As I'd described, in post #4: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/dang-pronouns.608396/#post-1074042793 It did come out of a gender issue, just not gender "identity," as that has come to be understood. It came about, due to a reasonable objection, raised by the Feminist movement, to making the default pronouns for any, nonspecific person, the male ones. While one can make a logical argument, as to why this is more efficient than saying "he or she," "him or her," (nevermind, "himself or herself"), one cannot deny that this is sexist, in favoring one sex over the other, and that it was one of the many things which, cumulatively, created very real societal conceptions of gender roles, which penetrated deeply, into both the group psyche, as well as into the individual subconscious minds, of all in the society. As such, the singular use of they, them, their, and themself (even if my spell-check underlines that last one, as a mistake), became the most practical solution to the problem. Yet I don't know that one can make anywhere near as compelling a case, for a societal need, to address this. Certainly, in some instance when I know it would be appreciated for me to alter my word choice, I would have no reason to not do so, merely out of courtesy, politeness, a sense of etiquette. I can only see as rather frail & insecure, psychologically, the person who finds this to be some compromise of their own-- I probably could have, there, said his own-- integrity, to do so, as if something is being taken away from himself, in his compliance. The same people, I feel, have tended to complain, when the role of a doctor, in a television commercial, has been cast with a woman. But, to be clear, I still see this as more of a fad: to expect the profusion of new gender pronouns to become a lasting part of our language, to me, seems unrealistic; perhaps one or two different forms, over time, will become normalized. From a practical perspective, the percentage of people, with whom most of us communicate, for whom this will be an issue, is going to be incredibly small. This makes it highly unlikely, there will be the sort of experiential reinforcement necessary, to effect a widespread change, at such a basic, conceptual and behavioral level, of our language.
This sort of thing is brought to you courtesy of the left so why are you complaining? Who, when, where? They, them, there !
I saw your post, a little too late-- I just gave my opinion, on the "fad" question. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/dang-pronouns.608396/page-2#post-1074043821
It's true that they has long been used in a singular way, mostly when it refers non-specifically to unknown people. Merriam-Webster says that use goes back to the 1300s, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it used in earlier works. Anyway, my daughter-in-law told us to use they when referring to our granddaughter. I didn't respond to that request and don't think I should change my usage in order to fit into our daughter-in-law's world. We were here first. Besides, our granddaughter uses gendered pronouns. And if someone refers to me as they, I'm going to be offended because I don't have multiple personalities. Anyway, what's wrong with using it?
Interesting personal dilemma you face, Ad. That does seem odd to me, as well, that your granddaughter (who, I take it, is rather young?) uses pronouns in a conventional way, but that her mother would prefer to have her daughter referred to as "they." Have you asked your son, about his feelings (as well as for the explanation, behind this change)? I may be just projecting my own feelings, here, since you spoke of only your own right, as you saw it, to not give up some lifelong habit of, let us not forget, standard, accepted speech, to cater to what must seem a rather strange request; but I would not be surprised, if you also might be concerned with the developmental impacts, of this experiment in language, when the test subject is your own granddaughter. I think it has been well-established, that the verbiage used to address a person, can certainly affect that person's own self-image. Would I be overstepping, to ask if you have ever previously considered your daughter-in-law, to be a kook (or at least, a flake)? Also very interesting, by the way, to hear of the long history of singular "they"-- I had thought it a direct outgrowth of the Women's Movement.
That last one, is a head- scratcher. It certainly takes the idea of "acceptance," to a new level. Like you both, I see the top priority of language, to be clarity; but too much information, can obscure the view of the forest and, as you both also note, not necessarily provide anything that is pragmatically useful. Yet another dimension to be understood, here, as stressed in Adfundum's post, is that of the taking of offense, at non-compliance. This might imply either a feeling of being entitled to this indulgence; or of being persecuted, in the absence of the new usages. Or, it might have more to do with only certain individuals-- I do not know how common, is that attitude. One might also ask, does the indignation about those not swiftly picking up, this new trick, come more from those wanting to be referred to in novel ways, or from others, concerned about their feelings? The comments you both offer, nibble at the edges of an aspect of this phenomenon, we have yet to take up, squarely (pun intended), in this thread: what cause is driving this? The import of that question, markedly increases, if this is more than the fringe affectation, of a relatively small part of the population, as I had presumed it to be. If that were the case, then wondering about this, might be akin to pondering the behavior of those who cover themselves, head to foot, with tattoos, or some comparable fetish-- if all the extreme tattoo enthusiasts, reading this, will forgive my lack of finding a better word, within easy reach of my tongue. But if this bizarre quirk-- and I am specifically referring to the expectation of the conformity, of those, outside of the new pronoun bubble-- is starting to go mainstream, then this is a puzzle that deserves consideration. Any sub-culture, having its own cant-- only fully understood by its indoctrinated-- is nothing new. But if the devotees of, say, Harry Potter, had started expecting that the rest of us-- which, in the current circumstance, might just be me-- should know the rules of Quiddich, it would definitely have seemed bizarre (at least to me, who admits that I have just needed to correct the spelling, from my initial guess of quibbich). What I am saying, is that such ideas, are usually used to identify members of a group, and to exclude others-- similar to ideas from that other, more recently popular, "Q" game, of sorts. This pronoun practice, though, on its surface, would seem to be the opposite: a petition/demand for acceptance into the broader, mainstream group. Yet, we are hearing anecdotal accounts, at least, of this practice being adopted by many who would not be thought of, as part of a community, marginalized due to sexual discrimination: school children. In case none of us can adequately solve this, let me bring in someone, to explain for us, the Left wing authoritarianism (supposedly), behind this development--
Non-binary gender identity just means the person who's saying that is insufferable. It's like a person informing me that they're vegan. Just a red flag don't talk to this person it's going to be tedious
Yeah it kind of changes the way you speak the language and or it hits the year wrong. This is my friend they is an artist you should see them's art. Or is it phase art I don't know because this pronoun doesn't function this way
So nothing is there is nothing above two technically there's nothing above one because you can only have one gender so binary agenda is nonexistent it's singular
First of all, language is basically noises we make to represent thoughts. Words need to have a common meaning. As long as language is in a state of change, it is alive. Latin, for instance, lost out on that battle. But it can take centuries for languages to take on a uniformity that allows something like English to be spoken globally. What we call English is really a bastard language full of invading languages. In that sense, changes are not such a big deal. I see Spanish as blending with English and adding to the language just like French did after 1066. English evolved from an amalgamation of Anglo-Saxon and other dialects of Germanic mixed with the native languages of Britain and the remains of Latin. Going back to that general point in time, there were gender-neutral pronouns. At some point, the aristocratic elite began to codify English, creating a rulebook for grammar. Many of those rules held fast until about the last century. Grammarians have challenged that old way and pushed to eliminate many of the old rules because they simply had no logical basis. However, one of the things that did have a logical basis was the use of gendered pronouns because they were considered necessary for clarity. I can remember when the male pronoun was the standard for all gender-neutral comments. Then the feminists demanded that the feminine pronouns be added. The social order of male domination was being changed. Now, the push is to remove gender. I guess I'm just old and grumpy when it comes to someone telling me I need to change the way I speak and think, especially when it attempts to challenge the idea of physical anatomy. I've been pretty sarcastic about all of this, but I'm really not going to change my pronouns simply because some people decided to take offense. That's how old guys roll. But I really do wonder why they'd take offense if I used it instead of they.
Once you are aware that the person you are talking to takes offense to it, there isn't any good reason to do it. You aren't standing up for something, you're just being an *****.
Yes, but as the cultural concept of gender changes, the language is going to adapt. Fighting that is a losing battle. We will all be dead eventually, and the new fad of gender pronouns will just be part of the language.
I do think it will be part of the language, up to a point. However, how does that change adapt to the example of Mary in my earlier post? Will that change require coming up with a gender-neutral pronoun or will we just accept the blurring of possible meanings? Granted, the example is a bit of an exaggeration, but it does show the limits as far as clarity. And, as I said before, if people want to create their own kind of reality, so be it. I really don't care. Just don't try to force me to step out of my reality and accept theirs. Does Spanish have gender-neutral pronouns?
what if I don't care if they choose to take offense? What if I don't think it's my responsibility to deal with their fragility? So what?
Lingual history lesson. The use of the singular "they" began even earlier than the use of the singular "you".
Asexual and bisexual refer to what the person is attracted to sexually. Non binary is a reference to what the person feels themselves to be. The first is external to the person the second is internal.
It doesn't help that there isn't a complete agreement within the community. The effort was made to reclaim "queer" as a positive label, mach as was done for "gay". The problem was that one faction seems to be trying to reclaim it for gender identity and another faction for sexual orientation. The factor that probably has the best idea for it is the use of the word as an umbrella term for the gender identities and sexual orientations that are not statistically normal.
Asexual means that the person is not sexually attracted to anyone. They can still experience romantic or emotional attraction and they can still have a sex drive. Non-binary means that they are either both male and female in the gender or are neither.
Not necessarily. Sexual orientation is about sexual attraction, not drive or action. A heterosexual can have no sex drive. They are still sexually attracted to the opposite but have no drive to act upon the attraction. While indeed many asexuals have no sex drive, many others still do. They just are not sexually attracted to anyone. If they desire sex they usually turn to trusted partners for that need. Or, if they do have emotional attractions, they turn to them.
