Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Who Didn't See This Coming...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    If someone is sick, it does them no favors to dance around the truth.
    Actually it's both common decency and love to be considerate in how one talks to others. Doctors when dealing with sick don't say "you're gonna die, sucks to be you!" - they are in fact trained to, as you put it "dance around the truth" when it comes to dealing with sick people.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    It's a simple statement of truth [that transgender people are mentally ill].
    Actually, it's a complex statement of falsehood.

    Is left-handedness a mental disorder? Why / why not? It's relatively unusual, you could even say 'abnormal'.

    Something the practice of psychology learned as it developed in the 20th century was that the criteria as to what makes something a 'mental disorder' versus not, isn't as simple as 'abnormal' (because then you end up including left-handedness etc), nor is it as simple as 'I personally feel it should be a mental disorder' (because then you end up with a changing list). So they had to develop an objective standard by which things could be consistently classified as mental disorders vs not.

    And by that accepted standard, transgenderism is not in and of itself a mental disorder (if accompanied by other issues/symptoms it can be one labelled Gender Dysphoria), but in and of itself transgenderism isn't one anymore than being left-handed is one.

    So your statement is false. And insofar as you continually reassert it to be true, having full knowledge there is an official and widely accepted objective standard for the labeling of something as a mental illness that say it isn't one, you are lying and knowingly purveying false information.

    If what you mean is "I MM, would personally, entirely lacking in any experience in the field of psychology, assert that I feel like transgender people should be in the 'mentally ill' category" then, (a) nobody cares what an ignoramus like you thinks, and (b) I can equally assert that you, MM, should be in the mentally ill category, for all the meaning or relevance that would have.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
      Nevertheless, this gender choice thing is just wrong.
      Are you aware that most societies in human history, including pretty much all the native american tribes pre-colonization, allowed gender choice?

      A common cultural construct was to have 4 gender roles:
      Not all [Native American] tribes/nations have rigid gender roles, but, among those that do, the spectrum that has usually been documented is that of four genders: feminine woman, masculine woman, feminine man, masculine man.

      While the spread of Christianity and Islam around most of the globe has typically suppressed any cultural practices of non-binary gender roles, areas less affected by these such as the Indian subcontinent maintain their tradition of 3 genders:
      Hijras are officially recognized as third gender in countries in the Indian subcontinent, being considered neither completely male nor female. Hijras have a recorded history in the Indian subcontinent from antiquity onwards as suggested by the Kama Sutra period... Nepal, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have all legally accepted the existence of a third gender

      Likewise the Islander peoples near my country have their own traditions of 3 genders, e.g. on the island of Samoa the term 'Fa'afafine' ("in the manner of a woman") is a cultural tradition in which men can become feminine.

      And a culture in Indonesia known as the Bugis maintains their traditional 5-gender culture to this day:
      In contrast to the two-gender system, Bugis society recognises five genders: makkunrai, oroané, bissu, calabai, and calalai. "Oroané" and "Makkunrai" are comparable to cisgender men and women, respectively. Bissu are androgynous shamans. Calalai and calabai are respectively approximately equivent to trans men and trans women.
      ...and such a 5-gender model seems to have been common in Central and South America with the Aztecs etc.

      In the Roman empire, the state religion involved transgendered priests called Galli, who were people born male who had castrated themselves and dressed as female. Also the term 'Eunuch' seems to have been a catch-all phrase for non-binary-gendered people and were favored for high government positions.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        Are you aware that most societies in human history, including pretty much all the native american tribes pre-colonization, allowed gender choice?

        A common cultural construct was to have 4 gender roles:
        Not all [Native American] tribes/nations have rigid gender roles, but, among those that do, the spectrum that has usually been documented is that of four genders: feminine woman, masculine woman, feminine man, masculine man.

        While the spread of Christianity and Islam around most of the globe has typically suppressed any cultural practices of non-binary gender roles, areas less affected by these such as the Indian subcontinent maintain their tradition of 3 genders:
        Hijras are officially recognized as third gender in countries in the Indian subcontinent, being considered neither completely male nor female. Hijras have a recorded history in the Indian subcontinent from antiquity onwards as suggested by the Kama Sutra period... Nepal, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have all legally accepted the existence of a third gender

        Likewise the Islander peoples near my country have their own traditions of 3 genders, e.g. on the island of Samoa the term 'Fa'afafine' ("in the manner of a woman") is a cultural tradition in which men can become feminine.

        And a culture in Indonesia known as the Bugis maintains their traditional 5-gender culture to this day:
        In contrast to the two-gender system, Bugis society recognises five genders: makkunrai, oroané, bissu, calabai, and calalai. "Oroané" and "Makkunrai" are comparable to cisgender men and women, respectively. Bissu are androgynous shamans. Calalai and calabai are respectively approximately equivent to trans men and trans women.
        ...and such a 5-gender model seems to have been common in Central and South America with the Aztecs etc.

        In the Roman empire, the state religion involved transgendered priests called Galli, who were people born male who had castrated themselves and dressed as female. Also the term 'Eunuch' seems to have been a catch-all phrase for non-binary-gendered people and were favored for high government positions.
        And after all this gender fluidity we are still left with two biological sexes, male and female. With a few unfortunate hermaphrodites thrown in.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          And after all this gender fluidity we are still left with two biological sexes, male and female. With a few unfortunate hermaphrodites thrown in.
          Gender is a social role - as I noted in my post, many/most human societies have allowed people of a particular sex to choose between various gender roles. e.g. any given biological male can pick either of two different gender roles the society has for biological males, and any given biological female can pick either of two different gender roles the society has for biological females. Or cultures have had a society where every individual has the ability to 'opt-out' of the standard gender roles, giving three roles - 'male', 'female', and 'non-assigned / opted-out / a bit of both'.

          Recall the famous philosophical dictum: "An 'Is' does not imply an 'Ought'". Biologically there might only be two sexes (if you willfully ignore the very intersex people that this discussion is supposed to be including), but that says absolutely nothing about whether any given human culture should or shouldn't have 4 genders, 2 genders, 5 genders, or 3 genders. You can't get from "is" statements about facts of human biological sex to "ought" statement about whether a culture should give people the freedom to choose gender roles or not.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
            Actually it's both common decency and love to be considerate in how one talks to others. Doctors when dealing with sick don't say "you're gonna die, sucks to be you!"
            Of course they don't put it like that. Rather, they'll say, "Your illness is incurable, and you have 2-months to live." When dealing with a person with a mental disorder, they'll say, "You have a mental disorder, and here are the treatment options."

            Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
            Is left-handedness a mental disorder? Why / why not? It's relatively unusual, you could even say 'abnormal'.
            I suppose it could be considered a disorder, albeit a minor one that doesn't interfere with a person's ability to function and has no associated moral implications. Disorders like transgenderism, homosexuality, and pedophilia, on the other hand, carry with them significant social and moral implications as well as related mental health issues like disproportionately higher rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              When dealing with a person with a mental disorder, they'll say, "You have a mental disorder, and here are the treatment options."
              Your imaginings of how doctors act aside, given there is not a known psychological cure for transgenderism, what value do you imagine telling these people they have a 'mental disorder' would have? Let us say a transgender person comes to share your inaccurate view that their condition is a mental disorder... what exactly do you imagine they should then do given that information that they would not otherwise have done? Feel worse about themselves?

              Likewise if you were to convince a left-handed person that left-handness was truly a mental disorder (its presence correlates with mental health issues just like a person being LGBT does, which you cited as one of your personal reasons for viewing LGBTism as a mental disorder) what exactly would you expect them to then do with that information? Snap their fingers and be right-handed? Take the Magic Drug that makes people right-handed? Awkwardly try to use their right-hand for everything?
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                I suppose it could be considered a disorder, albeit a minor one that doesn't interfere with a person's ability to function and has no associated moral implications.
                Left handedness was non-conformity to the norms of the day and was once considered a major disorder. Such people were often made to conform by using their right-hand in opposition to their natural predisposition often resulting in mental trauma. King George VI (as per the movie The King’s Speech) was one such individual and his terrible stutter has been attributed to being forced to use his right hand as a child. Forced conversion therapy is invariably harmful.

                Disorders like transgenderism, homosexuality, and pedophilia, on the other hand, carry with them significant social and moral implications.
                Interesting how you lump “transgenderism, homosexuality, and pedophilia” together. The are not all the same. The last is morally unacceptable because of the harm it inflicts upon those unable to provide informed consent. Whereas “Lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders.

                “Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

                https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

                "Disproportionately higher rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide" are directly linked to the non-acceptance and social rejection by bigots like you, not to the sexual orientations in and of themselves.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post

                  Recall the famous philosophical dictum: "An 'Is' does not imply an 'Ought'". Biologically there might only be two sexes (if you willfully ignore the very intersex people that this discussion is supposed to be including), but that says absolutely nothing about whether any given human culture should or shouldn't have 4 genders, 2 genders, 5 genders, or 3 genders. You can't get from "is" statements about facts of human biological sex to "ought" statement about whether a culture should give people the freedom to choose gender roles or not.
                  And there is nothing that says we ought to give anyone the freedom to choose genders, especially since biology is an objective fact, where fluidity is subjective and people often move in and out of categories. Not that I have a problem with such people calling themselves what they please, but making law that compels the rest of us to join in these delusions is where I draw the line.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Likewise if you were to convince a left-handed person that left-handness was truly a mental disorder (its presence correlates with mental health issues just like a person being LGBT does, which you cited as one of your personal reasons for viewing LGBTism as a mental disorder) what exactly would you expect them to then do with that information? Snap their fingers and be right-handed? Take the Magic Drug that makes people right-handed? Awkwardly try to use their right-hand for everything?
                    I was born left handed, but made to write and use my right hand. Today the only thing I can still do well with my left hand is shoot. You can see that in my avatar, I'm holding the Winchester for a left handed firing position.
                    Last edited by seer; 02-03-2019, 06:24 AM.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And there is nothing that says we ought to give anyone the freedom to choose genders
                      Generally people have a view that greater freedom is preferable to less freedom. A culture that had 4 genders, and gave each person the freedom to choose from among 2 genders based on their biological sex would thus seem to have more freedom than a culture that rigidly restricted people to a single gender based on their biological sex.

                      Given that current conservatives are advocating for less freedom with regard to gender than the average historical human culture has had, the onus would seem to me to be on you guys to explain why less freedom is somehow preferable. Given human history shows that there have been people born throughout history, in all societies, that felt themselves to be outside the two usual genders, and given that most human societies have made allowances for them, creating social and cultural gender roles for them, giving them the freedom to choose to opt out of the usual gender for their biological sex, the question seems to me to be "why on earth shouldn't our modern society do the same?" It seems to me that the answer in the minds of most conservatives is simply that they grew up in a culture that had only 2 genders that corresponded with biological sexes, and so they are weirded out by and confused by and subsequently anxious about transgenderism, and are simply afraid of something that is new to them and which they don't understand.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Generally people have a view that greater freedom is preferable to less freedom. A culture that had 4 genders, and gave each person the freedom to choose from among 2 genders based on their biological sex would thus seem to have more freedom than a culture that rigidly restricted people to a single gender based on their biological sex.

                        Given that current conservatives are advocating for less freedom with regard to gender than the average historical human culture has had, the onus would seem to me to be on you guys to explain why less freedom is somehow preferable. Given human history shows that there have been people born throughout history, in all societies, that felt themselves to be outside the two usual genders, and given that most human societies have made allowances for them, creating social and cultural gender roles for them, giving them the freedom to choose to opt out of the usual gender for their biological sex, the question seems to me to be "why on earth shouldn't our modern society do the same?" It seems to me that the answer in the minds of most conservatives is simply that they grew up in a culture that had only 2 genders that corresponded with biological sexes, and so they are weirded out by and confused by and subsequently anxious about transgenderism, and are simply afraid of something that is new to them and which they don't understand.
                        Nonsense Star, first you have not made the case gender fluidity was a widely accepted throughout history. You mentioned a few isolated cases. Second, you did not respond to this: Not that I have a problem with such people calling themselves what they please, but making law that compels the rest of us to join in these delusions is where I draw the line.

                        This is exactly what is happening in Canada, as it applies to Government institutions, which includes colleges (for now). If a male wants to be referred to as a female, you have to or be fined. That is not freedom, that is totalitarianism. It not only restricts what you can't say (like a racial slur) it compels what you must say. We have a young lady at our shop who is trans, her name is Donna, but she want to use a male name and identity. I have no problem calling her Austin, but if I was compelled to by law, it would be a different story.
                        Last edited by seer; 02-03-2019, 07:32 AM.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          first you have not made the case gender fluidity was a widely accepted throughout history. You mentioned a few isolated cases.
                          I disagree. My case was that prior to clamp-downs on gender choice by Christianity and Islam, multiple gender roles were a cultural construct in most societies on most continents. On your own continent 100% of the societies that had particular gender roles appear to have given individuals a choice to opt out of those gender roles.

                          Second, you did not respond to this: Not that I have a problem with such people calling themselves what they please, but making law that compels the rest of us to join in these delusions is where I draw the line.
                          To my mind referring to a person by the name or nickname they ask you to call them by is basic politeness. Failure to do so could well be workplace harassment. e.g. if you ask me to call you "Robert" and I decide I'd prefer to call you "Bob" for short and do this no matter how many times you ask me not to and say you don't like the shortened version of your name, is that harassment? I would say that perhaps it is and that our manager would have every right to pull me aside and tell me to get my act together and call you by the name you preferred. If I decided to call you "Susan" all the time, or "Jerkface" all the time, that would be even worse. If you had a foreign name I couldn't pronounce well despite my best efforts then perhaps some compromise might be in order.

                          So I don't have a problem with the idea of a law requiring you to call people in your workplace by their preferred names or nicknames, as part of wider workplace anti-harassment / anti-bulling laws. As you note, you have no issue with calling people by their preferred names in your life including a transgendered person at your workplace. I find it hard to take very seriously your alleged upsetness that you might be legally required to do what it is you already do - namely call people by their preferred names in the workplace. You just come across as a whiner.

                          I don't really have strong feelings on the pronouns issue because in English only the 3rd person pronouns have gender (i.e. "you", "yours" are gender neutral) so you don't use genders pronouns when talking directly to the person concerned (because you say "you"), merely when talking about them to others (i.e. "he", "his" etc). So you aren't usually rubbing the issue in their face when you talk to them. But I can see how it might be upsetting to them if they found out that behind their back all their colleagues talked about them as if they were male when they want to be a female. Personally I pretty much always now use the pronouns "they"/"them"/"theirs" as 3rd person singular when I'm speaking and don't much use "he"/"she"/"him"/"her" at all. So overall, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on legal requirements to use preferred gender pronouns in the workplace - I can see how it cuts done on perceived or intended bullying and harassment and I can see how it could annoy people.
                          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            I disagree. My case was that prior to clamp-downs on gender choice by Christianity and Islam, multiple gender roles were a cultural construct in most societies on most continents. On your own continent 100% of the societies that had particular gender roles appear to have given individuals a choice to opt out of those gender roles.
                            What case? You mentioned a few isolated instances.

                            So I don't have a problem with the idea of a law requiring you to call people in your workplace by their preferred names or nicknames, as part of wider workplace anti-harassment / anti-bulling laws. As you note, you have no issue with calling people by their preferred names in your life including a transgendered person at your workplace. I find it hard to take very seriously your alleged upsetness that you might be legally required to do what it is you already do - namely call people by their preferred names in the workplace. You just come across as a whiner.
                            See that is what I'm saying. You are anti-freedom, you want to force us what to say - That is Orwellian. In my case to call Donna by her real and given name would not constitute harassment or bulling. It would be stating a fact, if she took exception to that it would be her problem, not mine. And if I called her she that too would be a fact, a biological fact.

                            I don't really have strong feelings on the pronouns issue because in English only the 3rd person pronouns have gender (i.e. "you", "yours" are gender neutral) so you don't use genders pronouns when talking directly to the person concerned (because you say "you"), merely when talking about them to others (i.e. "he", "his" etc). So you aren't usually rubbing the issue in their face when you talk to them. But I can see how it might be upsetting to them if they found out that behind their back all their colleagues talked about them as if they were male when they want to be a female. Personally I pretty much always now use the pronouns "they"/"them"/"theirs" as 3rd person singular when I'm speaking and don't much use "he"/"she"/"him"/"her" at all. So overall, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on legal requirements to use preferred gender pronouns in the workplace - I can see how it cuts done on perceived or intended bullying and harassment and I can see how it could annoy people.
                            And not they,them,theirs plural? So how can they be singular?
                            Last edited by seer; 02-03-2019, 06:44 PM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And there is nothing that says we ought to give anyone the freedom to choose genders,.
                              There's nothing to say that we shouldn't apart from the religious beliefs of some.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                You mentioned a few isolated instances
                                I referred to the multiple and major civilizations on almost all continents.

                                While it is difficult to try and count societies, it certainly appears that prior to the spread of Christianity and Islam that the majority of human cultures had 3-5 gender roles or the ability for people to 'opt-out' of their sex-based gender roles. Such cultural constructs were not at all 'a few isolated instances' but rather pretty pervasive across societies and continents.

                                See that is what I'm saying. You are anti-freedom, you want to force us what to say
                                Generally I support anti-bullying rules just as I support anti-crime rules. The freedom to not be bullied and the freedom not to be victimized by crime is generally a more important freedom than the freedom to bully and to victimize people by criminal acts.

                                And not they,them,theirs plural? So how can they be singular?
                                Yes, but it's happened before in English with the 2nd person pronouns.

                                "Thou" / "thee" / "thine" used to be the 2nd person singular (i.e. meaning 'you') while "you" / "yours" were the 2nd person plural. Thus when the King James translation of the bible was made it was full of "thou" when referring to God because that was the common word at the time for "you".

                                But in the 17th century the usage of the pronouns underwent a gradual change and people in many English-speaking areas gradually stopped using "thou" and instead used the 2nd person plural word "you" as if it were the 2nd person singular. Today the usage of "you" as 2nd person singular is standard. A result of this is that in modern English we have a bit of a gap where the 2nd person plural should be - "you" has been moved to mean singular not plural, so people scramble to substitute other things in on an ad hoc basis like "you all" or "y'all" or "yous guys" and there is no universally accepted 2nd person plural currently. This simply reflects that how people use language changes over time and can have inconsistencies.

                                I personally find that when trying to speak or write in the 3rd person singular neutral that rather than saying/writing "he / she" or "(s)he" or "it" that what I find slides off my tongue the easiest is "they". I have observed this to be an increasingly common usage, and I would not at all be surprised if in the 21st century "they" moves from being 3rd person plural in general usage to being 3rd person singular, just like "you" did in the 17th century.

                                P.S. Looking up wiki now I see also that "they" has been used in 3rd person singular form since the 14th century in sentences where the 3rd person being spoken of is unknown - e.g. "Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?" "A journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources." Possibly that is why I find it rolls so easily off my tongue when referring to a known person of an unspecified gender - because English already uses it to refer to a singular unspecified person.
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                308 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X