From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:42:20 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

I'll answer him here instead of in two followups.

In article <AWERLING.92Sep10225833@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>In article <2466@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>
>Muffy:
>   >Well...actually, there *is* a pair of gender-neutral pronouns (there is
>   >also a possessive form) which has been invented, by those people who saw
>   >a need.  You will find it in frequent use on such newsgroups as
>   >alt.sex.bondage, if you would like to check it out.  The pronouns in
>
>-   Oooooooo. Mainstream.
>
>Are you just naturally a bitch or do you have to force it?

One of my all time favorite songs is _The Bitch Is Back_ by Taupin/John.
It's so nice of you to notice.

My contention remains that the use of this set sie/hir/hym/et al., is 
relegated to a small section of the USA. Readers to not use these 
words, 'tho they are exposed to them.

And Hillel's stats of readership only show that alt.sex.bondage is a big
fish in a little pond. USENET isn't the world.

>   >question are "sie" (gender-neutral equivalent to "she" and "he") and
>   >"hir" (gender-neutral equivalent to "her" and "his").
>
>-   Yes, I have seen these. Seldom. For me they don't work. I know no one
>-   personally who does use them.
>
>The problem with "hir" (as I see it) is that it's verbalization is
>difficult to distinguish from "her."

I owuld have to agree that this would bother me if I actually thought it would
be a good idea to use it.

>   >The thing you seem to have overlooked is that not everyone thinks the
>   >same way.  Therefore, some people (such as AWERLING) believe that we
>
>-   Actually, I didn't overlook it as much as incorporate it into my
>-   post by capaitalizing WE. I suppose I should have put a more sarcastic
>-   tone of voice on that one word, but..... such is life.
>
>You have an axe to grind, obviously.  What is it?

As in your other post where you quote my "WE NEED" fragment, I was making 
a point about the fact that whenever someone says, "WE NEED" or even just
"WE" in these contexts it generally doesn't include enough of the general
populace to support the use of an inclusive "WE". 

Some one said, "We need this". Since the fact is I don't need this and a
larger more significant portion of the population doesn't bang down the
doors of the publisher's of Strunk & White to require it, I took the
use of the term "WE" to be an attempt at undeserved legitimacy.

The axe is well past ground. I mean, if you can't even use plural pronouns
without misinterpretation, how am I to believe to be capable of using "new 
and improved" non-gendered pronouns in a reasonable fashion?

The bottom line is when someone comes up with genderless pronouns that
catch the public's fancy and spirit like the title "Ms." you have something.
Until then don't try to make it sound like anybody but you (plural) cares.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism