# Pronouns in D&D - How should gender be handled?



## shadow (Nov 2, 2013)

As part of my graduate sociolinguistics class, I am examining the question of pronoun usage in D&D.  Most older D&D players will remember back to 1st and 2nd edition when the masculine pronoun (he, him, his) was used generically.  However, when 3e was released both masculine and feminine pronouns were used with the gender of the pronoun dependent on the character being described.  I remember the online debates provoked by this switch to both masculine and feminine pronouns.  Some players felt that it was more inclusive to female gamers while others felt that it sounded awkward. 

As part of my project, I'd like to hear your opinions on pronoun usage.  The way I understand it there are 4 main strategies for handling pronouns.

1. The generic masculine.  All generic pronouns are masculine with the assumption that female characters are included.  (The traditional rule of English writing.)

2. Switching between masculine and feminine pronouns.  There should be a balance between masculine and feminine pronouns, so some characters or situations should use a masculine pronoun and some should use a feminine pronoun.  (For example, the DM would be described by a feminine pronoun whereas players would be described with masculine pronouns.)

3. Using 'they' as a generic.  Even when the referent is a singular, 'they' is used as a pronoun.

4. Avoiding pronouns altogether.  This may get a little tricky because English speakers generally find it unnatural to repeat the subject over and over without resorting to a pronoun.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 2, 2013)

I like the way WotC and Paizo have switched between male and female pronouns based on the sex of the iconic character. I thought that was a pretty natural way to do it.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 2, 2013)

Just use each roughly equally. You don't need to count them or anything, or change in mid example.

Avoiding pronouns altogether is just silly; and using they can get awkward. "He" only, if it's a tradition, is a tradition we don't need. 

That seems to be the standard way to do it these days, and it's just fine.


----------



## MJS (Nov 2, 2013)

I vote "alternate" as well. But, I think pronouns should be avoided when possible for generics, like the DM, say:

   The DM is final arbiter in his campaign.

   The DM is final arbiter in THE campaign. 

Knowing that pronouns will come up, though, I think they should, in those instances, alternate, with an eye towards sexism however. 

   Also, the neutral use of "they" where it flows right. 
  I vote for whatever works...


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 2, 2013)

Masculine generically.  Modern English developed to use pronouns that way.  English doesn't really use neutral gender pronouns.  It reads and sounds forced and awkward to me to attempt to alternate female with male without text referring to a specific female example.  I don't have an issue with using plentiful female examples in a text, but if you want to re-educate the English-speaking world to adopt someone's idea of a more politically correct usage then I say that declaring D&D books as one of the battlegrounds is not the way to go about it.

If you want to forcibly shift the direction of the development of the language and the modern society that uses it then get all the worlds great English linguists together, let _them _agree on what the changes will be (if any) and why, and THEN start teaching it in the schools, and work for the incorporation of the changes in the things that THAT generation comes to read and write.  However, leave the rest of us alone and stop picking at us for simply using the language in the way that we were taught was actually the correct way.  Eventually enough of us will die out and the societal norm will have shifted and the master plan of re-education will succeed.

As for what the usage should be, I suggest:
masc  fem  neutr
Him   Her  Hup
His   Hers  Hups

Why?  Because it's entirely made up new pronouns that future generations will be able to argue with because they were invented by a man and therefore biased.  I just hope to live long enough to see that argument.


----------



## GSHamster (Nov 2, 2013)

I like the way 3E used female pronouns most of the time. It was slightly unusual, but worked really well. I also thought that 3E had a comparatively larger number of female players than previous editions, so maybe this helped.

I am perfectly okay with sacrificing linguistic correctness to get more female players. Because then we'll end up in a virtuous cycle with more men willing to play, and so on.


----------



## Wicht (Nov 2, 2013)

I generally prefer the generic masculine, as its more natural for English and creates less awkward readings. 

If you must use both (for whatever reason) then the best method is to follow WotC and Paizo's pattern of using the gender of the iconic to determine the selection.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 2, 2013)

Generic masculine.

I despise affected political correctness.


----------



## Janx (Nov 2, 2013)

Wicht said:


> I generally prefer the generic masculine, as its more natural for English and creates less awkward readings.
> 
> If you must use both (for whatever reason) then the best method is to follow WotC and Paizo's pattern of using the gender of the iconic to determine the selection.




I don't know about saying "him" is natural for reading, it's just as natural to read "her" isn't it.  Writing "they" is probably the worst.

Nowadays, we can't use "he" or "him" or "his" all the time because women did get shorted on all sorts of things, and continuing the usage in writing just exacerbates the situation.

So, even if we pretended that 100 years ago, only men went to the moon or played RPGs and thus such usage was "OK for back then", it's no longer true now.

So the best way to give credit and respect is to INCLUDE them in our writings about things they ARE active in.

So, alternating usage in examples is pretty much the de facto standard.  Lidda likes her shortsword.  Gronk likes his club.

Nice and tidy, and avoids sexism by exclusion.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 2, 2013)

shadow said:


> 1. The generic masculine.  All generic pronouns are masculine with the assumption that female characters are included.  (The traditional rule of English writing.)




This is what I prefer because it's proper writing and sounds the least awkward to me.


edit: Though, obviously, if the example character is not male, I support using the appropriate pronoun.  





shadow said:


> 3. Using 'they' as a generic.  Even when the referent is a singular, 'they' is used as a pronoun.




However, I understand that using "he" as a generic term is bothersome to some gamers.  As such, I voted to use "they."  It's gender neutral, so it implies neither male nor female during examples, and that seems to be the best way to be all-inclusive in all examples.  In fact, I think there should be both a male iconic and a female iconic for each example; with the recent revelation that the art budget is large for D&D 5th Edition, I imagine doing so wouldn't break the bank.   I also think it's much easier to proofread due to consistency if the same pronoun is always used.


----------



## Wicht (Nov 2, 2013)

Janx said:


> I don't know about saying "him" is natural for reading, it's just as natural to read "her" isn't it.




Its natural to read "her" if the subject is inherently female. Its natural for me to understand the masculine pronoun to be capable of being used to apply to men and women equally, because that's the traditional mode of the english generic masculine. I  understand the arguments for more inclusion, but logically, and for me, the generic pronoun is more inclusive than a specific pronoun. By eliminating the generic masculine, one eliminates the pronouns that are actually capable, in english, of being the most inclusive. The trend then becomes of using a generic plural, "they," to apply to singular figures, but I think that is no less clumsy in some instances.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 2, 2013)

I find the use of alternating pronouns to be distracting and silly.  I also reject the argument that women stay out of gaming because they see 'he' used as a generic pronoun.  

However, there is a good solution.  Use concrete examples.   Alternate between examples of fictional males and females in your examples of play.   That way, 'he' or 'she' will be perfectly natural.  Examples of play are given too little attention as it is.


----------



## Erekose (Nov 2, 2013)

Alternating based on the gender of the icon for that class seems entirely reasonable. Was slightly odd when WotC first used it but then pretty much passed without notice for me.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 2, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> I find the use of alternating pronouns to be distracting and silly.  I also reject the argument that women stay out of gaming because they see 'he' used as a generic pronoun.
> 
> However, there is a good solution.  Use concrete examples.   Alternate between examples of fictional males and females in your examples of play.   That way, 'he' or 'she' will be perfectly natural.  Examples of play are given too little attention as it is.




I agree with this.  It ties into why I suggested having iconics of both genders.  That seems to be the best way to include everyone.  

Having more examples is always nice too.


----------



## am181d (Nov 2, 2013)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> If you want to forcibly shift the direction of the development of the language and the modern society that uses it then get all the worlds great English linguists together, let _them _agree on what the changes will be (if any) and why, and THEN start teaching it in the schools, and work for the incorporation of the changes in the things that THAT generation comes to read and write.




That is not how language works. Linguists do not set the rules. They study what writers and speakers are already doing...


----------



## am181d (Nov 2, 2013)

A few additional thoughts: 

1: When the late William Saffire discussed this topic with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist (though not in specific regard to D&D), the Chief Justice's solution was to rewrite the sentence to use the third person plural they.

2: The third person singular they, while nonstandard, has been in use in the English for hundreds of years, appearing in the works of such famed writers as Shakespeare and Jane Austen. (Though only when writing for Pathfinder.)

3: The best long term solution would be to standardize third person singular they, but it's not the best solution for short term clarity. (Some readers will have trouble distinguishing the two uses of they and thus get their pluralizations wrong.) 

4: Given that, the simplest, most reasonable solution is alternating genders by example. This may ALSO be confusing to readers, but in a socio-normative way rather than a grammatical way. The dude who is weirded out that a passage says "the player gets a +2 to her ride check" has learned a valuable lesson about what the world is like for non-dudes every day. 

(Also, he gets a bonus to his ride check, so he should quit whining.)


----------



## Morrus (Nov 2, 2013)

Alternatively, rules could only apply to players of the gender used in a given example....

Alternatively we could switch to something 'traditional' for those who prefer their language to remain in a static tradition. Thee, thou, yon, ye, and so on.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 2, 2013)

Well, the English language could really use a gender neutral pronoun. Failing that, I generally try to keep pronoun usage to a minimum in my writing when referring to unspecified or hypothetical individuals.

In D&D, it sometimes makes sense to use specific characters as examples, in which case maintaining a gender balance is a wise idea.


----------



## delericho (Nov 2, 2013)

The 3e model (also used by Pathfinder) is the best - provide an iconic character for each class, and then alternate based on the iconic being referenced at the time.

Honestly, I'm surprised this is even a discussion. Do we really believe WotC would even _consider_ going back to all-masculine pronoun use? Rightly or wrongly, that ship has sailed.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 3, 2013)

Generally prefer (1), can live with (2) if executed smoothly (e.g. 3E PHB).  (3) is adequate but can lead to some awkward writing.


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 3, 2013)

To be honest, even though I voted, the issue of pronouns really isn't something which is important to me.  I understand why it is important to some other people, but it's simply not something I feel that strongly about.


----------



## steenan (Nov 3, 2013)

My preferences are not strong and I can live with any approach other than avoiding pronouns (it makes the text quite unnatural and grating).

In things I write I alternate between male and female pronouns. In some cases, I treat the GM as a female and players as males. In others, especially when describing a list of characters splats, I just switch between genders for successive entries.
This approach is very natural for me, because I generally play in mixed groups, with me or my wife typically taking the GM seat.


----------



## Libramarian (Nov 3, 2013)

"they" as a generic pronoun. It feels natural to me to use "they" when referring to a position like "the DM" rather than a specific person.

Alternating between male and female pronouns is confusing and can come across as self-indulgent, especially if the author insists on always using the female when referring to the DM, for whatever reason.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 3, 2013)

Libramarian said:


> .
> Alternating between male and female pronouns is confusing




I honestly don't understand how anybody can be confused by it.  What's the confusing part?  I can imagine it would be if the same example was switching the genders of the subjects within itself; that would be bad writing indeed. But nobody ever did that in the 3E or Paizo books, and I can't imagine they'll do that in D&D Next either.


----------



## Iosue (Nov 3, 2013)

shadow said:


> Most older D&D players will remember back to 1st and 2nd edition when the masculine pronoun (he, him, his) was used generically.



Not B/X.  It used "he or she".  E.g, "To choose a class, a player should first look for his or her highest ability scores."  Or "As a cleric advances in level, he or she is granted the use of more spells."

Other than that, I would prefer gender-neutral "they".  Purists will hate it, but it provides clear communication, and fills a lexical need.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 3, 2013)

If we're going to stick to prescriptive grammar, remember that certain species are automatically assumed to be one gender or the other until you know, _e.g.,_ Humans are male, cats are female, dogs are male, and so on.

As a fan of World Tree, which I know did not create the pronoun, I am fond of the pronouns "zie" and "zir" for hermaphrodite, unknown gender, and not genderless. They do a better job than "hir" and "shi" which don't sound any different from "her" and "she".


----------



## Janx (Nov 3, 2013)

Wicht said:


> Its natural to read "her" if the subject is inherently female. Its natural for me to understand the masculine pronoun to be capable of being used to apply to men and women equally, because that's the traditional mode of the english generic masculine. I  understand the arguments for more inclusion, but logically, and for me, the generic pronoun is more inclusive than a specific pronoun. By eliminating the generic masculine, one eliminates the pronouns that are actually capable, in english, of being the most inclusive. The trend then becomes of using a generic plural, "they," to apply to singular figures, but I think that is no less clumsy in some instances.




I think the problem with the " english generic masculine" is that only us guys got the memo that it was indeed the "english generic masculine"

Everybody else thought it just meant "us guys"

In this day and age, it seems the general writing consensus is that using the plural as a genderless placeholder for a singular person is crap writing style.

And that using He all the time is sexist as it presents a male only world.

As it only matters what the offendee thinks, that pretty much clinches the matter.  Making some of the example characters be female is pretty much the adopted practice to reduce the implication off male bias.




> However, there is a good solution. Use concrete examples. Alternate between examples of fictional males and females in your examples of play. That way, 'he' or 'she' will be perfectly natural. Examples of play are given too little attention as it is.




This is the very point of modern he/she pronoun usage.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 3, 2013)

Janx said:


> Everybody else thought it just meant "us guys"




All future D&D books with hence forth be required to use "youse guys".

On the other hand, "y'all" is a prefectly acceptable gender-neutral singular or plural pronoun ...


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 3, 2013)

Janx said:


> I think the problem with the " english generic masculine" is that only us guys got the memo that it was indeed the "english generic masculine" (snip)




Not really.

You would be surprised how many women understand the rules of English grammar.


----------



## Janx (Nov 3, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> Not really.
> 
> You would be surprised how many women understand the rules of English grammar.




Not the ones who object to Stewardess, Waitress, history, or man hole covers.

These are the kind of topics where somebody's going to take a statement and assume your sexist.

Is sticking to the guns of "it is the best standard to always use the male masculine when referring to a person or role generically" really worth it?

Writing in a style that incorporates both genders naturally seems more like better, inclusive writing than capitulating to an equal respect cause.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 3, 2013)

Janx said:


> Not the ones who object to Stewardess, Waitress, history, or man hole covers.
> 
> These are the kind of topics where somebody's going to take a statement and assume your sexist.
> 
> ...




Personally, I find the alternating he/she to be jarring and I prefer the standard rule of generic male pronouns.

Does that make me sexist? I don't know nor do I care. And if someone starts accusing me of being sexist for having this as my opinion, I know how to use the ignore button... and they no doubt do as well.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 4, 2013)

And while not technically wrong, singular "they" just sounds silly.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 4, 2013)

Janx said:


> Is sticking to the guns of "it is the best standard to always use the male masculine when referring to a person or role generically" really worth it?
> 
> Writing in a style that incorporates both genders naturally seems more like better, inclusive writing than capitulating to an equal respect cause.




There's a point where one should note that, though it may be a standard, it is an incredibly old standard, and maybe not a very good one for the current culture in which the language is used.

A rule unexamined is not worth following


----------



## Mallus (Nov 4, 2013)

Alternate pronouns freely. 

Making masculine pronouns the default is needless. It doesn't make the writing sound any better, and plenty of people find it sexist. They occasional "they" is fine.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 4, 2013)

Umbran said:


> There's a point where one should note that, though it may be a standard, it is an incredibly old standard, and maybe not a very good one for the current culture in which the language is used.
> 
> A rule unexamined is not worth following



I would also suggest, however, that language evolves as the people and culture that use it evolve.  You don't achieve changes in gender attitudes by changing the language.  The only examples of that sort of thing I can think of are BAD examples.  Examples we don't want to emulate for good reason.  You can't force idealogical changes on people by telling them what to say and how to say it; by telling them they are bad people for using masculine pronouns by default in speech or writing (especially when the language doesn't HAVE gender neutral pronouns that are interchangeable without actually forcing changes to a more stilted sentence structure.  I mean, how much more Orwellian can you get?)  At least, I rather thought that doing so _shouldn't _be how you want to change people's thinking.  You want to change their thinking because your ideas are found to be better; to change because they WANT to change, not because they simply had their choice removed.  First convince the English speaking world that even using masculine pronouns in place of neutral pronouns is WRONG - THEN propose changes to the language and its usage if it doesn't develop on its own.

Ever see Serenity?  Give a whole planets population the same chemical to create a less violent person, and by unintended consequences kill 99.9% of them and turn the remaining 1/10th percent into hyper-violent cannibals that plague the galaxy.  While this is not a matter of life and death the principle strikes me as precisely simliar.  You have a group who believes they can MAKE people better, make them think the way _they _want them to think, act the way _they _want them to act, not because it's right but by introducing chemicals into their atmosphere, enforcing eugenics, conducting political re-education - or starting small by simply controlling how they are publicly allowed to use pronouns.  Maybe that's why I have such a strong negative reaction to this sort of thing.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 4, 2013)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> I would also suggest, however, that language evolves as the people and culture that use it evolve.



Yes, and a change toward gender-inclusive language -- or, at the very least, a move away from the reflexive use of the masculine pronoun as the default-- _reflects_ how we're evolving as an English-speaking culture.

In the same way we're moving away from calling things _gay_ when we mean 'bad' or 'silly', or _retarded_ when we mean 'stupid'. As a guy who grew up in New Jersey in the 1970s/1980s, those usages where absolutely part of my everyday speech. They're not anymore, and I'm the better for it. It's not like a had some cherished and inherent right taken away. Well, you could argue the right to sound like a jackhole *is* a cherished right in New Jersey, but let's not go there.



> You don't achieve changes in gender attitudes by changing the language.



No, but we do make things more polite and inclusive. Not a bad starting point. 



> You can't force idealogical changes on people by telling them what to say and how to say it...



Not defaulting to 'he' hardly constitutes forcing anyone to do anything.



> ... by telling them they are bad people for using masculine pronouns by default in speech or writing...



You aren't necessarily a bad person for using 'gay' or 'retard' casually, either. But that doesn't mean you should do it, or refrain from suggesting people refrain from doing so. Especially in the text of a published _rule book_. 



> ... especially when the language doesn't HAVE gender neutral pronouns that are interchangeable without actually forcing changes to a more stilted sentence structure...



What's so wrong with just mixing up the pronouns? 



> I mean, how much more Orwellian can you get?



Quite a bit. Seeing as Orwell's novel described a all-encompassing, soul-crushing police state with a whole branch devoted to changing language in order to prevent any expression of dissent against _it_. That's pretty far from "Sometimes use _she_ when referring to the warrior". 



> First convince the English speaking world that even using masculine pronouns in place of neutral pronouns is WRONG - THEN propose changes to the language and its usage if it doesn't develop on its own.



Or you just use 'she' occasionally when referring to a warrior. 



> Ever see Serenity?



Sure. Great film!



> Give a whole planets population the same chemical to create a less violent person, and by unintended consequences kill 99.9% of them and turn the remaining 1/10th percent into hyper-violent cannibals that plague the galaxy.  While this is not a matter of life and death the principle strikes me as precisely simliar.



So encouraging people to use --slightly-- different phrasing is similar to dosing entire, unsuspecting, planetary populations with experimental drugs? That's a use of 'precisely similar' I'm unfamiliar with...



> Maybe that's why I have such a strong negative reaction to this sort of thing.



Because you like equating radically dissimilar things?

The way I see, this is no different from the way various kinds of racist language fell out of favor in polite & public conversation. No, we're not all magically not-racist now, but at least on some fronts we're moving toward a place of greater respect. 

(I have a kind of strong reaction to this, too -- hence all the multiquoting)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 4, 2013)

Personally I am fine with whatever the writer is comfortable using. If the writer wants to use He as generic, that's cool. If the writer want's to use she as generic or alternate, that is also cool. They usually feels a bit off to me, but not always. "He or she" and "He/She" feel clunky and awkward as well, as does avoiding pronouns. I think it really needs to be left up to the writer. The language just doesn't have a good gender neutral third person singular pronoun (people have created them, but they've never caught on enough to be useable by writers) so it really is one of the bigger challenges for writers to do in a way that feels comfortable and the audience accepts (because whatever direction you go, it generally will anger someone out there). Every language is a bit different on this front (I remember having to learn masculine and feminine dual pronouns once for another language and it was a nightmare because the closest we have in English I would think of is "you two guys").  In the case of a game like pathfinder or D&D, I expect them to continue with the trend of alternating, as it is established and it is a design team.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 4, 2013)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> I would also suggest, however, that language evolves as the people and culture that use it evolve.  You don't achieve changes in gender attitudes by changing the language.  The only examples of that sort of thing I can think of are BAD examples.  Examples we don't want to emulate for good reason.  You can't force idealogical changes on people by telling them what to say and how to say it; by telling them they are bad people for using masculine pronouns by default in speech or writing (especially when the language doesn't HAVE gender neutral pronouns that are interchangeable without actually forcing changes to a more stilted sentence structure.  I mean, how much more Orwellian can you get?)  At least, I rather thought that doing so _shouldn't _be how you want to change people's thinking.  You want to change their thinking because your ideas are found to be better; to change because they WANT to change, not because they simply had their choice removed.  First convince the English speaking world that even using masculine pronouns in place of neutral pronouns is WRONG - THEN propose changes to the language and its usage if it doesn't develop on its own.




Don't underestimate how the language we use affects how we think or perceive the world around us. Even Cracked delved into this recently.
5 Insane Ways Words Can Control Your Mind


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 4, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I like the way WotC and Paizo have switched between male and female pronouns based on the sex of the iconic character. I thought that was a pretty natural way to do it.




I too like this. And in situations when there isn't an iconic to reference to determine it, just switch between using male and female pronouns with each such instance. And as it applies, I also like using the non-specific 'they'.


Edit:

And I just noticed that as of the time I'm posting this, 41% or so want to use masculine pronouns as a generic. Seriously? D&D isn't a boys only club, and while that generic usage isn't by itself overtly or intentionally sexist, it's not exactly an embrace of widening the D&D audience and player base. I don't expect everyone to agree with me here, nor can or should I force anyone to use one or another pronoun set in their own games at home or even published material, but removing casual assumptions of player gender is a step, albeit tiny, IMO towards growing the RPG market and catering to a less select and assumed audience than in the past.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 4, 2013)

Shemeska said:


> I too like this. And in situations when there isn't an iconic to reference to determine it, just switch between using male and female pronouns with each such instance. And as it applies, I also like using the non-specific 'they'.




WotC also did a lot of "you" for the rules. Also, I think, a good way to deal with the issue.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 5, 2013)

shadow said:


> As part of my project, I'd like to hear your opinions on pronoun usage.  The way I understand it there are 4 main strategies for handling pronouns.




There are at least five.

Here's how AD&D handled it: It used "he or she". Or "you". 

A few excerpts: 

"Character class refers to the profession of the player character. The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class)"

"This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times. The cleric has an eight-sided die (d8) per level to determine how many hit points (q.v.) he or she has. "

"In any event, your character created, personified, and established will be ready to adventure once equipment is purchased and relations with other player characters are settled. If player characters are not immediately available, or if they are not co-operative, it is advisable that men-at-arms be hired."

"Once a henchman is brought into your character’s service, it will be necessary to pay a wage plus support and upkeep. Your referee will inform you as to such costs. When a henchman accompanies your character on adventures, he or she must be given a portion of treasure, both money and magic, just as a player character would. However, the share can be lesser, for all of the henchman’s expenses are paid for by his or her master or mistress. Naturally, it is a good idea to give o henchman as much treasure as possible, for in that way the henchman gains experience points."

I much prefer the AD&D 1E way of handling it.

Cheers!


----------



## Argyle King (Nov 5, 2013)

I propose that 5th Edition has a Wondrous Item called _The Deck of Many Pronouns_.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Nov 5, 2013)

I prefer the generic masculine.  I find anything else very distracting.  "She" is always supposed to refer to a specific person so when it's used as a generic I always stop and think "who?"  Using female example characters and the appropriate pronouns is of course fine.


----------



## ClarenceInWonderland (Nov 5, 2013)

At least in the English spoken around here, I’d suggest that generic "his" is more archaic or ultra-formal than sexist. "Is there anyone outside waiting to hand in his paper" is very old-fashioned to my ears, use of "their" is more _correct_ in my variety "Is there anyone outside waiting to hand in their paper".  I don’t picture the speaker of the former as sexist, just weirdly formal.

In the same sense that English tossed the polite/casual differentiation in second person pronouns: "thou"=informal "you"=formal/plural, around here we’ve pretty much finished the change in third person pronouns "he"=masc. only, "she"=fem only, "they"=generic/undefined/plural. It’s a trend in English to depluralize plural pronouns.

With the loss of plurality in second person, it seems that speakers wanted some way to indicate plurality, so we have a diversity of solutions: you guys, y’all, youse, yins, you lot, etc. etc. I’d say a similar thing will happen with 3rd plural pronouns: I say "those guys" for plural "they" probably more often then not.

The changes in English pronouns have less to do with political correctness than just change, that’s what languages do. Singular anaphoric "they" has been around since the 14th century so it’s got a fine pedigree and is perfectly acceptable for D&D.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Nov 5, 2013)

Put me firmly in the "don't care" category.  There are a number of things I have an opinion about when it comes to D&D, but this is a total non-issue for me.  If they use the male or female pronoun it will make no difference to me.


----------



## Libramarian (Nov 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I honestly don't understand how anybody can be confused by it.  What's the confusing part?  I can imagine it would be if the same example was switching the genders of the subjects within itself; that would be bad writing indeed. But nobody ever did that in the 3E or Paizo books, and I can't imagine they'll do that in D&D Next either.




Maybe not literally confusing, but distracting.


Zhaleskra said:


> And while not technically wrong, singular "they" just sounds silly.




It really doesn't, to me. I have to agree with [MENTION=6749732]ClarenceInWonderland[/MENTION]  above, I think at this point using "his" as a generic pronoun actually  sounds weirder in everyday conversation than "their". The change has already occurred.


----------



## Ilja (Nov 6, 2013)

I voted "They" as a generic, but it's a combination...

1. Avoid personal pronouns where it doesn't sound forced.

2. Use they when discussing a non-specified character, and even more importantly, when discussing *players* In many cases where writers typically write "he" or "she", it could work equally with both singular they and plural they. I think plural they is the way to go when possible, simply because it's a group activity and anything that reinforces that feeling is great.

3. Use the appropriate pronoun when discussing a specific, defined character. At least if their gender is clearly noted; for example characters I kinda like having gender ambiguous ones.

Aaaand for me in my writing it's 4. Default to female characters. Why? Because I'm so goddamn tired of the male standard and even if 100% of my characters where female, it would still not make a dent in the statistics in the genre, where nearly all are male. And it's not like males will feel alianated from the hobby, if they don't like my stuff there's still 134345234234 other adventures that will cater to them...

The hobby is far from inclusive, and some people like it that way, they like it being their little boys club. Language then becomes an important way for them to show their anti-women politics, staunchly defending the male standard "because of tradition", and claiming any other opinion as "political correctness", as if their stance where apolitical or marginalized.

I'd like the hobby to be inclusive, because I want more people to play with. That is my political stance, and yes, I think it's correct. Language is of course just one piece of this (other major parts where the RPGs themselves matter are art, adventure design, NPC design etc), and I'm not in any way saying people defaulting to male pronoun because of being used to it are being deliberately exclusive sexists, but there is no reason to actively defend the status quo when it has landed us in such an excluding environment.

EDIT: And on distractions, I recently bought Citadel, the card game, and it was really obnoxious to read because not only did they default to "he" all the time for players, it also used it when it really wasn't necessary.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm becoming fond of "you", though that might be uncomfortable immersive for some, and "your character".

I also admit to not liking making role playing games mainstream. Maybe it's because I enjoyed little statements like "you have to be smart to play those games" even though I know they aren't true. Basic math, a little algebra now and then. Yeah, it's good at getting more players in general, but exacerbates getting more players for a specific game.


----------



## was (Nov 7, 2013)

I have always liked alternating them


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 7, 2013)

As long as the text is reasonably gender-neutral, there should be no reason to care.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 8, 2013)

Shemeska said:


> And I just noticed that as of the time I'm posting this, 41% or so want to use masculine pronouns as a generic. Seriously?



Seriously. I voted that way (though I'd be okay with options 2 or 3, and quite like Celebrim's way of handling things).


Shemeska said:


> D&D isn't a boys only club, and while that generic usage isn't by itself overtly or intentionally sexist, it's not exactly an embrace of widening the D&D audience and player base.



Do you think I feel like D&D is a boy's club? Do you think I'm sexist, or that the women in my life feel like I am? I'm just trying to gauge what you're trying to say here, and I want to be absolutely clear before I continue.


Shemeska said:


> removing casual assumptions of player gender is a step, albeit tiny, IMO towards growing the RPG market and catering to a less select and assumed audience than in the past.



If that's the case, then publisher's can do that if they want to. It's not like the poll is asking people if they'd boycott if option 1 wasn't chosen.


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Seriously. I voted that way (though I'd be okay with options 2 or 3, and quite like Celebrim's way of handling things).
> 
> Do you think I feel like D&D is a boy's club? Do you think I'm sexist, or that the women in my life feel like I am? I'm just trying to gauge what you're trying to say here, and I want to be absolutely clear before I continue.
> 
> If that's the case, then publisher's can do that if they want to. It's not like the poll is asking people if they'd boycott if option 1 wasn't chosen.



Ok, I have a challenge for you. The next time you read one of your rulebooks, replace every gender instance with "She".

If you're fine with that change, and can view it as gender-neutral, than carry on.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 8, 2013)

Let's just refer to everyone as "it", shall we.  Gender neutral -- there, I fixed it.


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 8, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Let's just refer to everyone as "it", shall we.  Gender neutral -- there, I fixed it.



Unfortunately, "It" is also person-negative. "They" is correct third-person gender-neutral. Or characters could be designated "Gender-indeterminate unit of shared-world interpersonal interaction of indetermined state." GIUOSWIIOIS, for short.

Don't. Really.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 8, 2013)

Random Bystander said:


> Ok, I have a challenge for you. The next time you read one of your rulebooks, replace every gender instance with "She".
> 
> If you're fine with that change, and can view it as gender-neutral, than carry on.



When I wrote my own rulebook (about 320 pages), I made sure to only include "he" and not "she". I could read a book that only said "she", but I think it'd be jarring; I was taught that "he" was essentially used in the general sense, and unless we're referring to a specific person, to use "he" over "she".

Seeing "he" and "she" didn't bug me (in any sort of real huge way) in the 3.X PHBs, etc., but it kinda seemed forced, in a way. I'm not sure how to describe it. A lot of the time it felt natural, but sometimes it just stood out.

Anyways, I have no intention of using "she" (in the general sense) in my own rule book over "he". That has to do with how I was taught to read; my first reaction on reading "she" is "she who?" So, to me, it's not general. Admittedly, if I was reading a rule book where that was the case, I think it'd be less jarring after I got used to it.

For me, this is more a matter of "I've been trained to read this way, and breaking this pattern means it makes it harder to read things." Am I okay with "she"? In a moral sense, absolutely. But, honestly, it makes it harder for me to read things (until I adapt to it), thus my preference for "he" in the general sense.

Side note: I'm okay with "they" as a second choice, because I tend to use that word verbally (though I guess I'm more formal in my reading / writing habits). And, as I said, I'm okay with a mixture of "he"/"she" when linked to examples; when I think "she who?", the book will provide an answer. Win/win, as far as I can tell.


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> When I wrote my own rulebook (about 320 pages), I made sure to only include "he" and not "she". I could read a book that only said "she", but I think it'd be jarring; I was taught that "he" was essentially used in the general sense, and unless we're referring to a specific person, to use "he" over "she".
> 
> Seeing "he" and "she" didn't bug me (in any sort of real huge way) in the 3.X PHBs, etc., but it kinda seemed forced, in a way. I'm not sure how to describe it. A lot of the time it felt natural, but sometimes it just stood out.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the explanation.


----------



## Cadence (Nov 8, 2013)

I'm always amazed at the continued influence of a handful self-proclaimed grammarians from centuries past.  My favorite is the hypercorrection of Octopuses into Octopi (because who cares about the actual etymology of things?).

If Octopi is now correct, in spite of its incorrect origin, because it has been in use for so long... then why not give something with a stronger pedigree the chance to rise back into respectability?   

So I vote for throwing off their (plural) tyranny and going back to having they as an acceptable singular.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/he-or-she-versus-they
(Or are y'all confused by you being both plural and singular too?)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 8, 2013)

Cadence said:


> (Or are y'all confused by you being both plural and singular too?)



I'm against it because it's jarring for me, not confusing. Also, I don't really appreciate the light attack here; let's try to keep things a little more civil if we can, please? I'm definitely making an effort to explain myself and my position (in response to what may have been other attacks of "sexism").

This isn't a bad topic. I really doubt it'll affect WOTC's decision (which will almost certainly be alternating "he" and "she"), but it's good to discuss, and people close to / inside WOTC might read it. And it helps anyone else here that's reading this who is writing a rule book. But, if we're going to discuss things, can we do it without the attacks? I think that'd be a lot more productive.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Do you think I feel like D&D is a boy's club? Do you think I'm sexist, or that the women in my life feel like I am? I'm just trying to gauge what you're trying to say here, and I want to be absolutely clear before I continue.




I couldn't say. I don't have any insight into how you feel on the subject.

The use of male pronouns as a non-gender-specific default isn't necessarily sexist, and probably for most people it isn't by intent, but it's IMO misguided if you're trying to be inclusive to folks besides men.


----------



## Cadence (Nov 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm against it because it's jarring for me, not confusing. Also, I don't really appreciate the light attack here;




Gack, I hadn't realized how that sounded after your post!  You were quite clear, and I should have been more clear that I wasn't addressing you in particular.    I addressing one of the arguments made in the links I had been looking for and mashed it (unsuccessfully) with a y'all vs. you analogy going for some humor.  I shouldn't try that late at night...   Sorry.


----------



## delericho (Nov 8, 2013)

Shemeska said:


> The use of male pronouns as a non-gender-specific default isn't necessarily sexist, and probably for most people it isn't by intent, but it's IMO misguided if you're trying to be inclusive to folks besides men.




I think this is worth repeating. I think it's very easy to forget that while 'he' might well be considered technically correct, and while it's almost certainly _not_ intended to be exclusive of women, the actual effect seems pretty clearly to be to indicate that this is a game for boys. Assuming that is not the impression a publisher wants to give, it's probably worth sacrificing some correctness in favour of being more inclusive.

(And the same goes for the presence of non-white faces in the artwork, for exactly the same reason. While their absence doesn't explicitly say, "this game is not for you", it also doesn't say "this game _is_ for you.")


----------



## ClarenceInWonderland (Nov 8, 2013)

delericho said:


> I think this is worth repeating. I think it's very easy to forget that while 'he' might well be considered technically correct




The 18th century grammarians (see Bishop Lowth for more info) added in a bunch of stuff into English in an attempt to _fix the language_, that is, make it more like proper languages like Latin or French. So we get stuck with a bunch of rules that never existed in English previously

No prepositions at the end of sentences. English and other Germanic languages always did this, but because the word _praepositio_ in Latin means ‘placed before’, you can’t have a preposition at the end.
No splitting infinitives. Again, in Latin you can’t do this, so English shouldn’t either. But putting adverbs between ‘to’ and the infinitive is meaningfully distinct
For future tense, one should use "shall" with "I" and "We", but "will" with 2nd and 3rd persons. This one’s just silly.
Saying "It is I" instead of "it’s me".

On the whole English speakers don’t bother with all these _technically correct_ rules, as there’s no justification to their correctness. In the modern era where we’ve largely lost touch with Latin education, English has pretty much lost all these rules – you’d be hard pressed to hear anyone speaking in subjunctives outside of a few set phrases.

In any case, "correct" in languages is a fluid thing, there are lots of "corrects" actually. What is preferred in one environment is dispreferred in another. So for the generic-he, if I were writing some Victorian upper-class fiction or the definitive history of Renaissance art, I would be strongly inclined to use the most formal register of the language which includes a bunch of these kinds of rules as they are correct for the genre. On the other hand, if I were out bowling with my buddies, I certainly would not use generic-he or "it is I", the 18th century rules are absolutely incorrect in this environment.

 So where does an RPG manual fall? If I were writing Space 1889 I’d be inclined to use "he" throughout to make it sound Victoriany. If I were writing Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I’d want to use "she" throughout just ’cause. If I were writing D&D, I wouldn’t use generic-he because it is inappropriate to the degree of formality I would want to project. In-Character text, sure "he" is proper for pseudo-mediaeval talk, but the rules themselves should have a feeling of approachability, so "they" it would be.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 8, 2013)

I'm pondering some of the proscriptive grammar rules myself. End a sentence with a preposition? As long is it doesn't make it redundant go ahead. Answering the phone and they're asking for you? Honestly, "this is him" or "this is her" sound a lot better than "this is s/he".

Don't even get me started on the "rules" for "either".


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 8, 2013)

Shemeska said:


> I couldn't say. I don't have any insight into how you feel on the subject.



Was there something in my explanation in post 55 (the same page you posted this reply to) that left something unclear?


Shemeska said:


> The use of male pronouns as a non-gender-specific default isn't necessarily sexist, and probably for most people it isn't by intent, but it's IMO misguided if you're trying to be inclusive to folks besides men.



Again, do you feel like I'm being sexist, as I specifically avoided using "she" in the general sense when writing my RPG? I know you can't make a judgment call on my specific relationships, but I can say with complete certainty that the women in my life don't believe I'm sexist, and that I'm close to quite a few (none of which are family). I can get a poll going in real life, too, if you want me to, but I feel pretty confident.

Am I trying to exclude women? No. And, as I said, if a publisher feels like alternating "he" and "she" will bring more people in, go for it. But is sticking to just "he" sexist? That's what I'm trying to figure out if you're saying. You've qualified it a couple of times ("isn't by itself overtly or intentionally sexist" and "it isn't by intent"), but it still seems like you're implying it is, in fact, sexist. That's why I'm asking if you think it is (again), so I know more before I continue.



Cadence said:


> Gack, I hadn't realized how that sounded after your post! You were quite clear, and I should have been more clear that I wasn't addressing you in particular. I addressing one of the arguments made in the links I had been looking for and mashed it (unsuccessfully) with a y'all vs. you analogy going for some humor. I shouldn't try that late at night... Sorry.



Oh, no worries, then. There are definitely people who probably do want D&D to "be a boy's club" and who are sexist. But it looks like we're good; sorry if I didn't show enough humor (I noticed the "y'all"). Internet can be hard on me sometimes 



ClarenceInWonderland said:


> So where does an RPG manual fall? If I were writing Space 1889 I’d be inclined to use "he" throughout to make it sound Victoriany. If I were writing Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I’d want to use "she" throughout just ’cause. If I were writing D&D, I wouldn’t use generic-he because it is inappropriate to the degree of formality I would want to project. In-Character text, sure "he" is proper for pseudo-mediaeval talk, but the rules themselves should have a feeling of approachability, so "they" it would be.



I can't XP, but this also makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## delericho (Nov 8, 2013)

ClarenceInWonderland said:


> The 18th century grammarians (see Bishop Lowth for more info) added in a bunch of stuff into English in an attempt to _fix the language_, that is, make it more like proper languages like Latin or French. So we get stuck with a bunch of rules that never existed in English previously...




Sigh. Yes, I know.

Unfortunately, the bit you quoted was the least important part of my post. I have very little interest in arguing the exact specifics of grammar - in neither my personal nor professional life do they matter enough for me to really care. So I conceded that the point in question _might_ be technically correct so that I could proceed quickly to the meat of my argument, which was that it didn't matter and that a generic 'he' should not be used in favour of inclusiveness.


----------



## Nikosandros (Nov 9, 2013)

Iosue said:


> Not B/X.  It used "he or she".  E.g, "To choose a class, a player should first look for his or her highest ability scores."  Or "As a cleric advances in level, he or she is granted the use of more spells."



Not only in B/X, but also in 1st edition AD&D.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 9, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Was there something in my explanation in post 55 (the same page you posted this reply to) that left something unclear?




I hadn't read the entire thread at that point.

As for your usage in specific you mentioned, I don't think you're being sexist, no. Nor do I think that you're trying to exclude women.

However if you take a random woman and present her with a bunch of RPG books and all she sees are male pronouns used in the book, it can come off as a subtle 'this game isn't made for you' sign. Jane or Joe random doesn't know that male pronouns as a non-gendered generic are being used entirely as a stylistic choice or based on what the author/editor feels perfectly appropriate based on past usage, and their perception may be different in the absence of that knowledge. Avoiding that perception of not being welcome is something that the RPG industry as a whole needs to be sensitive towards (likewise with presenting non-white faces, non-hetero relationships, non-cis-gendered characters, etc in presenting a game that simply reflects the demographics of the potential playing audience).


----------



## Umbran (Nov 9, 2013)

Shemeska said:


> However if you take a random woman and present her with a bunch of RPG books and all she sees are male pronouns used in the book, it can come off as a subtle 'this game isn't made for you' sign.




Every communication has an assumed intended audience.  The author is supposed to consider that audience, and write to them.  What does it say to the women in your audience if you stick to the male-generic?  That centuries old rules of grammar are more important to you than showing they matter?


----------



## Janx (Nov 9, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Again, do you feel like I'm being sexist, as I specifically avoided using "she" in the general sense when writing my RPG? I know you can't make a judgment call on my specific relationships, but I can say with complete certainty that the women in my life don't believe I'm sexist, and that I'm close to quite a few (none of which are family). I can get a poll going in real life, too, if you want me to, but I feel pretty confident.
> 
> Am I trying to exclude women? No. And, as I said, if a publisher feels like alternating "he" and "she" will bring more people in, go for it. But is sticking to just "he" sexist? That's what I'm trying to figure out if you're saying. You've qualified it a couple of times ("isn't by itself overtly or intentionally sexist" and "it isn't by intent"), but it still seems like you're implying it is, in fact, sexist. That's why I'm asking if you think it is (again), so I know more before I continue.




I think we're at a social change situation with the exclusive use of the word "he" in writing.

People who insist on using only "he" will appear resistant to the social change.

People who read documents that only use "he" may react negatively to the writing because it feels male-dominated.

As with all things offensive, it's in the eye of the beholder, and there's a bunch of reasonable people saying that using "he" only in modern writing can be seen as offensive because it makes no attempt to include the female gender in the writing when known modern style and language accommodates it.

I'm as anti-political correctness as the next guy, but this feels like such a small thing to adopt for the sake of not offending women AND making them feel part of the world of modern written words.

I'd rather everybody alter their writing style to use inclusive pronouns than rename "manhole covers" because it has the word  "man" in it.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 9, 2013)

Shemeska said:


> I hadn't read the entire thread at that point.
> 
> As for your usage in specific you mentioned, I don't think you're being sexist, no. Nor do I think that you're trying to exclude women.



Thank you for clarifying that.



Umbran said:


> Every communication has an assumed intended audience. The author is supposed to consider that audience, and write to them. What does it say to the women in your audience if you stick to the male-generic? That centuries old rules of grammar are more important to you than showing they matter?



As I said, if a publisher thinks it'll attract more people by alternating "he" and "she" in the rule book, then go for it. I also said, though, I do find "she" in the general sense jarring while reading it, unless it refers to a specific person. It has nothing to do with tradition; I was just taught that "he" was general, so whenever I see "she" in the general, my mind immediately tries to connect it with a specific example. If none were offered yet, it's somewhat jarring.

I do like Celebrim's suggestion, though. Give alternating male and female examples, and tailor the "he" or "she" in the rule book to suit the examples given. That seems like an excellent middle ground for everyone.



Janx said:


> People who read documents that only use "he" may react negatively to the writing because it feels male-dominated.



Which may actually be the case for some people advocating the sole use of "he"; however, when I'm voted for it, it wasn't to make D&D a "boy's club" or the like, as I've explained. A little bit more on my thoughts below.


Janx said:


> As with all things offensive, it's in the eye of the beholder, and there's a bunch of reasonable people saying that using "he" only in modern writing can be seen as offensive because it makes no attempt to include the female gender in the writing when known modern style and language accommodates it.



See, the thing is, when I write "he" in my rule book, I'm not trying to include males, either. I'm just writing how I was taught to write. Would I mind a societal change? No, not really. It's not like I have a moral objection to it. I'd adjust, just like I did eventually when I regularly read the 3.X books.

In the meantime, though, I'd really rather the argument focus on "this feels more inclusive for women" than "it's sexist if you don't do this." That feels much less insulting and much more compelling, from my perspective. I totally get the first argument (which is why I've repeatedly said "go for it" to publishers), and I kinda resent the second argument (as it's untrue in my case).


----------



## Umbran (Nov 10, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> It has nothing to do with tradition; I was just taught that "he" was general, so whenever I see "she" in the general, my mind immediately tries to connect it with a specific example. If none were offered yet, it's somewhat jarring.




Well, "I was just taught...," sure sounds like tradition to me.  "That's the way we've always done it," is pretty much the definition of tradition, isn't it?



> In the meantime, though, I'd really rather the argument focus on "this feels more inclusive for women" than "it's sexist if you don't do this." That feels much less insulting and much more compelling, from my perspective. I totally get the first argument (which is why I've repeatedly said "go for it" to publishers), and I kinda resent the second argument (as it's untrue in my case).




Well, nobody is saying you're Snidely Whiplash, or something.  But, to be honest, sometimes it takes a little bit of grating against the grain to get a point across.  I'm not at all sure men should be left feeling comfortable on this one.  

I'm sorry you find it insulting if we phrase it as being sexist.  It is nice that you're in a position where you get to request not to be insulted, and maybe have someone listen to you, isn't it?

Interestingly, when the ladies request not to be insulted insulted by pronoun use, they're told, "But that's the rule of grammar!" or "No, because I find it jarring."  

You request not to be insulted.  But, women are denied when they make a similar request?  

In fairness, do you really think I should honor your request?


----------



## Crusadius (Nov 10, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> Generic masculine.
> 
> I despise affected political correctness.




As a staunch traditionalist myself, using "they" dates back to the 15th century whereas the use of "he" appears to date from the 18th century. I think using "he" must have been political correctness gone mad and despise it too.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Nov 10, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well, "I was just taught...," sure sounds like tradition to me.



"I was taught this way, so it's jarring to see it another way" ≠


Umbran said:


> "That's the way we've always done it,"



Those are two very different statements. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you somehow, but I hope now it is.


Umbran said:


> is pretty much the definition of tradition, isn't it?



Yeah, the second one is an appeal tradition. The first one isn't.


Umbran said:


> Well, nobody is saying you're Snidely Whiplash, or something.  But, to be honest, sometimes it takes a little bit of grating against the grain to get a point across.  I'm not at all sure men should be left feeling comfortable on this one.



I'm not sure that implying people who disagree with you might be sexist, even unintentionally, is going to be civil or productive, either. It's sure a lot more likely to put me on the defensive, defending my attacked character, rather than discussing why it might be better another way (with arguments of women feeling more included, etc.).


Umbran said:


> I'm sorry you find it insulting if we phrase it as being sexist.



This is a serious question (since I do respect you): Are you sorry? If you are sorry that I find that insulting, why not avoid that?


Umbran said:


> It is nice that you're in a position where you get to request not to be insulted, and maybe have someone listen to you, isn't it?



Yes? What kind of question is this?


Umbran said:


> Interestingly, when the ladies request not to be insulted insulted by pronoun use, they're told, "But that's the rule of grammar!" or "No, because I find it jarring."



We were asked a preference in the thread, and I've stated at least three times that if publishers want to use a certain method to attract more people, then they should do so. Just to repeat that again.

But, I don't like the implication that I'm sexist if I voice my preference, even after I've said why that's my preference. I also don't like the generalization that all women find the male general to be insulting (your "the ladies" wording, above), as I know that's not the case. We can talk about how women can identify more with products that switch off pronoun use, or that use female examples, etc., and how those are good things. But I don't see how saying "a group of people are insulted about this" really takes us anywhere. No doubt there will be guys that are insulted if you swap it (cries of "political correctness", etc.). Even though I agree with their preference, it has nothing to do with them being insulted.

I'd much rather hear compelling reasons, like "here are some stats showing 85% of women find this insulting" or "studies show that it's easier to identify with something when the pronoun you identify with is used" or something. I don't find a nebulous "the ladies are insulted" to be particularly compelling; tell me why it's better to change it. Don't imply I'm a sexist.

And, in particular, don't say I'm appealing to tradition because of my preference. Because I'm not.


Umbran said:


> You request not to be insulted.  But, women are denied when they make a similar request?



No. And don't put words into my mouth. I really don't appreciate it.


Umbran said:


> In fairness, do you really think I should honor your request?



I think you should go about this discussion intellectually honestly, and engage with the points I'm trying to make. I have no interesting in getting into an argument with you (or anyone else) about things that I didn't say. I hope that's clear. I have a lot of respect for your posts, but you're really twisting what I'm trying to say in this thread, and I'm asking you not to from now on. Thanks.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Nov 10, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Interestingly, when the ladies request not to be insulted insulted by pronoun use, they're told, "But that's the rule of grammar!" or "No, because I find it jarring."
> 
> You request not to be insulted.  But, women are denied when they make a similar request?
> 
> In fairness, do you really think I should honor your request?




Now you're just making stuff up.  No one is is being insulted by using proper grammar.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Nov 10, 2013)

As a female, I was rather chuffed to see female pronouns included the 3.0 D&D books.  The books just alternated examples, sometimes using he in an example, sometimes using she, and that was totally fine.

Waiting for some kind of arbitrary body to adjudicate our language by the creation of some vague gender neutral pronoun means we could be waiting a long time.  Languages shift naturally, with or without the guidance of some institution.  

"He" may be the proper gender neutral compound in the English language right now, but those rules were also written during a time period when no one really gave two figs about using women in an example in literature.  Why shouldn't we use "she" as often as "he" in writing examples when speaking generically?  Because honestly, unless you're describing an exclusive gender activity (like childbirth, or describing certain things in a real-life historical or cultural manner), should it really matter what imaginary type of person is theoretically doing something?  Why can't we imagine a woman doing these things?

Using "she" as a pronoun in examples sounds "unnatural" to many people because it's only relatively recently that people have made an effort to use it.

I also do not like the argument that, "Well, just imagine that a woman is doing this or that in the examples, even if it says he, because he is gender neutral."  It's bothersome to me as a woman because we make up a significant portion of this hobby, and I do care about seeing examples of females right there in print.  We are not some exotic, unnatural creature, and I think the familiarity that is granted by putting women more forward in print helps make our hobby both more accessible and more inclusive.

In short, boo to "gender neutral" he.  Use both pronouns, because both men and women play.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 12, 2013)

I think we should come up with a symbol / hieroglyph and just replace gender pronouns with it and leave it to the reader to interpret as they see fit.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 12, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> I think we should come up with a symbol / hieroglyph and just replace gender pronouns with it and leave it to the reader to interpret as they see fit.



Dude, only Prince can get away with that!


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 12, 2013)

I think it's a little disturbing that some people have the attitude that sticking to a grammar tradition somehow means "gentlemen only, ladies forbidden". At the same time sticking to a tradition simply because it is tradition ultimately makes the tradition pointless.

When I had speech therapy classes in elementary school (tongue locking stutterer and an introvert), the exercises used "he/she" or "his/her" and I chose the male mostly because the roles in the exercises were traditionally male. That said, I know a male nurse. It was convenience, not sexism.

Still, I feel using both or "their" is better.


----------



## Janx (Nov 13, 2013)

Zhaleskra said:


> I think it's a little disturbing that some people have the attitude that sticking to a grammar tradition somehow means "gentlemen only, ladies forbidden". At the same time sticking to a tradition simply because it is tradition ultimately makes the tradition pointless.
> 
> When I had speech therapy classes in elementary school (tongue locking stutterer and an introvert), the exercises used "he/she" or "his/her" and I chose the male mostly because the roles in the exercises were traditionally male. That said, I know a male nurse. It was convenience, not sexism.
> 
> Still, I feel using both or "their" is better.




There are women who are annoyed that video games don't offer female avatars as choices when there is no reason not to when others do so.

There are women who are annoyed that a modern RPG book doesn't include women as examples or pronouns in the writing when other texts do.

It seems they are asking to be included.  I am inclined to oblige them.

As others HAVE demonstrated the ability to do so, the bar has been raised.  My not doing so may appear as an act of objection to their cause to be included.  My not doing so may indicate my own incompetence at keeping up with the industry if others have changed successfully and I have not. After all, how hard can it be to write a bit more inclusively, especially if somebody else has done it, that means examples of the new art exist to learn from.

If every time we talk about the Civil War and lots of people say it was about slavery, and a certain demographic always say it was about "States' Rights" (as we had that talk on EN, and it turns out it was States Right to have slaves), then what the "lots of people" hear when somebody says "States Rights" again, is that person likes slavery.

Since we all know slavery is bad nowadays, what in the name of common sense makes it a good idea to EVER keep arguing using the "States' Rights" position as it always casts you as the bad guy.

Sexism is bad.  Some people are asking for a a change in writing style to be inclusive.  Don't argue with them, just give it to them because Sexism is bad.  There are better battles to fight over far more consequential things.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 13, 2013)

Mallus said:


> Dude, only Prince can get away with that!




I think cementing everyone's idea that he's some kind of flake may not constitute "getting away with it".


----------



## Mallus (Nov 13, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I think cementing everyone's idea that he's some kind of flake may not constitute "getting away with it".



Dude, Prince can get away with almost _anything_. He's an incredibly talented artist who's also incredibly rich and _still_ incredibly famous.


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 13, 2013)

I have no problems with alternating gender pronouns in publications, since most RPG publishers do this, it's a conformitive expectation - no reason not to conform.

That said, personally I find the entire notion of political correctness as kind of silly. I would never condone deliberate insensitivity done in a prejudicial way, however being forcibly 'sensitive' feels artificial to me.

Strange though, perhaps due to my lack of a wider reading material source, outside of RPGs I've never seen gender pronouns as ever being an issue. In other words, outside of RPG rule books, I've never seen a proactive effort to mix gender pronouns in any document or format done. Why force a new pronouns standard, when nobody else seems to be concerned? (I'm not saying doing so is wrong, it just seems odd that the RPG crowd is somehow more sensitive than everyone else...)


----------



## Zhaleskra (Nov 13, 2013)

I do think political correctness has gone way too far. Wonder what it's going to do about the fact that I find easily offended people offensive? They didn't think of that loophole now did they?


----------



## Janx (Nov 13, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> Strange though, perhaps due to my lack of a wider reading material source, outside of RPGs I've never seen gender pronouns as ever being an issue. In other words, outside of RPG rule books, I've never seen a proactive effort to mix gender pronouns in any document or format done. Why force a new pronouns standard, when nobody else seems to be concerned? (I'm not saying doing so is wrong, it just seems odd that the RPG crowd is somehow more sensitive than everyone else...)




Fair point.  Why is this an issue in RPGs, and not widely discussed in regular books?

I suspect that it is because RPGs are generally addressed to the reader and are about controlling an avatar in the game that represents the reader.  So failing to recognize the gender variance in the audience (the reader) is a pretty big snub.

Conversely, reading a fiction book, it's written about the author's characters in first or third person.  It's not sexist that the protagonist of the Dresden Files is a male. Consider however, that in works of fiction, authors have already been hammered on not having enough black people or strong female characters.  The modern crop of authors seemed to have received and read the memo.  I would suspect that THEY were the first in the writing industry to feel the pressures to change.

In non-fiction, I imagine any kind of how-to or self-help book might have a similar "talking to the reader" situation that RPGs have.  As I don't think I've ever read any of those, I couldn't say what the current writing style is.

Otherwise, most non-fiction is in the relaying facts business, which is likely pretty cut and dried.  President Kennedy was shot in 1963.  The fact that he was male or got shot has little to do with sexism, as it is simply a fact of nature that his DNA defined him as a male.  Somebody would have to go looking for trouble to argue with the author that his chapter on the known facts of JFK's assassination was written in a sexist or gender excluding way (or the author started some trouble)


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 13, 2013)

Janx said:


> In non-fiction, I imagine any kind of how-to or self-help book might have a similar "talking to the reader" situation that RPGs have.  As I don't think I've ever read any of those, I couldn't say what the current writing style is.




Actually I read a lot more non-fiction in the form of instruction manuals than anything else, and I've never seen gender pronouns even being introduced. That's why I mentioned the curiosity of it's presence in RPG books. In most non-RPG non-fiction manuals, gender pronouns aren't even considered. If the genderless 'they' aren't being used, 'he/his' still predominates non-fiction pronouns in everything except RPG manuals.

And it can't be because RPG'ers are more sensitive. You've never met my players, both male and female alike, they are the most insensitive people you're ever likely to meet.

Since I am currently writing a series of non-fiction instructional manuals (25 Quick & Dirty Map Tutorials Guides), in my work I feel I am instructing the reader as a student. So I use "you" and "your", not some hypothetical "he" or "she" as my preferred use of pronouns. I am teaching the reader directly, so I feel that's most appropriate.


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 13, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> Actually I read a lot more non-fiction in the form of instruction manuals than anything else, and I've never seen gender pronouns even being introduced. That's why I mentioned the curiosity of it's presence in RPG books. In most non-RPG non-fiction manuals, gender pronouns aren't even considered. If the genderless 'they' aren't being used, 'he/his' still predominates non-fiction pronouns in everything except RPG manuals.
> 
> And it can't be because RPG'ers are more sensitive. You've never met my players, both male and female alike, they are the most insensitive people you're ever likely to meet.



Based on my admittedly-limited experience, I do not think that the engineering or hard science professions can be held up as a beacon of gender equality at this or most historical points.


----------



## Janx (Nov 13, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> Actually I read a lot more non-fiction in the form of instruction manuals than anything else, and I've never seen gender pronouns even being introduced. That's why I mentioned the curiosity of it's presence in RPG books. In most non-RPG non-fiction manuals, gender pronouns aren't even considered. If the genderless 'they' aren't being used, 'he/his' still predominates non-fiction pronouns in everything except RPG manuals.




Can you clarify these two seemingly contradictory statements in your post:

"I've never seen gender pronouns even being introduced"
"'he/his' still predominates non-fiction pronouns"

I would have interpreted the first statement to mean the non-fiction book features no use of "he, his, him" or "she,hers,her" as both are inherently gender pronouns.

But then you say "'he/his' still predominates non-fiction pronouns".

Is it possible that your example non-fiction book features "he, his, him" and you did not CONSIDER that to be usage of gender pronouns?

I really am just asking as you seem to already be in the camp of "let's just make the women happy" like me. 

 My reasoning is that I sense contradicting wording in the quoted paragraph, and as my last question indicates is exactly why women might object to only seeing male pronouns and men not getting why that is.


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 13, 2013)

Yes, I misspoke, I didn't mean genderless pronouns were predominant, rather the male gender pronoun only is predominant. What I meant was there is no consideration of gender, using only the old standard pronoun for everything (he/his). Not saying these are deliberately excluding female readers, rather no attempt is made to not seem exclusive at least reading the language used. As far as that goes, I've never seen 'genderless' pronouns used in anything, not even RPGs.


----------



## Cadence (Nov 13, 2013)

Outside of RPGs, the APA Style Guide (one of the most widely used style guides for journal articles, textbooks, monographs, etc... in a variety of fields) specifically says to not use "he", "his", or "men" as generic terms applying to both sexes.  When gender is uncertain it also specifically does not recommend "he or she", alternating between "he" and "she", or "s/he" because they're awkward.  Their suggestions include recasting the sentence to be plural to enable use of "they" or "their" (as opposed to just using singular "they" which might not agree in number with the rest of the sentence) or rewriting to avoid the need to use a pronoun at all.     https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/14/

So they don't seem to like any of the first three choices in the poll.   But I don't think I've ever seen anything in APA style that is comparable to an RPG book with all of the examples and the like.   (I'm trying to think of what would be an example of that.)


----------



## Janx (Nov 13, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> Yes, I misspoke, I didn't mean genderless pronouns were predominant, rather the male gender pronoun only is predominant. What I meant was there is no consideration of gender, using only the old standard pronoun for everything (he/his). Not saying these are deliberately excluding female readers, rather no attempt is made to not seem exclusive at least reading the language used. As far as that goes, I've never seen 'genderless' pronouns used in anything, not even RPGs.




Gotcha.  

to sum up your observations outside of RPGs in non-fiction:

Nobody seems to use "they" or other truly genderless pronouns
every book seems to use "he" or other male pronouns

I think it is reasonable that just because a book only uses male pronouns, that does not mean the book or author is sexist/voicing a sexist position

So I doubt there's ill intent in these (or other) books.

The muddiness comes when somebody point out that a more inclusive practice exists, it is very risky to protest it.

I'm not sure why the non-fiction industry hasn't been hit by the "you're being sexist or exclusive" bug yet. But I did just think of a theory.

Pick up a how to book.  Pick up an RPG book.  Which book, or even which topic do you REALLY care about more. Enough to participate in online discussion forums, etc?

Odds are good, it's the RPG.  There aren't fan sites for how to books.  Other than the guy with a broken sink, nobody gives a rat's arse about Bob Villa's How To Fix a Broken Sink book enough to form a website discussing it, let alone discussing shortcomings in the writing style.  It's a tool.  Not a pastime or passion for anybody.  Once steps 1-9 are completed, the sink is fixed, the book is closed, and no thought or recollection is given to "how come all the examples used the word "he" instead of referencing women who might also have broken sinks.


----------



## Janx (Nov 13, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Outside of RPGs, the APA Style Guide (one of the most widely used style guides for journal articles, textbooks, monographs, etc... in a variety of fields) specifically says to not use "he", "his", or "men" as generic terms applying to both sexes.  When gender is uncertain it also specifically does not recommend "he or she", alternating between "he" and "she", or "s/he" because they're awkward.  Their suggestions include recasting the sentence to be plural to enable use of "they" or "their" (as opposed to just using singular "they" which might not agree in number with the rest of the sentence) or rewriting to avoid the need to use a pronoun at all.     https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/14/
> 
> So they don't seem to like any of the first three choices in the poll.   But I don't think I've ever seen anything in APA style that is comparable to an RPG book with all of the examples and the like.   (I'm trying to think of what would be an example of that.)




Good point.

Though AP style is also considered dry and very deliberate in how things are written to promote readability to a mixed audience.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Nov 14, 2013)

Janx said:


> Sexism is bad.  Some people are asking for a a change in writing style to be inclusive.  Don't argue with them, just give it to them because Sexism is bad.  There are better battles to fight over far more consequential things.




Really?  We're not allowed to examine whether the gripe is legitimate?  You can always find "some people" saying any old kind of wacky thing.  Reduction ad absurdum:  I say it's sexist that I don't have a pony.  You are now required to give me a pony.  If you don't you are sexist and a bad person.


----------



## Janx (Nov 14, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Really?  We're not allowed to examine whether the gripe is legitimate?  You can always find "some people" saying any old kind of wacky thing.  Reduction ad absurdum:  I say it's sexist that I don't have a pony.  You are now required to give me a pony.  If you don't you are sexist and a bad person.




a) Your pony is in the mail.

b) it takes two seconds to see that writing "he" all over the place, whether tradition, old standard or not might be taken the wrong way by a woman.  I wouldn't want "she" to be the standard either.  So it's easy ground to give on in the Equal Rights movement.  It has the key attributes of lopsided distribution and keyed to a specific gender.  That examination takes two seconds to complete to determine an air of legitimacy to the issue.  It's not as big as letting women vote, but it is bigger than renaming man hole covers because it has the word "man" in it

c) what does a pony have to do with gender or sexism?  There is no connection to lopsided distribution keyed to a specific gender.  You don't have a pony because your parents decided not to get you one or because they couldn't afford it, or they were logical determined that it wouldn't be best for the pony's well being.  Gender never came into the equation, thus it wasn't sexist.  Unless your parents said "you're a boy, you can't have a pony", which wasn't disclosed in the original claim, there's no sexism, and it didn't take a lot to determine that.

d) wanting to keep doing things the old way doesn't make you bad, but it can you look bad to others.  Let's assume you don't care what I think, that's OK.  These situations matter when a person sticks to their guns in front of people they DO care what they think.  If a female friend reads your gaming manuscript and says "hey, I think your writing leaves women out because you only use male genders", I hope you care what she thinks, and I would be concerned that defending the writing practice will not make you look tolerant to her.  Expand that out to any of the people you care about, in the case of an RPG manuscript, likely gamers, some of which are women.

e) I agree we can find people who will claim something whacky offends them.  The slippery slope argument is usually used as protection against them (we can't do X, or the whacky people will use that to further justify something).  I think the normal people outnumber the whacky people.  As long as the normal people try to do the right thing AND make course corrections when it's gone too far, it'll never get that far.  Normal people know when whacky people are being stupid again.

f) you're neither allowed nor barred from examining anything.  There are no restrictions on what you do, other than the potential PR fallout of what one says about the old way vs. the new way.  I doubt anybody here in this thread is any kind of PR trouble.  But anybody writing an RPG would be advised to side with the newer styles, unless they want PR issues with people who finally review/read their product.  In today's modern era, I cannot fathom why ANYBODY would risk it.  It's like that Indian government guy in the news recently.  Given what a hot button the R word is over there, only an idiot would make ANY statement containing the R word or saying anything that doesn't outright condemn it.  It ought to have been an HR memo saying "don't talk about R except in carefully vetted by PR phrases."

The "he" vs. "he/she" thing is way minor to that.  But it's an issue, and my imaginary legal department, PR and HR has advised me to acquiesce to their request, as resisting it could be taken the wrong way.


----------



## Janx (Nov 14, 2013)

As an aside, it might be interesting to consider the background of those of us with different views on the subject.

I come from LARGE corporations.  I now help run a very small IT company.

In both venues, when somebody raises an issue or concern that smells like lawsuit bait (harrassment or discrimination), you'd best watch what you say, and cede to the request if its reasonable.  Any quibbling or whatnot, could be construed as condoning the alleged bad behavior.

Even my InfoSec guy is wired this way.  If he remotely detects anybody is doing something wrong (like illegal porn on an executive's laptop), that goes straight to the Feds.  We don't get an opportunity to hem and haw over it or quietly take care of it, because THAT can look like an attempt to hide evidence and make us an accessory to the crime.

Every time the news has an article about a scandal, it is invariably because the company did not handle the problem in a sufficiently serious and immediate way, and instead spent more time hiding it, debating it, or not taking it seriously.

It may be human nature to go through the seven stages over every change forced upon us, but other humans don't give a hoot if you're going through it to realize that you need to respond NOW to a Gender Equality request that isn't onerous or excessive.

My position and viewpoint is aimed at people writing actual products/running an RPG company because that is analogous to what I do for a living.

I don't care if some dude's personal writing is gender exclusive or not.  That's below the radar of the RPG industry as a whole.


----------



## Ilja (Nov 14, 2013)

Things like this always reminds me of a similar topic, though a bit more exaggerated, that has become sort of a long-term big deal in my country, Sweden. Now, Sweden is seen as a pretty progressive country, and many here claim "political correctness have gone too far!!!!!111one".

In sweden, there's a pastry, which has often been called something that translates into english as the n-word followed by balls. "n****balls" (but it doesn't have any real sexual connotation, just as in "round object" mostly). Obviously many people regard this as racist as heck, and most people don't use it anymore for very obvious reason, and nowadays most people (and certainly all bakery shops etc) call them "chocolate balls" or similar.

Yet there is a bunch of (white) people saying "STOP BEING SO PC!!!" and "IT'S ALWAYS BEEN CALLED THAT!!!", and of course a small minority that just has missed the whole issue and haven't even considered the name.

Now, of course not everyone that calls them "n*balls" are ideologically convinced racists, but if someone uses the phrase, and gets told that it's racist, you can tell a lot by the response.

Some will say "oh, sorry, it's a bad habit" or "oh, sorry, I'd never considered that". I mean, I have a hard time believing someone saying they've never thought of it seeing as how it's been quite a big deal in Sweden, but at least there's a confirmation of understanding that it is an issue. They understand that the _expression_ is a consequence of a racist society and makes many black people feel uncomfortable. They understand that using that expression is a racist _act_; that does not mean that they as people are racist, it means they live and partake in a racist society, and if one does not wish to continue to reproduce that racist society, one has to actively take steps to prevent it. You can't be "neutral" and just continue to use racially loaded language that makes people of a certain race uncomfortable; once you are informed of the issue there isn't such a thing as "not taking sides", either you continue the racist practice or you change your behaviour. Most people are decent people when it comes to something like that, and thus most have changed their behaviour.

Others will say stuff like "oh stop being so PC!!!!", or "it's just a word, it's not racist!!!!" or "that's the REAL name!!!" or "it's always been called that!" or "oh but you can say white onion?!?! (swedish word for garlic)" or "freedom of expression!!!!" or whatever. I have a very hard time not seeing these people as racist - whether they explicitly believe in a hierarcy of human races/subspecies or not (in Sweden we don't really use the word race about people the way it's used in other parts of the world) they purposefully continue to use a racist phrase even whilst knowing the issues with it. It may be laziness that they don't change their ways, it may be just because "they like to provoke" or because they don't like "all this PC ". It doesn't really matter how they justify it - they still continue to act racist without even trying to stop.
And of course, they'd all claim that being called "racist" for their behaviour was a faaar graver insult than using the n-word.

Now, of course pronouns are a bit different; they're not inherently a slur the same way the n-word is. Yet they are still a consequence of a sexist society wherein the man is the norm and example everywhere and the woman is "the other". Being "othered" is a central part of hierarchial and oppressive systems; the "othering" of women is an important leg for the still patriarchal society we live in. Yes, it's "just a word", but it's one of the most common words in the language.

And the arguments are so, so very similar. "It's just a word, it shouldn't matter", "I've been taught so", "political correctness has gone too far" or "so we aren't allowed to write how we want anymore?" etc. And of course often the defendants will claim implying their actions might be sexist is some kind of insult.

Whenever someone tries to actively _defend_ the usage, it makes me think of those swedes defending the pastry. And, ultimately, even apart from the usage of the word itself, I've never met one n-ball defendant who wasn't very racist in general. Not always of the Ku Klux Klan type, but always very "othering" to people who weren't ethnic swedes and in other ways reinforcing the hierarchal and oppressive system.

I have a hard time for products that use all masculine pronouns, and would probably never buy a product from someone who staunchely defends the usage of all masculine pronouns.

P.S. The whole "P.C." thing is so goddamn silly. I mean, comeon. I get called "politically correct" all the time while propagating for abolishon of the whole economic system through violent revolution, by people who's political opinion is in line with large corporation and major political parties.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 14, 2013)

I liked what Paizo did with Pathfinder where they had iconic characters and used the iconics's gender  to determine pronoun usage for classes. 
Other rules can avoid it somewhat, referring to "creatures" or "characters". 

There's no shortage of pronoun alternatives


----------



## Traveller (Nov 15, 2013)

Its men who should object - we do not get a personal pronoun all of our own we have to share it...
And as for Language forming thought is English so more polite cause it uses only the 3rd form and dropped the "thou"?


----------



## Kcinlive (Nov 15, 2013)

English needs a gender neutral pronoun!  Until then I will use they.

English is a living language.  We can make changes!

-Kcinlive


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 15, 2013)

shadow said:


> As part of my graduate sociolinguistics class, I am examining the question of pronoun usage in D&D.  Most older D&D players will remember back to 1st and 2nd edition when the masculine pronoun (he, him, his) was used generically.  However, when 3e was released both masculine and feminine pronouns were used with the gender of the pronoun dependent on the character being described.  I remember the online debates provoked by this switch to both masculine and feminine pronouns.  Some players felt that it was more inclusive to female gamers while others felt that it sounded awkward.
> 
> As part of my project, I'd like to hear your opinions on pronoun usage.  The way I understand it there are 4 main strategies for handling pronouns.
> 
> ...




You left out the strategy WotC uses for Magic, which is to use "he or she" when necessary. There's also the generic feminine, which is unusual but a nice retort to those who argue that we should all just use the generic masculine and shut up.

For RPGs, I would say my preference is #2, creating and using iconic characters as a reference. Just make sure the iconics do not themselves get too stereotypical (i.e., don't make all the melee warriors male and all the rogue-types female).


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 16, 2013)

Kcinlive said:


> English needs a gender neutral pronoun!  Until then I will use they.
> 
> English is a living language.  We can make changes!
> 
> -Kcinlive



They also falls into the same pronunciation as he and she. This is important, as "Hir" is an abomination against good taste in English pronunciation.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 16, 2013)

Kcinlive said:


> English needs a gender neutral pronoun!  Until then I will use they.
> 
> English is a living language.  We can make changes!
> 
> -Kcinlive




There have been several attempts to do so, they have just never caught on.

what is intesting to me is the poll is essentially split three ways (but not evenly). Four or five ways if you count the last two options on the poll. So expectations of readers are pretty divided it would seem.


----------



## mythago (Nov 17, 2013)

Ilja said:


> P.S. The whole "P.C." thing is so goddamn silly.




It's often used in the same way that children use "IT'S NOT FAIR!" when asked to let somebody else have a turn, or to pick up their toys. That is, they're being asked to change what they're doing and mildly inconvenience themselves in order to treat other people fairly, and they don't like it - but it sounds so much better to pretend that it's a principled stand (for 'fairness' or 'free speech' or against 'groupthink' or 'orthodoxy') than to just say they don't wanna.

Re the generic masculine: it _isn't_ actually a genderless masculine. If it were, then it wouldn't sound at all odd to say "Every ballerina must purchase his own toe shoes" or "Every new mother, after he gives birth, should breastfeed his child if possible." It's 'generic' because of the cultural view that the default person is male, with female being a deviation from that. Also, that it's acceptable to refer to women generically as 'he' but insulting and improper to refer to a man generically as 'she' - that is why, in traditional grammar, if you have a group of 100 women you would use a female pronoun, but introduce one man and suddenly you're supposed to use 'he'.


----------



## Tallifer (Nov 17, 2013)

I teach my English students that "he" is perfectly acceptable as a pronoun of indeterminate gender, just as "mankind" means "humanity." I also of course point out that a growing number of people object to these traditional linguistic rules.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 18, 2013)

I've come to the conclusion I know how pronouns and gender in D&D should be handled -- from a distance, with a 10' pole.


----------



## ClarenceInWonderland (Nov 18, 2013)

In writing at least, the subject “they” is still odd: “The DM first gives the players a description of the room. Then they indicate what monsters are present” (where “they” refers to the DM). Here there is real ambiguity as “they” could easily refer to the players. 

Agreeing with some earlier posts, I think the easiest way out of this in a role-playing game context is, early on in the rulebook, to set up a group of players. Give the DM a male or female name and then use the appropriate pronoun throughout the rulebook. Try best to avoid needing a pronoun: “The DM first gives the players a description of the room, then indicates what monsters are present.” But there are still going to be places where a pronoun in necessary. As a linguist, I don’t like this technique as it’s a hack that doesn’t solve the issue, but if I were writing a gaming manual, the hack works well enough.


----------



## Cadence (Nov 19, 2013)

Tallifer said:


> I teach my English students that "he" is perfectly acceptable as a pronoun of indeterminate gender, just as "mankind" means "humanity." I also of course point out that a growing number of people object to these traditional linguistic rules.




All the posts of the Gettysburg Address popping up on FB today brings up the example of "all men are created equal".  It seems like when it's quoted these days a lot of people want the "all men" in the original Declaration of Independence to be "mankind" in the sense of "humanity".  Of course the writers at the time didn't even mean all males, let alone women.

There are a few interesting quotes on "man" and "mankind" at http://io9.com/5962243/think-twice-before-using-mankind-to-mean-all-humanity-say-scholars  including the principle etymologist at the OED and some Old English scholars.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 20, 2013)

As a former girlfriend once explained, she had no problem with the generic masculine because the entire country was a generic feminine. She saw the latter trumping the former.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 20, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> As a former girlfriend once explained, she had no problem with the generic masculine because the entire country was a generic feminine. She saw the latter trumping the former.



In what country? Perhaps this is a common usage in Britain or Australia--I wouldn't know--but certainly not in the United States. Americans hardly ever refer to countries using gendered pronouns. And it's worth noting that of the two personifications of our country, the male one has virtually eclipsed the female. Everybody knows Uncle Sam. How many people have even heard of Columbia without the words "District of" attached?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 20, 2013)

Dausuul said:


> In what country? Perhaps this is a common usage in Britain or Australia--I wouldn't know--but certainly not in the United States. Americans hardly ever refer to countries using gendered pronouns. And it's worth noting that of the two personifications of our country, the male one has virtually eclipsed the female. Everybody knows Uncle Sam. How many people have even heard of Columbia without the words "District of" attached?




In the US, I hear plenty of people refer to America as "she" but have never heard anyone use "he" in reference to the country. I would say I tend to think of the country as a she as well. I think this is probably what the poster had in mind.


----------



## Cadence (Nov 20, 2013)

RE: America as she. 

The lyrics to "God Bless America" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Ble...itional_lyrics and going even older with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_(name).


----------



## Cadence (Nov 20, 2013)

Double post.


----------



## Janx (Nov 20, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> In the US, I hear plenty of people refer to America as "she" but have never heard anyone use "he" in reference to the country. I would say I tend to think of the country as a she as well. I think this is probably what the poster had in mind.




Actually, Nazi Germany specifically referred to the their country as "the fatherland"

In many ways, it was to deliberately differentiate themselves from the other countries (ex.  Mother Russia)


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 20, 2013)

Oh, certainly references to the U.S.A. as "she" far exceed references to the U.S.A. as "he," but both are dwarfed to insignificance by references to the U.S.A. as "it." Modern usage does not generally attribute gender to a country. (And when you throw in personifications, I suspect you'd see a lot more masculine than feminine references to the U.S. Columbia has pretty much fallen out of use. Uncle Sam is everywhere.)


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 21, 2013)

Dausuul said:


> In what country? Perhaps this is a common usage in Britain or Australia--I wouldn't know--but certainly not in the United States. Americans hardly ever refer to countries using gendered pronouns. And it's worth noting that of the two personifications of our country, the male one has virtually eclipsed the female. Everybody knows Uncle Sam. How many people have even heard of Columbia without the words "District of" attached?




I'm Australian, and an Australian anglophile at that.

I must admit, I was surprised by your answer because my experience with Americans is that American history is something of a religion so the concept of Columbia is quite well known.

Or as I experienced a few weeks ago when discussing American politics with an Australian friend on Facebook, his wife butted in to explain that it wasn't OK for us to be doing so because we weren't Americans and therefore it would be like telling "Yo Momma" jokes about her mother. (We made the mistake of discussing systems in a logical fashion rather than insulting people: the latter would have been perfectly acceptable.)

Yep, 20-odd year friendship brought to an end by a female redneck....


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 21, 2013)

I urge everyone to keep going off-topic. The thread has yet to be Godwin'd, or devolve into yelling. This is the internet, and Godwin'ing and incomprehensible, angry posts are mandatory. Remember: Civil discourse is treason. Friend Computer is watching.

The weather is rainy.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 21, 2013)

The weather is rainy here also. Thank God it's just rain and not a typhoon... again.

And, yes, this is a very pleasant thread.


----------



## mythago (Nov 21, 2013)

ClarenceInWonderland said:


> In writing at least, the subject “they” is still odd: “The DM first gives the players a description of the room. Then they indicate what monsters are present” (where “they” refers to the DM). Here there is real ambiguity as “they” could easily refer to the players.




Actually, the easiest way out of this is better writing: "The DM first describes the room, then indicates what monsters are present." Or "The DM describes the room, and then describes the monsters in that room." No need for the pronoun at all, and I suppose you could throw 'to the players' in there somewhere, but isn't it assumed by the reader, in the context of (say) a module, that the DM is addressing the players?

Sure, there will be places where a pronoun is necessary, but there are also lots of places where it can be written out, just as one can avoid the 'generic' masculine by making a sentence plural; "Players must prepare their equipment list" vs. "Each player must prepare his equipment list".



Scrivener of Doom said:


> I must admit, I was surprised by your answer because my experience with Americans is that American history is something of a religion so the concept of Columbia is quite well known.




Other than "Yankees be trippin'" I admit I couldn't quite follow what you meant here. "History" is a very broad collection of events, images and themes that has waxed and waned over time, even in a fairly young country like America. To the extent that modern Americans personify their national identity as a female icon, that would be the Statute of Liberty, not Columbia.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 21, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> I'm Australian, and an Australian anglophile at that.
> 
> I must admit, I was surprised by your answer because my experience with Americans is that American history is something of a religion so the concept of Columbia is quite well known.




Well, I admit I haven't done a survey on the subject, but my experience is that plenty of us take great pride in our history without actually knowing very much of it. Though I suppose if you looked at the subset of Americans who play RPGs, it'd be different. D&D players do include a lot of history buffs.



Scrivener of Doom said:


> Or as I experienced a few weeks ago when discussing American politics with an Australian friend on Facebook, his wife butted in to explain that it wasn't OK for us to be doing so because we weren't Americans and therefore it would be like telling "Yo Momma" jokes about her mother. (We made the mistake of discussing systems in a logical fashion rather than insulting people: the latter would have been perfectly acceptable.)




Not all of us have that attitude. My dance partner is British and we're forever comparing our respective cultures, institutions, and slang. (I'll have to ask her if she thinks of the United Kingdom as "she.")


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 21, 2013)

Dausuul said:


> (snip) Not all of us have that attitude. My dance partner is British and we're forever comparing our respective cultures, institutions, and slang. (I'll have to ask her if she thinks of the United Kingdom as "she.")




I am very much aware of that. The friend I referred to made the mistake of marrying white trash... and I made the mistake of assuming she wasn't reading our conversation.  I've had wonderful arguments, debates and discussions with American friends and acquaintances about our respective cultures, institutions and systems. Even when heated it's always been fun.


----------



## ClarenceInWonderland (Nov 21, 2013)

mythago said:


> Actually, the easiest way out of this is better writing: "The DM first describes the room, then indicates what monsters are present." Or "The DM describes the room, and then describes the monsters in that room."




I did mention that later in the same post:



ClarenceInWonderland said:


> ... Try best to avoid needing a pronoun: “The DM first gives the players a description of the room, then indicates what monsters are present.” But there are still going to be places where a pronoun in necessary ...




 I find it interesting that singular "them/their" has taken over as an anaphoric pronoun (making reference to a noun earlier in the sentence), but English speakers have yet to develop something similar for subject pronouns.  I suspect it’s because subjects necessarily carry semantic baggage which indicates the specifics on who is doing the action. Anaphoric pronouns just refer back to something already indicated, so "3rd person" is enough info. It seems that semantic baggage on "he" is dependent on speaker: some here (like myself) feel that in subject position: 
 (a) "she" has a [+feminine] feature, "he" has a [+masculine] feature, and "they" has a [+plural] 

Others fell that:
 (b) "she" has a [+feminine] feature, "he" has [–plural] and "they" has [+plural]

And here lies the problem. For speaker (a), "he" cannot be used generically and such usage may come across as sexually biased. For speaker (b), "he" is perfectly acceptable as it doesn’t carry any gender features at all. So we’ve got two different grammars going on here and it is up to the writer to determine which grammar is appropriate to writing RPG manuals.

 Non-gendered pronouns might develop one day in English. English Creoles like Papua New Guinea Tok Pisin (3rd person ‘em’) or Sierra Leone Krio (3rd person ‘i’) have already done so.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 21, 2013)

mythago said:


> Actually, the easiest way out of this is better writing: "The DM first describes the room, then indicates what monsters are present." Or "The DM describes the room, and then describes the monsters in that room." No need for the pronoun at all, and I suppose you could throw 'to the players' in there somewhere, but isn't it assumed by the reader, in the context of (say) a module, that the DM is addressing the players?




That works well for a single, isolated sentence, but in the context of a paragraph or chapter, it leads to highly repetitive structure that becomes less easy to read.  "The DM does X.  The DM does Y.  In Z, the DM then...."  The whole point of pronouns is to avoid the repetitive use of the specific reference.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 21, 2013)

mythago said:


> Actually, the easiest way out of this is better writing: "The DM first describes the room, then indicates what monsters are present." Or "The DM describes the room, and then describes the monsters in that room." No need for the pronoun at all, and I suppose you could throw 'to the players' in there somewhere, but isn't it assumed by the reader, in the context of (say) a module, that the DM is addressing the players?




That works well for a single, isolated sentence, but in the context of a paragraph or chapter, it leads to highly repetitive structure that becomes less easy to read.  "The DM does X.  The DM does Y.  In Z, the DM then...."  The whole point of pronouns is to avoid the repetitive use of the specific reference.


----------



## ClarenceInWonderland (Nov 21, 2013)

Dausuul said:


> (I'll have to ask her if she thinks of the United Kingdom as "she.")



Well, the UK is an agglomeration of kingdoms/nations. In Celtic languages (and Latin) which have grammatical gender, the country name is invariably feminine


Britannia : feminine, Hibernia : feminine
Éire : feminine
Cymru : feminine
Alba : feminine
Kernow : feminine
Mannin : feminine
In Old English, I think England was neuter gender, though I’d have to check up on that.


----------



## jasper (Nov 21, 2013)

Instead he, she, or they just use Bob.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 21, 2013)

shadow said:


> 1. The generic masculine.  All generic pronouns are masculine with the assumption that female characters are included.  (The traditional rule of English writing.)




This is a relatively modern rule of English writing, dating only back to 1750 and a prescriptivist grammarian.



> 2. Switching between masculine and feminine pronouns.  There should be a balance between masculine and feminine pronouns, so some characters or situations should use a masculine pronoun and some should use a feminine pronoun.  (For example, the DM would be described by a feminine pronoun whereas players would be described with masculine pronouns.)




This works for examples where the gender is known - and the traps are avoidable (don't make all the melee characters male and the casters female for example).



> 3. Using 'they' as a generic.  Even when the referent is a singular, 'they' is used as a pronoun.




This is the actual traditional rule of English grammar where the gender of the person being written about is unknown (and was good enough for Shakespeare).  For instance the reader of the book or hypothetical non-specific players..



> 4. Avoiding pronouns altogether.  This may get a little tricky because English speakers generally find it unnatural to repeat the subject over and over without resorting to a pronoun.




This is just awkward.

So I'd mix 2 for known examples and 3 for unknown examples.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Nov 21, 2013)

This conversation is still going on?

Use "you" and plural "they" as much as is sensible, "he," "she," or "it" where appropriate for specific individuals, and "he or she" as a generic singular. Done.

Examples: 

"Starting at 2nd level, you are able to cast spells..."

"PCs wishing to approach the king must first explain their business to the guards."

"The DM is the final arbiter of his or her campaign."

"If one of the PCs objects, simply tell him or her..."

"When the Human Fighter is reduced to 0 hit points, he or she can attempt a Constitution saving throw..."

"When the Orc Fighter is reduced to 0 hit points, it can attempt a Constitution saving throw..."


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 21, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> This conversation is still going on?
> 
> Use "you" and plural "they" as much as is sensible, "he," "she," or "it" where appropriate for specific individuals, and "he or she" as a generic singular. Done.
> 
> ...



"They" is an awkward word, but there is no other useful objection that I am aware of.


----------

