Treat Nonhumans Better! (or, I'M VERY MAD), a.k.a. the Animal Realization Society

[HansonKerman]

 (regular font = serious mode)

For those of you who don't know me, I'm HansonKerman, and I usually post in Lucida Sans. My serious mode is this default font.

This is my serious size.

So you can se that I'm very serious right now. <venting anger> 

 

 

 

So, I've been noticing, after reading a certain Starbound web serial (paging @Fraston, he knows what I'm talking about,), I realize that too many people refer to nonhuman animals as "it"! Also, they refer to nonhumans as "animals!

Ahem.

Animals are multicellular eukaryotic organisms that form the biological kingdom Animalia. With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move... etc. Wikipedia.

Nonhumans and why they're not the only animals. Or, Humans are animals too!

So, humans do all of the above! And yet, they still refer to only nonhumans as animals! This needs to S-T-O-P STOP!

Nonhumans and why they should not be known as "it". Or, Nonhumans have genders too!

ARGH! This one infuriates me the most. It's not helping that my sister is watching Pokémon.

 

Nonhumans also have genders. So why can't we call them "he", "She", if they have a name, "<insert name>", and if you don't know their gender, "them/they!"

 

Conclusion

 

All in all, I hope my lecture has brought you to your senses. If you know me (in real life), great! I look forward to seeing your reaction in school.

 

So, the moral is, um... see above. I, Hanson, hope that this has brought you to your senses, and you will be kinder to animals from now on.

 

STILL VERY ANGRY, Hanson. 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Vanamonde

[XB-70A]

"It" denomination is a particular point of the English language, other languages abstain or simply do not have a neutral pronoun that can define non-identifiable elements at the origin. Honestly, I find it interesting and practical. I grew up with a Latin language that also has three pronouns available for the third person singular, however, unlike the English language, our equivalent to "it" was necessarily with a male priority. This is where the neutrality of "it" is interesting.

I understand that this could be disturbing. But apart from particular species, it is not always easy to distinguish a female or male, and this is where I find "it" very useful. There is no commitment from our party. However, once we have identified the subject, then yes, we could start using "he" or "she".

Also, without wanting to make too much of a stir, in the case of an organism unable to communicate with us and hermaphrodite, what denomination should we use?.. It?

[Guest]

What did I just read

[tater]

I just saw a bunch of animals outside. One was a lizard. It was standing there doing pushups on the wall. Another was a bird flying over. It was a vulture, I think.

Yeah, they're animals (ie: belong to Animalia), and if I can't see what's hanging underneath, I say it.

My dog? She's a a she. As is the cat. My buddy has one of each.

[Bill Phil]

"He" works if you don't know the gender.

 

[razark]

I refer to humans as animals, so do I get to refer to animals as animals, then?

And if I do not know the gender of an individual animal, I am perfectly grammatically correct in using the English third-person gender-neutral pronoun.  (And that applies to nonhuman and human animals.)

 

The problem of complaining about calling animals "animals" and not calling humans "animals" is that we also grant humans a lot of rights we don't grant animals.  Can't keep humans as pets, or eat them, or use them for medical research without their consent.  Dogs, cats, and mosquitoes are not capable of signing a contract or obtaining a driver's license.

There's a difference in the way we deal with the two groups for a reason.

[Vanamonde]

Don't get crazy with the font sizes, please. It makes people feel like they're being yelled at. 

And is this a joke thread or what? 

[mystifeid]

3 hours ago, HansonKerman said:

And yet, they still refer to only nonhumans as animals!

Not me. I've got quite a few friends who are animals.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, HansonKerman said:

I realize that too many people refer to nonhuman animals as "it"!

To stupid animals - "it", to clever animals - "he/she/it" (if undistinguishable)"

Spoiler

To companion animals - "this hairy jerk", "the (rear part of body) with ears", "kitty-(...)tty", or some kind of that.

Depends on are you seeing a personality or a food.

7 hours ago, HansonKerman said:

Also, they refer to nonhumans as "animals!

Why only to nonhumans? Humans are animals, too. (Mostly).

7 hours ago, HansonKerman said:

Or, Humans are animals too!

You see? You see.

7 hours ago, HansonKerman said:

Animals are multicellular eukaryotic organisms

This multicellular eukaryotic chauvinism looks disconcerting.

7 hours ago, HansonKerman said:

So why can't we call them "he", "She", if they have a name, "<insert name>", and if you don't know their gender, "them/they!"

Linguists should explain better about the Proto-Indoeuropean language and its relations with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active–stative_language

Basically, living in stone age, all you need is to be understood.
So, you see active things which are subjects, can initialize some actions, can be in different relations, and inactive ones which can be only objects.

So, if you say "cat eat mouse" or "cat mouse eat", or "eat mouse cat", you always mean that it's the cat who eats the mice, not vice versa.
You don't need to explain who is actor and who is object.

So, you distinguish "active" nouns for them who can be actors or can be in personal relations with you, and "inactive" for that which is just a thing.
Originally all of them are genderly neutral.
Later, when society gets more complex, they begin designate "feminine" gender for the entities where they see a sense in this.

So, in languages with grammar cases for nouns you have a complete set of cases for former ""active" ones,
and a reduced set of cases for former "inactive" ones (say, without an accusative case, a nominative is the accusative itself).
And also neutral gender is mostly applied to inactive things.

As up to early XX century you were herding/buying/catching alive animals to kill them and eat (or watching others doing this for you), you didn't need to care about their feelings and personalities.
So, that's why "it", "deer", "sheep", and ""Mary had a little lamb" without lamb's gender.

As highest predators (cats&dogs) and highest apes are in close emotional contact with urban population, modern urban people see personalities in them, and expand its scope on other animals.
So, urbanization is that what gives to the animals the privileges of personality in human perception. Rural people are less sensitive in this sense. And this process started just 100-200 years ago. 

A little problem is: probably in not so far future wild animals will be significantly reduced by hungry crowds, while rural animals meat will be replaced by some cell cultures or so and they will be reduced too.
So, the only animals about whose personalities you are caring will be companion animals, i.e. again cats&dogs. But their owners probably call them he/she and right now.

P.S.
In Slavic languages and afaik in Deutch you have genders even for most of things.
Nobody (maybe except linguist gurus) knows why a spoon or a fork are "she". Just 5-10 centuries ago somebody thought it's a good idea. And there were no linguists in that epoch.

Or why a car is "she", while an automobile is "he". Say, "car", "machine" is from Greek/Latin "machina" which is (also why?!) feminine, so it's "she".
But an automoblie is "he" because it ends with "-l" which in Russian sounds weird for feminines, that means it's "he".

Edited August 4, 2018 by kerbiloid

[NSEP]

Yes Humans are animals, but we, the animal species who write and talk about these things are Humans.

Shouldn't we let us be us, and let them be them? I wouldn't mind if Dolphins called us 'it' and their fellow Dolphins he/she.  

Does this really matter? Is it really worth getting into a heated discussion about a combination of 2/3 characters, with no meaning to harm? Who cares?

Should we first, i don't know... stop harming nonhumans physically before we brag about this?

Edited August 4, 2018 by NSEP

[YNM]

Just use "they". Case closed.

In fact, (English) Wikipedia has done exactly that. An excerpt from the introduction to Grasshoppers :

Quote

Grasshoppers are insects of the suborderCaelifera within the order Orthoptera, which includes crickets and their allies in the other suborder Ensifera. They are likely the oldest living group of chewing herbivorous insects, dating back to the early Triassic around 250 million years ago. Grasshoppers are typically ground-dwelling insects with powerful hind legs which enable them to escape from threats by leaping vigorously. They are hemimetabolous insects (they do not undergo complete metamorphosis) which hatch from an egg into a nymph or "hopper" which undergoes five moults, becoming more similar to the adult insect at each developmental stage. At high population densities and under certain environmental conditions, some grasshopper species can change colour and behaviour and form swarms. Under these circumstances they are known as locusts.

 

[kerbiloid]

8 minutes ago, YNM said:

Just use "they". Case closed.

And get another "you" when nobody knows is it a single, a VIP single, or a plural.

Next step will be "heyou", "sheyou", "heit", "sheit" (single), "heyous", "sheyous", "hethey", "shethey" (plural), and "myheyou"/"mysheyou" like "mylord"/"mylady".

Edited August 4, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

58 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And get another "you" when nobody knows is it a single, a VIP single, or a plural.

Many languages do not rely at all on gender, plural and time basis. Instead it is mentioned explicitly when needed. Indonesian is an example.

[Superfluous J]

I don't even know why this thread is here, but I refer to animals as "he" "she" "little guy" or whatever I feel like. I don't use "it" even for insects or spiders while crushing them. I frequently apologize to a spider before crushing its life out.

So I guess by your definition I treat them well.

[LordFerret]

Call me whatever you want, just don't call me late for dinner.

[MDZhB]

Someone call @ARS, I feel that this is their doing.

[Just Jim]

Y'all that know me know I love critters... more than many humans!

I tend to fall in the middle... I almost always call an animal, any animal, he or she... or even knickname them...

This is "Tink" a female ruby-throat hummingbird that's apparently moved into our garden. She's been here about 2 weeks now, and we're really hoping she's build a nest nearby.

However, I will admit I sometimes refer to something as "it"... But that's usually when I don't know what something is... For instance, I see a cool looking new bug or bird or whatever in the garden, I'll probably say something like "Wow... I have no idea what it is..." Then run inside and try to identify said unknown critter. And if I can... and I can also identify the sex, I will call it he or she from that point on... and probably name it if it becomes a permanent resident.

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Just Jim

[ARS]

1 hour ago, MDZhB said:

Someone call @ARS, I feel that this is their doing.

Nooo! This isn't our doing. We just hanging on high orbit observing those living on earth that we prefer to call "They", "Subject", "Organism" or "Living things"

But the title does makes us wonder... 

Treat Nonhumans Better! (or, I'M VERY MAD), a.k.a. the Animal Realization Society

[Mrcarrot]

On 8/3/2018 at 5:49 PM, HansonKerman said:

and if you don't know their gender, "them/they!"

And now for something that irritates me: it is grammatically incorrect to use the word "they/them" when referring to a single individual. Like it or not, the grammatical rule is to use "he" when the gender is unknown.

This has been "Grammar OCD with Carrot". Tune in next time to see me discuss my opinion on misplaced modifiers.

[Superfluous J]

12 minutes ago, Mrcarrot said:

And now for something that irritates me: it is grammatically incorrect to use the word "they/them" when referring to a single individual. Like it or not, the grammatical rule is to use "he" when the gender is unknown. 

This has been "Grammar OCD with Carrot". Tune in next time to see me discuss my opinion on misplaced modifiers.

Grammar describes how people talk. It doesn't tell them how to talk. When one person violates the grammar rules they're doing it wrong. When many people do, the rules change.

And saying "he" when someone could be female is almost intentionally confusing, while (s)he and he/she looks dumb.

[0111narwhalz]

59 minutes ago, Mrcarrot said:

And now for something that irritates me: it is grammatically incorrect to use the word "they/them" when referring to a single individual. Like it or not, the grammatical rule is to use "he" when the gender is unknown.

This has been "Grammar OCD with Carrot". Tune in next time to see me discuss my opinion on misplaced modifiers.

Obligatory XKCD:

[Fraston]

I get mentioned, i come. simple as that, lol

as for an answer, I'm a he, both in avatar and real life so.....

Edited August 5, 2018 by Fraston

[kerbiloid]

If animals have rights, should they be judged for stealing something? Or for eating another animal?

Edited August 6, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Shpaget]

So, what about out dear photosynthesizing friends?

 

[HansonKerman]

They... don't really have defined genders, so let's call them "they" for now.

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If animals have rights, should they be judged for stealing something? Or for eating another animal?

Yes.