New Church Policy?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The double space after a period is indeed archaic, a relic of the days of typewriters, when monospaced type made it conducive to readability. 
 

But not using the Oxford comma is still very much accepted — and even preferred by many. Prominent style guides such as the Associated Press Stylebook forbid the Oxford comma in most usages. 

The day we burn the heretics and their heretical style guides will come.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about when the antecedent is NOT indefinite? When the gender is known, even obvious? As I mentioned earlier, Nehor has declared his intent to use the singular they/them even in such cases. That strikes me as obstinacy. Do you agree with him? 

It is an easier convention. I also write a lot of third person instructions for my job. The correct method taught when I was growing up was “he or she” which was a huge pain. Some things I wrote had a note at the beginning saying we were using he/him but could mean either gender. I am in favor of using “they” as an alternative and when gender is indeterminate. I also think it should be an option to replace “he” or “she” even if gender is known but not be required. I am okay with either use.

I held this position before “choosing pronouns” was a thing. It happens to also be useful for non-binary people which….nice. “They” being inclusive of all humans also makes it more accurate and more streamlined than the old “he or she”.

[Vanguard]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is an easier convention. I also write a lot of third person instructions for my job. The correct method taught when I was growing up was “he or she” which was a huge pain. Some things I wrote had a note at the beginning saying we were using he/him but could mean either gender. I am in favor of using “they” as an alternative and when gender is indeterminate. I also think it should be an option to replace “he” or “she” even if gender is known but not be required. I am okay with either use.

I held this position before “choosing pronouns” was a thing. It happens to also be useful for non-binary people which….nice. “They” being inclusive of all humans also makes it more accurate and more streamlined than the old “he or she”.

I'm coming around to this way of thinking. Until very recently I was still stuck on using 'he' as the default so I still have a bit more terrain to cover... ; )

 

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The day we burn the heretics and their heretical style guides will come.

Count me in. 😂

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Like not using the Oxford comma and double space after periods. Alas, vestiges of these archaic practices still persist.

[jkwilliams]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Writing is almost always a two-point communication process involving a receiver as well as a sender. If using a singular they/them is fraught with problems such as awkward construction and confusion that might be distracting to a reader, isn’t it worth  the effort to avoid it when you reasonably and easily can? 

As I said, I can’t think of too many situations where it would be confusing or distracting, to use your words. But, sure, if I find myself in such a context, I’d use a gendered pronoun. But I can see Nehor’s point that you could easily get by using they/their. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

By their name.

and if you don't know their name?

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If using a singular they/them is fraught with problems such as awkward construction and confusion that might be distracting to a reader,

Since it isn’t, no worries!

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Since it isn’t, no worries!

Bingo. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

and if you don't know their name?

Are you likely to know a preferred pronoun if you don’t know their name?

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

and if you don't know their name?

I think the use of “their” in the post is a hint. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I'm coming around to this way of thinking. Until very recently I was still stuck on using 'he' as the default so I still have a bit more terrain to cover... ; )

 

These days people may assume that you are using “he” because you know the gender. Plus how do you differentiate between instances of when you know the gender is male and when you don’t?  “They” makes it explicit that you need to look at context for gender and if there is no context, it is likely unknown or not necessary to know.

And if one is truly concerned about others’ perceptions of what one writes, then one might want to think about how many will be offended by use of “they” versus how many men might be annoyed at being called “she” and how many women by “he”.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Calm

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you likely to know a preferred pronoun if you don’t know their name?

Really this was an experiment.  You referred to them as their, a non gender pronoun because you didn't know what sex the person I was referring to.  So it is something that we are already familiar with doing when we don't know a persons sex.

I admit it is difficult at first.  But if you just don't assume their gender, then it actually is quite easy to address them that way.  A couple of years ago, I took a cooking class where one of the teachers was non-binary.  I got confused and thought I was going to mess up how they preferred to be addressed.  Turns out, it wasn't difficult at all.  You just have to be willing to address them they way they prefer.  For some, that is the biggest problem.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Here’s a professional blog post that makes the case that the passive voice is not the egregious offense some make it out to be. (Or, to put it another way, it is not the egregious offense it is sometimes made out to be. 😉 )

 

https://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/passive-voice-is-not-to-be-shunned

In your post above, you illustrated why I avoid passive voice: your reworking of the sentence detached the subject “they” from the action “respond,” making it ambiguous who is doing what. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

In your post above, you illustrated why I avoid passive voice: your reworking of the sentence detached the subject “they” from the action “respond,” making it ambiguous who is doing what. 

No, it’s quite clear either way. Whether the active or passive voice is used, it’s clear that “they” (whomever that is intended to refer to) are exerting the action. But in neither case is it well defined who the actor(s) are, whether “they” or “some” or “somebody.”

Edited April 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In your post above, you illustrated why I avoid passive voice: your reworking of the sentence detached the subject “they” from the action “respond,” making it ambiguous who is doing what. 

German uses the passive voice more than English. I used to think English speakers use passive voice more when they are trying to hide or avoid discussion of who did the action ("Mistakes were made"), but as I've collected examples of "acceptable" English examples, it seems like in English it's more "palatable" if the emphasis is on the action and not on the one doing the action. 

e.g. "Dad was arrested on his way home from work." Since it's the Dad's arrest that is the focus, it doesn't make sense to focus on "the police" (and it goes without saying that it was the police). If the focus is on the police making yet another arrest, then the active voice makes sense. It really depends on what one is emphasizing.

When someone is assiduously avoiding naming the actors ("Mistakes were made"), it can be almost comical because that is the obvious reason for choosing the passive voice. 

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

But if you just don't assume their gender, then it actually is quite easy to address them that way.

Until it isn't and you get in trouble

https://retractionwatch.com/2017/07/24/following-uproar-surgery-journal-retracts-paper-male-pronouns/

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

German uses the passive voice more than English. I used to think English speakers use passive voice more when they are trying to hide or avoid discussion of who did the action ("Mistakes were made"), but as I've collected examples of "acceptable" English examples, it seems like in English it's more "palatable" if the emphasis is on the action and not on the one doing the action. 

e.g. "Dad was arrested on his way home from work." Since it's the Dad's arrest that is the focus, it doesn't make sense to focus on "the police" (and it goes without saying that it was the police). If the focus is on the police making yet another arrest, then the active voice makes sense. It really depends on what one is emphasizing.

When someone is assiduously avoiding naming the actors ("Mistakes were made"), it can be almost comical because that is the obvious reason for choosing the passive voice. 

If you don’t even know the identity of the individual, much less that person’s gender, perhaps the passive voice is the most appropriate choice. Why insist on putting the emphasis on someone you can’t identify? 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you don’t even know the identity of the individual, much less that person’s gender, perhaps the passive voice is the most appropriate choice. Why insist on putting the emphasis on someone you can’t identify? 

Because “they” is simpler and less confusing than the passive voice. 

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is an easier convention. I also write a lot of third person instructions for my job. The correct method taught when I was growing up was “he or she” which was a huge pain. Some things I wrote had a note at the beginning saying we were using he/him but could mean either gender. I am in favor of using “they” as an alternative and when gender is indeterminate. I also think it should be an option to replace “he” or “she” even if gender is known but not be required. I am okay with either use.

I held this position before “choosing pronouns” was a thing. It happens to also be useful for non-binary people which….nice. “They” being inclusive of all humans also makes it more accurate and more streamlined than the old “he or she”.

Pretty much what I’ve been trying to say, but you said it better. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Because “they” is simpler and less confusing than the passive voice. 

It’s not less confusing, especially when you are using a plural pronoun to denote a single person or entity. 

It would be better to use the English pronoun “one.” At least it’s not numerically confusing. 
 

At least we don’t have the situation that’s in the Swedish language. The pronoun in that language for an indeterminate gender is man. And yes, it does literally mean man, though when used as a pronoun it could mean either gender. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not less confusing, especially when you are using a plural pronoun to denote a single person or entity. 

You seem to be in the minority around here. No worries. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Pretty much what I’ve been trying to say, but you said it better. 

But scarcely more persuasively. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

But scarcely more persuasively. 

I doubt anything either of us could say would persuade you.