3 ms·
The example you've provided actually does not support you argument, just the opposite. People 'typically' have two arms? Well they 'typically' also have two l
by jasmer 4y ago
The example you've provided actually does not support you argument, just the opposite.
People 'typically' have two arms?
Well they 'typically' also have two legs, a sense of smell, sight, hearing, a heart, two lungs, the ability to speak.
What exactly can we expect all 'humans' to have? And how can we refer to them without making any assumptions whatsoever about their state of being so as to be 'inclusive' as you say?
It's a Monty Python sketch of absurdity and will end up with people slapping others in the face with fish.
Aside from probably using 'they' or 'them' in some cases in which we didn't tend to before, language as we use it is perfectly fine in almost all cases. It never will perfectly encompass everyone and that's fine, it doesn't have to.
- foldr 4y ago>What exactly can we expect all 'humans' to have? And how can we refer to them without making any assumptions whatsoever about their state of being so as to be 'inclusive' as you say? This question answers itself, no? You can refer to them as 'humans'.
- jasmer 4y agoActually in practical use, we'd be obliged to use whatever language the individual identified as, which is the new 'subjective' way of being 'objective'. I'm happy to use he, she or they, because it's reasonable and rational but beyond that it's all shenanigans, I have no time for it.
- foldr 4y agoIf you're addressing an individual person rather than talking about humans in general, then yes, sure, go with what that person prefers.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]