Random thoughts 1: Just Sayin'

[Takhisis]

I've just caught up with my webcomics. A single word will suffice.

Spoiler :

…Durkon!?!?!?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Which brings us to the question, if a Republican candidate in Alabame raped a fourteen year old, how many vote would he gain.

Per a link Cutlass provided, 38% of evangelicals (and like 29% of all voters) said they were more likely to vote for him because of the allegations.

 

[Arakhor]

I've just caught up with my webcomics. A single word will suffice.

Good God, man. How far were you behind?

 

[Ryika]

"Did you just assume their gender?" should automatically be countered by "Did you just pretend that's more than one person?".

 

[Arakhor]

At which point you'll look even sillier for insisting on a prescriptivist view of English purely for political purposes.

 

[Ryika]

That has nothing to do with a prescriptivist view of English, it's a joke at expense of a person who had an overreaction to your unintentionally misgendering of a person based on a false perception of what they present as.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, the only way I can even begin to think that makes sense is if you're picking up on "they" traditionally being an exclusively plural pronoun, rather than a singular non-specific pronoun, as it's commonly used now.

 

[Ryika]

...yes, that's the joke. You've solved the riddle. Congratulations.

 

[Synobun]

Well, the only way I can even begin to think that makes sense is if you're picking up on "they" traditionally being an exclusively plural pronoun, rather than a singular non-specific pronoun, as it's commonly used now.

I am always confused when people say this because it's not true at all. 'They' has always been used in a singular and plural capacity. This was hammered into my skull in English class every single year. When you don't know the particulars of an individual or a group, you use 'they'.

'They' is always an acceptable word to use when you're unwilling or unaware of what the subject's gender is. It's hardly a weird, recent phenomena that wriggled its way out of the social justice camp. If someone asks you what a firefighter is doing, you don't say, "He, or maybe possibly she, I don't really know, there's no context here and they're wearing a big suit, but he or she is putting out a fire."

You say, "They are putting out a fire." The person you're referring to is singular, not plural.

People are better off losing their minds over made-up terms like 'xir' and 'zhem', if they absolutely have to lose their minds about something, instead of a recognized and oft-used pronoun of the English language for at least three or four generations.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, I even learned that in English classes here in Germany, and they were basically centuries behind the English I read online. I think the only situation where 'they' for an individual is weird is when they specifically ask you to refer to them as they, because it somewhat goes against the concept in which they as a singular pronoun is usually used. The person is basically saying "Hey, even I don't know what I identify as, so I can't tell you what specific pronoun to use."

 

[Traitorfish]

I am always confused when people say this because it's not true at all. 'They' has always been used in a singular and plural capacity. This was hammered into my skull in English class every single year. When you don't know the particulars of an individual or a group, you use 'they'.

'They' is always an acceptable word to use when you're unwilling or unaware of what the subject's gender is. It's hardly a weird, recent phenomena that wriggled its way out of the social justice camp. If someone asks you what a firefighter is doing, you don't say, "He, or maybe possibly she, I don't really know, there's no context here and they're wearing a big suit, but he or she is putting out a fire."

You say, "They are putting out a fire." The person you're referring to is singular, not plural.

People are better off losing their minds over made-up terms like 'xir' and 'zhem', if they absolutely have to lose their minds about something, instead of a recognized and oft-used pronoun of the English language for at least three or four generations.

The "are" brings that into question, though. If "they" could be used in a sense that was strictly and straightforwardly singular, like "he" and "she", it would be "they is". The habitual use of "are" indicates that we're still treating the word as a sort of pseudo-plural, allowing that multiple people could plausibly fill the role, even in contexts where the gender of the hypothetical individual is in fact a given. It doesn't follow, then, that it can comfortably be used to refer to a specific gender that hasn't been attributed a pronoun of its own, claimed by a specific individual, because that isn't an extension so much as an inversion of the original usage.

That's not to say that I object to that usage. I'm ambivalent. But we need to realistic that it's a jury-rigged solution to a new problem, rather than something already present in the English language.

 

[Arakhor]

Which brings us back to the old prescriptivist/descriptivist debate.

 

[Synobun]

It doesn't bring it into question at all. Groups can be referred to as a singular entity in many circumstances. An 'alliance' or 'coalition' represents multiple people or entities but you say "is" and not "are". Allowing room for plurality doesn't undo its applicable use for singularity, and nobody is contesting the idea that 'they' can be used, and is used, in a plural context. What's being contested is that 'they' is somehow exclusively plural. This is a lie.

Likewise, nobody is saying to use 'they' to refer to a specific gender... they are saying to use 'they' to explicitly NOT refer to gender. It isn't commentary on someone's gendered identity. It's to refer to the individual as just that, an individual, without consideration for what gender they may identify as (if any). 'They' isn't male, or female, or any of the different theories surrounding gender. It removes gender from the equation.

 

[Traitorfish]

Which brings us back to the old prescriptivist/descriptivist debate.

It's really a question of how we describe the language. I don't disagree that we should defer to common usage over grammar books, I only disagree whether an unqualified singular "they" actually is in common usage.

Likewise, nobody is saying to use 'they' to refer to a specific gender...

Some people are. Is that not what the conversation is about? I may have misunderstood.

 

[Synobun]

Some people are. Is that not what the conversation is about? I may have misunderstood.

they are saying to use 'they' to explicitly NOT refer to gender. It isn't commentary on someone's gendered identity. It's to refer to the individual as just that, an individual, without consideration for what gender they may identify as (if any). 'They' isn't male, or female, or any of the different theories surrounding gender. It removes gender from the equation.

 

[W|M]

Good God, man. How far were you behind?

The latest issue of OotS does have a very surprising twist involving him

 

[Arakhor]

The latest issue of OotS does have a very surprising twist involving him

Well, that's a callback and a half.

 

[Takhisis]

What wim said. I was only one episode behind. And BOOM. Da twist of twists.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I am always confused when people say this because it's not true at all. 'They' has always been used in a singular and plural capacity. This was hammered into my skull in English class every single year. When you don't know the particulars of an individual or a group, you use 'they'.

It wasn't hammered into my skull in English class. I was taught that "he" was the default word to use if it was one person. At some point feminism said, "Hey, that's sexist" and it caused some issues when I was typing term papers (most of my clients were 18-25-year-old women). I kept telling them that I know what people say on the street, but if the instructor says "go according to the current edition of the APA manual" then I had to use the more stilted, formal language.

'They' is always an acceptable word to use when you're unwilling or unaware of what the subject's gender is. It's hardly a weird, recent phenomena that wriggled its way out of the social justice camp. If someone asks you what a firefighter is doing, you don't say, "He, or maybe possibly she, I don't really know, there's no context here and they're wearing a big suit, but he or she is putting out a fire."

I would say, "The firefighter is putting out a fire." Or I might fall back on the fact that I grew up in a time when a female firefighter was pretty much unheard-of, and assume the firefighter was male.

That said, I know we've got at least one female firefighter here, as I saw her among the others who came here last year, when there was some jerk pulling the fire alarms at all times of day and night (3 am in one case).

People are better off losing their minds over made-up terms like 'xir' and 'zhem', if they absolutely have to lose their minds about something, instead of a recognized and oft-used pronoun of the English language for at least three or four generations.

I absolutely will not use nonsense words like "xir" and "zhem." If the person identifies as male, I'll use "he." If female, I'll use "she."

Some bigots would say, "How about using 'it'?"

I don't even refer to my pets as "it." Anyone talking about my Maddy had better refer to her as "she" since she's a female cat. Otherwise, I will correct that rudeness.

 

[Arakhor]

And I, at the medium point of your two ages, don't recall being taught whether to say either 'he' or 'they'. I rather suspect I wasn't.