In Defence of Singular They/Them

[Anonymous No.21721577]

Why are people so against singular they/them when it has been attested in the literature for so long (even William Shakespeare and Jane Austen wrote using they/them in the singular)?
I just got done watching this video
> https://youtu.be/gq5xLI77TGA
and there are actually people in the comment section still arguing with them despite the fact that this video BTFOs their argument completely.

[Anonymous No.21721584]

>>21721577
they are rusted on boomers who think the map dictates the terrain and at first glance thought it was stupid and to save face double down on their views even when they know the binary is a losing battle.

[Anonymous No.21721585]

The fact that you even post this thread is argument enough for the deanonymization of the internet.
250+ responses guaranteed.

[Anonymous No.21721586]

>>21721577
Idk it makes perfect sense if you don’t know the gender

[Anonymous No.21721588]

>>21721584
tsmt.

[Anonymous No.21721597]

>>21721577
Over privileged white girls inventing things to rage about.

[Anonymous No.21721619]

>>21721597
Lol. I'm guessing JK Rowling definitely has an opinion about the correct usage of they/them.

[Anonymous No.21721620]

>>21721577
prescriptivist-tards that don't know linguistics or are actual prescriptivist spergs

[Anonymous No.21721661]

I don't like the non-binary nonsense myself, but as a way to refer to someone of unknown gender it's very useful. The problem with English is that its pronouns are too literally connected to the actual gender, in other European languages (from what I've seen) when even inanimate objects have grammatical gender, it's easier to default to the gender of whatever noun was used to describe the person of the unknown gender. (E.g. in my native language the word "person" is feminine, and it's natural to refer to that person as "she" after it has been introduced.) English is more literal, so when you refer to an unknown as "he", it definitely feels as if it's meant to be a male. I'm fairly conservative with my word choice (it takes me at least a year to adapt to new 4chan buzzwords such as "based", "seethe" etc. and actually use them myself), but singular "they" felt like a very natural thing to start using once I became aware of it.

[Anonymous No.21721673]

>>21721577
I'm so happy we don't have gender pronouns in finnish

[Anonymous No.21721715]

>>21721673
I agree! Abolish gender pronouns!

[Anonymous No.21721719]

>>21721577
Don’t know. It’s one for those things that gets(got?) forced in school by teachers with heads up their asses. Language is inherently subject to changes over time, and this is one of them. And even then, singular they is not a new thing, like you said.

There’s no reason to force ourselves to strictly observe silly conventions that a bunch of nerds made up just because. There is a fine line between adhering to grammar and conventions to communicate effectively and obsessing over useless shit that gets perceived the same in everyone’s mind, and this is, imo, in the latter category.

[Anonymous No.21721860]

They/them is plural

[Anonymous No.21721870]

>>21721860
And as a plural individual they deserve love

[Anonymous No.21721893]

>>21721577
A new coworker joins the office, pronouns are they/them.
>Johnson, these TPS reports the new theirs filed are awful, can you call them over here?
>Call who over, sir?
>Them, over there.
>What, sir?
>THEM, call them over here to discuss these TPS reports.
>Sir, it's just you, me, and the intern today.
>Yes, call them over, the bald they.
>The bald who?
>Listen, Johnson, there's only one they in the office here today. There's you (he), me (he), and they (them). Just get the theirs and call they here, okay?

[Anonymous No.21721972]

>>21721715
Better abolish gender theory

[Anonymous No.21721984]

>>21721577
>Defence

Opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.21722014]

>>21721893
Just refer to the new coworker by name. Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.21722064]

>>21722014
By them name?

[Anonymous No.21722095]

>>21721893
>Just get the theirs and call they here, okay?
>Just call them here, okay?
>>21722064
By their name
Using singular pronouns to demonstrate how it's 'improper English' doesn't work when you purposefully mangle English by misusing tense.
Are you ESL or just regular retarded?

[Anonymous No.21722395]

>>21721577
Singular they is old but definite they is new and that's what the hubbub is about even if people don't know how to articulate it. I haven't watched the video but most arguments like this are disingenuous.
I'm fine with both but I'd also be fine with full-blown neopronouns like ve or pers. It's unfortunate that "they" has plural agreement.

[Anonymous No.21722439]

>>21721577
>Why are people so against singular they/them
Because """people""" are making motivated arguments for singular they/them as part of the broader culture war (instigated by Soviet saboteurs in the early 20th century and carried on by their useful idiot students who overwhelmed academia in the 60s). "People" rightly recognize singular they/them as a beachhead from which insane morons can go on to further push the overton window to the left and get more leftists ideas accepted by, if not society, then at least the government via academia. At which point the government's monopoly on the just use of force makes it trivial to force on society whether or not "people" accept it.

Shit like this is why I refuse to read most things published after 1949.

[Anonymous No.21722440]

>>21722095
Oh so I'm the one "mangling English" now? Well excuse me, "genderfluid," "non-cisgender," Xe/Xer/Bun/Bunself. I guess I dont know anything about English, unlike "zorself."

[Anonymous No.21722449]

>>21722440
English was that third world kid who got raped so badly so many times that it "broke." Now it lays in wait in dark alleys to steal other languages' lexicons…and hamburglarise them.

[Anonymous No.21722451]

>>21721673
For now.

[Anonymous No.21722541]

>>21721577
Currently watching the video, will probably have to make a second post.
>"Generic he conjours up the image of a man as you read it; it suggests that the default human is a male one" 3:20
I disagree. Here the generic he is used regularly, and I don't think of strictly a man. It has actually morphed my mental of a man as more of a blank slate - so imo it doesn't leave out women but widens the image of a man.
This can be considered bad, but I don't mind that, because if your only character trait is your gender, you need to fix your life. Saying "I'm just like 50% of the population" is just sad.
>"This usage can be dangerous" 3:40
Extremists won't be stopped by grammar. We currently got methods which enable us to make sure we don't misinterpret laws. Lawmakers should describe the spirit in which the law was thought off, written, and passed. We currently think we can find out that spirit (see the justification for the Roe v. Wade debate in the last year).
This thought process can be seen in 4:05 - 4:35
>"Non-binary people exist" 5:45
No lol dilate
>"Gender and Sex mean different things" 5:55
That's a way more "dangerous" thought. The existence of gender can *solely* be justified by the existence of gender roles. So if gender exists, we need to quickly put all the women out of work, make more men rapists (Yes, enforced rape with none of the parties directly involved in it having fun) etc.
The reformation of gender roles wouldn't be possible, because the only justification for the existence of the gender comes from its role. Therefore a change in the role would necessarily be a change in the gender. A person just changing gender for no reason is absurd; this change for billions is in the best case mass psychosis.
>"Different gender systems in different times/places" 5:55
See the last paragraph. Also then gender means absolutely nothing. It would be naught but a term to refer yourself to, just like your name. Gender roles exist and if they don't, then gender is of no importance. If it is of no importance the gender of a person can just be determined by the rest of society.
>"People *are* identifying this way" 5:55
See last paragraph. If there is importance to the gender, then the roles need to be the same all times (unless of course gender is linked to something biological).
People actually can only identify due to roles. If you ask a person if they are female (or just feminine) they will list a few attributes (Genitalia, caring, motherly, submissive, slutty, whatever) and check how much of them apply to them and how important they are for women. Then they give you an answer. I already what would happen if we absolved all meaning from genders.
>"We all use singular 'You'. don't we?" 6:25
Yes, but one bad doesn't justify the next. We shouldn't use "You" the way we do. It's unnecessarily confusing.
Also the list of this bad way getting used still doesn't justify it doing more. (1/2, hopefully)

[Anonymous No.21722548]

>>21721577
>Why are people so against singular they/them
Because of trannies, obviously.

[Anonymous No.21722577]

>>21721661
I like it because they and someone are the best way to speak about women without sounding sexual. If I say her and a woman, people know I'm a man and I'm talking about sexual things. If I say I'd like to find someone in a professional setting, it rubs no feathers. If I say I'd like to find a woman or say those women were dressed nicely, then people assume it's sexual and borderline explicit.

[Anonymous No.21722582]

>>21722548
Preceeds the existence of troons.

[Anonymous No.21722588]

>>21722541
>"Use neo-pronouns" 7:10
Or just use "one" if the context allows it. This would've been great for the lawyer debacle at 3:40.
If the person is known, use "it" since that is the term we use for anything that doesn't work with "he" or "she". If the person dislikes that, said person can go fuck itself, since I won't use "they" simply because they dislike "he", "she" and "it".

>So why shouldn't we use they, if "it" and "one" are fine?
The problem stands with "they" already being in use for the plural. This gets confusing and is annoying.
>When would be a singular "they" ok to use?
Only if it can refer to multiple people. Example: Let's say a murderer, gender unknown, is on the loose. We can justify the thought, that it is a single individual. Then we could say "They are 5'11. What a fucking manlet.", but as you've seen in the previous sentence, the usage of "it" for a singular individual isn't to annoying either.
>"But 'it' means an object!"
No it doesn't. It simply means that the referred to thing ("Thing" includes living beings) is neither male nor female grammatically. We associate "it" with objects because
A. That's the first usage we learn of.
B. it isn't normal for a person to think it isn't male or female.

[Anonymous No.21722604]

>>21722095
This thread is about pronouns, not names. Just using names would be the best solution but would apparently also be too complicated (as is "he or she" according to the video).

[Anonymous No.21722611]

>>21722582
Don't troons argue that they exist since Rome or some shit? Either way, the reason many people today hate the abomination that is the singular "they" is because of troons using it for one specific person.

[Anonymous No.21722651]

>>21722440
NTA but the sentences you posted above use the wrong case. Even if you replace "they" with "he" they don't sound any better or become less ambiguous .

[Anonymous No.21722704]

>>21721893
We better not use singular they or the outbreak of Laurel and Hardy sketches could destroy civilization.

[Anonymous No.21722719]

>>21722577
you're autistic

[Anonymous No.21722744]

>>21721577
hate against singular they/them is just reactionary hysteria from the right. absolutely no one gave a shit before gender politics became a thing.

[Anonymous No.21722749]

>>21722744
>"Oh you didn't have an opinion before the issue became widely known? Then you are just a reactionary!!! Opinion discarded!"

[Anonymous No.21722777]

>>21722749
not what I implied, but nice try, dipshit

[Anonymous No.21722786]

>>21721577
singular they-them in regards to a theoretical person is fine
using it for an actual person whose sex is known is fucking retarded
something like "my friend said this. they say that all the time" is stupid. you know what sex your friend is.

[Anonymous No.21722788]

>>21722777
Sadly that's the only conclusion that can be drawn. Unless of course you like to argue against "reactionary hysteria"

[Anonymous No.21722801]

>>21721661
I vastly prefer "he" because it doesn't create confusion as to the number of people you're talking about. So many fucking times people start using "they" and refer to a group of people and a specific individual within the group and it's horribly fucking confusing. Also nobody uses they only when the gender is unknown but always, to refer to everyone. It's become the one pronoun that everyone uses always and it's fucking confusing and makes every English speaker sound like a massive fucking retard. I will always call people who say they trannies and derail their threads to insult them and try to push them out of this site. I fucking hate this shit idea. I'd unironically rather use a made up pronoun like Stallman's "perse" or whatever fucking made up convention. Personally I believe that what people have between their legs is fucking irrelevant in 99% of cases so I don't see using he as offensive. You're not raping people if you default to he. You're not somehow reinforcing male superiority or some other schizo nonsense. My main language has arbitrary words that are feminine and arbitrary words that are masculine and we're still getting infected with this retarded idea that a word's gender is important, and there have been politically fueled changes in random words' gender for the sake of made up American gender nonsense. I fucking hate Americans so goddamn fucking much.

[Anonymous No.21722815]

I just cannot stress enough that all this idiotic gender shit stems from validating the thoughts of a tiny minority of literal schizophrenics who have dysphoria which is a form of psychosis. The basis itself for this change is absolutely fucking bonkers. Everyone had been communicating perfectly fine by using a generic singular pronoun in the past. I have personally never seen singular they in any writing althought the schizo trannies who want to butcher the English language insist that it's always been used (as with every other horrible revision they want to force down people's throat, it's always been that way and YOU are the one making things up).

[Anonymous No.21722826]

>>21721577
I think its because the people advocating for their use overwhelming adhere an ideology/worldview that wants to deconstruct the gender binary. And this ideology if fundamentally at odds with how conservatives and traditionalists see reality. They dont want to use singular they/them just because they want to. They have an agenda.
>even William Shakespeare and Jane Austen wrote using they/them in the singular
Did they advocate for the deconstruction of the gender binary? I dont think they did. Correct me if im wrong.

[Anonymous No.21722836]

>>21722014

Doesn't work. Got fired for that. Plus you never realize how much pronouns are used until when you stop using them.

[Anonymous No.21722849]

>>21721893
Why couldn't we just let Hitler win? It would've been better

[Anonymous No.21722875]

This tranny they shit is particularly dangerous because it's inserted gender pozzery into ordinary language, so you can tell someone's politics by whether or not he will use they as a general pronoun. People WILL in fact police the language of someone who says "he" as a general statement. So you will either use the tranny they or you'll be cancelled. It's pretty clear that everything these people enforce is for the sake of policing and breaking people and filtering anyone who doesn't have the mental pliability to just bend over and accept the changes. Everything is just a gigantic shit test and a way to get people to accept that 2+2=5. I will always remember this and what these people's goals are. If the accuracy of language were a concern you wouldn't use a fucking plural pronoun to address an individual. It's an obviously contradictory idea just like all other tranny commie doublethink. Many people warned us about this shit and we didn't listen and now we're entering this hellish dystopia where you can't even use sensible pronouns or call a man a man without being unpersoned but schizophrenic trannies can molest children in public.

[Anonymous No.21722897]

>>21722582
>Preceeds the existence of troons.
It does, but as you well know, today it is used in the context of troons and people oppose it because of troons.

[Anonymous No.21722910]

>>21722897
I have never seen singular they before the tranny infestation. People oppose it because it's jarring and confusing.

[Anonymous No.21722947]

>>21722910
You've never heard someone say "yeah, they're a faggot"?

[Anonymous No.21722983]

>>21722947
I've been online for more than 20 years. It's a post-2010 tranny thing and no amount of gaslighting will work on me. Anyway I was referring to books and other examples where you can assume the author will use proper English. In any case it will eventually take over and everyone will just use "they" always, effectively removing gender specificity from English, fulfilling the aim of newspeak that is reducing the effectiveness of language to the point where people won't be able to express any ideas at all.

[Anonymous No.21723278]

>>21722801
>I will always call people who say they trannies and derail their threads to insult them and try to push them out of this site
Lol why bother, most threads here are derailment in themselves already.
>Personally I believe that what people have between their legs is fucking irrelevant in 99% of cases so I don't see using he as offensive
At first I thought similarly, but then I heard some feminists start defaulting to "she". Considering how that made my blood boil, I conceded that it's better to use the neutral term.

[Anonymous No.21723288]

>>21722897
>>21722815
But none of this is pushed by typical trannies. Those just want to be he or she. It is feminists and non-binary people (who can be but are not necessarily trannies) who are the primary reason it is used this way.

[Anonymous No.21723646]

>>21722440
improper tense is a much more grave example of improper usage than singular they/them. so yes.
you also know nothing about linguistic descriptivism, retard. rationalize your hatred of troons in another way.
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

[Anonymous No.21723670]

>>21721577
>Perhaps one of the most disturbing attempts to undermine families can be seen in a slick video produced by LGBT in the City, a multi-media organization that produces talk shows and videos related to LGBT issues and is sponsored by such monster corporations as Telus and TD Bank. To say LGBT in the City has a hedonistic focus would be a grotesque understatement and it might be argued that at least one of their videos encourages the sexualization of children, specifically in the form of an eight year old boy mockingly named “Lactacia.”

https://transanityca.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/synanon-the-brainwashing-game-and-modern-transgender-activism-the-orwellian-implications-of-transgender-politics-by-jenn-smith/

>In a slick video released on Facebook with over one million views so far, a hyper-feminized/sexualized 8 year old boy (who some have compared to a drag version of JonBenét Ramsey) is featured partying in a hypersexual adult LGBT environment and telling kids watching that if their parents or friends do not support their desire to be drag (or trans), they need to get new parents and friends. Professional quality video and editing made this call to young children to the queer lifestyle all the more appealing. As “Lactatia” speaks to his peers, while an all too happy host leers, bold text leaps out at the viewer saying “YOU NEED NEW PARENTS! YOU NEED NEW FRIENDS!” You too can be a drag queen or transgender superstar and perhaps head out on the town to party with the wild LGBT boys and “Lactatia.” If your parents won’t get on board, they can simply be replaced with a new “glitter family.”
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/12/24/leaked-files-syria-psyops-astroturfing-breadtube-covid

https://www.city-journal.org/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour?wallit_nosession=1

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/billionaire-family-pushing-synthetic-sex-identities-ssi-pritzkers

https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/15/transgender-professor-at-old-dominion-university-rebrands-pedophiles-as-minor-attracted-persons/


This would have been unimaginable only 10 years ago, now people are afraid to speak out against it for fear of loosing their jobs and livelihoods. i shudder to think about were the next 10 years of "progress" will take us if no action is taken to stop them. Reminder This is cultural marxism this is the future they want for our children. if you support "queer theory" "gay rights" or "trans rights" if you are for ''pronouns'' if you on the left this is what you are supporting. smash cultural marxism though radical and uncompromising action.

[Anonymous No.21723688]

>>21723670
such science! such victimhood! such love! such identity! Such NPC! Such DEI EGS! Such LGBT! Such Bioleninism! Such Marxism! Such vulnerable! Such marginalized! Such Diverse and Progressive! Such objective scientific and psychiatric authority! Such Sex Work ! Such unlimited expansion of the administrative state! Such such democracy! such empathy and basic human decency!

[Anonymous No.21723695]

>>21723288
There's no logic to trannies. Just because he wants to change his sex to a she doesn't mean he won't want you to call him a they. These are not normal people, anon, they're schizophrenic freaks. Do you understand that they're schizos?

[Anonymous No.21723713]

>>21723670
Children are eggs. It's our job to help them hatch. Kids sex kids. It's not a problem and never has been. If a child wants to express themselves sexually at an early age, we have no right to interfere with their choice. It's their body. You know who has a problem with that? Parents, who think they own their children. They don't. Children choose. Kids can be be cuntboys. Every medical professional is in agreement on this.

We care about kids and we'll win. We always do. Exposing them to sex early encourages body positivity and makes pleasure a fun activity, instead of something to fear. Sexwork is legitimized and everyone is happier. Love wins. science wins.

[Anonymous No.21723726]

It goes against the way people have gotten used to using language. It's aggressive in that regard. You're intentionally upsetting people, by jumbling their language, and confusing their ability to communicate.

Imagine if you decided you were only going to refer to doorways as "portals". You can argue it's technically correct, but you are doing it to be a cunt at the end of the day, aren't you? Just so you can get that response out of people. "What the fuck? What portal?". And all the while you're insinuating some moral failing on their part for not knowing exactly what you mean. It's aggressive, controlling behaviour.

[Anonymous No.21723743]

>>21723726
>>21723670
as the articles linked here prove, this is not just a tiny minority of people who just want to express themselves and be left alone, but purpose engineered political soldiers serving a totalitarian social engineered agenda backed by powerful billionaires, the compulsory education system, the medical establishment the federal government and a voracious sex/porn industry eager for fresh meat

[Anonymous No.21723754]

>>21723713
>If a child wants to express themselves sexually at an early age, we have no right to interfere with their choice. It's their body.
So if my child wants to play in traffic I am supposed to let him? I honestly hope that you will make some misstep some day and people will finally snap and do what sane people did in the past with criminals. I can't wait. I know it will never happen but I hope this every day.

[Anonymous No.21723768]

>>21723754
your god is dead christian, this is the dawn of the age of science and love. unconditional support for decolonization process carried out by advanced sections of the proletariat such as public school teachers unions, sex workers and progressive doctors and psychiatrists! total destruction of white privilge! abolition of white ideas like individualism, sexual repression, the gender binary, faphobia and whorephobia! education must be compulsory decolonial and queer! education and vaccination! sex work is work, all kids are trans kids white lives matter way too much!

[Anonymous No.21723805]

>>21723768
I'm not Christian and I didn't read the rest. Hopefully one day you'll fuck up and people will get tired

[Anonymous No.21723830]

>>21723805
toxic whiteness!

[Anonymous No.21724535]

>>21721577
Biological sex is the only thing that matters.
Gender is made up bullshit.

[Anonymous No.21724567]

>>21722801
It isn't irrelevant because if a person can't conform to and accept literal biological fact, how can you trust them about anything?
Their conception of the world is so antithetical to reality that a sane person has basically no common ground with them. There but for the grace of God go I.

[Anonymous No.21724586]

>>21721860
You is plural, yet you (singular) is a moron.

[Anonymous No.21724632]

No tranny shit. You can't escape biological reality with your garbage.

[Anonymous No.21725104]

>>21721577
answer is: libtards seem to like singular they therefore singular they must be bad
there is no amount of thinking involved about the actual issue, just groupthink and contrarianism
if libtards said that niggers are bad actually then /pol/ would become the least racist place on the internet overnight

[Anonymous No.21725236]

>>21723695
They might be schizos but I know a few of them and have seen tons of them online, and pretty much none of them want to be "they".

[Anonymous No.21725502]

Just a quick reminder that this board has been targeted for subversion in the past and this thread glows.

[Anonymous No.21725505]

>>21725502
/lit/ is too sincerely anticapitalist for this to ever work, whenever we discuss Marxism we just agree with it and then segue into discussing its entelechy: fascism