All Things LGBTQ+ (5 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

So just one customer we are worried about coming into the store, or are we addressing all the customers that walk through the door? Probably all customers, so again plural. Addressing a single person in a conversation as 'they' is just dumb.

Sorry guys, I have to agree with Farb on this one. The non-binary stuff is too crazy for me. Well, wait, in this specific instance... in general... yeah it's grammatically proper to say they referring to an unknown/hypothetical/someone in the generic sense.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Sorry guys, I have to agree with Farb on this one. The non-binary stuff is too crazy for me. Well, wait, in this specific instance... in general... yeah it's grammatically proper to say they referring to an unknown/hypothetical/someone in the generic sense.

I can't believe that this isn't proper:

"When a customer walks in the store, greet them with a smile and say 'Welcome to Moe's!' and ask if they have been to Moe's before."

I would say it that way, further, my mother who was an English teacher would certainly have said it that way, I think .

Saul, maybe you were just joking here?: "Sorry guys, I have to agree with Farb on this one."

 

[SystemShock]

I can't believe that this isn't proper:

"When a customer walks in the store, greet them with a smile and say 'Welcome to Moe's!' and ask if they have been to Moe's before."

I would say it that way, further, my mother who was an English teacher would certainly have said it that way, I think .

Saul, maybe you were just joking here?: "Sorry guys, I have to agree with Farb on this one."

Or, if we really don't want to make assumptions, include everyone, and we are really looking to not offend anyone, all while being grammatically correct, how about: ?

"When a customer walks in the store, greet the customer with a smile and say 'Welcome to Moe's! and ask if the customer has been to Moe's before".

... and then I'm sure there'll be someone like : "how dare you assume that person is a customer"

Fun Spanish fact: "la persona", even though neutral, itself uses the feminine construct.

 

[V Chip]

So just one customer we are worried about coming into the store, or are we addressing all the customers that walk through the door? Probably all customers, so again plural. Addressing a single person in a conversation as 'they' is just dumb.

No, it's one: "When *a* customer" not "When customers."

This has been the case for a long, long time.

 

[V Chip]

Or, if we really don't want to make assumptions, include everyone, and we are really looking to not offend anyone, all while being grammatically correct, how about: ?

"When a customer walks in the store, greet the customer with a smile and say 'Welcome to Moe's! and ask if the customer has been to Moe's before".

It's not about assumptions, it's the way grammar has been for centuries.

"The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375"

Would either of you think referring to one person as "you" incorrect? Because "you" was plural as well but became used singularly, and now nobody even things about referring to someone as "you" being strange or calling it "making an assumption" or trying to "not offend anyone."

"Singular you was a plural pronoun that had become singular as well"

A brief history of singular ‘they’ | Oxford English Dictionary

OED ambassador Prof Dennis Baron turns to the OED to provide a brief history of the singular 'they' - from the 14th century to present day:

public.oed.com

 

[SystemShock]

It's not about assumptions, it's the way grammar has been for centuries.

"The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375"

Would either of you think referring to one person as "you" incorrect? Because "you" was plural as well but became used singularly, and now nobody even things about referring to someone as "you" being strange or calling it "making an assumption" or trying to "not offend anyone."

"Singular you was a plural pronoun that had become singular as well"

A brief history of singular ‘they’ | Oxford English Dictionary

OED ambassador Prof Dennis Baron turns to the OED to provide a brief history of the singular 'they' - from the 14th century to present day:

public.oed.com

Grammar and language have been a lot of things for centuries, but, you know...

Myself, I decided to avoid pronouns in English like the plague.

 

[Farb]

This is twice now that you've been shown that you are wrong. I await your apology and retraction.

I have yet to be proven wrong once on this. I can't see what you linked so it is obviously not very important.

 

[Farb]

smh

Obviously "they" is being used correctly here: "When a customer walks in the store, greet them with a smile and say 'Welcome to Moe's!' and ask if they have been to Moe's before."

Farb, are you just trolling?

We are talking about a singular trans kids standing in front of another kid demanding to called 'they'. That is not correct grammar and only tolerated because the fact the kid is trans. Why should the other kid be forced to use incorrect grammar for the sake of someone's feelings?

 

[Port City JJ]

I have yet to be proven wrong once on this. I can't see what you linked so it is obviously not very important.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I have yet to be proven wrong once on this. I can't see what you linked so it is obviously not very important.

You insist that 'they' is not a singular pronoun. You've been shown more than once that it is.

 

[Farb]

You insist that 'they' is not a singular pronoun. You've been shown more than once that it is.

Those people that have shown me are incorrect. I will await your acknowledgment and apology.

 

[Port City JJ]

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Those people that have shown me are incorrect. I will await your acknowledgment and apology.

If you have a problem with being wrong, you'll have to take it up with the OED, Collins, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, and nearly a milennia of usage.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

We are talking about a singular trans kids standing in front of another kid demanding to called 'they'. That is not correct grammar and only tolerated because the fact the kid is trans. Why should the other kid be forced to use incorrect grammar for the sake of someone's feelings?

Who the H cares?

 

[Farb]

Who the H cares?

I would guess the kids that got suspended and their parents? Just a guess though.

 

[brandon]

I can't believe that this isn't proper:

"When a customer walks in the store, greet them with a smile and say 'Welcome to Moe's!' and ask if they have been to Moe's before."

I would say it that way, further, my mother who was an English teacher would certainly have said it that way, I think .

Saul, maybe you were just joking here?: "Sorry guys, I have to agree with Farb on this one."

So for what it's worth, traditionally this use of a singular "they" has not been grammatically correct. Instead, you would say "ask if he has," "ask if she has," or "ask if he or she has."

"He" was the standard singular form for an ambiguous antecedent for most of history. Then "he or she" became the go to for much of the last 30 years or so, but because "he or she" is pretty clumsy to say or write, especially when having to do it more than once in a short amount of time, then it became typical to instead look for a gender balance across a document (as in, if you were writing a paper with 4 such ambiguous antecedents, you would write maybe two of them as he and two of them as she, but this was not a hard and fast rule).

"They" as a singular pronoun option is fairly recent. While the use of singular they has been common for centuries, it was still considered a grammatical error to use it in the context you're referring to until very recently. However, language evolves, and singular "they" is becoming more acceptable, especially with the advancement of non-binary people.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

A brief history of singular ‘they’ | Oxford English Dictionary

OED ambassador Prof Dennis Baron turns to the OED to provide a brief history of the singular 'they' - from the 14th century to present day:

public.oed.com

"A brief history of singular ‘they’

Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’

Since forms may exist in speech long before they’re written down, it’s likely that singular they was common even before the late fourteenth century. That makes an old form even older.

In the eighteenth century, grammarians began warning that singular they was an error because a plural pronoun can’t take a singular antecedent. They clearly forgot that singular you was a plural pronoun that had become singular as well."

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I would guess the kids that got suspended and their parents? Just a guess though.

You win some lose some.