I think the use of the female pronoun for everyone except the person to whom you are attracted is an effective way of referring to people. It may be ambiguous in some situations, but I think that it sufficiently describes the actual interaction between gender and sexuality, in a way that more concrete terminology does not. Why should our language enforce an emphasis on physical sex when describing attraction? There are numerous other ways to accomplish this, as well as other ways to remove the physical gender of the speaker from direct emphasis, but I think that the method in “Stars” is quite a bit more effective. In other methods, it is necessary to retain the language of gender to refer to a particular individual, usually as the gender to which they had not been traditionally assigned, and similarly to refer to the people to whom they are attracted. The “Stars” method allows the separation between gender and physical sex to be entirely complete. The assignation of gender to an individual is no longer arbitrary, or socially constructed.
An excellent example of the efficiency of this method in sexual situations comes when Marq interacts with Clym, the assassin. Marq begins interacting with Clym more “out of boredom than real lust,” but after they have had sex, during most of their conversation, Marq refers to Clym as “him,” indicating some level of attraction (89). It is only after Clym describes torturing Marq for pleasure that Clym is “she,” because Marq is clearly too frightened to be attracted (97). It is a very clear distinction, for Marq, and it is conveyed in a precise manner.
This clarity, at least for me, was only really come by after the fact, however. To someone familiar only with our current language, it is difficult not to wonder to what physical sex each “woman” in the book belongs. It was confusing for quite a while, and until I got used to it, it made things quite confusing. I think this is really only a product of the culture and language in which I experienced the book. I don’t think the method in concept would be confusing to those who were using it. I think that a reference to gender in a pervasive context in language is fundamentally unnecessary. The “Stars” method maintains words for physical sex (Male and Female), and uses them when clarification is necessary. In most common speech, however, it is not necessary to know the physical sex of the person speaking.
I would not make the argument that the method would work in our culture, by any means. As it stands now, there is far too much emphasis placed culturally on gender to allow its complete removal from the language. We cannot simply begin referring to everyone else as “women” without some serious misinterpretation and misunderstanding. That is not, however, a normative argument. I think that a better culture would have no need to refer to gender so pervasively.
And that, I think, is what most impresses me about Delany’s construction. It may provide some misunderstanding to those unfamiliar with it, but the re-organization that he has created has a specific, clear purpose, and is applied consistently enough to provide an entirely new perspective on interpersonal interaction.
But why choose “him” as the object of sexual attraction, and “her” as the neutral pronoun? I think that, superficially, the decision had a lot to do with Delany’s own sexuality. I think there’s more to it, though. Choosing “woman” as the standard, professional reference flies in the face of typical interaction in our culture. If everyone had been referred to as “him” in Delany’s book, it would seem natural to think of everyone as male (as it was in “Left Hand of Darkness”), whereas referring to everyone as “her” made me, at least, unable to come to any immediate conclusions about each character’s gender in my mind. Again, I don’t think Delany does not do anything with language without some purpose in mind.