Jump to content

Treat Nonhumans Better! (or, I'M VERY MAD), a.k.a. the Animal Realization Society


HansonKerman

Do you support this>  

17 members have voted

  1. 1. Well, do ya?

    • Yes
      8
    • No
      9


Recommended Posts

  On 8/6/2018 at 2:44 PM, HansonKerman said:

They... don't really have defined genders, so let's call them "they" for now.

Expand  

Actually, they do. Look underneath them.

  On 8/6/2018 at 3:18 PM, TheSaint said:

No. Apparently they have rights but no responsibilities. You know, like college students....

Expand  

If I had opened this thread a couple seconds earlier I'd have coffee on the keyboard (via my nose).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will call an animal "he" (or she, or other) if and when said animal asks me to do so, and not a minute before. Until then, what I call the animal is my choice and my choice alone. Not like the animal cares, or could ever know what it would mean to care about something like this.

I respect intelligence, not the ability to flail about. So sue me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 8/6/2018 at 4:41 PM, HansonKerman said:

@taterThis is serious.

Expand  

No, it really isn't.

A singular object is an it.  A group of objects are a they.   But they can also mean a singular object too. 

If I sit here, looking out my window, and I watch a hawk take down a squirrel,  I'm going to think, "That hawk just grabbed that squirrel, it's toast!"  Not he's toast, or she's toast.  They would be appropriate, but not more or less so than an it. 

Until one knows the sex of a gendered object, it is completely appropriate to refer to them as an it. 

There are much bigger issues to deal with in this world than offending the gender of a dying squirrel. 

 

When I call my boat "she" or "her", I don't hear people complaining that maybe it's got another preferred gender. 

Edited by Gargamel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...