Toads are apparently a genderless race

Walkazo said:
Prescriptionist attitudes towards language is pretty irritating to me in general, whether it's people swapping British/American spellings (both ways), poo-pooing the use of contractions in formal writing, refusing to acknowledge emergent vocabulary and novel derivational affixation, or yes, flipping the hell out about singular "they".
Click to expand...
Don't forget the rules "Don't end a sentence with a preposition" and "Don't start a sentence with a conjunction".
This is just the sort of nonsense up with which I refuse to put. And I don't.
 
Not this "language evolves" argument again. It's true, but when there's still controversy surrounding it, I'd stay clear of it. Sometimes, you want to be as clear as possible, and sometimes, "they", feels cleaner than the blech-y "he or she", sometimes just doesn't cut it. Ultimately, though, that singular "they" still triggers heated arguments, it makes it less-than-ideal to incorporate it in writing. Just give it a few more decades and maybe it will be accepted everywhere.

Writing, especially formal writing changes way more slowly than spoken, so just because it's an "emergent vocabulary and novel derivational affixation" (really, now?) doesn't mean it's acceptable in writing. As Kurt Vonnegut Jr. said, "if it were only teachers who insisted that modern writers stay close to the literary styles of the paste, we might reasonably ignore them. But readers insist on the very same thing. They want our pages to look very much like the pages they have seen before."

I don't mind the "singular" they in conversation and informal writing; it flows a lot better than the clunky structures. I find in unacceptable in formal writing, though, and you will be dinged in English and grammar classes if you think the singular "they" is acceptable. There are dictionaries than contradict each other and themselves on the singular "they" and "they" isn't established quite yet in the language. There are quite lengthy arguments on the singular "they", so it isn't as clear-cut as what Walkazo asserts as "viable". To avoid such discussions, I'd rather not use "they" or "he or she" and rather reword the sentence as a whole (pluralize the subject, replace pronoun with an article, and other things). It's not a foolproof method, but it gets by a lot of times.

Singular "they" sounds awkward in this case either way. How would you address a known person whose gender cannot be identified? Like, somebody who is transgendered? "They" doesn't work. Neither does he or she.

Finally, I'd opt for "it". I don't care if it's dehumanizing, it's our speciest attitude that's blocking progress there.

So yeah, off-topic crap from a pedantic plumber person... thing.

Let's just agree to disagree here, m'kay?
 
What a.contradicton
 
The only thing I'm okay with would be that Toad and Toadette has no romantic feelings for each other.
 
And ship-sinking. :smug:

Seriously, though, I'm fine with them not being siblings and not being paired up, but the whole gender thing......I could see it working with Yoshis. But not Toads. I GUESS it could explain why female Toads are absent in some games, like Sticker Star and Dream Team.
 
Dude, guys, sensational journalism. Why are you guys believing that Toads are truly genderless?
 
And then there's Toadsworth, Zess T., Tayce T., Russ T., the Master, Fice T., Ghost T., Toadia, Jolene, Mush, Zip Toad, the Toad Waitress, etc.

Heck, the fact that Zess T. and Tayce T. are sisters and the Master is their brother produces another problem. The same problem comes up with Jolene and Mush. And don't forget the Toad Bros. Bazaar! And then we have the problem with the Toad Waitress.
 
J-Yoshi64 said:
And then there's Toadsworth, Zess T., Tayce T., Russ T., the Master, Fice T., Ghost T., Toadia, Jolene, Mush, Zip Toad, the Toad Waitress, etc.

Heck, the fact that Zess T. and Tayce T. are sisters and the Master is their brother produces another problem. The same problem comes up with Jolene and Mush. And don't forget the Toad Bros. Bazaar! And then we have the problem with the Toad Waitress.
Click to expand...

thing is a lot of these are from rpgs which nintendo doesnt consider canon so.....
 
Dr. Mario said:
Not this "language evolves" argument again. It's true, but when there's still controversy surrounding it, I'd stay clear of it. Sometimes, you want to be as clear as possible, and sometimes, "they", feels cleaner than the blech-y "he or she", sometimes just doesn't cut it. Ultimately, though, that singular "they" still triggers heated arguments, it makes it less-than-ideal to incorporate it in writing. Just give it a few more decades and maybe it will be accepted everywhere.

Writing, especially formal writing changes way more slowly than spoken, so just because it's an "emergent vocabulary and novel derivational affixation" (really, now?) doesn't mean it's acceptable in writing. As Kurt Vonnegut Jr. said, "if it were only teachers who insisted that modern writers stay close to the literary styles of the paste, we might reasonably ignore them. But readers insist on the very same thing. They want our pages to look very much like the pages they have seen before."

I don't mind the "singular" they in conversation and informal writing; it flows a lot better than the clunky structures. I find in unacceptable in formal writing, though, and you will be dinged in English and grammar classes if you think the singular "they" is acceptable. There are dictionaries than contradict each other and themselves on the singular "they" and "they" isn't established quite yet in the language. There are quite lengthy arguments on the singular "they", so it isn't as clear-cut as what Walkazo asserts as "viable". To avoid such discussions, I'd rather not use "they" or "he or she" and rather reword the sentence as a whole (pluralize the subject, replace pronoun with an article, and other things). It's not a foolproof method, but it gets by a lot of times.

Singular "they" sounds awkward in this case either way. How would you address a known person whose gender cannot be identified? Like, somebody who is transgendered? "They" doesn't work. Neither does he or she.

Finally, I'd opt for "it". I don't care if it's dehumanizing, it's our speciest attitude that's blocking progress there.

So yeah, off-topic crap from a pedantic plumber person... thing.

Let's just agree to disagree here, m'kay?
Click to expand...
Okay, first of all, don't minimize my valid language evolution stance as "not this again". That's rude and just asking for a fight, as was your initial "wrong. And stupid." comment - you clearly didn't appreciate me throwing it back at you (which I did to make a point), so maybe you should avoid using biased and pejorative language in the first place if you want to avoid these tiresome arguments. You accuse me of making the issue seem simpler than it is, but I acknowledged all along that there's folks who argue against it - whereas your initial post acted like it was unacceptable period, which is just not true, hence I made a rebuttal.

At least this post was better in that you acknowledge that singular "they" is found in informal language and make it more clear that it's your personal preference to not use it. But you're still missing the point of my argument, which is why should formal language lag behind what we're actually saying? And not just for "they", but for many other aspects too (which is what I was alluding to with "emergent vocabulary and novel derivational affixation" - thanks for that rude little aside too, by the way). I actually wrote a whole term paper on the lag in written language, so I could go on about this for a while if I wanted, but that'd be even more tangential, so I'll leave it at simply clarifying my position there.

But yeah, I'd rather agree to disagree to, although for future reference, following it up with yet another rude and condescending jab like "m'kay" is a rather poor way to try and make peace with someone.
 
Can anyone explain how an article about fictional fungus with some misattributions led to...this?
 
Baby Luigi said:
Can anyone explain how an article about fictional fungus with some attributions led to...this?
Click to expand...
I think I started it. :-X

Walkazo said:
Okay, first of all, don't minimize my valid language evolution stance as "not this again". That's rude and just asking for a fight, as was your initial "wrong. And stupid." comment - you clearly didn't appreciate me throwing it back at you (which I did to make a point), so maybe you should avoid using biased and pejorative language in the first place if you want to avoid these tiresome arguments. You accuse me of making the issue seem simpler than it is, but I acknowledged all along that there's folks who argue against it - whereas your initial post acted like it was unacceptable period, which is just not true, hence I made a rebuttal.

At least this post was better in that you acknowledge that singular "they" is found in informal language and make it more clear that it's your personal preference to not use it. But you're still missing the point of my argument, which is why should formal language lag behind what we're actually saying? And not just for "they", but for many other aspects too (which is what I was alluding to with "emergent vocabulary and novel derivational affixation" - thanks for that rude little aside too, by the way). I actually wrote a whole term paper on the lag in written language, so I could go on about this for a while if I wanted, but that'd be even more tangential, so I'll leave it at simply clarifying my position there.

But yeah, I'd rather agree to disagree to, although for future reference, following it up with yet another rude and condescending jab like "m'kay" is a rather poor way to try and make peace with someone.
Click to expand...
I've acknowledged that language evolution by itself is a reality, but people seem to keep bringing it up as kind of dismissive of my argument. It could be my exasperation for a more substantial argument than that, and this argument implicitly says I'm pedantic (which I admit, I am to an extent, but it's the dismissive tone that I don't appreciate). Language does evolve, but it's a gradual state, and seeing how there's still a controversy over some word usage, despite being widespread since late nineteenth-century makes me inclined to think that the word usage isn't okay to use.

I was being defensive from the language of that post as well. And no, while you were acknowledging that folks were arguing against, you're putting it in a light ("for some reason"). I've seen the comparisons of "grunting cave people" and "speaking like Shakespeare" which I have painted as an indirect, oversimplified attack on my beliefs. While my own behavior is inappropriate, I didn't appreciate these comparisons, intended to be at me or not.

Grammar rules are guidelines for writing clearly, really. I don't think they should be adhered to extremely strictly, although this whole "they" thing, I'm still leaning toward "not allowed", but as you said, it's more of a personal preference, and I just glance over more often than not. But the personal preference comes from a conclusion from what I've read, that "they" is still among heated debates, plentiful word usages and dictionary editions contradict themselves on that rule. From that, "singular they" is still not accepted, and there are even culture barriers; American grammarians are more hostile to it than British grammarians. What's overall agreed on is to reword the sentences to avoid the issue.

Language is very flexible. Often, there are case-by-case where it's okay to use something that would otherwise violate wording rules. You should write what's natural, but you should refine what you say, which is why we correct ourselves on tense errors, subject-verb agreement, and other things we'd glance over if it was spoken speech. I myself often glance over tense inconsistencies unless it's really glaring. But why should formal language lag? I can't find an explanation for "why", but it just lags in general. I think spoken and informal language is just more flexible compared to formal language, therefore, it changes more rapidly. During evolution, I think there are times where there's a "fad" language, but it falls out of favor rather quickly and it sounds dated. I suppose formal language is more resistant to adopt fad terms, but it's just an assumption, so please correct me on that.

But "they" isn't a fad. It's increasingly used, increasingly accepted in even formal media, but there's apparently no consensus on this... yet, and... now that I think about it, I do think those arguments against singular "they" stifle things a bit. "They" doesn't interfere with cognitive efficiency, unlike the clunky "he or she", "they" has been widely used. It's still technically wrong per se, but... that's only because of the traditional grammar rules.

I'm sorry for my rude tone right there. You're right that I was being condescending and snappy, and it's understandable that you are annoyed by it. I shouldn't have jumped in there and went all "stupid and wrong", that was a dumb move. I just realized that my own opposition to this whole thing is contributing to this debacle and ultimately why I'm even opposing in the first place. If there were less people naysaying, then there would be no argument, and singular "they" would have the freedom to roam home-free.
 
Shiny Umbreon said:
Not to be rude or anything, but this is completely off topic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is.

I just hope it all ends on a sweet note, though. :(
 
well if you want to continue debating, take it to pms or something
 
gee i'm trying to be helpful...and you make a joke out of it?

this isn't the best of the times to make a joke
 
Dr. Mario said:
I was being defensive from the language of that post as well. And no, while you were acknowledging that folks were arguing against, you're putting it in a light ("for some reason"). I've seen the comparisons of "grunting cave people" and "speaking like Shakespeare" which I have painted as an indirect, oversimplified attack on my beliefs. While my own behavior is inappropriate, I didn't appreciate these comparisons, intended to be at me or not.
Click to expand...
I was speaking about prescriptionist attitudes in general, not directing it at you, but I can understand where you're coming from, so sorry about riling you up - it's just a debate topic that I get perhaps a little too riled up about myself (language evolution is simply fascinating to me).

Shiny Umbreon said:
Not to be rude or anything, but this is completely off topic.
Click to expand...
Not completely, seeing as the root of the disagreement is pronoun usage for non-binary-gender topics, which has come up on the wiki before, and could be an issue here if this Toad gender stuff continues to be a thing, and not just poor reporting causing short term zomgs and confusion in the fandom. Either way, it's better to reach some amicable closure to the debate, rather than leaving it hanging and awkwardly hostile and crap like that. And fortunately, we did reach an end to the impasse pretty quickly all things considered, so yay.
 
Walkazo said:
Dr. Mario said:
I was being defensive from the language of that post as well. And no, while you were acknowledging that folks were arguing against, you're putting it in a light ("for some reason"). I've seen the comparisons of "grunting cave people" and "speaking like Shakespeare" which I have painted as an indirect, oversimplified attack on my beliefs. While my own behavior is inappropriate, I didn't appreciate these comparisons, intended to be at me or not.
Click to expand...
I was speaking about prescriptionist attitudes in general, not directing it at you, but I can understand where you're coming from, so sorry about riling you up - it's just a debate topic that I get perhaps a little too riled up about myself (language evolution is simply fascinating to me).

Shiny Umbreon said:
Not to be rude or anything, but this is completely off topic.
Click to expand...
Not completely, seeing as the root of the disagreement is pronoun usage for non-binary-gender topics, which has come up on the wiki before, and could be an issue here if this Toad gender stuff continues to be a thing, and not just poor reporting causing short term zomgs and confusion in the fandom. Either way, it's better to reach some amicable closure to the debate, rather than leaving it hanging and awkwardly hostile and crap like that. And fortunately, we did reach an end to the impasse pretty quickly all things considered, so yay.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm sorry this happened, and I feel so guilty about it, and I felt like people don't like me anymore and stuff. I hope you'll forgive me.

Anyhow, our wiki is adopting this kind of language (Toads are a genderless race) into the Toad (species) article. It's been bothering me now, but I'm not quite sure how to approach this problem. In my opinion, just because Nintendo leaves out to the jury to decide the Toads' genders doesn't necessarily make them genderless. Having an ambiguous gender and being genderless are two different things. But maybe I'm overthinking about this. I'd definitely like the original quote over a gaming journalist's conclusion so I can draw my own conclusion.
 
I'm not understanding why they just couldn't be male and female. Doesn't adding this genderless stuff just complicate things and bring up more questions? We already have Toad characters clearly established as male and female, so why change anything now?
 
Mechayoshi said:
I'm not understanding why they just couldn't be male and female. Doesn't adding this genderless stuff just complicate things and bring up more questions? We already have Toad characters clearly established as male and female, so why change anything now?
Click to expand...
Japanese language sometimes doesn't translate well into English language.

They're not changing anything, it's just the way they've been viewing things.
 
Isn't because of the English language is the reason Yoshi and Toad aren't gender ambiguous characters?
 
Eh.

Honestly? This doesn't bother me that much. Toads are such a silly and cartoony race, I don't really think it's too much of a big deal. I think it would've been better to leave it at male and female just to keep things simple, but whatever.

Koopalings not being Bowser's kid anymore made me more upset than this.
 
Baby Luigi, thank you so much for spreading misinformation.

(8 minutes, 44 second mark, around there)

According to Miyamoto's interview, it's much clearer now: Toads are designed without a set gender in mind. It's a bit different than ppl saying that they're genderless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back