D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

epithet said:

Look dude, it's your site so you can say whatever you want--I understand that--but I have to take issue with your characterization. I am not arguing "against the human condition." People's humanity isn't a factor of their genders, their pronouns, or their grammar.

Click to expand...

How about “the words used by others to describe them”?

epithet said:

It is neither. It has nothing to do with respect, which is earned and should not be assumed.

Click to expand...

So, Mr. Grammarian, the OED (which you don't accept as a source for the singular "they", but whatever) includes the following definitions for "respect":

1) A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

2) Due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.

Now, unless you want to claim that your fellow human beings are supposed to get exactly zero regard for their feelings, wishes or rights, before "earning" that due, then a certain level of (2) is assumed, even if (1) is not.

But really, if you aren't going to allow the singular "they", I'd like to hear why you don't still use "thee" and "thou"...

Hussar said:

@epithet - to be honest, I find it hard to believe that you would think that this is a purely grammatical issue. It takes a special kind of myopia to look at gender roles in language and think, "Well, we'll ignore that massive cultural and historical baggage with this issue and focus entirely on the stuff that no one other than grammarians actually care about" and then stand back with wide eyed innocence when no one else wants to ignore the massive cultural and historical baggage.

I mean, do you honestly expect me to believe that you are that oblivious to to social and political ramifications of the discussion?

Click to expand...

Clearly, a lot of people here care a great deal about that "cultural baggage," but it wasn't even a topic of conversation back when I was in English classes. Maybe if we focussed more on language as a means of clear communication and less on and exploring the way in which it is an expression of historical baggage, we'd all be better off. I'm not "oblivious to social and political ramifications," as you suggest, but I'm unwilling to give politics and social anxiety the pride of place that you seem to afford them. As dismissive as you seem to be about "stuff [only] grammarians actually care about," I think it's likely that most English speakers don't really give a damn about the perceived cultural baggage associated with the use of the basic pronouns as we learned them in school. I suspect most people just want to be clearly understood, and to clearly understand what's being said to them.

But, hey, what do I know? Apparently I'm a bad person. Fine.

Umbran said:

So, Mr. Grammarian, the OED (which you don't accept as a source for the singular "they", but whatever) includes the following definitions for "respect":

1) A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

2) Due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.

Now, unless you want to claim that your fellow human beings are supposed to get exactly zero regard for their feelings, wishes or rights, before "earning" that due, then a certain level of (2) is assumed, even if (1) is not.

But really, if you aren't going to allow the singular "they", I'd like to hear why you don't still use "thee" and "thou"...

Click to expand...

I probably don't use "thee" and "thou" because (if I had to guess) they fell out of use centuries before I took my first English class. Same reason you don't use them.

On the matter of respect, "due regard" is a flexible standard. The regard your feelings are due varies widely based on the perception people have of you. For example, based on the list of quotes and mentions I seem to have accumulated over the weekend, my feelings are due very little regard on this forum thread at the moment.

*Deleted by user*

Morrus said:

Exactly. Arguing against the human condition because it bothers you *grammatically* does not say good things about you or your priorities.

Click to expand...

I think that's pretty safe to say.

Though I still think it's likely that anyone who insists on neologisms for pronouns (ze/xe/ey/etc.) is likely to be disappointed. Simply put, I don't think that such language will be used often enough by a wide enough range of people to become accepted, and part of the the entire purpose of pronouns is to be able to refer to an anonymous or unfamiliar person. The fact that some people still have difficulty with just he/she/they just makes it seem so unlikely to ever take off. At the end of the day, most people aren't concerned with what another person's gender or gender identity actually is; they just want a word to use to designate them without using a name.

I also think it's a little overzealous or excessive to be outraged or insulted that a stranger misgenders you. I totally get why people who have less accepted gender identities get upset due to the social problems they face and personal struggles they've had, but it seems to me to be not far removed from getting someone's nationality or race wrong. Unless it was ill-intentioned, there needs to be some acceptance that strangers legitimately do not automatically know everything about you. 99% of people are cisgendered. It's not unreasonable for people to choose to be wrong 1 in every 100 meetings. ~5% of the population are homosexual, and people still assume that everyone they meet is straight until they learn otherwise. Nobody is doing themselves any favors by getting offended by honest mistakes or by assuming malice when error is a reasonable excuse.

epithet said:

based on the list of quotes and mentions I seem to have accumulated over the weekend, my feelings are due very little regard on this forum thread at the moment.

Click to expand...

That tends to happen when one displays a lack of regard for the feelings of others.

Elfcrusher said:

How about “the words used by others to describe them”?

Click to expand...

The words you use to describe me have no bearing on my humanity, and vice versa. If I call you a pencil, or a keyboard (first things that my eye fell upon,) that says more about me that it does about you. It probably indicates I'm "off my meds."

lowkey13 said:

But ... do you? Do you really die on the hill of grammatical purity, or ... just in certain instances?

I mean, there are debates among "grammarians" that persist today about ending sentences with prepositions. Or use of passive voice. Or split infinitives (TO BOLDLY GO!).

It's not enough to say that a word might be a little confusing; see, for example, the prevalence of contronyms in English (cleave, sanction, garnish).

There isn't a standard for pronouns that never changes; I can't remember the last time I heard thine, but physician- heal thyself.

So it's unclear what, exactly, you are arguing for? Or against?

Well, it's clear what you are arguing against, but ... why? When, in the history of ever, has adherence to outdated prescriptive rules won out over freedom and dignity?

You realize that you're John Lithgow, and the world is Keven Bacon, and YOU CAN'T KEEP US FROM DANCING!*



*Dancing ... ON YOUR LAWN.

Click to expand...

No, I do not die on the hill of grammatical purity, even in "certain instances." This all began with me, thinking to participate in an ongoing conversation, saying (I'm paraphrasing) "You can be called whatever you want to, but 'they' is plural."

Then politics happened.

Charlaquin said:

That tends to happen when one displays a lack of regard for the feelings of others.

Click to expand...

It tends to depend on who the disregarded others are, actually.