Icelandic girl in legal fight for her name

DancingMaenid said:

That's what makes me uncomfortable. The law seems to take for granted that all children "should" have names that match the gender they're assigned at birth, and that gender is a static thing.

Click to expand...

I can not speak for Icelandic, because I don't really know it, but I think that all the Old Norse-based languages have three word genders: masculine, feminine, and neutral. It's a language thing.

In Swedish, a common noun like "the house" have a gender, masculine, as 'huset'. If you say it as feminine, 'husen', it is an indication of a language error. First, it's not the right word gender, and second, 'husen' is neutral plural.

This girl apparently wanted a common noun as a name, Blaer. That is the functional equivalent of wanting to be called something like 'The House'.

I don't have a problem with it, personally, but I also know that Iceland is ferociously keen to protect its small, small language to the point where they "translate" new modern technological terms into words that exist in the language.

That then, in extension, leads to a bit strange effects, like in this case where gender expression comes into it.

Xelebes said:

Is there a way to make a gendered noun into a neutral noun? Like say Bjork => Bjorking (-ing in (Old) English designates a descendant but does not specify whether it is a son or daughter. See: Reading, Hasting.)

Click to expand...

I'm no grammarian and as I said I don't have a good understanding of English grammar definitions. There is a neuter gender (for words like baby, hayfield, knee, team and weather) but there is no natural way to make, say, knee into a masculine word. It's just flat out grammatically wrong.

Maxinquaye said:

I don't have a problem with it, personally, but I also know that Iceland is ferociously keen to protect its small, small language to the point where they "translate" new modern technological terms into words that exist in the language.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there is a special language committee with the job of inventing Icelandic words for new things. For example, there is no variation of "computer" like in many other countries. Instead they squashed together the words "tala" (number) and "völva" (oracle) to form "tölva".

And yes, the language is spoken by very few people so it being gradually corrupted and filled with foreign words is a very real possibility. Languages die out all the time. So as I get older I'm getting more and more annoyed at people using foreign slang words and I'm watching my own speech ever more.

missesdash said:

Infants don't have "dignity." But I think if the laws were really about the children, they'd just allow children to petition to have their names changed if they were unhappy or felt they were being bullied because of it.

Click to expand...

Infants don't have dignity? Well, maybe not, but they *are* people. I do wish parents would consider that as they choose a name for a child. (So says the lady who puts ginormous bows on her daughter's head, ha) I mean, Hashtag and Like and Facebook, really? They're not toys or accessories, they're people who have to bear the name they are given at least until they are adults. Still, I don't find Blaer to be a problematic name at all. Rather pretty, in fact. But this is a cultural thing, so while Blaer might fly in the US and other places, I can see why it caused some resistance elsewhere. That said, I think it's a bit of an affront to keep calling her "Girl" on all the official paperwork. I wonder why it couldn't have been dealt with much sooner.

Cranky said:

Infants don't have dignity? Well, maybe not, but they *are* people. I do wish parents would consider that as they choose a name for a child. (So says the lady who puts ginormous bows on her daughter's head, ha) I mean, Hashtag and Like and Facebook, really? They're not toys or accessories, they're people who have to bear the name they are given at least until they are adults. Still, I don't find Blaer to be a problematic name at all. Rather pretty, in fact. But this is a cultural thing, so while Blaer might fly in the US and other places, I can see why it caused some resistance elsewhere. That said, I think it's a bit of an affront to keep calling her "Girl" on all the official paperwork. I wonder why it couldn't have been dealt with much sooner.

Click to expand...

I just don't think "other people may laugh" is a reason for the state to get involved in naming a child. A good example was someone bringing up "Lucifer" as a horrible name. And yet when I googled it, there were lots of people with the name who said they hadn't been bullied. Which is what I suspected. I don't even think a boy named "hashtag" is a problem. There are lots of common names that mean objects but they're old and so technology doesn't really counter into it. But there are tons of name that mean things like "sword" and "horse" and "iron maker."


Unless it's a curse word or a vulgarity, it's really no one's business. What is "respectable" is highly subjective. Anyway most of the laws are about ethnic purity and so not really about bullying but about some weird form of cultural eugenics.

missesdash said:

Unless it's a curse word or a vulgarity, it's really no one's business. What is "respectable" is highly subjective. Anyway most of the laws are about ethnic purity and so not really about bullying but about some weird form of cultural eugenics.

Click to expand...

I find it a bit offensive that an English-speaker dismiss a tiny nation's attempt to protect their tiny language as "cultural eugenics".

missesdash said:

I just don't think "other people may laugh" is a reason for the state to get involved in naming a child. A good example was someone bringing up "Lucifer" as a horrible name. And yet when I googled it, there were lots of people with the name who said they hadn't been bullied. Which is what I suspected. I don't even think a boy named "hashtag" is a problem. There are lots of common names that mean objects but they're old and so technology doesn't really counter into it. But there are tons of name that mean things like "sword" and "horse" and "iron maker."


Unless it's a curse word or a vulgarity, it's really no one's business. What is "respectable" is highly subjective. Anyway most of the laws are about ethnic purity and so not really about bullying but about some weird form of cultural eugenics.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you. But that is the law in Iceland, so I see where the resistance comes from. And -Americans at least, since I can't speak to anywhere else - we're pretty big on individuality. Even though I dislike names like Hashtag and Like and Peaches or Apple, it's none of my business. People here can name their kids whatever they like, with the mentioned caveats, bullying be damned. So, while I *wish* parents wouldn't name their kids something like Moxie Crimefighter (though I admit Moxie is kinda cute), it's not my say so. And that's good. I wouldn't have wanted people (or rather, the state) telling me that I couldn't give my children the names I chose.

Maxinquaye said:

I find it a bit offensive that an English-speaker dismiss a tiny nation's attempt to protect their tiny language as "cultural eugenics".

Click to expand...

The names of individuals don't need to be limited to protect a language.

Anyway I didn't specify one country and French is far from "a tiny language."

I can understand why Iceland has these rules about names but it seems a bit racist to me to restrict names that mesh with their language. What if you live in Iceland but are not Icelandic? Shouldn't you be able to name your child something from your own culture?

I agree that some baby names are unacceptable. I once saw a birth certificate with the name Glitter on it. Glitter. Who the hell names a little girl that? You can't even shorten it to something normal sounding. Blue Ivy is better. At least that one can be shortened to Ivy.

I hate people who gives their babies a name that is identical or pretty close to their last name - like Michael Carmichael or Terri Terry. What...the? Some people just do not have brains. I think restricting what names you can give your baby is a horrible restriction of free speech. You should be able to name them anything - including Glitter - if you want. I think governments should only step in if you want to name your child broken condom or number 62 bus stop or something.

mirandashell said:

Uh huh Misses. Max was talking about Iceland and that's how he took what you said.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the translation, Miranda. I'm aware that's how he took it. That doesn't change what I actually typed.

missesdash said:

Thank you for the translation, Miranda. I'm aware that's how he took it. That doesn't change what I actually typed.

Click to expand...

And as far as I can tell from what you typed, Max interpreted it correctly. =/

Xelebes said:

And as far as I can tell from what you typed, Max interpreted it correctly. =/

Click to expand...

I didn't "dismiss a tiny nation's attempt to protect their tiny language." I didn't say anything about a tiny nation or their tiny language. Or any nation at all.

I made a general statement about naming laws and I was sure to say "most" and not "all" because I'm aware that depending on the circumstances, the laws may serve different purposes.

missesdash said:

I didn't "dismiss a tiny nation's attempt to protect their tiny language." I didn't say anything about a tiny nation or their tiny language. Or any nation at all.

I made a general statement about naming laws and I was sure to say "most" and not "all" because I'm aware that depending on the circumstances, the laws may serve different purposes.

Click to expand...

Be reminded that I'm only commenting on what you typed, not what you said or meant. It might be wise to hear what others have to say when they read what you write.

As right now, the flow of the discussion is not really all that clear cut.

Xelebes said:

Be reminded that I'm only commenting on what you typed, not what you said or meant. It might be wise to hear what others have to say when they read what you write.

As right now, the flow of the discussion is not really all that clear cut.

Click to expand...

Well of course. I appreciate it because then I can clarify what I meant.

Here is the current flow of the discussion:

Me: most countries with naming laws seem to be practicing cultural eugenics (this is a wrong statement, btw, most of the laws are, in fact, about socially acceptable names, gender and differentiating surnames from given names.)

Max: I'm offended because you just said Iceland is practicing cultural eugenics

Me: I didn't say anything about Iceland

Miranda: He thinks you were talking about Iceland

Me: I wasn't

You: I think you were too

Me: I wasn't.

You: Well some people think you were.

Click to expand...

But, oddly enough, now that I've read and thought about it (I hadn't considered it until I was accused of saying it) I do think Iceland's law falls under "cultural eugenics."

So now you can be offended. But when I use eugenics, I'm not making nazi references, just to preempt that accusation.

FWIW, back in the 'eighties (and still, for all I know) Argentina had a list of approved first names, and everyone, even foreigners, born in-country had to give their child a name from that list.

A girl I knew in grad school some 40+ years ago was born in Spain to non Spanish parents. Whatever name they wanted to give her was not allowed. She could only be given a 'saint' name.

MM

DancingMaenid said:

The thing is, though, is that by mandating that all girls have "feminine" names and all boys have "masculine" names, the government is essentially deciding children's gender expressions for them, as well.

Click to expand...

Bingo. It bothers me when things have to fit into some socially constructed gender binary. I hope the government doesn't appeal. I'm sure there are better things to spend tax dollars and bureaucratic effort on.