It’s been a while since the last time I’ve allowed myself to air my headspace here, and just “post like no-one’s watching”, but now seems like a good time; called upon by a need to escape this increasingly trapped feeling I am having from Dear Franchise pushing on to uncharted territories, into a seemingly narrower space in this certain specific field. In a sincere effort of inclusion, but perhaps quite misguidedly; seemingly unaware of the wider impact its chosen storytelling methods, language, character handling (and costuming choices) are having on the implied societal standards of this future human generation it seeks to represent; revealing itself not quite as universally ‘there yet’ as previously open to be perceived (if so disposed), but tied to approaches and attitudes recognizable to certain modern cultures.

Anyway. Following is not a Trek commentary specifically (even if fueled by), but a personal, abstract inner conversation on language and how it can limit the perception of identities in general; tie one’s expression and regard of self and others in varying knots specific to certain linguistic cultures.

Mind an uncurated ‘diary entry’ as if it was just that.

.

.

———————————————-

“Oh, there’s a third thing!”

No, there’s no ‘third thing’, or even 'other things’.

There is an infinity of 'thing’, which appears as like 'this or that’ to a so aligned language/mindset. And which then keeps 'othering’ those who do not fit into the limitations of that form of thinking/linguistics. Sometimes the language is that of the 'others’ themselves, too. And that’s fine, if it fits their situation/experience (but also if it doesn’t, all hopes on them getting to find out and/or reach beyond any self-limiting language/mindset).

As far as I’m personally concerned, there has never been definite 'this or that’ (other than what one sees fellow humans express, individually or collectively); spectrum seems a befitting definition here just as it is sometimes recognized in various other context as well. And one’s individual placement(s) on the spectrum is unique and for most purposes irrelevant (as often in other contextures, too).

At most optimal, one’s language should be free to address one and others regardless any of one’s or others’ placements on that spectrum (on any spectrum - at any given time). Some languages do allow that freedom; some languages are not set on the idea of this and that and them being the separating and identity defining markers we point at each other.

Language shapes so much of how we grow up to perceive ourselves, others, and the world around us. Being able do see and define oneself beyond and regardless of exact language is a gift, a freedom. And frankly a must, if one were ever to expand (or see) one’s identity beyond a single linguistic culture.

Outside this one, other languages are already speaking of you in terms, which do not necessarily correspond to your identity-tied pronoun. If you are either ‘she’ or ‘he’ there is no pronoun for you in my native language. As there is not in several others. In specific terms and/or in customary forms of addressing others.

And what us all in my native language get called by, has a far too rarely used(imho) and often disputed closest corresponding term in this here language. Increasingly disputed, even among the proponents of the pronoun’s wider recognition and/or usage.

3rd person singular ‘they’.

No, not the ‘nonbinary’ one (although…), but the olden, neutral definition.

 .

.

———————————————- 

.  

Think, if it was our bodyshape which pronouns referred to; and one could either be (/ be called) fat or thin (’traditionally’). Nothing in between or around has a widely recognized title, or pronoun as it were. Regardless one’s shape/mass.

According to the popularly regarded binary, one can be either fat or thin. Or, to differentiate oneself from this established fat/thin thinking, one can choose the non-binary option. And to conform to the established way of thinking, that all defined masses/shapes need a corresponding pronoun, one chooses 'they/them’. It’s already in recognizable use after all (if for the purpose of required ambiguity).

So, there is language for thin, fat, and they. Thin or fat or they, people can be very touchy (of someone) being called anything other than their (supposedly) chosen ‘thin’ or ‘fat’ or ‘they’, respectively. Calling a thin or fat 'they’ (or goodness forbit fat 'thin’ or thin 'fat’) can really upset them… excuse me: can really upset thin or fat. Or them. Thin or fat or them can be upset by the language of your choosing (for oneself or ‘on behalf’ of someone else).

But, as alluded to before: all of these persons can be - and occasionally are - also called 'them’ - individually -, if one does not know better, or no definition can be made (or needs not to be made… which is where things seem to get tricky and debatable).

When one has grown up with a language and thought patterns tied to this ‘thin or fat’ paradigm, one is inclined to try and assess people’s supposed identifiers/identities as fat or thin (or them). But one can hardly know by oneself, can one? 

So, why not default to 'them’? The aforementioned ambiguous option?

Because nowadays, few some seem to suppose only they get to be called 'them’? Since 'they’ is their specific identity marker, to match and counter the pattern of the limited ‘thin or fat’ binary oriented language/thinking, then to call anyone else 'them’ would supposedly be missmassing/misshaping.

What then, of the people who are not - and/or do not identify as - fat or thin, but who also feel cast aside by this 'someone else’ definition of 'them’? What of those, who feel forced to abide by this fat/thin language and mindset altogether; forced to present oneself and regard others by their bodyshape - regardless of relevancy. What is the option for the ‘unshapely’ or the shapeless-minded, if all the naming is shape-defined?

There are people with muscular bodies, who are bulky or lean, there are petite, curvy or flat, lanky, skinny tall and build tall, square or round, soft or firm, fat or thin… Of all the infinite shapes and sizes of human variation, why pick out only fat and thin and divide/define whole of humanity with those two words? (As far as one’s language knows). Or then attach societal merits and expectations to those two named categories? Or their divergents.

If humanity was split to fat and thin, which do you think you yourself would be? (The specifics of actual societal implications free for you to imagine in this thought play: corresponding to actuality or made up). Would you be fine with any certain other person also identifying as fat or thin with you? If your mama were fat what would that make you? If your sibling was thin, would that change your identity? And how? If both any of you were called 'they’, would that not track?

Now imagine, if for whole of your life you had not felt fat or thin, and your language had not forced you (or most others you know) to pick a side; had not forced you to define and/or call yourself or others by the shape of your bodies; if you would be free of that bond, to be called ‘they’ same as everyone - regardless the infinity of obviously different bodyshapes/masses that you all are. How do you think, would you then feel, if someone suddenly said you must be either fat or thin, or else be 'other’ - a ‘non’ in a two-way system.

Technically, you’d still be called 'they’, as closest to your native ‘they’, but you’d know there’s difference in the meanings now, where 'they’ means 'other’ from thin or fat. And where thin or fat are definitely not 'them’ with you. (Even if they occasionally are, in fact, called 'they’).

Why rely on something as limiting as a 'fat or thin’ binary for defining the infinity of human variations to begin with? Why enforce that supposition by defining oneself as something based on that binary, but 'not of that’ binary?

Should people be expected to tackle with an increasing specificity of mass/shape defined pronouns to match each and every individual bodytype so as not to 'other’ anyone? (For which there already is a concept: given names).

Or should it be recognized, that without any naming by bodyshape/mass, ‘they’ are all equal?

That they are they are they. In addressing. All of them. Regardless of the variety of shapely identities that they have. Free from any binary-tied bondage.

.

.

———————————————-

How has your native tongue shaped your identity, or your perception of the world and people around you? How well do those translate to this here language?

.

”People who challenge gender norms are often dismissed as prioritizing “theory” over “reality.” This is historically incorrect. The reality is that Indigenous peoples across the world have long lived outside of the Western gender binary system. They were (and continue to be) forcibly assimilated into Western gender as a tactic of colonization …

Gender and sex cannot be discussed as universal concepts, they must be located within specific cultural systems, histories, and societies.“ - Alok Vaid-Menon

.

ragnaei:

neutral pronouns in Portuguese (br)

if you’re learning Portuguese and want to use neutral pronouns, well — officially we don’t have them but— irl we’re starting to use elu/elus.

ela > she

ele > he

elu > they (singular)

elas > they (feminine)

eles > they (masculine)

elus > they (neutral)

the best way to “neutralize” a sentence, since everything “has a gender” in Portuguese is to use synonyms and choose words that don’t have gender variation, if it’s not possible, grammatically we use masculine to “neutralize” or you can use neo language again

bonito > bonite(handsome/beautiful)

aluno > alune(student)

engraçado > engraçade(funny)

if you’re insecure about when to use “u” or “e”, well, basically

if the words in the masculine form ends with “o” you change to “e”, and if it ends with “e” you changes to “u”

amado > amade

ele > elu

hope it’s helpful

p.s.: this is for people, we still “gender” things (like table (feminine), floor (masculine)