To me this just doesn’t seem like something that would happen. I mean, yes, it could happen, were it to be deliberately orchestrated by the Académie Anglais, but absent a deliberate overarching force making it happen I don’t see the two words both converging to share a definition with ‘they’, losing their obvious and pre-existing association with physical sex, and remaining in use. I would consider it much more likely that everybody would just get sick of the differentiation altogether and use ‘they’ instead of either of them in all cases. (And even more likely, every single human is struck by lightning at the same time.)
Thou appears unfamiliar with the development of English pronouns, as thou has forgotten what is perhaps the most common plural that thou will hear used in almost every single conversation. In fact, not using it sounds almost batty and archaic. Ever wonder why “you” is always treated like a plural by all the other words related to it?
It’s funny that you posters haven’t mentioned it, and it never comes up in conversations about the use of the pronoun “they.” I do get a chuckle when people get outraged by having to use “they” for a singular, while saying things like “YOU EXPECT ME TO RUIN ENGLISH BY USING A PLURAL TO SUITE A SINGULAR? HOW DARE YOU?” to one person :smack:
Really, the only difference I see between “you” and “they” is that “you” evolved naturally (indo-european languages tend to use plurals as formal means of direct address, and in older variants of English it was thusly polite to say “you” as opposed to the more casual “thou”, eventually leading to “thou” becoming extinct) and “they” is being ramrodded through by ideologues. I think the cause would be better served if said ideologues asked nicely to be addressed as “they,” and reacted with disgust against laws like Canada’s pronoun debacle. No shaming or accusations of hate, just a firm but polite “Please, ‘they,’ if you would. I’m really uncomfortable with he/she/it.” It’s really hard to react negatively to someone doing that, but really easy to tell someone who’s calling me a homophobe or whatnot to go stuff it.
Just think of Lathe of Heaven when George dreamed of a world without racism.
No, there was nothing in what I wrote about the linguistic evolution of singular “they” that indicated unfamiliarity with the linguistic evolution of singular “you”.
And I think you must have meant “appearest” (not to mention “hast” and “wilt”).
Actually, the use of singular “they” as an indefinite personal pronoun in English goes back at least to the 14th century. Its use as a definite personal pronoun referring to a known individual is comparatively recent, though.
What “debacle”? Sounds like you share the popular misconception, spread in part by popular blowhard Jordan Peterson, that Canada has somehow criminalized “incorrect” pronoun use.
We could all end up like the Gethenians of Left Hand Of Darkness! (Just think, either way we’ll be well written, indepth characters with believable actions and motivations!)
On a more serious note Miller and Jragon thanks for keeping up the good fight.
Well I guess you could take a shit in a urinal, but the bathroom attendant wouldn’t be very pleased.
That was meant playfully and as an easy way you use thou repeatedly for demonstration.
No, actually Shakespeare just liked to make shit up. A lot of those come from him, though I’m not sure exactly which. I also only imported “thou” into modern speech, I wasn’t attempting old English by any stretch.
Huh, Didn’t know that. It makes the rage-response even more comical. But the difference I highlighted wasn’t that They had no natural origin in it’s proposed use but rather how it was being moved into common/mandatory parlance. Legislation and shaming/name-calling should have no part to play in it, and while - commendably - I haven’t seen a lot of it here, I can scarcely escape accusations of virtually everything in other (Reddit, and I won’t go anywhere near tumbler) places so it’s certainly common to see.
I don’t want to thread hijack with a discussion of Peterson, so I’m going to politely decline to engage here.
All I meant by the comment was it was a bad approach that didn’t win any hearts and minds at all.
Er, you are claiming that Shakespeare invented the pre-modern English second-person-singular verb ending “-est” (sometimes shortened to “-st” or “-t”), cognates of which we also see in German and other Germanic languages going back as far as Proto-Germanic?!
How are you suggesting that Shakespeare managed to get that allegedly “made-up shit” into the grammar of English and related languages centuries before his birth? We knew Shakespeare was a brilliant Elizabethan playwright but we didn’t realize he was also a Time Lord. :dubious:
Legislation should most definitely have a part to play in how the government is required to refer to people, which AFAICT is what the legislation in question is about.
If a woman or a man is elderly or disabled or a woman is pregnant then we should give up seats for them. Otherwise, first come, first serve is the rule unless you personally feel you just want to offer the seat. In fact, many cities demand you give up seats in those instances- Toronto, for instance. But this idea that we should give up our gender designations is ridiculous. The actual fact is that biologically, we do have two different sexes on this planet (with the occasional aberration such as hermaphrodites) and that fact is NOT responsible for gender inequality.
I’ve long wished for a gender-free singular personal pronoun, as it would eliminate the awkward choices out there now. However, “they” used in that way can be confusing. Example: “When the Smith-Browns had their first child, they named them River, but when the child was two, they chose the name “Moss,” and they decided to call them that.” I’d assume the first “they” is plural. But who chose the name Moss? The parents? One parent? If so, which one? The child?
My other issue is purely personal: grammatically, the use of a plural pronoun with a singular verb sets my teeth on edge. Yes, I know that in some dialects, “They is” is perfectly correct, but in standard English, it’s not, and I’ve corrected too many essays to adapt easily. Yes, the entire language should evolve to suit me. 
We also need to change polite address. The other day, a person in front of me at the mall dropped a $5 bill. This person had a beard, hair in a bun, sneakers, a polo shirt, and a plaid skirt. I started to call out to, uh, them, but honestly didn’t know how. “Hey, you!” sounded aggressive and rude, and “sir” or “ma’am” were out. I ended up running ahead, turning to face this person, and saying, “Excuse me, you dropped this.”
Pronoun use always flirts with ambiguity. When one writes a sentence using one it is incumbent on one to use care in avoiding the problems one encounters when using one of those words with more than one possible interpretation.
English has so many special cases that using “they are” where “she is” would also work doesn’t even make me blink.
“Why is my back all wet” – Sophia Petrillo
“When the Nancy Smith had her first child, she named her River, but when the child was two, she chose the name “Moss,” and she decided to call her that.”
Seems the problem isn’t limited to just the one pronoun.
“They is” is still incorrect in standard English usage. If referring to an individual who prefers not to use gendered pronouns, “they are” (and similar conjugations) is the accepted usage. Note that the “singular they” is not a new usage: “An individual was filmed breaking into the Gas ‘n’ Go on 25th. Police say their identity is unknown, and they remain at large,” has been standard usage since long before transgender rights became a mainstream issue. The only change here is that, generally, when you knew someone’s identity, you also knew their gender, which is no longer necessarily the case.
Looking outside our culture, are there lots of culturs where public nudity or nudity between non-related people of opposite sexes is common?
How are you defining “our”? Almost all modern western societies have defined certain social spaces for non-sexual nudity among non-related people of any gender. E.g., nude beaches, nudist camps, public saunas, hot tubs, and so on.
Besides the “designated nudity spaces” in the modern western world (and tourist spots elsewhere that cater to it), there are still some traditional societies in warm climates where people wear no or almost no clothing in their ordinary daily life. I don’t know if you count that as “nudity” in the sense of “deliberately flouting taboos against not being clothed”.
I have and still do.
Serious question, why?
The handicapped, elderly and pregnant have difficulties standing. A non-pregnant, ablebodied, young woman has no more difficulty standing than I do. Why would I give up my seat to one?
There’s no real logical reason. It’s just the way that I was raised.
Being 6’2" I will gladly give my seat to a woman who happens to be shorter. Not because she is a woman but because shorter men tend to take offence when I offer.
Not that I am perfect super-sentient man, but when you are tall it is a hell of a lot easier to hold onto the bar. Right or wrong I do try to point that out when doing so too.
Does Finland and the sauna count?
Sure there are differing levels of modesty but gonads aren’t universally sexualized.