Pronouns

[jack]

"When John was a woman, [he/she/they] said '...' " Which pronoun do you prefer? (That is, "he" is appropriate for John now, "she" would be appropriate for what John was then, and "they" would specify the ambiguity.)

"The things God or Jesus [was/were] recorded as saying are ..." Which pronoun do you prefer? (That is, do you treat them as two separate people (were)? Or one person (was)? :))

Obviously both are arbitrary, and I think both sufficiently specialised that most people wouldn't mind which you used, I just wondered if anyone had a strong opinion :)

Comments

[cornute.livejournal.com]

In the first case, I'd use "she" for a time in someone's life when they were definitely presenting as female, if I had to use a pronoun.

However, it's possible NOT to use a pronoun in any reference. "When John had that job as a bra fitter, John told me that clients really preferred John's expertise." Awkward, but it avoids having to ask the person if it bothers them to be referred to by the old pronoun.

It's also possible to use pronouns only for the unambiguous current states-- "John told me that he remembered all the customers at the bar who complimented John's appearance." Even knowing that John has previous experience as a woman, John's work at the bar may have been pre- or post- transition and it might be better not to guess. (Also, I'm avoiding the whole awkward time in the middle where some people know one thing and some know another. Even if you "know" what John was at the time because you were there, you may have been the only person who thought of John as a chick while he was successfully passing everywhere else, and you will seriously hurt his feelings if you say so!)

I'm really in the third camp, for obvious reasons.

In the second example, it really depends on how Jesus was presenting at the time.

</goingtohell>

[naath.livejournal.com]

But don't re-use the name like that it sounds all overly-chumy and sales-person (see, someone will take issue with *anything*). Nowt wrong with a singular 'they'.

[cornute.livejournal.com]

Somewhere, a transgendered grammarian is crying.

Yeah, I'd likely rephrase not to need the name or a pronoun either one. But then I'm a gamer and have a lot of experience referring to the person across the room from me playing that hot female character without saying "He's gone to take a leak, back in a minute."

I like the "they" too.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Appropriate icon :)

However, it's possible NOT to use a pronoun in any reference.

Oh yes, in actual usage it may (or may not) be better to avoid the issue. In actual fact, both examples come from real life, and in the first I wanted to use "she", decided "he" might be preferable, and settled on "they" as an acceptable stop-gap (knowing that the person in question was generally in favour of singular "they" :)).

It's also possible to use pronouns only for the unambiguous current states

Is a particularly nice way of rephrasing if you do.

In the second example, it really depends on how Jesus was presenting at the time.

Well, it no doubt does :)

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Surely the or means it has to be were. The incredibly confusing doctrine of the trinity claims that Jesus and God are distinct and the same in some sense, so you're doomed (or not..) which ever you use ;-)

[naath.livejournal.com]

I think at least some people would say that John never *was* a woman, he was just acting the part of one. I don't think there are any universally acceptable ways of talking about John's experiences as a woman - although if it really were relevant I would follow John's clues (generally I would say it isn't relevant and just say "last year John said that he was planning on blah blah blah"), without clues would probably assume that the best pronoun to use would be the current one (John is still a he in the past) and I might use 'living as a woman' ("John told me that when he was living as a woman the waiter never handed him the bill but that now he is presenting as a man he often gets the bill, from this I conclude that this is a sexist practice" for instance).

I'd probably use 'they' for the parts of the trinity, but I'm not really informed.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I think at least some people would say that John never *was* a woman,

Oh yes, good point. I should have specified, it's likely that John has a preference, and if so, just follow that, and even if you don't know that, or he doesn't want to dwell on it, he may well have a preference, so avoiding it is generally wise. But in theory... :)

I'd probably use 'they' for the parts of the trinity, but I'm not really informed.

You can probably justify referring to God as plural anyway, if you feel like finding an excuse. (I understand that's a polite form of address in some languages, like royal "we" :))

[pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)]

I think at least some people would say that John never *was* a woman, he was just acting the part of one.

Depends on the exact person of course, but - yeah. Could you not instead say

"When John was living as a woman, [he/she] said... " which I think makes the decision easier?

[pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)]

(oh bum, I screwed up my html).

[simont]

"God or Jesus": the special case of them allegedly being the same entity would not deter me from treating them grammatically as separate people. However, even so it's not clear to me that I would use "were". Consider "Either Fred or Jim says such-and-such, though I can't remember which": you may be uncertain of the identity of the speaker but you know there's only one of him, so the verb is singular.

Perhaps "God and Jesus" would be a better example for offering the option of treating the noun phrase as singular. Though now that's making me think of Samneric from Lord of the Flies.

Gender transitions: I'd generally use whichever pronoun went with the name it was substituting for. If I'm talking about John, I'll substitute his name with "he"; if I'm talking about some past event during which John was going by (as it might be) "Jane", I'll substitute "Jane" with "she". This is primarily because my grammar cortex would otherwise have to remain in first gear the whole time in order to be able to reliably suppress its normal unconscious pronoun selection, which would be irritating for me and probably not too good for anyone listening to me either.

eta: though, after another thought experiment, it's entirely possible that under some circumstances I might tell a story about John-before-he-was-John and not bother shifting (name,pronoun) pair at all. It would probably depend on the nature of the story and whether the change was relevant in some way, and/or on context and whether other people had already started talking about the episode in question and what name and pronoun they were using if so.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

the special case of them allegedly being the same entity would not deter me from treating them grammatically as separate people.

That's no doubt actually the correct solution. Imagine if I referred to "Sensible-Jack and impulsive-Jack both want to..." even those actually are the same person, the different presentations thereof are grammatically separate. I don't know what the nearest example that does take a singular verb would be, if any.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Perhaps "God and Jesus" would be a better example

Yes, I think that works at least as well.

But I'm not sure "or" doesn't work. The things that were said, were said some by Jesus and some by God (and potentially some by both, but I don't think I asserted that). So "and" probably works, but maybe gives the impression they both said the same things?

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

a) I'd use the pronoun corresponding with the current gender. It just would seem odd flipping between the two, where the sentence begins, as it were in the present.

b) I'd use the plural verb when talking about members of the trinity. Though given the example you give is disjunctive, singular might be appropriate anyway, depending on how exclusive your or is "Kim or Leslie was recorded as saying X (but I forget which)". Given British usage allows for plurals even with singular subjects "The cabinet were in agreement" where American usage would compel was, one could get away with using the plural for the Trinity itself.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

I think in the case of John, the appropriate pronoun to refer to them with is whichever pronoun they actually identify with, which in an FTM transsexual's case seems to default to "he" to me, so I would use "he" to refer to that specific individual at any point in time, whatever their physiology might be at that point, unless they expressed a preference otherwise.

Raphael Carter, who maintains (or at least used to maintain) the androgyny RAQ and is the only person I know of who is strongly out about being biologically neither standard gender, favours being referred to as "he" and "she" alternately with equal frequency. I believe I would find this astoundingly difficult to do in conversation, compared to avoiding pronouns in a way which flows naturally, which takes relatively little practice. [ Raphael is also the author of The Fortunate Fall, which is a brilliant SF novel which you should read. ]

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

favours being referred to as "he" and "she" alternately with equal frequency. I believe I would find this astoundingly difficult to do in conversation

I know what you mean. On the other hand, I sort of like it as a concept, sort of like saying "it's fine to refer to me as 'he' or 'she', just don't think that's actually fits me".

Order of the Stick's Varsaavius, of officially unknown gender state, is often referred to something like that: characters in the comic tend to assign him one way or the other, but I think I've heard readers refer to her with "him" or "her" depending how they feel.

Raphael is also the author of The Fortunate Fall, which is a brilliant SF novel which you should read.

:) I will add it to the list of brilliant SF novels that I'm waiting to read :)

[ravingglory.livejournal.com]

I have friend who is an androgen, who likes the alternating pronouns, ze, and hir also work for hir. I find both difficult in conversation. (When typing its ok to pause to think of the right pronoun thank goodness.)

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

I'm happy to use zie for other people, though I do not like it at all myself - I am a singular "they" in all cases where my gender is not directly relevant, which is everything except with medical professionals and some (but not all) of my partners. "Hir" I just can't seem to make come out unambiguously clearly when spoken, though.

[ravingglory.livejournal.com]

I have the same trouble with Hir. There are few constructions of singular they that sound a bit off to my ear, but its still easier to decline then zie.

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

For the first one, I definitely wouldn't use 'they' (I only use that for when you don't know whether you're talking about a male or female - or, you know, for plurals), and would probably use 'she' because of the time reference. I hope John wouldn't mind if he were listening.

For the second one, it depends on the kind of 'or'. If you genuinely didn't know which of God or Jesus said the things but knew that one of them did and the other didn't, I don't see how you could use 'were' at all. I mean, whether or not you see God and Jesus as separate, the 'or' makes it singular, doesn't it? I'd say 'Bodie or Doyle is gorgeous' rather than 'Bodie or Doyle are gorgeous', and this would definitely imply that the gorgeousness didn't apply to both of them[1].

The thing is, what exactly would you mean in the 'God or Jesus' phrase? I assume it would be used if you were talking about things that God said, some of them perhaps as Jesus (of course, this is where it gets theological!) - and in that case, I wouldn't use 'or', I'd use 'and'.

Did any of that make sense (apart from the fangirlish bit)? :)

[1] They *are* both gorgeous, but I fancy one more than the other ;)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

"and" would probably be better, but it's complicated (I know if I try to make an unarguable example, I'll miss :)).

How about, "The children Bodie or Doyle sire are beautiful?" Again 'and' also works, but I think 'or' works too?

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

You know what? LJ should let you use two or three icons with a comment. My last comment is accompanied by a very appropriate icon, but it really also needed this one for illustration ;)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I know, it's frustrating, isn't it? You could split the content into two comments :)

[ravingglory.livejournal.com]

I belive my trans friends prefer to use the pronoun aporate to their true gender to refer to their pre-transition selves, on the ground that they where that gender then, they just didn't know/ weren't able to express it.

I'm big believer in calling people want they want to be called. I don't know what G-d and Jesus want to be called though.

[midnightmelody.livejournal.com]

If we're specifically in Trinity-thinking, I would say 'Jesus and the Father' or 'Son and Father' anyway, because God the Father doesn't have exclusive rights on the name 'God'. (Similarly, if you have three cats, you probably wouldn't call one of them 'the cat' and the others by their names.)

In terms of singular or plural, I'd take my cue from the Gospels - "The Father and I are one."

[robhu.livejournal.com]

It'd be interesting to see what insights (if any) the Greek gives. Presumably the translators had a similar conversation to the one going on on this post.