Huffington Post ran an article today which began with an explanation of an aspect of Ms. Lovato's life that was unrelated to the subject matter of the article. The writer considered it a threshold issue, because without a substantial explanation the rest of the article would not make any sense.
The writer briefly described meeting Demi Lovato for the first time, including this tidbit, “. . . a 19-year-old Demi Lovato, who recently came out as non-binary and uses they/ them pronouns . . .”
This was soon followed by sentences like this one:
“. . . I watched with interest as talk show host after talk show host documented their heroin-induced strokes and heart attack, along with their struggles with depression . . .”
That sentence has a clear meaning in English. At least it used to. Those poor talk-show hosts! Oh, wait.
The writer went on, “[l]eave that poor child alone,” I [she] thought, “let them find their way in peace.”
My first reaction was to suggest that we simply abjure the use of pronouns with such a person. Just say, “let Demi Lovato find Demi Lovato's way in peace.” I quickly realized that this would be certain to further infuriate people like Demi Lovato. Claiming new uses for plural pronouns seems to be designed to infuriate people in the first place, and the people who engage in it seem to be infuriated about unrelated matters already. That's enough infuriation for one set of plural pronouns, which after all have never done anything but assist us in the past.
I realize that there is already a proper way to use plural pronouns that is quantity non-specific. Consider the following dialog:
A: I know somebody who can do some really fancy card tricks.
B: Yeah, well never play cards with them. At least never let them deal.
B's advice is not limited to the individual in A's statement. Never play cards with anyone who can do card tricks! And as God is my witness, if you let them deal, you will regret it. When the identity or the number of persons under discussion becomes uncertain, or unimportant, “they or them or their” are perfectly acceptable. They neither add to, nor clarify, the uncertainty, and that is fine.
Another way to look at it is to realize that English already has perfectly good neuter pronouns. Why not use “it?”
Go with, “let it find its way in peace.” I expect this would also be infuriating on a number of levels. “Let Demi Lovato find Demi Lovato's way in peace” is more polite.
Please note that none of this makes me transphobic or homophobic. Objecting to the existence of trans people or homosexuals is not an option. That would be like objecting to the existence of ice-hockey. Even being censorious about other people's sexual preferences or practices is really a non-starter. Who asked you? None of it bothers me anyway. You and I both, no doubt about it, have characteristics that some people might find odd, or objectionable. But if I maintain a lifelong obsession with Godzilla movies, that's nobody's business but my own. My gay, Godzilla hating friends are more mainstream than I am.
My only point is this: we have a wonderful language here, our own supremely useful English language. Usage changes over time, I get that, but such alterations should be kept to a minimum. It is also important to note that those changes should arise naturally out of the daily speech of the population speaking that language. For example, when I was a boy, “presently,” had only one meaning: about to happen. “He will arrive presently” meant, any minute now. That meaning has changed over time to include: happening right now. “He is presently entering the house.” This is reflected in dictionaries. People were using presently in a way that was wrong, but over the decades that vernacular misuse of the word made it correct.
It is a mischief that sows confusion to effect these changes in usage and meaning by committee, or in academic settings, or for reasons that are revolutionary or political.
No comments:
Post a Comment