5 ms·

I know this isn’t quite the same as what’s happening in the article, but: what do you use when referring to a singular person of unknown gender?

dctoedt 4y ago
> what do you use when referring to a singular person of unknown gender? A. Use "he or she," etc.; or B. Rewrite the sentence.
- smallerfish 4y ago
  Have you considered that you are overly sensitive to this, and that you might have been conditioned to be by the manufactured controversy currently being stoked by the right? There are exactly two uses of the word "they" as a pronoun, both in regard to Alon Levy, who presumably prefers this pronoun. It's a big world out there - learn to live with it.
  - 0ct4via 4y ago
    Fantastic response -- D.C.'s flagged initial comment reads as someone who tries to use a blinkered interpretation of language to avoid respecting non-binary peoples' pronouns, while failing to acknowledge the historical use of singular 'they.' The article features frequent usage of Alon's name, to avoid using they/then as much, just as you would with he/she. The briefest of searches for Alon's name shows their Twitter profile[1] with "(they/them)" as part of their account name -- which also includes their Mastodon profile[2], itself showing a pronoun box listing "They/them." [1] https://twitter.com/alon_levy https://twitter.com/alon_levy [2] https://mastodon.social/@alon https://mastodon.social/@alon It's a shame someone so educated appears to be getting riled up over something so small and trivial -- respecting Alon's pronouns neither harms anyone, nor makes the article any more difficult to read.
    - dctoedt 4y ago
      "Nonbinary" [sic] people should not be doing "cultural appropriation" of the plural pronouns the rest of us know; if they insist on not being referred to as "he" or "she," then they should come up with their own.
      - 0ct4via 4y ago
        That's literally not what cultural appropriation is. The fact that you try and use that term when you clearly don't even know the definition, shows you to be nothing more than ignorant and bigoted. Good job.
        dctoedt 4y ago
        I'm an intellectual-property lawyer; I'm well aware of what "cultural appropriation" supposedly is — and what it isn't. (That's why I put the term in quotes. In part, it's to tweak the noses of people who rail against something that the law doesn't recognize as "a thing." What those folks call "cultural appropriation," the law calls "laudably propagating good ideas and practices, subject to any applicable restrictions that have been duly enacted into law.")
        0ct4via 4y ago
        Apparently not, since you think that "plural pronouns" are a cultural element that can be appropriated, which isn't the case when aforementioned pronoun has centuries-old singular usage -- notwithstanding the significantly greater usage and acceptance in modern times -- with the extreme minority being the bigots who attempt to deny both grammatical and historical fact, and language evolution -- because of their own bigoted, hateful views. Being an IP lawyer won't win you any points, especially when you're ignorantly refusing basic facts of language even with empirical evidence.
- 0ct4via 4y ago
  Really glad your original post has been flagged, it was incredibly toxic. Becoming so irritated that you "quit reading after a couple of paragraphs" suggests you either struggle to keep up when there isn't a defined he/she pronoun, or that you take some issue with they/them pronouns specifically. Modern readers are taught from childhood that gender isn't binary, and that singular 'they' is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to someone, and has the historical precedent to back it up. It's confusing you as a reader, but the arbitrary claim that it confuses "the reader" is a baseless and inaccurate one. It's 2022 D.C., contemporary usage of singular 'they' isn't rare or unheard of in any way, and its frequent usage without complaint -- except from certain groups who take umbrage with non-cisgender peoples' existence, of course. Surely a fellow as learned as yourself should be able to grasp the concept of singular they? -- it's been around for centuries... The fact that you're demanding a writer invents and starts using a new gender-neutral pronoun is ridiculous. Firstly, singular 'they' is perfectly suited to this purpose, and has been used historically without an issue. Secondly, if you can't grasp the concept of singular they, you're clearly not going to be any less antagonistic about a newly-created alternative. Finally, your use of "Ms." seems to conflate pronouns and titles -- FYI, the gender-neutral title "Mx." has been adopted for many years, but (a) isn't used by every non-binary or gender-non-conforming person, and (b) is a title, not a pronoun -- so cannot be used interchangeably as such. Since the author of the article uses they/them pronouns, your claimed solution of "he or she" wouldn't apply. At all. Perhaps some reading could go some way to alleviating your irritation? "A Brief History of Singular 'they'" https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177 https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177 Writeup by the Oxford English Dictionary: https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they... If you'd like to read a bit more about its usage for both non-binary people, and to refer to people of unknown or unspecified gender -- as well as style guides -- there's always the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they It's quite telling that you complain of people "...demanding that the rest of us go along with their throwing sand in the gears of the reading process" when (a) singular they isn't new, and has been widely adopted for these purposes -- in this case to refer to the non-binary author of the piece, and (b) you're effectively demanding people create a new singular pronoun because you refuse to adapt to a usage you personally disagree with -- regardless of it being grammatically and historically correct. There are much bigger things to worry about than getting yourself worked up over someone's choice of pronoun, and your apparent refusal to respect that. Alon Levy (the author)'s work is rather good. It's a shame you abandoned reading their article because of your own bigoted and blinkered views about language.
- Elinvynia 4y ago
  "he or she" doesn't include everyone though, and is longer and harder to say than the more inclusive variant!
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > "he or she" doesn't include everyone though Hard no on that one — just because someone declares "I have no gender" doesn't make it so, any more than if I were to declare that I have no eye color. > is longer and harder to say than the more inclusive variant! Agreed — but in formal writing, confusing readers by appropriating the plural is not the way to fix it.
    - 0ct4via 4y ago
      "Hard no" because of your personal beliefs and bigotry, rather than fact. Gender is a social construct, and people are free do identify as they please. If someone decides they don't identify as binary male or female, that's their choice. It doesn't mean they declare "I have no gender," it means they don't declare to be "male" or "female." The fact that you foolishly and arrogantly try to equate an irrefutable, immutable physical attribute like iris pigmentation, with something as ill-defined, fluid, and personal as gender, shows you're neither engaging in good faith, nor able to get past your own bigotry to even make an intelligent argument. Once again, you're the only one being confused here, so the fake outrage and trumped-up claims of confused readership don't fly.
the_only_law 4y ago
GP has the typical delusion that language cannot change and that words can only have a singular meaning. Any dictionary will confirm this. There was obviously no ambiguity at they knew immediately what the intent was.
- 0ct4via 4y ago
  Precisely, it's a transparent attempt to hide bigotry and hate behind (false) claims of grammatical correctness, while deliberately refusing to acknowledge usage of singular 'they' -- which has existed for centuries -- because it inconveniences their hate.

dctoedt 4y ago

> what do you use when referring to a singular person of unknown gender? A. Use "he or she," etc.; or B. Rewrite the sentence.

smallerfish 4y ago
Have you considered that you are overly sensitive to this, and that you might have been conditioned to be by the manufactured controversy currently being stoked by the right? There are exactly two uses of the word "they" as a pronoun, both in regard to Alon Levy, who presumably prefers this pronoun. It's a big world out there - learn to live with it.
- 0ct4via 4y ago
  Fantastic response -- D.C.'s flagged initial comment reads as someone who tries to use a blinkered interpretation of language to avoid respecting non-binary peoples' pronouns, while failing to acknowledge the historical use of singular 'they.' The article features frequent usage of Alon's name, to avoid using they/then as much, just as you would with he/she. The briefest of searches for Alon's name shows their Twitter profile[1] with "(they/them)" as part of their account name -- which also includes their Mastodon profile[2], itself showing a pronoun box listing "They/them." [1] https://twitter.com/alon_levy https://twitter.com/alon_levy [2] https://mastodon.social/@alon https://mastodon.social/@alon It's a shame someone so educated appears to be getting riled up over something so small and trivial -- respecting Alon's pronouns neither harms anyone, nor makes the article any more difficult to read.
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    "Nonbinary" [sic] people should not be doing "cultural appropriation" of the plural pronouns the rest of us know; if they insist on not being referred to as "he" or "she," then they should come up with their own.
    - 0ct4via 4y ago
      That's literally not what cultural appropriation is. The fact that you try and use that term when you clearly don't even know the definition, shows you to be nothing more than ignorant and bigoted. Good job.
      - dctoedt 4y ago
        I'm an intellectual-property lawyer; I'm well aware of what "cultural appropriation" supposedly is — and what it isn't. (That's why I put the term in quotes. In part, it's to tweak the noses of people who rail against something that the law doesn't recognize as "a thing." What those folks call "cultural appropriation," the law calls "laudably propagating good ideas and practices, subject to any applicable restrictions that have been duly enacted into law.")
        0ct4via 4y ago
        Apparently not, since you think that "plural pronouns" are a cultural element that can be appropriated, which isn't the case when aforementioned pronoun has centuries-old singular usage -- notwithstanding the significantly greater usage and acceptance in modern times -- with the extreme minority being the bigots who attempt to deny both grammatical and historical fact, and language evolution -- because of their own bigoted, hateful views. Being an IP lawyer won't win you any points, especially when you're ignorantly refusing basic facts of language even with empirical evidence.
0ct4via 4y ago
Really glad your original post has been flagged, it was incredibly toxic. Becoming so irritated that you "quit reading after a couple of paragraphs" suggests you either struggle to keep up when there isn't a defined he/she pronoun, or that you take some issue with they/them pronouns specifically. Modern readers are taught from childhood that gender isn't binary, and that singular 'they' is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to someone, and has the historical precedent to back it up. It's confusing you as a reader, but the arbitrary claim that it confuses "the reader" is a baseless and inaccurate one. It's 2022 D.C., contemporary usage of singular 'they' isn't rare or unheard of in any way, and its frequent usage without complaint -- except from certain groups who take umbrage with non-cisgender peoples' existence, of course. Surely a fellow as learned as yourself should be able to grasp the concept of singular they? -- it's been around for centuries... The fact that you're demanding a writer invents and starts using a new gender-neutral pronoun is ridiculous. Firstly, singular 'they' is perfectly suited to this purpose, and has been used historically without an issue. Secondly, if you can't grasp the concept of singular they, you're clearly not going to be any less antagonistic about a newly-created alternative. Finally, your use of "Ms." seems to conflate pronouns and titles -- FYI, the gender-neutral title "Mx." has been adopted for many years, but (a) isn't used by every non-binary or gender-non-conforming person, and (b) is a title, not a pronoun -- so cannot be used interchangeably as such. Since the author of the article uses they/them pronouns, your claimed solution of "he or she" wouldn't apply. At all. Perhaps some reading could go some way to alleviating your irritation? "A Brief History of Singular 'they'" https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177 https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177 Writeup by the Oxford English Dictionary: https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they... If you'd like to read a bit more about its usage for both non-binary people, and to refer to people of unknown or unspecified gender -- as well as style guides -- there's always the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they It's quite telling that you complain of people "...demanding that the rest of us go along with their throwing sand in the gears of the reading process" when (a) singular they isn't new, and has been widely adopted for these purposes -- in this case to refer to the non-binary author of the piece, and (b) you're effectively demanding people create a new singular pronoun because you refuse to adapt to a usage you personally disagree with -- regardless of it being grammatically and historically correct. There are much bigger things to worry about than getting yourself worked up over someone's choice of pronoun, and your apparent refusal to respect that. Alon Levy (the author)'s work is rather good. It's a shame you abandoned reading their article because of your own bigoted and blinkered views about language.
Elinvynia 4y ago
"he or she" doesn't include everyone though, and is longer and harder to say than the more inclusive variant!
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > "he or she" doesn't include everyone though Hard no on that one — just because someone declares "I have no gender" doesn't make it so, any more than if I were to declare that I have no eye color. > is longer and harder to say than the more inclusive variant! Agreed — but in formal writing, confusing readers by appropriating the plural is not the way to fix it.
  - 0ct4via 4y ago
    "Hard no" because of your personal beliefs and bigotry, rather than fact. Gender is a social construct, and people are free do identify as they please. If someone decides they don't identify as binary male or female, that's their choice. It doesn't mean they declare "I have no gender," it means they don't declare to be "male" or "female." The fact that you foolishly and arrogantly try to equate an irrefutable, immutable physical attribute like iris pigmentation, with something as ill-defined, fluid, and personal as gender, shows you're neither engaging in good faith, nor able to get past your own bigotry to even make an intelligent argument. Once again, you're the only one being confused here, so the fake outrage and trumped-up claims of confused readership don't fly.

the_only_law 4y ago

GP has the typical delusion that language cannot change and that words can only have a singular meaning. Any dictionary will confirm this. There was obviously no ambiguity at they knew immediately what the intent was.

0ct4via 4y ago
Precisely, it's a transparent attempt to hide bigotry and hate behind (false) claims of grammatical correctness, while deliberately refusing to acknowledge usage of singular 'they' -- which has existed for centuries -- because it inconveniences their hate.