This conversation exhausts me, even though I know and accept it's all part
of the folk process.
So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a couple weeks
Mun and Wem.
They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both callers
and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up words, so they
have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say.
Mun and Wem.
Okay, I've done my bit.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers <
Since it was an article about my dance series that
conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason we chose
"jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that regular contra
from other places can come in and dance without needing anything to be
explained to them since the terms are pretty similar to "gents" and
We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of
gender-free role terms people have been talking about:
We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd
give it a
try. There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try and there are
certainly plenty of reasons to try.
Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as rubies, but
for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or whose gender expression
doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd like to think that formally
separating dance roles from gender is validating in a meaningful way.
dugan at duganmurphy.com
Callers mailing list