Template:Pronouns on the JC

Revision as of 12:28, 20 February 2021 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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. 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 use of “hims” and “herswhre 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.

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.