The amount of trans/NB hate is deeply troubling. Please act, Blizzard

Yes? Are the anti-LGBT+ arguments really devolving to the level of saying “grass is red, not green”?
There is an exceedingly high chance you have done this yourself. It’s insanely common for an exchange like this to happen:

“Hey, have you met the new hire yet?”

“No, I haven’t seen them.

I actually had a discussion like this with my boss one day. I mentioned this exact thing and he mused on it. Days later he’s laughing with me in his office telling me about how he caught himself doing exactly that and that he’d learned something he didn’t realize.

Centuries of historical use as a singular is not “newspeak”.


While I agree that language is fluid and changes, this is not to accept intentional and abrupt artificial agenda insertions. These are not linguistically relevant. They’re just social agendas being implemented through propaganda. Legitimate linguistic changes are organic.


What about the people of a minority race who say they like seeing leaders who “look like them” there was a company wide presentation that had some minority in a lead position who said she liked seeing leaders who “looked like her” yet the rest of us who dont give a crap what people look like are racist because we are white men?

1 Like

Ah, such new introductions to language like singular they. Allow me to yeet this at you

The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’

Man, Women
Buck, Doe
Adam, Eve.

From this:
Amazon = Women, Her
Assassin = Women, Her
Necromancer = Man, His
Barbarian = Man, His
Paladin = Man, His
Sorcerer = Women, Her
Druid = Man, His
Blizzard = Their :smirk:

This subject is really heated right now, though. :sweat_smile:


An artistic misuse of language is not an authority on the matter. Here is websters dictionary from 1828

THEIR, pronoun pronominal

1. their has the sense of a pronominal adjective, denoting of them, or the possession of two or more; as their voices; their garments; their houses; their land; their country.

2. Theirs is used as a substitute for the adjective and the noun to which it refers, and in this case, it may be the nominative to a verb. ‘Our land is the most extensive, but theirs is the best cultivated.’ Here theirs stands as the representative of their land, and is the nominative to is.

Nothing but the name of zeal appears

'Twixt our best actions and the worst of theirs.

In this use, theirs is not in the possessive case, for then there would be a double possessive.

1 Like

I have a sibling. Do you think they would agree with you?

The correct pronoun is he or she, unless for some reason you have never met your sibling and have no idea which – in which case the correct pronoun is “he”.


I think it is way much easier to use “it” to refer to someone who thinks it isn’t a he or she from now on

Make more sense anyways, if they do not consider themselves as humans, we may as well just respect their choices.


That is a very weird non-sequitur to bring up, but okay. I feel it’s a pretty normal thing for people of certain characteristics to see characters or people in leadership positions who share characteristics with them. That’s a basic common thing with people. People who wear glasses often like seeing cool characters who wear them. People who are a certain skin color like seeing others of the same skin color in important positions. People are inherently at least somewhat tribalistic, after all.

Your point about you supposedly being called “racist” for not caring about race is rather out-there however. While there are generally reasons where it’s good to acknowledge the advantages and disadvantages of being a particular skin color in society, there isn’t a significant population of people out there who will call you racist simply because you’re a white man. Yes, you can find it if you look in the deepest recesses of Twitter or Tumblr, or happen to come across one of the many people who like to post screenshots of said posts all over the internet for rage bait. There are, however, billions of people in the world. This isn’t even a drop in the bucket. It’s a drop in a swimming pool that a lot of people happen to really like holding a magnifying glass to.
It’s like those people who acted like there was a rampant problem in the world of eating tide pods even though the actual cases of people doing this made up less than 0.00009% of the world’s population. Or around 0.002% of the US population, for another frame of reference. Yeah, you could easily find people on the internet who did it, because the internet makes a lot of things easy to find. Doesn’t mean that tide pod eating was somehow the new rampant political view of the modern generation.
If I were you I’d spend more time interacting with people in person rather than judging your views of public based on a few randos on social media and crappy news outlets engineered to be as sensationalist as possible.

Lol I just checked and Webster reports that singular they has been in continuous use since the late 1300s

You might want a different source

I’m pretty sure the issue here is they didn’t want to gender the player based on the character, but the anti-woke decided to get offended over nothing & throw a fit again.

I suppose. I mean “they” is commonly used, improperly, I’ll give him that. And that is how language changes. But the shift to using this organic version of the word to being forcibly newly defined as a polite genderless pronoun is not organic, and not part of any sound linguistic definition, even liberally measured.


I’m uninterested what the current owners of websters tell you about its history. I’m interested in what the actual pre-social agenda dictionary said. And I’ve provided that.

Actually it is, in a way. Meanings of words are not determined by what some people from 1828 said. They’re determined by how people use them now. It’s extremely commonplace in the English language to use it as a singular and has been for a long time, especially with the centuries-long history we’ve noted to you.
There used to be people who were like this about singular “you”, you know. They acted as if “thou” was the only acceptable singular and called anyone who used “you” as a singular an idiot. And yet, singular “you” still prevailed no matter what people who perceived themselves to be authorities on the matter thought.

All I am saying is this, the same people who cry out racism, say that they like seeing people who “look like them”. And this movement is so powerful that most corporations in america support it and give them a platform. Could you imagine if a white man said, “I like seeing leaders who look like me”. Seriously.


Also I agree my comment is out of left field, the company I work for has been promoting this inclusion stuff, but really it means include everyone but white men. Myself being raised to not be racist is not feeling to good about all of this. But what does this have to do with blizzard changing pronouns, I mean its sort of related but oh well.


You keep saying “social agenda” as if it inherently delegitimizes the subjects you’re talking about. What do you mean by this? Are you saying that Webster was metaphorically held at gunpoint to make this change? What makes you think that, just because you personally perceive a supposed radical gender agenda pervading society, that can be the only reason this change was made? Is it not somehow reasonable that, now that non-binary genders are gradually becoming more accepted, people pointed out to Webster that acknowledging its plural use makes sense both due to its expanded use of a word, and its historically-proven use in such a manner?

Social engineering. Dictionaries are supposed to report what a word means via its organic changing. Not add definitions as a means to direct society. And that is what we are now seeing.

While “they” has been used as a genderless pronoun, it has never been used as a polite word to exclude gender. That is an added definition meant to social engineer. Not organic.