This is nothing but a distraction from lecterngate. Sarah Huckabee Sanders used taxpayer funds to pay for a personal trip, then had the Republican party expense a $20k podium from a company that has never sold a podium before to try to hide the embezzlement.
It costs people nothing to use someones’ preferred pronouns and yet here we are.
They do this to be cruel
someone
…
STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM! YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW WITH YOUR GENDER-VAGUE WORD.
What if they think men and women should be referred to by different pronouns?
I think you mean “what if the men and women think men and women should be referred to by different pronouns”. Can’t use “they” any more, remember.
But everyone is free to think whatever they want, so long as they don’t go around telling other people how to live their lives when it’s not hurting anyone.
No, you can still use they when referring to multiple people or those of unknown sex.
Might want to brush up on your English if this is news to you.
They is grammatically correct for a single person so I’m not even kind of sure what you mean here
I never said it was incorrect. The problem is forcing people to use ‘they’ when they’d rather use he or she.
The poster above me here is absolutely right, she shouldn’t be forced to use the wrong pronouns. It might make her uncomfortable.
She sounds like a fuckin idiot if you ask me.
Yeah, nah. I grew out of that phase in elementary school.
You can call me whatever you want, I’m not some child who lets it affect me.
They really fucked up
They
FUCK
“Am I so out of touch? No, it’s the people who fail to fit into my narrow, regressive worldview who are wrong.”
the people
I dunno, man. That’s gender-vague enough to be a problem here.
So… The Party of “small government” once again banning using language that’s inclusive of all people. Disgusting…
NASA changed its nomenclature to say human space flight (as opposed to just “manned” space flight) in the 90’s, you transphobic Christian nationalist.
blame r/athiesm for stifling proper religious education /s
So instead of using they like a normal person would, they have to use something like s/he throughout entire documents? How clunky and ugly that must be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco
Particularly relevant: 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14.
See also: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-remembers-victims-of-nazi-persecution-of-sexual-minorities/a-64533034
It is happening now, it has happened before, it will surely happen again.
What were they thinking?
Oh shit, I just used the gender-neutral pronoun “they.”
By “they,” I believe you mean “an unknown number of men and women.”
In this case yes, but “they” can also be all men, all women, or a single person of unknown gender.
For example: somebody called. What did they say?
deleted by creator
The Old Testament literally doesn’t contain gender neutral language, which is a large part of why this all is so messed up in the first place.
Hebrew didn’t have a neutral gender.
There was no ‘parent’ just ‘mother’ or ‘father.’
So a number of passages ended up super weird as a result, including the “he made them male and female” in Genesis 1 where a plural God makes humans male and female in ‘his’ image.
Which was the key line that’s been used for millennia now to prejudice against gender nonconformity, including its being cited in the NT regarding marriage in works written just a few years after the emperor of Rome married two different men.
deleted by creator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
Edit: Expanding on this as some people seem to be confused…
The article is only about the etymology of the word:
But the question of where the word woman comes from is also of interest, since, as is so often the case with everyday words whose etymologies we take for granted, the origins of the term ‘woman’ contains several surprising details.
The etymological fallacy is thinking that the etymology relates to the contemporary definition, which is what the commenter was doing in confusing the etymology of woman or man as being somehow connected to its meaning.
In general, the commenter was mistaken, as while it is true that a number of stories in the OT were likely based on earlier concepts of neutral or multiple genders (such as the example I originally gave), from the earliest Hebrew onwards there was literally no way of representing it.
So you ended up with later reinterpretation of passages with binary gender like the Genesis 1 example as having related to a hermaphroditic original man (Philio and the later Naassenes) given it was in the image of what was supposedly a singular God but rendered male and female both. Whereas what’s more likely was this passage dated back to the days of a divine power couple of Yahweh and his wife which was later reworked into a monotheistic form without updating the creation of men and women in their images.
But the topic of binary gender representation in the language is fairly broadly discussed and is distinct from what the commenter is trying to represent as being similar in languages with neutral gender representations with some bizarre appeal to etymology.
I suspect it was even the driving concept in the 1st century behind the comments about “make the male and female into a single one” in the Gospel of Thomas saying 22, which ironically still elsewhere referred to the ‘Father’ as opposed to ‘Parent.’ (Aramaic was also a binary gendered language.)
deleted by creator
Conservatives are so fucking dumb
So this has nothing to do with the word they. This is TREF nonsense that by using words like pregnant person, the “patriarchy” is erasing women.
Not only that, but she’s sneaking in some Fetal Personhood stuff by saying that “pregnant mom” is acceptable.
“Pregnant Person” specifically accounts for pregnant transMEN not Transwomen.
deleted by creator
Reminds me of when North Carolinas own oceanic and atmospheric agency published a study on the negative effects climate change will have on their coastal towns, and what they need to do in response to that.
So their state government responded by banning the use of terms like climate change.
To conservatives, cultural war is a real issue. It’s not like they care about anything else, as far as their concerned they’re going to heaven one way or another. Why plan for today when you can be happy about imaginary tomorrows.
If they don’t keep people fighting about who can marry who or who should have control over medical decisions, people might start fighting about things that will threaten their wealth and power.
