Sam Smith and They

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2705
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Re: Sam Smith and They

Post by Fred in Skirts »

crfriend wrote:
Fred in Skirts wrote:And the Queen said "WE are not amused!!"
That's the "Royal We" in play and only applies to monarchs (and occasionally oligarchs).
And on occasion me when getting pis*ed at someone..... :lol: :lol:
Of course I am king at my house!!!!
Fred :kiltdance:

"The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle."


"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not" Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951

Ralph
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:07 pm

Re: Sam Smith and They

Post by Ralph »

pelmut wrote:"The skirt was stolen by a shoplifter, **** must have taken it when my back was turned."
What is the missing word?
"who".

The skirt was stolen by a shoplifter, who must have taken it when my back was turned.

If you intended to make it a second independent clause, you would have used either a semicolon or a period (followed by a new sentence), e.g.
The skirt was stolen by a shoplifter; he or she must have taken it when my back was turned.
The skirt was stolen by a shoplifter. The thief must have taken it when my back was turned
. (see? You don't even need pronouns most of the time)

However, you inadvertently highlighted an amusing side effect to this new era of grammatical correctness: You actually have go to out of your way to produce an example of a construction that requires a gender-specific noun (or pronoun). It's all too easy to find ways to say things without resorting to the fallacious "he" when the person in question is either of unknown sex or known to be female.
Ralph!

dillon
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2713
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: southeast NC coast

Re: Sam Smith and They

Post by dillon »

Speaking as a curmudgeon, the answer is “the bastard.”
As a matter of fact, the sun DOES shine out of my ...

Gusto10
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Sam Smith and They

Post by Gusto10 »

crfriend wrote:
Fred in Skirts wrote:And the Queen said "WE are not amused!!"
That's the "Royal We" in play and only applies to monarchs (and occasionally oligarchs).
known as: Pluralis Majestatis

User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Sam Smith and They

Post by Daryl »

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:For those of you who are throwing grammar around as a reason to not use they/them/theirs as the proper pronoun for people who make that request, I know I am repeating myself, but I feel compelled:

it's a matter of simple courtesy and respect. If we want to receive those considerations, we need to first extend them to others.

In my book, being kind and considerate is far more important than being punctilious about grammar. And, it's amazing how readily good practices spread and come back to us.
I disagree (surprise surprise). The golden rule is not that easy to weaponise.

First, there is no true reciprocity here. I don't want to "receive [special/unusual] considerations". Ordinary conventional use of language is sufficiently polite, kind and considerate.

Second, not giving a beggar a dollar is not the same as stealing a dollar from him. Not using special/unusual language in reference to person's requesting we do so is not equivalent to being "unkind and inconsiderate" (or "discourteous and disrespectful") to those persons.

Rather, making requests for special/unusual language is itself unkind and inconsiderate, because with such requests one is sprinkling the field of communication with be-careful-how-you-speak landmines. Those who make such requests are saying, in essence, "speak in the way we approve or be accused of unkindness and discourteousness."
Daryl...

User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Sam Smith and They

Post by Daryl »

crfriend wrote:I saw a delightful bumper-sticker the other day: "Make Orwell fiction again".
Beauty! (and possibly a new tagline)
Daryl...

User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Sam Smith and They

Post by Daryl »

crfriend wrote:
FranTastic444 wrote:I have noticed that the Beeb is making use of 'they' in areas not related to gender matters - most recently on reporting about the White House whistleblower where they are using 'they' do describe an as yet unidentified person whose sex they do not know. Maybe their style guide was always thus, but I've only just noticed it.
It is considered appropriate to use "they" (and its derivatives, e.g. "their") "when describing possession by an individual who's sex is either unknown or irrelevant. I do not believe that the current PC usage is correct, but know that I'm fighting a rear-guard action there and eventually I'll have to give it up as a lost cause.

Perhaps in another 50 years what English becomes will be about as intelligible as what English was 300 years ago.
There's that thing again: "it is considered appropriate". My question is always "by who?" Some long time ago Pelmut used "is increasingly being understood as..." without naming who is doing the supposed understanding.

My (perhaps slightly too suspicious) take is that these unamed parties are in fact identifiable as a rather small group of self-appointed change makers and not the much larger community of change observers whose proclamations merely reflect the current fairly objective state of affairs.

Yes, the evil academics vs. the good academics.

Full disclosure; I sometimes scream when someone uses "comprise" as if it were a synonym for "compose".
Daryl...

Dust
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Sam Smith and They

Post by Dust »

Daryl wrote:
Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: it's a matter of simple courtesy and respect. If we want to receive those considerations, we need to first extend them to others.
I disagree (surprise surprise). The golden rule is not that easy to weaponise.

First, there is no true reciprocity here. I don't want to "receive [special/unusual] considerations". Ordinary conventional use of language is sufficiently polite, kind and considerate.

Second, not giving a beggar a dollar is not the same as stealing a dollar from him. Not using special/unusual language in reference to person's requesting we do so is not equivalent to being "unkind and inconsiderate" (or "discourteous and disrespectful") to those persons.

Rather, making requests for special/unusual language is itself unkind and inconsiderate, because with such requests one is sprinkling the field of communication with be-careful-how-you-speak landmines. Those who make such requests are saying, in essence, "speak in the way we approve or be accused of unkindness and discourteousness."
All good points. As to weaponizing the Golden Rule ("do to others as you would have them do to you"), I feel you missed the most important point:

Sometimes the charitable, loving thing to do, that we should all hope others would do for us, is to say the hard truth, and call the person out.

The Bible (one source for the Golden Rule) rightly tells us to do this privately first, then publicly if that doesn't do it. But correcting others is the right thing to do in many (most?) situations. And usually it can be done with kindness and respect.

If you are doing something that could well get you seriously hurt or killed, you would hope that someone noticing it would speak up, right? When we tell a small child "no, don't touch that, it's hot!" they may throw a fit, but you saved them from harm, and once they mature enough to understand, they will be grateful. But at that moment, they were upset because you didn't let them play with the hot things fresh from the oven. Hurt feelings are not necessarily evidence of anything wrong having been done.

User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Sam Smith and They

Post by Daryl »

Dust wrote:
Daryl wrote:
Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: it's a matter of simple courtesy and respect. If we want to receive those considerations, we need to first extend them to others.
I disagree (surprise surprise). The golden rule is not that easy to weaponise.

First, there is no true reciprocity here. I don't want to "receive [special/unusual] considerations". Ordinary conventional use of language is sufficiently polite, kind and considerate.

Second, not giving a beggar a dollar is not the same as stealing a dollar from him. Not using special/unusual language in reference to person's requesting we do so is not equivalent to being "unkind and inconsiderate" (or "discourteous and disrespectful") to those persons.

Rather, making requests for special/unusual language is itself unkind and inconsiderate, because with such requests one is sprinkling the field of communication with be-careful-how-you-speak landmines. Those who make such requests are saying, in essence, "speak in the way we approve or be accused of unkindness and discourteousness."
All good points. As to weaponizing the Golden Rule ("do to others as you would have them do to you"), I feel you missed the most important point:

Sometimes the charitable, loving thing to do, that we should all hope others would do for us, is to say the hard truth, and call the person out.

The Bible (one source for the Golden Rule) rightly tells us to do this privately first, then publicly if that doesn't do it. But correcting others is the right thing to do in many (most?) situations. And usually it can be done with kindness and respect.

If you are doing something that could well get you seriously hurt or killed, you would hope that someone noticing it would speak up, right? When we tell a small child "no, don't touch that, it's hot!" they may throw a fit, but you saved them from harm, and once they mature enough to understand, they will be grateful. But at that moment, they were upset because you didn't let them play with the hot things fresh from the oven. Hurt feelings are not necessarily evidence of anything wrong having been done.
I'm not sure what you meant by saying that I "missed the most important point." I said precisely what I meant. Perhaps you missed my meaning.

I can't agree that correcting others is the right thing to do in "many or most" situations. That assertion presumes that we know what "correction" needs to be done, and that we are doing it for the other person's benefit, not for our own personal benefit. Most situations between adults are not like your example of a child simply being unaware of what will happen to him when his hand hits the hot thing. Even that example is not so much about "correcting" as about protecting and teaching.

I agree with you about saying the hard truth, and I really appreciate your use of the Bible as a source of wisdom rather than as a source of authority.
Daryl...

Post Reply