Paul Hoerner wrote:
I see. My original statements can be declared wrong by you and Brainspore quoting the Oxford, but when I do it then the Oxford is "out of touch"?
Yeah, sorry, but no. Certainly, language is a somewhat dynamic thing, but you don't get to change it on the fly just to meet your ends or keep from hurting somebody's feelings. One problem with language change is that so much of that change is due to sheer ignorance or laziness. How many words have had their meanings change just because some group decides that using the word ironically is cool or funny? As it is, the dictionary officially changes when a significant enough portion of society recognizes a word or a particular usage. For now, the pronouns are still attached to sex, not gender.
News isn't supposed to be tailored to not hurt people's feelings, it's supposed to be pure information. Once you start tainting it with "political correctness" it starts losing value. Yes, it should not be inflammatory, but information on it's own is not inflammatory in the first place.
I am curious just prior to what point in history did legal documents not contain our names and identities (when pertaining to individuals)? The entire purpose of the creation of surnames was to eliminate confusion and make identifying individuals easier. Even prior to that descriptions on legal documents contained some sort of information identifying individuals. It's practically a hallmark of civilization.
If Bradley's friends wish to refer to him by his nickname of choice, that's perfectly fine. If I ever happen to engage in conversation with him, I'd even do the same. But currently, his given, legal, name is Bradley, and sexually he is male. Until those things change, news services should be reporting the facts.
Over, out, and done.
