Batshittery from the Guardian

[quote lochmaree]@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus so is it you'd say "she went to the shop, but their hair is blonde"? like she/her but instead of her you say they? i can't quite get my head around it and would be afraid of the potential repercussions of misgendering someone but this seems unfair![/quote]
I think it's more like, e.g., Peter gave it to them and then she passed it to X

It used to mean that someone would be OK with the stated sex singular pronoun or the plural.

Then it more meant that someone chose to move between the two and would tell you (depending on the circumstances).

However, I've seen enough of the usage I wrote above to think this is taking hold. I do not pretend it makes sense which is why I worry for language teachers.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus so is it you'd say "she went to the shop, but their hair is blonde"? like she/her but instead of her you say they? i can't quite get my head around it and would be afraid of the potential repercussions of misgendering someone but this seems unfair!

I feel for any foreign language exam markers who are marking essays and have outmoded ways of thinking when it comes to concordance of pronouns and verbs.

what are she/they pronouns? surely it is one or the other?

How many 16yo would write to guardian? I mean. Chance is like 1 in thousands surely.

Plus letter writer is using internet for info advice etc so I mean. They'd just ask online. What 16yo wouldn't?

So yeah it's pretty odd.

I've not taken the piss though and wouldn't because could be true/ just feels mean to me really.

Is it?

I mean it reads pretty weird to me.

I'm a total naive person in many ways always been that way. I take everything at face value.

So u read this took at face value you'll see I described letter writer as poor sod.

Reading again after seeing posts the letter is strangely constructed and so... I have heard these things are quite often concocted by the columnist. I mean I don't know.

My main issue is with the guardian linking to a Reddit thread for info. That's just really shit.

In the advice it says don't live whole life online. But the paper still decides to direct readers to Reddit?

I mean what the fuck is that about?

And why does everyone else have to be informed and educated about your “identity”? I would have died of embarrassment at the thought of explaining who I felt like having sex with, and how often or whatever or not at all, to my parents 🤦‍♀️ It’s so bloody self involved and self righteous, all of it.

Yeah, me too, I just would not have been interested in putting this out there for anyone, it would have been mortifying. Not because it was shameful but because who need to know this stuff? I didn't want to know about my parents sexual feelings, either!

This is something that always strikes me about this generation. Their sense of privacy is really different. Undeveloped, almost.

It’s not the Guardian though, it’s a child writing to an advice column who you’re making fun of.

I'm really cheered by the idea that it might well be a parody, as I came away from reading it in the Grauniad earlier feeling exhausted by the fuckwittery of it all.

Reading the phrase "educate yourself/themselves" really sets my teeth on edge. It is the go-to cliche for gen Z/+ and is usually preceded or followed by a load of narcissitic twattery.

When I was 16 I was desperate to grow up, get to university, see the world, meet people, have new experiences, learn things. I was desperate to be let out of the cage of being a child and being stuck at home! The thought of being so unbelievably introspective that all I could think of was myself myself myself would have been pretty foreign at that age. I reckon it would have been to most of my cohort too (90s).

I was also completely aware I was bisexual, possibly lesbian; but was very unconcerned about it. It wasn’t something I particularly wanted to discuss with my parents, or at school / with friends in my very provincial town; but I was looking forward to getting out of there, and having interesting experiences to find out more about myself and other people.

I think that was the view shared by most of my friends and fellow teenagers - impatience to get out into the world and start discovering new things, including yourself. Not sitting there agonising over what label fitted and then wanting to tell the world all about it endlessly! As if you can know much about yourself at 16!

And why does everyone else have to be informed and educated about your “identity”? I would have died of embarrassment at the thought of explaining who I felt like having sex with, and how often or whatever or not at all, to my parents 🤦‍♀️ It’s so bloody self involved and self righteous, all of it.

That letter is a piss take. Surely.

I mean obv 16 is prime age of introversion, finding out who you are, experimenting with where you fit, and of course lots of angst.

This current tribal thing seems to be exhausting though. As others have mentioned.

It was easier when you're not a proper Goth if you like X band was the sort of stuff going on!

Poor sods.

The non men thing I can't work out if it's what the letter writer said or not.

As it's in brackets with the initials as well I cant see that as something that anyone would write in a letter? Esp as the word lesbian doesn't need explaining.

And the link if you want to learn about NMLNM is to a Reddit thread? Linked in a newspaper? That's just really peculiar as well. Esp as if teens come across the piece they will prob read it and the guardian says here. Reddit threads are a viaible credible source of info.

Has anyone else read the link? It's got a lot of new genders and sexualities I hadn't heard before. E.g. alexifkux and caedgender... (?). The guardian thought yep that'll do it.

Incidentally you have to read the comments etc to actually get the definition of NMLNM... So it's a shit job on the part of the guardian full stop.

I can't understand WHY they used that link at all.

Oh and you have to read the comments to get the NMLNM meaning... Which is not actually the same as lesbian at all... Again. Why?

'Sapphic is the umbrella term for non-men who are attracted to non-men. Lesbians, bisexual, omnisexual, pansexual women/nb people, they're sapphic'

Are the guardian on a mission to.. baffle readers?
Signpost teens to Reddit?

I knew before I clicked on this thread that it would be about this letter! I thought the response was very measured and sensible, gently pointing out that at 16 you are very often seeking your tribe and labelling yourself, but that it's not set in stone and that it's highly likely your feelings will change.

I can’t even read it. So we have non men but we still have men? Seems totally fair. Very progressive & inclusive to women. God I hate this ideology and I hate its grip on teenagers.

I think the reply is batshit too.

The last sentence is (roughly because I cba to read it again), 'who better to educate them than their daughter.' You can get fucked with that shit Grauniad quite frankly.

No way was that written by a 16 year old.

Is MN now Non-TikTok?

It’s a spoof

A prankster?
www.gawker.com/media/dear-prudie-it-was-me-all-along