I see 2 extra problems — extra problems beyond the usual issues surrounding pronoun preferences.
First, you're requiring other people to use a word that is dehumanizing, that portrays you as a thing and not a person.
I noticed this problem in the context of attempting to answer the question, "What's with the weird, kinda ominous music on the Barron Trump video? Sounds like the music you'd hear on a true crime documentary about the hunt for the Sheep Ranch Killers or something."
I said, "I think it's trying to say: Look, there's a duplicate Trump, and it's bigger and stranger...." I used the word "it" to convey the thinking of someone who regarded Barron Trump as not human but a monstrous thing.
Second, you're going to force other people to get the punctuation wrong? It's? Not its?
Posts
102 comments:
okay, i've given it, a LOT of thought; and my approved pronouns are He and Hi's
you're going to force other people to get the punctuation wrong?
Yes, because that's the point. Preferred pronouns are about forcing others to submit.
Some would say “They” forces people to get the singular/plural wrong.
But who knows. “They” keep changing the rules.
I’ve always preferred “they” when referring to one person who believes they are a different gender, since multiple personality disorder may be another mental illness they have.
This pronoun garbage is forcing me to go in the opposite direction.
The pronoun police can F off.
I'll say it again:
According to all the best thinking, words mean whatever you choose them to mean, neither more nor less. This is set forth in the musings of the 19th Century thinker, H. Dumpty, who noted that it was a question of which is to be master, thereby implicating a devotion to chattel slavery in his discourse.
The questions may be new, but the answers are old.
"It" used to be the English pronoun used for describing children.
And of course in gendered languages like Spanish, French, or German "he" and "she" are used for all sorts of inanimate objects, while "it" is sometimes used for people. There's nothing intrinsically "dehumanizing" about pronouns. English was once a gendered language and the gendered pronouns are remnant of that.
Mandarin Chinese does not have gendered pronouns at all. I guess Chinese don't regard one another as human since they call everything "it". Japanese pronouns are variations of "over there" or "that one" (they have dozens of ways to say "I" and "you").
In the last 50 years, for some reason, Americans have to decided to load up pronouns with all sorts of significance that was never present before, like deciding that the impersonal pronoun "he" is patriarchy, when it was really just using the same sound for two different words. (In German "sie" is used for "she", "they", and "you", not sure what kind of entrenched sexism can be made from that but perhaps German academics are hard at work figuring that out.)
“First, you're requiring other people to use a word that is dehumanizing, that portrays you as a thing and not a person.”
If you choose to be dehumanized, that’s your choice. Others are compelled to dehumanize you or risk losing their jobs.
"extra problems beyond the usual issues"
Like, forcing people to address individuals as they? Like, subverting grammar as part of prog rule?
My pronouns are "Xtlotouvouxi" and "Zhimungploptut"
Get 'em right every time to show your r-e-s-p-e-c-t or I'll be bleeping mad at "it."
People are getting really fucking sick of this shit. These people are going to keep this up until their pronouns are were/was.
There used to be a mnemonic for its and it's. "There's no apostrophe in hers." That's no longer true.
Your pronoun is what I think it should be. It's my speech.
I recently noticed that my wife's preferred pronoun is "we."
We live in a dumbed-down world.
"First, you're requiring other people to use a word that is dehumanizing, that portrays you as a thing and not a person."
Which is exactly what the left/abortionists have done since the early 1970s to the unborn child. Dehumanize him/her by using clinical terms, fetus for one, or the gross such as a "clump of cells."
Thank you, commenters. I chuckled (or at least made a sound which may approximate what writers describe as a "chuckle") three times at the humor displayed here. Bravo. Made my morning better.
D.D. Driver said...I recently noticed that my wife's preferred pronoun is "we."
And sometimes "you."
There's a non-trivial argument that "it's" is not wrong punctuation. Since the person is in a sense inventing a new word, they can punctuate it any way they want.
I mean, if someone told me they wanted to be called "Shithead," I wouldn't want to say it. I probably would just not talk about them or not use any name. This person would be trying to force me to degrade myself.
Similarly, I have a moral objection to referring to a person as "it." If that clashed with the etiquette convention of using the person's requested pronoun, I think I would just find a way not to talk about that person or to always use the person's name.
My pronouns are Who / What / I don’t know.
Bob M
Just pretend he’s a Democrat’s kid and leave him the fuck alone.
My choice of pronoun for all these folks is "you people."
My wife and I raised five perfect children, every one of whom was called “it” on the rare occasions they behaved not as a human but as a monstrous thing. Typical usage: “Tell it to knock off the bratty bullshit.” Worked like a charm.
Second, you're going to force other people to get the punctuation wrong? It's? Not its?
They're also forcing people to get the case wrong. When stating pronouns the standard is subjective/objective (he/him), not subjective/possessive (he/his).
So it should be it/it.
Also note that grammatically the second pronoun is always objectifying people.
@ D.D.Driver
I recently noticed that my wife's preferred pronoun is "we."
My wife's pronoun for me is "we" as in when she says to me "we need to get X done" she is really saying to me "you need to get X done."
"It" is justified by its referring to a duplicate Trump.
Wouldn't 'people' who identify as dogs or other animals (sadly, they exist) be an 'it'?
Bear in mind that I will call you whatever I wish.
I cannot be forced to participate in someone else's mental illness or enable craziness.
My pronouns are Biggus Dickus and Studmuffin...
'"It" used to be the English pronoun used for describing children.'
"It" used to be the Democrat pronoun used for describing black people.
Still is in a lot of places...
My pronouns are "Who, me?"
The It/Its will not solve the problem. If we simply dumped all gendered pronouns and came up with a word to describe people (use whatever you want, Ge/Ges, Fu/Fus, Ul/Uls, any made up combo that is not in current use) it would not solve the issue, because it is addressing the wrong problem. When you address the wrong problem, your solution rarely works. The pronoun issue is not because we have to accommodate so many gender issues, its that we have special snowflakes that need recognition and also need to subvert the dominant paradigm.
Regular people just want to make it easy to address people, the snowflakes want to disrupt your life by forcing you to not be able to know how to address people. The goal is to disrupt social cohesion, not degender the language.
It's?
Confusing even to the 'It's Man.'
Sounds a little too like tits.
I'm OK with "shithead".
I don't remember when the basis for a mass-use language became individual preferences, which may change at personal whim, but here we are.
A language spoken by a billion people may now have ITS meaning altered on a whim by an individual who can then force others to change the meaning of words and force those revised meanings into written form and narrative. See: A transgender rapist and recent journalism about the rapist revising the victim's quote to reflect the rapist's preferred pronouns.
...
On a more minor note: Does anyone who works in a white collar, e-mail based world notice those who choose to highlight their pronoun choices in e-mail (i.e. they volunteer it into their signature block) and wonder what prompted them to do that?
okay, a serious thought.
We're supposed to use the pronouns that a person WANTS, because otherwise it's hurtful.
right?
So, it DOESN'T matter, what WE WANT; they are their pronouns, we should do what THEY want?
Because of this, people are now ORDERED to "State Their Pronouns", whether they want to; or not
In fact: If you refuse to "State You Pronouns", you'll be sent to reeducation camp; Or just Fired
BUT!
Aren't MY pronouns, MY business? Isn't THAT? The Point?
So, IF i don't want to wear my pronouns on my sleeve (or lapel), How come they get to force me?
That seems hurtful. Who exactly GETS rights? not everyone, that's clear
I'm gilbar.. My pronouns are: None of Your Business
There's a 3rd problem embedded in the first.
"you're requiring other people to use a word"
If you insist on zhe and they, I might well start referring to you as it. Rachel Levine- it is creepy to see it everywhere- see how that works.
This person would be trying to force me to degrade myself.
That's what they're doing already.
"Similarly, I have a moral objection to referring to a person as "it." If that clashed with the etiquette convention of using the person's requested pronoun, I think I would just find a way not to talk about that person or to always use the person's name."
So you acquiesce. That is why it will continue to get worse.
If it told me its pronouns were it/it I would find it very hard to have a conversation with it as I'd constantly be trying to work the conversation around to an opportunity to say It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again
...But you doesn't has to call me Johnson
Althouse said:
I mean, if someone told me they wanted to be called "Shithead," I wouldn't want to say it.
When I was a kid my Irish mother called us "little shits" when we got in trouble. I had an uncle that referred to kids as "rugrats". I don't know if they are pronouns exactly, but now they feel like terms of endearment.
To your previous question, if they request to be called it, then is it you that is dehumanizing them, umm it? My grammar is bad enough without people inventing ways for it to be intentionally wrong.
Gabriel said...
"Mandarin Chinese does not have gendered pronouns at all..."
Written Chinese does: 他，她，它 (he, she, and it respectively)
It's just that they're all pronounced the same way in Mandarin.
I request permission to use the contraction for them, 'em, as in, "eff 'em."
My language is mine, and others do not get to determine what words I speak.
Should they be offended by my language choices, they can take that up with the nearest brick wall, which probably will care more than me when they complain about their chosen pronouns versus mine. All they are doing is playing a power game, where someone else has to acknowledge their authoritay, and that Cartmanesque ehavior holds no appeal for me. Just because they ask me for three fifty does not mean I'll call 'em an eight story tall crustacean from the paleozoic era. Even if they are.
However, if they are concerned that my use of words is projecting a meaning different from my intentions, I'll listen. I want to be understood. And in that respect, "it" matters.
When I first saw the headline I thought you were talking about It's It, an ice cream sandwich from San Francisco.
Similarly, I have a moral objection to referring to a person as "it." If that clashed with the etiquette convention of using the person's requested pronoun, I think I would just find a way not to talk about that person or to always use the person's name.
This is the same thing many of us are forced to do with transgender people in general. I have a moral objection to calling a biological female person a male, therefore I have to refer to one of my staff members by name instead of using a pronoun. The person’s chosen name is also typically a male name (though not always) but I don’t have the same moral aversion to using whatever name someone chooses for themselves as opposed to their insistence that other people affirm something that is not true about them.
"Etiquette"?
Etiquette was tossed out by the Boomers in the 60s and 70s, and our society is now attempting to re-create those unwritten but understood rules with government force. Boomers trashed the rules around sex, drugs, interpersonal behavior, marriage, etc in the service of "if it feels good, do it" while ignoring that those rules had evolved over time in direct response to the fact that most people are assholes to each other.
Here's the etiquette around pronouns: I will refer to you with whatever pronoun I feel is appropriate and it is none of your effing business how I do that because I ain't talking to you when I use a pronoun. My conversations with someone else are none of your business. Period.
It's Pat
During my working years, people were commonly addressed by their last names -- both guys and gals. Everyone was OK with that. These days I use first names, which eliminates this pronoun bulls**t.
"Das Kind." "Das Mädchen."
Yes, it's disrespectful in English, but you do realize that a taboo against calling people "its" or "it's" only encourages the rebellious to break it.
I wonder if many people misuse "it's" and "its" only to get back at Mrs. Thistlebottom and all the other grammar teachers, and also whether texting won't abolish the distinction in another generation or two.
I would also like to see a survey about pronouns. How many people asked to declare their pronouns actually do choose "ze" or "xe," and why the difference if they are pronounced the same way?
A little clarification about "trans" too is also in order. First it referred to biological men who think they are women and biological women who think they are men. They would like "he" and "she" if people only used the one they wanted.
"Ze" and "Xe" (and isn't there a "thir" somewhere in there as well?) apply to to people who are non-binary, "trans" in the sense of being above or beyond or outside traditional genders. They don't want to be identified as either men or women. Sooner or later, these two groups will fall out, just as many lesbians and gays are already dissatisfied with the whole "trans" thing.
This is set forth in the musings of the 19th Century thinker, H. Dumpty
Yet he got angry when Alice didn't know if he was wearing a tie or cravat. Words don't matter but fashion does, I guess.
If Carl wishes me to say they or them, I will diligently labor always to say Carl.
"Carl's going to be late because Carl's car broke down and Carl is waiting for AAA to arrive. Carl told us to start the meeting without Carl and Carl will join us as soon as Carl can. And if Carl doesn't like it, Carl can go fuck Carl."
My pronouns are I, Me, We. Other people use He, Him (and some other choice words) as pronouns for me. Those are other people’s language decisions. I only control the pronouns I use for myself.
As for It, that reminds me of “It puts the lotion on Its skin, or It gets the hose again.”
Her/They/Xir/It: "What are your pronouns?
Me: "Normal."
Her/They/Xir/It: "That's heteronormative!"
Me: "Hetero is normative."
"Blogger Ann Althouse said...
... I wouldn't want to say it. I probably would just not talk about them or not use any name. ...
Summarizes the use of pronoun oddities in general. Bizarre pronouns have the result of ostracizing those who demand their use.
You are trying to get advice from people who change the rules every 5 seconds. Enjoy your Calvinball experience!
A little off the subject, but I've wondered for a while about the spoken apostrophe "s" versus the written, and what rules apply. I haven't found a good answer online, so maybe I'll ask it here.
We often say things like, "The carpet's clean," "The fridge's empty," or "That person's nice." But written out, that doesn't appear to be the proper way to use an apostrophe "s," because the "s" would be followed by what the noun possesses. Can anyone explain to me how you write out a phrase like the above? Does the context permit writing it out the way we speak?
Some people now reject the "gender binary."
"He" and "she" (and their related pronoun forms) are manifestations of the gender binary.
The reason we haven't used "it" to refer to people is that, until recently, the gender binary (whereby every person is a he or a she) was generally accepted. "It" is a non-gendered pronoun, useful until recently only to refer to non-persons. Persons were either "he" or "she", under the gender binary rules.
Now that some people insist there is no gender binary, I see no reason why "it" should not be used to refer to persons who won't accept a "he" or a "she" as ways to refer to themselves.
"It" is a lot easier to remember (and to pronounce) than made-up pronouns, like "zhe" (not to mention: Zie, Sie, Ey, Ve, Tey, Zim, Sie, Em, Ver, Ter, Em, Zir, Hir, Eir, Vis, Tem, Eir, Zis, Hirs, Eirs, Vers, Ters, Eirs [all listed by Google under the topic "Gender Pronouns".]) Made-up pronouns suck! Won't do it.
And it's less grammatically-grating than referring to single persons as "they/them/their". When I read something about Person X, and a sentence goes on to talk about how "they" did something, I interrupt my reading to wonder who it is that has now joined X, so that we're now talking about "them" and not just Person X, alone. It's annoying! If we used "it" as a pronoun for Person X, we wouldn't have to suffer through such singular/plural referential ambiguities.
If you are worried that it's is incorrect usage, what about the use of they and them?
I am using Ambrose and Ambrose’s as my pronouns.
Mental illness is now stylish among some segments of the population.
Symptomatic of the unrestrained apostrophilia infesting current unedited publishing (e.g. Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times).
Re: Sebastian:
Like, forcing people to address individuals as they? Like, subverting grammar as part of prog rule?
I think using "they" as an indeterminate third person singular pronoun (instead of "he") actually emerged organically, even if it was inconsistent with formal English grammar. I'm not sure when that emerged, but I'm sure it was pretty widespread by the late 90's and early 2000's, since I recall discussing it while I was at college.
That informal use of indeterminate "they" was then hijacked to serve as a definite third person singular pronoun for gender ideology reasons (I think within the last five years or so), and has been the thin end of the wedge in turning pronouns from a simple linguistic convenience into an awkward contrivance more confusing than just using definite names over and over again. If it had started with random made-up pronouns, or people of the male sex demanding to be referred to as "she" and "her," I don't think it would have got in the door.
Incidentally, what titles do gender ideologues insist on these days? I assume someone who insists on "they" won't accept the usual Mr./Mrs./Miss, or even the novel Ms. Are they (see that indeterminate 3rd person pronoun!) simply to be addressed by strangers familiarly, by their last name, or perhaps by their first name only, like a servant or a Californian?
The Dutch language solved the gender problem by using the same pronoun “de” for masculine and feminine, and “het” for neuter.
"Mental illness is now stylish among some segments of the population."
Mental illness is irrelevant. Many people are mentally ill, and everyone is somewhere on the mental health spectrum. Etiquette is about treating everyone politely and with respect. I can't imagine choosing to be disrespectful to someone because you believe — or know — that they are mentally ill.
With pronouns, the convention is to say "he" or "she," and that requires gender identification. That leads to some awkward situations, and you need some etiquette to deal with that.
Althouse said
Similarly, I have a moral objection to referring to a person as "it." If that clashed with the etiquette convention of using the person's requested pronoun, I think I would just find a way not to talk about that person or to always use the person's name.
Exactly! I generally try to be kind to people, but I have a moral objection to lying to myself, so I am really not comfortable using language to identify someone as male when I know the individual is female, or visa versa. Since I don't want to be unkind, and I don't want to lie to myself, the alternative is to just use the person's name or avoid talking about them.
Andrew:
Your examples aren't possessives, they're contractions.
""The carpet's clean," "The fridge's empty," or "That person's nice.""
The carpet is clean, The fridge is empty, or That person is nice.
"We often say things like, "The carpet's clean," "The fridge's empty," or "That person's nice." But written out, that doesn't appear to be the proper way to use an apostrophe "s," because the "s" would be followed by what the noun possesses. Can anyone explain to me how you write out a phrase like the above? Does the context permit writing it out the way we speak?"
I pretty much always write it out as "is" unless I am specifically using "it's" (or "let's" where I mean "let us"). I don't know why I do it that way, I just do, and my observation is that most other people follow the same rule. Of course, speaking, I use the contracted form pretty much all the time, but I think people inflect it differently when it is the contraction rather than the possessive. What do other people hear?
since gender seeking implies lack of personality/personhood >>>
why not go for seeking objectification via it/it's/its
“Can anyone explain to me how you write out a phrase like the above? Does the context permit writing it out the way we speak?”
That’s not a possessive apostrophe, it’s a contraction apostrophe. The rules for those are more straightforward: if you combine two words and remove some letters/sounds in the process, you replace them with an apostrophe.
The fridge is running.
The fridge’s running.
Also, I forgot- "that's" and "what's".
What's the pronoun for mentally ill people? She.
I wouldn’t normally post my own work like this, but it’s on topic for this discussion.
I wrote an entire novel where the POV character is an android who prefers the pronoun “it”: aToday I Am Carey. It chose that specifically because it sees itself as nonhuman (though other characters debate that premise). From that experience I learned two things:
1. Using it as a pronoun for a human or human-like character is hard. I had to keep track of which characters knew and honored its preferences, and which didn’t; and I frequently got it wrong. I had an entire editing pass just for pronouns (and I still probably got a few wrong).
2. Readers just don’t care. 90% refer to the android as he/him. An entire editing pass, wasted. People are going to use the pronouns that make sense to them.
@Balfegor: I'm not sure when that emerged...
In Middle English, actually, first documented example is 1375. Went out of style in the 18th century.
@Unknown:Written Chinese does [have gendered pronouns]
Invented in 1919. Chinese got along fine without them for hundreds of years...
I mean, if someone told me they wanted to be called "Shithead," I wouldn't want to say it.
Although I admire your politeness, there are certainly people in this world who should be addressed as "shithead".
Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell immediately come to mind.
My pronouns are, piss, poop, and shit. If you don’t use them, then you are a bigot.
Transgender spectrum politics... when first we indulge political congruence.
Re: Althouse:
Etiquette is about treating everyone politely and with respect. I can't imagine choosing to be disrespectful to someone because you believe — or know — that they are mentally ill.
Yes, but the whole pronouns business is mostly about controlling and restricting speech that isn't addressed to the person in question (e.g. news reports etc.). Sure, I might accommodate someone who thinks he's Napoleon but is otherwise functional by addressing him as "mon Empereur" or whatever, but I wouldn't refer to him as the Emperor of the French with someone else, even if I knew it would get back to him somehow. In a direct conversation -- where politeness and respect carry the greatest weight -- the pronouns are usually going to be "you" and "yours."
Frank said...
My pronouns are, piss, poop, and shit. If you don’t use them, then you are a bigot.
=======
you left out [constipated] before bigot
the simple function of pronoun is to reference a previously 'named' individual.
why are you guys making such big fuss about it? fools and idiots.
all you need is alphanumeric string that just means 'previously 'named' individual'
Invented in 1919. Chinese got along fine without them for hundreds of years...
========
shows how wise they were.
"Yes, but the whole pronouns business is mostly about controlling and restricting speech that isn't addressed to the person in question..."
Right, but showing respect and being polite still matters. Sometimes you refer to someone in the third person when they are present, but even if they are not, it still matters to follow etiquette, unless you have some reason to want to be disrespectful.
I'm not saying what I think the etiquette should be in all these situations. I did say I'm not willing to refer to a person as "it," even if I thought they were quite serious about wanting to be called it. Other than that, I think you ought to follow the he/she that the person chooses as their form of address. It's not "lying" to do this. It's just being respectful, like using "Dear" in the greeting of a letter. This isn't about whether the person is actually dear to you.
And I think using "they" where you're unsure whether he/she fits has been a normal part of the language for a long time, so you ought to accommodate that when it's chosen.
As for all the other choices -- they're too much of a burden on the speaker and many of them seem as though they're either not serious or they are a peevish effort at getting other people to jump through hoops. I'm not saying to humor all that.
Fetus is a technical term of art used to dehumanize a human life in order to facilitate a planned human rite for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes.
Gender refers to an assembly of attributes (e.g. sexual orientation) correlated with sex.
Undocumented immigrant is political legerdemain to rationalize violating civil rights of the native and naturalized population.
Diversity [dogma] is an ethical religious belief system that denies dignity, agency, and value of individual men, women, boys, and girls through racist, sexist, ageist, classicist, etc. social constructs: Diversity, Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE).
Transgender conversion therapy is an experimental medical, surgical, psychiatric, or social treatment of an individual and population.
Digital electronics that operate with binary operators are transphobic. Either we return to analog systems, or await the common use of quantum computing.
TreeJoe:
"Does anyone who works in a white collar, e-mail based world notice those who choose to highlight their pronoun choices in e-mail (i.e. they volunteer it into their signature block) and wonder what prompted them to do that?"
I do, and it's invariably people about whom there could be no doubt. They look as if they are their preferred gender, they have a name and a manner and a life that match.
I think it's a gesture of solidarity. As if to pledge fealty to the concept that, no, you really can't know what anyone's pronouns are unless they tell you. To make transgenders feel more normal.
My philosophy is different: If asked, I would say look, you're not "normal," whatever the hell that means. Normal's overrated anyway, and my announcing my pronouns won't do a damn thing to make your life better. I'm not normal in lots of ways. This is yours. Own it. Go out there and live the best life you can, find a way to be happy, and I'll be cheering you on.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Mental illness is now stylish among some segments of the population."
Mental illness is irrelevant.
No, it is the topic of this discussion. I thought you wanted us to stay on topic.
"Gender Dydphoria" is a mental illness. Now, there are a few who, in adulthood, decide to change their gender. Some, like Dierdre McCloskey, retain most of their mental acuity. I still consider him a sad example. The recent faddish behavior by transphillic types is mental illness.
How about I say whatever I want to and you deal with it however you want? Let me start the conversation. Fuck off.
Way back when, the elders really put up a fuss about Ms.
Now, it's safe to say nobody really gives it a second thought. I've used it out of pure apathy ( Miss or Mrs., didn't know and didn't care to bother to find out - which is analogous to how I see the pronoun situation).
The pronoun thing should hopefully follow the same course. It shouldn't be up to the individual to whom it is referring. It should be up to John McWhorter! I hope he doesn't pick they. Once he makes up his mind, it should be universally acceptable as a genderless pronoun even for an otherwise he or she.
Thank you to those who answered my question. I appreciate it.
"Does anyone who works in a white collar, e-mail based world notice those who choose to highlight their pronoun choices in e-mail (i.e. they volunteer it into their signature block) and wonder what prompted them to do that?"
That is becoming far more common. It's shocking how quickly that has become a default. I would estimate a quarter of the signature blocks in my incoming emails have pronouns. Maybe even a third. These are primarily pharmaceutical companies, health care entities, and universities. I see it with our own company (we negotiate and administer clinical trials), but it's entirely voluntary, and I haven't seen any company policy promoting it. Identifying your pronouns is simply becoming part of the corporate culture.
All this is just a modern version of Havel's Green Grocer.
Re: Althouse:
Sometimes you refer to someone in the third person when they are present, but even if they are not, it still matters to follow etiquette, unless you have some reason to want to be disrespectful.
It goes beyond respect and becomes deference at that point. The reason is that it becomes an enormous, confusing imposition.
And I think using "they" where you're unsure whether he/she fits has been a normal part of the language for a long time, so you ought to accommodate that when it's chosen.
The contexts are generally quite different, though. "They" sounds pretty much fine when truly indefinite singular, by which I mean descriptions of things that haven't happened -- like processes or plans. "If they open the door, they'll see the stairs in front of them" -- contexts where it's not indefinite because of something we don't know, but because it's something unknowable. It sounds a little off when it's something unknown but knowable, like "The officers saw someone in the shadow by the door but they ran away." There, honestly, while "he" sounds more natural, it can also be more confusing, since the unknown someone might turn out to be a woman.
But it becomes downright misleading when it's "The officers saw Edward in the shadow by the door but they ran away." One can go through the Newspeak exercise of manually translating every he or she into "they" but then one has to check back to clear up all the new ambiguities. Not that we don't have confusion with multiple hes and shes and its and theys anyhow. But we've been trained since elementary school to write around those specific pronoun ambiguities. Singular definite they is a new one presenting additional complexity owing to the overlap of singular and plural. It's sort of like the awkwardness of an English speaker having to remember that French "ils" can include women, or navigating German "Sie," "sie"(f) and "sie"(pl.).
It's a real, significant imposition on communication among third parties, and one that, in inconvenience, goes considerably beyond just having to insert "his Imperial majesty" every time you mention a madman who thinks he's Napoleon (just ctrl-f and replace). And the egotism it represents -- the insistence that one's pronoun preferences cast a shadow over everyone else's communications with each other, that pushing forward of oneself at the expense of other people -- is a kind of bad manners that far exceeds any intentional refusal to use preferred pronouns in communications to which the individual in question is not a party. None of us is entitled to demand such extraordinary deference.
Under the old rules of etiquette, yes, one is expected to show respect to others. But one is also expected to show consideration. Not to demand that others go out of their way to accommodate you. Not to make an imposition. Under those rules, it would have been rude even to ask. And the obligation etiquette imposes on the people around you would be that they do their best not to embarrass you for asking. Not that they show "respect" (obeisance?) by indulging you.
It's even more humane to practice normal etiquette graces when dealing with mentally ill individuals.
>Ann Althouse said...
I did say I'm not willing to refer to a person as "it," even if I thought they were quite serious about wanting to be called it. Other than that, I think you ought to follow the he/she that the person chooses as their form of address.
And I think using "they" where you're unsure whether he/she fits has been a normal part of the language for a long time, so you ought to accommodate that when it's chosen.
As for all the other choices -- they're too much of a burden on the speaker and many of them seem as though they're either not serious or they are a peevish effort at getting other people to jump through hoops. I'm not saying to humor all that.<
So, then, your rules for this pronoun business are rather arbitrary.
I'll let you in on a little secret: All of this pronoun nonsense is about getting other people to jump through hoops.
"Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I mean, if someone told me they wanted to be called "Shithead," I wouldn't want to say it. I probably would just not talk about them or not use any name. This person would be trying to force me to degrade myself."
If I ask you to lie, to state a patent untruth and express the most convoluted and contrived chain of reasoning to justify that lie, I am absolutely forcing you to degrade yourself. There's no reason at all for you to balk at calling someone "it" when you've already agreed to any number of equivalent pretenses for the sake of politesse.
You're only holding up four fingers, Ann O'Brien. You can't make me say there's five.
"And I think using "they" where you're unsure whether he/she fits has been a normal part of the language for a long time, so you ought to accommodate that when it's chosen."
When I am unsure I use "he or she". I don't use the language incorrectly because I do not know the sex of the individual. Any time I read an article where they is being used instead of he or she, I find it extremely difficult to understand who the writer is referring to.
"And I think using "they" where you're unsure whether he/she fits has been a normal part of the language for a long time, so you ought to accommodate that when it's chosen."
If we have used x where y, we ought to do x where z.
Sorry, no. When "it's chosen" to undermine clear communication and the common rules of grammar, and to demand recognition where none is earned, that is itself impolite.
Why do trans demands outweigh mine? Who made them, or progs in general, masters?
It isn't just about how we would speak to a person in a classroom or at a convention. Male criminals are identifying as women (she, her) so that they (them, its) are put in the female prisons. There, in a growing number of cases, she with her penis rapes the women. Pronouns expressing the difference that allows her to rape her whereas she couldn't rape her are needed. And then separate prisons for the different pronouns. The pronoun people (they, them, its) have no policy for this situation except to ignore it (the situation). They (she, he and it collectively) do not accept responsibility. That is why I think this gender shifting won't last as social policy. If they (she, he, it collectively) took responsibility for it (the situation where she is trapped in a cell where she rapes her) which they (she, he, it collectively) have created then it's (it) possible that they (the gender police) might make the change stick. Policing words while ignoring situations means the policy will slither away with them (he, she, it collectively).
I haven’t read anything since early this morning so I’m sorry if I duplicate someone else.
I would say your use of “it’s”, Althouse, is correct in meaning either the video or the music, itself. Not the person who created the video.
"Mental illness" rested on an idea of normality that's been lost. Today people make all manner of choices that would have gotten them forcibly and involuntarily committed a century ago.
If “they” can be singular, why can’t “it” be considered NOT dehumanizing?
This is both a reasonable and serious question.
Rollo @ 8:21 pm : That’s true.
Post a Comment