tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316287167964751654.post1004355013051434772..comments2023-07-30T01:30:51.715-07:00Comments on Witch.Words: Apparently, I'm A GuyJadelynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119504965056881450noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316287167964751654.post-85979731140222451072009-08-11T00:58:39.856-07:002009-08-11T00:58:39.856-07:00That's excellent, N...I hope you prevailed?That's excellent, N...I hope you prevailed?Jadelynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119504965056881450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316287167964751654.post-90021137262454323332009-08-10T20:24:37.123-07:002009-08-10T20:24:37.123-07:00I intentionally use singular they as often as I ca...I intentionally use singular they as often as I can. Fought a Writing Center adviser on it, too.N!https://www.blogger.com/profile/12108396797760302104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316287167964751654.post-12002860575544053332009-08-08T22:20:22.397-07:002009-08-08T22:20:22.397-07:00True...but the problem is people won't just US...True...but the problem is people won't just USE them already. So if people are going to be stubborn, we need to provide a new solution.<br /><br />Also, *twitch twitch head asplode* re: split infinitives THAT ENGLISH DOESN'T HAVE. You ought to see me whenever someone has the ill luck to mention that "rule" in my hearing. They get an earful on the subject...it's a major pet peeve of mine.Jadelynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119504965056881450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316287167964751654.post-74932972101365950602009-08-08T22:01:32.637-07:002009-08-08T22:01:32.637-07:00English has had such a thing for a long time. &qu...English has had such a thing for a long time. "They" has been used as a singular pronoun going back centuries, we just happen to be in a phase where it had been cut back on, largely by Latin fetishists who insist on applying Latin grammar rules to English speech, like the stupid "split infinitive" non-rule. :/CaitieCathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04044935117452832240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316287167964751654.post-61961557876501064802009-08-08T13:00:05.257-07:002009-08-08T13:00:05.257-07:00Heh, true. The name in particular, you would thin...Heh, true. The name in particular, you would think...<br /><br />But this just makes me appreciate Shakesville's ubiquitous use of "zie/hir" all the more. English really needs to adopt a universal set of 3rd sg gender-neutral pronouns, yesterday.Jadelynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119504965056881450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316287167964751654.post-55668240350906696752009-08-08T11:50:39.209-07:002009-08-08T11:50:39.209-07:00Well, I know I've never liked it. ;)
Though ...Well, I know I've never liked it. ;)<br /><br />Though I think that it takes very little to establish your likely gender. As I read your post, I looked to the right, and saw "witch" fairly prominent, which isn't ironclad but does lend a certain likelihood, particularly paired with "feminist", and when combined with the names on your e-mail, would make, I think, most who did even elementary looking think you likely to be a woman. <br /><br />Which only makes your point clearer, I think: the poster labeled you a guy because they'd made the assumption that you were a guy, and didn't make even the slightest effort to be right. The assumption was sufficient.CaitieCathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04044935117452832240noreply@blogger.com