Pronouns

[ReformedCharacter]

What do they leave in place on a tup? Does the poor bugger get a worst-of-all-worlds deal with all the nuisance of dangling but not the use of it?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/MASUNN-Elastrator-Castration-Applicator-Castrator/dp/B07DW771VX

RC

[Lootman]

Has penis: "Him";
Does not have penis: "Her".

Simple!.

Um ... how about
(a) the tiny number of biological exceptions to the well-defined sexes
(b) victims of certain accidents such as botched male genital mutilation
(c) Eunuchs

(a) Ask the individual person what his/her/whatever preference is.
(b) Go by what is in the genes rather than what is in the jeans.
(c) Eunuchs normally have penises.

I will add that, if someone expresses a preference which does not agree with his or her genitalia, I see no problem with complying with that preference.

Gender-neutral terms would be useful but I would not like to see them replace gender-specific terms where the gender is known.

When referring to me, please use "he" or "him" or I might be offended and go into the corner of the safe space and cry! (Where is the sarcasm smiley?)

My niece recently declared that she wants to be known as "They". Because some days she feels like a man and other days she feels like a woman.

She has two sets of clothes in her wardrobe so that she can always dress appropriately to the gender she feels like that day.

[chrissyr]

What do they leave in place on a tup? Does the poor bugger get a worst-of-all-worlds deal with all the nuisance of dangling but not the use of it?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/MASUNN-Elastrator-Castration-Applicator-Castrator/dp/B07DW771VX

RC

Is that what you call click bait! Image the news stories Google will through up in your feed?

[ReformedCharacter]

What do they leave in place on a tup? Does the poor bugger get a worst-of-all-worlds deal with all the nuisance of dangling but not the use of it?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/MASUNN-Elastrator-Castration-Applicator-Castrator/dp/B07DW771VX

RC

Is that what you call click bait! Image the news stories Google will through up in your feed?

Ah well, sorry about that. I don't know much about getting news stories through a feed to be honest. Also I seem to have gone off-topic with a link to livestock supplies. Poor show all round, really.

RC

[chrissyr]

Sorry RC forgot my was only kidding

[chas49]

My niece recently declared that she wants to be known as "They". Because some days she feels like a man and other days she feels like a woman.

She has two sets of clothes in her wardrobe so that she can always dress appropriately to the gender she feels like that day.

I presume you meant:

My niece recently declared that they want to be known as "They". Because some days they feel like a man and other days they feel like a woman.

They have two sets of clothes in their wardrobe so that they can always dress appropriately to the gender they feel like that day.

It doesn't seem difficult or offensive to adjust the way of speaking to fit in with their desire to be recognised in that way.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

My niece recently declared that she wants to be known as "They". Because some days she feels like a man and other days she feels like a woman.

She has two sets of clothes in her wardrobe so that she can always dress appropriately to the gender she feels like that day.

I presume you meant:
My niece recently declared that they want to be known as "They". Because some days they feel like a man and other days they feel like a woman.

They have two sets of clothes in their wardrobe so that they can always dress appropriately to the gender they feel like that day.

I've no issues with "live and let live".

Some days I feel unsociable and other days I am happy to talk and interact. But why the hell should I expect others to tippy toe around that? If they don't want to, they don't want to.

If someone wants to be "they" then I've no truck with that. That's how they want to live their life and I'm all for it.

It doesn't seem difficult or offensive to adjust the way of speaking to fit in with their desire to be recognised in that way.

It's not. I agree.

I wear odd socks by choice. I can't be bothered to match them up as they come out of the basket. It doesn't mean we should all gather round and discuss my choice. Why should we?

If someone chooses to wear odd socks, like me, it doesn't make me different. Others can call me lazy or daft. But why will that offend me?

AiY(D)

[UncleEbenezer]

It doesn't seem difficult or offensive to adjust the way of speaking to fit in with their desire to be recognised in that way.

Speak for yourself. I find it offensive to see our language mutilated in pursuit of a political or social Agenda. If others want to, that's their business, but don't expect me to join in.

There are perfectly good pronouns, both gendered and ungendered, without misappropriating a plural as singular. Frankly I do consider gendered language a nuisance, and I've gone through my professional life addressing unknown people as Doctor (i.e. I write to A.N.Other "Dear Dr Other"). Doubtless not all of them have PhDs, but I haven't had any complaints. A good gender-neutral word in a community of scientists and engineers.

[mc2fool]

It doesn't seem difficult or offensive to adjust the way of speaking to fit in with their desire to be recognised in that way.

While I agree with the sentiment, referring to individuals in the plural ("they") just sounds like, well, my English teacher rapping the desk with his ruler!

If I we started referring to myself ourselves in the plural I we suspect that others would think I we was were trying to be a bit pompous!

Honestly, just sidestep the whole issue and refer to people by their names!

[servodude]

It doesn't seem difficult or offensive to adjust the way of speaking to fit in with their desire to be recognised in that way.

It's not. I agree.

I wear odd socks by choice. I can't be bothered to match them up as they come out of the basket. It doesn't mean we should all gather round and discuss my choice. Why should we?

If someone chooses to wear odd socks, like me, it doesn't make me different. Others can call me lazy or daft. But why will that offend me?

AiY(D)

Consider if, after identifying as a someone slumbering in Yorksire, people went around referring to to you as "Asleep in Lancashire"
That's fine if it's by mistake, but it can become an effective way of belittling (of "othering") if consciously undertaken (and we all know how sensitive you soft sobbing sassenach southerners seem)

Just wait till your socks are part of a snidey wee culture war created to engender a sense of righteous affront within a minority of those that perceive themselves to be your ruling class; perhaps we'll be referring to sock-suspenders as galluses? (Though I suspect that's probably from French, as a fair few Scots words are, and not from being hanged when caught contravening the 1746 Dress Act)

Pretty soon some nutter's written "The Protocols of the Elders of Sock-Swapping" - and it all gets a little bit out of hand

...and your sock perversion is a choice

-sd

[servodude]

It doesn't seem difficult or offensive to adjust the way of speaking to fit in with their desire to be recognised in that way.

Speak for yourself. I find it offensive to see our language mutilated in pursuit of a political or social Agenda. If others want to, that's their business, but don't expect me to join in.

There are perfectly good pronouns, both gendered and ungendered, without misappropriating a plural as singular. Frankly I do consider gendered language a nuisance, and I've gone through my professional life addressing unknown people as Doctor (i.e. I write to A.N.Other "Dear Dr Other"). Doubtless not all of them have PhDs, but I haven't had any complaints. A good gender-neutral word in a community of scientists and engineers.

"They" has been in use as a singular pronoun for as long as I can remember trying to talk English.
"One" being reserved mosly for a use in a first person reflexive fashion, as "oneself"

"If someone lies to the house what kind of punishment can they expect?"
"They might get a ticking off"
- what's wrong there?

[UncleEbenezer]

It doesn't seem difficult or offensive to adjust the way of speaking to fit in with their desire to be recognised in that way.

Speak for yourself. I find it offensive to see our language mutilated in pursuit of a political or social Agenda. If others want to, that's their business, but don't expect me to join in.

There are perfectly good pronouns, both gendered and ungendered, without misappropriating a plural as singular. Frankly I do consider gendered language a nuisance, and I've gone through my professional life addressing unknown people as Doctor (i.e. I write to A.N.Other "Dear Dr Other"). Doubtless not all of them have PhDs, but I haven't had any complaints. A good gender-neutral word in a community of scientists and engineers.

"They" has been in use as a singular pronoun for as long as I can remember trying to talk English.
"One" being reserved mosly for a use in a first person reflexive fashion, as "oneself"

"If someone lies to the house what kind of punishment can they expect?"
"They might get a ticking off"
- what's wrong there?

That (rather ugly) usage is impersonal. The person referenced is hypothetical (and indeed unnumbered: we don't specify how many hypothetical people might fit the description). But yes, the existence of that usage is a slippery slope to today's abominations.

[servodude]

It doesn't seem difficult or offensive to adjust the way of speaking to fit in with their desire to be recognised in that way.

Speak for yourself. I find it offensive to see our language mutilated in pursuit of a political or social Agenda. If others want to, that's their business, but don't expect me to join in.

There are perfectly good pronouns, both gendered and ungendered, without misappropriating a plural as singular. Frankly I do consider gendered language a nuisance, and I've gone through my professional life addressing unknown people as Doctor (i.e. I write to A.N.Other "Dear Dr Other"). Doubtless not all of them have PhDs, but I haven't had any complaints. A good gender-neutral word in a community of scientists and engineers.

"They" has been in use as a singular pronoun for as long as I can remember trying to talk English.
"One" being reserved mosly for a use in a first person reflexive fashion, as "oneself"

"If someone lies to the house what kind of punishment can they expect?"
"They might get a ticking off"
- what's wrong there?

That (rather ugly) usage is impersonal. The person referenced is hypothetical (and indeed unnumbered: we don't specify how many hypothetical people might fit the description). But yes, the existence of that usage is a slippery slope to today's abominations.

"Today's abominations"?

It's not like I'm versing anyone, or whatever, and everyone's totes entitled to their like opinions about what irks them in the use, misuse and reappropriation of language or whatnot, especially in a board specifically for the purpose of grumping ("memes" to mean crappy funny pic personally gives me the sh*ts) but this use of "they" as singular goes way back

Why does thou take against "they" and not the similarly epicene appropriation of a singular "you"?

[JohnB]

If I don't know someone I've started using they. I'm not going to waste my time looking up their preferred pronouns any more than I would their title. I tend to regard people who push pronouns in .signatures or zoom names as touchy, and it puts me off talking to them

[XFool]

My niece recently declared that she wants to be known as "They". Because some days she feels like a man and other days she feels like a woman.

I have to confess I am always baffled by this. What does it mean? What does it actually mean to "feel like a man" or "feel like a woman", on a day to day basis? I find I just can't attach any recognisable meaning to such a claim. For myself I have always found that, on a day to day basis, I mostly just feel like... myself.

Is this 'abnormal' ?

[XFool]

"They" has been in use as a singular pronoun for as long as I can remember trying to talk English.
"One" being reserved mosly for a use in a first person reflexive fashion, as "oneself"

"If someone lies to the house what kind of punishment can they expect?"
"They might get a ticking off"
- what's wrong there?

But, to me, that is a kind of plural. There, "They" is abstract. Notional rather than specific and seems to be referring to a class of person (in the logical sense) so could be one or many.

[servodude]

"They" has been in use as a singular pronoun for as long as I can remember trying to talk English.
"One" being reserved mosly for a use in a first person reflexive fashion, as "oneself"

"If someone lies to the house what kind of punishment can they expect?"
"They might get a ticking off"
- what's wrong there?

But, to me, that is a kind of plural. There, "They" is abstract. Notional rather than specific and seems to be referring to a class of person (in the logical sense) so could be one or many.

I can't be alone in remembering grammar analysis from school where we'd sit with "A Study In Standard English" and put down such exciting text as "they is a singular pronoun referring to the singular pronoun someone" ?

It's certainly abstract and non specific - it is a pronoun after all
It's also very singular in this (not uncommon or new) use.

-sd

[XFool]

I can't be alone in remembering grammar analysis from school where we'd sit with "A Study In Standard English" and put down such exciting text as "they is a singular pronoun referring to the singular pronoun someone" ?

It's certainly abstract and non specific - it is a pronoun after all
It's also very singular in this (not uncommon or new) use.

I never was strong on formal English Grammar* (or much else!). But...

"They": That one person over there to whom I am referring - "See what they are doing now!" (aka "Them". As in "Look at them now!") **

"They": All of the several people I am referring to. - "See what they are doing now!"

** A classic example of referring to a person in a non specific gender manner?

Interestingly(?) when writing an essay in school at the age of about 13 - so some while ago! - this 'issue' on gender specifics when referring to persons collectively occurred to me as a thing. I chose "They" as a plural (more than one sex, even in those days) and have always used it since. Made sense to me then, still does. Bugger the grammarians on this one.

* Which is why I have not got an 'O' Level in English Literature - the one subject I would have passed in my sleep, had I been entered for it. But that's another story.

[servodude]

I can't be alone in remembering grammar analysis from school where we'd sit with "A Study In Standard English" and put down such exciting text as "they is a singular pronoun referring to the singular pronoun someone" ?

It's certainly abstract and non specific - it is a pronoun after all
It's also very singular in this (not uncommon or new) use.

I never was strong on formal English Grammar* (or much else!). But...

"They": That one person over there to whom I am referring - "See what they are doing now!" (aka "Them". As in "Look at them now!") **

"They": All of the several people I am referring to. - "See what they are doing now!"

** A classic example of referring to a person in a non specific gender manner?

Interestingly(?) when writing an essay in school at the age of about 13 - so some while ago! - this 'issue' on gender specifics when referring to persons collectively occurred to me as a thing. I chose "They" as a plural (more than one sex, even in those days) and have always used it since. Made sense to me then, still does. Bugger the grammarians on this one.

* Which is why I have not got an 'O' Level in English Literature - the one subject I would have passed in my sleep, had I been entered for it. But that's another story.

I can remember an example from primary 7.
The headmaster took the class for grammar and it was ostensibly because we were being prepared for classics in secondary school
but I think was to give him something to do.
The example was when you were helping someone search for their keys and why asking "Is this them?" if you found some was normal, natural but wrong.

Mongrel language English as she is spoke.

[kempiejon]

“Oh, someone dropped their wallet, I’ll hand it in for them, I bet they are looking everywhere!”
or
“Oh, someone dropped his or her wallet. I’ll hand it in for him or her, I bet he or she is looking everywhere!”