Sweden Moves Towards Gender Neutrality [Support Thread]
- Thread starter Darken12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
During military service, I've had Laestadians call us city folk rubbercocks, because real men apparently don't use contraception. Now, maybe I'm just naive, and I can laugh it off as wanton ignorance only because I don't have to deal with it on a daily basis. Maybe some people don't have the luxury of saying "fuck you!" and moving on with their life. That right there is a very hard concept for me to wrap my head around, because I do have that luxury. Why doesn't everyone else?Lieju said:
In the case of The Escapist that would very much be preaching to the choir, as I feel it would be in my local community.Lieju said:
My granny on the other hand is way past redemption. There's no changing her mind at this point, but there's no need to. In 60 years she'll be dead, and my generation will have taken the place of hers. I'm sure the youth of 2070 will think our views are just as antiquated, but it's okay, because they will then be the future trendsetters.
Anyway, the thing is this: I have never witnessed gender-based oppression firsthand. And I've looked. Sure I can google up all sorts of bullshittery, but I just can't see it being the norm and not the exception. Like school shooters. As in, not necessarily an underlying problem with society itself (unless we use a scale much smaller than the western civilization, or even a country), but just people with personal issues and hangups. For this I get told that I'm part of the problem, and that I couldn't possibly understand (and the latter just might be right).
In the end I'm left feeling antagonized and angry, because somehow I've turned into the villain of the story. I can't relate, and as such it's better for me to not engage at all. I realize that being a feminist on this site must be tough, what with the stream of opposition they get whenever they open their mouths, but you have to understand that when you call half the population victims, the implications of that will alienate the other half. Anyone would defend themselves if they feel they've been unjustly accused of something offending their sensibilities.
For fuck's sake, I didn't mean to ramble on like that. I'm already feeling the anxiety... That's another reason I avoid these threads. Time to ditch this site for a week or two.
Where the fuck are the Klingons...
?In-alien human rights.? As in we don't all have the right to fix our broken right leg should it ever become broken. We all have the right to fix broken limbs as needed. So just because one person broke a limb doesn't mean you have to, or that you have to go around with your same limb coated in a cast for all that time. Sort of like getting the right drug for the right ailment, not just a life time supply of penicillin. And that could really suck if you were allergic to penicillin.
No fuckin' Klingons? Kirk got in shit for that one with the new High Chancellor I think it was. I don't want to start THAT flame war. Too many damn torpedoes.
Gender like ethnicity has defining differences. In the case of gender those are necessary to pro-creation. If Sweden were to outlaw say the existence of a school of Gynecology, because of gender neutrality, I'd been sincerely concerned for the health and welfare of their state's citizens.
At the moment my main concern about this initiative would be it's ability to spark a little 'Helter Skelter' between the genders. I would further go on to suggest that schools histories of handling bullying ? at least in my country ? are less then stellar. It's the sort of thing swept under the rug at the best of times. When things go truly badly, the school does it's best to suggest there was nothing it could do. To create a potentially hostile environment, with such a poor record of handling such environmental circumstances as they occur in nature, seems at best fool hardy at worst... Well you get the idea.
Finally... this initiative to 'destroy gender' seems flawed at it's heart. It could have less then desirable long term effects for everyone concerned. It also enforces certain gender rolls on people simply by attempting to tackle them. For instance, it immediately implies the home environment is not safe by suggesting the school environment is safer. It goes on to suggest that there is something wrong with what boys enjoy because it is restricted in the 'safer school environment'. While adding that a girl can play safely at home when a boy can't. That seems extremely prejudicial and like its enforcing gender rolls in and of itself.
I suppose we'll all have to sit back and wait for the crop they're sewing over there to sprout up and see what comes of it.
?In-alien human rights.? As in we don't all have the right to fix our broken right leg should it ever become broken. We all have the right to fix broken limbs as needed. So just because one person broke a limb doesn't mean you have to, or that you have to go around with your same limb coated in a cast for all that time. Sort of like getting the right drug for the right ailment, not just a life time supply of penicillin. And that could really suck if you were allergic to penicillin.
No fuckin' Klingons? Kirk got in shit for that one with the new High Chancellor I think it was. I don't want to start THAT flame war. Too many damn torpedoes.
Gender like ethnicity has defining differences. In the case of gender those are necessary to pro-creation. If Sweden were to outlaw say the existence of a school of Gynecology, because of gender neutrality, I'd been sincerely concerned for the health and welfare of their state's citizens.
At the moment my main concern about this initiative would be it's ability to spark a little 'Helter Skelter' between the genders. I would further go on to suggest that schools histories of handling bullying ? at least in my country ? are less then stellar. It's the sort of thing swept under the rug at the best of times. When things go truly badly, the school does it's best to suggest there was nothing it could do. To create a potentially hostile environment, with such a poor record of handling such environmental circumstances as they occur in nature, seems at best fool hardy at worst... Well you get the idea.
Finally... this initiative to 'destroy gender' seems flawed at it's heart. It could have less then desirable long term effects for everyone concerned. It also enforces certain gender rolls on people simply by attempting to tackle them. For instance, it immediately implies the home environment is not safe by suggesting the school environment is safer. It goes on to suggest that there is something wrong with what boys enjoy because it is restricted in the 'safer school environment'. While adding that a girl can play safely at home when a boy can't. That seems extremely prejudicial and like its enforcing gender rolls in and of itself.
I suppose we'll all have to sit back and wait for the crop they're sewing over there to sprout up and see what comes of it.
What are they afraid of? Because that's what this boils down to: fear.
Building gender equality through forced newspeak is both absurd and ineffectual. I hear the suicide rate in scandinavian countries is through the roof, no wonder why if they take dangerous detours such as this because of conformism.
Building gender equality through forced newspeak is both absurd and ineffectual. I hear the suicide rate in scandinavian countries is through the roof, no wonder why if they take dangerous detours such as this because of conformism.
Seems fine to me - gender neutral pronouns already exist in English (though I can't remember exactly what they are... possible zhir (instead of he/her), and another one...). i've never known someone that actually used them - most gender neutral people I know, including my partner, just use "they". And for the people saying that thats for plurals, it isn't always.
I don't know Swedish, so I don't know if there's an equivalent word already in use.
I don't know Swedish, so I don't know if there's an equivalent word already in use.
I wish the Netherlands would do the same. The binary gender stereotypes and gender roles society wants to reinforce on everyone has always confused me so much as a kid. I think everyone would be much happier and develop more agency over their lives if they had the choice to be whatever they want. Dress how you want, like what you enjoy most, study what interests you, play with what toys you choose, etc.
Every time I walk into a toy store and see one side in bright pink with a girl sign above it, which is absent of lego, nerf toys, all kinds of kid scientist stuff, dinosaurs, games and what have you I cry a little inside.
Every time I walk into a toy store and see one side in bright pink with a girl sign above it, which is absent of lego, nerf toys, all kinds of kid scientist stuff, dinosaurs, games and what have you I cry a little inside.
But for all that, there are people who don't fit in your neat little "male" and "female" boxes. Intersex and gender neutral people exist too. Why can't they have a word, like "hen"? I don't agree with forcing everyone to use it if they clearly identify as male or female, but what about the people that don't?I_am_a_Spoon said:
Yay Sweden! I really hope we follow suit!
Having a gender-neutral word when referring to a person is, I think, one of the key goals in achieving an equitable society as possible. You can join all races together under the flag of nationality or species but at the end of the day there's still a divide in life between genders and so long as that divide is inescapable in our language, it's enforced.
Sometimes a person just wants to be a person, not a gender and all the baggage that comes with it.
Having a gender-neutral word doesn't erase Male and Female, their usage and value - it just gives us the option of not being restricted to them.
Yay Sweden!
Having a gender-neutral word when referring to a person is, I think, one of the key goals in achieving an equitable society as possible. You can join all races together under the flag of nationality or species but at the end of the day there's still a divide in life between genders and so long as that divide is inescapable in our language, it's enforced.
Sometimes a person just wants to be a person, not a gender and all the baggage that comes with it.
Having a gender-neutral word doesn't erase Male and Female, their usage and value - it just gives us the option of not being restricted to them.
Yay Sweden!
Holy shit! What is this thing? Where am I?
Is this thread real?
You guys do realise that this thing has not changed ANYTHING except that there is now a "hipster" stereotype of parents that get a bit upset when their child gets called him or her.
The ONLY thing this word have managed to do is give us a new slurr to call people that look a bit inbetween genders. Hell it's barely even used for that. I might aswell add that the word has been around for aslong as I can remember and I can hardly see how adding it to the swedish dictionary is big news in anywho, why or way.
Oh, and you should probably thank/blame Yohio for this entire thingy, since this whole thing did mysteriously pop-up around the same time he did.
Is this thread real?
You guys do realise that this thing has not changed ANYTHING except that there is now a "hipster" stereotype of parents that get a bit upset when their child gets called him or her.
The ONLY thing this word have managed to do is give us a new slurr to call people that look a bit inbetween genders. Hell it's barely even used for that. I might aswell add that the word has been around for aslong as I can remember and I can hardly see how adding it to the swedish dictionary is big news in anywho, why or way.
Oh, and you should probably thank/blame Yohio for this entire thingy, since this whole thing did mysteriously pop-up around the same time he did.
Biology did create the original social conditioning, and the chemical broth that men and women are individually subjected to create very different minds. However, I would argue that social conditioning plays a huge role. Humans have not evolved very much in 1,000 years (as evolution takes a much longer period of time), yet society has changed immensely over that time period. If human social factors are mainly caused by biology, then society should be more or less the same (with the exception of an ever rising level of technology). And this is certainly not the case.Aramis Night said:
We can also see the importance of social conditioning through various cultures. Tribes in Eastern Africa, for example, have a rite of manhood in which severe scarring is done to the back in order to imitate the scales of the crocodile. Self-injury is completely against every natural biological instinct, yet the people regard it as a point of pride to receive such scars. That is, the social pressure of attributing manliness to this scarring overcomes the biological urges of self preservation (not saying that this scarring is bad, just using it as an example).
And I agree with the fact that no person can "decide" for another person whether they should indulge in his/her own nature. However, that choice is currently being made for people. Girls are encouraged to do girly things, while boys are encouraged to do manly things. Girls are supposed to be sensitive and caring, while boys are supposed to bottle up emotions and compete with one another. While these undoubtedly do have biological roots based on the chemical facts of testosterone and estrogen, society amplifies their effect. Driven by images and a social standard of "beauty," women are driven to starving themselves far beyond what is biological healthy (or even biologically attractive). Driven by social standards of scoring=manliness, men spend tons of effort to pursue and sleep with women. While desiring sex is biologically driven, the social stigma of being a male virgin (or a female non-virgin) is definitely not.
By declaring a gender neutral term, the government can reduce these effects, or at least provide an optional identity. However, whether or not this will be effective at all will have to be seen.
"Think of the children, we must protect them from themselves and things that might harm their minds or bodies" -- random politically correct overprotective person.Genocidicles said:
It's the same kind of protection thinking that ruined playing baseball at recess 16 years ago when I was in 5th or 6th grade(can't remember which).
Kids like me, then, who had their own baseball bats and baseballs, brought them to school(because there was no rule against it, since they were seen as items for recreation at recess), and got together on one of the school's baseball fields and pitched to each other during recess.
That was until one kid got hit by a ball in the leg and got a bruise. From then on out, we were told that we weren't allowed to bring sporting equipment to school, that the school would provide a safe alternative. The next day we were given a insanely thin and light plastic bat and hollow plastic ball(so bad it was almost comical if it wasn't so sad), probably something the school bought for at most 50 cents together at a dollar store back in the day. The ball was so light that if you stand the normal space between batter and pitcher, no matter how hard we threw the ball, it would only make it half the distance on the best throw. Heck, even throwing the ball into a light breeze would practically blow the ball right back into our hands. So, we tried having the batter throw the ball up and hitting it that way, and also with that, no matter how hard the ball was hit, it wouldn't even make it the distance to the pitcher.
Because of this, the fun of baseball at recess officially died. Oh, and it also killed basketball at recess too, they replaced the basketballs with small inflatable beach balls.
Because of stupid political correctness and protectionism(as I'm going to call it), the phrase "officially died" will be used in tandem with many things that use to be fun and normal and really harmed no one(offense and injuries every once in awhile don't count as being a need for change and protection).
Edit: Oh, and on the topic. This would be confusing for English speakers, because "hen" is of course a female chicken/bird.
The notion is a bit silly I feel. I don't quite get the intention or what perceived injustice this plans to rectify. Just seems needless.
I hate to be that guy, but that is actually grammatically incorrect. "They" would be describing a plural subject, whereas "one" would be a singular subject. I can't honestly think of a clean way of using a gender-less example of that sentence. So, I can see that actual use for having a gender neutral word simply for grammatical reasons.Desert Punk said:
OT: While, as I said above, this does some useful for politically correct Grammar Nazis, but in terms of actually achieving equality in terms of legal and social rights and respect, this isn't exactly the way to go. There are differences between the sexes, and ignoring that is just downright stupid. All people deserve tolerance, the same rights, and the same amount of respect you'd give anyone(until proven to deserve more or less), but we shouldn't assume everyone is exactly the same. I can understand the reasoning behind deconstructivism, but I don't see it as a viable solution.
And also, I really hope I read it correctly in that you only wanted people to at least be calm and respectful in their posts, even if it was a dissenting opinion. If you really just don't want any dissenting opinion at all, I don't think that's the point of a discussion topic, to only talk about how great this idea sounds. It just seems like we'd be patting ourselves on our own backs, even if we were lying.
The whole "but men and women are DIFFERENT, why do we need a genderless pronoun!" kneejerk moan is extremely silly and doesn't get any more clever the more times people bust it out.
There are plenty of situations in which the gender of the individual being discussed is unknown, irrelevant, or theoretical. For those situations it's convenient to have a grammatical construction that reflects that, rather than defaulting to male or resorting to awkward convoluted phrasing.
There are plenty of situations in which the gender of the individual being discussed is unknown, irrelevant, or theoretical. For those situations it's convenient to have a grammatical construction that reflects that, rather than defaulting to male or resorting to awkward convoluted phrasing.
I like gender. I like that I can identify strongly with one gender(as opposed to sex, which is biological) and that my partner can identify strongly with one gender.
The only problems arise when gender is used as a basis of bias and debasement. We should focus on eliminating these problems, not on eliminating gender. Gender brings richness into the world, and difference, which should be celebrated, not feared.
These steps feel like me a measure to homogenize culture and people.
The only problems arise when gender is used as a basis of bias and debasement. We should focus on eliminating these problems, not on eliminating gender. Gender brings richness into the world, and difference, which should be celebrated, not feared.
These steps feel like me a measure to homogenize culture and people.
Perfect, I thought about referencing that movie, as that is what this move made me think of!Abomination said:
To respond to your first paragraph: Your making the assumption that we have been behaving as well as our brains will allow at every point in human history. I see it more as we are trying to catch up to our biology. I believe we are actually behind the curve in our social attitudes vs. our biology rather than the other way around. Like you said, we haven't changed much in evolutionary terms in the last 1000 yrs. The fact that we can point backwards through further than the last 1000 yrs and point to people who were clearly rather intelligent even by today's standards is my evidence(Plato and Aristotle are a couple great examples).Prosis said:
To your 2nd paragraph: Problem with your idea's about self preservation is it's not the highest biological instinct of our species. Its a close 2nd to sex/procreation. Rites of manhood were a way to show that one was worthy of taking on a wife and the body modification was a show of a willingness to self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is an important trait for a male to possess to demonstrate mate value as it illustrates a willingness to give to their female/offspring of themselves to insure their continued survival.
To your 3rd paragraph: Gender is a binary. The only way you can argue that it isn't, is if you're focusing on people's junk to determine sexual identity. This is not a satisfactory method of gender identification in more ambiguous cases where the genital's may be altered by physical abnormality. Rather than focus purely on genital's i believe it would be better to simply examine the brain's of any such subject to determine actual gender. I know this will likely offend some of the "choice" crowd and thats not really my intention, but none of us get a choice in what we are. Only in who we are.
As to your point about how we apply social conditioning based on gender role expectations, well yes we do. People tend to make assumption's not because they are lazy or uncaring necessarily but because it is a mental shortcut using the law of averages to determine how to best raise their children. Inevitably, some people will make mistakes in that regard. But people are socially evolving past that. Fewer and fewer parents feel the need to correct their children for moving outside those gender pretexts with each generation. We are moving in the right direction, but its going to take time for everyone to get with that program. It doesn't require new words or gender neutral rules. It is already happening. There is no need to force it. Authorities coming in with this is only going to cause people to 2nd guess this and slow our progress while we deal with backlashes against authority.
Speaking as a man who sometimes has to write letters to people whose identity is unknown I wholly welcome this development.
I just think it would have been better if we'd gone with "citizen [last name]" instead. Just think about it. Think about how cool your name would sound.
I just think it would have been better if we'd gone with "citizen [last name]" instead. Just think about it. Think about how cool your name would sound.