Active Users:372 Time:03/05/2024 07:25:20 AM
Re: So? HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 17/11/2018 02:13:37 PM

View original post
No, it is not. I'm not sure what relevance Aran'gar being a character has to do with anything.

Because it, the character, is neither male nor female, nor even a true combination of male and female. It is a male soul housed in a female meat sack. It is neither male nor female, except in the context of the external participant's perception of the character in the moment.

If you attempt to address the totality of the character as "he" then you are half wrong, and the same with referring to it as "she". It is the gender neutral pronoun in the English language. The "dehumanization" of using "it" is perception based on the reader's bias.

Reply to message
Aran'gar and the trans issue. - 13/11/2018 12:25:48 AM 630 Views
This is exactly why the knee-jerk response was so amusing. - 13/11/2018 01:18:28 AM 348 Views
I think you could argue it's surprisingly apt. - 13/11/2018 01:31:37 AM 384 Views
I don't know what's so hard to understand about this. You don't refer to people by 'it'. - 13/11/2018 08:09:34 AM 351 Views
People are refered to by "it" all the time.... - 13/11/2018 05:26:33 PM 344 Views
But remember, human fetuses aren't people. /s *NM* - 13/11/2018 05:42:00 PM 275 Views
Your second example rather proves my point, don't you think? - 13/11/2018 07:50:39 PM 332 Views
and those of us defending Cannoli maintain - 13/11/2018 07:59:08 PM 311 Views
I'm not really commenting on Cannoli's post.... - 13/11/2018 09:20:13 PM 327 Views
FWIW mine was concerning ambiguity - 13/11/2018 11:01:03 PM 361 Views
Okay, sure. - 13/11/2018 11:26:58 PM 352 Views
Interesting.... - 13/11/2018 11:36:43 PM 334 Views
Because it is just contempt - 13/11/2018 11:45:08 PM 471 Views
I think I mostly covered that above, but I can recap. - 14/11/2018 08:02:51 AM 342 Views
Who's on the phone? - 14/11/2018 01:53:14 AM 344 Views
Sure, I agree. - 14/11/2018 07:45:58 AM 353 Views
Aran'gar does not, and doesn't have to represent, trangender people for your usage to be wrong - 13/11/2018 03:21:42 PM 354 Views
Except that it isn't a person, it is a character in a book - 14/11/2018 02:57:12 PM 337 Views
So? - 14/11/2018 07:18:10 PM 344 Views
Re: So? - 17/11/2018 02:13:37 PM 314 Views
Upon reflection, I have edited the original post - 13/11/2018 08:02:17 PM 343 Views
Thank you. *NM* - 13/11/2018 11:31:41 PM 164 Views

Reply to Message