Nothing puzzles more the inclusive mind than the frustrating possessive pronoun problem. To this day, it rankles to substitute the plural when not wanting to sound like a sexist dope. "If a person wants to use these facilities, they need to ask the manager on duty." How that grates. But you know what else grates? When people who should know better use the words "man" or "mankind" for the much more palatable "human" or "humanity." It seems just laziness or spite, if it's not outright hatefulness.
However, there isn't much of a problem with calling a single child "it," unless of course you know what gender it is. It might even be more offensive to assign it an arbitrary gender rather than waiting until one knows.
Also, lackluster cover versions of songs by performers who one knows can do a better job - a much better job - shouldn't be tolerated. The performers know who they are. It's simply irresponsible.
Further consideration of this post's title, which has generated eighty percent of its content, leads one to wonder perhaps if children ever reconsider their options. Would we let them? An acquaintance a few years ago referred to her child as a "little person." Never mind that the term was already in use for people of genetically short stature (there's even an organization called Little People Of America, although their web page hasn't been updated for three years), the acquaintance was attempting to stress to anyone unfortunate enough to be in earshot that her child was a person, damn it, just like grown-ups. Which seemed at the time saddening, since the poor little person probably wasn't getting a childhood as much as a little personhood. All those clinics & classes!
In any event, much like life, nothing has been resolved, nor any light shed on vexing problems. Apologies all around.
No comments:
Post a Comment