If DeSantis wins

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,999
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male

"This use of singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error."

So the last 700 years, then.
They did at one time only refer to more than one person, which Silvanus said wasn't the case.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,999
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Also due to the whole tomboy thought that tomboys (a girl who behaves like a spirited or boisterous boy; a wild romping girl) where never referred as being he/him ever, pronouns are really then just based on sex in the first place as that is literally the definition...

1702334921555.png
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,316
6,822
118
Country
United States
Shakespeare was totally "woke", though. He had young boys dress up as women to act in his plays!
Considering how often I see the "but <minority> is over-represented in <industry the majority forced them into>" argument, I wouldn't doubt this argument showing up

EDIT: I mean...
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,071
5,810
118
Country
United Kingdom
So when was it that "they" doesn't refer to multiple people again? Because apparently it never did, yet that's the 1st definition of it.
It didn't solely referred to multiple people. Hasn't for 700 years.

Do tomboys not behave as boys? Yet nobody called them he/him.

Again, uhh...
Jesus Christ, dude. How do you think society responded to girls acting like boys ~200 years ago?

You said "they" never refers to just multiple people.
This is a lie. I said it didn't solely refer to multiple people.

Yet from the 1200s to 1375 it was only ever used as a plural. And it's still mainly used as a plural.
You're being a purist about those first 175 years, and disregarding the following 700 years of usage as a singular?

I read it a week or so back and still have the tab open. Copy/paste the part of the bill that says what you said it says. I have to do this with Mysterious all the time and I never get actual proof back from all the nonsensical twitter claims that never make any sense.
110.1051 - (2), in HB599. Its the policy of the state that its false to ascribe a pronoun that doesn't match biological sex. So when you referred to your friend as 'she'? You spoke falsely, according to the bill.
 
Last edited:

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,501
2,169
118
They did at one time only refer to more than one person, which Silvanus said wasn't the case.
That's just a clear lie on your part.

Why you would just write a bald-faced lie, especially when the record is there for everyone to see that you have lied? What do you hope to gain from that except to make everyone think you are dishonest?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,999
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It didn't solely referred to multiple people. Hasn't for 700 years.



Jesus Christ, dude. How do you think society responded to girls acting like boys ~200 years ago?



This is a lie. I said it didn't solely refer to multiple people.



You're being a purist about those first 175 years, and disregarding the following 700 years of usage as a singular?



110.1051 - (2), in HB599. Its the policy of the state that its false to ascribe a pronoun that doesn't match biological sex. So when you referred to your friend as 'she'? You spoke falsely, according to the bill.
You said there was never a time "they" only was used to refer to multiple people, that is wrong.

I don't care how society responded to tomboys 200 years ago for this discussion, that has nothing to do with pronouns. Even when a girl behaves like a boy (and society is totally fine with it like now or when I was a kid), nobody ever used "he/him" pronouns for them. Thus, behavior is not a reason why we use the pronouns we do.

Silvanus said:
So you've just made the usual mistake of thinking 'they' refers specifically to multiple people. Nope, it never did-- that's linguistic ignorance, just a newish misconception.
Again, you said "they" never was only a plural.

And then right below that:
An employee or a contractor may not be required, as a condition of employment, to refer to another person using that person's preferred personal title or pronouns if such personal title or pronouns do not correspond to that person's sex.

There is no punishment for calling a transwoman 'she', it only states you can't get punished for using 'he' (and that is official state policy). And then you people like Mysterious and people on twitter are like LGBTQ organizations will have to close and all this bullshit that is not in the bill at all. It's all lies.

That's just a clear lie on your part.

Why you would just write a bald-faced lie, especially when the record is there for everyone to see that you have lied? What do you hope to gain from that except to make everyone think you are dishonest?
Silvanus said:
So you've just made the usual mistake of thinking 'they' refers specifically to multiple people. Nope, it never did-- that's linguistic ignorance, just a newish misconception.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,071
5,810
118
Country
United Kingdom
You said there was never a time "they" only was used to refer to multiple people, that is wrong.
Jesus. OK, yes, I overlooked the brief period in the thirteenth century when it was used that way, in favour of the 700 years since.

Out of interest, if you're a stickler for using words in their original sense and disregarding long-standing changes, do you use 'girl' to refer to children generally, and 'meat' to refer broadly to food?

I don't care how society responded to tomboys 200 years ago for this discussion, that has nothing to do with pronouns. Even when a girl behaves like a boy (and society is totally fine with it like now or when I was a kid), nobody ever used "he/him" pronouns for them. Thus, behavior is not a reason why we use the pronouns we do.
Dude, you're literally the only one talking about stereotypical behaviours determining pronouns. I don't even know why you're talking about tomboys.


And then right below that:
An employee or a contractor may not be required, as a condition of employment, to refer to another person using that person's preferred personal title or pronouns if such personal title or pronouns do not correspond to that person's sex.

There is no punishment for calling a transwoman 'she', it only states you can't get punished for using 'he' (and that is official state policy). And then you people like Mysterious and people on twitter are like LGBTQ organizations will have to close and all this bullshit that is not in the bill at all. It's all lies.
It directly states your usage is 'false' in the eyes of the state gov. I didn't say there was a punishment. I said your own usage runs counter to the bill you're sticking up for.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,999
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Jesus. OK, yes, I overlooked the brief period in the thirteenth century when it was used that way, in favour of the 700 years since.

Out of interest, if you're a stickler for using words in their original sense and disregarding long-standing changes, do you use 'girl' to refer to children generally, and 'meat' to refer broadly to food?



Dude, you're literally the only one talking about stereotypical behaviours determining pronouns. I don't even know why you're talking about tomboys.




It directly states your usage is 'false' in the eyes of the state gov. I didn't say there was a punishment. I said your own usage runs counter to the bill you're sticking up for.
I only did because you nitpick every thing I say like in the affirmative action thread because I didn't specify that the racist AA policy is the racist policy when that was literally what the thread was discussing from the start. I'm a stickler for using words based on their definitions. They is a pronoun for multiple people or a single unknown person.

You said "For thousands of years sex-stereotypical behaviours were enforced under threat of violence, ostracism, or disownment, meaning people were incapable of varied self-expression without risk." Even when it was fine to express yourself via non-stereotypical behaviors like, you know, a tomboy in present times, the pronouns didn't change. Thus, pronouns don't have much to do with how someone expresses themself. Everyone knows using a pronoun isn't very identifiable at all since everyone is unique in many ways. It's not like if you use 'he', you'd think the person is into sports nor would you think a 'she' is into decorating. It's just a shorthand after you know who is being talked about and nothing more.

And the proper term for car could be automobile for example, it's not like you can't say car if you work at the DMV. There's nothing in the bill that says you can't call someone by the improper pronoun, just that you can't get in trouble for using the pronouns based on sex.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,071
5,810
118
Country
United Kingdom
I only did because you nitpick every thing I say like in the affirmative action thread because I didn't specify that the racist AA policy is the racist policy when that was literally what the thread was discussing from the start. I'm a stickler for using words based on their definitions. They is a pronoun for multiple people or a single unknown person.
The person doesn't have to be unknown.

You said "For thousands of years sex-stereotypical behaviours were enforced under threat of violence, ostracism, or disownment, meaning people were incapable of varied self-expression without risk." Even when it was fine to express yourself via non-stereotypical behaviors like, you know, a tomboy in present times, the pronouns didn't change. Thus, pronouns don't have much to do with how someone expresses themself. Everyone knows using a pronoun isn't very identifiable at all since everyone is unique in many ways. It's not like if you use 'he', you'd think the person is into sports nor would you think a 'she' is into decorating. It's just a shorthand after you know who is being talked about and nothing more.
OK, so you've just completely misunderstood the reason I said that, and thought I was saying behaviours are necessarily linked to pronouns. No.

You asked why people never had trouble with pronouns in the past. The reason is that people could not act out of accordance with sex-stereotypical expectations, under threat. So say someone 200 years ago felt female, but was AMAB. If they acted in female-typical ways... they'd be violently repressed. If someone misgendered them.... they couldn't say they felt otherwise.

That's why /you/ wouldn't encounter any issues just assuming gender everywhere. Because even if someone felt otherwise, they couldn't express themselves, under threat.

And the proper term for car could be automobile for example, it's not like you can't say car if you work at the DMV. There's nothing in the bill that says you can't call someone by the improper pronoun, just that you can't get in trouble for using the pronouns based on sex.
I didn't say it would get you in trouble. The bill explicitly says the way you use the terms is false.
 
Last edited:

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,501
2,169
118
You said there was never a time "they" only was used to refer to multiple people, that is wrong.
No, it is not wrong. "They" has been used to represent singular third person pretty much since its inception. In the last few centuries some people strongly argued that it should only be used for the plural and schools often taught it that way, but this was never established in common language use. Many people continued using "they" to refer to singular third person in everyday speech (usually when an individual's gender was indeterminate).
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,071
5,810
118
Country
United Kingdom
No, it is not wrong. "They" has been used to represent singular third person pretty much since its inception.
He's nitpicking about the period of ~1200 - ~1370s, when it was briefly used solely to refer to multiple people.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,644
3,571
118
He's nitpicking about the period of ~1200 - ~1370s, when it was briefly used solely to refer to multiple people.
So, it is inappropriate to refer to Edward Longshanks as "they", in historical dramas set during his life? Good to know.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,999
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
The person doesn't have to be unknown.



OK, so you've just completely misunderstood the reason I said that, and thought I was saying behaviours are necessarily linked to pronouns. No.

You asked why people never had trouble with pronouns in the past. The reason is that people could not act out of accordance with sex-stereotypical expectations, under threat. So say someone 200 years ago felt female, but was AMAB. If they acted in female-typical ways... they'd be violently repressed. If someone misgendered them.... they couldn't say they felt otherwise.

That's why /you/ wouldn't encounter any issues just assuming gender everywhere. Because even if someone felt otherwise, they couldn't express themselves, under threat.



I didn't say it would get you in trouble. The bill explicitly says the way you use the terms is false.
The person doesn't have to unknown (but usually is like student or driver) but it gets confusing if there's more than one person being talked about and someone in the group is a 'they', then when you go to mention that person with a pronoun, the listener is not gonna know if you're referring to that person or the group.

Yes, that's why I moved up to tomboys and present times with no threat. Nobody cares that they act like a boy and nobody called them 'he/him' nor did the tomboy ever complain about it either. Don't see what the issue is using sex for the pronouns.

And...? So...? Again what is this bill doing that's so horrible?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,071
5,810
118
Country
United Kingdom
The person doesn't have to unknown (but usually is like student or driver) but it gets confusing if there's more than one person being talked about and someone in the group is a 'they', then when you go to mention that person with a pronoun, the listener is not gonna know if you're referring to that person or the group.
Do you get terribly confused if you're in a group with more than one man and someone says 'he'?

Yes, that's why I moved up to tomboys and present times with no threat. Nobody cares that they act like a boy and nobody called them 'he/him' nor did the tomboy ever complain about it either. Don't see what the issue is using sex for the pronouns.
Because the issue is nothing to do with tomboys. I still have no idea why you even brought them up.

The issue is that it doesn't fit how people identify, and disregarding someone's identity is just fucking rude.

And...? So...? Again what is this bill doing that's so horrible?
"And so" the way you used pronouns is false according to the bill. Can you acknowledge that, rather than shifting the conversation onto punishments?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluegate

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,084
5,377
118
Australia
Meanwhile, when saying children aren't children in the great state of Florida


I mean, 16 and 17 year olds can have jobs in Australia. It doesn’t strike me as something unusual in and of itself. Child labour tends to invoke thoughts of Oliver Twist.

So what actual fuckery is going on here?
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,073
1,210
118
Country
United States
I mean, 16 and 17 year olds can have jobs in Australia. It doesn’t strike me as something unusual in and of itself. Child labour tends to invoke thoughts of Oliver Twist.

So what actual fuckery is going on here?
16 and 17 year olds in the US can have jobs in every US state. They just also have a number of restrictions on the type of work they can do, the number of hours per week, and the times of day. Florida seems intent on rolling as many of those protections back as possible.

Bill can be read here in full

Key highlights:
  • Removing restriction of minors working before 6:30am or after 11pm
  • Removing restriction of minors working more than 8 hours the day before a school day
  • Removing restriction of minors working more than 30 hours in one week during the school year
  • Removing restriction of minors working during school hours (note: exception already existed for those in a "career education program")
  • Removing restriction of 16-17 y/o from working 6 or more consecutive days in a week
  • Removing restriction of 16-17 y/o from working 4 or more hours straight without a 30min meal period break
  • Removing restriction of 16-17 y/o working any number of hours less than full adults
  • Removing ability of counties and municipalities to place more stringent curfews on minors (note: likely to prevent them from endrunning around the above changes via curfew law)
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,084
5,377
118
Australia
16 and 17 year olds in the US can have jobs in every US state. They just also have a number of restrictions on the type of work they can do, the number of hours per week, and the times of day. Florida seems intent on rolling as many of those protections back as possible.

Bill can be read here in full

Key highlights:
  • Removing restriction of minors working before 6:30am or after 11pm
  • Removing restriction of minors working more than 8 hours the day before a school day
  • Removing restriction of minors working more than 30 hours in one week during the school year
  • Removing restriction of minors working during school hours (note: exception already existed for those in a "career education program")
  • Removing restriction of 16-17 y/o from working 6 or more consecutive days in a week
  • Removing restriction of 16-17 y/o from working 4 or more hours straight without a 30min meal period break
  • Removing restriction of 16-17 y/o working any number of hours less than full adults
  • Removing ability of counties and municipalities to place more stringent curfews on minors (note: likely to prevent them from endrunning around the above changes via curfew law)
Yeah fuck all that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian