Dennis E. Baron

You Can't Always Say What You Want by Dennis Baron is a wonderful examination of free speech, the responsibility that goes along with free speech, and where the lines have been drawn over the years.

This is a clear-eyed look and most readers will appreciate the contemporary concerns that largely served as a catalyst for the book. Some, apparently like the Kirkus Reviews reviewer who apparently has reading comprehension issues, feel that inciting a riot and causing people to storm the Capital is on a par with an entertainer commenting about wanting to blow up the White House. That was not a threat and Baron addressed just that type of comment when he addressed Watts v United States that such a comment that does not look to incite violence is not a threat. That case involved someone saying if he was forced to carry a rifle the first person he wanted in his sights was LBJ. I guess the KR reviewer skipped that part of the book or just thinks the threats made by the President to hyped up followers is on a par with an old entertainer expressing disdain for a worthless President. Fortunately, the courts disagree, and anyone else reading this book without blinders will be able to follow the argument. For people like that weak reader, well, I guess KR is scraping the bottom of the putrid barrel.

I would highly recommend this for readers with active reading skills and an open mind. For others, well, drink more Kool-Aid and go to Jamestown.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.… (plus d'informations)

The quest for a singular third-person gender neutral pronoun is centuries old, and invented pronouns like "xe," "hir," and "thon" are nothing new. In these times when we are learning that gender is fluid, I read this book hoping to make sense of it all.

English is actually a pretty gender-neutral (or "nonbinary" as some prefer) language compared to many others. The lack of a singular third-person gender neutral pronoun is a sticky exception, and kind of an accident. Originally, grammar schools only taught Latin, not English. The British decided that when gender was ambiguous, the male pronoun would be the default. When schools started teaching English, that "male superiority" rule simply carried over.

But, time and again, when the "he" pronoun appeared in laws, it was hypocritically interpreted as gender-neutral to ensure women could be taxed and jailed, and as male to prevent women from voting and holding office. The quest for a gender-neutral pronoun to prevent such discrimination was hotly political.

The book's chief thesis is that the solution already exists: singular "they." Singular "they" has been in widespread use for seven centuries, and embraced by authors from Shakespeare to Austen even when the gender is known. Grammarians who protest against it (as I once did) are churlish and impractical. Religious folks who feel oppressed when they can't call someone "he" or "she" are ignoring that they far outnumber nonbinary folks. (I would editorially add that the cornerstone of every faith is the Golden Rule, so why would any devout person address someone in a way that dehumanizes them?)

Those odd "neo-pronouns" like "xe," in practice, really only refer to the unique individual who goes by it. They are basically a substitute for the person's name, which makes them tricky for people to learn and embrace. For this reason, genderqueer people often go by "he" or "she" in a business setting and "they" in private.

The controversial Canadian laws that require the use of preferred pronouns in certain settings (like education, commerce, and housing) prevent people from using inappropriate pronouns to signal discrimination and create hostility against minorities. These laws are a weapon against the tyranny of the majority.

Early in the book, the author warns that it's based on his own limited research. But he did a lot of research, and slaps your fool head with tons of examples from law and literature. It doesn't make for the smoothest audiobook experience.

The writing style has just the right amount of wit and condescension that a book on grammar ought to have, and these are carried over to Paul Boehmer's narration. Boehmer uses a British accent when quoting British sources, which is distracting and unnecessary. Though it would have been amazing if had used regional accents for all the American and Canadian sources.

In the end, I accept but am not completely satisfied with the singular "they" solution. It can cause confusion with regard to what subject or object it's referring to. Then again, all pronouns have that problem. I think that, in the far future when we are hopefully more just and equal, we will use gender-neutral pronouns as a matter of course. And in the few remaining cases when a person's sex or gender matters, we will identify it in a way that is convenient and non-disparaging.… (plus d'informations)