3 ms·
Didn't bend over backwards - was quite easy to use neutral terminology when the sex or gender of a person is irrelevant to the point being made. 'Normal Englis
by Festro 5y ago
Didn't bend over backwards - was quite easy to use neutral terminology when the sex or gender of a person is irrelevant to the point being made.
'Normal English' doesn't exist as a stable point that can be reliably referenced. Even the OED is constantly updated. Language is a constantly changing thing. This is an example of that. Plenty of languages use gender neutral pronouns all the time - they laugh at this kind of debate.
"you were literally erasing women" shit. Call the police. I assume that means I've murdered someone? Didn't realise I had magical powers like that.
People can use language how they please. Call people 'her' or 'she' if you think it's relevant. If you want to be inclusive and not be sexist then maybe go for a neutral term. Context matters remember - a public body should likely opt for the latter. A friend who knows how someone identifies could freely go for the former.
- leephillips 5y agoKetchup no conversant they if if hdfhvhvkjsf. Don’t you agree?
- Festro 5y agoGreat example of making a ridiculous argument, a type of logical fallacy. What you've done here is make what you're saying incomprehensible to others. Whereas you still knew my meaning when I used 'they'. For some reason you thought this would bolster your argument. You've used language how you please but have lost all its meaning. It's no longer language at that point. You still got my meaning though.
- leephillips 5y agoMy trendy in-group of Twitter friends understands perfectly well what I mean. Get with the times. > you still knew my meaning when I used 'they'. Did I? I thought your meaning was to erase women. But you claim it wasn’t, somehow. See how using words to mean whatever you want them to this week does not contribute to clear communication?