@BadFediPosts
>doesn't this child look like they're enjoying themselves
>they
>themselves
see, there are upsides to the the decline of the English language: I'd break out of any brainwashing session at this point, no matter the drugs involved.

@apropos @BadFediPosts its used correctly, your hypercorrecting

@gav @BadFediPosts the therapist is talking about a picture of a child with a definite sex. "They" is absolutely out of question here, even if you accept its disgusting, literally 10-year-old over-usage as a singular pronoun of a subject with unspecified sex.

@apropos @BadFediPosts its entirely normal, in fact it even carries additional meaning by using an ungendered term it conveys low animus
im not being inverse gaslit i remember how they was used when i was in elementary, and noted its odd and difficult to define pattern

@gav @BadFediPosts you remember a thing from elementary school. Are you literate? Have you read books? Books written by dead people? Lots of books like that?
'They' is a plural pronoun which gets apparently singular use only in deliberately ambiguity where even the number of subjects is unimportant. If you're telling a story about how "the police came to talk to me", it's unimportant to the story that it was two dudes vs. a single woman - it's much more important that police of any kind are talking to you about something, so you gloss over such details.
Singular 'they' was always sloppy but very rare because it was always rare to be that vague. It was never an explicitly gender-neuter or gender-neutral pronoun. The better word for that is 'it'.
Singular 'they' is used all the time today only because gender-ideological freaks have made people so habitually afraid of referring to even clearly observed sex, that people just don't do that, and will say "they" even about a subject introduced as a "woman" and earlier referred to as "her". Insane people are breaking English because normal English grammar breaks the delusions of the insane people.

@apropos @BadFediPosts i disagree, its my dialect ill dictate how its used, no one needs to read a gay book to know how they themselves talk

>he doesmt know that they is used for a seconday he or she

wait never mind
>The better word for that is 'it'.
your clearly esl
literally can never call someone it, obligatorally its inanimate/underanimate people wont evem use it for their pets
even as an insult you to be clear who your calling an it or risk confusion
believing this is delusional about english

@gav @BadFediPosts
>literally can never call someone it
yes, because a "someone" is never gender-neuter nor gender-neutral. You would call objects 'it'. Also pets. You are an illiterate defending a 10-year-old trend when every single deviation from it would obviously improve the prose that it's found in.

@apropos @BadFediPosts not my dialect faggot

elementary school was longer than 10 years ago

stop using my language wrong because you dont like trannys

"there was this fireman and they..."
you cant call person they cus cus uh trannies

"you need to be uber high iq to not use they, everyone else is just using it wrong"
"there uh uh illiterate"

@gav @BadFediPosts
>my dialect
your dialect is shit. You can discover this as easily as avoiding singular 'they' when it comes up. There's an example at the top of the thread of some real garbage and very easy to improve.
>my language
you laughed at the idea that you might be expected to read books, and immediately defined your poor command of English as a 'dialect', justified by a memory from elementary school. You're literate like a guy has a good imagination, who can't rotate an apple in his head.

@apropos @BadFediPosts my dialect is the most correct dialect because it is my dialect

>read books
"i do english wrong because books tell me to"

you are a foreigner or your mind is raped by trannies

you worship the central dialect of urbanite faggots like a foreigner, you speak antitrannylect not english, there is a tranny in your brain