Cece wrote:
concerned wrote:
So they would have been on blood thinners and that would have killed them without the procedure then? Or is it best to do the procedure without blood thinners?
What 'them'? You are talking in the plural, but there was one death. The coroner stated the death was not a result of the procedure. According her boyfriend jerkbutt's post here at thisisms, she was on two blood thinners. I think people who are scared about the death should know that doctors do not normally prescribe more than one blood thinner in conjunction with the procedure.
I was using 'them' and 'they" as gender neutral terms because, well, it's 2010. Didn't mean to imply that more people died from liberation-related blood thinner use.
Dictionary.com
Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference. See also he1 .