#I'm always thinking about construct tentacles anon | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

izzyovercoffee · 7 years

Note

Reading through all of your stuff about mando'a and toxic masculinity etc...has it ever bothered you that the word for sheath is an awful lot like the word for woman? Cause that bothers me. Idk if I'm reading too much into it or if it's because I'm used to looking for subconscious sexism stuff in languages.

Oh yes, lmao … this has bothered me for a very, very long time. It’s very … well, it’s very offensive. There isn’t any which-way about it, and it’s not subtle whatsoever. I actually find it fairly upsetting, in the way that once you actually see misogyny for what it is, it’s impossible to then return to being blind to it.

So, I’m gonna do what I do best, and come up with an alternative word first, and then break down why that word in the mando’a dictionary is a shitty fucking word and just an overall shitty thing to do that has no context and no basis in the language, and why it has no place in mando’a.

Mostly because I intend to put the breakdown on why the word sheath, derived from the word for woman, is fucked up beneath a cut in the event people don’t want to be accidentally triggered—the fact is there are a lot of uncomfortable to violently misogynistic implications in that vocabulary decision, and while I don’t want to mince words, I also don’t want to accidentally harm anyone who’s just looking to have the alternative word.

So … Let’s find other words for sheath.

kad’gam / kal’gam / kald’gam — sword sheath / knife sheath / blade sheath

From the words for sword, blade, a smush of sword and blade bc I liked how it sounded (very scientific), and from ‘gam, a suffix used to indicate skin or a physical cover. ‘gam is not so much a word that exists on its own but rather a modifier, and its uses in beskar’gam, armor (lit. mandalorian iron skin), and pel’gam, (lit. soft yielding skin), we can infer what ‘gam is meant to indicate.

Another word for sheath:

cab’gam — protective skin

So … do we need multiple words for sheath? Actually, yes. I’d even go so far as to suggest it’s weird to only have the one.

First of all, mando’a has multiple words for blades. There are specific words that refer to very specific blades. Knives and swords are differentiated. Sheath, just as a word, should not have a one-size-fits-all term when mandalorians are very specific when it comes to the type of weapon they’re using to do battle,

Departing from the weapon terminology, mandalorians also have many words for stab. It’s to the point that it’s joked they have 80 words that are just variations of stab and the act of stabbing, of inserting a blade into a person with intent to do bodily harm.

Stabbing, to mandalorians, is a nuanced thing. It requires many different words for specificity.

Again, wrt the development of words, usually one or two is enough. To have more than that? Means that mandalorians, as a community, view nuance with weapons, and the act done with that weapon, as necessary.

So, again, because of the above … there should not be only one word for sheath. It just doesn’t fit, pardon the pun, because just as there are many different types of blades … there are also different types of sheaths. It does not do to have a requirement of specificity for the weapon, and the different ways in which to fully utilize that weapon, and then not also be specific for the protective cover of that weapon.

The logic just doesn’t follow.

And now … my breakdown on why the word for sheath, derived from the word for woman, is misogynistic, transmisogynistic, heterosexist, and homophobic all in one piss poor conlang decision.

I want to say … strong warnings for: transphobia, misogyny, cissexism, homophobia, mentions of assault, victim blaming

And yeah, I know. “All those warnings for one word?”

Yes, unfortunately. This is one of those moments where on first glance, you might know something is wrong but not how wrong, and why it’s wrong. I am going to try to explain the why alongside the how clearly, and to do that is going to touch on a lot of topics and references that are or can be upsetting.

I also just want to say when I say “you” I’m referring to a general you, and not you, the anon, specifically. In case that gets confusing. Sorry lol.

All right, here we go.

My very, very first issue: mando’a is gender neutral. Gender, as a rule, is not emphasized—it is, effectively, gender neutral.

The implications of this are, in fact, many, but at its foundations are one of two things. If a language is gender neutral, then that means:

all genders are recognized, or

no genders are recognized

There isn’t any way around that, because the language itself does not acknowledge gender except in clinical terms of “Man / Woman” that are used next to never. Anyone who uses those specific words, casually? Are imposing a gender bias onto the language that, literally, does not exist.

It’s been argued that “well you might need to know” and … I still argue that that’s just not true.

If you have two people in front of you, and you’re trying to indicate which one you’re talking about, if you’re incapable of indicating who you’re talking about without assigning them a sex or gender that you, yourself, cannot know?

Then that’s a problem with you, personally. Not a problem with the language.

This is where, if you said you need that, I would gently ask you to take a step back and consider why you think you need it. Why are you so razor focused on sex that you’re incapable of first thinking of something simple like person on the left/right, and instead immediately define someone by “apparent” sex characteristics that are not related to gender?

The originators of mando’a, the original mandalorians, in-universe, were all aliens. And they weren’t even near-humans. They were humanoid simians called Taung. Actual walking, talking, bipedal bonobos with tentacles for hair. If someone argues they also have a white, western, earth-human concepts for a sex and gender binary … I’m just going to laugh, to be perfectly honest.

First, gender neutral language doesn’t spring up by accident — it has to be reinforced by the culture to maintain its neutrality, repeatedly reinforced over centuries to millennia and, truly, value everyone in that culture regardless of gender identity.

One of the main facets of mandalorian culture? Adopting literally everyone who fits what is believed to have “the right stuff” to be a mandalorian.

I mean, not even getting into the fact that armor — real combat-purposed armor — could potentially hide or skew the person in question’s gender. Or the fact that mandalorians, as a people, regularly adopt aliens into their community — and not all alien women share the same sex characteristics. No avian species would. No reptilian species would. No amphibious species would.

So. First false assumption:

women = having a vagina

First of all, lmao. This is, factually, incorrect.

It is an outdated concept that only serves to reinforce a white, western, earth human social construction of sex and gender that is

not universal

heavily politicized

heavily policed

Here on earth, we already have countless examples of animals who are both female and don’t have “sheaths.” I’m disgusted I even had to write that, tbh, but here it is. To then impose vaginas as a standard of being women on alien species that don’t share the same gender social constructions? To assume that all men have dicks and all women have vaginas, always, forever?

A culture that literally decided that there was NO need to differentiate gender of any number … would then associate woman, a human concept, with cissexist human sexual organs that a large swathe of their population might not even have?

Well, it just doesn’t make sense. It’s not even an idea supported here on earth. There’s actually a great National Geographic article that breaks it down into simple language with a ton of resources — and I’m going to link it so I don’t have to do the same. Before this article? A metric fuckton of academic literature and studies, published articles, dissertations, books. Steeped in very heavy academic language, though, but I mean … my point is that, in space, if you’re transphobic, or a TERF, you are not a mandalorian.

I don’t make the rules, but if I did, every TERF and transphobe would be banned. Forever. Dar’manda, fuckfaces.

Furthermore, if mandalorians are known to regularly adopt in a widely varied mix of humans and aliens into their population … then having human indicators of man / woman is fucking useless.

It’s completely fucking useless.

I would actually argue that the only real use for these words is for something I’m sure the originator did not intend: which is to indicate if someone who once identified as a man has transitioned to woman, or vice versa. Then, and only then, does it actually become relevant. Before then? Irrelevant, and fucking useless to indicate.

“The woman!” “Which one, Tom?”“The one with breasts!”“How do you know they’re a woman, Tom? Did you fucking ask them?”“No, but—”“Did you think they may just have a condition, Tom?”“Well, no, but—”“What if they’re a fuckin’ lizard, Tom? What if it’s their fuckin mating season and they just happen to expanding their chests, Tom?”“I didn’t—”“Fuck off, Tom, you ori’mirsh'kyramud (fucking brain assassin).”

Here’s the thing. Human earth ideas of gender, and its associations with “sex,” are null and void, because mando’a is gender neutral and concepts tied in with how we perceive gender do not exist in the language. At all.

And, actually, going even beyond that? The above points to a severe lack of creativity, and a fear of science. Mandalorians are literally space-faring aliens who adopt other aliens of all different species and communities, and have a culture whose very foundation is emphatically gender neutral. A fear of science has no place here.

Anyway. Moving on.

Our culture, here on earth, does not value women to the fullest. It just isn’t so, as much as that grieves me to say. And I know it’s hard, but I really wish that fandom, as a whole, would stop projecting their shitty, toxic masculine views on mandalorians as “fact,” because it’s just not there. It’s, seriously, not there.

Now, I don’t know if most people are familiar with some parts of linguistic theory, but the basic thing is this: if a word doesn’t exist in language, then the people who speak that language don’t really have a conceptualization of this … well, concept. Language literally affects thinking. It affects perception. It affects how we understand and view the world. How we see and construct the world is shaped by language.

Which is why the word for sheath, derived from woman, given all the above? Is fucking garbage. It’s built entirely on false assumptions steeped in human-earth western thinking that are not, and cannot, be supported by mando’a because these concepts literally do not exist, or are even actively, and passively, contradicted in the language and the culture itself.

If you don’t get it, reread the Brain Assassin conversation, read the NatGeo article, and then come back, because I’m literally going to beat this idea to death, resurrect it, and then kill it again, in true mandalorian fashion.

Mandalorians, from every impression on the culture built from a language that is inclusive to its core, would accept easily and readily people of all gender identities, because the language literally tells us this. These things are, literally, non-issues—or they should be this way, because the gender neutrality of the language itself sets this as the very very basic foundation.

The idea that Mandalorians aren’t inclusive isn’t supported by canon. But mandalorian fandom’s inability to separate toxic assumptions from actual context, and projects toxic masculinity, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, stereotypes again and again on an entire body of people with little-to-no textual support, purely because they fit the definition of Proud Warrior Race, is a really serious problem.

How many people find interacting with the larger, more male-populated mandalorian fandom, to be threatening? How many people are more than a little concerned for the well-being of girls who, having seen Sabine, decided they want to be a mandalorian — and then went online?

I could name more than a few online mandalorian fan communities, and tbh I am very, very wary with ever recommending them to teenage girls, or even adult women, or anyone who isn’t cisgender.

There is a very real, very serious problem with fandom, specifically the men of fandom, defining and setting the tone of Proud Warrior Race as inherently as toxic as our society — when it doesn’t need to be that way. It’s just assumed, even when they’re written as diametrically opposed to the necessary beliefs that are required in order for a culture built on toxic masculinity to survive.

Anyway. Next false assumption:

woman = to be penetrated

A sheath, a scabbard, exists to be penetrated by the weapon it’s meant to cover and protect.

To then derive the worth sheath directly from the word for woman is to directly indicate that women exist to be penetrated. It also directly indicates that men are the one who do the penetrating, not women, by virtue of that above association.

God forbid the idea that women don’t exist for men, let alone that lesbians exist, or that women are more than their apparent sheath purpose.

I can’t believe I have to write this, but here I am.

How can someone purport to be creating a culture in which everyone is equal, if you’re literally sticking a word in here that directly infers that that isn’t the case. You cannot say that a woman is valued for her worth as a person, if you then create a word that reduces her personhood to her vagina — which she may or may not even have?

Listen. There isn’t an alternative way to interpret this. You cannot create a language in which the word for sheath is derived from woman without directly, blatantly, obviously inferring that women are sheaths.

Dala — womanDalab — sheath

There is no other inference. You can try to defend it, but the meaning and the intent is still inherent, and it is inherently fucked up.

There are also countless studies out there that have shown how this line of thinking can and does build a foundation in our culture for women to be victimized. To be assaulted. This is one of the major thought processes that contribute to rape — it is one of the major defenses of rape.

It implies this: if a woman exists to be penetrated, then consent is automatically given, because that is her purpose, and cannot be revoked.

And, you know, I’m sure this wasn’t intentional. I’m sure that someone who’s grown up steeped in a sexist culture would then be okay in thinking this way, and not see an issue with the above — but that doesn’t make it okay. It still contributes to a culture that actively harms more than half of its population. Intent is meaningless when it’s in support of further victimization. Intent is meaningless when it is in support of violence.

This is in support of violence. Thoughtlessly, maybe. Unintentionally, maybe. But that doesn’t change what it is, and what it implies.

I know that this is uncomfortable to think about. I know that it’s upsetting. But if your impulse is to immediately jump to “you’re overreacting!” then … I would ask that you take a step back, and ask yourself why you want to rush to accuse me that I’m overreacting. I want you to actually consider what I’m saying, to do the research, and to ask yourself if what I’m saying is true, how does it affect you? And the people around you?

Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense contextually.

Like, let’s forget, for a moment, that we live in a culture that actively promotes rape in very real, very insidious ways at multiple levels of society, that reduces women’s worth only in their relation to men, that has been concisely and clearly documented and studied for decades, and look instead at it in the in-universe context:

Once again. In a culture whose very language, the building blocks of thoughts and concepts that structure the world, does not separate people by gender in any way, why would you then have a word that inextricably links women with being penetrated? There is no consistent internal logic. It literally does not make sense within the context of the culture.

Here’s National Geographic article on gender, again.

Here’s the Tom conversation, again:

the false assumptions

the culture only recognizes 2 genders based on western, white, earth-human conceptualization of sex and gender

women exist to be penetrated

everyone is straight as fuck, I guess

Imposing straight, cis, heterocentric gender roles on a society that doesn’t even have the words to think this way makes zero sense.

IT’S SHIT WRITING, KAREN.

It’s already afternoon where I am, and yet … it is too early for this kind of insidious transphobic homophobic sexism.

It has no place in mando’a. Full stop.

Unfortunately, unless we can petition to have it removed officially from the mando’a dictionary, or unless we as a whole community agree to never use that word, it’s going to continue existing — and being used, and probably accidentally and without any realization of the implications of that word.

I would love to never see that word again. To promptly, effectively, never use it. Personally, I don’t trust people who use it casually. Accidentally? I’m sure it happens … but. In my opinion? Given that the larger mandalorian fandom is heavily steeped in toxic masculinity and casual misogyny, I have a hard time justifying its use in any context, because of the toxic masculinity and the casual misogyny. And, sadly, I don’t really have the energy to go through this again and again.

Do I have an in-universe explanation?

Yes, actually.

I posit this: dalab is a word that came as a result of misogynistic men being adopted into the fold of mandalorian society, and felt that they needed a gendered slur that would fly under the radar.

And, you know, maybe it did. Maybe it was reclaimed by cisgender human women. Maybe there’s a complicated history behind the word, and that women are divided over whether that slur has ever been reclaimed, or not.

But, I would rather we didn’t have to do that. Why do we need to introduce sexism to a culture that doesn’t support it? Why do we need a gendered slur in a language that doesn’t recognize gender in that way?

The fact is, we don’t. We don’t need to further victimize marginalized people in the one society that goes out of its way not to do that.

So. I would rather remove dalab from the dictionary entirely.

761 notes · View notes