Monday, July 26, 2021

Gender

Annamaria (She, her, hers) on Monday



 It was a few years ago that I first attended a conference where attendees were asked to identify which gender pronouns they preferred to have applied to themselves.  I had been prepared for the experience because I had been clued in by the incomparable podcast whose praises I regularly sing.  RadioLab had, shortly before, broadcast a series called "Gonads." These fascinating episodes present, in detail, what happened inside our mothers' bodies during and after conception that eventually led to each of us becoming individually and uniquely us.

Aside: "Gonads," as applied to male anatomy, is a word that has taken on comic proportions in English.  But both males and females, for the most part, have gonads.  In women, we call them ovaries.

 

An early episode of "Gonads"details how most of the time the fetus develops with either two X chromosomes or an X and a Y.  Most of us have learned that women have two Xs and men have an X and a Y.  But healthy human beings sometimes come along with other combinations.  Two Xs and a Y.  Two of each. An X and two Ys.

Some of these combinations give rise to people who don't fit comfortably into some of the constructs of society's forced gender designations.  Somewhere along the path of human evolution, cultural norms evolved that compelled people, not only into two gender categories, but into gender roles.  And worse yet into "acceptable" patterns of sexuality.  Babies'  gender was declared at birth, in some cases arbitrarily, and any deviation on their part from their given designation was labeled as deviant.  And, as we all know, punished unmercifully.  This is true of all gay people, regardless of chromosomes, who came into this world with a sexual preference perfectly natural to them, that society thought it had the right to punish.

Because the English language uses gender-specific pronouns, speakers have made assumptions about the gender of people. Mistaken assumptions have sometimes caused embarrassment and pain.  Hence, the new practice--in the USA and perhaps elsewhere--of asking people what pronouns they prefer to be used in their case.  I was recently at a party, conversing with lesbian couple that I know.  A person, newly introduced to me but unknown to my women friends, took a chair near us, and without preamble demanded to know my opinion of this "they, them, she, her stuff."  I admit that I was hyper-sensitized by the company I was keeping at that moment.  I spoke gently but I said what I really think: that the current practice is a way of righting a past wrong.  That the designations and their appearance in people's signatures gives encouragement to those who, until now, did not feel that society welcomed them as full-fledged members.

In the past few days I have begun to wonder how this process is working itself out in countries where the local language employs gender grammatically.  In Italian, a language I did not acquire until after the age of 40, mixing up the gender of a noun can have effects similar to using the wrong tone for a word in Mandarin.  Una mostra is an exhibition.  Un mostro is a monster.  Added to my difficulty when learning Italian was that that French, which I learned first, uses gender in similar ways.  But the same thing can be masculine in one and feminine in the other.  It's la mer in French, but it's il mare in Italian, where some words that end in O are feminine.  It's la radio, not il radio.  And pronouns that apply to people can change depending, not on the sex of the person, but on the level of familiarity between the speakers.  One uses tu with familiars and small children, and Lei with strangers.  But lei means "she" in the third person.  That polite form of "you" is written with a capital, but you can't see the capital letter in speech.

Then there are languages that follow Latin and also have a neuter grammatical designation.  What happens there?

I wonder: How are speakers of languages other than English trying to be culturally sensitive to people who have been forced into uncomfortable gender roles?

15 comments:

  1. The idea of a language that attaches gender to objects has always seemed a bit bizarre to me. As I've aged, the idea of using language to attach gender to biology has also become a bit bizarre... and not. It's clear that gender is not a yes/no, black/white, male/female reality. A concept, yes, a reality, no. Adjusting our languages to better fit reality is going to be an interesting challenge. It seems there are three choices: entirely remove gender from the language, make/keep gender binary, or make gender a spectrum, requiring a host of words for referring to it, much as the eskimos have for 'snow'. And, yet, pretty much the "prime directive" of biology is to... well, not REproduce, but PROduce, to generate offspring, and on our planet, that is done largely (by more complex life forms) via sexual differentiation and combination, which is largely binary in nature. So, the idea of removing gender from language also seems problematic.

    I like solving puzzles, but I'm sure glad I don't have to solve THIS one!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting comments, EvKa. Thanks. In the interim, Annamaria, what pronouns do you suggest? I think it may easier to start there than attempting to change the French sea into a male sea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Stan and Erica, I think I can give the same answer to both of you. I think the answer is easy. We should make sure that the people we deal with feel free to choose their own pronouns. I think that’s what the this recent habitual pronoun statement like mine abovr invites. Then we should refer them in whatever they choose. I, above, gave my preferences. They are the ones that have been used for me since I was born, and I am comfortable with them. The idea is to make anyone comfortable with how they are spoken of and to. Right?

      Delete
    2. Sorry? Umm... for what? I was just rambling on thoughts about language and gender, two things that are very fluid, very not black & white (or cut & dried), and difficult to get right every time in every situation. But, yeah, you're absolutely right that everyone should choose for themselves. I hope what I wrote didn't come across as arguing against that, as that wasn't my intent in any way, form, or gender. :-)))

      Delete
    3. EvKa, I was apologizing for not catching the auto(in)correct mistake, calling you Erica. The algorithm changed what I typed to Erica. I fixed it twice, and for a while it looked correct—EvKa. But Blogger must have changed it back. This is a particularly strange series of events, considering the subject of this discussion!!!

      Delete
    4. Ah. Makes a lot more sense now. :-) How's your health doing? Able to write again?

      Delete
  3. Yes, the wider variation of gender roles is being recognized. NYT ran an op-ed a few years about intersex people, who are defined by their DNA combinations. It said 2% of people are born with intersex or other genetic variations.
    I prefer saying variations rather than errors or abnormalities. They are normal to the people who have them. There are a lot of reasons for this happening in fetal development. And some symdromes are inherited. Read Jeffrey Euginides' brilliant Pulitzer-Prize-winning book, "Middlesex" to read about one inherited intersex variation.
    I, however, being a rebel that I am, never write my gender or marital status on forms. The first, in solidarity with people of all genders. The second because I ask the questions: Is a break-up after a long relationship worse than a divorce? Is the death of a beloved partner any different than that of a spouse? Do documents make any difference in grief?
    I'm afraid grief is gender- and marriage-license-neutral.
    I think if we all refuse to fill in these categories, it will move gender and relationship sensitivity farther.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As usual, Kathy, your comments are instructive to me personally. I love the way you take me one step further. I’m grateful for that.

      Delete
    2. Thank you. But I have to give credit where credit is due for my expanded consciousness. I have had transgender friends and known young people who identify as genders other than those assigned at birth. Several have expanded my thinking. And so I believe in personal liberation and the right of everyone to define themselves as they choose.
      I also knew a now deceased writer and researcher who wrote on transgender liberation, and read a lot of history of early societies which recognized people of various genders and sexual identities.

      Delete
  4. My mastery of Greek pronouns and gender specific nouns, adjectives, and the like is best demonstrated by my throwing out whatever might be close to the right word and letting he, she, they, or it figure out what I'm trying to say. That has nothing to do with taking a political or societal position on the valid point you raise, just my utter inability to keep track of all the various permutations---of words, not people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fascinating post, as always, Annamaria. I agree with Kathy's stance that I try to avoid putting marital status or gender on forms. I hate it when people automatically assume I must be "Mrs" and use that as a starting point before being corrected. Why can't they call me "Ms" from the off?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. One of my pet peeves is when I'm talking to a customer service agent at Amazon (yes, I'll call them out) or my credit card company is when the person calls me Kathy. And I say I didn't OK that. So then they call me Mrs. Durkin. I say that was my mother, not me. And I mention Ms. Many people don't even know that is an option. But if one more tense male customer service person calls me by my first name constantly without my permission, well, i'll lose it. I hate this. And there is condescension, too.

      Delete
  6. On a related but different issue. Coming from the land of apartheid, I have always objected to specifying my race on forms in the USA. I usually check African American to stir the pot. It is interesting that I have had pushback a couple of times when I've said this, always from American African Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would imagine people of color would get upset at someone identifying themselves that way.

    How about putting down "Other"? That won't upset anyone, I don't think. Or leave it blank.

    I leave plenty of things blank. I did not want to check of my heritage on some medical forms, as it's complicated, but I don't think it's necessary. Then I am concerned that they are keeping track of which groupings have which illnesses, so I cave on that only for medical forms.

    ReplyDelete