Merriam-Webster Adds "Nonbinary" Definition Of 'They'
This is stupid, obviously.
I'm not even that opposed to the singular 'they'--but there's no such thing as a "nonbinary" person. A distribution can be "non-binary," I suppose...which would mean, basically: non-bimodal. But not a single person. Someone who actually is neither male nor female is intersexed. There need be--and, in fact, should be--no word for someone who "identifies" as neither--which means: merely says they are. The left, being relativist at its core, doesn't quite reject the idea that saying makes things so. To the left, "identifying" as x merely means: saying you're x. But, since thinking or saying you're an x doesn't make you an x, this is just dumb. Look, you can say that your a rabbit or an asteroid if you want to. That's up to you. It makes you delusional or a liar or some combination of the two...but that's generally your business. Though it certainly doesn't make you an actual rabbit or an actual asteroid.
I'm not even that opposed to the singular 'they'--but there's no such thing as a "nonbinary" person. A distribution can be "non-binary," I suppose...which would mean, basically: non-bimodal. But not a single person. Someone who actually is neither male nor female is intersexed. There need be--and, in fact, should be--no word for someone who "identifies" as neither--which means: merely says they are. The left, being relativist at its core, doesn't quite reject the idea that saying makes things so. To the left, "identifying" as x merely means: saying you're x. But, since thinking or saying you're an x doesn't make you an x, this is just dumb. Look, you can say that your a rabbit or an asteroid if you want to. That's up to you. It makes you delusional or a liar or some combination of the two...but that's generally your business. Though it certainly doesn't make you an actual rabbit or an actual asteroid.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home