Since the OP brought up the specific issue of “they/them/their" and made several comments about the topic of gender fluidity and non-binary people (although tucked into a seemingly benign, lighthearted topic, and everyone better be nice and not challenge those comments), they're getting a response.
So just to be clear, this is not a derail by any means, as the OP well knows.
southernhybrid said:
I'm really trying to understand this non binary thing, but I'm having trouble. Apparently some transgender folks despise it too, according to several articles I read earlier today.
Oh, thank goodness. What a relief to find confirmation.
And, please, if you must be non binary, pick a pronoun other than they.
Please, you are no one’s authority but your own. No one's telling you what pronouns you should prefer.
And “If you must be non-binary”? You really do need to continue trying, as in put in honest effort, to "understand this non-binary thing."
”They” means singular or plural, and has for a long time in writing and in casual language. Please stop asserting this falsehood.
not one person who identifies as two genders depending on the day.
Wow, so respectful. And yes, “they” does apply to that person if that’s what they want.
I've heard a neurologist say that there is evidence for transgender, but not for non binary.
Ooh, you’ve “heard.” Thank goodness for that nibble of confirmation.
Your comments about gender fluidity, non-binary, and pronouns have been ignorant, disrespectful, entitled, and dictatorial.
My first reply to this was not “hateful” as you insinuated as a way of deflecting criticism. This is Social Science. You put this in the right place for discussion. And calling out your despicable views is not hateful. You claim to be respectful and yet you are anything but, and then trying to pretend that not coddling you is some kind of wrongdoing. You don’t actually get to tell other people how to respond to your statements.
I have no problem with
the singular use of "they" when the context describes a situation when the gender is unknown. By default there is an uncertainty about the particulars of the person in question.
We've heard and used "they" as the singular throughout our lives. No one is confused by it, not even people who think they are entitled to know another person’s gender or to tell them they can’t prefer the pronoun “they.” In fact, "they" in this specific context was Word of the Year in 2015 by the American Dialect Society, and same in 2019 by Merriam Webster, and Word of the Decade for the 2010s by the American Dialect Society.
Not that those facts are the end all be all of the topic, but interesting nonetheless to see that organizations whose job it is to record word definitions and usage also see no problem in using "they" in the singular in the context of non-binary people or people of gender unknown to you.
The only times we truly do not understand what someone is saying is when they are speaking
an entirely different language or almost entirely gibberish, and not just a word or two here and there. And on the occasion when a word or two is truly not understood in context, we ask or we look it up. Again, there is literally no problem understanding "they" in the singular.
There is zero cognitive or psychological problem with using a familiar, 400-year old form of "they" in the singular. Acceptance of this form has ebbed and flowed, but has existed for centuries and is commonplace today.
It's also acceptable to use "they" in the singular both in writing (most forms) and not just in casual language, which all of us use. It's very common and has been for centuries and certainly throughout your lifetime and mine. Furthermore, in the dynamic movements of language, informal words often become acceptable as formal and vice versa, sometimes becoming obsolete or returning from the grave into contemporary usage again.
And for anyone who believes this kind of usage is a slippery slope into linguistic tyranny and “thought police,” NO, it is not. It’s just usage changing, as it always does and always will, regardless of end-of-the-world-right-wing-animal-brain fear mongering hijacking your frontal lobes’ supply of oxygen and glucose. Get a hold of yourself.
Typically that means it might be a man or a women.
"Typically" in what context? In the context of the actual history of the word and our human ability to understand new usages and definitions no matter what the context? Or the context of one person's preferences and ideological identity group making judgments of other people's use of a particular word?
So that means the context is some group that cannot be defined as him or her but includes both.
It is defined as either plural or singular, and, more importantly,
you are not automatically entitled to personal information about others just because you're used to having it embedded in words.
Consider that a lot of people use "partner" to mean their wife or husband in an otherwise traditional heterosexual marriage. In case anyone hasn't heard this, it’s a thing now.
If you are only used to the terms, husband (male), wife (female), Mr., Ms., etc., and then hear "partner," you might at first assume something about the relationship, which is understandable and not necessarily a judgement on your part, but then learn that the couple is a traditional heterosexual marriage, you won't continue to automatically make that assumption when you hear "partner." You might have other reactions and thoughts about it, but you won't assume it's a non-traditional relationship.
Those heterosexual couples are using "partner," not because they feel the need to hide anything about themselves (because they recognize that society accepts them as the norm), or bevause they just want to be cool and trendy, but because they want to help people get used to the fact that
they are not automatically entitled to personal information about others just because the language they are used to using does automatically give or suggest that information. If they need such information for some reason they can ask for it.
We are all fully capable of making this minor adjustment to our understanding of a common word that has been used as the singular form for 400 years, and that's historically as well as right now, in this language and culture that you and I share. This context, right here, the one you and I are most familiar with, the use of "they" in the singular is not at all an issue in reality except in a few neutral writing contexts or when attached to things that conservatives don't like and also believe they are entitled to dictate to groups of people they’ve turned into two-dimensional, superficial cartoons because they don’t understand non-binary.
As I mentioned, it's not even uncommon. Colloquially, it's ubiquitous. Your brain is already perfectly fine with using "they" in the singular and so is everyone else's barring some specific issue such as learning disability.
This issue has real consequences in the real world that we live in, and it behooves anyone who thinks they have something new or as yet unheard of perspective on this topic to know what they are talking about before dismissing what marginalized people are telling you. Simply asserting preferences and opinions based in childhood rote learning doesn't count as knowing what you're talking about. It just counts as presenting preferences and opinions as facts or useful commentary.
The use of "they" as a singular is The plural form is therefore appropriate and carries some meaning.
This sentence appears to be a casualty of editing.
But in the case where the context concerns one individual there is no rational basis to use the plural "they", or "their".
There is a mountain of rational basis for using "they" and "their" in the context of an individual. Plus we already use it anyway. No one's confused by it. There is literally no problem with it beyond some people's prejudices.
Again, something that doesn't seem to occur to most people - understandably, because in their world, it is never challenged - is that
you are not inherently entitled to know anything personal about other people if they don't tell you just because you're used to automatically getting that information through words. Maybe that kind of makes you feel a bit confused and that’s not fair but that doesn't justify dictating to others what pronouns they prefer.
Universal rules of language don't really exist. Ask any linguist and they'll tell you that there are numerous commonalities in languages and how our brains process language, but there are always exceptions and variances.
So who it concerns is everyone who uses the English language
You don't know everyone who uses the English language and cannot possibly know in what ways specific usages of a couple of words might concern them. No one does, but it is not a problem anyway, and so it stands to both reason and to general wisdom that it's much more useful to be flexible and open (because language is) to changes in language that we hear, and to have the self awareness and willingness to reflect on our reactions and assumptions regarding words.
and follows rules of proper diction.
In some contexts, "proper" diction is useful or even required, but not in the context of ordinary language usage of the word "they" in the singular. Following rules of "proper" language is not a matter of either universality or anything absolute, or judgment of usage or persons using words, nor is it required for the purpose of communication.
Using "they" to refer to an individual who neither identifies as male or female is dehumanizing simply because it doesn't acknowledge that person's individuality.
No, it is not dehumanizing if the already dehumanized person says it isn't, and asserting that something is dehumanizing
when in reality it is exactly what the dehumanized people in question are asking in order to help society learn to humanize them, please is itself dehumanizing or at the very least, disrespectful to insist on doing the opposite, and this has real consequences for real people.
But I'm very sure that some conservative minds could read your statement and feel quite relieved to hear that their prejudices and world view are "humane" when they are not.
I think you fail to recognize southernhybrid's genuine respect for non-binary individuals, and the discomfort that results from addressing them in this way.
SH's comments convey no such thing. I have responded to all of them and don't plan on repeating them here, but they reflect at the very best a level of ignorance and only a superficial perception of non-binary individuals as fully human and whose value as human beings is a thousand times more important than whether or not they're using "they" and "their" in the singular and asking the rest of us to do the same (though forcing no one).
But I imagine that conservatives having these experiences that challenge their traditions and ideas about rules and obedience - don't make waves, don't challenge the status quo or all life will end - both conscious and subconscious, would make them uncomfortable. In that sense, their statements are certainly
understandable. But they are not reflective of an accurate or useful understanding of language or what may be right or wrong in regard to words or people, and their personal discomfort is irrelevant to that, especially in regard to this contrived claim of dehumanization. Respecting people includes letting them tell you what is dehumanizing to them and
not insisting on doing the opposite.
That's a pretty sick thing to do to someone, really, like the handmaids in The Handmaid's Tale being given their master's names with the explanation that this practice "honors them."
"I will decide what is dehumanizing to you or not and I will feign sadness when my made up premise is challenged by you saying you prefer the pronoun "they". I care a lot!"
I would think that it's a problem within the non-binary community as well. One I'd think they'd want to resolve. And then everyone could breath easier.
Of course it is. Yes, absolutely! I don't know if I would call it a problem, though. but that'll do. But yeah, it’s kind of a maelstrom, an often contentious one among LGBTQ+ people and their, for some, newfound freedom to express themselves. Everyone has their preferred pronoun. There’s no need for everyone to be the same on pronouns. That's why they tell us and why it is respectful to ask and to do your best to remember it and it’s ok if you forget. It’s only not ok when you purposely refuse. If you value politeness, I would think that would extend to all people, including people who identify in ways that confuse you.
Terminology is a big thing for people who have been marginalized all their lives. They have adapted by living their more easy breathing selves out of the public eye and - this part is important - also by
suppressing much of what they feel and experience and bowing to a great extent to the expectations of those around them at home, at school, at work, everywhere. We all lie to ourselves and others if that's what it takes to not be kicked out of the safety of the group.
So imagine living under such conditions and then suddenly find a globally connected media and also more and more a real life connected community of like minded people who have learned the hardest way possible - through threat or actuality of being kicked out of the human community or worse - to be accepting of people who are weird or different or do not meet expected paradigms that are none of your business to begin with and who are hurting no one. Imagine that. I know I’d be crying in relief myself.
So, yes, the community of people who are experiencing a great level of freedom to exist openly due to technology connecting them around the globe and who do not meet their society's standards of sex, appearance, body parts, sexual preferences, relationships, etc., are going to be forming new language around that, around those layers upon layers of real experiences and relationships and a dynamically changing environment, because
the existing language in common usage is derogatory, condemnatory, and dehumanizing. It's a language that tells them that if they express themselves freely, they will pay for it in some way that hijacks their animal brain fear of losing the protection of the group at the very least and often fear of brutality and murder.
This is a tactic of cults, by the way, making people afraid of disobeying and not conforming. When a society accepts and cares for the needs of everybody without judgement or condition, cults will find few if any followers there.
No one’s forcing you to say “they” in the singular. Some people are just telling us it’s what they prefer, and in reality there is literally no problem with that outside of the reactions of conservative minds.
I know this post is quite long, but this is not an inconsequential topic by any means. And for the record, I’ve never held any ill will toward SH and in fact I’ve always liked her and enjoy her posts. She has expressed views that reflect great empathy and respect for the people or groups being discussed, has gone to great lengths to understand what she’s talking about, and makes intelligent, nuanced comments on the topic.
But this topic apparently isn’t one of them. And as you can probably guess by now if you have read any of my posts on this topic, I will not be chastised or accused of wrongdoing when I challenge inhumane views, whether the views are asserted by someone who is aware and malevolent or someone who is simply ignorant and rigid on the topic. The end result is the same when such views prevail in society in terms of real policies and social attitudes and real experiences of real human beings.
.
Can we lighten up now? It's almost 4:20.