Template:Pronouns on the JC: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
And nor, these days, does that remotely capture the possible universe of alternatives. While the [[JC]] has no wish to get offside with any factions in the presently raging gender wars — we have [[Hary poter|J.K. Rowling and her ingrate actor friends]] for that — he does not propose to even try to accommodate emerging non-binary formulations.  
And nor, these days, does that remotely capture the possible universe of alternatives. While the [[JC]] has no wish to get offside with any factions in the presently raging gender wars — we have [[Hary poter|J.K. Rowling and her ingrate actor friends]] for that — he does not propose to even try to accommodate emerging non-binary formulations.  


So, without having the patience to be scientific or methodical about it, I have tried to randomise my “[[chauvinist language|him]]s” and “[[chauvinist language|her]]s” [[unless the context requires otherwise|where the context does not require otherwise]], but I can’t be arsed with xes, hyms, hyrs or whatever else is presently in vogue and, frankly, I will go to the wall before (deliberately!) using “they” to describe any single individual, natural or [[Legal personality|corporate]].<ref>Here, I depart from [[Lord Justice Waller]].</ref>  
So, without having the patience to be scientific or methodical about it, I have tried to randomise my “[[sexist language|him]]s” and “[[sexist language|her]]s” [[unless the context requires otherwise|where the context does not require otherwise]]. Being a fellow, when in doubt — which is most of the time — I err in favour of “she” because that makes me think a bit harder about what I’m writing. The challenge with doing that when writing satire, of course, is that it may be mistaken for some kind of political statement: why am I always mocking women? For whatever the opinion of an aging man is worth these days, it isn’t meant to be. In any case I can’t be arsed with xes, hyms, hyrs or whatever else is presently in vogue — and nor a political statement other than one on behalf of the impatient party — and, frankly, I will go to the wall before (deliberately!) using “they” to describe any single individual, natural or [[Legal personality|corporate]].<ref>Here, I depart from [[Lord Justice Waller]].</ref>  


If this aggrieves you, so be it: you’re welcome to find another resource offering free, satirical observations on the law and practice of derivatives that better suit your preferences. Or you could always bear with it: ''[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker]]'', after all.
If this aggrieves you, so be it: you’re welcome to find another resource offering free, satirical observations on the law and practice of derivatives that better suit your preferences. Or you could always bear with it: ''[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker]]'', after all.

Revision as of 17:58, 20 July 2021

Generally, there is much to admire about pronouns. Lawyers don’t use them often enough: they are more idiomatic and easier on the ear that the lawyer’s usual stand-in “such [insert noun]”. But pronouns tend to commit you to a gender: “he”, or “she”, “him” or “her” — seeing as no-one likes to be referred to as “it”, and “he or she” is an abomination before all right-thinking men. And/or women.

And nor, these days, does that remotely capture the possible universe of alternatives. While the JC has no wish to get offside with any factions in the presently raging gender wars — we have J.K. Rowling and her ingrate actor friends for that — he does not propose to even try to accommodate emerging non-binary formulations.

So, without having the patience to be scientific or methodical about it, I have tried to randomise my “hims” and “herswhere the context does not require otherwise. Being a fellow, when in doubt — which is most of the time — I err in favour of “she” because that makes me think a bit harder about what I’m writing. The challenge with doing that when writing satire, of course, is that it may be mistaken for some kind of political statement: why am I always mocking women? For whatever the opinion of an aging man is worth these days, it isn’t meant to be. In any case I can’t be arsed with xes, hyms, hyrs or whatever else is presently in vogue — and nor a political statement other than one on behalf of the impatient party — and, frankly, I will go to the wall before (deliberately!) using “they” to describe any single individual, natural or corporate.[1]

If this aggrieves you, so be it: you’re welcome to find another resource offering free, satirical observations on the law and practice of derivatives that better suit your preferences. Or you could always bear with it: Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker, after all.

  1. Here, I depart from Lord Justice Waller.