Sweden Moves Towards Gender Neutrality [Support Thread]

[repeating integers]

There's a few hermaphrodites and some claim to be sexless but the vast majority is either male or female, and word play can not change that...

Surely you should respect their wishes to be called what they want? "Hen" would be a good development for them.

 

[Atrocious Joystick]

:-/

Sorry, but it is sexist if the generic word for "person" is "man" in your language. Also it kinda breaks my heart to see that it was just taken and ironically used as another way to reinforce gender roles. Things like that make me wonder why I stick up for humanity.

EDIT: I'm actually disappointed at all the Swedes who think this is "silly". I was given to understand you guys were better than this at the whole "progressiveness" business.

Eh, it's only sexist if you make it sexist. Any sophisticated culture could distinguish between the word "man" as used to mean, well, man and "man" used to refer to a similar meaning as the english "one". For example, our word for "the lawn" could actually mean "the lawn." It could be referring to a mythical creature. (Roughly a garden gnome). But you would have to be "less intellectually advantaged" to not understand the difference when used in a sentence.

As for your disappointment, well. It is a silly word that not only has no need but also doesn't fit into the language. How would you bend it for example? The way we currently bend the words for man and female is: (Male) Han, Hans, Honom. (Female). Hon, hennes, henne. How does one "bend" Hen? I've seen it bent as "Hen, hens, henom" but that is the masculine way of bending it. And having a gender neutral word is kind of negated by having it be bent in the masculine fashion. It becomes a more pretentious way of saying "Han".

 

[repeating integers]

:-/

Sorry, but it is sexist if the generic word for "person" is "man" in your language. Also it kinda breaks my heart to see that it was just taken and ironically used as another way to reinforce gender roles. Things like that make me wonder why I stick up for humanity.

EDIT: I'm actually disappointed at all the Swedes who think this is "silly". I was given to understand you guys were better than this at the whole "progressiveness" business.

Eh, it's only sexist if you make it sexist. Any sophisticated culture could distinguish between the word "man" as used to mean, well, man and "man" used to refer to a similar meaning as the english "one". For example, our word for "the lawn" could actually mean "the lawn." It could be referring to a mythical creature. (Roughly a garden gnome). But you would have to be "less intellectually advantaged" to not understand the difference when used in a sentence.

As for your disappointment, well. It is a silly word that not only has no need but also doesn't fit into the language. How would you bend it for example? The way we currently bend the words for man and female is: (Male) Han, Hans, Honom. (Female). Hon, hennes, henne. How does one "bend" Hen? I've seen it bent as "Hen, hens, henom" but that is the masculine way of bending it. And having a gender neutral word is kind of negated by having it be bent in the masculine fashion. It becomes a more pretentious way of saying "Han".

That last part is certainly a valid concern - as much as I admire the sentiment, it seems like they should have put more thought into this.

It also doesn't help that I don't know any Swedish, or anything that resembles any Swedish, so I'm kind of out of my depth here. I'm also quite tired, so I'll drop my point here.

*snippism*

For the record, I have always thought "mankind" seemed a bit of an odd term.

 

[Leonick]

Eh, it's only sexist if you make it sexist. Any sophisticated culture could distinguish between the word "man" as used to mean, well, man and "man" used to refer to a similar meaning as the english "one". For example, our word for "the lawn" could actually mean "the lawn." It could be referring to a mythical creature. (Roughly a garden gnome). But you would have to be "less intellectually advantaged" to not understand the difference when used in a sentence.

As for your disappointment, well. It is a silly word that not only has no need but also doesn't fit into the language. How would you bend it for example? The way we currently bend the words for man and female is: (Male) Han, Hans, Honom. (Female). Hon, hennes, henne. How does one "bend" Hen? I've seen it bent as "Hen, hens, henom" but that is the masculine way of bending it. And having a gender neutral word is kind of negated by having it be bent in the masculine fashion. It becomes a more pretentious way of saying "Han".

Indeed, just like words like "lift" or "mean" in english, multiple meanings but the same exact word but how many think the "what I mean is..." is in any way related to a different use such as "to be mean". To use another example from swedish, few people, who didn't just hit puberty, ever give much thought to the fact that we use the word "sex" for both sex and the number six.

As you, and many other have pointed out, the word "hen" will never get anywhere since it simply can not be bent in any reasonable way and when used in place of "han" or "hon" it just kind of sounds stupid. I've only seen "hen" used in place of han or hon in cases where the gender of whomever (actual or more often hypothetical person) was being talked about was unknown.

 

[Zyntoxic]

Another swede here, and I'm very positive of the word, I know a lot of people that think it is forced, a few that out right hates it but also a lot of people that just thinks it is a nice addition to our language because whether you like it or not it covers a missing spot in our language and I saw a list the other day that demonstrates this very well.
Gender neutral words have always existed, just not a good comparison to he and she.

Pojkvän (Boyfriend)
Pappa (Dad)
Bror (Brother)
Han (He)

Flickvän (Girlfriend)
Mamma (Mom)
Syster (Sister)
Hon (She)

Partner (Partner)
Förälder (Parent)
Syskon (Sibling)
Hen old concept, new word!



and it really isn't about changing your personal gender identity, I find it to be a respectful reinforcer of my personal identity actually, if a person doesn't know what gender I am I must say I'd find it more offensive if I was assumed to be a man just because the other person lacks a good neutral alternative.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

Sounds silly to me. Then again, if it's only applied when the gender is unknown, it would always sound silly to me because everything in my language has a sex, 2 versions of the same word, one for men, one for women. Even inanimate objects have "genders". GRAMMATICAL EQUALITY!

Well there you go, I just fixed everything. Forget the HEN thing, just change the whole language to accomodate 89928734 new words.

 

[Teshi]

I dare to say Sweden is quite progressive in gender equality (in fact, we have quite a bit too many overzealous people regarding this issue) and yet we still have those things. It's kind of like how "man" or "mankind" is short for "humanity" and "humankind". It's just words that doesn't mean anything.

If it doesn't mean anything, why are so many men and boys flipping shit over the idea of masculine words NOT being the grammatical default? So many comments here getting agitated about the idea, and saying things like a few posts above you, "Should I perhaps start to apologize for having a dick?"

 

[Blunderman]

If it doesn't mean anything, why are so many men and boys flipping shit over the idea of masculine words NOT being the grammatical default? So many comments here getting agitated about the idea, and saying things like a few posts above you, "Should I perhaps start to apologize for having a dick?"

It's not about the word itself. In English, the word equivalent to "hen" is "they," as in: If a person jumps of a cliff, they will likely die. No one is complaining about that. If this was all about the word, no one would care, although since Swedish has its own version of "they," it's unnecessary anyway.

I can sympathise with those who are opposed to the idea of changing words. It'd be like insisting that "history" be changed to "theirstory" to remove the masculine implication. Bottom line, it doesn't make any difference, it's just inconvenient to change something because a certain group of people feel that it somehow discriminates them. You can make equally valid and equally pointless arguments about something like "wife-beater."

What Sweden is doing is attempting to eradicate the differences between the genders, pretending that genders are merely a social construct that can be eradicated by having boys play with dolls in toy catalogues, as if biology suddenly doesn't apply any more.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

There was an article about some stupid like changing the word "man" to "en". "Man" here is both used as "Markus är en man" = "Markus is a man" and "Man kan bli törstig" = "One can get thirsty". They wanted to change it because of reinforcing gender roles or something stupid. Thankfully it never caught on.

:-/

Sorry, but it is sexist if the generic word for "person" is "man" in your language. Also it kinda breaks my heart to see that it was just taken and ironically used as another way to reinforce gender roles. Things like that make me wonder why I stick up for humanity.

EDIT: I'm actually disappointed at all the Swedes who think this is "silly". I was given to understand you guys were better than this at the whole "progressiveness" business.

Yeah your right. How dare those Swedes think for themselves and not by into this nonsense, they should be trying to conform to what you think is right.

....not

 

[Fluffythepoo]

The pathway to Hell is paved with good intentions...

 

[KillerRabbit]

Might have been said already, but the Finnish language have never had a word for "he / han", or "she / hon" - we have always used the word "Hän" which would mean in English then "it" or "one" whichever was discussed, or as they are implementing in Sweden now, the word "Hen"

So it's hard to understand what the fuss is about, considering all of Finland have survived so long without a "he/she" word.

 

[Frostbyte666]

I really don't see the point of this and think what is wrong with saying him/her are those who proposed this ashamed of their gender? I feel this course of action is stepping around a pothole to then fall off a cliff. I'd be more offended if you didn't acknowledge my gender. Yes gender equality is good, but there ARE differences between genders (brain chemistry for one thing). There should be no issue if your doing something whether you are a man or a woman but equality is only achieved when it doesn't matter not when trying to sidestep the issue by using a different set of words.

Now with the word 'hen' to me that means a gathering of women after all we have hen party's and stag do's so I have to say from an english speaking perpective not the best word to use for gender neutrality.

I may get a warning for this post but I'd rather promote discussion than have a topic full of yes-men (ok here we might need a gender neutral word for this particular word, though I like toady).

 

[Terminal Blue]

What Sweden is doing is attempting to eradicate the differences between the genders, pretending that genders are merely a social construct that can be eradicated by having boys play with dolls in toy catalogues, as if biology suddenly doesn't apply any more.

Yes gender equality is good, but there ARE differences between genders (brain chemistry for one thing).

I feel like I'm picking on a couple of posts in response to a whole thread of bad, misinforming posts, but since that's pretty much all I can do in an 11 page monstrosity like this.

No.

Firstly, that's a misuse of the term "gender". If there were differences in brain chemistry or "biology" between men and women, those would be differences between the "sexes". Gender refers to the social dynamics which exist around sex, it does not refer to sex itself.

Secondly, there is one, and only one, meaningful chemical differences between the bodies of men and women, which is that men tend to have higher levels of androgenic hormones. Androgenic hormones don't affect "brain chemistry", they affect the actual development of the brain, although not in ways which are, at this point, particularly quantifiable. We know, for example, that male brains tend to be larger, but this is simply a side-effect of the steroidal function of androgenic hormones. It explains (to an extent) why men seem to be more prone to dementia, but little else.

The notion of hormone-driven neurological differences which translate into behavioral trends, however, is at present completely unproven. It's a popular idea and one which has many supporters (among both scientists and lay people), but it is not in any way scientifically demonstrable at this point. Even the age old assumption that testosterone is linked with aggression is highly, highly disputed and has never been repeatably demonstrated.

..While it is likely that there are some behavioural effects to varying levels of androgenic hormones, the idea that these fit neatly into discreet sexually dimorphic sex differences is highly simplistic. We all have varying levels of androgenic hormones, if these differences exist they will be a natural continuum across our society. Not all men and women will exhibit the same behavioral trends, they will certainly not exhibit identical tendencies towards complex or social behaviors. One of the problems with measuring "aggression" for example, is that it's simply too complicated in terms of how it is socially expressed. Even if testosterone could be shown to link to "aggression", that would not create any kind of behavioral expectation.

So in short, noone, in the 21st century, deserves to be treated as if they have anything in common with anyone else on the basis of their sex. There is no basis in either science or ethics for such a thing.

 

[Blunderman]

Firstly, that's a misuse of the term "gender". If there were differences in brain chemistry or "biology" between men and women, those would be differences between the "sexes". Gender refers to the social dynamics which exist around sex, it does not refer to sex itself.

That's a semantic argument. The secondary meaning of the word gender refers to sex. Even if you were to establish that gender was completely inappropriate in this context, you've proved nothing. I could spend twenty minutes going through your grammar and spelling mistakes and that'd be equally fruitless.

Secondly, there is one, and only one, meaningful chemical differences between the bodies of men and women, which is that men tend to have higher levels of androgenic hormones. Androgenic hormones don't affect "brain chemistry", they affect the actual development of the brain, although not in ways which are, at this point, particularly quantifiable. We know, for example, that male brains tend to be larger, but this is simply a side-effect of the steroidal function of androgenic hormones. It explains (to an extent) why men seem to be more prone to dementia, but little else.

The notion of hormone-driven neurological differences which translate into behavioral trends, however, is at present completely unproven. It's a popular idea and one which has many supporters (among both scientists and lay people), but it is not in any way scientifically demonstrable at this point. Even the age old assumption that testosterone is linked with aggression is highly, highly disputed and has never been repeatably demonstrated.

..While it is likely that there are some behavioural effects to varying levels of androgenic hormones, the idea that these fit neatly into discreet sexually dimorphic sex differences is highly simplistic. We all have varying levels of androgenic hormones, if these differences exist they will be a natural continuum across our society. Not all men and women will exhibit the same behavioral trends, they will certainly not exhibit identical tendencies towards complex or social behaviors. One of the problems with measuring "aggression" for example, is that it's simply too complicated in terms of how it is socially expressed. Even if testosterone could be shown to link to "aggression", that would not create any kind of behavioral expectation.

For someone who seems to be aware of the highly contested nature of this science, you sure do seem to think yourself somewhat of an expert on the subject. Moreover, what are you even talking about? Your entire post seems to be aimed at a straw man found in neither of the quotes you opened this response with.

Also, you've not succeeded in explaining away the biological differences between the sexes. Last I checked, genetics was still part of biology. It doesn't matter what these differences are, it's really only interesting from an academic perspective or for the sake of medical science and such.

So in short, noone, in the 21st century, deserves to be treated as if they have anything in common with anyone else on the basis of their sex. There is no basis in either science or ethics for such a thing.

You write that as if someone's suggested otherwise. Feminists and feminist-sympathisers tend to see everyone else as having that belief; because we accept that the genders have differences, we must think that they deserve unequal treatment. That's is a faulty assumption and we're not responsible for what you understand, only for what we say.

 

[Miles Maldonado]

So

Basically

Sweden finally has an "It/es" which will most likely just be used to refer to inanimate objects as opposed to the prior Germanesque "er/sie" system?

I'm not sure if I should say "What took them so long" or if I should say it's too far, because of some weird gender thing where it depreciates a person's humanity by merely making them an "It". I can certainly see some pros and cons here, but it seems to carry the implication that it could be used to refer to a person.

And to be frank *I* would feel a bit insulted if I was called "it" because it carries the implication (at least in the English language) that I'm as human as a coffee cup, but then again, maybe Sweden has a significant enough transexual population that this is needed for people who identify as neither (but even then I find it a bit dehumanizing).

 

[Dascylus]

I tried to use the word but it just sounds silly when I say it. And as I see it language is about comfortably conveying meaning in the best way. If it doesn't feel natural to say then I don't say it.
I don't say "Tjena" "Grabben" "Gumman" or "Läget" unless I'm being a touch ironic about the use.

Here's roughly how my brain processes it
Male is Han
Female is Hon
M->F becomes Hon
F->M becomes Han
That person/Those people over there - De
That thing - Det
You - Du (Or your name)

And so on and so on, there is no need in my mind for an extra pronoun.
This "Hen" thing is a nice idea but just a little silly.

 

[Terminal Blue]

That's a semantic argument. The secondary meaning of the word gender refers to sex.

No. It doesn't. It only works like that if you are actively claiming that "gender" proceeds directly from sexual differences, which is an incredibly silly thing to argue at this point in time.

There is nothing about "gender" which refers to sex. They are entirely different things, which is why "gender studies" does not encompass the study of sex differences, and why a "sex-role", for example, is a completely different thing from a "gender-role". I recognize that in colloquial usage the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but if you're trying to actually make a point they are not interchangeable. If you use the the wrong term, it completely changes the meaning of what you're saying.

For someone who seems to be aware of the highly contested nature of this science, you sure do seem to think yourself somewhat of an expert on the subject.

More so than people who wheel out grandiose notions of "biology" or "brain chemistry" to support ludicrous social premises, because that's not really contested outside of the pages of Heat magazine.

Moreover, what are you even talking about? Your entire post seems to be aimed at a straw man found in neither of the quotes you opened this response with.

Well, because of the way you phrased your criticism, it doesn't actually mean what you think it means.

"What Sweden is doing is attempting to eradicate the differences between the genders, pretending that genders are merely a social construct that can be eradicated by having boys play with dolls in toy catalogues, as if biology suddenly doesn't apply any more."

What you said here is that the "genders" (the social and behavioural categories of male and female) proceed directly from "biological" sexual differences. There are absolutely no scientific grounds for believing that, in fact it's almost certainly untrue. If it were true, then the last half-century of enormous social change around gendered practices could not have happened.

So is that what you meant, or did you mean to say "sexes", in which case you might need to substantiate precisely how Sweden is attempting to claim that sexes are a social constructs. It has been done, but it's quite a radical position even in academia and I'd be interested to hear about how the Swedish government is attempting to push such a view.

Also, you've not succeeded in explaining away the biological differences between the sexes.

Why would I be trying to do so?

The idea of "sex" actually describes a series of "biological" distinctions between human beings, by using the word "sex" at all you acknowledge that those differences exist. The point is that these cannot be translated cleanly and distinctly into social identification. Anyone claiming they can is either working on flimsy evidence or, more likely, just making shit up.

Thus, if you want your argument to make coherent sense, you need to do one of the following:

a) (if you were actually talking about sex) show how Sweden is attempting to deny the existence of biological sex.
b) (if you were actually talking about gender) to show how any of these "biological" sex differences relate to gender.

If you simply assume that the two things are the same, well, that's not a scientifically supported position in any way shape or form.

Feminists and feminist-sympathisers tend to see everyone else as having that belief; because we accept that the genders have differences, we must think that they deserve unequal treatment. That's is a faulty assumption and we're not responsible for what you understand, only for what we say.

No.

I have not mentioned inequality. I'm sure you believe deeply that you are a champion of social justice and equality. Everyone does.

I'm interested in precisely how you are getting to the notion that the "genders" have quantifiable differences. Because phrased like that it's true, but not in the way you're suggesting at all.

 

[Benny Blanco]

Huh.

This reminds me of the most strawman ("strawwomyn"?) critiques of feminism.

I don't think it actually makes a difference whether you have gender-neutral pronouns, it doesn't necessarily reflect a more equal society. Bear in mind that most European languages don't have a neutral gender (at least, the Romance languages don't, I know German and English do...) but to artificially introduce this is weird, like Mussolini banning the formal 3rd person because he found it "effeminate". ("lei" also means "she" in Italian)

Tagalog (Filipino) and Spanish both have a gender-neutral formal pronoun ("po" and "usted" respectively) and I don't think that this necessarily reflects gender equality in those societies.

Besides, Sweden. Meh.

 

[Seydaman]

I think the English language needs a gender neutral pronoun, too. Less embarrassing when addressing someone over the phone whose voice you can't identify, or when speaking to someone that's androgynous, or whatever.

As for English, we already have gender neutral pronouns, although they're rarely used. It can also get a bit confusing when you state 'they' instead of 'he' or 'she' as it implies you're talking about more than one person...

'It' and 'They' are way too clunky to be used as singular pronouns, I think. Plus offensive. I don't think most people would take kindly to be referred to as an 'It'.

Hm, it has the connotation of being either non-human or an object, so I can see why it would be insulting.

OT: Good news and stuff, maybe next we should have unisex bathrooms and disregard clothing rules. I can see bathrooms easily turned into law, but no idea about the clothing stuff...

 

[Seydaman]

Huh.

This reminds me of the most strawman ("strawwomyn"?) critiques of feminism.

I don't think it actually makes a difference whether you have gender-neutral pronouns, it doesn't necessarily reflect a more equal society. Bear in mind that most European languages don't have a neutral gender (at least, the Romance languages don't, I know German and English do...) but to artificially introduce this is weird, like Mussolini banning the formal 3rd person because he found it "effeminate". ("lei" also means "she" in Italian)

Tagalog (Filipino) and Spanish both have a gender-neutral formal pronoun ("po" and "usted" respectively) and I don't think that this necessarily reflects gender equality in those societies.

Besides, Sweden. Meh.

Well, one of the purposes of legislation is to set the example, or the standard for what is desired. We have laws against murder, the example is to not kill people (There's a joke in here, tee-hee), but people will still commit murder. The point being the state says "This is what we want our people to be like, we want to move in this direction", even if it's not happening immediately, think of it like long term goal setting.