4 ms·

This article is an example of why the gender-neutral use of pronouns makes things a pain to read. If you're already changing the interviewees' names then IDK wh

This article is an example of why the gender-neutral use of pronouns makes things a pain to read. If you're already changing the interviewees' names then IDK why you couldn't just pick an arbitrary he/she pronoun to stick to for one character. > Francis says their understanding of the AI-pusher’s outlook is that they see the entire game-making process as a problem, one that AI tech companies alone think they can solve. This is a sentiment they do not agree with.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
There's nothing painful about this to anyone who hasn't been conscripted into the culture wars.
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
  But it was the culture war that resulted in this change to the language. Previous to the war, singular 'they' was to be avoided due to the ambiguity it introduces.
  - spacecadet 2y ago
    What ambiguity? We know it's a human, the human has a name. We do not know their gender or sex, both are not relevant. They works perfectly. This seems like a you problem...
    - sanitycheck 2y ago
      "X and Y were in the garden, Y noticed the ripe tomatoes as they went into the greenhouse". Is X in the greenhouse? I'm way woker than the average person but I have to admit encountering a singular 'they' breaks my concentration in a distracting way - there's definitely possible ambiguity.
      - card_zero 2y ago
        They also applies to objects (like it does), so here it could be the tomatoes that are going into the greenhouse.
      - Capricorn2481 2y ago
        People really ought to read redacted documents to get an idea for how people write with clarity when gender and even number of parties is unknown. But I'm confused by your sentence regardless of the gender terms. Did they notice the tomatoes in the Garden or in the greenhouse? This is just ambiguous wording in general. - These are two different sentences, but they're separated with a comma. It should be a period, as it makes no grammatical sense with a comma unless you're trying to make it intentionally confusing. - You would write "They both went into the greenhouse" if they both entered, or you would write "Y entered the greenhouse and noticed the ripe tomatoes." - "Before entering the greenhouse, "Y"/"they both" noticed the ripe tomatoes in the Garden."
  - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
    It's not a culture war when attitudes towards gender evolve, just like it wasn't a culture war that some people are gay. It's not a culture war until there's two sides, until a segment of the population throws a hissyfit because new ideas make them uncomfortable.
    - indoordin0saur 2y ago
      I have no problem with people's attitudes or culture changing in a positive direction. However, I dislike this business of introducing a change into the language in a way that reduces its expressiveness and clarity. Usage of singular 'they' in contexts where more specific pronouns were available was unusual until very recently. Why the change? I don't think it's unfair characterize this as an offensive move, waged by one side in a 'culture war', that was done without regard to collateral damage.
      - Capricorn2481 2y ago
        > Usage of singular 'they' in contexts where more specific pronouns were available was unusual until very recently It was used whenever gender was ambiguous or needed to be protected. Now with people openly identifying as non-binary, there is not a more specific pronoun, that person doesn't consider themselves that gender. You would be referring to them as something that is not what they want to be called, and is not what their social circle refers to them as. It's confusing, especially if you know what to call them but choose not to because you're offended. > I don't think it's unfair characterize this as an offensive move, waged by one side in a 'culture war', that was done without regard to collateral damage I would wager, based on the disproportionate and melodramatic language, this has never actually affected you. But you are likely consuming media that tells you everyone is going to draw and quarter you if you mess up a pronoun. This is not the case. Trans people just move on, they're used to it. It literally happens all the time.
        akimbostrawman 2y ago
        >But you are likely consuming media that tells you everyone is going to draw and quarter you if you mess up a pronoun. This is not the case. . You can say that because you live in a privileged country where compelled speech is illegal. https://www.eurasiareview.com/20062017-canada-law-makes-it-illegal-to-use-wrong-gender-pronouns-oped/ https://www.eurasiareview.com/20062017-canada-law-makes-it-i... >Trans people just move on, they're used to it. It literally happens all the time Or they try to cancel you and get you fired https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/15/i-was-fired-for-not-using-transgender-pronouns/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/15/i-was-fired... https://www.newsweek.com/christian-teacher-says-she-was-fired-using-students-wrong-pronouns-1800058 https://www.newsweek.com/christian-teacher-says-she-was-fire...
gwbas1c 2y ago
"they" was a gender-neutral pronoun when I was in school in the 1990s.
- ryoshoe 2y ago
  Singular they was used by respected authors even as far back as the 19th century.
  - mrob 2y ago
    indoordin0saur is correct. Traditional use of singular "they" was restricted to persons of unknown sex, where it is correct and unobjectionable. But the article uses it for persons of known sex. This is a modern innovation, and it should be resisted because it reduces the clarity of the writing.
    - gwbas1c 2y ago
      They were people of unknown sex. Keeping the gender unspecified is part of the anonymity. Requiring to identify someone's gender when that person is anonymous is just pointless bigotry.
      - mrob 2y ago
        You're already making up fictitious names, so how is making up fictitious sexes any different? By using non-unisex names you're implying specific sexes already. It's implausible that you would know somebody's name and details about their working conditions without knowing their sex.
      - mrob 2y ago
        Alternative solution: abbreviate all the fictitious names to single letters. This is commonly understood to mean obviously and intentionally concealed identity (e.g. "M" and "Q" from the James Bond franchise), which returns the singular "they" to traditional and unobjectionable usage.
- indoordin0saur 2y ago

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

There's nothing painful about this to anyone who hasn't been conscripted into the culture wars.

indoordin0saur 2y ago
But it was the culture war that resulted in this change to the language. Previous to the war, singular 'they' was to be avoided due to the ambiguity it introduces.
- spacecadet 2y ago
  What ambiguity? We know it's a human, the human has a name. We do not know their gender or sex, both are not relevant. They works perfectly. This seems like a you problem...
  - sanitycheck 2y ago
    "X and Y were in the garden, Y noticed the ripe tomatoes as they went into the greenhouse". Is X in the greenhouse? I'm way woker than the average person but I have to admit encountering a singular 'they' breaks my concentration in a distracting way - there's definitely possible ambiguity.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      They also applies to objects (like it does), so here it could be the tomatoes that are going into the greenhouse.
    - Capricorn2481 2y ago
      People really ought to read redacted documents to get an idea for how people write with clarity when gender and even number of parties is unknown. But I'm confused by your sentence regardless of the gender terms. Did they notice the tomatoes in the Garden or in the greenhouse? This is just ambiguous wording in general. - These are two different sentences, but they're separated with a comma. It should be a period, as it makes no grammatical sense with a comma unless you're trying to make it intentionally confusing. - You would write "They both went into the greenhouse" if they both entered, or you would write "Y entered the greenhouse and noticed the ripe tomatoes." - "Before entering the greenhouse, "Y"/"they both" noticed the ripe tomatoes in the Garden."
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  It's not a culture war when attitudes towards gender evolve, just like it wasn't a culture war that some people are gay. It's not a culture war until there's two sides, until a segment of the population throws a hissyfit because new ideas make them uncomfortable.
  - indoordin0saur 2y ago
    I have no problem with people's attitudes or culture changing in a positive direction. However, I dislike this business of introducing a change into the language in a way that reduces its expressiveness and clarity. Usage of singular 'they' in contexts where more specific pronouns were available was unusual until very recently. Why the change? I don't think it's unfair characterize this as an offensive move, waged by one side in a 'culture war', that was done without regard to collateral damage.
    - Capricorn2481 2y ago
      > Usage of singular 'they' in contexts where more specific pronouns were available was unusual until very recently It was used whenever gender was ambiguous or needed to be protected. Now with people openly identifying as non-binary, there is not a more specific pronoun, that person doesn't consider themselves that gender. You would be referring to them as something that is not what they want to be called, and is not what their social circle refers to them as. It's confusing, especially if you know what to call them but choose not to because you're offended. > I don't think it's unfair characterize this as an offensive move, waged by one side in a 'culture war', that was done without regard to collateral damage I would wager, based on the disproportionate and melodramatic language, this has never actually affected you. But you are likely consuming media that tells you everyone is going to draw and quarter you if you mess up a pronoun. This is not the case. Trans people just move on, they're used to it. It literally happens all the time.
      - akimbostrawman 2y ago
        >But you are likely consuming media that tells you everyone is going to draw and quarter you if you mess up a pronoun. This is not the case. . You can say that because you live in a privileged country where compelled speech is illegal. https://www.eurasiareview.com/20062017-canada-law-makes-it-illegal-to-use-wrong-gender-pronouns-oped/ https://www.eurasiareview.com/20062017-canada-law-makes-it-i... >Trans people just move on, they're used to it. It literally happens all the time Or they try to cancel you and get you fired https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/15/i-was-fired-for-not-using-transgender-pronouns/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/15/i-was-fired... https://www.newsweek.com/christian-teacher-says-she-was-fired-using-students-wrong-pronouns-1800058 https://www.newsweek.com/christian-teacher-says-she-was-fire...

gwbas1c 2y ago

"they" was a gender-neutral pronoun when I was in school in the 1990s.

ryoshoe 2y ago
Singular they was used by respected authors even as far back as the 19th century.
- mrob 2y ago
  indoordin0saur is correct. Traditional use of singular "they" was restricted to persons of unknown sex, where it is correct and unobjectionable. But the article uses it for persons of known sex. This is a modern innovation, and it should be resisted because it reduces the clarity of the writing.
  - gwbas1c 2y ago
    They were people of unknown sex. Keeping the gender unspecified is part of the anonymity. Requiring to identify someone's gender when that person is anonymous is just pointless bigotry.
    - mrob 2y ago
      You're already making up fictitious names, so how is making up fictitious sexes any different? By using non-unisex names you're implying specific sexes already. It's implausible that you would know somebody's name and details about their working conditions without knowing their sex.
    - mrob 2y ago
      Alternative solution: abbreviate all the fictitious names to single letters. This is commonly understood to mean obviously and intentionally concealed identity (e.g. "M" and "Q" from the James Bond franchise), which returns the singular "they" to traditional and unobjectionable usage.
indoordin0saur 2y ago