But once you see the person in figure out what gender they are they is no longer appropriate. The people demanding you refer to them that way both have no business policing my speech, and don't get to tell me what I know or don't know if I can look at you and tell your female I won't refer to you as they
The comparison was to show generational changes in the use of language. It keeps changing. Again, I was being sarcastic--not able to help that, but my DIL is a social rebel, no question about that. I do have a bit of restraint around her, and am not going to go on the attack because of her conceptions of society. Even if she's perfectly ok with her kids (the youngest hasn't yet started school) using the f-bomb constantly. Always changing.
No challenging that, but it's really not so simple. No, not so simple. I pointed out in an earlier post that using they in what we think of as a kinda/sorta singular pronoun has been the norm for about as long as we have written use of Anglo-Saxon/Old English. The earliest I've seen go back to just after the Romans left and before William came. It can be a bit confusing because it evolves out of multiple dialects and evolves over time. The use of þei (sounded more like thee) was essentially the same as it is now. The problem is that they is considered a subjective third person plural, but is often used in place of the singular pronouns when the subject is not named. So basically, if there is a room full of people (or more than just one person) we often use they simply because it's non-specific and plural. If we say something like, "If anyone in this roomful of people needs to use the restroom, they can go to the end of the hall," we're using they as a non-specific, but it tends to singularize things. For the sake of clarity, the grammatical rules make sense. I prefer them.
See, to my mind, that has been the norm for the simple reason, people just didn't talk about sex unless you were looking for some. It's not that I think it should be taboo, is how many times is it going to happen where this pronoun thing happens? I definitely get why people who have to deal with the public, especially in civil service jobs, have to be trained on this, but other than that, there's far too much theater and drama around this from the extremes on both sides.
Well that's still an example of what I've been saying. When the pronoun used to describe either a subject you're unaware of, or the subject could be either singular or plural, a plural pronoun (i.e "they") is used. In your "if anyone in this roomful of people needs to use the restroom, they can go to the end of the hall" example there might be ONE or there might be SEVERAL people that need to use the bathroom. Who you are referring to is uncertain, as is the number of people you are referring to. Who you are talking about has multiple possible subjects, therefore you use "they". You are using "they" as you are referring to the group of potential subjects. This has been a common usage of the English language for a very long time. THAT part is true. However, the left is desperately trying to equate THAT with using "they" for a known, SPECIFIC individual. That has never been the case in history until about 5 minutes ago. Their attempt to draw a correlation is grossly flawed.
The androgynous aesthetic is rather difficult to pull off. You can tropically tell they are male or female. I think a lot of them go for ugliness and I'm not being insulting they work at being ugly. Worst looking glasses letting break outs go crazy weird hair colors and pop rivets all in their face. And there is a type that is into that.
So I take it, then, you think this is more likely a quirk of your DIL's, than anything commonplace, among today's parents(?).
I'm bit sarcastic at times and that can confuse things, but what you said is pretty much what I've been saying. Yes, they is often used to refer to one of a group of potential subjects. It's been used that way for as long as we have any writing about the topic. The other side of this is that the rules for grammar and usage should not be taken as a kind of absolute law. The rules began as observations of how we used the language. Our usage and pronunciations have changed over time and will continue to change as long as the language is alive. Just don't refer to me as they! I will take offense.
Yeah a lot of context is lost in purely textual discussion for sure. I get it. It goes deeper than even that. The modern left is attempting to equate an apple to an orange here, in effect; and using appeals to authority logical fallacies (that are all of 4 years old) to justify the nonsensical idea that using a plural pronoun to describe a singular subject is fine. It's absurd is what it is. Even more deeply than that, what they're proposing is not even a "rule" that can be established in the English language. It's the very definition of a subjective argument, since attached to their argument is the premise that each and every individual in the country chooses how they are referred to. Pure absurdity that is entirely unworkable in any context.
In my defense I try not to look directly at them. If I can't figure it out in less than a second I'm done. You're right about the ugliness thing though. I've seen pictures of really attractive people in a before and after kind of thing where you can tell they went full blown leftist and it's night and day how they look after. I think a lot of people that that are just severely damaged and often have mental problems which manifests itself that way. It's a sad thing. What's also sad is that is where I think the whole transgenderism thing comes from. These people dislike themselves so much that they literally want to become something entirely different. I think it has a lot of similarities to people that are addicted to plastic surgery and they end up looking like some weird ghoul. It's too bad that the focus isn't helping these people be comfortable with who they really are.
You seem, to me, to be speaking in a surprisingly indirect way, about this. In your last post, after I'd asked what you thought had motivated your DIL's request, you'd called her a "social rebel." As a retired English teacher-- a profession whose members never really fully "retire"-- you must realize that the word "rebel," implies that one is out of the mainstream. Yet, in my most recent post, asking you to confirm that, you use the expression "reflection of the times," which, while also is not as specifically plainspoken as would have been a yes or no, conversely implies that this is the norm-- of parents wanting others to refer to their kids this way, for no other reason, than to get social media "likes." I would find it difficult to believe, that that is where we now are, in general. Maybe I have not been clear myself, in expressing my own curiosity? When you'd related that this request from your DIL had not originated with your granddaughter's feelings, I found it bizarre. So I've been trying to solicit your estimation of how common or how uncommon a thing, you believed this represented. Hence, my asking if you had always regarded your DIL as a "kook," for example. So let me put it this way. Your DIL's request, coming of her own initiative, seems to me something that fewer than 5% of parents would do. I would, therefore, consider that a very small minority and-- while, of course, anything that happens could be called a "reflection" of the times, in which it occurs-- I would see this as more aberrant, rather than typical, behavior. If you disagree with this view, which I would now guess that you do, then would you give me a ballpark estimate, of what percentage of parents are reflecting our times, in your opinion, similarly to your DIL? Would you guess 40%? A third? A quarter? A fifth? A tenth?
Rebel doesn't have to mean minority. All generations go through rebellious stages. The "social rebel" is referring to the current trend (reflection of the times) of using "they" as a 'nobi' singular pronoun. Rebel in the sense that its a generational trend or rebellion against the old concepts of gender in society.
While I agree with most of your post, your main point is the thing, that seems most grossly flawed. AFAIK, "the Left" is not trying to have everyone referred to, as the indefinite "they"-- neither desperately, nor otherwise-- if that had been your intended meaning. Some on the Left, certainly, are supportive of those who would like to be referred to, in this manner. As I stated earlier, I see this as a fad, not as a long term challenge to the English language, or even as much of a political issue, in and of itself. That is, a see this as more of a proxy battle, in which politicians' opinions on the matter, are more often the thing, being "equate(d)"-- to whether or not they support trans rights.
Yet if rebelling is in vogue, you cease to be a rebel, in doing so. But this is all tangential to my main question, which you haven't told me that you do not want to answer, still you continue to avoid doing so-- this time, not even quoting my post. Last time: any guess, as to how COMMON, this is? Among kids, or teens, I would be hesitant to try, but among parents, pushing this on kids who aren't asking for it, I would have to assume, this is a RARITY.
That's like saying a firefighter is feeding the fire. "Do nothing" is your suggestion? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the people you elected are the people starting and feeding the fires.
Conservatives aren't talking about this kind of stuff? Oh, I beg to differ-- this kind of meaningless B.S. is mostly all that they do talk about.
