Pronoun: Difference between revisions

Pronoun (view source)

Revision as of 09:08, 21 November 2020

46 bytes added , 21 November 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,890

edits

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :''Fools rush in where [[libtard]]s fear to tread.'' — {{author|Alexander Pope}}
-Much ink and no small amount of bile has been spilled on the question of gender inclusivity. Some of it speaks to a bit of softness when it comes to grammar from those she study grievances. There is a fashion towards signposting one’s preferred personal pronoun wherever the opportunity arises: business cards, email signoffs, [[LinkedIn]] profiles and so on. So, “[[Otto Büchstein]] (They/Them)”, for example.
+Much ink and no small amount of bile has been spilled on the question of gender inclusivity in language. Some of it, we cautiously venture, speaks to a bit of softness when it comes to grammar from those who study grievances.
-The JC has no quarrel with how anyone wants to identify a gender — variety being the spice of life, the more exotic concoctions we can between us decide the better — though one does risk tripping over the inevitable conclusion that lies at the end of that road that — there should be ''no'' genders; we are all different, all individuals and the very idea of declining nouns in the first place was a ghastly mistake.<ref>The problem with atomising identity groups, to avoid those at the margins being categorised in a way that doesn't suit them, is that margins are a property of any group, however small, until it numbers one. Thus, identity politics will tend to fray at the edges.</>But that aside, there are still a few puzzling aspects about this behaviour.
+There is a fashion towards signposting one’s preferred personal pronoun wherever the opportunity arises: business cards, [[email]] signoffs, [[LinkedIn]] profiles and so on. So, “[[Otto Büchstein]] (They/Them)”, for example.
+Now the JC has no quarrel with how anyone wants to identify a gender — variety being the spice of life, the more exotic concoctions we can between us decide the better — though one does risk tripping over the inevitable conclusion that lies at the end of that road that — there should be ''no'' genders; we are all different, all individuals and the very idea of declining nouns in the first place was a ghastly mistake.<ref>The problem with atomising identity groups, to avoid those at the margins being categorised in a way that doesn't suit them, is that margins are a property of any group, however small, until it numbers one. Thus, identity politics will tend to fray at the edges.</>But that aside, there are still a few puzzling aspects about this behaviour.
 Firstly there is that [[slash]]; that [[virgule]]. As with “[[and/or]]”, “(she/her)” is an ungainly construction, and it speaks to a certain fussiness unrelated to the gender designation. Why include nominative ''and'' accusative? Are there some people for whom gender differs depending on their position in a sentence? Can one be a ''he'' when a doer, and a ''she'' when a done to? This strikes me as rather fraught if the idea is to neuter power structures implicit in language. And if so, why leave out the possessive? Shouldn’t it be “(she/her/hers)”? And actually why not allow for flexibility with dative genitives and ablatives? “(she/her/her/her/her/hers)”