nanushka

Since I’ve explained why the example you gave seems to me to be unproblematic, and since you’ve given no further examples of cases in which singular they raises obstacles that aren’t quite easily surmountable, I guess that here, too, I must simply disagree. It’s true that our written language does not have the particles you speak of, but it does offer many fine options for working around the ambiguities that sometimes arise from its forms — as I suspect we’ve all experienced, when the need to tinker with a phrase in order to avoid an ambiguous pronoun has arisen. Singular they, in my opinion, would require only a bit more of the same. I am always open to considering further specific examples or pragmatic explanations that might sway my thinking, though. If it’s a choice between making the (in my opinion minor) necessary adjustments to make singular they work, on the one hand, and leaving non-binary individuals without a viable pronoun option, on the other, I know which has my vote at present. With respect, I must say that I have never found the hypothetical opinions of long-dead individuals on contemporary matters to be inherently persuasive — no matter how much I love and respect the thoughts they had and the works they produced while alive. Being hypothetical, such opinions are far too subject to influence by our own biases, projections and blind spots. Bishop was, almost without fail, marvelously sensible, as her letters amply demonstrate; I might just as easily say that she would approve after only the slightest hesitation. But I couldn’t possibly be sure of that. As for philosophy, I happen to know a group of teenagers who have recently formed a philosophy club, to read and discuss some of the great works in their after-school hours.

I am a great lover of Bishop’s poetry, but I must say that I think the issue we are discussing is much more of a pragmatic one than a poetic one. And I think that our language is more than capable of responding to these pragmatic challenges.

If there were a second “she,” or a second “he,” wouldn’t it be exactly the same problem? I don’t see how it’s different. In context, pronouns always have referents — whether indicated by gesture, by intonation, by syntactic proximity, by logical inference, or by other means. Once one is used to the possibility that “they” could refer to a third, individual person, the usage you mention actually becomes even less ambiguous. (That’s why I think many of the anticipated problems would actually diminish if this use of “they” really catches on.) The listener wouldn’t think “they” referred to the preceding “she” plus the preceding “he,” since intonation would clarify that the question being asked was about a third, separate person. (After the first sentence, a response that sounds like “Oh, DID they?” would mean, “Oh, did they REALLY?” Whereas a response that sounds like “Oh, did THEY?” would mean, “Oh, did person #3 go too?”) Plus, when pronouns prove too ambiguous, we revert to using nouns. We make those accommodations to language’s ambiguities all the time, already. Again, I don’t see how this case would be different.

That's great! I was really hoping she was just thrown off mentally by the fall and that the toppling supported arabesque was merely an effect of that. When she came up from the fall, there was no look of pain on her face, that I could see — more a look of consternation.

I guess I must simply disagree, then, until a linguistically feasible and overall more satisfactory solution is proposed — or until a reason for why it is so unsatisfactory is more fully explained. The choice seems, to my mind, to be between the options I have described.

Thanks, dirac. I do see what you mean. Alas, our language is much more readily able to absorb a new honorific, such as Ms., which never has to change its form, than to absorb a new pronoun, which does (e.g. from they to them or their). But the much bigger obstacle is that new function words, such as pronouns, are particularly difficult for a language to absorb — as opposed to content words, such as nouns and verbs, which are very easily absorbed. New content words are quite common (e.g. email); new function words are extremely rare. (When’s the last time we got a new preposition, conjunction or auxiliary verb?) For that reason, function words are often referred to as a "closed class" of words (as opposed to the "open class" of content words). That’s probably why I didn’t even think to list it as one of the possibilities when I asked you the question. New pronouns have indeed been suggested (see the table of "Non-traditional pronouns" here, for example). But the vast majority of those who have tried to find a solution have landed on they as the best option, since it already has a long history of singular usage (although of a different kind, as we've discussed) in the language, and since it would be a matter of adapting an existing usage rather than introducing a whole new one. It's certainly not a perfect solution, but it may, alas, be the best option we've got for a workable and lasting solution to the problem. It may come down to which we value most: adherence to the language forms we now have or accommodation to the newly accepted reality of non-binary gender. (I'm also not convinced that it's that all that much more ambiguous than other pronoun usages, all of which depend upon context, as I've explained in a previous post. Once we're used to the fact that they can refer to a singular, named antecedent, I'm not sure it would lack the clarity of other options.) As for the aesthetics, personally I think a lot of that is more about preconceived notions than about what's inherent in the sounds of the language. Ms. has a perfectly fine sound, to my ear.

Good point. I wasn't so much thinking height, though, as the shape of shoulders and chest, which I noticed almost more when she wasn't doing expansive movements — something distinctly adolescent in her figure. Likely there are a few different factors at work, though, including what you mention.

The NYCB repertory page for T&V says, "Balanchine created Theme and Variations in 1947 for Ballet Theatre (now American Ballet Theatre), and it briefly entered the NYCB repertory in 1960. In 1970 Balanchine used the complete orchestral suite to create Tschaikovsky Suite No. 3, and Theme and Variations, with a few minor revisions, returned to the repertory as the fourth and final movement of the ballet." There's a page for Sylvia PDD as well, but it has the old b&w curtain image that seems to be used on rep pages for works no longer active.

I was sad to have missed Aaron Sanz in two scheduled good roles this year — La Valse in the fall and Divertimento this week. Wonder if he is particularly prone to injury.

To me she comes across the same way, but my initial read was that it was more due to body type than stage presence — i.e. her instrument, not what she was doing with it. I'll be curious to see her again with your comment in mind, though, to judge whether you may in fact be right. She is certainly talented, regardless.

Completely agree with everything you say about tonight, CharlieH. It wasn’t a flawless night but the company felt very alive.

I’ve never seen the piece live before so I don’t really have a basis for comparison but that seemed like a pretty special Chaconne. Maria K luminous in first part, regal in second part. Adrian D-W quite excellent.

Oh I understood and I completely agree. I was referring to vipa’s implied (as I understood it) Levine comparison about proportionality.

Olivia Boisson had a rough night in Four Ts. She danced a good first theme duet until near the end when she kicked Lars Nelson in the back of the head. Then in Choleric she fell down practically on her face and later almost toppled out of a supported arabesque. Savannah L switched to Sanguinic and I liked her better in that than in anything else I’ve seen her in before, including Choleric. Megan LeCrone stepped into that, decently. Russell J quite good. Sean S disappointing.

To me, "I'm thinking of you in my bed with your clothes off," delivered to a colleague, in the workplace, is not “a remark that is found to be offensive.” It is simply an offensive remark, period.

Only few people refrain from making comments like that in the workplace? We know nothing of the alleged victim, so it seems to me unwise to comment on the nature of his reaction. (Hypothetical: what if he is the victim of previous sexual abuse? Obviously that wouldn't alter the nature of this currently alleged offense, but it could certainly explain the relative strength of his reaction to it. We simply do not know.) On the Levine comparison, none of his alleged abuses were in the workplace, I believe.

Unity P danced a gorgeous, excellent Div 15 variation. Less impressive in the Andante (possibly in part due to partnering). Ashley B was of course delightful. Erica P dances beautifully but I wish she didn’t have such a child’s figure and such red lips. Cameron D was a disappointing sub for Aaron S. Chase F’s legs looked tired.

Wait, so these are opera singers who weren’t even present? So the fact that they’re opera singers is actually irrelevant to how trustworthy their statements may be?

Personally I think I’ll continue to trust what the Times is reporting over what a couple of opera singers are saying.

As I've written, I completely sympathize with the feelings of awkwardness — I've felt them myself. Since it sounds, from your other posts here, as if you agree that there are indeed people who are gender fluid, who identify as neither male nor female, and since those people might reasonably not wish to be referred to by either masculine or feminine pronouns, I wonder if you personally have any ideas of how they should be referred to, given your objections to using "they" in such cases. With the pronouns of the gender they were assigned at birth? (Though there are in fact cases in which gender is ambiguous at birth.) With no pronouns at all? In some other way? I'm asking respectfully, not at all with aggression or snark. (I know the written word can make tone difficult to determine, especially when one is reading quickly, online.) Since it sounds as if you're someone who's thought seriously about this issue, and since it sounds as if you're someone who's sympathetic to the experiences of people who don't fit the gender binary, I'm curious what you think the alternatives may be. (And I don't think it's a problem if you don't have an answer; just because you object to one possible solution doesn't mean it's your responsibility to come up with another.)

If by "threat" you mean a threat of physical violence, that's perhaps true — though we don't really know enough about the comparative physical capacities of Copley and the chorus member to judge, I'd say. But sexual harassment is not generally considered problematic behavior simply because it could be followed up by physical violence/rape/etc. It's problematic behavior in and of itself. And there are certainly other, non-physical ways in which a person in power could be a "threat" to a colleague in the workplace. I also don't believe that professionals working in the arts should be held to any lower of a standard than professionals in any other field. I don't see how it's any different from a case in which an attorney tells a law clerk, "I'm thinking of you in my bed with your clothes off."

Why they fired him seems a fair question, and one that might certainly be worth discussion. You suggested that the chorus member should have been fired, though, which would seem to me not at all appropriate. As for "fairly innocuous banter" — well, I'd suggest it takes two to "banter," and the other party was apparently not a willing participant in this exchange. And personally, if I were a chorus member and my director said to me, in the workplace, in front of another colleague, that he was thinking of me in his bed with my clothes off, I would certainly not feel that that was "innocuous." I'd be pretty disturbed. And I personally don't think that professionals in the workplace should be expected to tolerate that sort of treatment, especially from a person in a position of power. Again, as for whether that calls for firing may be up for debate.

What's unbelievable to me is that anyone in a prominent, powerful position in the arts who's been awake for the past 6 months would say something like that to a colleague in the workplace. Pretty unwise, among other things.

If an opera director in your employ said, in the workplace, to a chorus member, "I'm thinking of you in my bed with your clothes off," you'd have fired the chorus member? Why? (Note that Copley reportedly "did not deny the incident.")

A developing story, over the past few days, in the New York Times: Met Opera Fires Stage Director, Citing 'Inappropriate Behavior' Union Questions Met's Firing of Director for Remark to Chorister This, of course, comes in the shadow of the Met's recent suspension of James Levine.