• toasteecup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    All I’m saying is according to English grammatical rules it’s a perfectly valid method of referring to a singular person when gender is unknown.

    Now according to societal politeness rules on the other hand, it’s rude as fuck.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would say that, given that it’s never ok, it is part of English grammartical rules. In German they actually use two different words for when a human eats or when an animal eats, it’s not unprecedented and there’s no need to lend any credibility to the usage of the word “it”.

      • Numuruzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a single precedent I can think of, which is that with some regularity I see infants/newborns referred to as “it”.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A mindset from the before (antibiotics) times. Babies used to die quite frequently. So much that in some cultures babies weren’t named until later in their life, not during pregnancy as it’s custom today. So they were kind of an out there thing, that wasn’t baptized and named yet, they were an it. They were “the baby”. No different than a dog or a turtle, they might die without a name, given an unmarked burial. And off to the next pregnancy. Still a tragedy, and people did mourn and suffered the loss. But not to the same degree of modern, western medicalized, pregnancies were almost every single baby born is expected to at least survive to infancy.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My point was merely to show the difference between what is grammatically ok vs what is societally ok.

        In time, I imagine English grammar will continue to change with the language and it will take on a definition that indicates something nonsentient.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      according to English grammatical rules it’s a perfectly valid method of referring to a singular person

      show me ONE fucking example prior to 2000 of people using “it” for persons without it being dehumanizing

      singular “they” has fulfilled this function for at least 500 years. “it” has never been a pronoun for humans, until it recently saw use as a neo-pronoun.

      there is no grammar rulebook. grammar is usage. you are claiming that it’s been used like that. you’re wrong.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re more than welcome to go back in time and inform my 10th grade teacher of this. Lemme know how that works out for you.

          • toasteecup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In all fairness, they read out the part of the textbook that went over it. This was also the same paragraph that explained they can be used as well as the difference between you singular and the royal you.

            That being said I’m sure we were both sarcastic in our prior responses but I’m attempting to show that I’m not pulling this out of my ass and I’m relying on a source of truth.

  • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    I default to whatever the traditional apparent gender would be assumed I.E. you look like traditional woman/man I refer to you as such. Then I allow myself to be corrected if it’s inaccurate.

    The intent isn’t offensive and I’m not going to ask each individual what pronouns are preferred but will respect whatever I’m informed is correct in each instance. I think it’s being made into a mountain when it’s really just a mole hill. You can’t expect every human to automatically be correct or informed or even default to a neutral when it is not yet the norm.

    It seems too trivial to be butthurt over if it isn’t malicious, especially upon first interaction. Let the person know, then if ignored or dismissed it can be considered offensive.

    I don’t get upset when people call my Bugles potato chips, they are little crunchy cones of heaven

    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I started using they after 2 years accidentally misgendering a colleague from another country because it looked like she had a beard in Teams profile picture

      • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That sounds reallllly rough haha, hopefully it was taken with more humor than insult. I just go with ye ol “assume ignorance or mistake over malice” anytime an interaction like that happens. Majoritively it is one of the former and there was never an issue to begin with. Sorta like getting some fused Bugles, I doubt the company intended to send it to me, just a simple double delicious mistake

        • eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah as a pretty genderfucky person, people pretty commonly misgender me, and most of the time it’s no big deal. It gets pretty easy to tell when it’s intentional and when it isn’t. As long as people are empathetic and doing their best, it’s never a problem personally.

          That being said, many people outside gender norms have sustained a lot of pain over their identity, oftentimes by using pronouns intentionally to out us or otherwise belittle us. The brain maladapts, especially in more serious cases of abuse, and the limbic system takes over to keep us safe - a distinctive characteristic of PTSD. It’s taken a long time (still ongoing) for me to heal from that, and lots of queer folks are still too close to active abuse to even begin the process. Any grace that one can lend people in these moments can be monumental in their healing process.

          (editing to say: lmao love me some bugles too)

    • rockerface 🇺🇦@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I understand not wanting to ask everyone all the time, but defaulting to a neutral pronoun isn’t going to become the norm unless people start using it even when it isn’t the norm. That said, it does feel a lot less natural in Ukrainian and Russian to me, so I’m still trying to figure out the best option there. But in English, singular “they” is pretty widespread already, I think.

      • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think singular “they” is that common except among very young people, and does lead to confusion.

        As an example, my brother once showed me a picture of a person on a dating app and said “they are nice” and I thought he was talking about the person’s breasts…

        Also, “it” is dehumanising, I’d feel uncomfortable calling someone “it” even if they told me it was their preferred pronoun.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Singular they has existed in English before the times of Shakespeare. It’s not a fad. It’s a bloody grammatical reality.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Singular they has also always been used when the person is unidentified. “Somebody left their umbrella here!” It’s when the person is identified that it feels awkward at first for us Gen Xers and older in particular.

    • credit crazy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what I do Im autistic and struggle with names already and tbh folks that have pronouns that differ from what they look like just fry my brain as that’s another bit of Data I have to remember especially when there are multiple people like that

      • eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m very much the same way. Using everyone’s pronouns perfectly, especially among people I don’t know well, is a challenge. But all that’s been required to get along with queer folks has just been a best effort and willingness to be corrected and move on.

    • gjoel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Could you give this drink to the person of unknown gender over there? Y’all seems to have finished y’all’s previous drink and we want to keep everyone happy!

  • TheV2@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gendered pronouns in most sentences are a waste and often lead to a false ascertainment. While I don’t use ‘it’ for everyone, I would love to get used to it.

    • sheogorath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is why the universal language should be Indonesian. No gendered words, no pronouns, heck there’s even no tenses. By the way, you also pronounce the words the way it was written like Latin so there’s no confusion on how to pronounce the words. The grammar is also straightforward enough you can just grab a dictionary and start speaking coherent Indonesian.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I don’t care about the gender crap (use what ever), I appreciate having a different pronoun for people or conscious things vs objects of any kind. They/them still holds info over it/that.

      I admit I am a poisoned well, though. I was taught ‘it’ is outright disrespectful. Even before I knew LGBTQ+ anything, so it implicitly doesn’t apply to people, IMO.

    • amio@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Jumping down someone’s throat about it is stupid - unless they’re being malicious, then jump away and tear whomever a new one. They aren’t technically wrong, though. “They” is an ideal word that’s been correct in both the singular and plural sense for centuries. Given more recent social developments, it’s an easy way to be inclusive and not “risk” being wrong.

      (I’m assuming you used literally “he/she” to refer to someone of unknown gender)

      • Sacha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        “He/his” used for be acceptable for people/things of unknown gender as well. Point out a random animal on a walk to your parents and there’s a high chance that they will use male pronouns.

        In some obscure mmo I played as a kid, someone was referring to a famous mod with male pronouns, going how it is acceptable If you don’t know the gender and it’s more polite than the alternatives. Now this was long, long, long before agender, and other gendered terms were really a known thing. If you were to told someone you were gender fluid or something like that, they would look at you like you just grew a second head. I don’t quite remember what was said, or why it was being talked about, it was around 20 years ago now. Things have changed since then.

        I still fall back on the male pronoun default from time to time, but I try not to as much. But it is a learned behavior that is hard to break entirely.

        • amio@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure. But also, I was a 90s kid too(?) - computers were boy stuff, dont’y’know, and girls should go play with dolls instead. Pedantically, I don’t think it was correct to use when unknown, it was just that the “chance of being wrong” was a lot smaller because we really did assume “anyone in position X has to be a man” a lot more the further back you go. Even if it’s just the 90-00s.

        • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Man used to be synonymous with human. For instance, when people talk about humans in prehistory, they might use the phrase “early man.” In that context, the word “man” is gender neutral.

          • Sacha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It still is neutral in that sense, but thst wasn’t the sense I was talking about.

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re quick, once you’ve accidentally defaulted to he, you can quick add the she, and then a they, for he/she/they

      • Ferk@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In the past, English had “thou” for 2nd person singular and “you” was exclusive to the 2nd person plural.

        I don’t see why that can’t happen with “they” vs “he/she” too.

        Though it’s a bit sad that it would likely result in a more ambiguous language that could potentially lead to misunderstandings. Unless we start to use constructs like “they all” for adding specificity, in a similar way as how “you all” (or y’all) is sometimes used.

        • Dharma Curious@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They+all=th’all? Adding this to my lexicon. Y’all is sacred to me, being from the south. Th’all shall be canonized along with it.

          Absolutely if anyone has a problem with that, th’all can go fuck themselves.

            • Dharma Curious@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It really is. I love that word so much. I grew up with it as completely normal, and when I got a little older got picked on for using it in our largish city we’d moved to. Now everyone uses it. But old Old Believers never stopped.

      • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would say it takes effort to be polite. What takes no effort is being rude or dismissive.

        Maybe you’re just naturally a positive person though which the majority of people aren’t (at least not on Reddit/lemmy)

          • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a lowest common denominator strategy. If you respond in kindness, there’s an outsized chance you’ll be attacked in kind. So lots of people choose to attack first rather than be a victim of being attacked. It’s a strategy that only works if enough people choose it.

            That’s why I stuck to more niche communities on reddit, less chance that people engage like that. Or, even if they do, I can be genuinely kind back and they usually cool off.

            Or, from another perspective, you don’t know if the person you’re engaging with means you or your community harm but they said things that people who do mean you harm have said in the past. So, you make it immediately clear that you and your community aren’t easy targets. It’s still a lowest common denominator strategy, but one that centers the safety of others.

              • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, I agree with you. But your strategy requires not allowing (or giving the appearance of not allowing) someone to get to you. If someone says something that pisses you off, you’re probably going to reply while pissed off. I’m not saying this is the optimal strategy, I’m saying it’s just what people do.

                I’m neurodivergent, so I usually don’t get wrapped up in conversations like that, but even I fall for it sometimes.

      • Bondrewd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why would I want to respect morons who dont give me the same benefit of the doubt though?

        In places where assumptions cause kneejerk downvotes and comments like you explained, I wont take the time to make sure to be 100% respectful towards people.

          • Ferk@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You aren’t giving it to them so why would anyone bother giving it to you?

            Isn’t that the point being made by he/she/they? (now I don’t know what to call @Bondrewd )

            I don’t think Bondrewd was “preemptivelly” calling them “morons”. The way I read it, Bondrewd was referring to those “who don’t give me the same benefit of the doubt”. Bondrewd did not specify if those who complained belonged to any particular “group of people”, what was said is that they did do that so, given that, he won’t bother.

            Also note that there’s more than one party here… the ones scolding/complaining are not necessarily the same ones being “misgendered”, so that’s why there can be different "they"s involved. The ones that don’t give the benefit of the doubt (regardless of whether they are the ones being misgendered) are the ones that, according to your own statement: we don’t have to “bother giving it to them”

          • Bondrewd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            If they dont give me the benefit of the doubt, I will gladly insult them for talking shit.

            I dont really care about rights, as that was never really given to me in my life. I speak up about things I feel that need to be spoken up on.

            I didnt say I dont give them respect. I said I dont go out of my way to not cause tears. If for some reason they suspect me of malicious misgendering, and start bitching about it, they can just piss off. I dont misgender, except for comical purposes.

              • Bondrewd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Those statements are not even in the same context. I have a basic level of respect I give and any more than that is expedient. If they dont respect that, then those are the fuckups that make it sure that I will never ever go out of my way just to please people.

                If you identify with the group that fucks with people like that, I cant help you. I guess you can take it as a direct insult, but then I actually dont care because you live and breath by being malicious.

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why take the time at all then? If you’re going to be rude you clearly don’t care about educating the person.

          So you really just do it for some personal validation?

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      he/she is pretty awkward to use when “they” is RIGHT THERE

      “they” has been used singular for longer than “you” had been singular… if you have some weird “rulerslap me mommy” grammar fetish, you can successfully stay erect while using singular they by knowing it was good enough for chaucer, okay

  • credit crazy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then you have the Japanese that just refer to everyone by name and only use pronouns when you don’t know the person’s name

  • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Learn turkish. We only have one pronoun (two if you count the plural). Also, no gender in job titles (or anything else).