Colorado club shooter is non-binary, CNN repeatedly misgenders them.

[Metaphor]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

So if someone has disclosed their gender to you, use the appropriate pronoun. That includes "they", if that's what they prefer. There's no reason to act like a toddler here, you're more than capable of learning, and using, three pronouns.

Politesse, I did not claim I was incapable of using three pronouns. When you say 'use the appropriate pronoun', you are begging the question.

But also, you have apparently decided to put your foot down at three and say 'here, and no further'. It seems like you would have resistance to using 'it/itself' (a real pronoun request), fae/faeself, etc. All of these are neopronouns claimed by individuals. Some even say "I do not use pronouns" (meaning: you must not use pronouns when referring to me).

So, when you refuse neopronouns, why are you acting like a toddler? Or have I mistaken your stance. Do you in fact mean to say we need to learn neopronouns as well?

 

[Metaphor]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

 

[Jarhyn]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

We are not using the power of the state to force anything upon you.

Take it up with the Australian government if you believe they are but we are not the Australian government and precious few of us have any sway over it.

They/them is readily available for you to say something which requires NO belief.

You do not need to believe someone is not a man to use "they/them". You do not need to believe someone is not a woman to use "they/them". You can always use it unless someone is being unreasonable about demanding validation: a statement of positive belief.

They/them does not even validate that someone is not a man or woman, by whatever definition. It is agnostic in its entirety.

When you demand the power of the state be leveraged to call people "women" or "men", to demand people do not even call themselves "women" or "men" or even "neither woman nor man", you are imposing on folks.

 

[Metaphor]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

We are not using the power of the state to force anything upon you.

That is false wherever there are State-imposed penalties for pronoun usage. That includes the jurisdiction where I live and work.

They/them is readily available for you to say something which requires NO belief.

Of course it requires a belief: it requires the belief that I think pronouns refer to gender of the target. I do not believe that and that is at odds with the use of pronouns in English.

You do not need to believe someone is not a man to use "they/them". You do not need to believe someone is not a woman to use "they/them". You can always use it and unless someone is being unreasonable about demanding validation: a statement of positive belief.

I have already explained how it is a violation of a positive belief.

They/them does not even validate that someone is not a man or woman, by whatever definition. It is agnostic in its entirety.

It is, of course, not agnostic to sex at all, except in specific circumstances when sex is unknown.

If I am forced to use 'they/them' when the sex of a person is known to me, that is forcing me to utter things I do not believe.

When you demand the power of the state be leveraged to call people "women" or "men", to demand people do not even call themselves "women" or "men" or even "neither woman nor man", you are imposing on folks.

I do not demand the power of the State for any such thing. You are so hellbent on imposing on others you don't even realise when you are projecting.

You can call yourself whatever you want. You have zero right to make me call you that.

 

[Toni]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

You’re the one who is talking about something that happened in a country half way around the world—as though that is foisting anything on you.

 

[Metaphor]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

You’re the one who is talking about something that happened in a country half way around the world—as though that is foisting anything on you.

What on earth are you talking about. Seriously? I started a thread. That imposes nothing on you.

 

[senor boogie woogie]

A Chicken can never be an Eagle no matter that both are birds.

 

[Toni]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

You’re the one who is talking about something that happened in a country half way around the world—as though that is foisting anything on you.

What on earth are you talking about. Seriously? I started a thread. That imposes nothing on you.

Nothing that happens in the US is imposing on YOU.

Why?

Surely not to start a discussion or to try to understand any point of view other than your own. You won’t tolerate any other opinion.

 

[laughing dog]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

You’re the one who is talking about something that happened in a country half way around the world—as though that is foisting anything on you.

What on earth are you talking about. Seriously? I started a thread. That imposes nothing on you.

Nothing that happens in the US is imposing on YOU.

Why?

Surely not to start a discussion or to try to understand any point of view other than your own. You won’t tolerate any other opinion.

This OP - like so many others - is simply a vehicle to simultaneously virtue signal, condescend towards others, and express outrage. It has nothing whatsoever to do with actual external effects on the poster.

 

[Metaphor]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

You’re the one who is talking about something that happened in a country half way around the world—as though that is foisting anything on you.

What on earth are you talking about. Seriously? I started a thread. That imposes nothing on you.

Nothing that happens in the US is imposing on YOU.

The laws of the United States do not impose on me when I'm in Australia, that is true.

I did not suggest CNN was imposing on me. I was mocking liberal commentators for their hypocrisy.

Why?

Surely not to start a discussion or to try to understand any point of view other than your own. You won’t tolerate any other opinion.

Toni, if I couldn't tolerate other opinions, surely I would have blocked every single person on iidb who has even once expressed something I disagree with?

 

[ZiprHead]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

What's to not believe?

 

[Toni]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

You’re the one who is talking about something that happened in a country half way around the world—as though that is foisting anything on you.

What on earth are you talking about. Seriously? I started a thread. That imposes nothing on you.

Nothing that happens in the US is imposing on YOU.

The laws of the United States do not impose on me when I'm in Australia, that is true.

I did not suggest CNN was imposing on me. I was mocking liberal commentators for their hypocrisy.

Why?

Surely not to start a discussion or to try to understand any point of view other than your own. You won’t tolerate any other opinion.

Toni, if I couldn't tolerate other opinions, surely I would have blocked every single person on iidb who has even once expressed something I disagree with?

And deny yourself the opportunity to indulge in such enormous outrage?

What good is a tantrum without an audience?

 

[senor boogie woogie]

他们、她们。Both of them are "ta men" in Putonghua Chinese. The tense on the first character are different. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. The former is used if "they" is used for both. 它们 is also "tamen‘ which means objects and not people. Very basic Chinese language, one of the first things learned by anyone who wants to learn and speak the language. Chinese Putonghua, 普通话 isnt that hard except for the written language, it is difficult because there is just vast amount of characters to learn. My wife is Chinese. I know some but have given up trying to read most of it years ago.

This language is the most common language on Earth. Speaking it isnt that hard, reading it is much more challenging There is no definition in the singular "tamen" in Chinese. There is 他 (male) 她 (female) or 它 (an object) where 门 (men) is the possessive.

So now, you have to teach the Earth and all the languages that this means a singular person. This is beyond English. You need to teach about 1.6 Billion Chinese/East Asian speakers that this can mean someone in the singular, and there is no Chinese character to denote this whatsoever. You people need to go to Beijing, Taipei, Hong Kong and Tokyo (where the Japanese written language is one third Chinese characters and even not, normal male and female definitions of "they") and teach 1.6 billion speakers of Asian languages that "they" means someone who does not know their sex even if they drop their pants, and create a character to denote this.

So, it is not so much to teach the average American that "they" means a single person who denies their biological sex, you have to teach the whole human race. Trust me, most everyone else will scratch their heads and then laugh their asses off at this foolishness.

 

[TomC]

And deny yourself the opportunity to indulge in such enormous outrage?

What good is a tantrum without an audience?

THE IRONY! IT BURNS!
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

What's to not believe?

I've explained it about a dozen times.

 

[Metaphor]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

You’re the one who is talking about something that happened in a country half way around the world—as though that is foisting anything on you.

What on earth are you talking about. Seriously? I started a thread. That imposes nothing on you.

Nothing that happens in the US is imposing on YOU.

The laws of the United States do not impose on me when I'm in Australia, that is true.

I did not suggest CNN was imposing on me. I was mocking liberal commentators for their hypocrisy.

Why?

Surely not to start a discussion or to try to understand any point of view other than your own. You won’t tolerate any other opinion.

Toni, if I couldn't tolerate other opinions, surely I would have blocked every single person on iidb who has even once expressed something I disagree with?

And deny yourself the opportunity to indulge in such enormous outrage?

What good is a tantrum without an audience?

I thought I was virtue signalling. Now I'm throwing a tantrum? And throwing a tantrum which you can instantly block means I'm imposing something on you?

 

[ZiprHead]

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Nobody's changing the definition.

Consider the example I used a while back:

"Somebody broke into the store. They are stealing the apples."

One person. The correct pronoun is "they".

(Yeah, apples are a pretty stupid thing to steal from a store, but there were previous examples with apples.)

"They" is only used when the sex of the person is unknown.

"Someone left their laptop in the meeting room"

"Jenny left her laptop in the meeting room"

No, they is also used when the gender is irrelevant.

When someone borrows the shovel, they should return it to the garage.

That's simply another case of unknown sex. We don't know who is going to borrow the shovel.

I don't really understand why there is this fixation on how English addresses gender.

There'd be no 'fixation' at all if people were not using the force of the State to compel speech from others based around pronouns, which is something my own jurisdiction is doing.

There are many, many languages, some of which assign gender to inanimate objects, some of which assign no gender at all.

Correct. Most of English is not gendered.

No: It simply does not matter WHO borrows the shovel; THEY should return it. Could be any gender and more than one person. Doesn't matter.

I see that you have an issue with how Australia handles such things. OK. But there is no reason that I can see to foist the same baggage on other countries.

Foist the same baggage?

So, when I say "don't force me, using the power of the State, to utter things I do not believe", I am imposing on you?

You’re the one who is talking about something that happened in a country half way around the world—as though that is foisting anything on you.

What on earth are you talking about. Seriously? I started a thread. That imposes nothing on you.

Nothing that happens in the US is imposing on YOU.

The laws of the United States do not impose on me when I'm in Australia, that is true.

I did not suggest CNN was imposing on me. I was mocking liberal commentators for their hypocrisy.

Why?

Surely not to start a discussion or to try to understand any point of view other than your own. You won’t tolerate any other opinion.

Toni, if I couldn't tolerate other opinions, surely I would have blocked every single person on iidb who has even once expressed something I disagree with?

And deny yourself the opportunity to indulge in such enormous outrage?

What good is a tantrum without an audience?

I thought I was virtue signalling. Now I'm throwing a tantrum?

We trust that you have the skills to do both at the same time.

 

[Politesse]

I am ignorant? Ignorance is thinking that gender and sex are somehow fluid. Thats ignorance. Arrogance is to change language and definitions to meet your narrow Worldview. The pretentiousness of the "woke" on this board to call the rest of us who dont bend over to your insane, unscientific ideology of nonsense, ignorant is beyond the pale.

Changing your views to incorporate new information is the opposite of ignorance.

 

[Politesse]

So, when you refuse neopronouns, why are you acting like a toddler? Or have I mistaken your stance. Do you in fact mean to say we need to learn neopronouns as well?

Because you're refusing a simple request for no particular reason, when it would cost you nothing to just be polite about it. I would never refuse to call someone however they prefer to be addressed. Because I'm a grown up, who lives in a society where people often have differing perspectives, and that's fine.

 

[laughing dog]

And deny yourself the opportunity to indulge in such enormous outrage?

What good is a tantrum without an audience?

THE IRONY! IT BURNS!
Tom

Truly ironic..