• toasteecup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    All I’m saying is according to English grammatical rules it’s a perfectly valid method of referring to a singular person when gender is unknown.

    Now according to societal politeness rules on the other hand, it’s rude as fuck.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would say that, given that it’s never ok, it is part of English grammartical rules. In German they actually use two different words for when a human eats or when an animal eats, it’s not unprecedented and there’s no need to lend any credibility to the usage of the word “it”.

      • Numuruzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a single precedent I can think of, which is that with some regularity I see infants/newborns referred to as “it”.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A mindset from the before (antibiotics) times. Babies used to die quite frequently. So much that in some cultures babies weren’t named until later in their life, not during pregnancy as it’s custom today. So they were kind of an out there thing, that wasn’t baptized and named yet, they were an it. They were “the baby”. No different than a dog or a turtle, they might die without a name, given an unmarked burial. And off to the next pregnancy. Still a tragedy, and people did mourn and suffered the loss. But not to the same degree of modern, western medicalized, pregnancies were almost every single baby born is expected to at least survive to infancy.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My point was merely to show the difference between what is grammatically ok vs what is societally ok.

        In time, I imagine English grammar will continue to change with the language and it will take on a definition that indicates something nonsentient.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      according to English grammatical rules it’s a perfectly valid method of referring to a singular person

      show me ONE fucking example prior to 2000 of people using “it” for persons without it being dehumanizing

      singular “they” has fulfilled this function for at least 500 years. “it” has never been a pronoun for humans, until it recently saw use as a neo-pronoun.

      there is no grammar rulebook. grammar is usage. you are claiming that it’s been used like that. you’re wrong.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re more than welcome to go back in time and inform my 10th grade teacher of this. Lemme know how that works out for you.

          • toasteecup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In all fairness, they read out the part of the textbook that went over it. This was also the same paragraph that explained they can be used as well as the difference between you singular and the royal you.

            That being said I’m sure we were both sarcastic in our prior responses but I’m attempting to show that I’m not pulling this out of my ass and I’m relying on a source of truth.