My first encounter with a Pronoun Warrior

Well I'm not sure there is anything ironic about it, it's the actual correct pronoun for that situation.

 

My observation is that those who suffer from or hold strong opinions about gender dysphoria, or want to be seen as 'woke' are rabidly self-absorbed. They may be rabid, but they certainly are not alone. So, here goes another cult of narcissists ,,, vying for approval from those who hate America because it was founded on land stolen by colonists.

Happy Native American Heritage Day. What better way to celebrate the first colonists to settle in the Americas. Of course, the first colonists came across the Bering Land Bridge roughly 14,000 years ago after the Climate Changed, feeding on the real Natives, Woolly Mammoths.

There is genetic evidence that the first colonists were 1/3 West Eurasian and 2/3 East Asian. This evidence was so contradictory to the cult of narcissists whose identity is tied to hatred of later explorers and America's Founders that it was ignored.

Watch out for the rising water.

 

I have some acquaintances who run in those circles. It is tiresome beyond imagination. And having to be so careful and fastidious to always make sure you are asking people their pronouns, and then trembling with fear at the thought of using the wrong one.

At a social gathering a while back, I decided to have a little fun and suggest that if a speaker is going to use a plural pronoun to describe a singular being, said speaker ought to then use the singular verb form to be accurate in speech: so they are becomes they is. I suggested an added bonus to this practice is that they would also be speaking in the black vernacular English dialect, which would make the speaker even more inclusive. Can you believe them called me a racist and walked away??? I mean I thought I was being supportive of they movement!!!

 

Wokeness turned narcissists into sociopaths.

 

It’s attitudes like this that inspires them.

 

I'm thinking that the English dialect was learned from the English criminals that were sent to Georgia. It was, perhaps, the only English dialect the slaves were taught. I read somewhere uneducated white Democrats were the sources for words like 'aks'.

 

Really?
I thought it only fair to call those peope "it" - or by their name.
But never ever a single person oft that sort "they"

 

No.. I don't realize that. I know that some people treat the appellation "Mexican" as tho' it's an insult. However, they refer to themselves (when deemed descriptive) as Mexican, even the ones whose families have been here since it was declared part of the USA, AND at times they honor me as "Mexican" too (it's a culture, not a race, AND I am darker than many here)

 

Sounds like you could have been talking with my ex who is a hard core progressive. When she and I discuss political things she ‘corrects’ me with her opinions which she insists are facts. But if I hit her with facts she dismisses them as worthless opinions. She is often so smug and elitist that had I not lived with her for three years I wouldn’t want to talk to her at all.

 

Agreed, the left has specifically ****ed up 'immigrant' and the worst three words spoken in synchrony, in a decade, 'defund the police'.

 

Just what ever you do, do NOT call a Honduran Mexican. That gets ugly, fast.

 

Oh yeah.. the Mexicans would be all over me for that! Besides.. I can detect a foreign accent

 

The use of the singular "they" has been proper English for over 6 centuries.

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

If you want to insist that singular "they" doesn't exist, then you need to insist that singular "you" does not exist since that replaced thee and thou in the 17th century, about 3 centuries after the singular "they" began its use.

 

When nothing is known about the person being referenced, "they" is used to describe a singular being. However, when that information is known -- such as in a news story -- and has already been referenced, it is incorrect to use the plural pronoun.

Example A:

In an early morning break-in, a person wearing a mask and hooded sweatshirt was seen on store security cameras breaking the glass countertop with a hammer and removing several Rolex watches. They quickly exited the store and their whereabouts are now unknown.
​

Though not technically correct -- grammatically or syntactically -- this convention is used because the alternative is either to refer to the individual as "it," (which is improper for obvious reasons), or "he or she," which is cumbersome. But because the individual referenced by the writer is unknown and referenced as a single individual, the reader understands the reference to be of a single individual. Please observe:

In an early morning break-in, a person wearing a mask and hooded sweatshirt was seen on store security cameras breaking the glass countertop with a hammer and removing several Rolex watches. It quickly exited the store and its whereabouts are now unknown.
​

The quantity of the pronoun is correct, but we do not refer to human beings as "it," a pronoun reserved for objects and sometimes animals. The other option would be as follows:

A person wearing a mask and hooded sweatshirt was seen on store security cameras breaking the glass countertop with a hammer and removing several Rolex watches. He or she quickly exited the store and his or her whereabouts are now unknown.
​

Again, the above is cumbersome so it is accepted to use the convention for clarity and flow in newswriting, academic writing, and business writing, as examples.

Example B:

Local resident Sally Stevens will receive the Greater Poughkeepsie Medal of Honor presented by the Kiwanis Club of the Upper Hudson Valley for her tireless efforts in helping feed and shelter veterans experiencing homelessness in the area. She stated that it was a real honor and that she's proud to accept it on behalf of all the men and women who dedicate their time and energy to the cause of ending homelessness among veterans.
​

Here it is clear the writer is referencing a singular adult female (aka a "woman"), and the pronouns used are correct for both the quantity of persons referenced as well as the biological sex thereof.

Local resident Sally Stevens will receive the Greater Poughkeepsie Medal of Honor presented by the Kiwanis Club of the Upper Hudson Valley for its tireless efforts in helping feed and shelter veterans experiencing homelessness in the area. It stated that it was a real honor and that it's proud to accept it on behalf of all the men and women who dedicate their time and energy to the cause of ending homelessness among veterans.
​

Again, incorrect pronouns for obvious reasons. Now let's observe the preferred syntax of the wokerazzi:

Local resident Sally Stevens will receive the Greater Poughkeepsie Medal of Honor presented by the Kiwanis Club of the Upper Hudson Valley for their tireless efforts in helping feed and shelter veterans experiencing homelessness in the area. They stated that it was a real honor and that they's proud to accept it on behalf of all the men and women who dedicate their time and energy to the cause of ending homelessness among veterans.
​

As the writer has already established the subject of the article is a singular person, even excluding biological sex (aka "science"), it is unclear, sloppy, and frankly ridiculous to refer to a singular person (or object for that matter) with plural pronouns.

Imagine you're on an airplane landing in Seattle and the pilot comes on: "Good afternoon from the cockpit, for those of you seated on the right side of the plane, you're being treated to a spectacular sight! Mt. Rainier is fully visible on this beautifully clear day up here as we begin our descent into Sea-Tac airport. At 14.411 feet, they is the tallest mountain in the North Cascade range. They also features one of the largest permanent glaciers in North America. We thank you for flying with us today and we'll be on the ground shortly."

Of course nobody with even a sliver of fancy book learnin' would ever utter such grammatic diarrhea. Yet we're supposed to apply this cacophony to people because 0.5% of the population presents itselves as the biological sex they is not.

 

Here it is for me. If someone is A-sexual, live and let live. I'll take their word for it.

But, don't make me change the English language. I'm not going to refer to them as 'they'.

Sorry.

 

Asexual means that they are not sexually attracted to anyone. Being asexual has nothing to do with their pronouns.

 

Your source for all the above? Oxford, one of the leading authorities on the English language, has noted that the use of the singular "they" has been legitimate and appropriate since at least the 14th century. This is even longer than "you" has been appropriate as a singular, which occurred in the 17th century, where it had previously been a plural use, with thee/thy/thine being the singular.

But, if thee insists upon the use of proper singular and plural uses, with thy obvious superior knowledge to even Oxford, then by all means we should revert all changes since the 1300's, including properly using "you" as the plural it is.

 

Exactly. They will piss off enough independents and old school Dems to tip scales to the R side. I think the 2022 elections will be brutal for progressives and Dems to a lesser extent.

 

I have not, but a good friends granddaughter is non binary and is offended if called "she". My friend is a retired English teacher and told her why she can't refer to her as "they". The Granddaughter got angry and said "Just call me "it"!

She can't figure how to refer to her grand-it without offended it.

I think its time for "them" to invent terms to replace:

His/Hers
Him/her
He/she
Son/daughter
etc

 

Apples and oranges but nice try...

 

We used to speak Latin, too. Unless they is a Shakespearean actoid, them not talk archaic. They -- and by they they mean all them they -- talk modern standard English. And modern standard English dictates a singular person is referenced by a third-person singular pronoun which unfortunately for the 0.5% of the population who presents differently from their biological sex (aka "science"), those pronouns do reference crotchular plumbings.

 

Another rare agreement. This is two in one week! Should we start to worry?

 

I don't get the demand not to use her/their name in favor of that overly vague pronoun. Did this non-binary creature give up its name, too?

 

"Just call me they!"

 

So the Southern Y'all's y'all isn't going to cut it.... (Humor!)