Alternative: Girls (females) in D&D/ Roleplaying

[Nifft]

For the latter, it occurs to me that gaming books bear more resemblance to technical writing than most other forms of prose. And in technical writing, you do generally want to remove ambiguity, and be as specific as possible. I would expect authors of such to minimize use of pronouns (with or without gender) for that reason.

Disambiguation is great, unless it costs clarity.

Pronouns can increase clarity. They can do this without imposing ambiguity. They can also increase ambiguity, but that's when you're using them wrong.

Technical writing uses pronouns. Good technical writing even shows good use of pronouns.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Umbran]

Technical writing uses pronouns. Good technical writing even shows good use of pronouns.

Okay, then. So, when that technical writing needs to refer to a single person, but that person is explicitly not gender specific, what do you do?

 

[Nifft]

Okay, then. So, when that technical writing needs to refer to a single person, but that person is explicitly not gender specific, what do you do?

"It" is how we refer to things that lack sex. "He or she" explicitly refers to a single person of explicitly ambiguous sex.


Look, either you're right -- and pronouns should be minimized in game writing because they're icky -- and all that means is that the singular "they" is bad, because all pronouns are bad.

OR you're wrong and I'm right -- and good pronouns can be good tools -- in which case the singular "they" is bad, for the reasons I've outlined already.

There's no way from your argument to any justification of the singular "they".

"Proof your argument may have merit", -- N

 

[Krensky]

Other then that it's been used for five hundred years and still annoys grammar nazis and pendants.

English is a living language, there's no Academy of English decreeing it dead yet.

 

[Nifft]

Other then that it's been used for five hundred years

Some bad ideas are EVEN OLDER than 500 years.

Know what? They're still bad ideas.

and still annoys grammar nazis and pendants.

Ah, name-calling, the highest form of rhetoric. You'll surely win hearts & minds like that!

Ciao, -- N

 

[Umbran]

Look, either you're right -- and pronouns should be minimized in game writing because they're icky -- and all that means is that the singular "they" is bad, because all pronouns are bad.

OR you're wrong and I'm right -- and good pronouns can be good tools -- in which case the singular "they" is bad, for the reasons I've outlined already.

There's no way from your argument to any justification of the singular "they".

OR the third option that I'm trying to get at that you've not gotten yet: communication in writing is not a simple, one size (or one grammatical construction) fits all thing.

As I noted earlier, the singular "they" has been around for centuries. If it really were a horrible idea, it would have passed away in a display of linguistic Darwinism. It has failed to die away. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding - I need no more than empirical justification. While this does not indicate that it is the best of all possible pronouns and should be used at every single turn or somesuch nonsense, it does indicate that it has enough use to justify its presence, and occasional use.

 

[pawsplay]

My dislike for the singular "they" is purely functional: allowing it increases ambiguity, and there's no corresponding benefit.

For example:
* "When a Wizard uses Bigby's Insulting Finger on a group of orcs, they are Dazed." Who is Dazed?

That's no worse than the situation where the wizard casts the spell on one orc, and the wizard and orc share a gender. If it's good enough for the gendered singular pronoun, it's good enough for the genderless ambiguous pronoun.

He/she can actually increase ambiguity in unwanted ways. For instance:

* When the new doctor brought up the head nurse's insubordination up in the meeting, everyone agreed she was out of line.

Not only is this ambiguous, there is a good chance, if the doctor is female and the nurse is male, that you may have led your audience into a trap.

Ambiguity is not a reason to avoid "they," it's a reason to be careful in how you use ALL pronouns.

 

[pawsplay]

Women's magazines are in the business of selling magazines, diets, clothing, and cosmetics to women. They don't accomplish that goal by showing women that what they already have, they way they currently are, and they way they already look, is what men want.

Thus, women's magazines are not in the business of telling women what men actually want, and the pictures therein will not tell you.

If there's anything in the world that is telling women they aren't good enough, it isn't fantasy game art - it's women's magazines.

Unless they are gamers, or date gamers, in which case it is.

 

[pawsplay]

I never said Sean K. Reynolds was an authority on the subject. What I said was that he's notorious for being over-the-top about sensitivity to stuff like this.

If you're over-the-topping him, your barometer is way off.

Which, based on your oh-so-serious over-reaction to the Seoni Christmas card art and the very existance of the character of Seoni in general, I'd say was pretty obvious anyway.

How is a difference of opinion with him a sign of over-the-topping? Why is his notoriety a good gauge of what should be over-the-top?

The "You're too sensitive" argument, apart from misusing power in a scenario like this, is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

1. I can tell you're too sensitive because you are offended.
2. You are offended because you are too sensitive.

It ventures very close to the tautology that anyone what makes someone too sensitive is being offended at all. The only prescription is to not be offended; that is, to accept the paradigm of the person abusing power.

 

[Nifft]

Umbran: How the heck do you get from describing how technical writing -- and by YOUR OWN extension, game writing -- should look:

For the latter, it occurs to me that gaming books bear more resemblance to technical writing than most other forms of prose. And in technical writing, you do generally want to remove ambiguity, and be as specific as possible. I would expect authors of such to minimize use of pronouns (with or without gender) for that reason.

... to this weaksauce "no right answer" cruft?

OR the third option that I'm trying to get at that you've not gotten yet: communication in writing is not a simple, one size (or one grammatical construction) fits all thing.

Even if we were talking about all things, though, singular "they" would still have no utility.

As I noted earlier, the singular "they" has been around for centuries. If it really were a horrible idea, it would have passed away in a display of linguistic Darwinism.

There's no such thing as "linguistic Darwinism" within a single language. You're confusing "provides a benefit" with "hasn't killed the species yet".

Seriously, your argument implies the human appendix is useful. Your argument is flawed.

It has failed to die away. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding - I need no more than empirical justification.

Again, the human appendix. Or rats, or politicians, or heroine abuse.

That's no worse than the situation where the wizard casts the spell on one orc, and the wizard and orc share a gender. If it's good enough for the gendered singular pronoun, it's good enough for the genderless ambiguous pronoun.

He/she can actually increase ambiguity in unwanted ways. For instance:

* When the new doctor brought up the head nurse's insubordination up in the meeting, everyone agreed she was out of line.

Watch this:

* When the new doctor brought up the head nurse's insubordination in the meeting, everyone agreed they were out of line.

In your sentence, there's an ambiguity between the doctor and the nurse. In my example (assuming we are allowing singular "they"), the ambiguity has expanded to include everyone in the meeting, as well as the doctor (singular) and the head nurse (singular).

Singular "they": it never helps.

"Heh heh, you said 'head nurse', heh he heh", -- N