PugJesus@lemmy.worldM to A Comm for Historymemes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day ago"It's so much trouble remembering modern pronou-"lemmy.worldimagemessage-square36fedilinkarrow-up1244arrow-down121cross-posted to: linguistics_humor@sh.itjust.works
arrow-up1223arrow-down1image"It's so much trouble remembering modern pronou-"lemmy.worldPugJesus@lemmy.worldM to A Comm for Historymemes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square36fedilinkcross-posted to: linguistics_humor@sh.itjust.works
minus-squarePugJesus@lemmy.worldOPMlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 day agoThey/them is not used exclusively to refer to neuter things, so enbies not being gender neutral is irrelevant here. ‘They’ is a useful and pre-existing catch-all.
minus-squarerxin@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·1 day ago they/them is what I hope we all eventually settle on as standard for NB gender identities. This part is the one I’m referring to. I’m not opposed to they/them — it’s good, but I don’t think it’s fair to reduce enbies to just “they/them”.
minus-squarePugJesus@lemmy.worldOPMlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 day ago… why? Is that any more absurd than “reducing males to he/him” or “reducing females to she/her”? It’s language, not a campaign medal. You don’t need a separate example for every instance.
minus-squareSomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·19 hours agoThe whole point of pronouns, I would argue, is to not need a separate set for every instance. Otherwise you may as well just use Dan/Dan/Dan’s/Danself conjugated for each name. Pronouns: Are (generally) shorter than names, because there’s less need for them to be unique and they’re used more frequently. Can be used even when you don’t know specifics about a person or object, or they don’t want to give out their name. Everyone knows how to conjugate them, so once you know someone is a ‘they’, you can readily extrapolate to them, their, theirs.
minus-squarerxin@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·edit-216 hours agoWell exactly because they/them is a catch-all and there aren’t just he/hims and she/hers let enbies express themselves too!
They/them is not used exclusively to refer to neuter things, so enbies not being gender neutral is irrelevant here. ‘They’ is a useful and pre-existing catch-all.
This part is the one I’m referring to. I’m not opposed to they/them — it’s good, but I don’t think it’s fair to reduce enbies to just “they/them”.
… why?
Is that any more absurd than “reducing males to he/him” or “reducing females to she/her”?
It’s language, not a campaign medal. You don’t need a separate example for every instance.
The whole point of pronouns, I would argue, is to not need a separate set for every instance.
Otherwise you may as well just use Dan/Dan/Dan’s/Danself conjugated for each name.
Pronouns:
Are (generally) shorter than names, because there’s less need for them to be unique and they’re used more frequently.
Can be used even when you don’t know specifics about a person or object, or they don’t want to give out their name.
Everyone knows how to conjugate them, so once you know someone is a ‘they’, you can readily extrapolate to them, their, theirs.
Well exactly because they/them is a catch-all and there aren’t just he/hims and she/hers
let enbies express themselves too!