701
they don't mind (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

My hot take: there’s no such thing as “singular they” because you don’t need a special case for using plural pronouns with a single person; the basic usage already allows that. The plural pronouns refer to a group of people of any size. That includes a group of size 1.

A group of only one person is still a group of people.

That’s why it has always been correct to refer to a single person using the plural pronouns; you’re not directly referring to the person but rather to the group consisting of just that one person.

The reason this confuses people isn’t because the usage is incorrect but rather because what they were taught is incorrect.

People are taught that plural pronouns only refer to more than one person and that has always been wrong.

To see why that’s wrong, consider what happens when the size of the group is neither exactly one or more than one. For example if the group is actually empty or if you don’t know how many people are in it.

In both those cases you need to use the plural pronoun.

If the plural pronouns are a valid choice for both a group of size zero and a group of size two, then it would be ridiculous to argue that they are not a valid choice for a group of size one.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago

when the group size is 1, it's singular

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

OK, I’ll bite; do we need a concept for a “dual they” or a “ternary they”.

If so, then fine “singular they” deserves to be called out too. If not, then treating “singular they” as a special case just gives bigots space to claim that it’s some sort of deviation from the norm which then gives them cover for falsely claiming that usage is incorrect.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

we don't need a new pronoun, the existing singular "they" is fine. bigots don't understand it, and think that it's grammatically incorrect. they are wrong. we don't need to cater to their ignorance.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I think sanskrit has singular, dual, and 'three and above' nouns and pronouns

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

I get the sentiment but tits are plural, a better analogy is needed

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I kinda hate that this gets so much exposure. Obviously it’s very dependent on where people live and this is purely anecdotal but I have never in my life met a person that wanted to be called by a pronoun that did not match their outward appearance.

Why do conservabitches act like it is so difficult? Only 1 person they ever met; and usually they don’t even meet them they’re reacting to a social media post. You can’t make an adjustment for ONE person in the entirety of your existence????

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
701 points (97.7% liked)

Microblog Memes

8527 readers
2677 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS