Please keep it civil.

  • Swimming_Monitor@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    No need to call anybody a quack. I’m just trying to understand your controversial opinion.

    Social categorization is incredibly vague, so it’s still not clear to me what you feel should be abolished.

    • Shit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think he is trying to say everyone should become a they/them and he wants to abolish he/she genders?

        • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In an extremely blunt way, it’s correct. It obviously extends beyond grammar, and I have an entirely different stance on how 3rd person pronouns should be handled in English that described, but the premise is solid. Take where you would typically use gender, and, like, don’t. Obviously you would still have biological sex for things like medical records, but it wouldn’t be tied to who you are as a person, it would just be a letter on a paper somewhere.

      • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Responding here since I didn’t know how to ping you in the other comment, in a sort of blunt way, you’re correct. Everyone would simply just be, not categorized into gender and the associated social expectations that come with it