I never said white was normal or anywhere near that.
I’m white. Oddly white. I have been called albino. I’m not.
I do not know what normal is.
Don’t put that on me.
Since it’s pretty well established here by post #120+ that the OP’s idea both utterly lacks objective merit and more importantly utterly lacks community support, it’s time to shift gears.
If we’re going to start bitching about English, I nominate “we” for a thorough pitting.
“We” can mean:
- The speaker and all the immediate audience members, but no one else.
- The speaker and others not present but none of the immediate audience members.
- The speaker and some or all of the immediate audience members plus some or all of some other group not present.
Good luck being accurate as to number and gender of that ragbag crowd. Or even knowing who’s being referred to.
But you know what? Nobody but nobody complains about “we”. We just use it and go about our business. Singular indefinite “they” has a multi-century pedigree. Singular definite “they” has a multi-century pedigree in some but not all constructions. It’s now getting used in many more constructions than heretofore. While “heretofore” is being used less every year.
Time to get over the crap we learned in grade school. Much of it was fuddy-duddy lies to children then and are absolutely archaic lies to children now.
“I” when spoken by a sovereign.
Not everyone wants to be invisible.
And some people get sick of other people telling them what they ought to be, when that isn’t who they are.
Exactly
Oh, I did not know the term ethnic was bad.
This is what I’m talking about. How is a person to know? I need a print out.
– actually, I don’t think I ever came up with specific words for the alternative possessive pronouns. I think I just decided that the language spoken by the people in at least one of the societies I’ve made up has them – three sets; one applies to things humans can make/unmake that have no will of their own (e.g. shoes); another to creatures humans can have relationships with in which both/all parties can recognize or deny the relationship (spouses, companion animals, etc); and a third to gods and land. But I’ve never gotten any of them developed enough to start trying to invent the languages themselves.
And there are also exclusive/inclusive forms – “we not you” as opposed to “all of us”.
They also have a whole mess of different gender pronouns, including some that apply to non-hominim species. I think, however, that they may not have any cases. Something’s got to get simpler to make up for all of that.
My wife and I use the same Starbucks account and to be friendly they call me by the name on the account - my wife’s name, a decidedly female name. They continue to do it even though they’ve seen her on multiple occasions with me.
I’m a male but if you still want to refer to me as “they” I’m completely OK with that.
The term “Ethic” is not “bad”. Neither, necessarily, is the term “Ethnic”. The problem with the way that you specifically used the term “Ethnic” is that you set up two categories: those who are different, ethnic, exotic; and those who are so much the default that their ethnicity does not even bear mentioning.
White people have an ethnicity too; but like a fish in water, that ethnicity is so natural to you that you don’t consider it “Ethnic”. And the language used here reinforces the idea that this isn’t just your perspective, but that there is some kind of inherent “exoticism” possessed by those “Ethnics” that is not possessed by white people.
Sorry, I had a typo there. Jeez. I fixed it.
Sorry, that’s one of those “stupid jokes I cannot resist making” there. The rest of my post still stands, though:
My real name is rare enough and is often mistaken for a similar female name. I correct the person, no problem. The only time it was a real issue was when I needed an extra blood sample taken because they neglected to perform a PSA test on my first sample.
I did not personally separate any persons.
I used the word to describe “persons in a particular group or population”.
Because I was asked what I meant by ethnic.
Some people DO want to be different.
Some people actually are different, and would rather not have those differences ignored or downplayed any longer; for some, their differences have been seen as something family/friends/schools/churches would want to hide, and they are tired of it.
As far as “knowing” what is the right thing to say, just be ready to apologize if you get it wrong sometimes! If I misgender somebody, or use the wrong pronouns, or what have you, it will NOT be out of malice, and that will generally be recognized. We’re all only human, after all, and mistakes will be made.
I spent a lot of time over on Wikipedia using the generic “they” to describe people because most of the time I had no idea. It was a habit I fell into and I think it’s a very good one. It’s a lot more respectful than making an assumption.
When someone calls me “they” I am not offended. They can click on my account where I make sure to identify myself as “Mr. Atama” to remove ambiguity, but whatever. I don’t demand someone do research before they dare to address me.
I use the singular “they” all the time and I’ll continue to do so because it’s a best practice anytime someone is unsure. Maybe they know and forgot. Maybe they never knew. Maybe they think they know and aren’t sure. Whatever. There is nothing offensive about it.
<< deleted by poster >>
::grumpy old man voice:: Yes, well, see that you don’t in the future, young fell-, er, miss-, uh, young person! ::shakes umbrella at purple horseshoe, wanderers off to yell at clouds::
Hey, now! You’ll have to pry my “heretofore” and “whereby” and “whither” from my cold, dead hands!
I can tell they are calling somebody insane, in reply to something thorny locust posted, but it’s not clear who or why.
I feel the poster should have quoted if they wanted to be clear.
Seems pretty obvious to me (and I suspect a few others), but here in ATMB we probably don’t want to have that discussion.
Agreed, which is why I asked the poster to clarify.
This is technically true but misleading. The popularity of this usage only surged in the 21st century, along with related new singular pronouns like “them”, “their”, and the odd-sounding “themself”.
From the OED:
In the 21st century, other th– pronouns (and the possessive adjective their) are sometimes used to refer to a named individual, so as to avoid revealing or making an assumption about that person’s gender; cf. sense A.I.2c, and quots. 2008 at their adj. A.I.2b, 2009 at them pron. A.I.4b, 2009 at themself pron. I.2b.
they, pron., adj., adv., n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)
One of the sensible trends against male dominance in the language that’s seen frequent use lately is to arbitrarily substitute “she” for the usual “he”, as a sort of counterbalance to the usual tendencies, without any particular gender actually being implied. I personally find this more linguistically palatable than the awkward use of a plural pronoun and its even more awkward variants, although I admit that due to common usage I get on the “they” bandwagon myself sometimes.