Thank you Eric again for another great article. One error though is that Catherine McKenney identitfies as non binary and uses they/them pronouns. So should read "A huge chunk (38%) remain undecided — and I can’t help but wonder if Catherine McKenney gets a bit of a boost from the fact their name sounds a lot like former Ottawa Centre MP and cabinet minister Catherine McKenna."
Since it's being raised, I remain curious about the politics of pronouns. I sympathize with the idea that the received cultural norms may not be adequate to the desire for expressive identities. But replacing she/he or him/her by grabbing the plural gender-neutral option seems like an unimaginative way to express the unrepresented gender identity. In fact it looks more like hiding than expressing, with a bit of grammatical distortion thrown in, confusing the singular and the plural. Or is the underlying claim that the gender identification in question is indeed plural not singular? Why not a singular gender-neutral personal pronoun to suit the task at hand? Just curious, since it's being raised, what is the political rationale here?
Have to admit I remain a tad perplexed with the Greens. Eric, you suggest they are in "desperate need for something new". I sense they have been thrashing about freely in their little pond of the new to the point of losing their raison d'être. Which is perplexing because global weather has never been higher, as far as I can tell, on the public agenda, but the Greens seem unable to take advantage. They explode over Israel and the Palestinians. They seem to be all over the map with agendas roiling away inside the party, to the point that I've suggested they rename themselves the 'Coming Out Party' which might make the agitated compass of their politics clearer to Canucks. So is Liz trying to right the green ship or have all the little party boats sailed so far they no longer represent a viable destination in the public mind?
Glad you like it!
Thank you Eric again for another great article. One error though is that Catherine McKenney identitfies as non binary and uses they/them pronouns. So should read "A huge chunk (38%) remain undecided — and I can’t help but wonder if Catherine McKenney gets a bit of a boost from the fact their name sounds a lot like former Ottawa Centre MP and cabinet minister Catherine McKenna."
My apologies for the error, it has been fixed!
Since it's being raised, I remain curious about the politics of pronouns. I sympathize with the idea that the received cultural norms may not be adequate to the desire for expressive identities. But replacing she/he or him/her by grabbing the plural gender-neutral option seems like an unimaginative way to express the unrepresented gender identity. In fact it looks more like hiding than expressing, with a bit of grammatical distortion thrown in, confusing the singular and the plural. Or is the underlying claim that the gender identification in question is indeed plural not singular? Why not a singular gender-neutral personal pronoun to suit the task at hand? Just curious, since it's being raised, what is the political rationale here?
Thanks, I had to look up 'Ebonics', so always nice to learn stuff.
Have to admit I remain a tad perplexed with the Greens. Eric, you suggest they are in "desperate need for something new". I sense they have been thrashing about freely in their little pond of the new to the point of losing their raison d'être. Which is perplexing because global weather has never been higher, as far as I can tell, on the public agenda, but the Greens seem unable to take advantage. They explode over Israel and the Palestinians. They seem to be all over the map with agendas roiling away inside the party, to the point that I've suggested they rename themselves the 'Coming Out Party' which might make the agitated compass of their politics clearer to Canucks. So is Liz trying to right the green ship or have all the little party boats sailed so far they no longer represent a viable destination in the public mind?