@Adam Ah, good to know.

Cicero uses cuia too. Four hits for that single form means it's not horribly rare.

I'm surprised I've never properly thought of this adjective.

@tony Regarding chest-to-chest things, in Finnish we use the same word for chest/breast, irrespective of gender. It's a fairly ungendered language.

@Joonas: Not like Latin, then? To say to someone--I'll talk to you chest-to-chest--would certainly produce a reaction: a look of are-you-mad; laughter; a slap. Just hope your luck's in. Some Asian languages are tonal: the same group of words can have four, or more, different meanings, depending on tone-of-voice. Well-meaning Brits, in Thailand, clutching phrasebooks, have been laughed at; but, no violent reactions, as far as I know.

@tony Not much like Latin. There are similar features in morphology, but one of the most visible difference is in gender. Finnish doesn't even make a difference between he and she.

@JoonasIlmavirta In Dutch, too!

A man and a woman each have a borst. But a woman also has two borsten.

@Joonas: So everybody is "it"?!?! "He said that she had left" would be "it said that it had left". How did all this go down in Cambridge?

@tony I was just thinking it might have a feel like using "they" in English when you don't know a person's gender

@Cerberus So chest and chesticles in English?

@Cerberus: My Amsterdam guidebook said that everybody reveres the name of Admiral de Ruyter. Cynical, I asked everybody to whom I chatted (2011); and, yes, it appears to be true. The Admiral sailed up the Thames (1667) and stole Flagship "The Royal Charles"!! Would you believe it? Who does he think he is?! The bow, of our ship, is on display in the Rijksmuseum--have you seen it?

@Adam: Yes, that sounds a bit better.

@tony There's a separate pronoun for persons (he/she) and objects (it). But in spoken language we mostly call people "it" too.

I'm well aware of gender when using other languages, so it's no issue. I wouldn't go around in England calling people "it".

It's important to let go of your own language when using another one. Translation is a red herring; you should work and think directly with the target language.

@JoonasIlmavirta Best advice ever when reading and learning a language, and the first time you sense yourself just using the language in a native way feels great.

@Joonas: Of course not, just a little joke. Interesting, the Finnish approach.

@Adam That empowering feeling is quite a reward indeed.

@tony It's fun to see how other languages are approaching the current pressure to make gender less visible in language. Swedish has introduced a new singular pronoun for he/she, and it's popular.

Something that helps me is visualizing it rather than translating, so with a sentence like Agricola ad portam ambulat, I first see a farmer in my mind, then imagine the farmer, then the porta, and then the farmer walking to it. But instead of thinking of the words, I just imagine it as if I was watching it.

This might be a more challenging approach with abstract concepts, but by then I think it will be easier to think directly in Latin.

@Adam It's also fun to find myself thinking about mathematics occasionally in a way that involves no language. Perhaps you could say I'm thinking directly in mathematics.

@JoonasIlmavirta There were attempts in the past in English to do that with words like ze, but they haven't really become commonplace here in the US. They in the singular has become much more common.

@Adam 'They' has the benefit of being old, at least for persons of unknown gender. The use for known but undisclosed gender can be much newer.

Actually, whether users should always use the preferred pronoun of a user, whatever it might be, was a big topic in the SE storm last fall.

@Adam It's interesting how people realize different things. I don't imagine things as scenes like that, but I can well imagine that it helps.

@JoonasIlmavirta Maybe it's just a mnemonic device I started using to help curb the urge to try to translate?

@JoonasIlmavirta What was the result of that discussion? Will users be banned, or punished, for refusing to use the 'preferred pronoun' of another user?

@Adam Ah, this word is new to me!

@tony Hah! I believe I have seen it. Yes, he taught the English a good lesson!

@Cerberus It's slang which is really funny when you're younger than 13 but still evokes a smirk as an adult, although maybe only if you still laugh at juvenile humor.

<sniffs>

@JasperMay In theory, yes. In practice, one of the most well loved and respected moderators on the entire Stack Exchange network was demodded for inquiring into the possibility of avoiding singular they, which she found ungrammatical; but otherwise, of course everyone ignores the issue. I have never seen a single case in which it came up, except when discussing this new policy.

So I wouldn't worry about it.

If someone is deliberately misgendering someone then they're likely going to run into trouble just for being rude, anyway.

@Cerberus I'll try not to worry about it. You mean 'singular they' like "they is" and "they does"? And this moderator was unmoderatored for questioning the grammar?

@Adam Oh, yeah, that discussion wasn't about deliberate misgendering. I think everybody agreed that's just very impolite.

But avoiding genders, that is theoretically not allowed any more.

@JasperMay Ah, no, people call it "singular", but it's really plural qua syntax, just referring to a single person semantically.

> And this moderator was unmoderatored for questioning the grammar?

For questioning the policy.

@Cerberus I see.

Jasper is a green square. They visit the site often.

I would never write this, but many would.

I of course vehemently disagree that calling someone what they actually are is in any way rude or impolite. Rather the opposite.

How do you feel about etiquette?

@Cerberus I wonder how modern the usage of they in the singular is? I use it that way fairly naturally when gender is unknown, but I couldn't say when it was I learned the usage; did I learn it as a child or adopt it somewhere later? It does make using it as a neutral pronoun seem more grammatical to me.

What is there to feel about it? I agree with correct etiquette. I am also interested in being truly kind, not just superficially.

@Adam It has been used to refer to someone of unknown sex for centuries, but never frequently, and I think it was never considered quite proper until fairly recently in America, and later England.

Using it for someone whose sex is known—that is new, as in a few decades old, I believe.

@Cerberus English, ever-evolving

@JasperMay If you know someone will feel miserable or insulted when you refer to her by a certain name, is it not proper etiquette to do so, when the cost to you is negligible?

Now, a pronoun is different from a name: it is much more difficult to consciously change one's use of it in specific instances.

But, if possible, why not call her a "he" if that's what he wants?

@Adam Quite.

But not too fast!

@Cerberus Nope! If I can read a book written > 200 years ago and have no problems then it's not evolving too quickly, chesticles or not.

When you know someone will feel miserable and insulted when you demand her to call you something you are not, is it not proper etiquette not to do so, when the cost to you is negligible? You're assuming that the cost to the deranged person is higher than to the one forced to lie. You assume that the interests of the deranged person are truly served by indulging his or her insanity, instead of calmly and charitably telling true truth. Why not call someone a 'cat' if that is what 'purr' wants?

*the truth

Let's say it is not demanded; you merely know this how the other person feels.

And let's say you don't have to use weird words you specifically hate (as Stack Exchange would demand of us: but let's ignore them).

Using one word or another, when there are no relevant secrets between the interlocutors, hardly constitutes lying?

Well, let's say the other person knows that you feel miserable having to lie. Is that not rude or impolite then?

It does, when a man asks you to refer to him as a woman (which is what the feminine pronoun signifies), or vice versa.

Using word which you don't like isn't lying.

It is though. If I use the feminine pronoun I'm necessarily implying that the person I'm referring to is truly a woman.

I'm not 'allowed' to say "she is a man", right?

Why don't you treat it as a play.

You play a part.

You can play the part of Attila in Verdi's opera, without actually being a barbarous murderer.

You do it because your audience likes it.

If, on the stage, you suddenly start speaking Dutch, you make people sad.

It has nothing to do with lying.

It's also not always clear whether someone is truly a woman, especially to an outsider. Why not let the person in question take care of judging that?

This is not truly kind to the other person, nor to the one forced to live his life as an actor in a play. Nobody in the audience of the play truly believes that the actor is in fact Attila the Hun, and neither is it the actor's intention.

I think going along with someone however someone else presents himself is rather basic etiquette, provided that it come at no cost.

How would you feel if I decided to mock your religion at every opportunity?

Not exactly the same, but still similar qua etiquette.

If we really engage in a discussion on the topic, I will speak my mind or abstain from the discussion; I will not lie.

@JoonasIlmavirta In that case maybe, at least until you can assess it for yourself. Then your own judgment should take precedence.

But, if we are not in a discussion, and there is no real lying involved, I usually feel no need to challenge people (okay, sometimes I do, but I consider that a bad habit of mine).

(Or perhaps not always bad, but, you know.)

Yes, provided it comes at no cost. You would have to prove that it comes at no cost to me. Calling someone something they clearly are not is lying, this comes at the cost of feeling immoral, cowardly and evil. It also shows a lack of true charity towards the person making the claim.

Don't you think you may be exaggerating a little bit?

It's just a word.

@Cerberus I would not mind for my sake.

It's not about lying.

And you don't need to call anyone anything, as long as you don't call her by the wrong gender.

@Cerberus Don't you think these people are exaggerating? It's only a word.

"Wrong gender" is a judgment.

Quite possibly. But etiquette is not judgement.

I think they are demanding other people to call them by the wrong gender.

You can sacrifice a little bit of something in order to comfort others.

Let is suppose it is not a demand.

How about they sacrifice a little bit then? Why should it be others?

And you can always just not use any gendered pronoun, if you really, really don't want to.

@JasperMay Etiquette is about what you can do for others.

That would be cowardly and again it wouldn't be charitable to the insane.

Etiquette is not a battle.

@Cerberus Right. They can do something for others by not insisting on being called something they are not.

Doing something for others is helping them snap out of their insanity by not indulging it.

@Cerberus It sure seems like it.

You keep thinking about what others should do. But, for your own considerations, etiquette is about what you could do, not others.

@JasperMay What are the chances that you might succeed in that?

You keep thinking about what I and others should do?

What I can do for them, to help them truly, and to be truly kind, is to keep telling the truth.

@JasperMay Did it occur to you that what you consider the truth might not appear to be true to them?

If it is kind to make other people feel miserable, that sounds like Orwell.

@JoonasIlmavirta Did it occur to you that what they consider the truth might not appear to be the truth to me?

@JasperMay It did. With two people there are often two conceptions of truth. I don't find it good etiquette to force your truth on them by calling them "he" when they want to be called "she" (but perhaps appear to be a man to you).

@Cerberus In the long run, telling them the truth makes them feel infinitely less miserable.

@Cerberus Man is woman, he is she.

@JasperMay Again, whose truth? That can't really be the case for everyone's truths, as they disagree.

> Making people feel miserable is kindness

@JoonasIlmavirta As I said, I don't find it good etiquette for them to force their truth on me by insisting on being called 'she' when they are clearly a 'he'.

@JoonasIlmavirta The truth. If you don't believe in truth, there is really no point in contributing to an answer site like SE.

@JasperMay Then we disagree. I think their gender is more their choice than yours. As @Cerberus points out, it's polite to go with the companion's opinion when it comes to their matters.

@Cerberus You don't care about making people feel miserable. I feel miserable lying to these poor people.

@JoonasIlmavirta I think gender is nobody's choice.

@JasperMay In the case like someone's gender, there isn't always an objective truth. It's unfortunate.

@JasperMay Then you can just not use any pronoun with them, or even not talk to them. It's easy.

@JasperMay I didn't mean choice. I meant identity.

@JasperMay In fact, SE benefits from people having different views of what the truth is. Then people can vote and comment. It's no single person's choice what is true.

@JoonasIlmavirta To a certain extent.

@JoonasIlmavirta I don't mind saying "this man identifies as a woman", but this will not be enough.

@JoonasIlmavirta I meant 'to a certain extent' as a reply to this comment

@JasperMay What would you think if I considered you clearly a woman and insisted on referring to you as "she"?

Fair enough, May is a female name.

@Cerberus I would just think you're wrong. I wouldn't care beyond that, for my sake. The only reason these tyrannical people care so much is because they know what they really are.

What if I called you a Protestant?

Same thing. You would be wrong, nothing more.

They might know what they really are, and that might differ from your evaluation of what they really are. That's my only point and I'll stick to it: Truth is not yours alone to decide.

I knew a few people from Opus Dei in Amsterdam.

They would not push their beliefs on others, at least never in my presence.

Nor did I ever question theirs.

In a discussion about the topic, sure, you have to. But there was never any reason why such a discussion was necessary.

@Cerberus In my experience pushed beliefs are not easily heartfelt. But perhaps it depends also on personality.

@JoonasIlmavirta I agree that no mere human can decide by fiat what the truth is. Therefore you should agree at least that people should be free to disagree with regard to gender identity.

@JoonasIlmavirta Yeah.

@JasperMay I agree that you can disagree about someone's gender. But it is not always polite to air the disagreement.

It's like picking your nose or masturbating. Perfectly fine, but most people don't appreciate watching a stranger doing it.

I think I've said enough on the matter today. We seem to know how each party feels, so there's little to be gained here, at least for me.

@JoonasIlmavirta It is truly politr when it is your heartfelt belief that another person's belief is harmful to himself and to society.

@JoonasIlmavirta Me too, I have to go have dinner.

@JasperMay I hope you will at least consider not talking to someone, rather than presenting your beliefs to her.

@Cerberus Will you consider not talking to someone when you see him or her calling someone by what they perceive to be their true gender?

Starting a conflict is not the same as looking away when someone else starts a conflict.

Leven en laten leven.

There we go again. They are the ones who started the conflict when they demanded other people to lie to them.

Imagine if the Protestants had murdered all Catholics in Amsterdam in 1578.

We wouldn't have Onze Lieve Heer op Solder.

I don't have to imagine. That's pretty much what they did.

They didn't.

If they didn't hide they would be murdered

Everyone knew where the hidden churches were. They were tolerated in good Dutch tradition.

So? Did the Catholics demand that the protestants refer to them as true Christians?

Protestants were intolerant. But, if they had been even more intolerant, I'm sure you wouldn't have liked that. So tolerance and letting people live in peace is something all should appreciate.

That's not my point. The protestants were less tolerant of Catholics than regular society is asked to be of insane people in our day.

My point is that everybody profits if we are all tolerant, and if we just ignore stuff that we don't like but which doesn't touch us.

The insane don't profit, and neither do those who are forced to lie.

Anyway, I have to go. Have a good evening

Vale.

Well, then.

@Adam Quite. Or even indeed.

Verily.