Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Man of the Match term now discarded?
Comments
-
If someone identifies as non-binary, they'd surely change name to a gender neutral one? Would be a bit silly asking where Dave (the most bloke name there is) gone and then not being able to refer to them as he / himDazzler21 said:
They're still only one person, therefore the use of the singular Player is fine. i.e Where has Dave gone? They're over there.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think0 -
It is not our place to decide if they should be David or Davina. Dave works for both.Gribbo said:
If someone identifies as non-binary, they'd surely change name to a gender neutral one? Would be a bit silly asking where Dave (the most bloke name there is) gone and then not being able to refer to them as he / himDazzler21 said:
They're still only one person, therefore the use of the singular Player is fine. i.e Where has Dave gone? They're over there.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think0 -
Sam Smith is a musician - they have released a new album.Dazzler21 said:
They're still only one person, therefore the use of the singular Player is fine. i.e Where has Dave gone? They're over there.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think
1 -
to save confusion and argument, I suggest 'person of the contest'1
-
But that is exactly how things evolve in society - someone has an idea, it's adopted by some and initially resisted by others, but as time goes on that idea takes hold and becomes normal, conventional, and uncontroversial.Southbank said:
Because the'social attitude', behind dropping 'man' and 'woman' as categories is not a given. On the contrary it is highly disputed and controversial.Exiled_Addick said:
Did you consider we might just be in a phase where language is again evolving naturally based on changes in social attitudes?Dippenhall said:Man originally meant "person" or "human" and was gender neutral. Gender was denoted more by word suffixes than different words for different gender.
The change in meaning to man being a male person happened naturally as language and grammar changed. But "mankind" never changed away from meaning "human kind" but the arbiters of non-discriminatory language would have us believe "mankind" is discriminatory or oppressive to women and only "human kind" should be used. I regret the engineering of the meaning of certain words and preventing the nuance of context in order to suppress a word's intended meaning.
I can understand women's football preferring "player" rather than "man", but I am guessing the arbiters of discriminatory language judged that "man" of the match is perpetuating a distinction between men and women which is not appropriate to the advancement of equality.
Doesn't worry me, but doesn't mean I don't think it's a load of bollocks.
Why are some people so obsessed with the idea there is some great conspiracy behind anything they don't agree with/understand?0 -
How can one person use 'they' and 'them?' 'They' and 'them' are plural.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think
Do they have a form of schizophrenia that makes them think that they are two people?
0 -
Isn't that only when it has a logical evolutionary sense. If for example the use of yous for the plural you was to catch on then I'd understand it.Exiled_Addick said:
But that is exactly how things evolve in society - someone has an idea, it's adopted by some and initially resisted by others, but as time goes on that idea takes hold and becomes normal, conventional, and uncontroversial.Southbank said:
Because the'social attitude', behind dropping 'man' and 'woman' as categories is not a given. On the contrary it is highly disputed and controversial.Exiled_Addick said:
Did you consider we might just be in a phase where language is again evolving naturally based on changes in social attitudes?Dippenhall said:Man originally meant "person" or "human" and was gender neutral. Gender was denoted more by word suffixes than different words for different gender.
The change in meaning to man being a male person happened naturally as language and grammar changed. But "mankind" never changed away from meaning "human kind" but the arbiters of non-discriminatory language would have us believe "mankind" is discriminatory or oppressive to women and only "human kind" should be used. I regret the engineering of the meaning of certain words and preventing the nuance of context in order to suppress a word's intended meaning.
I can understand women's football preferring "player" rather than "man", but I am guessing the arbiters of discriminatory language judged that "man" of the match is perpetuating a distinction between men and women which is not appropriate to the advancement of equality.
Doesn't worry me, but doesn't mean I don't think it's a load of bollocks.
Why are some people so obsessed with the idea there is some great conspiracy behind anything they don't agree with/understand?
The use of 'they' for one person is just a confusing nonsense however.
Perhaps in this case resistance will win out. Generations and trends come and go and the next generation may reject it.0 -
By some distance the best post on this thread.KentishAddick said:Does it really matter?0 -
From the 2022 Census;
- On gender identity: 45.7 million (94.0% of the population aged 16 years and over) answered the question “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”. 45.4 million answered “Yes” and 262,000 answered “No”. The remaining 2.9 million (6.0%) did not answer the question.
- Those who reported that their gender identity was different from their sex at birth was 0.55% in England and 0.40% in Wales. Within England, London was the region with the highest percentage who reported that their gender identity was different from their sex at birth while the region reporting the lowest percentage was the South West (0.42%). As the question was voluntary, analysis should take into account differences in response rates between different areas.
- 44.9 million people (92.5% of the population aged 16 years and over) answered the question on sexual orientation. Around 43.4 million people (89.4%) identified as straight or heterosexual. Around 1.5 million people (3.2%) identified with an LGB+ orientation (“Gay or Lesbian”, “Bisexual” or “Other sexual orientation”). The remaining 3.6 million people (7.5%) did not answer the question.
0 -
Surely it's one of the worst for being wholly pointless?BR7_addick said:
By some distance the best post on this thread.KentishAddick said:Does it really matter?1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Okay I’ll rephrase, most relevant. Unless you’re into needless outrage of course.SporadicAddick said:
Surely it's one of the worst for being wholly pointless?BR7_addick said:
By some distance the best post on this thread.KentishAddick said:Does it really matter?0 -
We’ll all be lonely tonight and lonely tomorrowKentishAddick said:Does it really matter?1 -
0
-
I will be very surprised if it becomes normal not to know that there are men and there are women, however much a small minority may want us to think otherwise.Exiled_Addick said:
But that is exactly how things evolve in society - someone has an idea, it's adopted by some and initially resisted by others, but as time goes on that idea takes hold and becomes normal, conventional, and uncontroversial.Southbank said:
Because the'social attitude', behind dropping 'man' and 'woman' as categories is not a given. On the contrary it is highly disputed and controversial.Exiled_Addick said:
Did you consider we might just be in a phase where language is again evolving naturally based on changes in social attitudes?Dippenhall said:Man originally meant "person" or "human" and was gender neutral. Gender was denoted more by word suffixes than different words for different gender.
The change in meaning to man being a male person happened naturally as language and grammar changed. But "mankind" never changed away from meaning "human kind" but the arbiters of non-discriminatory language would have us believe "mankind" is discriminatory or oppressive to women and only "human kind" should be used. I regret the engineering of the meaning of certain words and preventing the nuance of context in order to suppress a word's intended meaning.
I can understand women's football preferring "player" rather than "man", but I am guessing the arbiters of discriminatory language judged that "man" of the match is perpetuating a distinction between men and women which is not appropriate to the advancement of equality.
Doesn't worry me, but doesn't mean I don't think it's a load of bollocks.
Why are some people so obsessed with the idea there is some great conspiracy behind anything they don't agree with/understand?1 -
You've literally used the words they and them in reference to one person in your last sentence. It's very easy really.jimmymelrose said:
How can one person use 'they' and 'them?' 'They' and 'them' are plural.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think
Do they have a form of schizophrenia that makes them think that they are two people?4 -
Tbf, he could've equally been talking about they and them as a collectiveChizz said:
You've literally used the words they and them in reference to one person in your last sentence. It's very easy really.jimmymelrose said:
How can one person use 'they' and 'them?' 'They' and 'them' are plural.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think
Do they have a form of schizophrenia that makes them think that they are two people?0 -
He could. But he wasn't.Gribbo said:
Tbf, he could've equally been talking about they and them as a collectiveChizz said:
You've literally used the words they and them in reference to one person in your last sentence. It's very easy really.jimmymelrose said:
How can one person use 'they' and 'them?' 'They' and 'them' are plural.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think
Do they have a form of schizophrenia that makes them think that they are two people?
(Assuming he's a he).0 -
Seen and read a couple of news reports recently where the person in question was non-binary, and it can read as though the report is referencing a group of people0
-
No, when I asked 'Do they...........' I was not referring to one person but to this type of people. If I was referring to one particular person I would say he/she. I was referring to the group. However I take your point that in English 'they' is sometimes mistakenly used for one person when it is used in reference to no particular person.
If you need a pronoun for someone who can't decide on his / her gender then it's like when you refer to an animal whose sex is not apparent. In these cases in English 'it' is used.
On another point: I really don't say how this can work in languages with genders where there is no 'it' and 'they' is never used (in an ungrammatically correct fashion) for one person.
In English at least we have 'it' for a singular unknown gender or without gender.
1 -
Blimey @jimmymelrose - Imagine if you had to choose between masculine and feminine for everyday nouns.2
-
Sponsored links:
-
When you said " do they have a form of schizophrenia that makes them think that they are two people?" it was perfectly clear you were referring to one person, and you used 'them' and 'they' accurately and correctly.jimmymelrose said:No, when I asked 'Do they...........' I was not referring to one person but to this type of people. If I was referring to one particular person I would say he/she. I was referring to the group. However I take your point that in English 'they' is sometimes mistakenly used for one person when it is used in reference to no particular person.
If you need a pronoun for someone who can't decide on his / her gender then it's like when you refer to an animal whose sex is not apparent. In these cases in English 'it' is used.
On another point: I really don't say how this can work in languages with genders where there is no 'it' and 'they' is never used (in an ungrammatically correct fashion) for one person.
In English at least we have 'it' for a singular unknown gender or without gender.
Perfectly understandable sentence. No-one was hurt, offended or diminished by its use.0 -
They/them is not grammatically incorrect. “It” is not used to describe a person.jimmymelrose said:No, when I asked 'Do they...........' I was not referring to one person but to this type of people. If I was referring to one particular person I would say he/she. I was referring to the group. However I take your point that in English 'they' is sometimes mistakenly used for one person when it is used in reference to no particular person.
If you need a pronoun for someone who can't decide on his / her gender then it's like when you refer to an animal whose sex is not apparent. In these cases in English 'it' is used.
On another point: I really don't say how this can work in languages with genders where there is no 'it' and 'they' is never used (in an ungrammatically correct fashion) for one person.
In English at least we have 'it' for a singular unknown gender or without gender.Imagine this circumstance; you see someone acting suspiciously but it’s dark, they’re dressed in a black hoodie, you don’t get a look at their face so all you know is it was a person, you can’t make a determination of gender. You’re asked by the police what you saw that person doing. Do you say:
”It looked through the window, then it realized I could see it and ran off down the street. If I’d been quicker to react, I could’ve run after it to see where it went next.”.Or”They looked through the window, then they realized I could see them and ran off down the street. If I’d been quicker to react, I could’ve run after them to see where they went next”.They/them is far more natural sounding and can be correctly used as a singular noun when describing a person. “It” is dehumanizing, if anything, because it is only ever used for objects or animals or to deliberately belittle a person.0 -
I see Personchester United are on a roll.0
-
Poor old Dave is going missing period.Gribbo said:
If someone identifies as non-binary, they'd surely change name to a gender neutral one? Would be a bit silly asking where Dave (the most bloke name there is) gone and then not being able to refer to them as he / himDazzler21 said:
They're still only one person, therefore the use of the singular Player is fine. i.e Where has Dave gone? They're over there.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think
(David) only came in at 69th in the list last year - beaten by such names as - Finley, Calab, Jaxon Toby and Zayn.
I mean, can you imagine the assault of the ears as a young mum in (say) Essex calls in her beloved Jaxon and Zayn with her Thames Estuary accent?
RIP Dave.1 -
My wife said there haven't been any Dave's or David's in her infants for 10 years other than a Welsh boy who's Dad got transferred to the Met Police.
Dave has had its day; just like Wally, Peter, Cedric and Chizz. I don't know anyone under 60 with those names.
Hopefully 'man on' will remain just like 'guys' and be a generic term for ever and a day.
If not there's more important things to worry about like breathing.
When the Earth plays Mars; "alien on" ?
I'm more worried about Dave the Martian's metal legs. Even Ryan Inniss would pull out of that tackle !
0 -
Just call him Rodney like everyone else.Gribbo said:
If someone identifies as non-binary, they'd surely change name to a gender neutral one? Would be a bit silly asking where Dave (the most bloke name there is) gone and then not being able to refer to them as he / himDazzler21 said:
They're still only one person, therefore the use of the singular Player is fine. i.e Where has Dave gone? They're over there.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think1 -
Yes you dosoapboxsam said:My wife said there haven't been any Dave's or David's in her infants for 10 years other than a Welsh boy who's Dad got transferred to the Met Police.
Dave has had its day; just like Wally, Peter, Cedric and Chizz. I don't know anyone under 60 with those names.
Hopefully 'man on' will remain just like 'guys' and be a generic term for ever and a day.
If not there's more important things to worry about like breathing.
When the Earth plays Mars; "alien on" ?
I'm more worried about Dave the Martian's metal legs. Even Ryan Inniss would pull out of that tackle !3 -
Raith_C_Chattonell said:
Poor old Dave is going missing period.Gribbo said:
If someone identifies as non-binary, they'd surely change name to a gender neutral one? Would be a bit silly asking where Dave (the most bloke name there is) gone and then not being able to refer to them as he / himDazzler21 said:
They're still only one person, therefore the use of the singular Player is fine. i.e Where has Dave gone? They're over there.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think
(David) only came in at 69th in the list last year - beaten by such names as - Finley, Calab, Jaxon Toby and Zayn.
I mean, can you imagine the assault of the ears as a young mum in (say) Essex calls in her beloved Jaxon and Zayn with her Thames Estuary accent?
RIP Dave.
4 -
The most bloke name ever (or most common - my kids always joke when I introduce one of my mates that they already know they're called Dave) - but I immediately thought of folk singer Dave Carter, who was identifying as female at the time of her death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_CarterGribbo said:
If someone identifies as non-binary, they'd surely change name to a gender neutral one? Would be a bit silly asking where Dave (the most bloke name there is) gone and then not being able to refer to them as he / himDazzler21 said:
They're still only one person, therefore the use of the singular Player is fine. i.e Where has Dave gone? They're over there.balham red said:
Surely if the person has they/them pronouns then it should be 'Players of the match'?sam3110 said:
What if there's a player on our team that describes themselves as Non Binary and use they/them pronouns? Should they be subjected to being called Man Of The Match when they don't identify directly as a Man?JaShea99 said:This is hilarious. Peak CL. When TS wanted to change the name of the female team, anyone daring to ask why it mattered got pelters. Now someone starts a thread asking a perfectly reasonable question, which as far as I can see hasn’t been answered yet (mixed gender teams are decades away) and it’s full of “so what?” responses.
It's closer than some of you boomers think
1 -
You jest, but I have wondered in the past about this.MrOneLung said:Blimey @jimmymelrose - Imagine if you had to choose between masculine and feminine for everyday nouns.0
