Non-binary identities are valid

[Guybrush Threepwood]

My problem with they them in 2 simple sentences.
John Paul and a Harry were talking. Harry got upset because they were picking on them so they left.
Who did what?

I'm not sure why the ability to write ambiguous sentences using they counts against it.

Paul and Harry were talking, he said he was ugly so he got angry.

Now what?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We're already accustomed to speaking and writing so as to be clear and unambiguous.

Some people are. Others are less literate.

There does seem to be an inherent assumption in conversations like these that everybody has good language skills, or that those who don't somehow don't matter. That's not really warranted.

That's part of what intersectionality is supposed to be about - ensuring that raising one group up doesn't disadvantage another.

And that's my chief problem with "they" - it does create more ambiguity than alternatives like "xe", and thereby makes the language less easy to use for the groups of people who have lesser English language skills, whether that be due to educational failings, culture/ethnicity, or disability.

I know I'm fruitlessly shouting at the tide to keep back from my chair at this point, but I really do think that the singular "they" is the worst option.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Continuing on from my post yesterday, I wonder if going back to Old/Middle English could actually provide an answer? That had "hit" as a gender-neutral pronoun. Essentially "it" with an "h" in front. The "h" could serve as the bridge to "he" and "she", and people are already familiar with how "it" works in the language.

Yes, there already is the word "hit" in the language, but there are many homonyms and homographs in the language already, and context should work for this to alleviate any ambiguity.

So you could have:

Hit is eating an apple.
The apple is hits.
The apple belongs to hit.
I gave hit an apple.

Then again, I suppose some British accents could see that just becoming "it" again, which runs into the same problems as before. I could see maybe a different letter to make something like "dit", but then that runs into the problem of again being disconnected from "he" and "she". You obviously can't stick an s in front of the h.

I'll say it again, I don't think there's an easy solution, but I do think that there should be a better solution than the one that's currently taking hold.

 

[theprestige]

My problem with they them in 2 simple sentences.
John Paul and a Harry were talking. Harry got upset because they were picking on them so they left.
Who did what?

John and Paul were picking on Harry, so Harry left.

Alternatively, John and Paul might have left, but you'd need to provide more context for me to know that. And that's the rub. It requires more context which the person saying what actually happened has to supply.

We're already accustomed to speaking and writing so as to be clear and unambiguous. Why is this different? We're already accustomed to asking for more information if what is being supplied is unclear. Why is this different?

Aximum, Bolea, and Carolle were talking. Carolle got upset because xu was picking on xe, so xe left.

Who did what?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not sure why the ability to write ambiguous sentences using they counts against it.

Paul and Harry were talking, he said he was ugly so he got angry.

Now what?

We arrange a mediator and have Paul and Harry have a heart-to-heart chat, really get their feelings out, talk it over, and then over a few beers talk them into a threesome. Sometimes I miss college.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not sure that's the best analogy because I have actively asked and/or suggested that people call me wolli. No-one asks to be called an ass.

That's kind of exactly the point there...

But I'll happily refer to you as wolli!

 

[Emily's Cat]

John Paul and a Harry were talking. Harry got upset because they were picking on them so they left.

Without clarification on which "they" is singular and which is plural we get:

Harry got upset because they (John and Paul) were picking on them (Harry) so they (Harry) left.
Harry got upset because they (John) were picking on them (Harry) so they (Harry) left.
Harry got upset because they (John) were picking on them (Paul) so they (Paul) left.
Harry got upset because they (Harry and John) were picking on them (Paul) so they (Paul) left.
Harry got upset because they (Harry) were picking on them (John and Paul) so they (John and Paul) left.

There are other variations, switching around names, but I think you get the picture. There's still some opportunity for ambiguity with clearly singular pronouns, but it at least eliminates a few of the concatenations.

 

[arthwollipot]

Some people are. Others are less literate.

And yet we can cope when less literate people use looser and ambiguous language, by interpreting from context, and by asking for clarification. Why is this situation different?

Aximum, Bolea, and Carolle were talking. Carolle got upset because xu was picking on xe, so xe left.

Who did what?

Who cares? Almost nobody uses those. And if I ever encountered someone who did (I haven't, and I have quite a few family members, friends and acquaintances in the nonbinary community), I would be sure to ask for clarification.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And yet we can cope when less literate people use looser and ambiguous language, by interpreting from context, and by asking for clarification. Why is this situation different?

I suppose it's not different. And that's the problem. The world and the language isn't set up to make it easy for less literate people to communicate effectively - be that inputting or outputting data.

Therefore you'd hope that any neologisms that are supposed to be inclusive would bear that in mind and seek not to exclude a different group of people. That, unfortunately, isn't the case here.

 

[arthwollipot]

I suppose it's not different. And that's the problem. The world and the language isn't set up to make it easy for less literate people to communicate effectively - be that inputting or outputting data.

Therefore you'd hope that any neologisms that are supposed to be inclusive would bear that in mind and seek not to exclude a different group of people. That, unfortunately, isn't the case here.

If such neologisms were deliberately and thoughtfully coined, that would would be the case. But the singular gender neutral pronoun they/them wasn't. It emerged organically, via usage, like most changes to language do.

In contrast I offer this: what the hell does "yeet" mean? Kids are saying it, but I have no idea what they mean by it. I'm not sure they do themselves. You'd think that changes to the way language is used would take into account whether people understand it or not. But that is not the case.

And yet we can still communicate.

 

[d4m10n]

In contrast I offer this: what the hell does "yeet" mean? Kids are saying it, but I have no idea what they mean by it.

According to my 8-y.o. it means to throw something with great enthusiasm or great effect (I'm paraphrasing here). Not necessarily throw, though, since you also can do it with a pulse pistol, railgun, or even a car.

 

[arthwollipot]

According to my 8-y.o. it means to throw something with great enthusiasm or great effect (I'm paraphrasing here). Not necessarily throw, though, since you also can do it with a pulse pistol, railgun, or even a car.

And it's also used as a general expression of surprise or joy. Yeah, I had to look it up.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If such neologisms were deliberately and thoughtfully coined, that would would be the case. But the singular gender neutral pronoun they/them wasn't. It emerged organically, via usage, like most changes to language do.

I know it did. And I'm explaining why it's sub-optimal and non-inclusive, in response to your repeated assertions that its more ambiguous nature in comparison to alternatives is no problem at all.

In contrast I offer this: what the hell does "yeet" mean? Kids are saying it, but I have no idea what they mean by it.

It's basically a sound you make when you throw things, which then got mutated - sometimes sarcastically, sometimes organically - into other, related situations.

That article only tells some of the story. There were three Vines that popularised it:



It's actually the last of those three that had by far the biggest impact, not the second.

You'd think that changes to the way language is used would take into account whether people understand it or not.

No you wouldn't. Language almost always starts off as something for an in-group. The entire reason some languages exist is to be unintelligible to outsiders. Cockney rhyming slang is an example.

And yet we can still communicate.

Some people find communication harder than others. It'd be nice if the people who insist on their preferred neologisms being used for the purposes of being inclusive took that into consideration, rather than inadvertently disadvantaging a different group.

 

[arthwollipot]

I know it did. And I'm explaining why it's sub-optimal and non-inclusive, in response to your repeated assertions that its more ambiguous nature in comparison to alternatives is no problem at all.

Only if the alternatives that you suggest are referring to people by the incorrect pronouns. Compared to nontypical pronouns like hir and xe, it is less ambiguous, as demonstrated by theprestige above. And see my response to that.

Yeet was a throwaway intended to illustrate a point and I don't particularly want to talk about it any more in this context.

No you wouldn't. Language almost always starts off as something for an in-group. The entire reason some languages exist is to be unintelligible to outsiders. Cockney rhyming slang is an example.

Rhyming slang isn't a language, me old china. It's a cant. Cant and jargon rarely migrate to common usage. It happens occasionally, but not typically.

Some people find communication harder than others. It'd be nice if the people who insist on their preferred neologisms being used for the purposes of being inclusive took that into consideration, rather than inadvertently disadvantaging a different group.

Now a language change that is intended to reduce discrimination is actually increasing discrimination? Black is white and wet is dry? Since the change originated amongst historically disadvantaged people, you'd think they'd notice that.

Look, what you say is true, as far as it goes. There are people with language difficulties and that will certainly need to be taken into account. People with learning and language difficulties struggle with discrimination too much already. We will have to deal with that, with thoughtfulness and compassion.

But I think you're letting your argument take you too far in that direction. There is no reason why neurotypical people can't adapt to this minor change. And that's the majority of people who discriminate against the atypical.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Only if the alternatives that you suggest are referring to people by the incorrect pronouns. Compared to nontypical pronouns like hir and xe, it is less ambiguous, as demonstrated by theprestige above. And see my response to that.

The that The Big Dog cover band can come up with a ridiculous example doesn't prove any kind of point.

"Alice, Beryl, and Carmen were talking. Carmen got upset because she was picking on her, so she left." Same sentences, different pronouns, just as unintelligible. Or, if you prefer: "Aximum, Bolea, and Carolle were talking. Carolle got upset because they were picking on them, so they left." Equally unintelligible.

The problem there isn't the pronouns, but that the sentences were deliberately designed to be unintelligible.

You should know better by now than to fall for such blatant trolling.

If you want a non-trolling example of how "they" is more ambiguous, go back to my post where I demonstrated how the meaning of the word "they" in the article about the swimmer that another poster posted could only be correctly ascertained several words after it occurred in the sentence, whereas a different pronoun would have been immediately clear

Yeet was a throwaway intended to illustrate a point and I don't particularly want to talk about it any more in this context.

Since the point you were making was irrelevant to what we were discussing, it was a very odd thing to bring up at all, to be honest. That it was also wrong is more or less incidental.

Rhyming slang isn't a language, me old china. It's a cant.

Do you know what another term for "cant" is? "Secret language".

But I feel like the definition of the word "language" is also rather besides the point.

Now a language change that is intended to reduce discrimination is actually increasing discrimination? Black is white and wet is dry?

Why is that difficult to believe? I've been explaining at length, and for more than a week, why it can be problematic to people who find communication more difficult. Now, for reasons best known to yourself, you're pretending that this is a) impossible, and b) completely new information.

People with learning and language difficulties struggle with discrimination too much already. We will have to deal with that, with thoughtfulness and compassion.

Right. And this is not what I'm seeing. Instead I'm seeing people saying that it's easy. Which is a problem, because it ignores those for whom it isn't.

There is no reason why neurotypical people can't adapt to this minor change. And that's the majority of people who discriminate against the atypical.

I'm not talking about people with language difficulties deliberately being discriminated against by people without those difficulties by the people without not adapting to using the singular "they". I don't even know what that would look like.

I'm saying that the language itself puts those with language difficulties at a disadvantage, because it is more difficult than the alternatives and that therefore one of the alternatives would be preferable.

Allow me to make an analogy. Say there's a community building that has a first floor (second floor, for the Americans) that is inaccessible. Some people have started creating makeshift stairs. A smaller number are suggesting a ramp would be better because that would allow those in wheelchairs also to access the first floor.

I'm in that latter camp. Your response, apparently, is to scoff at the idea that people being helped by the stairs could put the wheelchair-users at an extra disadvantage compared to those not in wheelchairs, and to say that since the people who can use the stairs can use the stairs that they won't actively discriminate against the wheelchair-users.

And I'm not claiming there's a perfect panacea, either. I've gone into the problems with alternatives like "xe", also at length and for a while, and been trying to find an alternative that I think might work. But the problems with those alternatives are, I think, lesser than the problems with "they", because the problems are about persuading people to adopt them, rather than some people being less able to adopt them. In other words, the problem is that they are less likely to be adopted without a concerted campaign for people to do so, as opposed to the problem being that they put a different disadvantaged group at a further - if slight - disadvantage.

 

[theprestige]

According to my 8-y.o. it means to throw something with great enthusiasm or great effect (I'm paraphrasing here). Not necessarily throw, though, since you also can do it with a pulse pistol, railgun, or even a car.

The contexts I've seen it used, it seems to connote energetically removing something from the immediate vicinty, either by pushing or pulling.

The key element seems to be the removal. You wouldn't say a quarterback yeeted the ball to the receiver. He's sending it there, not removing it from his presence. But if the safety strips the ball from the receiver and runs it back down the field, he's yeeted it for sure.

A king banishing a subject yeets them from the kingdom.

"Yeetus the fetus" is an attempted pro-choice slogan that is thankfully not catching on (yet).

Etc.

And it's also used as a general expression of surprise or joy. Yeah, I had to look it up.

Let me guess: Urban dictionary? I haven't seen it used in that context at all yet.

ETA: Also,

In contrast I offer this: what the hell does "yeet" mean? Kids are saying it, but I have no idea what they mean by it. I'm not sure they do themselves.

That article is some "hello, fellow kids" stuff right there.

 

[d4m10n]

You wouldn't say a quarterback yeeted the ball to the receiver.

Ray ray might.

 

[Dani]

Sorry if this has already been discussed.

So non-binary person excels at basketball.

NBA? WNBA? Planet X?

I'm not asking what is, but what should be.

 

[theprestige]

Sorry if this has already been discussed.

So non-binary person excels at basketball.

NBA? WNBA? Planet X?

I'm not asking what is, but what should be.

Depends what you mean by "non-binary". If you mean "biologically male, but thinks of themselves as neither male nor female", then NBA. Etc.

 

[Belz...]

NBNBA?