Automaton's sex?

[MakkotoParinne]

Though an automaton cannot have a physical sex (not speaking of mental gender here, Dora's allowed to be whoever she wants to be), I've noticed something about little Dora that took me quite by surprise quite a while ago, and I have recently decided to tell the people.

"Dora parries the Jkendkblablaedn's attack with HIS weapon."

Okay. I know Dora is a feminine name, but I was wondering if it was ever used as a male name (much like how names such as Vivian or Shannon were predominantly male names), and whether this is working as intended. When your automaton parries, does it always say "his"?

This is mostly directed at Puppetmasters' automatons with feminine names such as Mademoiselle.

Thank you for your time.

[Wolfandre]

Yeah, unfortunately, the Devs had to pick a gender to assign to it. Naming it differently doesn't really matter. As far as the game is concerned, (and it's not...it's just text...lulz) your automaton is a bro. Sorry, mang.


Also, I'm pretty sure there's a CS somewhere of an NPC calling the DRG's wyvern 'boy' or 'little guy' or something like that, so we're not the only ones. *shrug*

EDIT: Due to the fact that I cannot read....

Dora is a female name of Greek origin, meaning 'gift.'

A nickname for any name containing the Greek element dôron, such as Dorothy, Theodora, and Isadora. Dora has had increasing popularity as a name, independant of any of its fuller versions.

From parentsconnect.com.

[Theytak]

My Automaton is Caroline, so I cringe a little whenever I see that line, but technically and semantically speaking, he/him/his is the correct choice for a statement involving something of ambiguous gender in the English language. They/them/their/s is only plural, and it's use as a gender neutral pronoun is, though common, not accepted by many Grammar Nazis. It/it/its is NOT the correct word, as it/it/its refers to inanimate objects/abstract concepts/etc, not people/animals/little faceless robots, though that argument can be made and does have solid footing. They're not gonna bother changing it though because it's just a little weird tidbit for people to giggle at, and it doesn't hurt the game at all.

[Lessina]

She is more common actually, such as in the case of Cars or ships. The ocean also is referred to as a she.

[Theytak]

She is more common actually, such as in the case of Cars or ships. The ocean also is referred to as a she.

doesn't matter. That's the same issue as the singular "they". It's common in public usage, but still not grammatically correct.

[Annahya]

My Automaton is Caroline, so I cringe a little whenever I see that line, but technically and semantically speaking, he/him/his is the correct choice for a statement involving something of ambiguous gender in the English language. They/them/their/s is only plural, and it's use as a gender neutral pronoun is, though common, not accepted by many Grammar Nazis. It/it/its is NOT the correct word, as it/it/its refers to inanimate objects/abstract concepts/etc, not people/animals/little faceless robots, though that argument can be made and does have solid footing. They're not gonna bother changing it though because it's just a little weird tidbit for people to giggle at, and it doesn't hurt the game at all.

It we are getting super nit-picky, there was a movement in the last few decades to intentionally shift the "ambiguous gender pronoun" to "her/she;" as "him/he" was considered to have had its run, and fairness "required" the shift as a nod to gender equality. The result: many respectable publications jumped on this bandwagon for reasons ranging from agreement to simply wanting to appear progressive. After a fashion, this fell by the wayside, either because not enough people were made aware, or because people stopped caring - I am not sure which.

Regardless, grammar does not control this - tradition does. It is not an issue of grammar at all, grammar covers the syntax of the sentence - semantics would be a more appropriate angle by which to approach this subject, as that, generally speaking, covers the specificity of context that we are discussing.

Grammatically, if the pronoun is used correctly in the sentence, only tradition indicates whether or not he, she or it is used to describe the automaton.

Semantically speaking, it is possible to call an automaton "it," as the machine is not a member of a sexually dimorphic species; but it is correct to call it he or she based upon the self-concept and gender identity that it possesses, as the pronouns are generally thought of as gender-specific, and gender is only culturally influenced, not determined by, biological sex.

Sorry, I am a psychologist who originally went to school to be an English teacher. I am open to any argument that proves me wrong on this one, but I think what I have established inarguably is that I am a total nerd.

/sigh

[Theytak]

It we are getting super nit-picky, there was a movement in the last few decades to intentionally shift the "ambiguous gender pronoun" to "her/she;" as "him/he" was considered to have had its run, and fairness "required" the shift as a nod to gender equality. The result: many respectable publications jumped on this bandwagon for reasons ranging from agreement to simply wanting to appear progressive. After a fashion, this fell by the wayside, either because not enough people were made aware, or because people stopped caring - I am not sure which.

Regardless, grammar does not control this - tradition does. It is not an issue of grammar at all, grammar covers the syntax of the sentence - semantics would be a more appropriate angle by which to approach this subject, as that, generally speaking, covers the specificity of context that we are discussing.

Grammatically, if the pronoun is used correctly in the sentence, only tradition indicates whether or not he, she or it is used to describe the automaton.

Semantically speaking, it is possible to call an automaton "it," as the machine is not a member of a sexually dimorphic species; but it is correct to call it he or she based upon the self-concept and gender identity that it possesses, as the pronouns are generally thought of as gender-specific, and gender is only culturally influenced, not determined by, biological sex.

Sorry, I am a psychologist who originally went to school to be an English teacher. I am open to any argument that proves me wrong on this one, but I think what I have established inarguably is that I am a total nerd.

/sigh

Psych Major focusing on the study of sex and gender, Linguistics minor, here, and I'd like to point out that the bolded line is 100% not true and I'd also like to politely request you never say something so silly again, because it makes transgender people like me look bad <3

That said though, English is not a gendered language, so it doesn't really matter all that much. However it's far to early inthe day for me to be debating semantics on this level, especially since I'm out of coffee, so I'll see your point and respond with a firm "Huh, good point. I can't think of any quick counters or ways to disprove it and I don't really disagree with it, so instead I'm gonna go find some coffee!"

[Annahya]

Understandable on semantics argument - it is really a non-issue, I just have a compulsion to weigh-in on nerdly things.

I'd like to point out that the bolded line is 100% not true and I'd also like to politely request you never say something so silly again, because it makes transgender people like me look bad <3

This one I am quite confused on - as this assertion is supportive of your position, not detrimental to it. Also, as a psych student it, you should be accustomed to this as a prevailing opinion of the field. Perhaps you misread my sentence? I will restate it again more plainly:

Sex is the classification of biological traits possessed by a member of a sexualy dimorphic species, and has absolutely nothing to do with culture. Gender is a social construct.

My statement from the original post, worded another way is: gender is only culturally influenced by biological sex, no more.

As a social construct, gender is informed by biological sex - not because the individual has "hard written" cues in their cognition, but because social interaction, conditioning, etc., is influenced by what the culture they were born into believes that their sex means.

I am thinking that this is a misunderstanding coming from the text of my statement, somehow, because from a psychological perspective, the statement I made is generally assumed to be correct, and is the belief that, through the greater understanding of the public at large, should lead to greater acceptance for individuals "like [yourself]."

Back to the initial point, I was stating that because gender is not determined by biological sex, in the context of the automaton, the fact that it lacks a biological sex has no authority to govern its gender-identity or self-concept; freeing it to be a he or she as it sees fit (or is programmed to be).

{Edit: added a missing "no" to the last paragraph.}

[Theytak]

Understandable on semantics argument - it is really a non-issue, I just have a compulsion to weigh-in on nerdly things.



This one I am quite confused on - as this assertion is supportive of your position, not detrimental to it. Also, as a psych student it, you should be accustomed to this as a prevailing opinion of the field. Perhaps you misread my sentence? I will restate it again more plainly:

Sex is the classification of biological traits possessed by a member of a sexualy dimorphic species, and has absolutely nothing to do with culture. Gender is a social construct.

As a social construct, gender is informed by biological sex - not because the individual has "hard written" cues in their cognition, but because social interaction, conditioning, etc., is influenced by what the culture they were born into believes that their sex means.

I am thinking that this is a misunderstanding coming from the text of my statement, somehow, because from a psychological perspective, the statement I made is generally assumed to be correct, and is the belief that, through the greater understanding of the public at large, should lead to greater acceptance for individuals "like [yourself]."

I spent about 20 minutes writing out a well thought out response explaining myself and clarifying why the general consensus is just plain wrong just got lost to this #%@#^@ing forum not #^@#%!@^ing saving/transfering text when you go from quick reply to reply accidentally. This topic of discussion makes me want to punch babies. Please feel free to pm me and I'll re-write my explanation later, when I don't want to throw my computer out of the window.

To summarize though; Who's research are you basing your understanding of gender on?

[MakkotoParinne]

Which is why I didn't reference gender (outside of my comment) in my OP and thread name.^^

Sex does not equal gender, on that note. I know too many people who take them for the same thing, when this is incorrect on so many levels. If someone was physically a male, but identified as female, you would refer to them as a she. At least, I would. :/ There are too many gender norms attached to our sex, these days... Very frustrating, indeed.

Thank you for your responses, though! It doesn't really happen so much for me to care, but it's good to know Dora's not the only one who parries with "his" weapon.