All things Transgender related

Spiritual_Chaos

Gern Blansten said:

ecdanc said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

tbergs said: I admit, it would take a lot of time for this concept to reach social and culture norm because it goes against every basic English language lesson we have ever been taught in regards to pronoun usage. 

This, for sure, will be a big blocker. It is for me. I've been speaking and studying the language for over 5.5 decades, and find using a plural pronoun when referencing an individual subject to be problematic. It is as nonsensical as saying irregardless. It simply doesn't make sense. A different or new pronoun would have likely been a better play. Anyway, I'm sure Professor Troll will now lecture me. Kids who spend their lives in the confines of academia and breath that rarefied air often seem to have inflated opinions about themselves and their intelligence. And they often expose themselves when they start interacting with people who live in the real world. This thread has demonstrated that. When Brian is accused of being a homophobe, and Matt is portrayed as unreasonable and/or uneducated we know we have a winner!

If there's a will there's a way.

Sweden though uses it's own pronoun for situations where a specific gender is not known or wanted.

Han = Him
Hon = Her
Hen = "unknown gender" 

But still, if there's a will there's a way. And how can it be wrong if it is decided upon. Then it is correct. And good people adjust instead of bickering about positive change/progress that is made to help fellow people.

Exactly. “They” is the accepted gender neutral singular personal pronoun in US English. 

So instead of saying "is he going to shut up" I should say "is they going to shut up?"

that makes no fucking sense

How much sense does this make?



Or how about vinyl and vinyl being the same both in plural and singular?


In the end, what does it matter? You don't go around saying "boom" now do you?

jeffbr

ecdanc said:

jeffbr said:

ecdanc said:

jeffbr said:

tbergs said: I admit, it would take a lot of time for this concept to reach social and culture norm because it goes against every basic English language lesson we have ever been taught in regards to pronoun usage. 

This, for sure, will be a big blocker. It is for me. I've been speaking and studying the language for over 5.5 decades, and find using a plural pronoun when referencing an individual subject to be problematic. It is as nonsensical as saying irregardless. It simply doesn't make sense. A different or new pronoun would have likely been a better play. Anyway, I'm sure Professor Troll will now lecture me. Kids who spend their lives in the confines of academia and breath that rarefied air often seem to have inflated opinions about themselves and their intelligence. And they often expose themselves when they start interacting with people who live in the real world. This thread has demonstrated that. When Brian is accused of being a homophobe, and Matt is portrayed as unreasonable and/or uneducated we know we have a winner!

You'd think someone who has studied language for so long would be a better reader. I never accused Brian (or anyone else) of being a homophobe. For one thing, it'd be pretty dumb, because saying something anti-trans has nothing to do with being a homophobe. 

Secondly, the gender/number issue is not problematic. Language evolves; we adapt to it. Dictionaries are already addressing the issue and many in the discipline of English--you know, where we study the language--are at the forefront of promoting the singular they. 

Sure. And many don't. Oftentimes common usage dictates acceptance (E.g. Irregardless, regardless of the convoluted structure which would actually make it mean 'with regard' -- the opposite of the intended meaning). Just because it ends up in a dictionary doesn't mean it makes sense to people who care about words (and I believe you previously stated that words matter). You are certainly welcome to accept nonsensical words that Webster may also have accepted due to common usage. I don't quite so readily, which is the basis of my disinterest in bastardizing the language to placate a few crusaders.  While introducing a new word might require some effort, for me changing the meaning of an existing, common word, or bastardizing the rules of grammar requires more effort. What happened to "Hir", "Ze" and "Zir?"

And apologies regarding the homophobe accusation. You technically did not call Brian that. But you were relentless in pointing out your offense to him without being particularly instructive. It was apparent to most forum readers that Brian was not intending offense. You took what could have been an opportunity to educate and/or explain, and instead hurled insults and feigned offense, which is how you also seemed to respond to just about every other poster here. That will naturally get hackles raised, and then it is game on. So if your intention was to alienate and insult the group, you've accomplished that. If you intended to instruct and facilitate acceptance, sorry for your luck.

Those words didn't catch on. I don't want to misrepresent your position, so I'll ask this as a question: if someone says to you "my preferred pronoun is 'they'" do you plan to respond "I'm sorry, I won't call you that, because grammar?" 

I wouldn't say that. I would use the person's name when referencing that person. I actually agree with TBergs that at some point in the future this will not be an issue, as kids are already being taught incorrect grammar and usage in their schooling. This all becomes a moot discussion at some point. But I won't be bludgeoned into using plural pronouns when referencing a single object or subject. Maybe this is my "OK, Boomer" moment. Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

Spiritual_Chaos

jeffbr said:

Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

No. It sounds like a compassionate normal person.

tempo_n_groove

jeffbr said:

ecdanc said:

jeffbr said:

ecdanc said:

jeffbr said:

tbergs said: I admit, it would take a lot of time for this concept to reach social and culture norm because it goes against every basic English language lesson we have ever been taught in regards to pronoun usage. 

This, for sure, will be a big blocker. It is for me. I've been speaking and studying the language for over 5.5 decades, and find using a plural pronoun when referencing an individual subject to be problematic. It is as nonsensical as saying irregardless. It simply doesn't make sense. A different or new pronoun would have likely been a better play. Anyway, I'm sure Professor Troll will now lecture me. Kids who spend their lives in the confines of academia and breath that rarefied air often seem to have inflated opinions about themselves and their intelligence. And they often expose themselves when they start interacting with people who live in the real world. This thread has demonstrated that. When Brian is accused of being a homophobe, and Matt is portrayed as unreasonable and/or uneducated we know we have a winner!

You'd think someone who has studied language for so long would be a better reader. I never accused Brian (or anyone else) of being a homophobe. For one thing, it'd be pretty dumb, because saying something anti-trans has nothing to do with being a homophobe. 

Secondly, the gender/number issue is not problematic. Language evolves; we adapt to it. Dictionaries are already addressing the issue and many in the discipline of English--you know, where we study the language--are at the forefront of promoting the singular they. 

Sure. And many don't. Oftentimes common usage dictates acceptance (E.g. Irregardless, regardless of the convoluted structure which would actually make it mean 'with regard' -- the opposite of the intended meaning). Just because it ends up in a dictionary doesn't mean it makes sense to people who care about words (and I believe you previously stated that words matter). You are certainly welcome to accept nonsensical words that Webster may also have accepted due to common usage. I don't quite so readily, which is the basis of my disinterest in bastardizing the language to placate a few crusaders.  While introducing a new word might require some effort, for me changing the meaning of an existing, common word, or bastardizing the rules of grammar requires more effort. What happened to "Hir", "Ze" and "Zir?"

And apologies regarding the homophobe accusation. You technically did not call Brian that. But you were relentless in pointing out your offense to him without being particularly instructive. It was apparent to most forum readers that Brian was not intending offense. You took what could have been an opportunity to educate and/or explain, and instead hurled insults and feigned offense, which is how you also seemed to respond to just about every other poster here. That will naturally get hackles raised, and then it is game on. So if your intention was to alienate and insult the group, you've accomplished that. If you intended to instruct and facilitate acceptance, sorry for your luck.

Those words didn't catch on. I don't want to misrepresent your position, so I'll ask this as a question: if someone says to you "my preferred pronoun is 'they'" do you plan to respond "I'm sorry, I won't call you that, because grammar?" 

I wouldn't say that. I would use the person's name when referencing that person. I actually agree with TBergs that at some point in the future this will not be an issue, as kids are already being taught incorrect grammar and usage in their schooling. This all becomes a moot discussion at some point. But I won't be bludgeoned into using plural pronouns when referencing a single object or subject. Maybe this is my "OK, Boomer" moment. Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

The term "those people" gets mocked, but using "they" is seen as ok?

This gets confusing yo!

ecdanc

jeffbr said:

ecdanc said:

jeffbr said:

ecdanc said:

jeffbr said:

tbergs said: I admit, it would take a lot of time for this concept to reach social and culture norm because it goes against every basic English language lesson we have ever been taught in regards to pronoun usage. 

This, for sure, will be a big blocker. It is for me. I've been speaking and studying the language for over 5.5 decades, and find using a plural pronoun when referencing an individual subject to be problematic. It is as nonsensical as saying irregardless. It simply doesn't make sense. A different or new pronoun would have likely been a better play. Anyway, I'm sure Professor Troll will now lecture me. Kids who spend their lives in the confines of academia and breath that rarefied air often seem to have inflated opinions about themselves and their intelligence. And they often expose themselves when they start interacting with people who live in the real world. This thread has demonstrated that. When Brian is accused of being a homophobe, and Matt is portrayed as unreasonable and/or uneducated we know we have a winner!

You'd think someone who has studied language for so long would be a better reader. I never accused Brian (or anyone else) of being a homophobe. For one thing, it'd be pretty dumb, because saying something anti-trans has nothing to do with being a homophobe. 

Secondly, the gender/number issue is not problematic. Language evolves; we adapt to it. Dictionaries are already addressing the issue and many in the discipline of English--you know, where we study the language--are at the forefront of promoting the singular they. 

Sure. And many don't. Oftentimes common usage dictates acceptance (E.g. Irregardless, regardless of the convoluted structure which would actually make it mean 'with regard' -- the opposite of the intended meaning). Just because it ends up in a dictionary doesn't mean it makes sense to people who care about words (and I believe you previously stated that words matter). You are certainly welcome to accept nonsensical words that Webster may also have accepted due to common usage. I don't quite so readily, which is the basis of my disinterest in bastardizing the language to placate a few crusaders.  While introducing a new word might require some effort, for me changing the meaning of an existing, common word, or bastardizing the rules of grammar requires more effort. What happened to "Hir", "Ze" and "Zir?"

And apologies regarding the homophobe accusation. You technically did not call Brian that. But you were relentless in pointing out your offense to him without being particularly instructive. It was apparent to most forum readers that Brian was not intending offense. You took what could have been an opportunity to educate and/or explain, and instead hurled insults and feigned offense, which is how you also seemed to respond to just about every other poster here. That will naturally get hackles raised, and then it is game on. So if your intention was to alienate and insult the group, you've accomplished that. If you intended to instruct and facilitate acceptance, sorry for your luck.

Those words didn't catch on. I don't want to misrepresent your position, so I'll ask this as a question: if someone says to you "my preferred pronoun is 'they'" do you plan to respond "I'm sorry, I won't call you that, because grammar?" 

I wouldn't say that. I would use the person's name when referencing that person. I actually agree with TBergs that at some point in the future this will not be an issue, as kids are already being taught incorrect grammar and usage in their schooling. This all becomes a moot discussion at some point. But I won't be bludgeoned into using plural pronouns when referencing a single object or subject. Maybe this is my "OK, Boomer" moment. Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

Doesn’t bother me at all if they’re referring to a trans person. 

tempo_n_groove

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Gern Blansten said:

ecdanc said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

tbergs said: I admit, it would take a lot of time for this concept to reach social and culture norm because it goes against every basic English language lesson we have ever been taught in regards to pronoun usage. 

This, for sure, will be a big blocker. It is for me. I've been speaking and studying the language for over 5.5 decades, and find using a plural pronoun when referencing an individual subject to be problematic. It is as nonsensical as saying irregardless. It simply doesn't make sense. A different or new pronoun would have likely been a better play. Anyway, I'm sure Professor Troll will now lecture me. Kids who spend their lives in the confines of academia and breath that rarefied air often seem to have inflated opinions about themselves and their intelligence. And they often expose themselves when they start interacting with people who live in the real world. This thread has demonstrated that. When Brian is accused of being a homophobe, and Matt is portrayed as unreasonable and/or uneducated we know we have a winner!

If there's a will there's a way.

Sweden though uses it's own pronoun for situations where a specific gender is not known or wanted.

Han = Him
Hon = Her
Hen = "unknown gender" 

But still, if there's a will there's a way. And how can it be wrong if it is decided upon. Then it is correct. And good people adjust instead of bickering about positive change/progress that is made to help fellow people.

Exactly. “They” is the accepted gender neutral singular personal pronoun in US English. 

So instead of saying "is he going to shut up" I should say "is they going to shut up?"

that makes no fucking sense

How much sense does this make?



Or how about vinyl and vinyl being the same both in plural and singular?


In the end, what does it matter? You don't go around saying "boom" now do you?

Why are you giving English pronunciation lessons when it is the word that they are discussing.

Don't get me started on Houston st(pronounced HOW-stun) and Houston(pronounced Hue-stun).  The term So-ho, meaning South of Houston should actually be pronounced Sow-how.

Insert middle finger emoji here...

Spiritual_Chaos

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Gern Blansten said:

ecdanc said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

tbergs said: I admit, it would take a lot of time for this concept to reach social and culture norm because it goes against every basic English language lesson we have ever been taught in regards to pronoun usage. 

This, for sure, will be a big blocker. It is for me. I've been speaking and studying the language for over 5.5 decades, and find using a plural pronoun when referencing an individual subject to be problematic. It is as nonsensical as saying irregardless. It simply doesn't make sense. A different or new pronoun would have likely been a better play. Anyway, I'm sure Professor Troll will now lecture me. Kids who spend their lives in the confines of academia and breath that rarefied air often seem to have inflated opinions about themselves and their intelligence. And they often expose themselves when they start interacting with people who live in the real world. This thread has demonstrated that. When Brian is accused of being a homophobe, and Matt is portrayed as unreasonable and/or uneducated we know we have a winner!

If there's a will there's a way.

Sweden though uses it's own pronoun for situations where a specific gender is not known or wanted.

Han = Him
Hon = Her
Hen = "unknown gender" 

But still, if there's a will there's a way. And how can it be wrong if it is decided upon. Then it is correct. And good people adjust instead of bickering about positive change/progress that is made to help fellow people.

Exactly. “They” is the accepted gender neutral singular personal pronoun in US English. 

So instead of saying "is he going to shut up" I should say "is they going to shut up?"

that makes no fucking sense

How much sense does this make?



Or how about vinyl and vinyl being the same both in plural and singular?


In the end, what does it matter? You don't go around saying "boom" now do you?

Why are you giving English pronunciation lessons when it is the word that they are discussing.

In what way is the vinyl example about pronunciation? Take in my whole post please.

jeffbr

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

No. It sounds like a compassionate normal person.

Maybe to a non-native speaker of the language. I'll grant that a Swede may not notice these things. I wouldn't notice you using incorrect Swedish. So not a knock on you. Although how you conclude that one is compassionate and the user of correct grammar isn't, is a bit of a leap. So maybe I shouldn't give you a break here.

tbergs

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

No. It sounds like a compassionate normal person.

You're being just a judgmental by labeling someone who doesn't as not compassionate or normal. There's a fine line between purposeful misuse and ignorance to any other usage. These terms are not common to people who either don't work in the educational setting or have young children.

I'd estimate you have very few people over 45 that really understand this movement and why they need to change their way of speaking for what they see as a non issue either way because it is not something they encounter in their work or social settings. Even just 5 years ago, it was almost a non-existent topic. Personally we have numerous friends who have young children (all under 10) who who are choosing to identify either neutrally (they, it, them) or as the opposite of their assigned sex. In every case, the parents are supportive and educating themselves as well as us as friends and fellow parents of young children. It means talking with our own children about how their friend is identifying without associating any negative stereotypes or judgments. It really doesn't change much for them because their friend is still their friend who they enjoy playing with even though they may now wear different clothes or go by a different name.

ecdanc

jeffbr said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

No. It sounds like a compassionate normal person.

Maybe to a non-native speaker of the language. I'll grant that a Swede may not notice these things. I wouldn't notice you using incorrect Swedish. So not a knock on you. Although how you conclude that one is compassionate and the user of correct grammar isn't, is a bit of a leap. So maybe I shouldn't give you a break here.

I’m a native speaker and an English professor, and I agree with him. Give me a break. 

Spiritual_Chaos

jeffbr said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

No. It sounds like a compassionate normal person.

Maybe to a non-native speaker of the language. I'll grant that a Swede may not notice these things. I wouldn't notice you using incorrect Swedish. So not a knock on you. Although how you conclude that one is compassionate and the user of correct grammar isn't, is a bit of a leap. So maybe I shouldn't give you a break here.

It is correct grammar (since the 14th century according to Wikipedia?) and accepted in its current usage:

They in this context was named Word of the Year for 2015 by the American Dialect Society, and for 2019 by Merriam-Webster. In 2020, the American Dialect Society also selected it as Word of the Decade for the 2010s.

So you are actually attacking and bickering over correct grammar. Is your mind blown yet?

tempo_n_groove

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Gern Blansten said:

ecdanc said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

tbergs said: I admit, it would take a lot of time for this concept to reach social and culture norm because it goes against every basic English language lesson we have ever been taught in regards to pronoun usage. 

This, for sure, will be a big blocker. It is for me. I've been speaking and studying the language for over 5.5 decades, and find using a plural pronoun when referencing an individual subject to be problematic. It is as nonsensical as saying irregardless. It simply doesn't make sense. A different or new pronoun would have likely been a better play. Anyway, I'm sure Professor Troll will now lecture me. Kids who spend their lives in the confines of academia and breath that rarefied air often seem to have inflated opinions about themselves and their intelligence. And they often expose themselves when they start interacting with people who live in the real world. This thread has demonstrated that. When Brian is accused of being a homophobe, and Matt is portrayed as unreasonable and/or uneducated we know we have a winner!

If there's a will there's a way.

Sweden though uses it's own pronoun for situations where a specific gender is not known or wanted.

Han = Him
Hon = Her
Hen = "unknown gender" 

But still, if there's a will there's a way. And how can it be wrong if it is decided upon. Then it is correct. And good people adjust instead of bickering about positive change/progress that is made to help fellow people.

Exactly. “They” is the accepted gender neutral singular personal pronoun in US English. 

So instead of saying "is he going to shut up" I should say "is they going to shut up?"

that makes no fucking sense

How much sense does this make?



Or how about vinyl and vinyl being the same both in plural and singular?


In the end, what does it matter? You don't go around saying "boom" now do you?

Why are you giving English pronunciation lessons when it is the word that they are discussing.

In what way is the vinyl example about pronunciation? Take in my whole post please.

Yeah... the whole post was about pronunciation... The whole thing was.  From Womb to boom to vinyl and vinyl then back to boom...

ecdanc

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Gern Blansten said:

ecdanc said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

tbergs said: I admit, it would take a lot of time for this concept to reach social and culture norm because it goes against every basic English language lesson we have ever been taught in regards to pronoun usage. 

This, for sure, will be a big blocker. It is for me. I've been speaking and studying the language for over 5.5 decades, and find using a plural pronoun when referencing an individual subject to be problematic. It is as nonsensical as saying irregardless. It simply doesn't make sense. A different or new pronoun would have likely been a better play. Anyway, I'm sure Professor Troll will now lecture me. Kids who spend their lives in the confines of academia and breath that rarefied air often seem to have inflated opinions about themselves and their intelligence. And they often expose themselves when they start interacting with people who live in the real world. This thread has demonstrated that. When Brian is accused of being a homophobe, and Matt is portrayed as unreasonable and/or uneducated we know we have a winner!

If there's a will there's a way.

Sweden though uses it's own pronoun for situations where a specific gender is not known or wanted.

Han = Him
Hon = Her
Hen = "unknown gender" 

But still, if there's a will there's a way. And how can it be wrong if it is decided upon. Then it is correct. And good people adjust instead of bickering about positive change/progress that is made to help fellow people.

Exactly. “They” is the accepted gender neutral singular personal pronoun in US English. 

So instead of saying "is he going to shut up" I should say "is they going to shut up?"

that makes no fucking sense

How much sense does this make?



Or how about vinyl and vinyl being the same both in plural and singular?


In the end, what does it matter? You don't go around saying "boom" now do you?

Why are you giving English pronunciation lessons when it is the word that they are discussing.

In what way is the vinyl example about pronunciation? Take in my whole post please.

Yeah... the whole post was about pronunciation... The whole thing was.  From Womb to boom to vinyl and vinyl then back to boom...

Read it again

cincybearcat

I'm certainly willing to try and use whatever anyone wants in regards to pronouns.  And I would expect them to be willing to let me know in a pleasant manner and also work to see intent.  If I screw up, don't beat me up for it.   I find it a very hard subject to even think about and remember, probably because while I have had many Ls and Gs throughout my life, I don't believe I've had many Ts.  Although thinking about it, probably at least 1 of those Ls is a T.  

Regardless, it comes down to everyone just being compassionate with each other.

Spiritual_Chaos

tbergs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

No. It sounds like a compassionate normal person.

You're being just a judgmental by labeling someone who doesn't as not compassionate or normal. There's a fine line between purposeful misuse and ignorance to any other usage. These terms are not common to people who either don't work in the educational setting or have young children.

I'd estimate you have very few people over 45 that really understand this movement and why they need to change their way of speaking for what they see as a non issue either way because it is not something they encounter in their work or social settings. Even just 5 years ago, it was almost a non-existent topic. Personally we have numerous friends who have young children (all under 10) who who are choosing to identify either neutrally (they, it, them) or as the opposite of their assigned sex. In every case, the parents are supportive and educating themselves as well as us as friends and fellow parents of young children. It means talking with our own children about how their friend is identifying without associating any negative stereotypes or judgments. It really doesn't change much for them because their friend is still their friend who they enjoy playing with even though they may now wear different clothes or go by a different name.

We (swedes) had people attacking the non-descript pronoun "Hen" when it gained traction. 

People also e.g. attacked when a movement formed to change the name of beloved pastry "n-word ball" to "chocolate ball". 




What I have noticed during my 36 years on this planet (but please keep labeling me a millennial @mcgruff10) is that it is most often better to be a person who goes with and encouraging positive change, than be one of the ones standing with their arms folded. Historically they often end up on the wrong side of it. Whatever age they might be in.

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tbergs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

No. It sounds like a compassionate normal person.

You're being just a judgmental by labeling someone who doesn't as not compassionate or normal. There's a fine line between purposeful misuse and ignorance to any other usage. These terms are not common to people who either don't work in the educational setting or have young children.

I'd estimate you have very few people over 45 that really understand this movement and why they need to change their way of speaking for what they see as a non issue either way because it is not something they encounter in their work or social settings. Even just 5 years ago, it was almost a non-existent topic. Personally we have numerous friends who have young children (all under 10) who who are choosing to identify either neutrally (they, it, them) or as the opposite of their assigned sex. In every case, the parents are supportive and educating themselves as well as us as friends and fellow parents of young children. It means talking with our own children about how their friend is identifying without associating any negative stereotypes or judgments. It really doesn't change much for them because their friend is still their friend who they enjoy playing with even though they may now wear different clothes or go by a different name.

We (swedes) had people attacking the non-descript pronoun "Hen" when it gained traction. 

People also e.g. attacked when a movement formed to change the name of beloved pastry "n-word ball" to "chocolate ball" 




What I have noticed during my 36 years on this planet (but please keep labeling me a millennial @mcgruff10) is that it is most often better to be a person who goes with and encouraging positive change, than be one of the ones standing with their arms folded. Historically they often end up on the wrong side it. Whatever age they might be in.

Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward is part of a new generation. 

ecdanc

cincybearcat said:

I'm certainly willing to try and use whatever anyone wants in regards to pronouns.  And I would expect them to be willing to let me know in a pleasant manner and also work to see intent.  If I screw up, don't beat me up for it.   I find it a very hard subject to even think about and remember, probably because while I have had many Ls and Gs throughout my life, I don't believe I've had many Ts.  Although thinking about it, probably at least 1 of those Ls is a T.  

Regardless, it comes down to everyone just being compassionate with each other.

Expecting (your word) a marginalized person to be pleasant (your word) when you say something offensive to them is the very essence of privilege. 

Spiritual_Chaos

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tbergs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

jeffbr said:

Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

No. It sounds like a compassionate normal person.

You're being just a judgmental by labeling someone who doesn't as not compassionate or normal. There's a fine line between purposeful misuse and ignorance to any other usage. These terms are not common to people who either don't work in the educational setting or have young children.

I'd estimate you have very few people over 45 that really understand this movement and why they need to change their way of speaking for what they see as a non issue either way because it is not something they encounter in their work or social settings. Even just 5 years ago, it was almost a non-existent topic. Personally we have numerous friends who have young children (all under 10) who who are choosing to identify either neutrally (they, it, them) or as the opposite of their assigned sex. In every case, the parents are supportive and educating themselves as well as us as friends and fellow parents of young children. It means talking with our own children about how their friend is identifying without associating any negative stereotypes or judgments. It really doesn't change much for them because their friend is still their friend who they enjoy playing with even though they may now wear different clothes or go by a different name.

We (swedes) had people attacking the non-descript pronoun "Hen" when it gained traction. 

People also e.g. attacked when a movement formed to change the name of beloved pastry "n-word ball" to "chocolate ball" 




What I have noticed during my 36 years on this planet (but please keep labeling me a millennial @mcgruff10) is that it is most often better to be a person who goes with and encouraging positive change, than be one of the ones standing with their arms folded. Historically they often end up on the wrong side it. Whatever age they might be in.

Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward is part of a new generation. 

Yep I know. I work in advertising/communication. 

tbergs

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

I'm certainly willing to try and use whatever anyone wants in regards to pronouns.  And I would expect them to be willing to let me know in a pleasant manner and also work to see intent.  If I screw up, don't beat me up for it.   I find it a very hard subject to even think about and remember, probably because while I have had many Ls and Gs throughout my life, I don't believe I've had many Ts.  Although thinking about it, probably at least 1 of those Ls is a T.  

Regardless, it comes down to everyone just being compassionate with each other.

Expecting (your word) a marginalized person to be pleasant (your word) when you say something offensive to them is the very essence of privilege. 

You're equating someone using the pronoun "he" incorrectly when referring to someone as similar in nature to a racial slur. Are the pronouns he/him, she/her going to be considered offensive terms in all situations? I think that is a stretch and basically asking that the words be eliminated from usage in our language.

dignin

jeffbr said:

ecdanc said:

jeffbr said:

ecdanc said:

jeffbr said:

tbergs said: I admit, it would take a lot of time for this concept to reach social and culture norm because it goes against every basic English language lesson we have ever been taught in regards to pronoun usage. 

This, for sure, will be a big blocker. It is for me. I've been speaking and studying the language for over 5.5 decades, and find using a plural pronoun when referencing an individual subject to be problematic. It is as nonsensical as saying irregardless. It simply doesn't make sense. A different or new pronoun would have likely been a better play. Anyway, I'm sure Professor Troll will now lecture me. Kids who spend their lives in the confines of academia and breath that rarefied air often seem to have inflated opinions about themselves and their intelligence. And they often expose themselves when they start interacting with people who live in the real world. This thread has demonstrated that. When Brian is accused of being a homophobe, and Matt is portrayed as unreasonable and/or uneducated we know we have a winner!

You'd think someone who has studied language for so long would be a better reader. I never accused Brian (or anyone else) of being a homophobe. For one thing, it'd be pretty dumb, because saying something anti-trans has nothing to do with being a homophobe. 

Secondly, the gender/number issue is not problematic. Language evolves; we adapt to it. Dictionaries are already addressing the issue and many in the discipline of English--you know, where we study the language--are at the forefront of promoting the singular they. 

Sure. And many don't. Oftentimes common usage dictates acceptance (E.g. Irregardless, regardless of the convoluted structure which would actually make it mean 'with regard' -- the opposite of the intended meaning). Just because it ends up in a dictionary doesn't mean it makes sense to people who care about words (and I believe you previously stated that words matter). You are certainly welcome to accept nonsensical words that Webster may also have accepted due to common usage. I don't quite so readily, which is the basis of my disinterest in bastardizing the language to placate a few crusaders.  While introducing a new word might require some effort, for me changing the meaning of an existing, common word, or bastardizing the rules of grammar requires more effort. What happened to "Hir", "Ze" and "Zir?"

And apologies regarding the homophobe accusation. You technically did not call Brian that. But you were relentless in pointing out your offense to him without being particularly instructive. It was apparent to most forum readers that Brian was not intending offense. You took what could have been an opportunity to educate and/or explain, and instead hurled insults and feigned offense, which is how you also seemed to respond to just about every other poster here. That will naturally get hackles raised, and then it is game on. So if your intention was to alienate and insult the group, you've accomplished that. If you intended to instruct and facilitate acceptance, sorry for your luck.

Those words didn't catch on. I don't want to misrepresent your position, so I'll ask this as a question: if someone says to you "my preferred pronoun is 'they'" do you plan to respond "I'm sorry, I won't call you that, because grammar?" 

I wouldn't say that. I would use the person's name when referencing that person. I actually agree with TBergs that at some point in the future this will not be an issue, as kids are already being taught incorrect grammar and usage in their schooling. This all becomes a moot discussion at some point. But I won't be bludgeoned into using plural pronouns when referencing a single object or subject. Maybe this is my "OK, Boomer" moment. Are you comfortable with Gern's example: I should say "is they going to shut up?" Sounds like a one-toothed hillbilly.

No, because you can put it a different way.

This doesn't have to be a big deal, I don't know why some people want to make it a big deal.