significant number, and still vastly underrepresented.


----------



## Amnesiac (Mar 20, 2019)

You know, I wouldn't bother with the non-binary thing, unless -- _unless _you are writing a novel about gender transformation, a gender neutral character, or something of that nature. Otherwise, I think "he" or "she" is perfectly serviceable. Also, don't forget that your readership will bring themselves to your story. If you are only working in traditional binary characters; he, her, she, him, etc., your reader, even if they are gender-neutral, in the midst of some change, or whatever, either will or will not understand. To me, it seems so much juggling of angry porcupines, ya' know?


----------



## Squalid Glass (Mar 20, 2019)

In my novel, the society where the characters live does not recognize gender, so the characters use “ou” and “ou’s” for pronouns. 

If the use of non binary pronouns fits the story, then there is no problem in using them.


----------



## Dluuni (Mar 20, 2019)

quillman said:


> While I have not seen any actual usage of these yet, I wonder if others here have, or whether writers here are using them?


The vast majority of nonbinary people, in fact basically all of the ones I have met - use they/them/themself pronouns, as has been proper English since it was used in both the original KJV Bible and Shakespeare, as well as by Jane Austen.


quillman said:


> I am still adhering to the convention of he, she, they when I am talking about a he, a she or a they; I don’t use “they” in place of he or she..even though it’s mighty tempting sometimes...


I used to use 'they' for everyone, because pronouns were cringy and I couldn't choose mine at the time. 'They' still outs people; it's a minor plot device in my wip. Until people get more loose about defaulting to 'they' when any doubt exists, at least.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 20, 2019)

Velvet Belly said:


> To address luckyscars point, it seems to rest on the assumption that we can only address one form of prejudice at a time when it comes to our use of language, which is quite an odd thing to assume. Improving language around trans and non-binary identities in no way prevents us from addressing sexism, poor representation of binary genders, or the completely unrelated issue of racial slurs - I'm not sure I follow your logic.



The problem is *we* aren't generally very good at addressing prejudice at all. As a society we cannot even decide if women should have the same employment rights as men, let alone get close to exploring _en masse_ nebulous and entirely conceptual issues like 'how do _these_ words make this group of people _feel?_'

This is the same kind of primitive idealism that promised introducing "Ms." instead of "Mrs./Miss." would help reduce sex discrimination. It's total nonsense, basically. Language cannot create change. It can only reflect change that has already taken place. 

If you or anybody else thinks  'change has already taken place' on LGBTQI+ issues sufficient to move a critical mass of society toward adopting different pronouns...I have a chocolate teapot I'd like to sell you.



> The gender neutral pronoun most non-binary people you'll meet in real life are trying to increase the uptake of is the singular 'they'. Accepting that 'they' can be used in the singular does nothing to complicate the language and requires no significant adjustment; we already use 'they' as a singular without thinking in numerous contexts, such as Kyle's fine example. So I can't really see any valid argument against using it to respect people's identities. I think it's past time we adjusted to its use.
> 
> I doubt we'll see any of the more "out there" pronouns coming into mainstream usage, given this is not something many non-binary people pursue.



I have no problem with using 'they', provided it is voluntary and fits the style  - I assume when you say 'adjusted' you are not suggesting this should displace traditional pronouns but work along side them. I reserve the right for neither myself nor my characters to be a 'they' *unless I want them to be*. 



> As a final point, trans and non-binary people are estimated to comprise around 1% of the population of the UK. As a percentage that might look small, but that still equates to over 660 000 people or 770 million globally. Quite a significant number, and still vastly underrepresented.



First of all, trans are not the same as non-binary/genderqueer so that 1% figure is rather meaningless. But let's roll with it.

Except, oops, your math is wrong: 1% of the world's population (I assume you are working on the notion of the world's population being 7.7 billion, which sounds about right) is not *770 million* but *77 million*...

...so, in the entire world, you are speaking of a population (of trans OR non-binary people) of several million fewer people than that of Turkey. That is not an insignificant number, but if was to frame it that you are essentially telling the entire world's population they should make a fundamental and inevitably inconvenient change to the way they do business solely to benefit the population of Turkey's interior self-esteem and joy... it starts to sound a little less crucial.

So no, I am not impressed by the 1% thing, sorry. BUT at the same time I am _not_ dismissing the issue of human rights for anybody. Non-binary people _should _feel represented. I just don't see how this solves anything.

Why not just invest the energy in encouraging more non-binary people to create their own content rather than pressuring everybody else to accommodate an envisioned standard? That way non-binary writers can choose what they feel is appropriate for them and call the shots in their work and if it proves popular - great. If it doesn't - you still have 'representation'.

(It would be really good to hear from a 'non-binary' person on this.)


----------



## Dluuni (Mar 21, 2019)

...How about because when other people argue about how much they don't like using "they", we get garbage like editors shooting down nonbinary writers pronoun usage? I just had to resolve a whole line of "her" "her" "her" "is the use of plural pronouns intentional? i don't understand" "why are you using they as a pronoun for this character" comments in my writing group for my genderfluid sidekick character's appearance in a chapter, and I am thankful that I studied so much about editing and self publishing that I can do most of it myself because I would scream if I had to argue that with an editor that I had to go through to continue.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 21, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> ...How about because when other people argue about how much they don't like using "they", we get garbage like editors shooting down nonbinary writers pronoun usage? I just had to resolve a whole line of "her" "her" "her" "is the use of plural pronouns intentional? i don't understand" "why are you using they as a pronoun for this character" comments in my writing group for my genderfluid sidekick character's appearance in a chapter, and I am thankful that I studied so much about editing and self publishing that I can do most of it myself because I would scream if I had to argue that with an editor that I had to go through to continue.



Sorry to hear about this. Can you elaborate a little bit on the stuff about editors 'shooting down' on the basis of pronoun usage? Mainly I would be interested to know what the feedback actually was that indicated that was the sole reason rather than an issue with the writing overall. I don't disbelieve you, but find it very surprising and concerning that a professional editor would make that decision if the rest of the writing was entirely up to scratch.

Anyway, as I said, I don't have a problem with 'they'. Even so, I don't use it much and evidently neither do most writers. But that's got absolutely nothing to do with disliking the concept of 'they'. In fact, I quite like the idea of dispensing with gender as in many stories (not all) the gender of the character is either unimportant or actually just another headache.

The reason I don't like 'they' (and the reason I think most writers don't) is because it carries a connotation of the impersonal. It's a cold, legal sounding term, a damp fill-in-the-gaps that seems to imply a question mark and causes distance between the reader and character. I think that's because of the contexts it has been traditionally used - census papers, police reports, tax filings, etc. It's a word that to me brings to mind an _entity _rather than a _person. _Again, that's not because of any sort of bigotry (at least not for me, can't speak for others of course) but simply because of how it has been and continues to be deployed. One cannot help associations.

Which begs the question: How do you change that? Because it's really not as simple as 'encourage more they' because, again, it's an uphill battle involving a tiny minority and the rest of us generally prefer to go by 'he' or 'she' and use those in our work and why shouldn't we? This is why I suggested the best answer would likely be to work on having more non-binary readers demanding more non-binary writers, leading to more non-binary editors and the representation that is called for.


----------



## Dluuni (Mar 21, 2019)

Well, "female" and "male" people still regularly protest and complain at things like bills to adjust laws to use 'they' pronouns to refer to people in laws that could refer to anybody really - there was a motion to do so in a major city in my state recently, and there was a lot of rage about it in certain circles. 
For a while there, I asked for 'they' pronouns because I couldn't safely ask for my regular ones, but the old ones were way too miserable to continue using. I was denied regularly because it's "ungrammatical", because "religious reasons", so on, so forth. When I finally started asking for "she", those same people often suddenly lost their objections and started using "they", I might add.
I have a nonbinary character in my WIP, based on a mishmash of about seven people I know plus a bunch of other background and voice changes, and whenever they show up, my writing group has a bit of a brain meltdown. If I have to explain a character every time, I can't expect it to pass through all the layers of a publisher without being flagged at some layer and stopped cold.


----------



## CyberWar (Mar 21, 2019)

Well, I for one have always found this whole "non-binary" thing to be complete nonsense, and never bother with it. If that offends somebody, that is their own problem - it's not my, or anyone else's duty to adjust my language just so that some confused and insecure special snowflakes can feel good and comfortable about themselves.

So in casual conversation and writing alike, I stick to the usual binary pronouns, with a preference for male pronouns when grammatic or other gender is not specified.


----------



## moderan (Mar 21, 2019)

I like to use 'one' as a nonspecific pronoun singular, and the forms of 'they', 'them', for plural. Gender is fluid (just as each snowflake is different), more so than the language, and I find otherwise I have to invent terms a la LeGuin. "Hir' is just as distancing as 'one' or 'they', I think.


----------



## Velvet Belly (Mar 24, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> First of all, trans are not the same as non-binary/genderqueer so that 1% figure is rather meaningless. But let's roll with it.
> 
> Except, oops, your math is wrong: 1% of the world's population (I assume you are working on the notion of the world's population being 7.7 billion, which sounds about right) is not *770 million* but *77 million*...


I am a non-binary person with problematic maths skills, thank you for catching that! :shock: I pulled that statistic because I didn't want to use anecdotal evidence, but anecdotally, around 1/20 of the students at my senior school have since come out as trans or non-binary, with a ratio of about 3 non-binary people to every binary trans person. From my experience since, in trans-friendly areas where it's relatively safe to come out, that ratio holds across the younger generation. So I would guess the real statistic is much higher than 1%. But anecdotal.



luckyscars said:


> This is the same kind of primitive idealism that promised introducing "Ms." instead of "Mrs./Miss." would help reduce sex discrimination. It's total nonsense, basically. Language cannot create change. It can only reflect change that has already taken place.




I completely disagree. Language is how we share ideas; a language that assumes a binary encourages its users to assume a binary. If it's in the language itself that "hey, these people might exist and be valid," at the very least those who've grown up with more inclusive language might be less likely to dismiss us as special snowflakes.

While "Ms" might not have the power to revolutionise women's rights, it certainly makes a lot of women feel more comfortable and that's still a form of positive change. Improved uptake of gender neutral pronouns won't revolutionise NB's people's rights either, but it makes us more comfortable and shows that some people at least are willing to take us seriously. As for whether this change is close to taking place, singular "they" is already fairly standard amongst the younger generation, at least where I live.



luckyscars said:


> I have no problem with using 'they', provided it is voluntary and fits the style - I assume when you say 'adjusted' you are not suggesting this should displace traditional pronouns but work along side them. I reserve the right for neither myself nor my characters to be a 'they' unless I want them to be.


Yes - it's a total myth that non-binary people want to do away with gendered pronouns. If any do they're an absolute minority.




luckyscars said:


> As a society we cannot even decide if women should have the same employment rights as men, let alone get close to exploring en masse nebulous and entirely conceptual issues like 'how do these words make this group of people feel?'


Hardly a nebulous concept to grasp - respecting people's pronouns makes them feel comfortable and respected. Intentionally ignoring them is likely to make them uncomfortable and indicate you don't respect them. Where's the confusion? And if we truly don't have time to explore these issues as a society, why not give people the benefit of the doubt until we do? If I ask to be called they, do you really need to understand why to respect it? What conceivable harm is there in just going along with it?



luckyscars said:


> a fundamental and inevitably inconvenient change to the way they do business


This seems a rather melodramatic picture of the issue at hand. It's not difficult to use "they" pronouns once you're in the habit and it really doesn't affect anyone or anything in any meaningful way, other than the person you're using them on.


----------



## Riptide (Mar 24, 2019)

I took a creative writing class a couple semesters back where several students presented work involving non-binary character. They used 'they', if I recall, but sometimes the 'they' didn't come across as, well, non-binary, but instead as multiple people. Of course, this was a class of amateurs so the author just didn't portray the character clearly enough as a non-binary person. 

The second story bothered me because the main character was referencing someone she had just met as 'they' without them ever being introduced as one. The first instinct of anyone is to judge a person's gender based on looks, simply because it makes it easier to reference them.

Then we had a whole discussion on if we should follow 'they' with singular or plural words, like: They are crazy -- but it's just one person so why the are? Which also contributed to my confusion of the 'they' being more than one person. 'Is' would just sound funny, though.

But, I do know a lot of young, fellow writers who are branching into that non-binary field. I'm sure as the field grows, standards will grow with it. Give it 50 years


----------



## PiP (Mar 24, 2019)

If non-binary people do not want to be referred to as 'he' or 'she', rather than trying to hijack the word 'they' which will only confuse old-timers like me, why not create an alternative word so we are in no doubt of who they are referring to?


----------



## quillman (Mar 24, 2019)

I’m not wild about the idea of making pronouns more complex than they are. If a person in daily life asks me to refer to them by a pronoun of their choice, I shall oblige them. To me, it seems on-par with “Sir,” “Ma’am,” “Officer,” “Counsellor,” “Doctor,” “Senator...”

The difference is in identifying a person, and not their office or social station. I’m sure this could be an active thread in its own rite.

Back in the 70s, we made the turn from Mrs and Miss to include Ms, for those women who identify as female, but don’t want their marital status to enter into business dealings. After all, men have always enjoyed such; “Mister” can be either married or single.

I don’t find that any of the 4 - Mr, Miss, Ms, Mrs - see much use these days. High-ranking company officers are addressed by their first names even by the janitors - as it should be, IMHO.

But he/she dates back to a time when gender had more sway over a person’s life..their rights, their value as a member of a breeding pair.

I’ve no conclusion here..just enjoying the conversation and the excellent points being raised by thread participants.

Maybe that’s one key? “Thread participant” could literally be any entity, and is 100% accurate.


----------



## epimetheus (Mar 24, 2019)

There is a precedent for its use amongst some of the best English language writers. Shakespeare and Austin, among others, have used they to refer to the singular - even though the gender was known.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 24, 2019)

I don't understand the need for non-gender terms.
When I write an LGB*T*Q character, I identify them as whatever THEY identify themselves as.
If I refer to their actual gender, I usually have another character do it or think it.
Insensitive narrator = bad reviews
But an insensitive CHARACTER is representative of the real world.



*Related story:* Only after finishing the last Calizona book, about 700,000 words worth of books, did I realize that I had included a member of the LGBTQ community, in prominent roles, in each of the 4 books.
Hadn't meant to, was never an intentional thing or a message. I just wanted interesting characters.
Wasn't till I was editing the last book that I even realized I'd done it.


----------



## Dluuni (Mar 24, 2019)

PiP said:


> If non-binary people do not want to be referred to as 'he' or 'she', rather than trying to hijack the word 'they' which will only confuse old-timers like me, why not create an alternative word so we are in no doubt of who they are referring to?


Well, I doubt you are so old as to have learned before when "they" was first claimed, back around the time of the Battle of Agincourt and the invention of the first printing press. Singular They is actually older than Singular You, and we seem to have managed that.


Ralph Rotten said:


> I don't understand the need for non-gender terms.
> When I write an LGB*T*Q character, I identify them as whatever THEY identify themselves as.


And I have a bunch of friends that identify with 'they'. It creates issues when people start going all 'It's Pat!' on them. I've also talked to intersex activists, those are the ones pushing for nonbinary legal identification more, given that it causes nontrivial problems when doctors are sufficiently bothered by an ambiguous child that they feel it is justifiable to perform sex-change surgery on newborn infants just so they can declare "It's a ___!". A lot of the "push" is really just trying to get people not to react in shock, horror, and outrage when they see a singular they in spite of the fact that singular they has been accepted English for longer than the printed word.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Mar 24, 2019)

PiP said:


> If non-binary people do not want to be referred to as 'he' or 'she', rather than trying to hijack the word 'they' which will only confuse old-timers like me, why not create an alternative word so we are in no doubt of who they are referring to?



There are other pronouns out there. Some people choose to use 'they,' but I've also met people who use 'ze/zir' and 'ou/ou's.'


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 24, 2019)

Velvet Belly said:


> I completely disagree. Language is how we share ideas; a language that assumes a binary encourages its users to assume a binary. If it's in the language itself that "hey, these people might exist and be valid," at the very least those who've grown up with more inclusive language might be less likely to dismiss us as special snowflakes.
> 
> While "Ms" might not have the power to revolutionise women's rights, it certainly makes a lot of women feel more comfortable and that's still a form of positive change. Improved uptake of gender neutral pronouns won't revolutionise NB's people's rights either, but it makes us more comfortable and shows that some people at least are willing to take us seriously. As for whether this change is close to taking place, singular "they" is already fairly standard amongst the younger generation, at least where I live.



But the language _doesn't_ assume a binary. 

As has been said countless times there is a 'they' and an 'it' and those are perfectly acceptable ways to address a subject or object _provided it makes sense to the writer. _If I am writing about a non-binary person I will use 'they' or 'ou' or whatever works. 

What I did and do contest is (1) That promoting non-binary pronouns is a vital part of achieving actual equality (beyond 'making people feel comfortable' - I don't know exactly what that means and I don't see that as particularly important - I never assume a right to 'feel comfortable' for myself so I am unsure why you feel like you have that) and (2) Whether non-binary-ism should become the standard norm for everybody when writing about any character regardless of that character's identity. 

We can argue about Point 1, that's open to reasonable disagreement and possibly some education on my part, but you cannot, I believe, prove it. And you _definitely _cannot argue on Point 2 unless you want prescriptive language, which you say you don't...



> Yes - it's a total myth that non-binary people want to do away with gendered pronouns. If any do they're an absolute minority.



...so what do you want? I am genuinely curious. In concrete language, without resorting to neo-liberal fart words like 'respect' or 'acceptance', what do you think needs done in this area?



> Hardly a nebulous concept to grasp - respecting people's pronouns makes them feel comfortable and respected. Intentionally ignoring them is likely to make them uncomfortable and indicate you don't respect them. Where's the confusion? And if we truly don't have time to explore these issues as a society, why not give people the benefit of the doubt until we do? If I ask to be called they, do you really need to understand why to respect it? What conceivable harm is there in just going along with it?



I don't know why you're bringing up respect here. I don't disrespect your pronoun choice at all. I thought I made it quite clear. If you asked me to call you _anything _I would call you that. Because that's respectful. Doesn't matter if I see you as a man, woman, or hobgoblin.

I just don't consider widespread adoption of this stuff to be particularly helpful to anybody and the issue as a whole no more important than anything else on the list of 10 trillion things that are needed to achieve utopia. 

But...if you want to push me on it, compared to other issues of equality, such as women earning 78 cents on the dollar or white nationalists machine-gunning mosques or gay nightclubs, I'm afraid pontificating over 'respectful' pronoun usage does, to me, fall into the realm of the nebulous. Possibly even the frivolous. The human race (including the LGBTQ+ community) has bigger fish to fry and not nearly a large enough kitchen. I see this issue as mainly a bit of self-serving student idealism (that may or may not be meant well - jury is out on that for me) coupled with a lot of pedantry and perhaps a little desire for greater cultural influence where there has previously been none. I see it that way because nobody has yet made a case for how it _affects _people in any sense that I, as a binary person, can understand.

That's just my opinion, though, open to change in any direction with facts. I still respect and welcome 100% any writer who wants to pursue non-binary characterization in _their _own work. Just stay in your lane.



> This seems a rather melodramatic picture of the issue at hand. It's not difficult to use "they" pronouns once you're in the habit and it really doesn't affect anyone or anything in any meaningful way, other than the person you're using them on.



I didn't say it was difficult. I said it was inconvenient. I _could _do it. The question is: Why should I?

See, I mostly write about _women _and _men. _Women and men have an identity that involves using 'he' and 'she' not 'they' to write. I already explained why I don't generally like using 'they' to describe characters who are obviously women and men in a previous post. 

I am all for furthering equality, though, so if you or anybody else can make a coherent case for why using 'they' across the board will improve your day-to-day reality beyond 'showing existence and 'making people comfortable' or some token effort at showing solidarity, I am all ears. Make a case along the lines of 'publishers don't accept non-binary writers work solely because of non-traditional pronoun usage which they say they cannot sell because nobody writes that way' and I will listen. But I don't know of that happening on a widespread basis. Until then, I don't think I need to change how I write. It's that simple.

EDIT: If any non-binary writers are under the impression there is an absence of non-binary or trans-friendly places to send stories, feel free to ask: Since this topic begun I have been keeping an informal list of ones I have encountered (can't vouch for them as they only accept work from LGBTQ authors) and would be happy to share.


----------



## Dluuni (Mar 25, 2019)

Well, for one thing, I want to find trans-friendly places to send stories that aren't specialty. For the same reason that a Black author shouldn't have to go to a specialty publisher to publish stories that have Black characters in them.

Also, I don't recall anybody claiming that he and she pronouns should be abolished. In fact, every LGBQTIA author has said that isn't the goal, just that they want 'they' to be made more normalized and accepted as an option. People saying "I don't have any problem with your ridiculous, grammatically incorrect pronouns" is something less than acceptance.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 25, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> Well, for one thing, I want to find trans-friendly places to send stories that aren't specialty. For the same reason that a Black author shouldn't have to go to a specialty publisher to publish stories that have Black characters in them.
> 
> Also, I don't recall anybody claiming that he and she pronouns should be abolished. In fact, every LGBQTIA author has said that isn't the goal, just that they want 'they' to be made more normalized and accepted as an option. People saying "I don't have any problem with your ridiculous, grammatically incorrect pronouns" is something less than acceptance.



I asked you directly earlier in this thread to elaborate on situations where editors had told you that your work was not publishable solely because it involved trans-oriented characters/ issues / style. 

Your response was some rather vague diatribe about people in your home town protesting about bills and feedback from your writing group involving things that I am 100% sure no professional editor would care about - 'religious reasons'.

While I condone no hostility you may have received to your work, you have yet to answer that question. Your writing group being bigoted and people in your hometown protesting bills has nothing to do with editorial feedback. Who the f*ck cares what some writing group or bunch of hayseeds think? I am going to go out on a limb and assume that Alaska isn't exactly the most culturally progressive place in the world, so applying those folks' provincial values to the national or international state of open-mindedness sounds like, at best, an assumption and, at worst, the product of a victim mentality.

 On the other hand, of course, it may be totally accurate and I guess you would know...so, I would like to be educated: What have editors (or publishers, agents, or reviewers) said that has led you to be 100% positive the reason they rejected _your_ work was because of some aversion to LGBQTIA content as opposed to, I don't know, maybe it just not being quite good enough?


----------



## Squalid Glass (Mar 25, 2019)

Lucky, I think your responses have been pretty reasonable. I would think, however, that many traditional publishers would find the use of “they” to be hard to publish simply because the use of the word as a singular would be confusing. I would think that would be one major sticking point for many people.


----------



## Dluuni (Mar 25, 2019)

I don't do editors because there is never, ever a direct reason given for anything. I just know that the moment people learn about me, anything I do in a professional setting is judged much more harshly, and I suddenly 'don't fit with the culture' or whatever silliness. It isn't even from the top down, a janitor can do a lot of professional damage if they want. There is never, ever a smoking gun, but the correlations are very clear.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 25, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> Lucky, I think your responses have been pretty reasonable. I would think, however, that many traditional publishers would find the use of “they” to be hard to publish simply because the use of the word as a singular would be confusing. I would think that would be one major sticking point for many people.



Point taken. Still sounds like an excuse. 

Look I don't pretend to know anybody's experiences or be right on this subject, only that I find it interesting when even the smallest scrutiny is given it always comes down to some version of 'I just know they won't accept it' and an endless stream of negativity with scant evidence of anybody trying. A lot of characters are difficult to write for a lot of different reasons. We don't adapt the language wholesale to accommodate every difficulty. 

The use of 'they' as a singular is by no means unheard of. It dates back centuries. Dlunni already mentioned its use in Jane Austen, Shakespeare and the Bible, to explain how 'they' was proper English. It doesn't get much more traditional or mainstream than those books and other examples have been given. How can proper English be confusing? And are we really going to say using it would lead to a deal-breaker if executed with total competency and a clear context? I don't believe it. 

Here is a list of books that focus on NB characters. At least some of those I know are traditionally published. Here is another one. Maybe the folks who are having trouble would be best served by looking into some of those.

Anyway, with that said, I will remove myself from further discussion on the matter.


----------



## Ultraroel (Mar 25, 2019)

I'll drop a story as soon as this happens.. I have no interest in inclusive writing for the sake of inclusiveness.


----------



## Dluuni (Mar 25, 2019)

...As opposed to? I mean, it's no different than deciding that a side character is a dentist in a story not about dentistry...


----------

