We-incl need a clearer distinction between inclusive and exclusive “we” in English. Speaking for heterosexuals, to a mixed audience or a specific listener, doesn’t bother me at all. Out of context, a sentence like “We can’t really understand same-sex attraction” could be read as either “Heterosexuals, such as I, are empathically challenged. Mind the inferential gap.” or “We can all agree that queers are weird.”.
I try to interpret ambiguity charitably, so usually when it irritates me the issue isn’t ambiguity, but actual exclusiveness.
A sentence like “We seek out mates among attractive members of the opposite sex,” for example, isn’t ambiguous at all; it simply excludes some queers from its subject.
And, just to be clear: the speakers of such sentences are free to do so, and should be.
I bring it up only because army1987 seemed to be drawing potentially false inferences from silence: the reality is I am sometimes bothered by it.
I am sometimes irritated when speakers use “we” to refer to heterosexuals, which happens fairly often. I just don’t usually mention the fact.
We-incl need a clearer distinction between inclusive and exclusive “we” in English. Speaking for heterosexuals, to a mixed audience or a specific listener, doesn’t bother me at all. Out of context, a sentence like “We can’t really understand same-sex attraction” could be read as either “Heterosexuals, such as I, are empathically challenged. Mind the inferential gap.” or “We can all agree that queers are weird.”.
I try to interpret ambiguity charitably, so usually when it irritates me the issue isn’t ambiguity, but actual exclusiveness.
A sentence like “We seek out mates among attractive members of the opposite sex,” for example, isn’t ambiguous at all; it simply excludes some queers from its subject.
And, just to be clear: the speakers of such sentences are free to do so, and should be.
I bring it up only because army1987 seemed to be drawing potentially false inferences from silence: the reality is I am sometimes bothered by it.