[ SECRET POST #3706 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3706 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01. [repeat]



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #530.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's because the usage is slightly different. Using "they" as a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun is fine in casual usage (it isn't and never has been acceptable in formal writing) when you're referring to an unspecified individual ie- "Someone forgot their book." When you're using "they" to refer to Taylor the nonbinary individual, you're referring to a specific individual, and that's just not the same.

English is in desperate need of a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun, and I assume one will evolve eventually. Until then, I guess we're stuck with "they".

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I mean 'you' used to mean plural, so why can't 'they' be singular.

[(Anonymous)]

Plenty of words do double duty. "You" is either singular or plural depending on usage. There's no reason that "they" can't be singular and plural as well. It just isn't.

Language evolves as society does, but it evolves more slowly, especially in cases like this that involve charged social issues. Some of the objection to singular "they" is from grammar purists and some of it is from bigots with some degree of overlap.

Also complicating matters is the fact that not every non-binary individual uses "they" as their pronoun of choice. "Ey", "Per", "Zie", "Sie", and "Ve" are all floating around, further muddying the issue. Eventually one of these will become standardized, and in a hundred years we'll have a third person gender neutral singular pronoun that trips off the tongue as naturally as "he" and "she".

Language evolves, but the thing about evolution is that it's a slow process.

From a purely grammatical standpoint, we do already have a perfectly good third person gender neutral singular pronoun in "it". I'm aware of the unfortunate implications of the word and the ways it's been used to dehumanize, but someday the non-binary community might want to reclaim it. Or not. I can't say I would blame them for not wanting to touch "it" with a ten foot pole.

[(Anonymous)]

But considering 'they' is already grammatically correct as singular when you DON'T know someone's sex (or just in general when you say something like "They went to the store."), why does it suddenly become incorrect when it's a choice? This is where my confusion comes from.

[(Anonymous)]

Because it isn't grammatically correct. If you write "Someone forgot their book" in a school assignment, your teacher will red pen you. It's just a socially acceptable mistake in speech because, as a general rule, the people you are conversing with aren't paying that much attention to your pronoun-antecedent agreement.

Grammatically, singular "they" is ALWAYS incorrect. When it's a choice, it's like hanging a spotlight on it.

[(Anonymous)]

I've never had a teacher red pen me for that. What on earth would you put? "The person forgot the book"?

[(Anonymous)]

"Someone forgot a book" or "Someone left a book behind" would both be acceptable. The structure of the sentence implies ownership without the need for a possessive pronoun. If you want the possessive pronoun, the correct sentence is "Someone forgot his book" because according to the rules of grammar, "his" is gender neutral in this situation. Our language is a bit sexist.

Many people prefer to go the inclusive route and write "Someone forgot his/ her book" which is clunky as hell, but technically correct. The easiest fix is to make the antecedent plural as well whenever possible ie- "Some of the students forgot their books."

[(Anonymous)]

Son's spouse, who is a linguist, says you're wrong. 'They' is perfectly correct as a personal pronoun, it's archaic in English these days [not dissimilar to 'one'] but could be brought back into use if people made it more common.

[(Anonymous)]

At what point, in our evolving language does "socially acceptable" change over to just plain "acceptable." Surely it happens or we would still all be using "thou."

Also I haven't had a teacher red pen the singular use of "they" on me since middle school - not even my upper level college professors when I was getting my English minor. I would say the shift for "they" being acceptable is already well underway, some people just aren't getting with the program.

[(Anonymous)]

It depends on what your approach to grammar is- prescriptive or descriptive. Prescriptive says "these are the rules, now follow them" and descriptive says "this is how people are using the language, therefore that must be the rule."

As the people who had "they is plural" drilled into them in school die off, singular "they" will become acceptable. It's the same thing that happened with "who/ whom".

[(Anonymous)]

Just as long as fucking "their" doesn't become a substitute for "they're", or your/you're, I'm good.

See 3

[(Anonymous)]

DA

they [th ey]
pronoun, possessive their or theirs, objective them.

1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.

2.people in general:
They say he's rich.

3. (used with a singular indefinite pronoun or singular noun antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she):
Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote. A person may apply only if they are over 21. They have been an actor since childhood.

From dictionary.com which also had this to say about usage:
Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to singular indefinite pronouns or singular nouns of general personal reference (which are often not felt to be exclusively singular): If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back soon. A parent should read to their child. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its related case forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid generic he or the awkward he/she and he or she when the antecedent’s gender is not known or when the referent is of mixed gender: The victim had money and jewelry taken from them. It’s hard to move an aging mother or father from their long-term home.
However, while use of they and its forms after singular indefinite pronouns or singular nouns of general personal reference or indefinite gender is common and generally acceptable, their use to refer to a single clearly specified, known, or named person is uncommon and likely to be noticed and criticized, as in this example: My hair stylist had their car stolen. Even so, use of they, their, and them is increasingly found in contexts where the antecedent is a gender-nonconforming individual or one who does not identify as male or female: Tyler indicated their preferences on their application.
And although they may be used as a singular pronoun, they still takes a plural verb, analogous to the use of "you are" to refer to one person: The student brought in a note to show why they were absent.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this. I really struggle with "they" for specific individuals because to me, singular "they" carries a very strong connotation of an unknown or unspecified entity, the same way "it" carries a very strong connotation of a non-human or non-sentient entity.

Like, even in contexts where it's very clear that "they" is being used for a non-binary person, I mentally trip over stuff like "Alex identifies as non-binary. They like pizza and people who aren't assholes about who uses which bathroom" because I automatically parse it as "Alex, a single specific human, identifies as non-binary. Multiple people or some vague unknown entity like(s) pizza and people who aren't assholes about who uses which bathroom." And then I have to go back and remind myself that "they" is supposed to equal "Alex" here.

Reading anything with a lot of non-binary "they" feels like reading a long series of garden-path sentences (that is, stuff like "The old man the boat" or "The horse raced past the barn fell").

[(Anonymous)]

It's exactly the same for me. Sort of...the reading equivalent of walking up stairs and expecting one more stair when you're already at the top. That feeling of when you put your foot down.