Zamenhof said you could use "ĝi" in cases where the gender is unknown or not important. Something to that effect. It is sometimes used for talking about animals and babies - both gendered beings, where the gender's not always obvious (or important, depending on the situation). An adult might be offended by being called "ĝi" but I personally would welcome the revival of this old usage (recommended by Zamenhof, no less).

[quote=url=http://edu.i-lo.tarnow.pl/esp/lern/librejo/0015/0011.php]Lingvaj Respondoj[/url]]
Pri pronomo por «homo»
Kiam ni parolas pri homo, ne montrante la sekson, tiam estus regule uzi la pronomon «ĝi» (kiel ni faras ekzemple kun la vorto «infano»), kaj se vi tiel agos, vi estos gramatike tute prava. Sed ĉar la vorto «ĝi» (uzata speciale por «bestoj» aŭ «senvivaĵoj») enhavas en si ion malaltigan (kaj ankaŭ kontraŭkutiman) kaj por la ideo de «homo» ĝi estus iom malagrabla, tial mi konsilus al vi fari tiel, kiel oni faras en la aliaj lingvoj, kaj uzi por «homo» la pronomon «li». Nomi tion ĉi kontraŭgramatika ni ne povas; ĉar, se ni ĉiam farus diferencon inter «homo» kaj «homino», tiam ni devus por la unua uzi «li» kaj por la dua «ŝi»; sed ĉar ni silente interkonsentis, ke ĉiun fojon, kiam ni parolas ne speciale pri sekso virina, ni povas uzi la viran formon por ambaŭ seksoj (ekzemple «homo» = homo aŭ homino, «riĉulo» = riĉulo aŭ riĉulino k.t.p.), per tio mem ni ankaŭ interkonsentis, ke la pronomon «li» ni povas uzi por homo en ĉiu okazo, kiam lia sekso estas por ni indiferenta. Se ni volus esti pedante gramatikaj, tiam ni devus uzi la vorton «ĝi» ne sole por «homo», sed ankaŭ por ĉiu alia analogia vorto; ekzemple ni devus diri: «riĉulo pensas, ke ĉio devas servi al ĝi» (ĉar ni parolas ja ne sole pri riĉaj viroj, sed ankaŭ pri riĉaj virinoj).[/quote]...basically here Zamenhof is saying that it would be logical to use "ĝi" in cases where sex is unknown or unimportant (as we do with children), but that people would see this as disparaging, so therefore we should use "li" instead, for neutral people, as is done in national languages. However, society has moved on since then, and today using "he" as a generic person is by and large no longer considered acceptable; this is probably a situation Zamenhof did not foresee. Therefore, if we can all get past the unpleasant connotations of talking down to someone, I would personally support revival of "ĝi" to indicate people of indeterminate/unknown/unimportant gender. It's not my decision to make, I'd gladly call a gender-non-conforming person by whatever pronoun they prefer, but this would be my vote.

Tempodivalse:Also. If you really want an ekster-fundamenta pronoun, I would go with sxli - more easily recognisable, and a bit more precedent I think, as erinja commented. Technically it may not be the most accurate though, since it means "he or she", but you could probably co-opt it for non-binary use.

Nope. Sorry. If "ge-" can't be co-opted for the "epicene with singlular" usage, then sxli can't be co-opted for non-binary use.


Personally, I think Esperantistaro should just unwad its panties and use "ri" (or "zi" or some other new pronoun) and if some don't like it, well, then, tough beans. I don't like that Esperanto doesn't have an imperfect tense or a genitive case, but that doesn't keep me from using the language.

Chove:Yes, that's English, but since this is everyone's second language there is maybe reason to give some thought to native languages and their taboos/etc?

Sure. That seems reasonable.

What *are* the taboos of the Malaysian language(s), anyway? If we need to take national language usage into account, we really shouldn't play favorites by focusing only on English. What to avoid in Esperanto in order to avoid offending speakers of native Australian languages is no less important than knowing how to avoid insulting a native English speaker!

Accommodating every language on Earth seems doable. Right? If a particular Esperanto word or phrase, perfectly acceptable to a Kenyan (for example), might sound like something insulting to someone speaking Egyptian Arabic simply because of some peculiarity of Egyptian Arabic, certainly that should be reflected in Esperanto. Shouldn't it?

You know, now that I write it out like that, I might be having second thoughts.

Perhaps we should treat Esperanto as its own language, with its own methods of expression, independent of the national languages whose details make no difference whatsoever to it. Now that I think about it, I might actually favor going this route. Seems less troublesome overall than trying to gain a full understanding of the idiomatic details of thousands of different languages and trying to come up with something acceptable to speakers of every single one of them.

That could just be me, though.

This is one of those few instances in which some other contructed international auxiliary languages have an advantage over Esperanto. Ido, for example, has the third person singular pronoun 'lu', which does not refer to any particular sex or (grammatical) gender. A sort of, "that one to whom I have just referred."

bartlett22183:This is one of those few instances in which some other contructed international auxiliary languages have an advantage over Esperanto. Ido, for example, has the third person singular pronoun 'lu', which does not refer to any particular sex or (grammatical) gender. A sort of, "that one to whom I have just referred."

What's the difference with Esperanto's tiu?

orthohawk:
Nope. Sorry. If "ge-" can't be co-opted for the "epicene with singular" usage, then sxli can't be co-opted for non-binary use.

Why?

I fail to see a connection between these two seemingly distinct topics.

(Also, I don't agree with the suggestion to use geli, since it looks suspiciously like a verb, and there already exists gelo.)

yyaann:
What's the difference with Esperanto's tiu?

Tiu can very well be used as a non-binary pronoun. As I recall, the Ido lu is quite similar.

The only drawback to tiu is that sometimes it will be unclear whether it is referring to a person or to something else mentioned in the immediate context. This isn't a deep problem, however, as there is occasionally the same ambiguity with the standard pronouns.

I would still support ĝi. Note that this and tiu are not mutually exclusive. You can use both, depending on which is clearer by context.

The upshot, from my view, is that we shouldn't be in a rush to go beyond (or against) the Fundamento to solve a problem, when it can be reasonably managed with existing tools.

Tempodivalse:

orthohawk:
Nope. Sorry. If "ge-" can't be co-opted for the "epicene with singular" usage, then sxli can't be co-opted for non-binary use.

Why?

I fail to see a connection between these two seemingly distinct topics.

Sorry, I didn't realize that my using the winky smily face to indicate sarcasm would be lost on my readers.

Anyway, the only reason I've ever seen for not letting "ge-" be used for "epicene singular" is that it's not Fundamenta. Well, neither is the abomination "sxli" but people seem to be fine with that. I guess I just don't understand why the different attitude of acceptance of one non-Fundamenta addition and not another. I mean, additions to the F are supposed to be OK, just not contradictions/replacements.

Anyway, the only reason I've ever seen for not letting "ge-" be used for "epicene singular" is that it's not Fundamenta.

FWIW, I didn't offer an opinion on ge- in the singular.

Sxli would be far down on my list of choices for a non-binary pronoun; as indicated, I strongly prefer gxi. However, if we have to coin a new term, it makes sense to go with something that resembles existing terms, and which has some kind of track record (albeit minimal).

The main objection I see to sxli is that it's not non-binary - it implies "he or she", whereas the point here is to have a pronoun outside the binary.

Oh... What about tiulo?

Actually, I think tiulo might be the next best thing after gxi and tiu.

Well, on the internet as I have explored it people seem to just pick/invent a pronoun and everyone else goes along with it if only out of politeness. English may not actually have the pronoun "bun" (genuine example) but if you really want to be bunself then on you go, knock yourself out, it's not a problem for me.

People when learn a language accept the pronouns it has with no problems. It's another language and the learner accept it, not change it.

I haven't seen people complaining about the lack of male and female forms for mi, vi (plural and singular), ni, ili, si. Some of those actually exist in other languages widely spoken. Esperanto has now two neutral no-insulting forms usable for persons, none for female vi, ni and ili. If it's added another no-needed neutral form there is no problem. If it's added female forms for vi, ni, and ili, for sure there will be a war because Esperanto is sexist or overgenred (as though that would had a real meaning).

I still think that to accept the pronouns as they are in other languages it's the easier way for everyone. And anyway every pronoun could be insulting.

Twenty years ago disabled people (I beg your pardon if in English that word it's not the best, but I don't know so well the language) in Spain felt uncomfortable with the adjective for them, so they chose another one and people began to use it, but they realise that the meaning was the same, and they chose another one, and it was the same again. Well, of course, there are better ways to say something specific, but to add a new pronoun just because some people don't want to accept a word just because they have decided it's insulting, instead of pay attention to the real meaning, has no point.

But anyway, if you add it please add these ones too:

Female and male forms for: mi, ci, vi, ni, ili.
Female and male forms for every pronoun to use with animals.
Female and male forms for every pronoun for every nation (we don't want to offend nationalist).
Female and male forms for every pronoun to use races and of course don't forget that probably we will need add in this case a different extra pronoun for every of the previous cases.

Well no matter if we already have the toy we want, the important is to write the letter to Santa Claus to have always more, more and more and more. Don't worry Santa Claus will help the stability of the language and will keep it usable.

Here is not important to have a language everybody can learn easily and use it everywhere easily without dialects, here the most important thing is to make real everybody's whim and to make everybody happy. Here is important that everybody have their own language. That was what I wasn't understanding, and why I was thinking I'm always right. Please forgive me for that. Really.

Not reading answers to this, I had enough with Leporinjo.

Ĝis, Novatago.