Active Users:681 Time:06/06/2026 05:49:05 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 933 Views
This is exactly why the knee-jerk response was so amusing. - 13/11/2018 01:18:28 AM 616 Views
I think you could argue it's surprisingly apt. - 13/11/2018 01:31:37 AM 662 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 603 Views
People are refered to by "it" all the time.... - 13/11/2018 05:26:33 PM 618 Views
But remember, human fetuses aren't people. /s *NM* - 13/11/2018 05:42:00 PM 402 Views
Your second example rather proves my point, don't you think? - 13/11/2018 07:50:39 PM 622 Views
and those of us defending Cannoli maintain - 13/11/2018 07:59:08 PM 557 Views
I'm not really commenting on Cannoli's post.... - 13/11/2018 09:20:13 PM 604 Views
FWIW mine was concerning ambiguity - 13/11/2018 11:01:03 PM 621 Views
Okay, sure. - 13/11/2018 11:26:58 PM 639 Views
Interesting.... - 13/11/2018 11:36:43 PM 593 Views
Because it is just contempt - 13/11/2018 11:45:08 PM 762 Views
I think I mostly covered that above, but I can recap. - 14/11/2018 08:02:51 AM 622 Views
Who's on the phone? - 14/11/2018 01:53:14 AM 615 Views
Sure, I agree. - 14/11/2018 07:45:58 AM 622 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 642 Views
Except that it isn't a person, it is a character in a book - 14/11/2018 02:57:12 PM 606 Views
So? - 14/11/2018 07:18:10 PM 604 Views
Re: So? - 17/11/2018 02:13:37 PM 593 Views
Upon reflection, I have edited the original post - 13/11/2018 08:02:17 PM 599 Views
Thank you. *NM* - 13/11/2018 11:31:41 PM 288 Views

Reply to Message