Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘They’ Is Madness
Ok, this is nuts. I was listening to my local NPR station this morning. (Yeah, I know.) It did a story on the Winchester Mystery House–the big creepy old house built by the widow of the heir to the famous rifle company. The reporter mentioned the theory that Sarah Winchester’s building obsessions were rooted in her deep personal losses early in life, most particularly, the loss of her only child. But in describing the death of that child, the reporter said, “they died in infancy.” My brain froze for a second. “They” died? Hadn’t the reporter just said “only” child?” Did she say “twins,” and I missed it? Then the fog lifted, this is trans-ideology creeping in.
Well, I had to look it up. Sarah Winchester’s only child, the one who died at six weeks, was a girl, Annie Pardee Winchester, named after her deceased aunt.
So what’s the deal? Why not write it up as, “Annie Winchester lived only a few weeks,” or “Sarah’s only child, Annie, died at six weeks old,” or “Sarah’s only child, a daughter, died only weeks after her birth.” Why in the world go out of your editorial way to refer to Annie Pardee Winchester as “they” when every source you have says Annie Pardee Winchester was a baby girl? Who the h*ll retcons babies? Any guesses?
My guess is that the editors at my local NPR station are so neck-deep in trans-ideology, they believe there is really no way for anyone to tell what “gender” a six-week old baby is–even though every single one of their sources says Annie Pardee Winchester was a baby girl.
This is madness.
Published in Journalism
Remember this the next time someone gaslights you asking, “Why do you care so much about pronouns?”
This corruption of language is a sure sign of corrupted thinking. And, of course, they want to force you to speak as dishonestly as them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this was deliberate choice to normalize the trans agenda, but its also something someone might just say as part of a habitual speech pattern, due to the peculiarities of the English language.
On a side note, I’ve heard fairly convincing evidence* that most of the story behind the Winchester Mansion and the widow was completely made up by the people who bought it after she died, in order to make money from tourists.
*I don’t remember the details, but I remember finding the evidence quite convincing when I heard about it.
Could be. But it’s hard to be sure: That particular corruption of English was begun in the 60’s by radical feminists who wanted to de-sex the English language.
There was a Skeptoid episode on it.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4824
If you don’t want to bother with the podcast episode (they’re short, but still…), Sarah Winchester was a philanthropist doing everything she could to keep people employed. She put lots of people to work on her house. When there was nothing left to do on the house, she made up stuff to do to her house… which is how we wind up with the Winchester Mystery House.
The only time I use “they” or “their” is if I don’t know the sex of the person . . .
Yeah, “they” was used for years like this before the “trans” insanity broke out.
This drives me nuts too. But I’m not sure whether it’s motivated by ideology or is just one of those generational changes in language usage that curmudgeons like me despise. I hear it all the time in contexts where there is absolutely no doubt about the sex of the person being talked about (like “I was talking to my girlfriend, and they said…”). It’s as if gendered pronouns are just falling out of use, the same way we long ago lost the distinction beetween plural and singular second-person pronouns. Someday linguists might consider “he” and “she” to be archaic.
Either way, I hate it, and I will never go along with it.
There is absolutely no doubt that it is ideologically based: Radical feminists agitated unceasingly for the change starting back in the sixties, smearing anyone who objected.
I still use “his or her.”
I’ve also seen it used this way in British writings in which the sex is known but may be distracting from the point, which has nothing to do with the person’s sex, and which is intended to be construed to apply to everyone.
Perhaps we need to practice targeted obtuseness.
Not much we can do about written things, but when people say ‘they’ when it is obvious that the person referred to has a mutually assured gender we should ask for clarification on these other people.
These people had it corrected into them; lets inconvenience it back out of them.
I don’t mean to be obtuse, but what do you mean by “gender”? :)
Sex
Oh. (Sorry, can’t help it.)
I’ve come to expect such pedantics here.
Edit: I was going for a play on the word ‘antics’ but it didn’t quite come off.
Yeah. The grammatical default is still male (I’m old school). But nowadays, people will use “him” or “her” even if the unknown subject is of the opposite sex.
Recently I referred to an incident concerning a woman. But I related it generally since I was applying it to everyone, and I used “he” and “him”. It read strangely because everyone would know the situation that I was talking about but since it was meant to apply to everyone I think “he” and “him” was correct. (Instead of always using “he or she” and “him or her” or “they”.)
One can use “one” to refer to one of unspecified sex.
As in “There was a knock at the door.
HeOne didn’t quit. Finallyheone turned the knob and an eye peered in”.Yeah, but one using the word “one” too much could make one sound like he’s had one too many . . .
Yeah, but it reads and sounds stilted and awkward . . .
Repeated use of “one” is a “they” in sheep’s clothing.
True, but so do the alternatives:
an eyethree eyes peered in.