Are there still specific pronouns in your world?

[Terabith]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

And scary, when it's your kid looking down a path that can include sexual dysfunction, sterility, lifelong hormone treatment, a whole range of known and unknown side effects, question marks over the effect of suicidality in this new presentation cohort,  a  vastly reduced dating/relationship pool and perhaps (as more detransitioners speak out about their experience) major regrets down the road. At least non-binary is somewhat less likely to lead to the worst outcomes - for many people it's an identity but also a costume - it doesn't lead to body modification - and costumes can be taken off, or changed. 

I have had absolutely vicious comments here for the crime of delaying transition in my GD kids till they have full brain development, and the capacity to fully weigh risk (ie over 21 - I'd prefer 25, frankly, given what we know about neurology). It's a huge ethical and health dimemma, what to do, but people here treat it as it must be a party or you are committing child abuse. Once my kids are independent adults, they can do what they like with their own bodies, and I am free to disagree but accept. But there is no way in this world that good parenting, in my books, includes putting my 15 yr old son on opposite sex hormones, telling him he's always been a girl, and ignoring the co-morbid TRAUMA and social contagion in the family/peer group that preceded the GD (which, his psychiatrist tells me, is the 'low hanging fruit' of the diagnosis world ie not hard to get). I would never forgive myself if it turned out I had been complicit in 'making straight' and sterilizing a boy who is probably just feminine and gay. 

Now, cue Joker telling me I hate her son, and Farrar lecturing me on how she would never be so selfish as to consider her own ethics and feelings on the matter, and someone else shoving suicide 'stats' in my face - but shame on all of them.  I'm not cruel, and I'm not ignorant. Also, fwiw, my kids psychiatrist, who is head of gender issues at a major teaching hospital, said the parents he is most wary of is the enthusiastic parents - because it makes it hard to tell who is driving the identity. 

It's complicated, for sure.  I'm very grateful that my child is not requesting hormones.  We've bought binders and she has her head buzzed, but whatever.  Looking at birth control pills to stop periods, but primarily for other reasons.  I think of myself as pro-trans....I've been involved in the trans community with close friends for over 25 years, but this is absolutely new stuff.  It would be one thing if my kid had expressed life long gender dysphoria.  Or even, like my other kid, just been fairly agender throughout childhood.  If my kid had been consistent and strong in an opposite gender identity from childhood, I would have had few qualms doing puberty blockers.  But that is not the situation.  She isn't requesting any hormones or medical intervention, but even if she was, I would be hesitant to do so, given that we've already missed the puberty boat.  If they were very adamant, my feelings might change, but it would have to be pretty strong evidence to get me to intervene medically post puberty and before age 18.  I really am wondering if there are a group of teens who feel that the majority of people spend most of their time actively thinking about their gender?  That's what she keeps telling me...that she doesn't really think of herself in gender terms at all.  Which, I mean, who does???  Gender is pretty far down on the self identity of most (not all) of the people I know.  There are lots of ways to be male or female, and I don't think that is the primary identity for most people.  

[SKL]

Wondering who decides what it "feels like" to be a boy or girl, and why young people think they need to decide whether or not they qualify as one or the other.  I don't see the point of teaching kids beyond female = girl and male = boy and rare people with rare issues have it more complicated than that.

Time will tell whether this trend is causing more problems than it is solving.

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

Even then, they are more likely to just grow up gay, but yes, absolutely, that's a completely different scenario. My kids are in the same position.

 

From what I understand, there's a difference between a child who from early childhood has embraced different gender roles (boys who wanted to wear dresses, play with dolls, etc) and a child who from early childhood strongly and vociferously proclaims, "I am a girl!"  The first is far more likely to grow up and be gay; the second is more likely to be trans.  Not that these things are often clear cut, but I have known both situations, and there seems to be a qualitative difference somehow.  

I think parents just do the best they can to support the child they have in front of them at that moment and pray we get enough right that they get "good enough" parenting.

[unsinkable]

41 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes - though I'm surprised we're being allowed to say it. 

It's scary, when it's your kid looking down a path that can include sexual dysfunction, sterility, lifelong hormone treatment, a whole range of known and unknown side effects, question marks over the effect of suicidality in this new presentation cohort,  a  vastly reduced dating/relationship pool and perhaps (as more detransitioners speak out about their experience) major regrets down the road. At least non-binary is somewhat less likely to lead to the worst outcomes - for many people it's an identity but also a costume - it doesn't lead to body modification - and costumes can be taken off, or changed. 

I have had absolutely vicious comments here for the crime of delayingtransition in my GD kids till they have full brain development, and the capacity to fully weigh risk (ie over 21 - I'd prefer 25, frankly, given what we know about neurology). It's a huge ethical and health dimemma, what to do, but people here treat it as it must be a party or you are committing child abuse. Once my kids are independent adults, they can do what they like with their own bodies, and I am free to disagree but accept. But there is no way in this world that good parenting, in my books, includes putting my 15 yr old son on opposite sex hormones, telling him he's always been a girl, and ignoring the co-morbid TRAUMA and social contagion in the family/peer group that preceded the GD (which, his psychiatrist tells me, is the 'low hanging fruit' of the diagnosis world ie not hard to get). I would never forgive myself if it turned out I had been complicit in 'making straight' and sterilizing a boy who is probably just feminine and gay. 

Now, cue Joker telling me I hate her son, and Farrar lecturing me on how she would never be so selfish as to consider her own ethics and feelings on the matter, and someone else shoving suicide 'stats' in my face and Ravin demanding to know what pronouns I use for my child - but shame on all of them.  

I'm sorry, Stella. You are walking a road that I don't know how to even begin to navigate. And to do it alone, with all the responsibility that usually almost always falls on the mother, with close to zero social support...It is practically unimaginable. Except that you've been doing it. 

[unsinkable]

45 minutes ago, SKL said:

Also, "offspring" doesn't work for adoptees.

Thank you for pointing this out. 

[maize]

It would be interesting to have a poll here to see what percentage have a strong and consistent internal sense of gender and how many don't.

I certainly don't walk around all day with some constant sense of being female. I do however have a sense of being myself.

I wonder...there are some mental health conditions in which an individual struggles with a sense of self, of identity. This is one common experience among people with BPD, for example. Maybe for some people--especially young people--who struggle with finding a secure sense of self there is a need for every bit of identity to be explicit; so if they don't have an explicit sense of being female they think they must not be, at least in a social atmosphere where female is seen as being a matter of personal identity as opposed to a simple biological reality?

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by maize

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, maize said:

It would be interesting to have a poll here to see what percentage have a strong and consistent internal sense of gender and how many don't.

I certainly don't walk around all day with some constant sense of being female. I do however have a sense of being myself.

I wonder...there are some mental health conditions in which an individual struggles with a sense of self, of identity. This is one common experience among people with BPD, for example. Maybe for some people--especially young people--who struggle with finding a secure sense of self there is a need for every bit of identity to be explicit; so if they don't have an explicit sense of being female they think they must not be, at least in a social atmosphere where female is seen as being a matter of personal identity as opposed to a simple biological reality?

 

The only time I think about it is when physical situations leave me no choice.  For example, the joys of perimenopause remind me how very much a woman I am, LOL. 

I am a mother - but I don't know that I'd feel differently if I were a father.  The way I am as a mother doesn't lend itself to categorization.  I just do what I do and think what I think.  Same with my role as a daughter and sister.

As a kid, I used to wish I was a boy because of the freedoms boys had, but I didn't question that I was in fact a girl.  I just was.  I wasn't girly or any of that, but I was a girl.

[EmseB]

14 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

I agree here. Had I grown up in today's world, I 100% would have had some "gender" label slapped in me. I'm a girl who always played with "boy toys", played a ton of sports, never wore "girl clothes", and even said, "When I grow up to be a boy", etc. I tell people often that I'm so glad that I'm not growing up now instead of the 80s/90s because of this. We were always told not to put people in gender boxes, but now we are almost required to put people in those boxes. 

+1 and as hard as middle and early high school were for me as a late bloomer back in the day, I can't imagine what kind of pressure I would have been under today in the very same circumstances. If I'm not interested in things that typical females at my school are interested in, or if I don't dress a certain way, or if I don't fit in certain crowds, and if I have questions or am scared about aspects of my physical body, or I have certain feelings (certainly not at all influenced by my peers!) then I must not even be a girl? Because I must not want to be a girl? I have to find something else? And the least damaging thing my parents are supposed to do for me is agree with the idea that I'm not a girl because of those characteristics? And if I internalize all of that, the best thing for them to do is linguistic gymnastics to affirm my feelings of self-loathing as a female?? When clearly I am a human female they aren't even allowed to utter it for fear of upsetting me based on a lot of gendered ideas about what being a woman even means? I can't even describe how it makes me feel because I would be totally un-tethered today if that's what happened when I was in MS or HS. 

 

[Lawyer&Mom]

3 hours ago, Suzanne in ABQ said:

 

I've had all the same thoughts as you.  I used to think it was all a product of social media.  I learned from this thread that it originated in university gender studies.  That's new to me.  I read an article that sudden onset gender dysphoria (as opposed to early onset gender dysphoria) is a really new thing (like only started 3-4 yrs ago), that it affects mostly white girls who already have some emotional problems, and that it tends to happen in groups, and that the ideas are spread through social media.  

When my dd declared that she was non-binary, at age 21, I was blown away. (I'm using dd here because Ngc was still "dd" to me at the time) I thought it was just a bandwagon, an imaginary epidemic created by girls who were uncomfortable with their bodies (like everyone), and needed something to be angsty about. I had felt for those kids who knew from a very early age that they were actually the opposite gender, but my dd didn't fit into that group. Yes, dd had had a very hard time fitting in socially for her entire life, but she was very introverted and a deep thinker, and she was homeschooled through 8th grade, and so was shielded from the whole school-based social construct. Yes, she had a visceral repulsion to anything frilly or ruffly from infancy, but she had all sorts of sensory issues, and I never really liked frilly things either, so no big deal there.  Yes, she liked to play with cars, but she never drove them around and made vroom-vroom sounds like her brother.  Instead, she would arrange them in a circle where they would chat with each other.  Yes, she had lots of anxiety and stressed over just about everything, but she would grow out of all that.  She was very bright, especially with math, so she was probably just "one of those stereotypical, nerdy engineers," like her dad.  Everything would come together once she got into engineering school and found "her people".

WRONG.

She did very well in school.  Switched from engineering to math after one semester, then did three years of a math major with a high gpa.  What we couldn't see (because she was so far away at school) was that she was tailspinning, on her way to a major nervous breakdown (whatever they're calling that nowadays).  We tried eliminating all the things that were strangling her (math classes, the school, worry about the future job prospects, etc).  She switched to the university close to home, and she switched majors to the one thing she loved, and the one thing that would allow her to hold herself together, even though it would be difficult to support herself in that field.  

At her new school, she became familiar with the rhetoric of gender identity, and adopted the description of neutral gender/non-binary for herself, changed her name to a gender neutral one, and asked us to use it, along with the pronouns they/them/their. They don't wish to transition to male, they just don't fit in with how they understand female.  It has been a year that we've been living with these changes.  Gnc has a wonderful counselor, they're dealing with all the "stuff" from childhood and high school that have plagued them their whole life. Ngc is mostly happy, for the first time ever.  They are more comfortable in their own skin, and they have a solid sense of who they are and what they want.  I am happy to have my dc back, and I can see a time when they will be thriving.

There's still a ways to go. Honestly, I hope my gnc comes to the point that they can see that there are *lots* of ways to be a woman, and will release the non-binary restrictions, but we're not there yet. If I push that idea, I will push my firstborn child away from me and our family, and I risk losing them forever (either by them disappearing or ending their own life). I have seen that happen with my cousin when she rejected her transgender son, and I will not do that to my dear child.  I will love my dc, and I will support them, and I will do the linguistic gymnastics necessary to keep them on the path to emotional health.  They are coming to terms with the fact that the whole world is not going to change around them. We shall see where all this leads.  Perhaps Gnc, along with other non-binaries, really have felt this way their entire lives, but just now have the vocabulary to understand and share what they're experiencing.  I don't know.

Parenting is hard, and it lasts a lot longer than 18 years.

 

 

Sensory issues, lining up the cars, meltdown in college.  Have you guys thought about Autism?  The college meltdown especially is so typical for high functioning, high IQ Autistic kids.

I hang out a lot on Autistic twitter and there are so many AFAB Autistics who identify as NB.  It’s definitely a thing.

And it makes me a little sad.  When I was young it was all about stretching the boundaries of what it means to be a woman.  I adored Butch lesbians because they created space in womanhood for Autistic tomboy me.  And now it seems if you aren’t all Femme all the time you aren’t really a woman.  It’s a paradigm shift for sure.  I’m trying to be open to these new ideas, without getting emotional, but I’m Autistic.  It’s easy to take someone else’s choices too personally.  

 

[SKL]

22 minutes ago, EmseB said:

+1 and as hard as middle and early high school were for me as a late bloomer back in the day, I can't imagine what kind of pressure I would have been under today in the very same circumstances. If I'm not interested in things that typical females at my school are interested in, or if I don't dress a certain way, or if I don't fit in certain crowds, and if I have questions or am scared about aspects of my physical body, or I have certain feelings (certainly not at all influenced by my peers!) then I must not even be a girl? Because I must not want to be a girl? I have to find something else? And the least damaging thing my parents are supposed to do for me is agree with the idea that I'm not a girl because of those characteristics? And if I internalize all of that, the best thing for them to do is linguistic gymnastics to affirm my feelings of self-loathing as a female?? When clearly I am a human female they aren't even allowed to utter it for fear of upsetting me based on a lot of gendered ideas about what being a woman even means? I can't even describe how it makes me feel because I would be totally un-tethered today if that's what happened when I was in MS or HS. 

 

And this is why I have occasionally said outright to my daughters, "don't worry about it, you are a girl.  You have a vagina, not a penis, therefore you are a girl.  Even if you sometimes wish you were a boy, even if you play with boy toys or dress in boyish clothes or read books about boys, you are a girl."  I have also told them that most people who wonder about gender as a youngster will grow up to accept and embrace the sex they were born with.  It's OK to let your mind wander, but that doesn't change what you are.

Even in a small, conservative school, they have heard all kinds of things, and they read stuff on the internet as recommended by some slightly older girls.  Some of their friends say they are this or that.  I tell my kids that it is too early to tell for sure.  When I was in high school, it became very popular to say one was homosexual, so a lot of people were gay one year and straight the next.  Just like a lot of girls were non-virgins one year and virgins the next.  It doesn't bother me so much that kids let their imaginations wander like this, but when adults encourage it in the name of "supporting" children, that has a potential to take it artificially beyond the mental experimentation stage.

[bolt.]

18 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

this is pretty hilarious, imo

because for pets, of course, gender is analogous to sex, they are not separate things

and the whole idea of choosing a pronoun, or using singular they ones, is based on the idea that gender and sex are somehow separate things

so why practice it on animals?  either they don't have a gender or their gender is their sex

of course sometimes it's more useful to use neutral pronouns in re: animals because it's hard for us to discern their sex at a glance (we're not animals, so it's not as evolutionarily useful to tell male dog/cat/rabbit from female dog/cat/rabbit as it is to tell female human from male human)

but that has zero to do with gender

It's just meant to be a less uncomfortable set of relationships in which to experiment with language -- specifically because gender is meaningless to pets, and because (most often) the sex of our pets is nearly meaningless to us. One of the barriers to using gender neutral "they" is that it's different and it feels strange. It's hard to speak that way in public. It doesn't feel natural. If you 'mess around with it' for a while in your own space with no one watching it's easier to get used to it. It can make for fewer awkward pauses, errors, and anxious faces when dealing with actual people who *do* care what you call them.

It was presented as (a) advice for people who want to respect people's chosen pronouns but find themselves involuntarily uncomfortable, and (b) as a way to make that sort of language seem more normal without introducing it in controversial way (by using it when you discuss pets with other people).

I'm sorry if I didn't describe it clearly. They weren't suggesting that gender neutral pronouns are helpful to animals. They were suggesting using animals as a sort of 'prop' to help people successfully make a language shift (for people who actually want to do that) in baby steps.

[astralweaver]

20 hours ago, moonflower said:

of course sometimes it's more useful to use neutral pronouns in re: animals because it's hard for us to discern their sex at a glance (we're not animals, so it's not as evolutionarily useful to tell male dog/cat/rabbit from female dog/cat/rabbit as it is to tell female human from male human)

 

Humans are animals. Or were you just joking because of the idea of practicing on pets? I’m asking honestly. I’m new to the boards and don’t really know people yet. 

 

[maize]

11 minutes ago, astralweaver said:

 

Humans are animals. Or were you just joking because of the idea of practicing on pets? I’m asking honestly. I’m new to the boards and don’t really know people yet. 

 

I think she just meant that we are not cats or dogs or any animal besides human. Doesn't matter much evolutionarily whether I can tell at a glance whether a cat is male or female but it can be useful to know whether another human is male or female.

Edited August 14, 2019 by maize

[Joker]

22 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Wow. Preemptive bitching. Cool!

.

Edited August 15, 2019 by 123

[desertflower]

For those of you who feel like you have to defend yourself, please refrain from replying. If you do reply, please make it pg and not hurtful.

If we get one more complaint, we will lock this thread. Thanks.

[moonflower]

1 hour ago, astralweaver said:

 

Humans are animals. Or were you just joking because of the idea of practicing on pets? I’m asking honestly. I’m new to the boards and don’t really know people yet. 

 

 

Yes, I know we're animals 🙂 

[Frances]

On 8/13/2019 at 2:00 PM, Terabith said:

It's complicated, for sure.  I'm very grateful that my child is not requesting hormones.  We've bought binders and she has her head buzzed, but whatever.  Looking at birth control pills to stop periods, but primarily for other reasons.  I think of myself as pro-trans....I've been involved in the trans community with close friends for over 25 years, but this is absolutely new stuff.  It would be one thing if my kid had expressed life long gender dysphoria.  Or even, like my other kid, just been fairly agender throughout childhood.  If my kid had been consistent and strong in an opposite gender identity from childhood, I would have had few qualms doing puberty blockers.  But that is not the situation.  She isn't requesting any hormones or medical intervention, but even if she was, I would be hesitant to do so, given that we've already missed the puberty boat.  If they were very adamant, my feelings might change, but it would have to be pretty strong evidence to get me to intervene medically post puberty and before age 18.  I really am wondering if there are a group of teens who feel that the majority of people spend most of their time actively thinking about their gender?  That's what she keeps telling me...that she doesn't really think of herself in gender terms at all.  Which, I mean, who does???  Gender is pretty far down on the self identity of most (not all) of the people I know.  There are lots of ways to be male or female, and I don't think that is the primary identity for most people.  

Nm

Edited August 16, 2019 by Frances

[Frances]

3 hours ago, bolt. said:

It's just meant to be a less uncomfortable set of relationships in which to experiment with language -- specifically because gender is meaningless to pets, and because (most often) the sex of our pets is nearly meaningless to us. One of the barriers to using gender neutral "they" is that it's different and it feels strange. It's hard to speak that way in public. It doesn't feel natural. If you 'mess around with it' for a while in your own space with no one watching it's easier to get used to it. It can make for fewer awkward pauses, errors, and anxious faces when dealing with actual people who *do* care what you call them.

It was presented as (a) advice for people who want to respect people's chosen pronouns but find themselves involuntarily uncomfortable, and (b) as a way to make that sort of language seem more normal without introducing it in controversial way (by using it when you discuss pets with other people).

I'm sorry if I didn't describe it clearly. They weren't suggesting that gender neutral pronouns are helpful to animals. They were suggesting using animals as a sort of 'prop' to help people successfully make a language shift (for people who actually want to do that) in baby steps.

I don’t know that I agree that most often the sex of our pets is nearly meaningless, at least not when it comes to dogs. Many people I know with dogs have a very strong preference and always choose female or always choose male dogs. 

[Lady Florida.]

15 hours ago, bolt. said:

It's just meant to be a less uncomfortable set of relationships in which to experiment with language -- specifically because gender is meaningless to pets, and because (most often) the sex of our pets is nearly meaningless to us. One of the barriers to using gender neutral "they" is that it's different and it feels strange. It's hard to speak that way in public. It doesn't feel natural. If you 'mess around with it' for a while in your own space with no one watching it's easier to get used to it. It can make for fewer awkward pauses, errors, and anxious faces when dealing with actual people who *do* care what you call them.

It was presented as (a) advice for people who want to respect people's chosen pronouns but find themselves involuntarily uncomfortable, and (b) as a way to make that sort of language seem more normal without introducing it in controversial way (by using it when you discuss pets with other people).

I'm sorry if I didn't describe it clearly. They weren't suggesting that gender neutral pronouns are helpful to animals. They were suggesting using animals as a sort of 'prop' to help people successfully make a language shift (for people who actually want to do that) in baby steps.

I thought it was pretty clear and understood what you meant. It seems like a good way to practice so you don't constantly slip up in front of the nb person(s) who prefer they.

I slip a lot less than I used to wrt ds' friend but I still do occasionally say things like "What time will she - uh -they get here?" and I sometimes slip in front of them. Since they know I'm trying and that my use of she is accidental/habit, they're not bothered by it. 

[Suzanne in ABQ]

19 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

 

I agree here. Had I grown up in today's world, I 100% would have had some "gender" label slapped in me. I'm a girl who always played with "boy toys", played a ton of sports, never wore "girl clothes", and even said, "When I grow up to be a boy", etc. I tell people often that I'm so glad that I'm not growing up now instead of the 80s/90s because of this. We were always told not to put people in gender boxes, but now we are almost required to put people in those boxes. 

 

Yes, and the last time I checked, there were 13 identified genders, not to mention all the labels for sexual orientation.  It's interesting that after so many decades of people trying to remove all the labels that separate and classify, we've come to the place where gender and sexuality is so compartmentalized, and there are labels for everyone, and it's so complicated. I think the pendulum will swing back.  It will be interesting to see what things look like.

 

22 hours ago, Lawyer&Mom said:

 

Sensory issues, lining up the cars, meltdown in college.  Have you guys thought about Autism?  The college meltdown especially is so typical for high functioning, high IQ Autistic kids.

I hang out a lot on Autistic twitter and there are so many AFAB Autistics who identify as NB.  It’s definitely a thing.

And it makes me a little sad.  When I was young it was all about stretching the boundaries of what it means to be a woman.  I adored Butch lesbians because they created space in womanhood for Autistic tomboy me.  And now it seems if you aren’t all Femme all the time you aren’t really a woman.  It’s a paradigm shift for sure.  I’m trying to be open to these new ideas, without getting emotional, but I’m Autistic.  It’s easy to take someone else’s choices too personally.  

 

 

I did consider high functioning autism or Asbergers as a possible explanation for many of the reasons you suggest, but when I mentioned it to my her/them, they dismissed out of hand, saying "I don't want to think about autism."  I guess they see it as just one more problem to deal with, rather than a possible explanation.  Since they are 23 years old, I can't/won't force the issue.  (Just to clarify, she didn't "line up" the cars, but grouped them, like they were having a tea party, or drove them over the "road" on our town map rug, to visit their car friends.  It was very social, like girls tend to do, not lining them, as I've seen in kids with OCD, Asbergers, or Down's Syndrome do.  

[Suzanne in ABQ]

38 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Autism can present very differently in girls,  is under-diagnosed in girls and women and is, unfortunately, still very stigmatised (as is autism more generally).

Autism in girls and women is correlated with a preference for androgyny, something which a non-binary identity somewhat captures.

For my dd, understanding autism and how she relates to autism doesn't provide solutions, but it increases her self-understanding, and is worth exploring for that alone, imo.  It doesn't pose a problem so much as it shines light on the 'problems', if that makes sense. 

 

Thank you.  Perhaps if I do some more research, I'll be able to present the information to dd in a way that doesn't cause her to balk.  Do you have any recommendations?

 

[Pen]

On 8/13/2019 at 2:37 PM, maize said:

It would be interesting to have a poll here to see what percentage have a strong and consistent internal sense of gender and how many don't.

What would that mean exactly?  Having a thought every few moments, “I am female”? Do people do that usually? Or have thoughts every few moments, “I am a human being”?  

 

It seems to me that a strong consistent sense of species or sex or gender may allow for not needing to think about it.  

It is just part of selfness. 

Quote

I certainly don't walk around all day with some constant sense of being female. I do however have a sense of being myself.

 

Children and Adolescents frequently struggle (or play) with sense of identity.  Try on identity. 

 

This song would have had no resonance with people other than the songwriter were that not so. 

 

 

[scoutingmom]

On 8/11/2019 at 5:58 PM, regentrude said:

 

"one" is not a pronoun. 

Strange, as I was taught in school that it is.  "One should do their best" would be an example of one being used as a pronoun.

[regentrude]

9 hours ago, scoutingmom said:

Strange, as I was taught in school that it is.  "One should do their best" would be an example of one being used as a pronoun.

Yes, you are right. I misspoke. Because of the context of the discussion, I was only thinking of pronouns I can use to talk about a specific individual in third person; "one" doesn't work for that. 

[unsinkable]

Is anyone going to the board's concert tonight?

Headliner is Preemptive B!tch!ng. Opener is the indy act, Boundaries.

first round of drinks ... On me! I'll be wearing my mummified chicken brooch so you can spot me.

[Pen]

2 hours ago, unsinkable said:

Is anyone going to the board's concert tonight?

Headliner is Preemptive B!tch!ng. Opener is the indy act, Boundaries.

first round of drinks ... On me! I'll be wearing my mummified chicken brooch so you can spot me.

 

Hunh?  

[Janeway]

On 8/11/2019 at 3:23 PM, Liz CA said:

One of my colleagues refuses to use gender-specific pronouns, i.e. his / her and uses "their" instead. "Client  (singular) described their relationship...."

Every time I read one of her reports, it jars me. I must be old.

It is not a different way of speaking, nor is it simply being gender non-specific..it is just improper grammar. Your colleague has substituted a singular pronoun with a plural one.  It is also one of the more common grammar errors. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Janeway

[Guest]

4 hours ago, unsinkable said:

Is anyone going to the board's concert tonight?

Headliner is Preemptive B!tch!ng. Opener is the indy act, Boundaries.

first round of drinks ... On me! I'll be wearing my mummified chicken brooch so you can spot me.

You’re a nut! 😄

[maize]

1 hour ago, Janeway said:

It is not a different way of speaking, nor is it simply being gender non-specific..it is just improper grammar. Your colleague has substituted a singular pronoun with a plural one.  It is also one of the more common grammar errors. 

Proper grammar is whatever is commonly used by native speakers of a language. Since living languages are always in a process of evolving and changing what is grammatical depends on the time and place.

They as a non specific singular pronoun has been in use in English for hundreds of years. Use for a specific known individual in order to avoid masculine or feminine pronouns is currently an emerging usage; whether it becomes standard within the English language has yet to be seen but it is filling a perceived linguistic need for many who currently use it.

If plural pronouns could never gain acceptance for singular use your use of "your" in the post above would be ungrammatical since you are using it to refer to an individual not a group; you and your were originally plural pronouns, still are in fact but they have also been long accepted as singular pronouns.

Edited August 16, 2019 by maize

[Acorn]

Sue the T-Rex at Chicago’s Field Museum uses the pronoun they. The exhibition has been updated to include their preferred pronoun. I sparkly heart love Sue.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Acorn

[regentrude]

2 hours ago, Janeway said:

It is not a different way of speaking, nor is it simply being gender non-specific..it is just improper grammar. Your colleague has substituted a singular pronoun with a plural one.  It is also one of the more common grammar errors. 

No, actually it is not. Singular they has been in use for centuries. 

[unsinkable]

4 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Hunh?  

Some of the phrases on the board sound like band names.

And it one point, it seemed like we were all making chicken mummies bc it was a suggested activity in SOTW I activity guide. 

[unsinkable]

.

Edited August 21, 2019 by unsinkable

[marbel]

Singular "they" has been in use for a long time, but I don't think it has been in general use in the US, or I should say considered correct grammar, till recently.   I'm getting the impression that a lot of people here, myself included, were taught that "they" is for plural use only and for all I know it is still being taught in schools that way. Is it? Anyway the fact that it was used as far back as Elizabethan times is irrelevant IF most people who were taught grammar in the US in the last, say, 40 - 50 years? were taught that it's wrong. 

As for me, I'm embracing it because it solves a problem.  

[SKL]

Yeah, just because people have been using "they" to mean "he/she" does not mean it is correct.  It's no different from saying "Your going to miss this moment" or "Me and her are going to the mall."  Last I heard, frequency of misuse does not make incorrect grammar correct, at least not that fast.

I understand why people want to do it, but it is still awkward for those of us who believe in grammar.  Or who had English teachers like mine in 10th grade, LOL.  (She must find this "they/their" stuff excruciating.  :P)

[maize]

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah, just because people have been using "they" to mean "he/she" does not mean it is correct.  It's no different from saying "Your going to miss this moment" or "Me and her are going to the mall."  Last I heard, frequency of misuse does not make incorrect grammar correct, at least not that fast.

I understand why people want to do it, but it is still awkward for those of us who believe in grammar.  Or who had English teachers like mine in 10th grade, LOL.  (She must find this "they/their" stuff excruciating.  :P)

Frequency of use is precisely the thing that makes something part of the grammar of a language.

What writers put in grammar books is not. What teachers teach in school is not. 

Singular they when used as a generic pronoun for an unspecified person, or used when gender is unknown, is part of the grammar of English in many places and has been for a long time. They as a specific singular pronoun, referencing a known individual, is in my opinion in a gray zone grammatically at the moment. It does not sound natural or fall naturally from the lips of most native speakers of English. In my opinion it is not in fact really part of the natural grammar of the language at this point. Because it is increasing in usage however it may well become fully integrated into English grammar. Grammatical changes must start somewhere and there is absolutely no linguistic law against innovation and adaptation.

Edited August 16, 2019 by maize

[scholastica]

3 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Love it.

Hope y'all like girl alt-rock, 'cos that's Pre-emptive Bitchings' jam!

Weren't they the ones who sang "I Already Know What You're Going to Say! (Here's Why You're Wrong)" and "You're About to Do Me Wrong, So I'll Punish You Now"?

[moonflower]

11 hours ago, maize said:

Frequency of use is precisely the thing that makes something part of the grammar of a language.

What writers put in grammar books is not. What teachers teach in school is not. 

Singular they when used as a generic pronoun for an unspecified person, or used when gender is unknown, is part of the grammar of English in many places and has been for a long time. They as a specific singular pronoun, referencing a known individual, is in my opinion in a gray zone grammatically at the moment. It does not sound natural or fall naturally from the lips of most native speakers of English. In my opinion it is not in fact really part of the natural grammar of the language at this point. Because it is increasing in usage however it may well become fully integrated into English grammar. Grammatical changes must start somewhere and there is absolutely no linguistic law against innovation and adaptation.

 

The way I like to say it, as someone who appreciates "correct" grammar in appropriate settings, is that linguistics grammar is descriptive and Standard Grammar (as in the school subject) is prescriptive.

When we say that "can't tell me nothing" and "everyone's got their lunch" and "y'all ain't ready" are not incorrect grammar, what we mean is that if a way of speaking is in common (or even relatively common) use in a certain region or group of native speakers, that makes it valid English.  It's not incorrect to speak English the way you, a native speaker without language disability or speech impediment, speak it, or the way your neighbors speak it.  Or the way people speak it in Georgia, or Washington, or Scotland, or casually on the forums with run on sentences and fragments.

Those are all part of English and are not "wrong" because linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive - it describes how language works instead of telling us how to speak and write.

In school, we learn what you might call Standard English, or the formal register, or some other name, for writing and speaking in certain situations.  If you go to journalism school I bet you learn a different set of conventions, very similar but not exact, depending on your audience; the same if you learn creative writing or technical writing.  These are all prescriptive: they tell you what is right and wrong, including re: grammar.  But they're not right and wrong for all people speaking at all times, just for people and situations where using Standard English or a formal register are preferable.

A lot of parents do correct their children's speech to Standard English, to one degree or another, in some ways, as an indicator of class, social status, or educational status.  I don't find that any more wrong than telling your kids to choose from a certain set of ways to wear their hair, or making them tuck in their shirts when out in public or take off their hats in buildings, or teaching them other social conventions of your community (for example, in some communities kids refer to adults as ma'am or sir, while in others it would be considered rude).  

Edited August 17, 2019 by moonflower

[maize]

4 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

The way I like to say it, as someone who appreciates "correct" grammar in appropriate settings, is that linguistics grammar is descriptive and Standard Grammar (as in the school subject) is prescriptive.

When we say that "can't tell me nothing" and "everyone's got their lunch" and "y'all ain't ready" are not incorrect grammar, what we mean is that if a way of speaking is in common (or even relatively common) use in a certain region or group of native speakers, that makes it valid English.  It's not incorrect to speak English the way you, a native speaker without language disability or speech impediment, speak it, or the way your neighbors speak it.  Or the way people speak it in Georgia, or Washington, or Scotland, or casually on the forums with run on sentences and fragments.

Those are all part of English and are not "wrong" because linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive - it describes how language works instead of telling us how to speak and write.

In school, we learn what you might call Standard English, or the formal register, or some other name, for writing and speaking in certain situations.  If you go to journalism school I bet you learn a different set of conventions, very similar but not exact, depending on your audience; the same if you learn creative writing or technical writing.  These are all prescriptive: they tell you what is right and wrong, including re: grammar.  But they're not right and wrong for all people speaking at all times, just for people and situations where using Standard English or a formal register are preferable.

A lot of parents do correct their children's speech to Standard English, to one degree or another, in some ways, as an indicator of class, social status, or educational status.  I don't find that any more wrong than telling your kids to choose from a certain set of ways to wear their hair, or making them tuck in their shirts when out in public or take off their hats in buildings, or teaching them other social conventions of your community (for example, in some communities kids refer to adults as ma'am or sir, while in others it would be considered rude).  

This is all true, but even Standard English can and does change over time. "Proper" English in written form is generally governmed by one or another prominent style guide, which, while they tend to be conservative by nature, are also regularly updated--nobody is still using a style guide from 1890.

Gender neutral they is now officially embraced by some major style guides:

https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/stylebooks-single-they-ap-chicago-gender-neutral.php

[katilac]

 

On 8/16/2019 at 12:30 PM, Janeway said:

It is not a different way of speaking, nor is it simply being gender non-specific..it is just improper grammar. Your colleague has substituted a singular pronoun with a plural one.  It is also one of the more common grammar errors. 

You actually have absolutely no way of knowing that. The only detail I recall that would speak to intent vs error is when the OP states the colleague "refuses" to use gender-specific pronouns, which implies an active choice. Add in the fact that a work computer most likely has grammar correction features, and I think that a constant error is unlikely. 

[Lady Florida.]

To those who insist on not using singular they because of grammar, I highly recommend this book -

Words on the Move: Why English Won't - and Can't - Sit Still (Like Literally)

[katilac]

29 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

To those who insist on not using singular they because of grammar, I highly recommend this book -

Words on the Move: Why English Won't - and Can't - Sit Still (Like Literally)

I will confess to some sadness about losing 'literally,' mostly because there is literally no word that can replace it. 

[maize]

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I distinguish between imposed changes in language (top down) and natural changes in language (bottom up)...however, I have no particular grammar issue with 'they' singular... I just have a political issue with the social control exerted when I am told to use 'they' (top down) in the service of an imposed ideology with which I disagree.

I don't know how often top down linguistic changes really work. 

[regentrude]

29 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 I just have a political issue with the social control exerted when I am told to use 'they' (top down) in the service of an imposed ideology with which I disagree.

just making sure I understand this. So you say non-binary people or persons whose presentation does not match their gender should just suck it up and deal with being misgendered, because you disagree with using more inclusive language? 

[EmseB]

20 minutes ago, regentrude said:

just making sure I understand this. So you say non-binary people or persons whose presentation does not match their gender should just suck it up and deal with being misgendered, because you disagree with using more inclusive language? 

Your question is loaded with assumptions (that Stella is saying anyone should "suck it up and deal", disagreement itself being the only issue, the idea that the language is more inclusive by default, and the basic idea of misgendering someone). So, I would say that, no, you don't understand at all what she said, which was about political will and social control and forced/mandated speech and the consequences of not using speech that someone else mandates.

[Lady Florida.]

3 hours ago, StellaM said:

I distinguish between imposed changes in language (top down) and natural changes in language (bottom up)...however, I have no particular grammar issue with 'they' singular... I just have a political issue with the social control exerted when I am told to use 'they' (top down) in the service of an imposed ideology with which I disagree.

Most of the non binary people asking to be referred to as they/them are not at the top. It's just the opposite since they are pretty much a marginalized group. Their request isn't a top down thing. 

However, that's not really the point. Some people on this thread said their main complaint was that it's grammatically incorrect. My post was directed towards them and I pointed that out in the post.

[katilac]

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Pretty often, if there are negative consequences for failure to comply. 

What would be an example of that? Not a current one that is still 'in progress' so to speak, but one from the past (recent past is fine) that was effective. 

[maize]

5 minutes ago, katilac said:

What would be an example of that? Not a current one that is still 'in progress' so to speak, but one from the past (recent past is fine) that was effective. 

The use of comrade as a term of address in communist countries maybe?

[maize]

Still ongoing:

"In October 2016, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued a directive urging all 90 million party members to keep calling each other "comrades" instead of less egalitarian terms"

from wikipedia

[maize]

On a much larger scale there is also compelled adoption of official/prestige languages or dialects. That is ongoing all around the world.

Edited August 18, 2019 by maize