1.6.1 |
SPEAKING PERSON-TO-PERSON |
Let us agree that all persons are living beings, but that
not all living beings are persons. One way of subdividing living
beings is, then, into personal and nonpersonal, living beings.
Another way of subdividing living beings is into species, but
from the point of view of personhood this categorization is not
essential, as we shall not assume that all persons (or 'people')
are human beings, nor that all human beings (in the zoological
sense) are necessarily persons.
Altho the distinction
between person and human being may often not have been made
at all, this is an anthropocentric fallacy we can dismiss immediately.
A third way of subdividing living beings is into sexual and
asexual beings. This is an aspect we must take into consideration
for a moment before turning to the issue of personhood
itself. Speakers of the traditional variants of the present and
of many other languages, but also many speakers of languages
which were never genderized, have always convulsively clung to
the discrimination between male and female persons. Yet, the
factor on which this distinction is based actually concerns
living beings in general and not especially persons.
A particular living being which is asexual (1) belongs to an
asexual or metagenetic species which reproduces without sexual
differentiation or alternatingly with and without, (2) lacks
functional sexual organs, or (3) is not interested in sexuality.
If, on the other hand, a particular living being is a sexual
being, then it does belong to a species which reproduces
sexually or also sexually, altho it may not be able (anymore)
to reproduce itself in this way and altho it need not itself be
interested in sexual matters. Sexual beings are either unisexual
or intersex. In the former case the plant or animal has
either male or female reproductive organs; in the latter case it
has both. This conception is based on the kind of sexual
differentiation, or lack thereof, as found on Earth. Logically
speaking, however, there is no reason why the sort of generative
reproduction in which two sexes are involved (the female and the
male sex) should be the end to the possibilities of the types of
reproduction.
If reproduction is 'asexual', it is said that there is 'no
sex' involved, but it might as well be said that there is only
one sex or reproductive division involved; if it is sexual, then
there are two sexes or reproductive divisions involved. But
theoretically one could conceive of a form of life which depends
for its direct reproduction on the union of the genetic material
of three or more individuals of the same number of three or more
different reproductive divisions. In the sense of complexity or
natural, bodily development such a species would be of a
'higher' level than the one to which human and other living
beings on this planet belong. (By way of illustration one may
think of a planet Hyperyinyang with many asexual species and
sexual species whose members have only male and/or female sexual
organs, chromosome combinations and/or hormones.
Assume, furthermore, that there is a species of 'jumans' on
Hyperyinyang which can be divided into three biological sexes:
'cemales', 'demales' and 'eemales'.
Should some jumans of Hyperyinyang now discover Earth, they will
probably declare that 'humans', among others, are a genetically
less-developed species with only two sexes: 'aemales' and
'bemales'.)
While living beings may be asexual, female, male, intersex or something
else, they belong to one of these sexual categories on account of their
bodies, whether it be their parts or their general physical
characteristics.
No living being is male, female or something else as a person,
because many sexual living beings simply are not persons.
(Plants are an example.)
Reproduction and sexuality are entirely irrelevant with
respect to personhood proper. When referring to persons it
is therefore wrong to use the masculine singular pronoun he or
the feminine singular pronoun she. Only when referring to male
or female bodies, and only when sex is relevant, is it correct
to say "he" or "she". In all other cases nongenderized or
'sex-transcending' pronouns should be employed. (Just like
she and he themselves are species-transcending,
race-transcending, age-transcending, and so forth.)
To refer to things, whether living or lifeless, whether
concrete or abstract, the pronoun it may be used. But while
it is traditionally also used for persons whose sex is unknown
or disregarded, this pronoun is employed in particular when speaking of
lifeless things, plants and abstract entities. In traditional
language people would not say "it" of a person whose sex was
known, even if this person's sex was of no import at all.
If somebody's sex was unknown, or could be either one, the traditional
speaker used —and may still use— the masculine he
to refer to a person.
He would thus be employed to refer both to males and to people
(irrespective of their biological sex or cultural gender), whereas
she would refer to females exclusively.
Some of the pioneers in the fight against androcentrism, also in the
language, have proposed that she should include both female and
male persons, but they merely substituted gynocentrism for androcentrism.
Most of the pioneers combating sexism decided to write the cumbersome
"he or she" or "he/she", but altho this usage was gender-neutral, they
were not conscious enough that they were still —and may still
be— caught in the same web of sexual
irrelevantism
(and moreover, it was never done consistently). The
distinction between female and male as such has no bearing on
personhood whatsoever, even not on being a living being. To
refer to persons with he, she or he/she only
depersonalizes them. It makes them into males and/or females on the
grounds of characteristics which are basically biologic,
material and physical, that is, their bodies'. (Of course, in
practise
sexual irrelevantism, especially a long history of sexual
irrelevantism, may result, or have resulted, in many profound
mental differences as well.)
The tendency to always refer to persons by means of he or
she in traditional language may cause and/or be caused by
sexism or sexual irrelevantism, this does not mean that the
availability of a pronoun other than it is not very convenient
when speaking about persons. People do play a significant role
in this world; in a way they are the only ones 'playing a
role'. It is therefore very helpful to be able to easily
distinguish these people from the nonpersonal things surrounding
them in a domain or universe of discourse. The great advantage
of the use of she or he for persons rather than it
was (or still is) that one would know immediately that the thing
referred to was a person and not some nonpersonal being.
The importance of the person-nonperson distinction in our discourse does
justify the introduction of a special pronominal device to refer to a
person (not a male or female being or human being) — an
unspecified person in general, for whom some have started to use the
incongruous plural they, or an individual person named and
described in a particular context, for whom the same plural is clearly
too incongruous to be used by anyone.
A language which does not have such a third-person (singular)
pronoun (instead of or besides a third-male pronoun like he and a
third-female pronoun like she) is less efficient in this
respect. In line with the general pronominal pattern of inflection
in the present language, in view of the phonological
variants of pronominal terms starting with h and of the
historical development of the nonpersonal hit to it in
this language, and taking into consideration the advantage of having
different words for genderized and nongenderized pronouns, and
for the objective case and the pronominal adjective, we shall
therefore henceforth refer to a person by means of 'e
(subjective case), 'im (objective case) and 'er
(pronominal adjective). (One may also simply spell "e", "im" and "er".)
This pronominal series is the 'personal', singular analog of the
plural they, them and their,
the nonpersonal analog being it, it and its.
(Traditionalists should be aware that the question is not whether this
usage is good or not in some absolute sense, but whether any other usage
or proposal is better — and no traditional usage or proposal is, as
examples like a person who denies himself or herself and a person
who denies or deny themselves testify.)
We are now able to relate to and speak about people regardless of their
(bodies) being female, male, biologically intersex, culturally
hermaphroditic, asexual or something else of that ilk.
Solely when sex or gender is (believed to be) relevant, and if a
male person or living being is concerned, is it alright to say "he"; and
if a female person or living being is concerned, "she".
By using 'e in a nonerotic, nonreproductive context the alternative
use of he or she will automatically acquire an erotic or
sexual significance where it may or should have such a significance.
As sure as Nature makes numberless apples year after year,
this will render a lovable language only richer.
