So
@Red quoted this post a while back and it came up again in conversation recently and here I am now.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2015 2:29 am
"They" is a plural pronoun, not singular.
This is not true. The rules of language are entirely determined by what most people will use. Most people will use a singular "they" rather than "it" to refer to people of an unspecified gender. This has dated back to the 16th century. In my discussion with Red on 3rd January 2019, he attempted to argue that language is determined by a group of people who he called "language creators" who decide which language is correct and which isn't:
Red: Just because we use them in everyday conversation and not see any problem with it doesn't mean it's grammatically correct
Me: Yes it does.
Red: How so?
Me: That's literally where grammar comes from.
Red: I mean consensus wise, and by the established rules of the language
Me: Who establishes these rules? I didn't vote for them!
Red: I don't know, language is arbitrary with no inherent meaning, But this is a language we all agreed upon using, and, like it or not, we have to abide by the rules. I'm not concerned with private chats like this, but in mainstream discourse, it can be an issue
Me: I never agreed upon using this language, and I do not have to abide by these rules. What's going to happen? Am I going to be sent to a grammar jail? Language constantly evolves, and the fact that things which were once considered grammatically incorrect are now becoming more common means that they are no longer grammatically correct. This isn't something which is voted on in a parliament. This is just a result of tiny, at first unnoticeable, changes that happen over time. That's is the reason we aren't speaking in ye Olde Englishe righte nowe. The fact is, they/them pronouns have been popularly used in a singular context. Ergo, it is grammatically correct to use them in a singular context.
Red: If you're appealing exclusively to the fact of 'that's just how it's used, that'd be a bandwagon fallacy
Me: That's literally how language works though. It's not ad populum to say "This constituency will have a Conservative MP because the majority of people voted for them".
Red: Yes but you can't just say that it's right because most people use it. Language generally evolving like this is as arbitrary as the language creators you were critiquing before. We can't just keep creating our own rules and definitions, otherwise the language would be rendered useless, especially in discourse where it's necessary. OK I really need to jack off so be right back.
Me: I never criticised your "language creators" for being arbitrary. I criticised them for being nonexistent. Besides, why would language be rendered useless by us creating our own rules and definitions, but not by an imaginary oligarchy of "language creators" creating them? This is just how language works. The fact is, words have changed over time. This doesn't render language useless, it just means that it is constantly shifting and evolving. The meanings of words don't change because a group of language creators sit in some room filled with smoke and mirrors and vote on whether to change them or not. That's ridiculous. They change because the majority of those in society change them by constantly using them in different ways to how they have been previously used. To say that there is a small group of all-sovereign people who decide how language is used is almost as ridiculous as to say that there is an all-sovereign God who dictates what is moral and how the universe functions.
Red:If language is created by our own rules and definitions then apple mouse cabinet kite hammer stage
Me: Well, that last part of your sentence completely goes against what I was saying. I was saying that language is determined by a value consensus. If most people were able to understand what "apple mouse cabinet kite hammer stage" meant, then it would be grammatically correct. Your belief that language is determined by some fabled "language creators" isn't any less ludicrous, as it would mean that overnight, your statement could become grammatically correct if they all just decided "Hey! You know what would be fun! If we changed the definition of apple to I, mouse to want, cabinet to to, kite to kill, hammer to myself and stage to now!". Who are these language creators anyway? Do you even know?
Red:No one knows who the language creators are, just like no one knows who wrote the Bible
Me: Well, firstly, we do know who wrote most of the different books of the Bible. Secondly, if nobody knows who the language creators are, what can falsify their existence?
Red:Firstly, no. Secondly, it was obviously other humans
Me: Obviously other humans who did what?
Red: Who created the language
Me: Well, if we don't know who they are, how do we know that they exist at all? What would falsify your belief that language is determined by a small group of language creators?
Red:When did I say it was a small group of people?
Me: Well, it's clearly at the very least smaller than the group of people who I believe determine language (everybody). Regardless, its size is irrelevant and you are veering off of the subject. What would falsify their existence?
Red:Why would that be necessary?
Me: Because of Popper's falsification principle. Same reason why Jebus needs to articulate what would falsify his belief that there are people other than myself, you and him actively viewing our senate thread.
Red: How is what I said unfalsifiable?
Me: I never said it was. I just asked what would falsify it. And you haven't given me an answer.
Red: Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean there isn't one
Plus, where else would the language come from?
Me: Are you trolling?
Red: I think you are
Me: Honest question "I know you are, but what am I?"
Red: A troll
Me: That's playground talk, Red. Are you saying that something could falsify your belief in language creators, but you don't know what that thing is? (I'm not going to answer your question of "where else would the language come from?" because I've already answered this).
Red: where else would the language come from?
Me: All humans who speak the language in question. I've already said this. Now answer the damn question and stop trying to change the subject.
Red: I dont know who the language creators are. Like we don't know who brimstone is. Or the writers of the Bible.
Me: That isn't an answer to the question I asked you. I did not ask you who the language creators were. Would you like me to repeat the question I asked you?
Red: then what was it?
Me: Are you saying that something could falsify your belief in language creators, but you don't know what that thing is?
Red: No?
Me: Then what could falsify your belief in language creators?
Red: Nothing
Me: Then it is unfalsifiable.
Red: Prove it
Me: Okay, you're trolling. Nice one, you got me.
Red: look i dont lke live debates im sotting on my hsand
So this debate came up today, and Red maintained his position so here I am now posting on this thread so that he can defend his position here since he prefers to debate on the forum than on discord.
I do not consider this usage acceptable and I avoid using it like that.
But you did use it like that:
If somebody wants me to call him or her "it", or call it "it" (if they like), I'm open to that.
There is already a gender neutral singular pronoun: it. Unfortunately, people find this dehumanizing and are insulted by it.
That's because the term "it" is usually used to refer to things that aren't human, or to dehumanise people.
We call babies "it", as in "what is it, a boy or a girl?", and constantly refer to them as "it"s before we know the gender.
We also ask "Who is it?" when somebody is at the door, or calling.
Those are the exception, and not the rule. For instance, you may ask "Who is it?" when somebody is at the door, but what is your next response most likely to be?:
Response A
Tom: Who is it?
Gary: It's a police officer!
Tom: Tell them that whoever they say I've murdered, I didn't murder them!
Response B
Tom: Who is it?
Gary: It's a police officer!
Tom: Tell it that whoever it says I've murdered, I didn't murder it!
Likewise, I find it problematic to say something like "that human", because it's weird.
So is calling them "it".