No, I don't think you're missing anything.
People are reacting to what they've heard others say about Stallman, rather than what he actually said.
People are reacting to what they've heard others say about Stallman, rather than what he actually said.
He is being called a transphobe because he wants English to contain a new word which is singular and non gendered because he doesn't think 'they' is appropriate since it has historically been collective. Since he uses his new invented word for this purpose, he is being called transphobic for not respecting peoples choice to use 'they'.
When you look in to the details of what rms is being grilled over, he looks like someone who is honest and well intentioned but fails to communicate in a non controversial way.
Cancel culture is a flaky allocator, leaking cultural resources, until we 'splode.
Am I missing something or isn't this exactly what neutral language folks do with their made-up pronouns (Xe/Xem etc)? So they singled out Stallman for doing the same?
Also, interesting to see another flagged thread that points to an article with strictly factual information from a very popular source here.
What Stallman didn't employ in his defence, and a fact also ignored by many proponents of 'they' who regularly cite its historical usage as proof of transphobia in anyone who refuses to engage in the practice the now, is that this historical usage was applied when the subject of the sentence was indefinite, whereas the modern call to use 'they' is in the case of a specific, known person. This usage does not have a long linguistic history, regardless of whether the existence of such would, in itself, form compelling grounds on which to continue its usage.
His claim about our ancestors is wrong. They made up new words all the time. Including alternatives to singular they.
Stallman uses the new pronouns for any subject not known to be male or female. Singular they was used the same way historically.
Singular they has been widely used for over 600 years.[1]
The basic function of a language is to communicate clearly and unambiguously.
I say the same whenever I encounter any attempt to overload an existing word.
No, it doesn't much in practice, and less than using a gendered pronoun for situations of unknown gender does.
I just maintain more conversational context than most, and pronouns can get askew really quick. Please, I don't need yet another layer of faux pas to be added on to getting people to unambiguously communicate.