[0ct4via]

Really glad your original post has been flagged, it was incredibly toxic. Becoming so irritated that you "quit reading after a couple of paragraphs" suggests you either struggle to keep up when there isn't a defined he/she pronoun, or that you take some issue with they/them pronouns specifically.

Modern readers are taught from childhood that gender isn't binary, and that singular 'they' is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to someone, and has the historical precedent to back it up.

It's confusing you as a reader, but the arbitrary claim that it confuses "the reader" is a baseless and inaccurate one. It's 2022 D.C., contemporary usage of singular 'they' isn't rare or unheard of in any way, and its frequent usage without complaint -- except from certain groups who take umbrage with non-cisgender peoples' existence, of course.

Surely a fellow as learned as yourself should be able to grasp the concept of singular they? -- it's been around for centuries... The fact that you're demanding a writer invents and starts using a new gender-neutral pronoun is ridiculous.

Firstly, singular 'they' is perfectly suited to this purpose, and has been used historically without an issue. Secondly, if you can't grasp the concept of singular they, you're clearly not going to be any less antagonistic about a newly-created alternative. Finally, your use of "Ms." seems to conflate pronouns and titles -- FYI, the gender-neutral title "Mx." has been adopted for many years, but (a) isn't used by every non-binary or gender-non-conforming person, and (b) is a title, not a pronoun -- so cannot be used interchangeably as such.

Since the author of the article uses they/them pronouns, your claimed solution of "he or she" wouldn't apply. At all.

Perhaps some reading could go some way to alleviating your irritation?

"A Brief History of Singular 'they'" https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177

Writeup by the Oxford English Dictionary: https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...

If you'd like to read a bit more about its usage for both non-binary people, and to refer to people of unknown or unspecified gender -- as well as style guides -- there's always the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

It's quite telling that you complain of people "...demanding that the rest of us go along with their throwing sand in the gears of the reading process" when (a) singular they isn't new, and has been widely adopted for these purposes -- in this case to refer to the non-binary author of the piece, and (b) you're effectively demanding people create a new singular pronoun because you refuse to adapt to a usage you personally disagree with -- regardless of it being grammatically and historically correct.

There are much bigger things to worry about than getting yourself worked up over someone's choice of pronoun, and your apparent refusal to respect that.

Alon Levy (the author)'s work is rather good. It's a shame you abandoned reading their article because of your own bigoted and blinkered views about language.

[dctoedt]

> Modern readers are taught from childhood that gender isn't binary

Is that a fact? Repeating another comment I made on this thread: If we take "gender" as meaning "biological sex," then it IS binary;* I can no more declare, "I have no gender" than "I have no eye color" or "I can fly by willing myself to defy gravity."

* Modulo those exceedingly-rare people who are born hermaphrodites

> Finally, your use of "Ms." seems to conflate pronouns and titles

Um, no — in my education, I learned about the use of analogies, comparisons, and precedents to illustrate a point. Here, the precedent is the coinage of a new title; there's no reason similar coinage shouldn't happen for a gender-neutral singular pronoun (which I'd be fine with using, BTW).

> you're effectively demanding people create a new singular pronoun because you refuse to adapt to a usage you personally disagree with -- regardless of it being grammatically and historically correct.

I'm only partly surprised that — in a forum where so many people complain about subpar software UIs, hard-to-read code, and the like — there are those who think it's perfectly fine to demand that the rest of us accede to "nonbinary" people's confusing language preferences for written communication.

[0ct4via]

>"If we take "gender" as meaning "biological sex,""

-- but "we" don't, because they are two entirely different words with entirely different meanings. Gender is a social construct. Your supposed arguments are fallacies which fail to even get off the ground.

There is no need to create a new singular gender-neutral pronoun to appease your bitter, bigoted self, when a perfectly adequate one exists, and has both historical and contemporary use. Your refusal to acknowledge or accept history, new or old, does not invalidate grammatically correct usage that you personally disagree with.

Love how you're using scare quotes again -- do you deny those identities existing? -- or, despite the empirical evidence, and the majority of the world having no issue with it, are you just set on being hateful bigoted, and exclusionary?

The only one "confused" by singular 'they' in this context is you, old boy -- everyone else is managing to read the article without getting their proverbial panties in a bunch... so why aren't you?

Nobody "demanded" anything. It's a matter of education, and a matter of respect.

1. You refuse to acknowledge history or even the OED, the principal historical dictionary of the English language.

2. You refuse to educate yourself when your ignorance and bigotry is challenged.

3. You refuse to offer the article's author (or anyone like them) the simple common courtesy and basic respect of acknowledging and respecting their pronouns.

These are simple acts of learning and courtesy, taken by intelligent and reasonable, polite people. The fact that you make baseless accusatory claims of "demanding" when none have been made, just show further that you're engaging in ad hominems and fallacies out of bigotry and hatred, rather than any reasoned point of logic or fact.

Keep cleaning it's "confusing" all you want, but non-binary and gender non-conforming people existed long before you, outnumber those with such blinkered, exclusionary views, and will outlive you. Oh, and that goes for the existence and usage of singular 'they' too ;)

[dctoedt]

If you have to keep chanting "ignorant" and "bigoted" and "respect" and "courtesy," you're spotlighting the substantive emptiness of your arguments.

Bye.

[0ct4via]

Your immaturity really is quite astounding, Sir. I'm neither "chanting" anything, nor making empty arguments. The fact that you refuse to accept empirical evidence or history isn't my fault, that's your own blinkered view and hatred -- and if you don't like being accused of ignorance and bigotry, perhaps you could try being less ignorant and bigoted.

As for respect, the fact that you're seemingly triggered by the mere concept of offering it to people, shows how little your puerile and vitriolic take matters.

Deflection and fake outrage are the bastions of angry conservatives clutching at the final straws -- then running away while deliberately avoiding the empirical facts of the matter, that you find personally inconvenient.