# Is it a boy or a girl?



## Anders Ã„mting (Apr 24, 2013)

So here's the scenario: The villain of the story is male, as far as gender identity goes, but doesn't have a physical body of his own. Instead he is possessing the body of a female character for pretty much his entire part of the story, directly using her body as if it was his own. 

So, the character basically has a male persona but is physically female. With this in mind, should I refer to this character and male or female? Should it be: "He threw his head back and laughed" or "_She _threw _her_ head back and laughed"?

I actually have two separate projects where a villain does exactly this, so I'd really like to know what you guys think would work best.


----------



## Nihal (Apr 24, 2013)

Unless he modified it to look like a man–or it is written in first person POV–I would follow the physical body's gender.

To the reader, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...


----------



## kayd_mon (Apr 24, 2013)

I agree, you should match the pronouns to the physical description.


----------



## advait98 (Apr 24, 2013)

From the few stories I have read that involved something like this, it was mostly 'he threw his head back and laughed', and personally, I would feel more comfortable with it like that. It's the mind that makes the person, and not the body, right? Philosophy aside, the villain is male, and while the body he's inhabiting is not, male is how the reader will always see it (at least a reader like me). 

Maybe it can also depend on the POV of the characters, each of whom thinks the villain as either 'he' or 'she'.

If you do follow the 'he', I suppose it would be prudent to remind readers that he's inhabiting a female body every now and then.

Anyway, I feel your dilemma, and best of luck.


----------



## Ophiucha (Apr 24, 2013)

I would personally use 'he', if the character _is _a man then it doesn't really matter what sex his body is, does it? I guess it depends on how you present it, but if he has a male name, uses masculine titles or terms (Mr., calls himself a 'widower' or something, etc.), or has a love interest (past or present), then it could just become confusing if you start referring to him as a 'she'. Just remind the readers that he is occupying a female body at the time.


----------



## Ireth (Apr 24, 2013)

I've used a similar scenario in an RP, with a dead woman possessing the body of her living brother. I wound up mixing the pronouns -- i.e. "She shook his head and shrugged his shoulders" -- because while the woman was controlling the body, the body itself was male. The possession was only temporary (and harmless), though it did happen more than once.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 24, 2013)

I'd go with "it." In my view, spirit possession is a violation of the victim's humanity. The neutral pronoun reflects that.


----------



## Addison (Apr 24, 2013)

How 'bout "It"? Then the sentence is, "It threw its head back and laughed." Or you could refer to the body actions like a puppet/; The male 'spirit/being...thing' is in control, he's the puppeteer, and the woman is the puppet. So it could be, "He threw her head with and laughed."


----------



## Ireth (Apr 24, 2013)

Addison said:


> Or you could refer to the body actions like a puppet/; The male 'spirit/being...thing' is in control, he's the puppeteer, and the woman is the puppet. So it could be, "He threw her head with and laughed."



That's exactly what I said. XD


----------



## Ophiucha (Apr 24, 2013)

I think the singular 'they' is a better gender neutral pronoun, myself.


----------



## Nihal (Apr 24, 2013)

Guys, doesn't it depends on the POV? Even if it's a male, a spirit, etc, if it's not omniscient there is no reason to call it "it", "he", or whatever, unless the POV owner thinks this way.


----------



## Grimmlore (Apr 24, 2013)

i have read a book where this happens as a permanent thing, the author took both names and mushed them together when the possession happened.
frank and beth becomes freth or benk franketh or bethank bad eg i know haha


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Apr 24, 2013)

Ireth said:


> I've used a similar scenario in an RP, with a dead woman possessing the body of her living brother. I wound up mixing the pronouns -- i.e. "She shook his head and shrugged his shoulders" -- because while the woman was controlling the body, the body itself was male. The possession was only temporary (and harmless), though it did happen more than once.



That seems like it might get confusing in the long run, though. In my stories it's much more permanent, though not irreversable. Also, neither villain has any plans on abandoning the female body in the forseeable future.



Mindfire said:


> I'd go with "it." In my view, spirit possession is a violation of the victim's humanity. The neutral pronoun reflects that.



I dunno, that makes it sound too much like they're dealing with some kind of monster. These villains aren't gender neutral entities; they are definitely men, just men who are forced to steal bodies for lack of their own. 

I also think it would be weird to refer to a main character as "it" for the entire story.



Grimmlore said:


> i have read a book where this happens as a permanent thing, the author took both names and mushed them together when the possession happened.
> frank and beth becomes freth or benk franketh or bethank bad eg i know haha



Not what I was asking for - I'm specifically talking about gender ponouns. The villain will always be refered to by his own name, so I have that covered.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 24, 2013)

To build on Nihal's idea, I once wrote a story with six perspective characters, all of them in some way genderqueer. Each of them had a different conception of what gender was, so each used a different pattern of pronouns when referring to the other characters. It got a little messy, but I think it worked to create an interesting ambiguity as to how these characters should be defined.

In this case, who uses what pronoun would correspond to what they think of when they look at the possessed person. If they primarily perceive the body, they'll use feminine pronouns. If they know and are more concerned with the villain, they'll use masculine pronouns.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Apr 25, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> In this case, who uses what pronoun would correspond to what they think of when they look at the possessed person. If they primarily perceive the body, they'll use feminine pronouns. If they know and are more concerned with the villain, they'll use masculine pronouns.



That's all well and good, but what about the narration? The stories are in third person, so _I _still have to pick a gender to refer to.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 25, 2013)

If it's third person omniscient, then I'd recommend using the gender the villain thinks of himself as.


----------



## Chilari (Apr 26, 2013)

Gender identity is about what people feel themselves to be, not about their bodies. Using "it" would be insulting - taking away humanity of one part of this entity or the other. "She" would be incorrect because it goes against gender identity. If the villain thinks of himself as "he", use "he". Body is irrelevant; identity is everything. Otherwise you're erasing gender identity and thus experience. Plus you'll piss off trans people and allies if you do it in a manner which discounts or erases gender identity because they're already in an uphill battle to have gender identity recognised as more important than biology (both socially and legally) and won't thank you for putting a rock in the way.

Use male. You can always use female pronouns in dialogue spoken by those who are unaware of the situation, and add a couple of reminders of the situation.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Apr 26, 2013)

I think it would be very interesting if the character was more of a consciousness and didn't technically have a gender.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 26, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> That's all well and good, but what about the narration? The stories are in third person, so _I _still have to pick a gender to refer to.



Nihal is correct.  It all depends on the POV.

When you're in that character's head, you refer to the character by how he/she sees himself/herself.

If you're in another character's head, you'll use "she," since that's how that character will see her.

If you omniscient, as Feo said, you'll use however the character sees himself/herself because the author knows the character's viewpoint.


----------



## Rob P (Apr 26, 2013)

There are many times when we confuse gender without seeing the person. Names can be misleading.

Let's take Lee. We might assume this person is male if our only interaction is email or something until we see a picture or meet them and then we realise that person is a woman. That person was always female and their POV was always feminine regardless of how others perceived her.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 26, 2013)

Chilari said:


> Gender identity is about what people feel themselves to be, not about their bodies.


Not trying to provoke an argument, but I don't agree with this. I have no desire to discuss the political and social issues lurking just beneath the surface of this discussion, but I think acknowledging that we have a difference of opinion will help avoid potential misunderstandings. With that said, back on topic.



Chilari said:


> Using "it" would be insulting - taking away humanity of one part of this entity or the other.


Now here's the thing: that's exactly the point. As I said, in this situation, I would use "it" to _emphasize_ that the individual's humanity has been violated. Think of the gebbeth from _Wizard of Earthsea_, or the un-man from C.S. Lewis's _Perelandra_. I would intentionally use "it" to make the creature seem more inhuman. Because it's not human. It's a posessing spirit masquerading as a man (or a woman in this case). It's a _thing_ using someone else's body as a puppet.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 26, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Not trying to provoke an argument, but I don't agree with this.



There's really nothing to argue about. What Chilari stated is, in fact, the definition of 'gender identity.' Arguing over it would be like arguing over the definition of the world 'blue.' It is also a useful distinction from the physical sex of a person.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 26, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> There's really nothing to argue about. What Chilari stated is, in fact, the definition of 'gender identity.' Arguing over it would be like arguing over the definition of the world 'blue.' It is also a useful distinction from the physical sex of a person.



What I mean is, I don't agree with a great deal of gender identity theory, so I'm coming into this discussion with very different beliefs and assumptions than many people on this forum. This may cause my statements to seem rather confusing unless this difference of belief is known.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 26, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> What I mean is, I don't agree with a great deal of gender identity theory, so I'm coming into this discussion with very different beliefs and assumptions than many people on this forum. This may cause my statements to seem rather confusing unless this difference of belief is known.



Aha. I understand what you meant, then.


----------

