So now that she's a "man" dating women, does that mean she/he/it is hetero?

No. This is silly and either a strawman argument or based on a fraction of a fraction of too-online Twitter warriors. Pay less attention to those people.

I would expect the role and character can go on just as it always has until the series ends.

Anyway, cool news for Elliot.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think arguing against hypothetical arguments that nobody has made is productive or helpful.

That fraction of a fraction of too-online Twitter warriors sure beat the shit out of Sia last week. Just sayin'

Coming up on 7 years later and still waiting for Jennifer Lawrence to slink back to sitcom work.

I'm happy for Elliott (Alan would have been a too obvious choice? ) Page, if he feels happier now. In my opinion nothing has to be changed for his character in the Umbrella Academy. He's an actor he can play the same character. I always thought that not trans people were offended, wenn cis-gender actors played trans-characters, some twitter warrior were offended for them. On the other hand, if they want to change Page's character for the show, it's fine with me, too. The personality of the character is important not the gender.

Would have been too much confusion with the other Alan Page


Seriously though, it obviously is not an easy thing to realize about ones self, and if that's how Elliot Page sees themself, then that is how they should be.

(I do wish we'd introduce a new gender-neutral pronoun, as it still pains me to use "they". Grammatically, I mean.)

So, so this...so much so that I can't bring myself to use it to refer to an individual. English definitely needs some singular gender-neutral pronouns that can be used to refer to people.

Netflix is updating the name on all of the content they currently carry.(according to Deadline)

I wondered how far this might go - will the other studios change all of the art/digital copies in their back catalogue? Obviously the most prominent are the X-Men films Disney currently owns.

As an obsessive Oscar historian, I would be so stoked if he one day became the first performer to have been nominated for both Best Actor and Best Actress.
That would be the Johnny Vander Meer of acting records - it would never be broken.

Paff just said one of the things I was going to mention. I'm all for being your true self, but the plural pronoun thing really bothers me. I've worked as a copy editor and proofreader for years. I was an English minor, and it drives me nutty.

My friend has a teen daughter, 14 or 15, who came out as gay a year or two ago and just recently said she doesn't identify as female anymore. So mom talks to daughter and is very supportive but tells her I can't call you a plural and grandma (retired English teacher) definitely won't. I think they're trying to come up with something. It's needed because it's confusing.

I think trans people are absolutely entitled to equal rights, to live their true selves and to be free of prejudice. However, I don't think they're entitled to upend the basic structure of the English language. An alternative singular pronoun would alleviate that.

That's my same issue with Latinx. First, that's just wrong on its own. If you want to pronounce it like that, then it should at least be Latin-x. But then you get into other issues there because words are literally masculine and feminine. Does all of that have to change, too?

Sorry if I took this too off topic. I wasn't trying to start a debate on the subject. Just something that has bugged me.

I can totally sympathize with the resistance to the singular they, but I'll just add that it's been used in writing for centuries. Chaucer and Shakespeare did it, even.

​​​​​​Agreed, though, that it's still isn't that common and can be tough to get used to. It doesn't hurt to try to get used to it though. It's quite literally the least any of us can do for those who prefer it.

Actually, English does have a gender neutral pronoun: it. However, referring to a person as "it" has always been considered problematic

Practice up until recently (this century) was to default to he/him when the gender was not specific or unknown.

In my job, this was a real issue, as I was often referring to students when their identity was kept anonymous. And it has always been a tug of war between grammarians and practical-minded writers over using "they."

So I am happy that "they" is becoming completely acceptable.

My issue is with the verb tense. If I am using "they" to refer to an individual because it is their chosen personal pronoun, then the verb tense should still be singular. For example: Elliot is an actor, they IS the star of a show on Netflix.

Or, alternatively, "Elliot is an actor; they are one of the stars of the a show on Netflix."
That feels like a natural sentence to me.

I kind of thought he fell off the radar, but looking at IMDB he’s been in quite a few films. I just haven’t seen/heard of them. Heard of The Umbrella Academy, but have never watched it and had no idea he’s in it. Liked a lot of his earlier work though.

ARE is for a plural noun. If a person chooses THEY as their personal pronoun, then THEY is singular. IS is the singular tense.

"They" is Elliot. Elliot IS one of the stars. So: They is one of the stars.

You should check out The Umbrella Academy. It’s a lot of fun. Unfortunately, Page is the weak link in the show.

I just watched a movie last week with him and Kate Mara getting it on with each other. Nudity from both.

Except for when it's not, right?
Joe says 2+2 is 5. He is wrong.
You say 2+2 is 6. You are wrong.
Both are singular. Both are valid, yes?
(Yes, I know this is different, and has different rules.)

I mean, I completely get the grammatical argument being made, and I don't completely disagree with it... but I just think there's also an aspect to accepting the changes in language as they present themselves and become common and natural. It seems counter-productive (dare I say, reactionary) to twist oneself into continuing to say something like "They is one of the stars," for the sake of perceived grammatical correctness (which is debatable, depending on the grammatist in question), when it's more natural to say, "They are..." and be done with it. If change wasn't ever allowed, we wouldn't have any of the fun contractions and neologisms that we have today, much to the delight of many (most?) grammatists, I'm sure.

Orly?! I love Kate Mara. I'll have to add this to the queue.

Yes, regarding the he/she vs. they argument, which we have been over somewhat ad nauseam before, I will continue to reflexively cringe whenever I see "they" used to speak of an individual, and will avoid said usage at all costs. As Paff and rbrown498 pointed out, if some people find it unacceptable to be called "he" or "she", a committee of trans folks should invent a new pronoun. Or not, but I refuse, for grammatical reasons, to consciously address a person as "they" (sometimes it slips out unwittingly in an involutely structured sentence).

Adding My Days of Mercy to the watch list

Conversely, instead of getting into the whole pronoun issue, why can't we drop ALL third-person singular gender-centered pronouns and replace them with the person's name? So instead of "Elliot thinks that they needs a haircut," we could say "Elliot thinks that Elliot needs a haircut." Even though it's a little awkward, it's no more awkward than using a plural pronoun for an individual.

Deadline made the mistake of 'deadnaming' in their earlier report and that has now been updated. I find this very bizarre, that the very mention of the persons name (the one which up until 10hrs ago everyone used) even in reporting about the change is now completely out of bounds.