| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66880
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/27/22 12:46 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| We as a society need to come up with a singular pronoun to fit those who don't want to use he/she. I have a friend who also uses they/them and we have joked about using 'it' but of course it generally denotes an object. But they/them makes it feel like multiple personalities. |
"They/them" in the context of an individual gets clunky sometimes. Using "it" to refer to a person is generally considered rude. It's always possible to phrase sentences without using pronouns, but saying all those nouns over and over can really wear you down.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 1:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| THe use of they/them works when it is about AD alone, but when she starts talking about the team as a whole, or about AD working in the context of the team, I find myself stumbling over the pronouns - like ok, is that they/them about AD or about the team. We as a society need to come up with a singular pronoun to fit those who don't want to use he/she. I have a friend who also uses they/them and we have joked about using 'it' but of course it generally denotes an object. But they/them makes it feel like multiple personalities. |
I completely agree. If the nonbinary community wants to come up with their own pronouns, I would be very happy to use them. However, commandeering commonly used pronouns that are primarily recognized as plural only confuses the language. After all, the purpose of language is to communicate. Taking these plural pronouns and adding an extra nonplural meaning reduces clarity. As someone who tutors remedial reading to young children, I'm particularly sensitive to how usage can be explained. American English is already an amalgam of multiple languages, and a lot of it is simply incongruous. Plural pronouns are one part of the language that actually makes sense. So, it would be a step backward to make it more complicated.
Again, out of respect for the nonbinary community, I'd be more than willing to use any new pronouns they come up with. However, even here you have an uphill battle. The New York Times has had multiple articles about how the word Latinx isn't widely accepted in the Hispanic community. That includes a front page story tying it to changes in political affiliations. |
I find that when someone holds this attitude about the singular they/them, if *they would channel just half the energy they spend complaining about it toward actually trying to do it, it would be second nature sooner than not.
*see what I did there?
_________________
RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 2:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| undersized_post wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| THe use of they/them works when it is about AD alone, but when she starts talking about the team as a whole, or about AD working in the context of the team, I find myself stumbling over the pronouns - like ok, is that they/them about AD or about the team. We as a society need to come up with a singular pronoun to fit those who don't want to use he/she. I have a friend who also uses they/them and we have joked about using 'it' but of course it generally denotes an object. But they/them makes it feel like multiple personalities. |
I completely agree. If the nonbinary community wants to come up with their own pronouns, I would be very happy to use them. However, commandeering commonly used pronouns that are primarily recognized as plural only confuses the language. After all, the purpose of language is to communicate. Taking these plural pronouns and adding an extra nonplural meaning reduces clarity. As someone who tutors remedial reading to young children, I'm particularly sensitive to how usage can be explained. American English is already an amalgam of multiple languages, and a lot of it is simply incongruous. Plural pronouns are one part of the language that actually makes sense. So, it would be a step backward to make it more complicated.
Again, out of respect for the nonbinary community, I'd be more than willing to use any new pronouns they come up with. However, even here you have an uphill battle. The New York Times has had multiple articles about how the word Latinx isn't widely accepted in the Hispanic community. That includes a front page story tying it to changes in political affiliations. |
I find that when someone holds this attitude about the singular they/them, if *they would channel just half the energy they spend complaining about it toward actually trying to do it, it would be second nature sooner than not.
*see what I did there? |
That's rather presumptuous of you to say since you don't know me. The times I've commented on this issue can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Publicly, this is the first time ever.
You're using the exception to prove the rule. They/them has always had limited singular usage when making nonspecific references. The indefinite generalizes and essentially turns the person into a representative of some group. This makes it more of a hybrid singular and plural. It's very different when you refer to a specific person. That's especially true if the person is also discussed in a group context, which makes it imperative that you distinguish between the two. Switching back and forth speaking about the individual and the group while using the same pronoun cannot be anything but confusing. So, when Brondello talks about the struggles of AD while also speaking about the team's problems, it's really hard to follow.
And if you want to compare effort, is it easier to train entire populations to alter the way they've used particular words for centuries or is it easier to simply invent new words? Why does the vastly larger binary population have to change a practice that works well just to satisfy a much smaller group? The traditional use of they/them/their pronouns is not offensive, nor does it affect people's health, safety or rights. We're discussing the practical use of pronouns with an emphasis on functionality and clarity. So, if something is working and it's not hurting anybody, then why do the preponderance of people have to alter their behavior? This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6794
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 2:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Ze/Zem Ze/Zir have been around for a while but haven't become mainstream or common in usage. I think people on both sides of the conversation deferred to They/them as it seemed more viable in common usage.
My guess is that people/media probably feel more comfortable with they/them as it is something they already use and it is something you can apply without direct consent from the individual. As in I doubt a media person would use Ze/Zir without specifically knowing the individual in question uses Ze/Zir but would feel ok using they/them in the same situation without knowing.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 3:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| As someone from the "vastly larger nonbinary population," I don't HAVE to change my usage of pronouns. But I choose to do so out of respect and solidarity with AD and many others, including the 16-year-old child of a friend. Each of us from the "vastly larger nonbinary population" can make that choice--or not.
_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 4:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Shouldn't Durr be saying "we". Maybe they is confused.
This is all so semantically and functionally absurd. Individuals are not entitled to command the worldwide community of English language speakers to their own personal pronouns any more than they are entitled to their own personal verbs, adjectives or common nouns. But if a Brobdingnagian basketball center wants to be called a Lilliputian guard, I suppose there are wokesters who will go along with such abortions of the English language and obfuscations of meaning.
Maybe we all can then carry around pronoun-verb-adjective-noun translation programs for the personal language preferences of all 7.8 billion people on Earth.
Being a non-binary individual re gender or sexuality does not make anyone a plurality of individuals. Counting, if not English, should be fundamental. |
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18028
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 4:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| readyAIMfire53 wrote: |
| Iluvacc wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
The unenviable choices for the New York Liberty over AD
| Quote: |
AD has had to retrain their brain since being cleared for on court activity in November. During training camp, AD would struggle with comprehension and memory during practice. Brondello would give a bunch of sequential directions including when to dribble and when to pass followed by when to come off a down screen. AD had difficulty processing that sequence.
“COVID has really thrown everything off so now I have to retrain my brain to do everything,” they said. “It’s kind of like I tell people how you’re like you’re paralyzed and you’re trying to learn how to walk again. That’s kind of how it is now. And it’s learning how to think, something so simple as thinking and doing something while you’re thinking.” |
| Quote: |
When the Liberty returned home to face the Fever on May 13, AD confirmed that they had experienced a COVID flare up, something that has been prevalent in their life during their battle with long COVID. They began to feel ill the night before Wednesday’s game in Chicago. The next morning they felt better, but then the symptoms returned as the day progressed. “I started feeling you know pretty dizzy and nauseous, sweats and chills,” they said.
|
https://www.thenexthoops.com/features/the-unenviable-choices-for-the-new-york-liberty-over-ad/ |
Sorry to hear they're still going through this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall them being unvaccinated. I wonder if that changed? I hope so if that's the case. |
I had long Covid until my first booster. I had a nice bump after the first two vaccines, but the first booster totally alleviated the symptoms. Still unknown what causes long Covid (autoimmune response to the virus or virus remaining and continuing to wreak havoc) but, for me, the vaccine finally stopped long Covid. |
I believe another article mentioned that they had finally gotten vaccinated but not boosted, as they believed the initial vaccination triggered a flare-up.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 4:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| undersized_post wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| THe use of they/them works when it is about AD alone, but when she starts talking about the team as a whole, or about AD working in the context of the team, I find myself stumbling over the pronouns - like ok, is that they/them about AD or about the team. We as a society need to come up with a singular pronoun to fit those who don't want to use he/she. I have a friend who also uses they/them and we have joked about using 'it' but of course it generally denotes an object. But they/them makes it feel like multiple personalities. |
I completely agree. If the nonbinary community wants to come up with their own pronouns, I would be very happy to use them. However, commandeering commonly used pronouns that are primarily recognized as plural only confuses the language. After all, the purpose of language is to communicate. Taking these plural pronouns and adding an extra nonplural meaning reduces clarity. As someone who tutors remedial reading to young children, I'm particularly sensitive to how usage can be explained. American English is already an amalgam of multiple languages, and a lot of it is simply incongruous. Plural pronouns are one part of the language that actually makes sense. So, it would be a step backward to make it more complicated.
Again, out of respect for the nonbinary community, I'd be more than willing to use any new pronouns they come up with. However, even here you have an uphill battle. The New York Times has had multiple articles about how the word Latinx isn't widely accepted in the Hispanic community. That includes a front page story tying it to changes in political affiliations. |
I find that when someone holds this attitude about the singular they/them, if *they would channel just half the energy they spend complaining about it toward actually trying to do it, it would be second nature sooner than not.
*see what I did there? |
That's rather presumptuous of you to say since you don't know me. The times I've commented on this issue can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Publicly, this is the first time ever.
You're using the exception to prove the rule. They/them has always had limited singular usage when making nonspecific references. The indefinite generalizes and essentially turns the person into a representative of some group. This makes it more of a hybrid singular and plural. It's very different when you refer to a specific person. That's especially true if the person is also discussed in a group context, which makes it imperative that you distinguish between the two. Switching back and forth speaking about the individual and the group while using the same pronoun cannot be anything but confusing. So, when Brondello talks about the struggles of AD while also speaking about the team's problems, it's really hard to follow.
And if you want to compare effort, is it easier to train entire populations to alter the way they've used particular words for centuries or is it easier to simply invent new words? Why does the vastly larger binary population have to change a practice that works well just to satisfy a much smaller group? The traditional use of they/them/their pronouns is not offensive, nor does it affect people's health, safety or rights. We're discussing the practical use of pronouns with an emphasis on functionality and clarity. So, if something is working and it's not hurting anybody, then why do the preponderance of people have to alter their behavior? This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. |
A list in no particular order:
1. This would now be the 2nd post in which you've publicly made a stink about it, not the first.
2. Your original post ironically twice uses "their" as a singular possessive pronoun to refer to the singular (albeit collective -- which is its own bag of worms) noun "community." So for someone so opposed ambiguity you could start there.
3. English already has a pronoun with number ambiguity. ("You" can refer to a single person or a group of people.) So the ambiguities with singular they/them isn't anything new.
4. Other languages have the same pronoun ambiguity you are so concerned about. In German, the pronoun "sie/Sie" can be translated to she, they, you singular, you plural, or it. It all depends on the context.
5. Words take on new meanings and new usages literally all of the time. Heck, it honestly would've happened already for singular they/them if not for political resistance from not just transphobic adversarial types but also the well-meaning allies who drag their feet with longwinded arguments about "functionality and clarity."
6. There isn't a single sentence in the Next piece where it is truly unclear whether 'they' is referring to AD or the Liberty as a team. (If you disagree, I invite you to share a quote here.) But. Even if there were -- this is literally nothing that writers and speakers don't already deal with. Languages are inherently fluid and unclear at times, and writers already have to take care to word things differently when clarity of meaning is the primary concern. So again, being mindful of that with singular they/them would not be a brand new skill -- just a new case of applying a skill that people already possess to a new case.
7. "The traditional use of they/them/their pronouns is not offensive, nor does it affect people's health, safety or rights. ... So, if something is working and it's not hurting anybody, then why do the preponderance of people have to alter their behavior? "
To use your own words back at you:
Singular they/them is not offensive, nor does it affect people's health, safety or rights. So if something is already working [for many trans and nonbinary individuals] and it's not hurting anybody, then why do [them] the preponderance of being a curmudgeon about it?"
_________________
RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18028
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 4:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Also, the singular "they" has existed in the English language since the 14th century. Its more frequent use to refer to a specific singular person rather than a generic singular person should make it easier, not harder, for people to comprehend how it's being used. If there are comprehension issues, the onus is on the writer to convey their intent more clearly, and on the reader to take a second look at the parts of the article that confuse them. That onus should not be on the person who has undergone the sort of rigorous self-examination that it would take to break out of a binary mode of thought; AD, or any other user of the singular they/them, is under no obligation to deliberately mis-define who they are in order to conform to someone else's view of how they should be.
As a writer, I would appreciate it if we could settle on a reflexive form of the singular they, though. "Themselves" is not appropriate to a single person and "themself" doesn't seem to be in common usage. The previous paragraph went through several changes to avoid running into that thorny dilemma.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 4:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
| As a writer, I would appreciate it if we could settle on a reflexive form of the singular they, though. "Themselves" is not appropriate to a single person and "themself" doesn't seem to be in common usage. The previous paragraph went through several changes to avoid running into that thorny dilemma. |
Now this is an interesting neologistical conversation.
_________________
RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion 🏆
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 5:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| undersized_post wrote: |
| 5. Words take on new meanings and new usages literally all of the time. Heck, it honestly would've happened already for singular they/them if not for political resistance from not just transphobic adversarial types but also the well-meaning allies who drag their feet with longwinded arguments about "functionality and clarity." |
Of the many important observations you've made, this for me is the most important: "Words take on new meanings and new usages literally all of the time." This is obvious and is, in my view, the proper context in which to view current battles over language.
One of the many ways that language is transformed is when an oppressed group finds current language unsatisfactory or downright offensive and demands changes. To note an obvious example, LGBTQIA+ people took the historic slur "queer," reclaimed it, and transformed it into a positive self-definition.
As an ally, I've made many changes in my use of language to support groups whose lives and causes I care about. I'm a published writer. I've taught 9th and 10th grade English. I've taught many college literature classes. I care more about these peoples and causes than about traditional grammar rules or linguistic standards. Each of us has to decide what's most important.
_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
Last edited by Bob Lamm on 05/27/22 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
ChiSky54
Joined: 19 Jun 2019
Posts: 667
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 5:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Growing up in the 60s, kids seemed to gravitate towards using they and them when referring to an individual. Teachers diligently reminded us that when we used "he", it allegedly could also refer to a female. Subconsciously, we apparently knew better because we often saw the generic "he" usually meant a literal "he" because of more structured gender roles, so we were being inclusive without realizing what we were doing!
_________________
There is nothing new under the sun.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 5:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ChiSky54 wrote: |
| Growing up in the 60s, kids seemed to gravitate towards using they and them when referring to an individual. Teachers diligently reminded us that when we used "he", it allegedly could also refer to a female. Subconsciously, we apparently knew better because we often saw the generic "he" usually meant a literal "he" because of more structured gender roles, so we were being inclusive without realizing what we were doing! |
Wonderful. I love this!
_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
NYL_WNBA_FAN
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 14097
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/27/22 6:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
WNBA Fan Nation reports that Natasha Howard has been nursing a back issue. Which may explain why she has been wearing something on her back that looks like a compression device.
Maybe that’s why Howard’s play has been below expected. Anyway, as we were discussing before the season, the Liberty are particularly ill-equipped to withstand injury to their top players. Especially posts. The team stats support that.
I’m not even using it as an excuse. After last year, you had to be better prepared. I can understand some losing without your top players. I can’t understand losing the way they have so far. I also can’t understand playing someone 30 minutes a night while nursing a back issue because your post situation is otherwise somewhat untenable. This season has been very aggravating and disappointing so far.
_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 1:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| undersized_post wrote: |
1. This would now be the 2nd post in which you've publicly made a stink about it, not the first. |
Obviously, I was referring to my original post. This is also all one discussion. As far as a "stink" goes, you're the one who made it hostile. I thought Myrtle was very respectful with her original post, and so was I. We disagreed with the usage of the pronouns, but we made it clear that we supported the nonbinary community and were looking for an alternative solution.
| undersized_post wrote: |
2. Your original post ironically twice uses "their" as a singular possessive pronoun to refer to the singular (albeit collective -- which is its own bag of worms) noun "community." So for someone so opposed ambiguity you could start there. |
As you admit yourself, the word community is collective. It is an implied plural.
| undersized_post wrote: |
3. English already has a pronoun with number ambiguity. ("You" can refer to a single person or a group of people.) So the ambiguities with singular they/them isn't anything new. |
"You" obviously refers to the person you're addressing. Besides, existing ambiguity doesn't justify adding ambiguity.
| undersized_post wrote: |
4. Other languages have the same pronoun ambiguity you are so concerned about. In German, the pronoun "sie/Sie" can be translated to she, they, you singular, you plural, or it. It all depends on the context. |
Just because it exists in German, does that make it a good thing? Should Germans adopt all the extra verb tenses that we have in English?
| undersized_post wrote: |
5. Words take on new meanings and new usages literally all of the time. Heck, it honestly would've happened already for singular they/them if not for political resistance from not just transphobic adversarial types but also the well-meaning allies who drag their feet with longwinded arguments about "functionality and clarity." |
My original post was two short paragraphs. The second one three short paragraphs. That's long-winded? Or are you just looking for an excuse to hurl insults? Much of that original post was my attempt to show respect while disagreeing. Obviously, I shouldn't have even bothered. As for changes in usage, yes that's true. But those changes usually happen gradually and naturally over time. For instance, the phrase "that doesn't jibe" has become "that doesn't jive" because jibe is a yachting term that most people don't know. But the repurposed they/them is being forced down out throats by a small group who decided that the world should just bow to their will. Now everybody is expected to announce their preferred pronouns at the beginning of any correspondence or article. Do you how ridiculous that looks to most ordinary people? So no, your inability to make this happen quickly isn't only because of resistance from transphobic adversaries and "long-winded allies." Most ordinary people are probably neither your enemies nor your allies, but they still think the whole idea is nonsense. I don't even know the right word to describe the situation -- probably some combination of concepts like elitist, first world, entitled, and pretentious. Meanwhile, you haven't made any attempt to explain why hijacking useful plural pronouns is a better solution than creating new ones that would be less confusing and yours alone.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 5:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| But the repurposed they/them is being forced down out throats by a small group who decided that the world should just bow to their will. |
Wow. I'll have to tell the terrific 16-year-old I know who is transitioning that they are doing such intense harm to you by FORCING you to "bow to" their will. And if I should ever happen to meet AD I'll be sure to tell them the same.
Seems worth noting: this is a page focused on the New York Liberty. I'd guess that the majority of us who post here are Liberty fans, but obviously some who post here aren't and that's great. Since we all learned that AD now prefers to use that name rather than their previous name--and prefers to use they/them rather than previous female pronouns--everyone has CHOSEN to follow AD's wishes. Including root_thing. I view our acceptance of AD's feelings as a statement of good wishes and solidarity for this individual who surely most of us have never met and may never meet. I respect everyone here for that choice.
_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
Last edited by Bob Lamm on 05/28/22 8:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18028
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 7:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| So how about those turnovers?
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6794
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 9:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
2023
Bueckers/Dangerfield
Ionescu/Willoughby/Richards
Laney/Allen
Howard/Sabally/Cubaj or Kone
Han/Dolson
too soon
(and of course replace Cubaj or Kone with Stewart if/when that comes to pass and championship here we come).
|
|
ChiSky54
Joined: 19 Jun 2019
Posts: 667
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
so-many-pickles
Joined: 17 May 2018
Posts: 97
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 2:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| undersized_post wrote: |
1. This would now be the 2nd post in which you've publicly made a stink about it, not the first. |
Obviously, I was referring to my original post. This is also all one discussion. As far as a "stink" goes, you're the one who made it hostile. I thought Myrtle was very respectful with her original post, and so was I. We disagreed with the usage of the pronouns, but we made it clear that we supported the nonbinary community and were looking for an alternative solution.
| undersized_post wrote: |
2. Your original post ironically twice uses "their" as a singular possessive pronoun to refer to the singular (albeit collective -- which is its own bag of worms) noun "community." So for someone so opposed ambiguity you could start there. |
As you admit yourself, the word community is collective. It is an implied plural.
| undersized_post wrote: |
3. English already has a pronoun with number ambiguity. ("You" can refer to a single person or a group of people.) So the ambiguities with singular they/them isn't anything new. |
"You" obviously refers to the person you're addressing. Besides, existing ambiguity doesn't justify adding ambiguity.
| undersized_post wrote: |
4. Other languages have the same pronoun ambiguity you are so concerned about. In German, the pronoun "sie/Sie" can be translated to she, they, you singular, you plural, or it. It all depends on the context. |
Just because it exists in German, does that make it a good thing? Should Germans adopt all the extra verb tenses that we have in English?
| undersized_post wrote: |
5. Words take on new meanings and new usages literally all of the time. Heck, it honestly would've happened already for singular they/them if not for political resistance from not just transphobic adversarial types but also the well-meaning allies who drag their feet with longwinded arguments about "functionality and clarity." |
My original post was two short paragraphs. The second one three short paragraphs. That's long-winded? Or are you just looking for an excuse to hurl insults? Much of that original post was my attempt to show respect while disagreeing. Obviously, I shouldn't have even bothered. As for changes in usage, yes that's true. But those changes usually happen gradually and naturally over time. For instance, the phrase "that doesn't jibe" has become "that doesn't jive" because jibe is a yachting term that most people don't know. But the repurposed they/them is being forced down out throats by a small group who decided that the world should just bow to their will. Now everybody is expected to announce their preferred pronouns at the beginning of any correspondence or article. Do you how ridiculous that looks to most ordinary people? So no, your inability to make this happen quickly isn't only because of resistance from transphobic adversaries and "long-winded allies." Most ordinary people are probably neither your enemies nor your allies, but they still think the whole idea is nonsense. I don't even know the right word to describe the situation -- probably some combination of concepts like elitist, first world, entitled, and pretentious. Meanwhile, you haven't made any attempt to explain why hijacking useful plural pronouns is a better solution than creating new ones that would be less confusing and yours alone. |
This whole issue should not even be up for discussion because it's a women's league and people who are not women should not be playing in it.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 2:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| so-many-pickles wrote: |
| This whole issue should not even be up for discussion because it's a women's league and people who are not women should not be playing in it. |
Ugh.
_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66880
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 2:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| so-many-pickles wrote: |
| This whole issue should not even be up for discussion because it's a women's league and people who are not women should not be playing in it. |
Indeed, Article XIII, Section 1(a) of the CBA says
| WNBA CBA wrote: |
| Only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5375
Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 4:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| so-many-pickles wrote: |
| This whole issue should not even be up for discussion because it's a women's league and people who are not women should not be playing in it. |
Indeed, Article XIII, Section 1(a) of the CBA says
| WNBA CBA wrote: |
| Only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA |
|
Facts.
_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 5:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| But it doesn't say anything about how they can identify, presumably so long as they have the 'correct' chromosomes. Once you get into chemical alterations, it becomes hazier.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24344
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/28/22 5:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| But it doesn't say anything about how they can identify, presumably so long as they have the 'correct' chromosomes. Once you get into chemical alterations, it becomes hazier. |
I think - probably intentionally - it's all been left pretty hazy for now. This league is going to run into transgender issues sooner or later, and it kinda seems like all they're doing about it at the moment is hoping that it remains "later". |
|
|
|
Neither team shot well. The Storm had fewer rebounds but more steals. Guess those differences tipped the game to the Storm.