Respectful term for nonbinary people and people of unknown gender?

[The Extinguisher]

Speak for yourself. Dude is genderneutral here. If you don't want to adopt it, cool. But it is.

its really not. you can insist that it is, but its only neutral in that sense that we use it for groups of guys, and mixed groups.

to test this, go around a bunch of straight men and ask them how many dudes that have slept with

[Anymage]

ill note that any explanation that has to invoke "coincidence" multiple times is probably not very good tho

Which is why nobody believes that a gajillion random happenstances could make something as complex as a human being, and therefore a creator is the only sensible assumption.

That said, I am an adult human female, so something that seems to be an abbreviation for "girl" or a word meant to describe the offspring of chickens, also isn't right and the latter comes across as derogatory.

Feminists have been trying for decades to remove gender from the language. Wanna tell me how well the gender neutral pronouns have been catching on outside of very niche subgroups?

I mean, if you really want to keep trying the same things you've been doing, I'm not going to stop you. Just know what they say about people who do that and expect different results.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Wanna tell me how well the gender neutral pronouns have been catching on outside of very niche subgroups?.

They've been in regular use since at least 1382, except for that weird prescriptivist trend in the late 1800s and early 1900s so I'd say "quite well, thanks".

Grey Wolf

[Razade]

its really not. you can insist that it is, but its only neutral in that sense that we use it for groups of guys, and mixed groups.

Except it is. It's not something you can argue because people are using it, demonstrably, as a gender neutral term. Just because it isn't in one context doesn't mean it isn't in another. Like. That's just how words work.

to test this, go around a bunch of straight men and ask them how many dudes that have slept with

By golly! Words mean different things in different context?! Who'd have thought that.

[The Jack]

They've been in regular use since at least 1382, except for that weird prescriptivist trend in the late 1800s and early 1900s so I'd say "quite well, thanks".

Grey Wolf

'regular use'
Alright. Sure. What page are we on?
Define regular, because I don't know of anything that's not about objects, or 'they'. There's no third person singular in english that's for people in regular use.



Mind, everyone, that English is one of the better languages when it comes to gender; nobody's going to insist you use the male form of table in English.

[halfeye]

Mind, everyone, that English is one of the better languages when it comes to gender; nobody's going to insist you use the male form of table in English.

I should say not. Why would you put skirts on table legs if tables were male? Clearly, if tables were male, the legs would need trousers.

[The Extinguisher]

Which is why nobody believes that a gajillion random happenstances could make something as complex as a human being, and therefore a creator is the only sensible assumption.

Yikes man, its not that deep

Except it is. It's not something you can argue because people are using it, demonstrably, as a gender neutral term. Just because it isn't in one context doesn't mean it isn't in another. Like. That's just how words work.



By golly! Words mean different things in different context?! Who'd have thought that.

I see, were being pedantic here. Okay, let me rephrase. Dude has the common conception of being gender neutral because it, like other words that refer to men, individuals or groups, are something that doesnt need to be delineated from mixed groups. This is because, and also normalizes, the notion that maleness is default, and womenness is 'other' so needs to be specified.

Dude isnt used neutrally like we use they neutrally. Dude is used neutrally like he is used neutrally. Fundamentally unhelpful and symptomatic of larger structual inequality

[137beth]

Answering the OP's question:
I've seen "ser" used as a gender-neutral alternative to "sir" or "ma'am." I don't know where it comes from.

I've also heard "mx" (pronounced "mix") as a gender-neutral alternative to mr. or ms.

[Razade]

I see, were being pedantic here. Okay, let me rephrase. Dude has the common conception of being gender neutral because it, like other words that refer to men, individuals or groups, are something that doesnt need to be delineated from mixed groups. This is because, and also normalizes, the notion that maleness is default, and womenness is 'other' so needs to be specified.

Yikes dude, it's not that deep.

Dude isnt used neutrally like we use they neutrally. Dude is used neutrally like he is used neutrally. Fundamentally unhelpful and symptomatic of larger structual inequality

Considering people object to they, I imagine there's going to be objections for any host of reasons any particular person. I am going to keep using they and dude and when people want to come at me talking about structural inequality and devaluing womanness I'm going to point out I was just trying to be polite and friendly and they're being absurd.

[Caerulea]

Yikes dude, it's not that deep.

I may be misunderstanding, but I believe The Extinguisher's point was that it is a problem that people don't think about it, and just use it out of habit and convenience. That common usage is to address a group potentially composed of a variety of genders as all men is the issue. As such, using "dude" as a neutral term reinforces (in a minor way) that male is the default gender.

Considering people object to they, I imagine there's going to be objections for any host of reasons any particular person. I am going to keep using they and dude and when people want to come at me talking about structural inequality and devaluing womanness I'm going to point out I was just trying to be polite and friendly and they're being absurd.

People, taken as a large group, rarely agree on anything and if they do, it takes a long time for consensus to develop. That objections exist is not a particularly strong argument. While your usage may be perfectly well-intended, the widespread usage of the terms does say something about culture, and is a valid thing to want to change.

In the end, you do what you like, but consider the implications. Also, we can change language however we want to (even though I dislike the practice of replacing words with letters. (e.g. you→u & are→r).)

—Caerulea

[Razade]

I may be misunderstanding, but I believe The Extinguisher's point was that it is a problem that people don't think about it, and just use it out of habit and convenience.

No, I get that. I don't particularly agree that that's a problem. That's how words take on new meaning. We drop the baggage.

That common usage is to address a group potentially composed of a variety of genders as all men is the issue. As such, using "dude" as a neutral term reinforces (in a minor way) that male is the default gender.

It's a common usage. We can acknowledge that and move on.

People, taken as a large group, rarely agree on anything and if they do, it takes a long time for consensus to develop. That objections exist is not a particularly strong argument.

It's also not my argument that we don't come up with something because people disagree. It's my argument that I, on a personal level, will use them even if people disagree. Which is as strong as it needs to be.

[The Extinguisher]

I may be misunderstanding, but I believe The Extinguisher's point was that it is a problem that people don't think about it, and just use it out of habit and convenience. That common usage is to address a group potentially composed of a variety of genders as all men is the issue. As such, using "dude" as a neutral term reinforces (in a minor way) that male is the default gender.


People, taken as a large group, rarely agree on anything and if they do, it takes a long time for consensus to develop. That objections exist is not a particularly strong argument. While your usage may be perfectly well-intended, the widespread usage of the terms does say something about culture, and is a valid thing to want to change.

In the end, you do what you like, but consider the implications. Also, we can change language however we want to (even though I dislike the practice of replacing words with letters. (e.g. you→u & are→r).)

—Caerulea

yeah basically. i like have agender language. personally, i dislike gender as a thing despite feeling a strong connection to it. ive spent years of my life examining and dealing with gender as really wish this wasnt a problem. i wish i could address a mixed group of people as dude just because dude is a fun word to say. but right now, you cant just ignore the structural foundation of the gender binary. its there, whether you want to think about it or not.

when we look at the evolution of language we cant just wash our hands of how that evolution is happening. Just saying 'dude is gender neutral because thats how its used' youre ignoring the context of what that means, the prevalence of similar 'gender neutral male words', and all social and societal issues that surround how we communicate with each other

and if all you care about is being kind and polite, if someone says, hey dont use that word in that context, its just much easier to use a different word. instead of defending the current word on a topic dedicated to finding a different word to use

[Vinyadan]

This is something that I have seen as a problem for some time: there are competing ideas about what an egalitarian language should look like, and they exclude each other. So one idea is that we should use the current masculine form of substantives for everyone, because it generally is the base form from which the feminine form is derived, and the feminine form also sometimes has a different meaning attached that implies inferiority. But then there also the idea that we should use the feminine form every time it is possible, and that we should invent new feminine forms where they are not present, because the deeds of women must be acknowledged and clearly attributed to women, so that they get the representation they deserve.

[The Extinguisher]

This is something that I have seen as a problem for some time: there are competing ideas about what an egalitarian language should look like, and they exclude each other. So one idea is that we should use the current masculine form of substantives for everyone, because it generally is the base form from which the feminine form is derived, and the feminine form also sometimes has a different meaning attached that implies inferiority. But then there also the idea that we should use the feminine form every time it is possible, and that we should invent new feminine forms where they are not present, because the deeds of women must be acknowledged and clearly attributed to women, so that they get the representation they deserve.

Interestingly, neither of those are what im suggesting - ive been vying for a third option barrelling right in the middle between the binary.

~
Just use words that dont have inherent gender. If they dont exist, you can just make them up. Were very good at making up words people do it all the time. We dont need to justify calling mixed groups dudes or chicks because you can just call people coolkids

People always seem so resistent to making new words in these cases. I could throw you (the rhetorical you) something like ootslike and youd understand what i mean. We could have a conversation about the word despite it being the first time either of us had heard it. Language is incredibly powerful at facilitating communication

But the moment it becomes about identity, that power shuts off. Suddenly "xe/xem/xer" is a bridge too far, despite looking and acting like every other third person pronoun. The walls of grammer come up, and we start talking about the need for 'clear communication' despite the fact that we both understand the word enough to debate about it

~
Look, i didnt plan to go off on grammer but its a frustrating part of these conversations everytime.

To answer the op: just call people what they want to be called. If you dont know what they want to called, be as general as possible

I like comrade

[Scarlet Knight]

"C'mon people now; smile on your brother each other.
Everybody get together,
try and love one another right now."


Of all the suggestions so far, (if we must come up with a term) I'm coming around to liking "friend". I can see using it: "Hello, friend. How are you?" Sounds like an offer, really. Maybe an Amish touch? True gender neutral, it's not a made up word so people are comfortable with it, it's less familiar than "pal/buddy/ honey/ sweetie", more respectful than "dude/ace/ kid", less foreign than "amigo/ paesan" and no bad history like "comrade".

[Razade]

Interestingly, neither of those are what im suggesting - ive been vying for a third option barrelling right in the middle between the binary.

Good luck.

Just use words that dont have inherent gender. If they dont exist, you can just make them up. Were very good at making up words people do it all the time. We dont need to justify calling mixed groups dudes or chicks because you can just call people coolkids

All words are made up. We can decouple them from the baggage. You're the one not letting go. Just let go. It's easier and more fun on the side of the pond that goes "Yeah, all that baggage we don't like? Screw it."

But the moment it becomes about identity, that power shuts off. Suddenly "xe/xem/xer" is a bridge too far, despite looking and acting like every other third person pronoun. The walls of grammer come up, and we start talking about the need for 'clear communication' despite the fact that we both understand the word enough to debate about it

Then stop making it about identity.

Look, i didnt plan to go off on grammer but its a frustrating part of these conversations everytime.

Because you make it so.

Of all the suggestions so far, (if we must come up with a term) I'm coming around to liking "friend". I can see using it: "Hello, friend. How are you?" Sounds like an offer, really. Maybe an Amish touch? True gender neutral, it's not a made up word so people are comfortable with it, it's less familiar than "pal/buddy/ honey/ sweetie", more respectful than "dude/ace/ kid", less foreign than "amigo/ paesan" and no bad history like "comrade".

I have to laugh at the fact that "amigo" is too foreign for you to use. You want to assign some level of respect to Dude/et all and won't use Boss because...they're not the boss of you. Or Hefe, because that's probably too "foriegn" to you. Forget that English has more French and Latin words in it than a liquored up Roman Soldier roaming through Gaul has rocks in his sandels, but if it's got a little cilantro and lime on it it's verboten. Or "bad history" because ya know, only the Reds use Comrade.

All of that but Friend is a-ok. I don't know you from Adam. If you come up and call me friend my first assumption is you're trying to get something from me. Of course I still wouldn't be offended, but I'd absolutely wonder what angle you're working and why you think I'm too stupid to not see you working that angle. Friend is super, overly familiar.

[druid91]

"Hey! You!" Accompany with pointing at the person.

[The Extinguisher]

Then stop making it about identity.

it never stops being about identity, is the thing
pretending its not about identity is taking a pretty firm stance regarding identity

[Razade]

it never stops being about identity, is the thing
pretending its not about identity is taking a pretty firm stance regarding identity

I'm not taking a stand against identity. Or pretending it doesn't exist. I am standing against your arguments and assertions and your demand I do or stop doing things because you want to speak on behalf of a wide range of people.

[DaOldeWolf]

My native language is spanish so I might be having the wrong impression on english but I have heard "sir" being used in a formal manner on ocassion with both genders.

I might also be wrong here but usually when I dont know someone´s gender, I just say them politely about they would prefer to be addressed as. I dont need to dwell in details and its clear (or just omit terms). Afterall, verbal language is not the only way to show respect to others.

[The Extinguisher]

I'm not taking a stand against identity. Or pretending it doesn't exist. I am standing against your arguments and assertions and your demand I do or stop doing things because you want to speak on behalf of a wide range of people.

im not demanding you do anything. im not your mother and i literally do not care what you do.

ive been suggesting re-examining the way we use certain languages, and, to be respectful and polite to people, be general if you do not know how to be specific. youre free to do whatever you want with those suggestions, the information. you can keep calling people 'dude' under the false pretense that they are okay with it, or you can even deliberately call people dude even when you know they aren't okay with it. do whatever you want

im dont want to force anyone to do anything, you can choose to do anything. but if you choose to ignore the wishes of people, then i get to think less of you. you dont have to care about that, but it that doesnt stop me from doing it

[Razade]

My native language is spanish so I might be having the wrong impression on english but I have heard "sir" being used in a formal manner on ocassion with both genders.

It happens. It isn't common by any stretch of the imagination. It's one of those things we joke about in military movies, where the women are called Sir because the military is just this big macho silly place so of course they'd just default to everyone being a man.

im not demanding you do anything. im not your mother and i literally do not care what you do.

You certainly claim that. Your words say otherwise though, maybe it's just the way you convey it. Who knows. I can't read your heart or mind. You sure think you can though.

you can keep calling people 'dude' under the false pretense that they are okay with it

Because you want to then go on and say this, without irony.

[The Extinguisher]

here, ill give you a freebie, right now. i do not like it when people call me dude, or refer to a group i am a part of as dudes. i do not want to be referred to that way.

statistically speaking, im not the only person who thinks this way. so if you want to call someone or a group of someones dude, unless you know for a fact that no one in the group thinks like me (by asking them), you risk misidentifying someone, and thats just not a cool thing to do*. you dont lose anything by using something more general, and you gain not having unintentionally hurt someone. theres no downside. look ill even give you some example terms so you cant say i never do anything for you

comrade
boss
friend
pal
coolkid
y'all
fellow youth
shark
sportsfans
literally anything that isnt rooted in gender language its not that hard
compatriot


*note: if you disagree with me on this part please say so itll save me a lot of time

[Razade]

here, ill give you a freebie, right now. i do not like it when people call me dude, or refer to a group i am a part of as dudes. i do not want to be referred to that way.

Yeah, I gathered.

statistically speaking, im not the only person who thinks this way. so if you want to call someone or a group of someones dude, unless you know for a fact that no one in the group thinks like me (by asking them), you risk misidentifying someone, and thats just not a cool thing to do*.

Only real caveat here is...they could tell me? It's a two way street right? If I can't tell then I could ask. But you could just tell me. Sure there's some considerations because people are jerks sometimes but generally speaking...it's not on me to ask. I'm not a mind reader. I have really bad social anxiety so even thinking of asking is just a nightmare for me. Other people have it worse. So can we agree here that it's on both parties? I don't even care to get into whose job it is more. That's needless. Can we just agree that the base level, it's everyone's job in some small way to make sure this information is being conveyed?

I don't want to misidentify people. But if you're just expecting, statistically speaking, me to hone in on the blend of gender expressions when the majority of people are as you say "Cis" then ya know....you might need to reevaluate some things. If you, and this is the general you not...you you, want to get up in arms that people ask for that...that's also on you. I do my part by respecting peoples gender expression because that's the right. Thing. To. Do. I support people when they're transitioning, I champion their rights to live a comfortable and happy life. That's as much as I can do.

you dont lose anything by using something more general, and you gain not having unintentionally hurt someone. theres no downside.

I've said pretty plainly that I use they/them online just as a general thing. I can't be more general than that. I still get complaints. That's on them of course but if you want to go on about how "other people statistically speaking don't care for dude" then ya know. Statistically speaking (And I can quote this thread) there are people who find They offensive. So ya know. Screwed if I do, screwed if I don't.

boss

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey, now we're talkin' boss! Don't suppose we could get rid of Comrade though, and nothing too foreign. Might scare some people.

[Comrade]

Don't suppose we could get rid of Comrade though

Whoa, hey, I'm just an innocent bystander here. I knew this username was a mistake.

Seriously though, let's not make 'boss' the go-to gender neutral term. Always weirds me out when people I know refer to me as 'boss', makes me feel like some kind of mid-level mobster.

[Razade]

Whoa, hey, I'm just an innocent bystander here. I knew this username was a mistake.

Hey! Don't look at me, I like Comrade. I support Tovarich even! But some people think it's a little too Red! Talk to Scarlet...oh. Oh....OH!

Seriously though, let's not make 'boss' the go-to gender neutral term. Always weirds me out when people I know refer to me as 'boss', makes me feel like some kind of mid-level mobster.

We don't know you're not. Boss.

[Scarlet Knight]

*Emergency message - Moscow bureau* Cover is blown! Repeat - cover is blown! Send instructions - Over!*

I have to laugh at the fact that "amigo" is too foreign for you to use. You want to assign some level of respect to Dude/et all and won't use Boss because...they're not the boss of you. Or Hefe, because that's probably too "foriegn" to you. Forget that English has more French and Latin words in it than a liquored up Roman Soldier roaming through Gaul has rocks in his sandels, but if it's got a little cilantro and lime on it it's verboten. Or "bad history" because ya know, only the Reds use Comrade.

All of that but Friend is a-ok. I don't know you from Adam. If you come up and call me friend my first assumption is you're trying to get something from me. Of course I still wouldn't be offended, but I'd absolutely wonder what angle you're working and why you think I'm too stupid to not see you working that angle. Friend is super, overly familiar.

"Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good." I doubt this will be unanimous anyway.

First, I doubt I'll use "friend" that way as I am still working with "groovy" in my vocabulary and do not think this a problem that needs a solution. I said it was less familiar than other similar terms if we are trying to find a term..

Second, at the risk of drifting into politics, "foreign things" are not particularly welcome in todays America. To ignore that is like ignoring that a word has a sexist, bigoted, or communist history. You can, but it makes acceptance by others harder.

[5crownik007]

here, ill give you a freebie, right now. i do not like it when people call me dude, or refer to a group i am a part of as dudes. i do not want to be referred to that way.

statistically speaking, im not the only person who thinks this way. so if you want to call someone or a group of someones dude, unless you know for a fact that no one in the group thinks like me (by asking them), you risk misidentifying someone, and thats just not a cool thing to do*. you dont lose anything by using something more general, and you gain not having unintentionally hurt someone. theres no downside. look ill even give you some example terms so you cant say i never do anything for you

comrade
boss
friend
pal
coolkid
y'all
fellow youth
shark
sportsfans
literally anything that isnt rooted in gender language its not that hard
compatriot


*note: if you disagree with me on this part please say so itll save me a lot of time

But it's convenient to call a group of people "dudes" or "guys". On a certain technical and tangential level, calling a group of people "men" is gender neutral, but I doubt people will know why. It's culturally understood that a group of people can be called by these words, regardless of gender, so why is it an issue? It's only mean if someone's trying to be mean. I feel like the risk of misidentifying someone is outweighed by the complete lack of consequences, physical or emotional from doing it. I wouldn't intentionally misidentify someone, because it costs me nothing to be compliant to a certain degree.

Also, which statistics?

[Vinyadan]

Whoa, hey, I'm just an innocent bystander here. I knew this username was a mistake.

Seriously though, let's not make 'boss' the go-to gender neutral term. Always weirds me out when people I know refer to me as 'boss', makes me feel like some kind of mid-level mobster.

When you'll have climbed up the ladder, they'll start calling you "Don Comrado"

About "xe/xem/xer", it doesn't act like any other personal pronoun. It has the object form of him, but the genitive of her. And, in her, the genitive is the same as the object form, so that's another difference. And, of course, it doesn't resemble it or its in any way. (Why do I cite it? Because it's a third-person pronoun). It has some sympathy from my side because it looks like something written in the dialect of Venice, but it isn't intuitive. This is the difference with OotS-like. There is no new component in OotS-like: we know you can build adjectives that end in "like" (compare "lifelike", "childlike") starting from a name. Instead, "xe/xem/xer" assembles different forms that follow no common rule, and the only way you have to learn to use and understand them correctly is learning them by heart.

[Themrys]

But it's convenient to call a group of people "dudes" or "guys". On a certain technical and tangential level, calling a group of people "men" is gender neutral, but I doubt people will know why. It's culturally understood that a group of people can be called by these words, regardless of gender, so why is it an issue? It's only mean if someone's trying to be mean.

Sexism isn't about being "mean", most of the time. It is about treating women as an afterthought, as objects, even. You would not be mean to an object, either.

And if I am part of a group that consists of both women and men (even if there's only a single man in there) and you call this group "guys" then I will not know whether you view "guy" as neutral term, or if you simply chose to ignore my existence and feelings.

Calling a woman "hey guy" is okay, because then it is obvious you mean to use it as neutral.

Calling groups of people "men" will not be offensive if, and only if, you commonly refer to the two sexes as "wifmen and weremen". (If you are eccentric enough to do so, congrats, you get to call a group of people with me in it "men")