We have a different definition of going out of one's way. I ask the question again that was not answered: How does gender equal or gender neutral language become the norm unless people use it?
I take your point. I was speaking in terms of the status quo. To the OP; call it a Queendom, please, I implore you. Viva la revolucion! From small acorns. . .
It doesn't. But that has nothing to do with the OP's question. The OP wanted to swap one gender-specific term for another. It had nothing to do with gender equality or neutrality.
Well @MustWrite hasn't weighed in, but let's revisit that OP: Need I point out the difference between your interpretation vs what was actually asked? Fascinating, I read that as 'I want to use queendom' and you read it as 'kingdom and queendom are gender specific, therefore both biased'.
With reference to the OP, why not Queendom, if that's an accurate description of the political system. The OP's question is weakened or made unclear by the use of "several generations". Is this intended as a permanent state of affairs or is the default a patrilineal system with a lack of male heirs causing the change in status? Other languages are in fact sex neutral on this matter. In Chinese, for instance, during imperial times as in present, the country was referred to as the "Middle Nation". It is translators who insisted on "Middle Kingdom" when the word in fact is gender neutral.
"Realm" is derived from the Latin "regimen" or "government" and is a correct and gender neutral term.
Ugh! Can't you see that both words you put in quotes contain the word "men"? How long will personkind have to bow down before the mighty penis? Down with words! Down with words! Down with words!
Shit, I just realized that if you move the s in words to the front, you form the word sword. A sword is a phallus which makes it a man-word. The word words is a penis. I hate words!
If the vast majority of ruled-area-names were named in a way to suggest that the ruler was male, I would be more inclined to go out of my way to suggest that the ruler was female. But at a quick glance, most languages seem to handle this reasonably well-"Kingdom" seems to be more an exception than rule. Since a gender-neutral word would IMO have been better in the first place ('in the first place' meaning 'way back when when we were coming up with these words), I'm inclined to go with the gender-neutral words that are available, rather than pointing out the error by deliberately making the same error in reverse. The analogy with gay marriage makes no sense to me. Legalizing gay marriage balances things, as does the gender-neutral term. I'm not saying that emphasizing that rulers can indeed be female would be bad. I'm saying that "Queendom" is not a very commonly used word, and is likely to be distracting, so if I were to use it I'd need to have a specific reason. "Queendom" is not gender neutral.
No. The OP wanted to swap queendom for kingdom. Whether you like it or not, that is swapping one gender-specific term for another. My comment about it having nothing to do with gender equality or neutrality was not a response to the OP. It was a response to you. You said: I was responding to that. It has nothing to do with the OP's question, but I responded to it anyway. This is not the case. You are conflating two different questions asked by two different members. To the OP, I answer, "Go ahead and use queendom. No problem there. Or you could use realm, if you really want to avoid the gender issue altogether. " You asked a different question, which was (repeating here for the sake of clarity): To that question, which was NOT the OP's question, I responded, I thought that was clear enough. I don't want to talk about this any more.
You have a story where there are queens and not kings. The story is not gender neutral, so it doesn't call for a gender neutral term. It calls for a gender equal term. One should be no less comfortable using the term queendom than the choice to make the fictional rulers women.
You can't have a gender equal term if there is nothing to be equal to. I think you are starting to confuse yourself here.
It doesn't rule out a gender neutral term, either. Making fictional rulers women is relevant to female equality, and also has ample precedent in the real world. (Edited: This phrase ("It's just not a commonly used word.") wasn't supposed to be here.) Using the world queendom is, IMO, no more beneficial to female equality than using the word monarchy, and there is less precedent in the real world. (Edited: "It's just not a commonly used word." belonged here.) I don't use the words aviatrix or doctrix, either. I refer to both male and female stage and screen actors as actors. I refer to both male and female people who bring me food as waiters. I prefer gender neutral terms. In meetings run by Robert's Rules of Order, I refer to "the chair". You have every right to have different preferences.
Yes, the word queendom sounds stupid. Say it out loud a couple of times and you'll see. Try using the word on a toddler, did they laugh? It's because the word takes all the potential of "queef" and substitutes "dom" at the end instead. It sounds like the tongue took an alternate route on the way to "condom". Make the moniker female if that's your wish, but don't call it a "queendom"
Oh, you're missing out. Aviatrix is a fantastic word. It goes all over your mouth when you say it, and sounds like a power ranger villain.
Heh. It's a lovely word, but unless we eliminate "aviator" and make aviatrix the gender-neutral one, I must reject it.
No it doesn't. As for the question though, is queendom stupid, definitely not. I wouldn't choose "ample" but otherwise, of course. The fact people are reacting to it here when no one would have thought twice about writers using the word, kingdom, suggests there is some benefit in normalizing (as in making the word more common so it doesn't raise an eyebrow) the word.
But no one is shrieking, "You can't say monarchy or realm or empire! A WOMAN could run them! The horror!" And the words queen, empress, duchess, baroness, and so on, are already well established, so the issue isn't the idea of a female ruler. That's all that "queendom" would normalize--the idea of a female ruler. But it's already normalized. They're not objecting because the word is feminine, they're objecting because it's rarely used.
Nobody is "reacting" to it. Nobody had even thought of it before. If we'd read the OP's book and it used the term "queendom," none of us (except maybe @Jack Asher) would have batted an eye. The only reason anyone is even discussing this is that the OP asked. Nobody (except Jack Asher) suggested the OP shouldn't use the term. The only person making an issue of this, @GingerCoffee, is you.
