Pronoun Usage

[girltrombonist]

Looks clever!

But some hipster is going to get his ponytail caught in there and that will be the end of it.

^female trombonists and nonbinary trombonists exist. I wasn't aware that the length of your hair excluded you from playing trombone.

[BGuttman]

Looks clever!

But some hipster is going to get his ponytail caught in there and that will be the end of it.

^female trombonists and nonbinary trombonists exist. I wasn't aware that the length of your hair excluded you from playing trombone.

The comment was not meant to denigrate female trombonists (or male trombonists with pony tails like me). It's just that a hairstyle that flops over the mechanism could get caught. Or maybe not. The designer is looking at something to keep hair off the mechanism.

[Matt K]

As a matter of fact, one of my favorite YouTube clips happens to be the chorale from Mahler 2 from the New York Philharmonic and David Finlayson is sporting quite the pony tail! And of course Amanda Stewart right next to him, also sporting one:

[WilliamLang]

intent doesn't always equal outcome. if you use he/him for trombonists as a matter of fact, just think about it for a minute. one can understand why it would be annoying to run into the same assumption thousands of times

[BGuttman]

intent doesn't always equal outcome. if you use he/him for trombonists as a matter of fact, just think about it for a minute. one can understand why it would be annoying to run into the same assumption thousands of times

Rightly or wrongly, the assumption of the male pronoun when the gender of the subject is unknown has been a part of the English language for at least the past 1000 years. I know the Feminists have been railing about this at least since the "woke" 1960s but there has been no official or accepted way to introduce gender neutral pronouns for unknown genders.

When a more gender neutral form is standardized, I will be happy to accept it. But I also realize that the male bias has been with us for generations.

[Matt K]

Hi all, moved this here.

I was always taught that proper English necessitated the use of the pronoun of the author when referring to an anonymous or pseudononymous 3rd party, which makes that sentence proper. If the author identified differently, it would be incorrect. That way, it is less confusing and verbose than specifying all of the possible options or mixing the use case. In either case, nobody is implicitly saying that trombonists must be male; if there ever was a group of people who wish that weren't the case, it's low brass players.

[Kdanielsen]

Their

Them

They

What’s so hard about this??

People treated disease with leaches and piss for thousands of years too but we grew.

Grow.

[Matt K]

Well, that they are plural. So it creates ambiguity. That's the problem with languages that developed naturally. They served one purpose and then kept getting added onto until you have two mutually exclusive scenario: do you choose to be vague/ambiguous or inclusive? There's probably a better way of doing it. I would personally have no problem with something like "xe" for those situations but now that too is reserved specifically for people who identify thusly as far as I can tell.

[mbarbier]

Rightly or wrongly, the assumption of the male pronoun when the gender of the subject is unknown has been a part of the English language for at least the past 1000 years. I know the Feminists have been railing about this at least since the "woke" 1960s but there has been no official or accepted way to introduce gender neutral pronouns for unknown genders.

When a more gender neutral form is standardized, I will be happy to accept it. But I also realize that the male bias has been with us for generations.

there actually are a lot of accepted ways. there's been a lot of standardized ways in academic writing for a while. those have changed a bit over time as, mostly, men have just chosen to ignore them. just because a bunch of dudes ignore them and claim there's no standardized way, doesn't mean they don't exist. it means y'all are refusing to accept new practices and that undermines them and then using that undermining as a way to point out that it's not standardized.

it's really not that hard. y'all are willing to learn every trombone valve innovation in the last 100 years....they/them ain't that hard.

depressing that there's an overlap with people complaining about pronouns and bringing sexual predators into LGBTQ threads.

[olivegreenink]

I’m glad we are having this discussion because - and I’m truly not saying this to be snarky - it appears to be news to some folks here that established gender neutral terms abound.

When in doubt, super duper simple to just get in the habit of using they/them/their as mentioned above.

Language is living. We were all taught countless “unbreakable” grammar mandates in school that evolved. Starting sentences with preposition. Using contractions. Even the meaning of the word “literal” is morphing into meaning both literal and figurative. It happens to thouest.

Using they to refer to one human may seem strange to you at first based on decades old info on singular vs plural. Or saying y’all even if you are not southern, rather than saying guys to refer to a group. And as mentioned as well, you can just say the trombonist, horn player, musician, etc.

Glad to hear that at least one person here is immediately going to use this method now that it’s existence has been made known.

Cheers

[ithinknot]

Their

Them

They

What’s so hard about this??

Yup. Costs me nothing; makes someone else's life easier.

'Singular they' has been standard in many contexts for centuries; expanding its use is not difficult.

(Regardless of the merits of the quote that sparked this discussion, now's as good a time as any to consider general usage.)

[Kbiggs]

Their

Them

They

What’s so hard about this??

People treated disease with leaches and piss for thousands of years too but we grew.

Grow.

This.

I would add: when in doubt, ask.

[mbarbier]

Their

Them

They

What’s so hard about this??

People treated disease with leaches and piss for thousands of years too but we grew.

Grow.

This.

I would add: when in doubt, ask.

But please do so discreetly or provide space for everyone to provide them in a non verbal way (for example I send all new students a form before the first class that asks everyone for their pronouns). As well meaning as asking can be, it can also unintentionally out people who aren't out in all situations, so it's important to be conscious of the situation and space when doing so.

email signatures are a super helpful way, especially if one is a cis person and has them in their own email- its a subtle, but very noticeable way to show that one is aware that pronouns are important and is checking to be respectful of the person.

[mbarbier]

'Singular they' has been standard in many contexts for centuries; expanding its use is not difficult.

yupppppp. it's pretty normal in the english language already. it's a fairly slight linguistic expansion of something that's already there.

[Kbiggs]

But please do so discreetly or provide space for everyone to provide them in a non verbal way (for example I send all new students a form before the first class that asks everyone for their pronouns). As well meaning as asking can be, it can also unintentionally out people who aren't out in all situations, so it's important to be conscious of the situation and space when doing so.

[ithinknot]

When a more gender neutral form is standardized, I will be happy to accept it.

Well, over here, New Hart's Rules (Oxford University Press) and the Cambridge Guide to English Usage both recommend singular they, so you may enjoy the imprimatur of both our bastions of snobbery (linguistic and otherwise)

[olivegreenink]

Well, that they are plural. So it creates ambiguity.

Having ambiguity that instead of talking about only you (not specifically you Matt) and that they might be talking about you as part of a group is a lot less problematic for a lot of folks than as one of many possible example….if every single day a man is called a woman dozens of times.

Cheers

[mbarbier]

Well, that they are plural. So it creates ambiguity.

and that ambiguity is welcome as it allows a non-binary person, such as myself, to exist on a spectrum that is neither male nor female and move in a natural way for the individual. which is different than the earlier "hier", which was often mean as a pronoun used in transition rather than a place to stay. they/them embraces one's gender a spectrum.

[ithinknot]

I would add: when in doubt, ask.

But please do so discreetly or provide space for everyone to provide them in a non verbal way (for example I send all new students a form before the first class that asks everyone for their pronouns). As well meaning as asking can be, it can also unintentionally out people who aren't out in all situations, so it's important to be conscious of the situation and space when doing so.

email signatures are a super helpful way, especially if one is a cis person and has them in their own email- its a subtle, but very noticeable way to show that one is aware that pronouns are important and is checking to be respectful of the person.

Yes. But (or rather, And) where this isn't possible, I've never come across a single instance where any difficulty would arise from defaulting to someone's name + 'they/their'.

[olivegreenink]

+1

Plus I suspect nearly every single person here uses singular they already whether they realize it or not. For instance if you see something incredible you might say, “I don’t know how they did it, but somebody just XYZ….”

Cheers

[Bach5G]

I was reading a medical report which stated “they attended their physician”. It took me a few re-readings before I sorted out how many people went to the doctor (one).

Still: “Costs me nothing; makes someone else's life easier.” I went on a rant a la Jordan P but a friend, more enlightened than I, made exactly that point and she was right. (Although the new usage rather brings attention to the issue, which, I thought, was the opposite of what was intended).

I recall an opinion (Strunk? Fowler?) that the rules of grammar are largely folklore.

[mbarbier]

Yes. But (or rather, And) where this isn't possible, I've never come across a single instance where any difficulty would arise from defaulting to someone's name + 'they/their'.

fully agree.

[Matt K]

Strunk.

But like I said, I have no problem personally using such a word, and if you'll notice my writing I typically do resort to the singular-plural even though it adds ambiguity. I just wish there was a word we could settle on, because I can't keep up with what I'm supposed to say. I've been yelled at for not remembering (I am a forgetful person) and resorting to "they" when it was otherwise specified and I've been yelled at for using first-person nouns as a default, and obviously I've been yelled at for misgendering as I reiterate that I am, above all else, forgetful. I would love a "safe" pronoun to use that I can just call everyone and have it be socially acceptable and grammatically acceptable in all situations.

[BGuttman]

I admit to being a bit of a dinosaur, having gone to school in the Late Pre-Cambrian Era We did have one big grammar change during my youth where we combined Miss and Mrs. into the marriage-neutral Ms. It was even more discriminatory in the Bad Old Days for women who had to show their marital status when being addressed.

If the consensus is to use "they" for gender indistinct pronouns, I can live with that.

Still, the original complaint was that having a pony tail discriminated against female trombone players. It wasn't meant to be so.

[mbarbier]

Strunk.

But like I said, I have no problem personally using such a word, and if you'll notice my writing I typically do resort to the singular-plural even though it adds ambiguity. I just wish there was a word we could settle on, because I can't keep up with what I'm supposed to say. I've been yelled at for not remembering (I am a forgetful person) and resorting to "they" when it was otherwise specified and I've been yelled at for using first-person nouns as a default, and obviously I've been yelled at for misgendering as I reiterate that I am, above all else, forgetful. I would love a "safe" pronoun to use that I can just call everyone and have it be socially acceptable and grammatically acceptable in all situations.

the forgetfulness is really tough (said as a person who forgets everything) because it's totally legitimate, but also comes across to people as not caring because we tend to remember the things that are important to us. when someone consistently misgenders you, regardless of why is comes across as "this person doesn't view my gender and self as mattering". I'm not at all meaning that that's what you're doing, but that's often how it's taken (which leads to yelling). I've found a really effective strategy in this situations is, after I'm corrected or informed, to consciously use said pronoun with that person three times in the conversation. It seems simple but really helps you make a habit and shows that person that you're consciously trying to adjust and form a new habit.

Its also super effective to not make a big deal about it- just give a direct and honest "sorry" and then move forward in the conversation (and try the above). It shows the person you heard but that you're not going to make their gender all you see about them. I've found those two things helpful for myself and with helping other, mostly, older faculty members.

[sungfw]

Well, that they are plural.

Words and their meanings evolve. The fact that grammarians have classified "they/their/them" as plurals doesn't make them ontologically plural, forever and ever. Amen. Contemporary usus loquendi trumps historical usage.

Oh ... and "they" has been used consistently as a singular pronoun since the fourteenth century.

[Matt K]

the forgetfulness is really tough (said as a person who forgets everything) because it's totally legitimate, but also comes across to people as not caring because we tend to remember the things that are important to us. when someone consistently misgenders you, regardless of why is comes across as "this person doesn't view my gender and self as mattering". I'm not at all meaning that that's what you're doing, but that's often how it's taken (which leads to yelling). I've found a really effective strategy in this situations is, after I'm corrected or informed, to consciously use said pronoun with that person three times in the conversation. It seems simple but really helps you make a habit and shows that person that you're consciously trying to adjust and form a new habit.

Its also super effective to not make a big deal about it- just give a direct and honest "sorry" and then move forward in the conversation (and try the above). It shows the person you heard but that you're not going to make their gender all you see about them. I've found those two things helpful for myself and with helping other, mostly, older faculty members.

For me it's a learning disability. People's names are hard enough, I routinely forget family members names even. The solution I was taught to cope in gradeschool was to use pronouns. Now that too is something I can't infer or even use generically, which makes verbal communication quite difficult for me. Thank goodness that everything is remote now. I have people's information all in an address book that I can use on Zoom calls and whatnot which makes that way easier.

But I still also wish that generically we could come up with a word for a "generic person" who, by definition, can't be offended by misuse, but which isn't plural because - again with the learning disability - those types of sentences are really hard for me to figure out.

[Elow]

In a high school environment, you just ask what pronouns they prefer and call them that. Using they/them in sentences has become more natural than he/she, no person is ever confused because they could be plural. Also using their name is pretty easy, “Alex wants to go to the beach with us, can they come?” and “Alex wants to go to the beach with us, can alex come?” has the same effect.

[harrisonreed]

Please call me "he"

I might have been living under a rock, but this is a very strange discussion. I haven't heard about any of this stuff in here. As far as I knew, if someone looked like a woman, even if you suspect they might be transgender, you called them "she" and everyone seemed to be happy. But that was the consensus back in 2009, the last time I was involved in academia.

*Corrected spelling

[BGuttman]

Please call me "he"

I might have been living under a rock, but this is a very strange discussion. I haven't heard about any of this stuff in here. As far as I knew, if someone looked like a woman, even if you suspects they might be transgender, you called them "she" and everyone seemed to be happy. But that was the consensus back in 2009, the last time I was involved in academia.

The question here is what kind of pronoun to use when you don't know the gender of the subject. Ask a trombonist if [he? she? it?] practices 2 or more hours in a day. We have not established whether the subject is male, female, neuter, gelded, trans, etc. There is apparently a trend starting that the sentence I placed should read "Ask a trombonist if they practices 2 or more hours in a day." In this case we are using "they" as a singular pronoun for someone of indeterminate gender.

Note that this whole thing sprang from someone taking offense at a comment about pony tails getting caught up in a piece of trombone mechanism. I haven't had that problem in spite of having a pony tail, but I have had problems with my beard being pulled by my trigger thumb (and it hurts!).

[mbarbier]

The question here is what kind of pronoun to use when you don't know the gender of the subject. Ask a trombonist if [he? she? it?] practices 2 or more hours in a day. We have not established whether the subject is male, female, neuter, gelded, trans, etc. There is apparently a trend starting that the sentence I placed should read "Ask a trombonist if they practices 2 or more hours in a day." In this case we are using "they" as a singular pronoun for someone of indeterminate gender.

they/them is a gender neutral, generally used for non binary people.

please please don't use "it" or words like "gelded" in these discussions. using that as an aside to refer to gender queer people is unbelievably disrespectful and dehumanizing. i really encourage you to consider how you think/talk about this stuff cause you've brought some crazy problematic stuff to this and the other thread. i'm not trying to be a jerk, but some of what you've associated with the LGBTQ community reallllllllly needs to be unpacked.

[BGuttman]

Gelded is a term to describe a horse that is "castrato". No association with LGBTQ. "It" is a gender neutral pronoun. I think you are being hypersensitive about these things. I'd never refer to an LGBTQ person as "it" or "gelded". I might call a Lesbian a "she" and a Gay Guy "he". Unless you want to take offense at these as well.

[mbarbier]

Gelded is a term to describe a horse that is "castrato". No association with LGBTQ. "It" is a gender neutral pronoun. I think you are being hypersensitive about these things. I'd never refer to an LGBTQ person as "it" or "gelded". I might call a Lesbian a "she" and a Gay Guy "he". Unless you want to take offense at these as well.

you literally just used "it" to refer to a person in your last post. also why TF are you bringing horse terms into this discussion? you brought sexual predators into the last one, like really?

what kind of good faith are you engaging in any of these discussions in? so far this is the only criticism you've responded to and you missed the point by about twenty miles. call me oversensitive all you want, I'd rather come across as overly sensitive than a willfully ignorant a**hole like you are.

[Burgerbob]

Gelded is a term to describe a horse that is "castrato". No association with LGBTQ. "It" is a gender neutral pronoun. I think you are being hypersensitive about these things. I'd never refer to an LGBTQ person as "it" or "gelded". I might call a Lesbian a "she" and a Gay Guy "he". Unless you want to take offense at these as well.

Bruce, please understand that you don't get to decide for another person if they are being hypersensitive. Use your empathy and make small changes to your own behavior because it's the right thing to do.

[harrisonreed]

Likewise another person doesn't get to dictate what standard language (pronouns) you use to describe the people you see or conceptualize in your own head.

I have seen many positive social changes in the last thirty years, and I think society is going in the right direction. Trying to change the base language ("gender" is originally a linguistic term) ain't it. Sorry. It's a fundamental change to the entire language, and brings up images of newspeak.

This stemmed from someone taking offense to a hypothetical "hipster with (his) ponytail". Sorry, but that phrase contains a lot of linguistic data that is part of the English language. The only possible offensive word in there is "hipster", not the pronoun that was used. It is perfectly fine for someone, in their own speech or writing, to hypothetically generate the image of a male hipster with a ponytail getting caught in the valveless F attachment. No one should be offended by someone else assigning a gender to a concept or person that they fictionally created as an example. Like textbooks that arbitrarily assign "she" as the pronoun used in all examples, or confusingly alternate between the two. Gendered pronouns are inherent to my native language, and help you keep the story straight and help the listener visualize what you are communicating.

I see people ganging up on Bruce, but I have to at least defend this situation a bit here. It's a two way street:

1. Getting offended at someone for not using "they" in their own hypothetical story is unreasonable. A reasonable person who speaks English would not be offended by this.
2. Insisting on calling someone "he" after they ask you to call them "she" is unreasonable. Common courtesy.
3. Calling a human being "it" is highly offensive because that is used for inanimate objects and animals that tend to be assumed to be genderless units you know the animal. Saying "he" or "she" is built into the language as a more respectful term because it assigns a lot of useful data to what you're talking about. "Them" had been used for a long time as neutral gender, but honestly it's a distancing term. Reading literature, "they" always is a bigger wall between the reader and the subject than a gendered pronoun.
4. Calling someone's pet "it" after being corrected can be offensive because the owner expects you to increase the level of respect by using a pronoun. You're going to call your friend's male dog "he". Am I wrong? The gendered pronoun is much less offensive and highly appropriate, especially for an animal that has no concept of anything in this discussion. I call every cat I see "him" because I own male cats, and I want to feel close to an animal I like. I switch if I figure out the gender though.

Anyways, yeah. I think it's highly unreasonable to not allow someone to conceptualize a scenario and not assign a gender in their own story.

[harrisonreed]

Looks clever!

But some hipster is going to get his ponytail caught in there and that will be the end of it.

^female trombonists and nonbinary trombonists exist. I wasn't aware that the length of your hair excluded you from playing trombone.

See, here it is. This is an unreasonable response to someone's constructed story.

Assuming you know that the author only thinks trombonists are male and attacking that author is even more offensive, in the actual meaning of that word.

Offensive - for the purpose of attack rather than defense

[Bach5G]

Are all hipsters male?

[olivegreenink]

Food for thought: Many (many, many) texts books use only “he” in all their examples. Why is using only “she” arbitrary? Perhaps “she” may seem noteworthy because “anything other than he” is a departure.

With regard to Bruce, I think there is a massive opportunity here to listen to the feedback. Ive been dumbstruck by your posts on two different threads in two days by what at best are unfathomably poor choices of words and topic associations. Twice by your own explanation terrible analogies/scenarios have been introduced that you say are unrelated yet you were the one who brought them into the very specific context/discussion. If this was an honest mistake, maybe reassess a bit. I’ve enjoyed your insights on countless other topics in my year on this board - you are often very funny and witty. But this week was not a good look.

I say from personal experience I didn’t realize how often I defaulted to calling my class “you guys” until a student pointed it out about 8 years ago. I listened and changed on account of knowing I’d offended just one person who spoke up and realizing in reality it was likely dozens more who didn’t raise the point.

Folks are straight up saying here there a super easy way to make some additional friends and neighbors feel more like part of the community. So let’s all do that

Cheers

[harrisonreed]

Did you change "you guys" to "you people"? That sounds loads more friendly....

That's another one I don't understand. How many times have I been addressed as "you guys" by a female or sometime from the LGBTQ community? Lots and lots of times. But if you aren't in that community or aren't female and say it someone is taking offense.

To a reasonable, average English speaker, "You guys" is not an offensive term to address a group of people with. There is absolutely nothing charged or derogatory about it. If you change it to the friendly "hey gang!" , now you're calling someone a criminal.

There is at least one term inside the LGBTQ acronym that is offensive. An honest to god offensive term as far as I'm concerned, especially in MA spoken with a Boston accent. But somehow now that is an OK term to use (at least some people can use it) when you're talking about people. It's not fair for one group to dictate what is offensive or inoffensive to say in purely linguistic terms, especially when they flipflop and suddenly make an actual offensive term legitimate.

[Burgerbob]

To a reasonable, average English speaker, "You guys" is not an offensive term to address a group of people with.

*to you

[harrisonreed]

To a reasonable, average English speaker, "You guys" is not an offensive term to address a group of people with.

*to you

No, I'd argue against you, having been called "you guys" by men, women, boys, girls, and people of all sorts of orientations. In my experience, interacting with thousands of people in my life around the planet, that form of address is 100% acceptable and has become built into the language as a standard form of address.

[Burgerbob]

In my experience, interacting with thousands of people in my life around the planet, that form of address is 100% acceptable and has become built into the language as a standard form of address.

[quiethorn]

Looks clever!

But some hipster is going to get his ponytail caught in there and that will be the end of it.

^female trombonists and nonbinary trombonists exist. I wasn't aware that the length of your hair excluded you from playing trombone.

Ponytails aren't a defining characteristic of hipster-ism, so I'm confused already.

A more fitting comment might have been, "But some hipster is going to get his long, well-groomed and manicured beard or the collar of his flannel shirt caught in there and have to cut it out with the straight razor that he stropes every morning on an old leather strap from his grandpa so he can make it to the brick oven pizza restaurant on time before they close and throw away all the leftover artisanal bread that he collects each night and brings home in his leather satchel while riding on his brand-less dark gray cargo bike that somehow has 17 speeds."

But even then, I don't think hipsters are generally associated with playing trombone anyway, so the whole is just confusing... and actually offensive. A trombone-playing hipster with a ponytail?! Bruce, just try harder with the stereotypes please. Soccer players have ponytails. Hipsters have beards. Pirates have both. Get it right next time.

[harrisonreed]

Food for thought: Many (many, many) texts books use only “he” in all their examples. Why is using only “she” arbitrary? Perhaps “she” may seem noteworthy because “anything other than he” is a departure.

Arbitrate- to make a judgment in an argument,

Arbitrary - subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:

Since we're talking about language here, and not actual offensive terms, you've answered the question yourself once you know the definition of the word arbitrary.

It's a known fact that most writing in English defaults to male gendered pronouns in technical writing. One must make a decision to use all female pronouns. Note that there is nothing wrong with an author choosing to do so.

[harrisonreed]

In my experience, interacting with thousands of people in my life around the planet, that form of address is 100% acceptable and has become built into the language as a standard form of address.

Are we really at the point in our society where "you guys" is where we need everyone to conform and mend the "errors" of their ways? If so, looking at the news and the mass shootings, and horrible racially charged violence... If that is all fine and we're hung up on "hey you guys" because this is the month we should be concerned about that issue, this isn't the world I want to be in.

If I had a whole month celebrating me and how awesome and different I am, I'd give it up to stop mass shootings, racism, and domestic violence. Because at the end of the day that is way more important than my own ego.

[Burgerbob]

Are we really at the point in our society where "you guys" is where we need everyone to conform and mend the "errors" of their ways? If so, looking at the news and the mass shootings, and horrible racially charged violence... If that is all fine and we're hung up on "hey you guys" because this is the month we should be concerned about that issue, this isn't the world I want to be in.

If I had a whole month celebrating me I'd give it up to stop mass shootings, racism, and violence against women.

We're at the point where you can change a small thing in your speaking and writing to help a part of the population out. Just like how we don't use a whole number of ethnic slurs in normal speech that were acceptable recently.

Language changes, don't be afraid to change a bit with it.

[quiethorn]

*to you

No, I'd argue against you, having been called "you guys" by men, women, boys, girls, and people of all sorts of orientations. In my experience, interacting with thousands of people in my life around the planet, that form of address is 100% acceptable and has become built into the language as a standard form of address.

I mean, I got no dog in this fight, but clearly you gotta knock that 100% back a little on account of some people here are telling you they don't like it.

Or you could just amend it and say 100% of "reasonable" people find it acceptable

I myself have taken to saying "y'alls". My friend from Kentucky says it, and I like the redundant pluralism. Previously, I would address groups of people as "you idiots," but those idiots didn't like it for some reason.

[harrisonreed]

Are we really at the point in our society where "you guys" is where we need everyone to conform and mend the "errors" of their ways? If so, looking at the news and the mass shootings, and horrible racially charged violence... If that is all fine and we're hung up on "hey you guys" because this is the month we should be concerned about that issue, this isn't the world I want to be in.

If I had a whole month celebrating me I'd give it up to stop mass shootings, racism, and violence against women.

We're at the point where you can change a small thing in your speaking and writing to help a part of the population out. Just like how we don't use a whole number of ethnic slurs in normal speech that were acceptable recently.

Language changes, don't be afraid to change a bit with it.

But ethnic slurs and horrible offensive terms are not built into the very grammar of our language. Gendered pronouns are. They have been since at least 550BC, as latin is a major component of English. It's an actual linguistic feature.

It's interesting that the concept of "gender" as someone's sexual identity and a term that means someone's biological sex is actually very recent. In the 1800s and earlier that word only referred to linguistic gender.

Are people upset in Spain than inanimate objects are assigned a linguistic gender? That'd be interesting to hear about.

[Burgerbob]

But ethnic slurs are not built into the very grammar of our language. Gendered pronouns are. They have been since at least 550BC, as latin is a major component of English. It's an actual linguistic feature.

It's interesting that the concept of "gender" as someone's sexual identity and a term that means someone's biological sex is actually very recent. In the 1800s and earlier that word only referred to linguistic gender.

Why does the time matter? Plenty of words have been created and dropped in the last century, and plenty have changed meanings entirely. Why choose this hill to fight on?

[harrisonreed]

But ethnic slurs are not built into the very grammar of our language. Gendered pronouns are. They have been since at least 550BC, as latin is a major component of English. It's an actual linguistic feature.

It's interesting that the concept of "gender" as someone's sexual identity and a term that means someone's biological sex is actually very recent. In the 1800s and earlier that word only referred to linguistic gender.

Why does the time matter? Plenty of words have been created and dropped in the last century, and plenty have changed meanings entirely. Why choose this hill to fight on?

Well I'll bring up the Spanish argument. Are people in Spain upset that nouns for inanimate objects are assigned a linguistic gender?

Language is a hill with dying on, and having someone decide that other people are being offensive (when they are just saying "his hair might get caught in the trombone") is an attack on language, and communication. It's Newspeak.

I take very seriously any time someone starts telling people what they can or can't say. Especially if it truly is a reasonable, normal statement.