Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Man of the Match term now discarded?
Comments
-
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:sam3110 said: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 -
Gribbo said: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:sam3110 said: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 -
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:sam3110 said: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
-
Southbank said:Exiled_Addick said: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 -
balham red said:sam3110 said: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 -
Exiled_Addick said:Southbank said:Exiled_Addick said: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 -
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 -
BR7_addick said:KentishAddick said:Does it really matter?1
- Sponsored links:
-
SporadicAddick said:BR7_addick said:KentishAddick said:Does it really matter?0
-
KentishAddick said:Does it really matter?1
-
0
-
Exiled_Addick said:Southbank said:Exiled_Addick said: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 -
jimmymelrose said:balham red said:sam3110 said: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 -
Chizz said:jimmymelrose said:balham red said:sam3110 said: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 -
Gribbo said:Chizz said:jimmymelrose said:balham red said:sam3110 said: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:
-
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 -
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
-
Gribbo said: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:sam3110 said: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 -
Gribbo said: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:sam3110 said: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 -
soapboxsam 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:Gribbo said: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:sam3110 said: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 -
Gribbo said: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:sam3110 said: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 -
MrOneLung said:Blimey @jimmymelrose - Imagine if you had to choose between masculine and feminine for everyday nouns.0