PC Gaming

8625 readers

1013 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

187

Transphobes are doxxing Stardew Valley fans after they asked the game developer for pronouns (lemmy.ca)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/04/26/stardew-valley-transphobes-doxxing/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This is only true if the referent is unknown. The new thing about singular they is that it is now being used for known referents. Which is perfectly fine of course, but not centuries old.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm not centuries old but I've used it to refer to individuals when I didn't know their gender, and also when it wasn't necessary to indicate gender to determine who I was talking about.

I'm almost fifty and went to private schools if it helps.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Oh sure, I use singular they a lot too. And I have no problem using it for non-binary people. I just don't like wrong information being posted online without it being disputed.

[–] Cethin 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

https://www.englishgratis.com/1/wikibooks/english/singularthey.htm

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend — Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3, 1594

'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech. — Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene 3, 1600–1602

So lyke wyse shall my hevenly father do vnto you except ye forgeve with youre hertes eache one to his brother their treaspases. — Tyndale's Bible, 1526

All of these are centuries old, and each of them know the gender of whom they speak of. You are incorrect. Please update your knowledge and don't correct someone for something you didn't at least look up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, those examples are precisely what I mean. The article you linked to explains exactly what I mean, even stating that Shakespeare wouldn't have used "they" if he knew the gender of the person he referred to.

The referents in these cases are general, not specific people. "Not a man" - no one, not referring to a specific person. "Some more audience than a mother" - someone else than a mother, not a specific person. "Each one" - not a specific person but every person.

If you look at dictionary definitions over the centuries, you'll find singular they mentioned, but always specifically for this general meaning.

As an added note I don't think it makes a difference if the current use is new or not, and it shouldn't matter in this debate. Language changes all the time, even if people resist it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Lol, they just had the exact same argument with me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah, it's silly. I think the whole linguistic discussion is irrelevant. It's a new phenomenon, which is great. I love how language evolves.

[–] Cethin 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

...even stating that Shakespeare wouldn't have used "they" if he knew the gender of the person he referred to.

I literally gave two examples of him doing so. What are you talking about?

Sure, they aren't referring to any specific person, but the gender is clearly stated. Your prior reasoning was that it was improper if the gender is known, not if the person is known. Stop shifting goalposts and just accept new information when it's presented.

As an added note I don't think it makes a difference if the current use is new or not, and it shouldn't matter in this debate. Language changes all the time, even if people resist it.

Yes, that's correct. Someone was the first to use singular they. The argument about being grammatically correct is fairly stupid, because it's clear it is now. However, some people make an appeal to tradition saying it wasn't but it always has been for as long as they've been alive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Take a chill pill, read the article you linked and have a nice day.