The "What's a good name for this?" thread

I'd like some suggestions for Fantastic Slurs to be used by normal humans against hermaphroditic humans/hominins, and vice versa.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Just remember that there are no bad words, just bad intentions. Meaning, anything can be made to sound like a slur so long as it's meant to be an insult. For maximum effect, just make sure it's applied frequently, derogatorily, and in place of the group's preferred identifier. In terms of examples, using terms for caricatured features or shortened versions of the group's actual name would be standard examples.

Hope that helps.

I can think only of real-life slurs such as 'tranny' and 'cis-scum'.

Well, "tranny" would work as an insult by normals who don't differentiate between regular transgendered people and actual hermaphrodites, whether out of ignorance or not even caring (in the latter case, they're probably transphobes too).

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Maybe "Hermies" or "Half-n-halfs."

EDIT: Mind your spaces — or lack thereof — on that last word there. It's technically not incorrect (politically or otherwise AFAIK), but it looks very similar to "transpersonal", which refers to something completely unrelated.

edited 16th May '16 10:48:57 AM by pablo360

I love how our society has agreed that certain things are unrealistic because they don't occur in fiction.

I believe 'tranny' refers to 'transvestite', which more or less means 'crossdresser' but more insulting. Really often though, people who use 'transvestite' as an insult also don't differentiate between 'transvestite' and 'transperson'.

edited 16th May '16 5:30:42 AM by hellomoto

Does "Alexandrea" — as a portmanteau of Alexander/Alexandra/Alexis and Andrea (Andrea is either masculine or feminine depending on the culture/language) — work as a Gender-Blender Name deliberately invented by a hermaphrodite character for said gender-blending factor?

Yeah, "hermies" or "herms" was on my mind already. "Halfies", "halvies", or "halfers" sound good, too, especially since Japanese has the Engrish neologism "newhalf" for female-bodied pseudohermaphrodites (essentially equivalent to pre-op M 2 F transexuals).

edited 16th May '16 2:09:07 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Alexandrea is a real female name. Even if it wasn't, I think it would still read as a girl's name to me, since it is very similar to Alexander's female form Alexandra.

Rats. Back to square one, then.

Any other Fantastic Slurs suggestions?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I'm all out of slurs (I hope), but Alex by itself would actually make a good Gender-Blender Name.

As a general source for such names, try looking anywhere here.

I love how our society has agreed that certain things are unrealistic because they don't occur in fiction.

OK, on a different note: Suppose that in a particular setting, modern Homo sapiens sapiens find that they've had hermaphroditic humans living in the shadows of their civilization since the very dawn of the H. sapiens history, and after extensive genetic studies, the prevailing opinion in the scientific community is that the hermaphroditic humans qualify as a separate species within the same genus (binomial name Homo hermaphroditicus), though there is significant dissent that insists they're merely a subspecies of H. sapiens.

Since the term "human" has the broader sense of describing all members of the genus Homo (as opposed to just H. sapiens), what non-technical terms would be plausible for referring to H. sapiens (sapiens)? Or should I go with the Shadowrun approach and have the in-universe scientific community narrow down "human" to H. sapiens and coin "metahuman" or some other similar term as the more general name for members of genus Homo (thus describing both H. sapiens (sapiens) and H. hermaphroditicus)?

edited 17th May '16 2:40:17 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Well... the way I imagine it (based on my limited understanding of the modern "science industry"), the initial scientific classification would be somewhat imaginatively dry, with the first major classification being 1-sex human and 2-sex human (us being 2-sex). In addition to creating a lot of alienation amongst members of the genderqueer community, this would provide the basis for the conversation-level terms "oners" and "twoers", which would probably persist long after most major biologists reject the nomenclature. Irregardless (which, by the way, is grammatically and semantically accurate in this context), H. Sapiens Sapiens would be referred to as "twoers", which many would probably assume is a reference to the repeated sapiens. This would of course lead to the classification of the "others" as H. Sapiens Hermaphroditicus (which is more taxonomically reasonable anyways, because H. Hermaphroditicus implies that this "other" species is less closely related to modern humans than were H. Sapiens Neanderthalensis.) The overarching term would still be human, if for no other reason than that it'd be difficult to visually tell the two apart (meaning most people might not even know the difference, and children might not even be aware there is one - it's harder to discriminate based on something you can't see, and young children are fairly blind to gender differences as it is).

Here's the thing: Technically, there are two different definitions of "species" - a taxonomic one, and a biological one. Whether or not there is a Sapiens in their scientific name depends on whether oners are taxonomically the same species, which depends (roughly) on common ancestors. If their common ancestor with us is closer to us, timewise, than ours with Neanderthals, then they're definitely the same taxonomical species, albeit a parallel subspecies. If the latter ancestor is significantly closer, then they are a different species altogether. If it's only a little closer, there's some wiggle room.

Biological species boundaries, on the other hand, are defined by whether a member of each group of organisms can have viable offspring with each other. As you can imagine, this question gets incredibly complicated to answer when you're discussing hermaphroditism, since it essentially assumes two-gender sexual reproduction, and a hermaphroditic subspecies blurs that line. Let's just say that the answer to that question, whether or not you already know it, is well beyond the scope and content rating of this particular thread.

In retrospect, only the first paragraph really answers your question, but I felt that you might want to know if you're seriously considering all of the implications of the idea you've brought up. And you seem like the kind of person who would want to do just that. Also, these types of terms (even if you use different terminologies than the ones I suggested) could be extrapolated to attain slurs. I imagine "unitard" (a portmanteau of uno and retard) being used as a slur, which is a huge blow to the unitard industry.

I love how our society has agreed that certain things are unrealistic because they don't occur in fiction.

... Actually, current scientific understanding seems to generally consider Neanderthals as their own species within genus Homo, rather than a subspecies of H. sapiens.

Actually, you can. See, my take on human true hermaphrodites extends the hermaphroditism to more than just "they have both sets of sex organs". Or rather, it explores the possible consequences of what it may take to have both sets of reproductive systems and all that comes with them (namely, high levels of both male and female sex hormones) without suffering debilitating health problems in the process (in real-life, human biology would not be OK with such hormone levels). One such consequence is that the average hermaphrodite is somewhat taller than the average H. sapiens male (notwithstanding their own cases of dwarfism, of course), which combined with their obviously androgynous features makes them easily stand out in a crowd of H. sapiens.

I could link you my summarized "essay" on such a race, but... well, it's on a NSFW site (partly because I originally wrote it for a Lemon fic).

edited 18th May '16 1:01:11 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Even still, it doesn't sound like any of those differences shout "not human", especially given the (admittedly somewhat rare) incidence of human hermaphroditism and other such genderqueerness.

I guess I'm just having trouble with the Fridge Logic that comes into play with the whole "hidden human subspecies subculture" thing, which is grossly unfair since I obviously don't know exactly what it is you're planning.

Also, the scientific classifications for proto-humans are a little off-kilter, taxonomically speaking, so I'm not surprised I got it wrong. The species problem seems to be the modern-day equivalent of squaring the circle.

I love how our society has agreed that certain things are unrealistic because they don't occur in fiction.

... Well, I could take the most relevant parts of that essay (excluding anything that is likely to be offensive) and post them in a dedicated Writer's Block thread. I actually did answer that very question you asked about how they managed to stay hidden despite being so obviously different ^{short answer} Malnutrition and disease, and thus stunted growth and developmental disorders, used to be a much more prevalent issue for hermaphrodites due to persistent persecution from ancient times that drove them to either the shadows of normal human society or the uncivilized wilderness. The "luckier" ones would more or less look like and have the physical abilities of a slenderly-built normal human with androgynous features and bisexual genitals..

It will take a bit of time, though; the format doesn't translate well when pasting stuff to TV Tropes, especially regarding links (I have to redo them manually). How I wish this site had a handy tool where I could post the text and have it converted to the local format. <goes to suggest that on Tech Wishlist>

edited 18th May '16 7:22:22 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Luckily, it shouldn't be too outlandish a request. This is one of the few circumstances in which regexes actually solve problems instead of creating them.

No, I'm not a programmer. I just read xkcd.

I love how our society has agreed that certain things are unrealistic because they don't occur in fiction.

New question while I get around to converting that quasi-essay: In the context of a sci-fi setting that sees humanity coexisting on the galactic scene with alien spacefaring civilizations, and humanity's many national entities and political authorities are united under the United Nations as either a single world government or a supranational organization representing humanity's collective interests, would it be more logical for the UN to rebrand itself so that "Earth" becomes part of its name in order to properly identify itself to any aliens it makes contact with (e.g. "Earth United Nations" or "United Nations of Earth"), rather than stick to its original name?

edited 21st May '16 3:25:46 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I guess it makes sense that they'd rebrand. I have tons more to say on the topic, but it's not really relevant to the question, so I'll abstain.

One relevant question, though: Are humans planning on colonizing other astronomical bodies, within or outside our solar system? Because if they do, then that begs the question of whether, when those colonies inevitably declare independence (history has a tendency to repeat itself, after all), they'll want to join the UN(E), or if they'll even be allowed to.

And if they are allowed to join, then the United Nations of Earth might have to rebrand itself to the United Nations of Sol.

EDIT: I feel obliged to point out that, given what I know about Howard Taylor, he wouldn't mind your using the United Nations of Sol, and would in fact be delighted to have made a contribution to the ever-evolving world of science fiction.

edited 21st May '16 6:36:28 PM by pablo360

I love how our society has agreed that certain things are unrealistic because they don't occur in fiction.

Yes, they are and already do. I would'nt have asked if that wasn't the case.

Who would they be delcaring independence from, and why? In my story, it's not individual countries that are handling the monumentally expensive colonization program, it's a supranational sub-organization of the UN, which is also the administrative authority for colonial affairs (basically, they make sure the flow of exports/imports is maintained, and respond to any unexpected crises that may befall a colony). They'd obviously give the colonies considerable latitude in how they govern themselves (including facilitating contact between them and their sponsor country), so long as they adhere to the basic laws and principles enshrined in the UN Constitution (yes, it now has a constitution).

I think there is precedent for naming a country after its capital city, which then could be extended to the capital world of an interstellar polity.

edited 24th May '16 6:06:56 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Well, that sounds good, but then what ends up happening is the colonies declare independence from UNE. (Thomas Paine will be making the rounds again.) It might not happen within the scope of your story, but if it does, then suddenly names will take on a whole new significance. Food for thought.

Also, if the colonies are founded by UNE-funded expeditions, then where's the bottom line? Big investments like that are expected to give some manner of return. Is the UNE itself profiting from this (in which case it would need to be more powerful than the UN is at present)? Or are individual countries? And if it's the latter, then wouldn't they try to assert their authority? I mean, they technically can't, due to the Outer Space Treaty, but that won't necessarily stop them. Plus, does that treaty then apply to the UNE? And would colonial governments sign it? Could they? If not, would they just start claiming all of space?

Also, I was not aware of this precedent (if anything, it's the other way around, especially since capitols tend to change over time, especially during periods of rapid expansion), but if it does exist, then I suppose it makes sense to keep the UNE name if it acts as a federation.

I love how our society has agreed that certain things are unrealistic because they don't occur in fiction.

I'd like some help with a name for the human host of a spirit. Thing is, the possessing spirit has little-to-no power (e.g. they can only speak a Voice of the Legion to the host's voice) and is subject to the host's whims. So I'd like to find a term that keeps the possession/symbiosis meaning, but puts the host in a position of power. I'm using "confidante" as a euphemistic name for the spirit, if that's any help.

How about "performer"? (I wanted to suggest something that was a counterpart to confidante, but I honestly can't find anything of the sort.)

I love how our society has agreed that certain things are unrealistic because they don't occur in fiction.

What about "keeper" or something along those lines, e.g. "custodian", "preserver", " guardian", etc.

Or "Empath".

"Custodian" and "guardian" are both great. Implied power is there, and they have the same euphemistic ring as confidante. Thank you!