Don't know why they don't go the whole hog, chuck the books on the street and burn 'em.
'sensitivity readers' ffs!
Off Topic And Now for Something Completely Different
- Thread starter Dr.Stanley O'Google, HCFC
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
'sensitivity readers' ffs!
Sam Smith was on a talk show recently and the subject turned to fishing, he said he'd 'quite like to be a fisherma ermm fisherthem', what a full weight ****.
Who the **** is Sam Smith, seen him mentioned all over the place but never clicked on articles.
I'm quite happy using whatever pronouns people want, it's no big deal.
However Fisherthem makes no grammatical sense does it?
Surely if it was a big deal to them then they'd want to be a Fisherperson, or a Fisher, or just say "I'd love to spend my time fishing"
Either way Fisherthem doesn't take sense.
Either fishernon-conventional binary gendered or the more pithy fishergenderqueer would make both logical and grammatical sense.
Although fisherfolk would perhaps work better as it's unlikely to offend anyone and it's alliterative to boot.
I was watching cricket yesterday, we now have batters instead of batsmen. I wondered what they now call third man? Surely silly mid on would be classed as non pc (though I guess you have to be pretty silly to stand that close to the bat)?
Genuine questions
Genuine questions
Ok, I'll bite (see what I did there?).
I doubt that you are. And I'd say actually it is a big deal.
The world is going mad and it needs no further encouragement. Sure, people should be able to live how they want, so long as they're not harming others etc, but don't expect, even demand, the rest of us to bend over backwards to accommodate the ridiculousness.
Maybe him, her and one other (they?) for those that can't decide; that's more than enough. Having said that, I can't actually see myself ever calling someone 'they', it makes absolutely no sense. You wonder what the hell is coming next, re-writing the Bible perhaps?
Feel free to doubt, but I really am, and I really don't think it's a big deal either.
I'm confused why you think saying 'they' is difficult. It's only a subtle change from 'does he want a pint?' to 'do they want a pint?'
When you're speaking to them then it's even easier 'do you want a pint?'
What is it that difficult, because I can't think of a tricky situation?
I've no idea what Sam Smith has said about the matter so maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I am aware it's exactly what you say above is reasonable. Him, her or they?
(Oh and no...I didn't see what you did there when you said you'd bitten?)
In your scenario, the person in question isn't in earshot anyway or you'd have asked them directly, so I'm not clear how they could be offended whatever term you used.
I genuinely don't understand when I'm supposed to use the he/she nonsense in context, as if I'm speaking directly I'll call them their name or 'you', and if I'm not, they won't know which one I used anyway. What am I getting wrong?
I'm kind of with you, in that I'm struggling to find a tricky scenario.
I suppose mine was a poor example as you say, although I suppose it would be still pleasant to say they if that was what they'd asked to be referred to, but as you say if you got it wrong in my example then no harm done.
Probably more relevant if putting something in writing but then you'd be more accurate in writing anyway, so probably just use 'they' where appropriate.
No big deal.
But when you say does he or she want a pint you know it's singular, buy one pint. If a singular person starts to be called they or them how will you know how many pints to buy?
The boring answer is that batsman has changed to batter because the MCC changed that word in the laws of the game.
Third Man, Nightwatchman etc aren't referred to in the laws so are just whatever people call them.
But in that instance 'they' could be interpreted as a plural pronoun thus causing some confusion. It should really be a single, ie 'it', no? If 'it' sounds a bit offensive maybe some completely new gender-independant pronouns should be dreamed up.
Bazball has resulted in batters becoming batterers; batsmen are long gone.
The third man was Harry Lime.
Silly mid on should be henceforth called Close mid on, both in terms of it's reference to nearness to the wicket but also to give acknowledgement to Brian Close, a particularly adept (and undoubtedly silly) practitioner of the position.
Hope this helps.
As Dutch says, and I agree, it wasn't a very good example.
I can only think of it being relevant in writing, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me why it's a bigger deal and what I'm missing.
It's just a classic case of the pendulum is too far to one side and needs to come to the middle, it then goes past the middle and too far to the other side.
Abridged version, it's a load of bollocks.
Abridged version, it's a load of bollocks.
I'm sticking to referring to everyone as '****forbrains'
That should stop any offence.
Its just a load of bollocks
About people wanting to be unique and special
About people wanting to be unique and special
Bollocks are a bit non-binary. Try gonads instead perhaps?