says you!

Exactly. That was kind of my point with that last comment. Sorry if it was stated with insufficient clarity…….I am always willing to stand corrected.

::sighs as well:: If only. I could deal with any number of things such as a singular "they" if a larger percentage of those who post on comment pages were familiar with the work of Noah Webster and the Merriam brothers.

OK. I get it. I'm not sufficiently out of it, though, to think that LOL is new.

Yeah, there's usually a workaround like that. I can see it getting awkward, though, to try to construct sentences like that all the time and the they/their thing is less clunky. I get it.

LOL

Thanks for the explanation.

Sorry, probably just overreacting to the fact that I can't read a comments page these days without multiple instances of there, their and they're being used interchangeably, or people writing things such as "could of, should of"…..the list goes on.

I can't recall having done so, but I won't argue about it. Wouldn't it be consistent, though, in that case, to use "we" over "I"?

Sorry, I keep forgetting that the times have thrown grammar out the window. My error. Showing my age.

Dillon refers to Dillon as "I", not "we", yet the article uses the plural "they" and "their". Does non-binary gender identity confer a multiple self and if so why does Dillon not use "we" to refer to Dillon?