14 Comments

Laws like this guarantee a GOP state. Fucking madness.

Expand full comment
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023Liked by William A. Ferguson

And, yes, I have read in many comment sections and 'stacks that people who have never voted GOP are going to next time to protect their kids from the surgeons. It's frightening how uncritically so many otherwise smart people have fallen for this "trans" horseshit and actually buy into the "successor to gay civil rights" framing.

So many otherwise well-informed people stridently deny that surgery is ever performed on a minor, that children are being taken from parents for not "affirming" the impulsive adoption of "trans," and fall into the "respect others' wishes and be kind" junk.

They will sing the praises of "inclusion" and "gender neutrality" without ever explaining why these are desirable. They will recite that women can have penises and men can bear children.

As with the MAGA cult, this is some kind of epistemological contagion. How did we get so screwed up?

Expand full comment

“refer to someone by a pronoun they don't prefer”

So why are you playing along? “They” is 2+ people.

“Referring to people without using their magic pronouns.”

Please. That “they” shit actually gives me a headache.

Expand full comment
author

You come up with ANY example that you think requires that abhorrent grammar and I’ll show you a better way to say it, clearer and with fewer words.

English makes only one demand: singular or plural. And most fuck it up. No genitive case, no reflexive verbs, simple conjugation. And most speakers sound aboriginal.

Expand full comment

So? It’s still plural. We already have a nominative gender neutral singular: “it.”

I haven’t used “they” as a singular since 1967 and I don’t have to tie grammar into knots to avoid it. Just think ahead.

If making a generic statement, don’t start with “someone.” How fucking hard is that.

Expand full comment
author

While "it" is indeed a gender-neutral pronoun in English, it is generally used for inanimate objects or animals.

Expand full comment

I'm a native speaker and fluent in three others.

People tell me that "queer" is OK, and I grew up knowing it as equivalent to ni66er in vileness. If people can use that, they can get used to "it."

Like I said. Come up with ANY instance that you think requires the sing-they and I will give you a better way, and not some awkward contrivance.

It was already bad enough before this "nonbinary" horseshit, now I've seen articles in major newspapers that are completely unreadable.

Expand full comment
author
Jul 1, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023Author

This kind of sounds like a "you" issue.

Allow me to expound. Yes, queer is a slur, that I don't disagree with you on.

Expand full comment

I've given in on lots and lots of slop, like "unique" as a synonym for "distinctive"; I am not giving in on this. Most people who care about grammar see it my way. Sure there are those who recite that "language is always evolving (smile)" BS, but there are still such tthings as mistakes.

The singular they is a mistake.

I get a résumé with this, or with pronouns, it gets deleted.

This gender trash is a crisis. We need to fiight back, and this is part of that. The big part is exposing the "trans teen suicide" lie.

Paraphrasing 𝐼𝑡'𝑠 𝑎 𝑊𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒: "Every time a lesbian says no to sex with a "trans woman," a "trans" girl slits her wrists."

Expand full comment

Using "queer" nonchalantly is just the updated form of the confrontational belligerence that cost us 20 years of progress. Just more "in your face."

Expand full comment