#or dehumanized with it/its

[andersunmenschlich]

An Utterly Unsurprising Confession

I am a pedant.

This is partly because I'm autistic, and partly because I was raised and educated by an English teacher. To make matters worse, I was reading the Bible and Shakespeare and so on before I hit double digits. All of this gave me some rather outdated ideas about how English ought to be used.

My entry into the wider world of the internet gave me a terrible grammatical shock. Not only did I have trouble understanding other people, they had trouble understanding me!

I spend a fair amount of time searching Google to learn how to use English the way modern people do.

One night, in the course of this googling, I ran across a Tumblr post.

Now, I don't know who @how-to-write-horror is. They haven't provided any pronouns in their blog header (neither have I; this isn't an uncommon practice), so I'll be referring to them neutrally until I learn their actual pronouns… which I am assuming are most definitely not they/them. "He or she" is so clunky, however, that I refuse to use it.

I could refer to them as it, but that seems rather dehumanizing, don't you think? When I'm fairly certain, based on their opinions about pronouns, that they're either a he or a she?

And yes, I did visit their linked website—it doesn't give their pronouns either.

So "they" it is. Onward!

First they proclaim that "they" is NOT a singular pronoun, and appeal (as proof) to the fact that "they is not singular" sounds absolutely horrific grammatically. They're right, it does.

"You is not singular" sounds equally bad.

This part of their article could easily be rewritten to condemn the singular you, and because that amuses me, I'm going to do it.

The Pronoun "You" is Always Plural.

If "you" were truly singular, it would be interchangeable with the singular pronouns "he/she/it." I can easily prove that to be false. For example:

Peggy is wearing a sweater because she is cold. Let's substitute "she" with "you" to prove that "you" works in this sentence.

Peggy is wearing a sweater because you is cold. "You" and "is" don't work well together. The verb "are" is traditionally used with "you," so let's try something else.

Peggy is wearing a sweater because you are cold. Nope, it still doesn't work. The verbs "is" and "are" don't work together in this sentence. The verb "is" is singular and "are" is plural, so if they're both referring to the same noun, they have to agree with each other.

Peggy are wearing a sweater because you are cold. How many Peggys are there, and how many can wear the same sweater at the same time? Items of clothing are usually designed for single-person use.

Peggy is one person, not a crowd of people. In order for "you" to correctly—in a grammatical sense—refer to a single person named Peggy, the entire English language would have to be restructured.

Strangely, different pronouns work different ways. "You are wearing a sweater because you are cold" works just fine despite the grammatically plural yous and ares and the singular sweater. So does "they are wearing a sweater because they are cold." Baffling!

In their next section, How To Write Horror insists that "they" has not been used as a singular pronoun since the Middle Ages.

To summarize their preliminary arguments:

・In the Middle Ages, people spoke Middle English, not English as we know it today. Even Shakespeare didn't speak modern English, he spoke Early Modern English. The grammar rules of English have changed hugely since the Middle Ages, and so it's patently ridiculous to appeal to tradition in this area: we can't go backwards grammatically (why, I'm not sure).

・Middle English's grammatical rules were inconsistent and depended on location, so you can't appeal to them (a baffling non sequitur: if a rule was the rule at one time, in one place, of course you can point at it and say "see, this was the rule there and then"—and if you like, of course you can go on to say "let's resurrect this one and use it again here and now").

・Most of those old time English speakers were illiterate, which reduced them to using more casual, less grammatically correct English. We modern folk can do better. (Holy superiority complex, Batman. The shortest rebuttal possible: not everyone thinks grammatical excellence is the point of language. Helpful to the point, yes—but not the point itself.)

This, I realized when I finished reading, was a set-up for the astounding move they made at the end of the article.

Next they accidentally explain that while "every person in the room has his own car" is grammatically correct, that does not make "his" a singular pronoun. Since "his" is referring to both singular individuals as well as a group of people, it's plural.

…Or could it be that a sentence which refers to both a plurality (every) and a singularity (person) is correct with either singular or plural pronouns? Hmm.

How To Write Horror's next point involves actual historical examples.

"And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame, they wol come up and offre in Goddes name, And I assoille him." —Geoffrey Chaucer, Canterbury Tales, The Pardoners Tale

Translated to modern English, that's: "And whoever finds themselves guilty of such things, they will come up and offer in God's name, and I will absolve them."

Of course, we could also translate it, "And whoever finds himself guilty of such things, he will come up and offer in God's name, and I will absolve him." That's not really Modern English, though—it uses the neutral "he," which pretty much nobody is used to seeing anymore. Even men today might find themselves wondering, "What about the women?"

(Thus far it's pretty much only enbies who notice their own exclusion, but I gather that's changing.)

What is How To Write Horror's point here? Well, they argue that the original "they" was probably a mistake… and even if it wasn't, since "whoso" is both singular and plural, and the singular "him" is actually a hypothetical singular and therefore plural, the "they" in this sentence refers to a plurality rather than a singularity and is itself plural, Q.E.D.

This doesn't actually change the modern usage of the singular they.

None of their arguments do, if you were waiting for that. .

"Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?"

"The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."

"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources."

"This is my friend, Jay. I met them at work."

All of these examples from Wikipedia can be rewritten to avoid the singular they. But why should they be? They're not confusing, and not inaccurate by the grammatical rules of modern English in 2024.

(I personally might rewrite 3. I think "but no journalist should be forced to reveal their sources" more accurately expresses the feeling of the sentence—and it's still a perfectly good example of the singular they. You can swap their for his, her, or its without grammatical issue. This is a slightly different subject to the one at hand, though.)

"This is my friend, Jay. I met Jay at work."

Why on earth would you go out of your way to refer to a person like that when there's a perfectly serviceable gender-neutral pronoun available for them and, presumably, they've told you that they like it when you use it for them?

Are you an asshole? That's the only reason to refuse to call a person what they want to be called that I can think of.

Catch me refusing to call Ted "Ted" because his legal name is Theodore and what he likes to be called is technically incorrect. Pedantry forbid I should taint my speech just to make another person feel respected.

My speech isn't even tainted! I'm playing by discarded rules! .

How To Write Horror lives up to their name in the next section by revealing that they see nonbinary people as egotists (or possibly egoists) who insist on the pronouns that feel right for them because they think they're specialer than everyone else on the planet.

Special People Use Special Words to Illustrate Their Special-ness.

See? I wasn't exaggerating. They list people (and characters) who use/d plural pronouns: Yahweh Elohim, Queen Victoria, anyone of high social status back in the days of Shakespeare.

They mention that "you" used to be solely plural, somehow miss the fact that grammatically it still is, and carry on to argue that people who use they/them pronouns should also employ the Royal We in order to remain grammatically consistent. Given that some people undoubtedly call How To Write Horror "you," perhaps How To should also use the royal we. If you, an individual, are referred to with a plural pronoun, then, grammatically….

Or perhaps they'll start insisting nobody point at them and say "you" anymore. For the sake of the English language.

Next they take a 1759 quote from the Earl of Chesterfield:

"You will say perhaps, one cannot change one's nature; and that if a person is born of a very sensible, gloomy temper, and apt to see things in the worst light, they cannot help it, nor new-make themselves."

They argue that the "a person" in this sentence is a hypothetical person, and therefore actually more than one person.

Let me rewrite the quote and their argument about it.

"He will say perhaps, one cannot change one's nature; and that if a person is born of a very sensible, gloomy temper, and apt to see things in the worst light, you cannot help it, nor new-make yourself."

"You" and "yourself" are used hypothetically in this sentence, making them plural.

The Earl of Chesterfield moved from using directly singular words, "he will" and "one cannot change," to the hypothetical phrase "if a person." "A person" is singular, but it's a hypothetical singular because the determining article "a" is non-specific; "a person" means one person among many and is, therefore, plural.

Using the conditional word "if" supports hypothetical use. Chesterfield is including other people with the same temperament as his son under those who are unable to "new-make yourself." If "you" were a truly singular personal pronoun in this example, Chesterfield could've said something like this about his son:

My son, Philip, you is such a gloomy gus.

The fact that certain pronouns are grammatically plural and so cannot be used with singular grammar even when being used singularly seems to have escaped How To Write Horror.

In fact they declared that "you" was a directly singular word, despite its inescapably plural grammar!

They also decided to use a sentence that sounds weird with a pronoun in it at all. "My son, Philip, he is such a gloomy gus"? Who says that? "My son, Philip, is such a gloomy gus." There you go. Much better. If you really want the pronoun in there, all right—let's shove it in. But keep it grammatical!

Talking about Philip: ・"Oh, Philip, my kid. Yeah, they're such a gloomy gus."

Talking to Philip: ・ "Oh, Philip, my child. You are such a gloomy gus."

Less unnatural and strained uses of the singular they and the singular you, How To Write Horror can look for throughout this post (assuming they take the time to read it). I'm sure they'll find a few!

Next, How To Write Horror hedges their bets with a claim that this letter was written informally, much as emails are written today, and so can't possibly be used to show how people were using the word "they" in the past anyway, even if Chesterfield was using it singularly. Bit of a contradiction, that. Of course it shows how people were using the word "they" in the past. It's a record of past use of the word "they."

I think their assumption is that only the strict grammatical rules of the time apply, where "strict grammatical rules" means "the grammatical rules I personally think count as valid."

Otherwise why would HTWH go out of their way to disparage the grammatical rules of Middle English? .

They bring up Thackeray's "A person can't help their birth" to claim once again that "a person" is plural (and so, logically, if you write "a person can't help his birth" that makes "his" a plural pronoun too), and move on to try and explain away Shakespeare:

"There's not a man I meet but doth salute me As if I were their well-acquainted friend." —William Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors (1594)

A modern English speaker would translate this as, "Everyone I meet greets me like I'm their best friend."

A couple decades ago I might have translated it "there's not a man (meaning a human) I meet who doesn't salute me as if I were his (gender-neutral) well-acquainted friend." What do you suppose How To Write Horror thinks this does to the pronoun "his"?

To substitute:

"There's not a man…" is a hypothetical reference, which is further supported by the hypothetical phrase "if I were." Shakespeare is not saying one man saluted; he's saying that many men saluted individually. One man among many men in plural, making "his" plural.

If Shakespeare were calling out one man then why didn't he say "that man saluted me"? Why would he be vague when talking about a specific person?

Well, they must be right. That's all so very convincing. This must prove that "he" and "him" and "his" are all plural.

Certainly it can't be the case that singular pronouns work just as well, grammatically, in a sentence like this. No. That would be ridiculous, and make this attempt at proving "their" can't be singular a complete waste of time. Surely How To Write Horror wouldn't do that. So "he" must be a plural pronoun!

How odd that it's written with singular grammar.

But there—"you" is written with plural grammar, and yet How To Write Horror insists that this doesn't make it plural. I guess that just happens sometimes.

Pardon the heavy sarcasm: I hope no one's being crushed under it!

They repeat the same argument in a different form (the "he" in each one in his craft is wise is plural, apparently), stumble upon an actual plural they (a group of sacrificial animals in the KJV)… and then, finally, they wrap the whole thing up with the most thorough rejection of possible future evidence that I've seen outside Christian apologia:

If anyone finds a historical example of the singular they which How To Write Horror can't explain away, it's because that historical writer was breaking the rules of English.

Fin.

[ufolvr]

Robot characters who are given names like SL-308-62 but instead of their human friend going Well let's call you Sally for short, they instead ask the other if they Like their current name.

"Do you like your serial number?" they ask. "Yes, quite. It reminds me of who I am" the robot replies. "I have heard others like me go by different names after some time, and maybe one day I'll choose one for myself, too. But right now that is my full name, yes" they continue.

Because it's not your decision to make whether or not the robot will receive a new name. It should be theirs only. What's the difference? One is more complex and the other is simplified. They were both given by strangers instead of themselves.

"62 will do," they conclude. "It's my model number - there will be no other 62 after me."

[medicalunprofessional]

sorry guys they finally showed me peak fiction . Its called “phantom of the paradise”

[angelsaxis]

I can understand not wanting to get pregnant or have kids but y'all do not need to take that out on pregnant people themselves

[pictureday2005]

DONT REPOST THIS thanks

[tiredrobin]

leonide listening to murderbot talk to ART (who is, at least by her assumption, a human captain or something) and MB being like "fuck you" vehemently and ART being like "you haven't spoken to me like that in weeks. i've missed it" ... like this woman is listening to a robot (well, construct, one that presumably isnt a rogue because it's still protecting humans) swear at a presumed human, and yet no one else—NO ONE ELSE AT ALL—is acting like this is odd. it's odd!!! from her perspective, it's fucking weird!!!! and then later she's like "is that really a secunit?" because people are being kind to it, iris repaired its environmental suit, and it's talking back and snapping at people and behaving so unlike a secunit one can't help but think it sounds like a person. she's already in an extremely distressing situation, and her life is in the hands of crazy people who treat their bot-human construct like it's just some other guy. i do not feel any genuine sympathy for her, but just imagine what that must feel like. i'd be silently losing my mind.

[spaceistheplaceart]

found an old ekurei comic rotting in my files, decided to finish it. upon my rewatch of mp100 i kept noticing how many times dimple was referred to as a pet- but he's not ! ! ! he's a friend :)

[redrobin-detective]

Rewatching the Umbrella Academy has me thinking once more about Five being just Five. All the others have normal civilian names, chosen by Grace supposedly, except for him. That leaves two slightly hilarious options.

Five was asked about a name prior to hopping forward in time and was like 'nah I like being a number' and blinked away or the more plausible option that

The names were chosen after Five left

Which leads me to this idea that each of the Umbrellas had given thought over the years to a name for their lost, wayward brother.

Luthor: Guy. Am I the only one seeing Luthor crying because Five had been the Boy within their team and then never got to grow up but if he did he'd be a Guy. It feels like him to equate Five's alias to his name.

Diego: Diego would come up with nerdy, annoying names for a nerdy, annoying brother. He'd think to himself that Albert would fit him and Diego would call him Albrat when he was being a prick. If he were still around that is.

Allison: Allison would be flipping through the baby book when pregnant with Claire looking for names with meanings like Lost or Traveler or Beloved Son coming up with names like Wendell or Calian.

Klaus: Klaus would absolutely refuse to mentally settle on a name. He's gone through a million of them from Mario to Klaus Jr to Off Brand Peanut Butter Cup to Jeff. It's easier to play around with different names than to think about how Five isn't around to choose.

Ben: He seems like the kind of dude who never really formed any other names for Five. Like Five is Five? He listened to Klaus's ideas from silly to serious and Ben was never able to take them seriously.

Viktor: He'd given it some thought during childhood but never really thought about it seriously until Five returned. Though unmentioned, some of the ideas that Viktor had tosses around - before and after Five's return - were some suggestions Five would have approved of.

[sukutrauma]

i've never drawn yuta before! hope i did him justice :3

[nevermeyers]

There's absolutely no way people are now saying that all the gege-hate train is just an internal joke of the fandom. There's no way you're this out of touch with what has been happening.

I've been in the fandom since 2020 and it doesn't take a lot of smarts to see there's been a change in tone in the way some people say that in the last year. Since this new arc of history began, destructive criticism, massive hate and threats have overflowed into hundreds of profiles. It's no longer "oh, I hate Gege akutami" now and for a while now it's "I hate Gege akutami - his manga is horrible I'm gonna drop it (they never do) - he doesn't deserve popularity - he doesn't know how to write - he pretends to have an illness."

And yet, it's not normal to make jokes about wanting to kill someone, hon. Go check yourself if you find that funny, you're no better than let's-joke-about-sensitive-issues reddit incels

[pyrepostings]

whumper who gets their pet whumpee a chew toy to dehumanize them, mildly baffled to find whumpee actually using it. It says they're ""stimming"".

Whatever, as long as it appreciates all the gifts whumper gives them.

[general-yasur]

Loving the themes of personhood going on in dragons rising …

I really like how different “species” or groups of people have ignorant views on others (like sora assuming dragons can’t do spinjitzu) , it feels really realistic considering you have 16 worlds filled with different peoples just being smashed together

This happened in s1 too when lloyd arin and sora assumed the rock people were the antagonists

[confused-gay-alien]

"nooo you can't use it/its pronouns!! i wont use those for you, they're dehumanizing!!" bold of you to assume im human

[deoidesign]

I've been told my comic feels like it was written by AI.

I suppose I'm not trying to be groundbreaking. I'm not interested in pioneering genres. I'm not writing for the purpose of literary analysis.

But written by AI...?

I'm already someone who has my humanity questioned. My identity erased. My existence disrespected. It could be worse. Anything could be worse.

But AI?

I spend weeks writing single scenes, toiling over the implications of single lines. I have goals. My writing has intent.

If you cared to read deeper, perhaps you'd see the themes. Maybe then you'd see the value. If you tried to analyze it maybe you'd see something there.

Maybe you'd see me.

Someone told me my comic seemed like it was written by AI.

And my humanity was denied one step further in that my voice was not seen in the work I've poured years of my life into.

[fairycosmos]

i can't deal with how people react to body hair and fat and scars and asymmetry on women. it is like a toddler tantrum every time someone whines about it like. you are talking about human beings do you know what that they are and what that means

[astro-nautics]

reading Sword of Destiny & i have feelings about that one confrontation between istredd and geralt. so i ended up doodling a little gerlion comic to give the witcher some comfort after that whole ordeal

bonus doodle under the cut!