I'm not entirely sure about this part: Am I wrong in thinking that "they/them" pronouns actually are affirmation for at least some nonbinary/genderqueer folks who use them? I probably can't...
I'm not entirely sure about this part:
Conservatives think they should not be forced to affirm that Kelsey is non-binary. But “they” does not affirm that Kelsey is any particular gender; it just avoids saying anything about Kelsey’s gender.
Am I wrong in thinking that "they/them" pronouns actually are affirmation for at least some nonbinary/genderqueer folks who use them? I probably can't explain myself well here, and maybe I'm totally off base, but it feels a bit dismissive.
This point is important because of something the usual rhetoric around pronouns obscures: gender-neutral pronouns are gender-neutral. “They” does not communicate that Kelsey is genderqueer in the way that “he” would communicate that Kelsey is a man or “she” would communicate that Kelsey is a woman.
Based on some folks I know, this also feels weird to me. "She" and "he" don't communicate gender any more concretely than "they." I know a demigender person who uses "she," and another nonbinary person who mostly goes by "he." These pronouns don't make the former a woman or the latter a man.
Anyway, I think gender-neutral pronouns are great. I just don't know if saying "hey, you're not actually affirming someone's gender by using these pronouns, just 'respecting' it," is the best way to get other people on board.
You're not wrong in that. However, that's not quite the point here. I can use "they" to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender (see what I did there?), so using this word doesn't affirm...
Am I wrong in thinking that "they/them" pronouns actually are affirmation for at least some nonbinary/genderqueer folks who use them?
You're not wrong in that.
However, that's not quite the point here. I can use "they" to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender (see what I did there?), so using this word doesn't affirm anything about someone's gender. If I write "my friend likes their ice-cream", have I affirmed anything about their gender to you? Is my friend male or female or otherwise? You don't know. I haven't affirmed that person's non-binary gender, I've just referred to them using a gender-neutral pronoun that I could use for anyone.
Using "they" can be just a gender-neutral referral from the conservative person's point of view, but also be an affirmation from the genderfluid person's point of view.
A bit off-topic. But is there in your experience an option to say "they lives/is in Baltimore" instead of "they live/are in Baltimore", such as it is clear you're referring to just one person and...
A bit off-topic. But is there in your experience an option to say "they lives/is in Baltimore" instead of "they live/are in Baltimore", such as it is clear you're referring to just one person and not more?
I don't think I've ever heard or read it, but I'm not a native speaker. However I guess it could make sense since it is usually called "singular they".
It's called the "singular 'they'", but it still conjugates like the plural version. Even if you're referring to one person, you still say "they live in Baltimore" and "they are in Baltimore". Then...
It's called the "singular 'they'", but it still conjugates like the plural version. Even if you're referring to one person, you still say "they live in Baltimore" and "they are in Baltimore".
Then again, we already did this with "ye" and "thou".
"Thou" was the original singular second-person pronoun in English, and its verb conjugations ended in "-t" or "-st": "thou art my friend", "thou hast a nice hat". Its object form was "thee": "look at thee", "I give this to thee". "Ye" was the plural second-person pronoun: "ye are all my friends", "ye have nice hats". Its object form was "you": "look at you [all]".
And, as in French, the singular form was the informal version, used with friends and subordinates, while the plural form was the formal version, used with strangers and superiors.
We dropped "thou/thee" because it was seen as impolite, treating everyone as an intimate. We started using the formal version "ye/you" for everyone, strangers and friends, plural and single. Then we dropped "ye", leaving us with only "you" for everything.
And, "you" still conjugates in its original plural form ("you are all my friends") even when it's used in singular form ("you are my friend").
So, it's not surprising that we're doing the same with "they": retaining its plural conjugation while using it in the singular.
English is a messy language! :)
EDIT: I omitted an apostrophe in a comment about grammar!
I thank my grandparents (on both sides): they're the ones who migrated here! But, yes, I would hate to have to learn English as an adult. I remember as a kid, seeing the poem that begins: "We’ll...
That's why I thank the Lord I was born into an English-speaking country.
I thank my grandparents (on both sides): they're the ones who migrated here!
But, yes, I would hate to have to learn English as an adult. I remember as a kid, seeing the poem that begins:
"We’ll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes."
... English is a nightmare. (And that's not a horse that comes out after sunset!)
Thanks, yes, that's what I figured since I've never seen any occurrence of the verb in the singular with "they". It is however interesting to notice that "themself" seems to be used in this...
Thanks, yes, that's what I figured since I've never seen any occurrence of the verb in the singular with "they".
It is however interesting to notice that "themself" seems to be used in this particular case (along wit "themselves").
To be honest, I don't think English is very difficult or messy (although of course, difficulty depends on your native language). Besides its daunting orthography (another example) and some strict word order or phonetical complexities, I'd say it's one of the most "simple" (in terms of morphology at least) and flexible languages I have studied. I imagine it's considerably more difficult for a native English speaker to grasp Romance or Slavic languages, or even German.
Yes, some people are using the word "themself" as an analogue to "himself" and "herself". It's definitely not a widely accepted word: the Oxford Dictionary (my go-to reference for all things...
It is however interesting to notice that "themself" seems to be used in this particular case (along wit "themselves").
Yes, some people are using the word "themself" as an analogue to "himself" and "herself". It's definitely not a widely accepted word: the Oxford Dictionary (my go-to reference for all things lexicological) says that "The form is not widely accepted in standard English, however." I assume it will grow in popularity and acceptance over time, though. I, myself, deliberately use "themself" as my own little contribution to this change.
I imagine it's considerably more difficult for a native English speaker to grasp Romance or Slavic languages, or even German.
Slavic, maybe, but not German or the Romance languages. Remember that English is, at its core, a Germanic language. On top of that, it has borrowed a lot of vocabulary from French - a Romance language. We also imported some Latin for our scientific words: Latin is the root of the Romance languages. There's therefore a lot of overlap between English and these languages. If I might speak colloquially, English is a cousin to German, and a step-cousin of the Romance languages.
Slavic, on the other hand, isn't related to English at all! Then there's the Arabic family, and the various African and Asian languages. Those are hard for English speakers to learn!
I mean, Slavic languages are definitely related by way of Indoeuropean, but certainly more distanced that Romance. I agree with the fact that a lot of vocabulary is shared by English and Romance...
I mean, Slavic languages are definitely related by way of Indoeuropean, but certainly more distanced that Romance.
I agree with the fact that a lot of vocabulary is shared by English and Romance languages, but that is just one factor. The morphological complexity is several orders of magnitude over that of English. Just noun genders, adjective-noun agreement and conjugations are pretty tough for English speakers. (Same with German and they also have declensions.) Much more so than the other way around.
When learning a language it is easier for a speaker to reduce morphological features (going from declension to non declesion, or from synthetic conjugation of tenses to auxiliary verbs or from gendered nouns to non gendered) than the other way around.
Yeah, I get how "they" is used as a gender-neutral way of referring to people, but usually I see that when the person is hypothetical or their gender is unknown or not relevant to the listener....
Yeah, I get how "they" is used as a gender-neutral way of referring to people, but usually I see that when the person is hypothetical or their gender is unknown or not relevant to the listener. It's a different use, akin to how "he" and "he or she" have been used in the past as "neutral" pronouns in some formal writing. For people whose issues with "they" pronouns are based on faulty grammatical arguments, the fact we use singular "they" in those contexts may be a convincing argument.
For people who don't think nonbinary genders exist (those who don't want to "affirm" someone's gender), I don't think the prior existence of a singular "they" will change their outlook or lead to them using "they" when referring to a specific person.
I have a cousin who goes by they. I don't at all mind really, but I do forget as I don't see them often. They don't get pissed at me for not remembering, because they know it is an unnatural way...
I have a cousin who goes by they. I don't at all mind really, but I do forget as I don't see them often. They don't get pissed at me for not remembering, because they know it is an unnatural way of referring to someone, especially when they've gone by a "traditional" label for decades. As long as it comes with that sort of understanding, then I have no qualms about doing my best to change the way I refer to them
History or not, it feels unnatural to me. I'm not saying that anyone should be told what they are to be called, I'm saying that there should be understanding for honest mistakes.
History or not, it feels unnatural to me. I'm not saying that anyone should be told what they are to be called, I'm saying that there should be understanding for honest mistakes.
The singular "they" is very much an uncommon way of referring to a specific, known, person. All its previous usage until the past decade or so has been to refer a non-specific unknown person. For...
The singular "they" is very much an uncommon way of referring to a specific, known, person. All its previous usage until the past decade or so has been to refer a non-specific unknown person.
For example:
"When a user opens the login page, they type in their ID and password."
"Every student must do their homework."
"Everyone should mind their own business."
They're all referring to general people: a general user, a general student, a general busybody. You don't know which user or student or busybody you're referring to: it's just a hypothetical person, a single but unknown member of a group.
However, taking the singular "they" and using it to refer to a specific person who you know...? That's new. That's unusual.
"I went to dinner with my friend. They told me an interesting story."
Wouldn't you normally say "He told me..." or "She told me..."?
"Look at Pat playing football. They're playing very well."
You would normally say "She's playing..." or "He's playing..."
This is a new usage for the singular "they". It will take some getting used to.
I'm not entirely sure about this part:
Am I wrong in thinking that "they/them" pronouns actually are affirmation for at least some nonbinary/genderqueer folks who use them? I probably can't explain myself well here, and maybe I'm totally off base, but it feels a bit dismissive.
Based on some folks I know, this also feels weird to me. "She" and "he" don't communicate gender any more concretely than "they." I know a demigender person who uses "she," and another nonbinary person who mostly goes by "he." These pronouns don't make the former a woman or the latter a man.
Anyway, I think gender-neutral pronouns are great. I just don't know if saying "hey, you're not actually affirming someone's gender by using these pronouns, just 'respecting' it," is the best way to get other people on board.
You're not wrong in that.
However, that's not quite the point here. I can use "they" to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender (see what I did there?), so using this word doesn't affirm anything about someone's gender. If I write "my friend likes their ice-cream", have I affirmed anything about their gender to you? Is my friend male or female or otherwise? You don't know. I haven't affirmed that person's non-binary gender, I've just referred to them using a gender-neutral pronoun that I could use for anyone.
Using "they" can be just a gender-neutral referral from the conservative person's point of view, but also be an affirmation from the genderfluid person's point of view.
A bit off-topic. But is there in your experience an option to say "they lives/is in Baltimore" instead of "they live/are in Baltimore", such as it is clear you're referring to just one person and not more?
I don't think I've ever heard or read it, but I'm not a native speaker. However I guess it could make sense since it is usually called "singular they".
It's called the "singular 'they'", but it still conjugates like the plural version. Even if you're referring to one person, you still say "they live in Baltimore" and "they are in Baltimore".
Then again, we already did this with "ye" and "thou".
"Thou" was the original singular second-person pronoun in English, and its verb conjugations ended in "-t" or "-st": "thou art my friend", "thou hast a nice hat". Its object form was "thee": "look at thee", "I give this to thee". "Ye" was the plural second-person pronoun: "ye are all my friends", "ye have nice hats". Its object form was "you": "look at you [all]".
And, as in French, the singular form was the informal version, used with friends and subordinates, while the plural form was the formal version, used with strangers and superiors.
We dropped "thou/thee" because it was seen as impolite, treating everyone as an intimate. We started using the formal version "ye/you" for everyone, strangers and friends, plural and single. Then we dropped "ye", leaving us with only "you" for everything.
And, "you" still conjugates in its original plural form ("you are all my friends") even when it's used in singular form ("you are my friend").
So, it's not surprising that we're doing the same with "they": retaining its plural conjugation while using it in the singular.
English is a messy language! :)
EDIT: I omitted an apostrophe in a comment about grammar!
That's why I thank the Lord I was born into an English-speaking country. I can't imagine how hard it is to immigrate to one and learn it as an adult.
I thank my grandparents (on both sides): they're the ones who migrated here!
But, yes, I would hate to have to learn English as an adult. I remember as a kid, seeing the poem that begins:
"We’ll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes."
... English is a nightmare. (And that's not a horse that comes out after sunset!)
Thanks, yes, that's what I figured since I've never seen any occurrence of the verb in the singular with "they".
It is however interesting to notice that "themself" seems to be used in this particular case (along wit "themselves").
To be honest, I don't think English is very difficult or messy (although of course, difficulty depends on your native language). Besides its daunting orthography (another example) and some strict word order or phonetical complexities, I'd say it's one of the most "simple" (in terms of morphology at least) and flexible languages I have studied. I imagine it's considerably more difficult for a native English speaker to grasp Romance or Slavic languages, or even German.
Yes, some people are using the word "themself" as an analogue to "himself" and "herself". It's definitely not a widely accepted word: the Oxford Dictionary (my go-to reference for all things lexicological) says that "The form is not widely accepted in standard English, however." I assume it will grow in popularity and acceptance over time, though. I, myself, deliberately use "themself" as my own little contribution to this change.
Slavic, maybe, but not German or the Romance languages. Remember that English is, at its core, a Germanic language. On top of that, it has borrowed a lot of vocabulary from French - a Romance language. We also imported some Latin for our scientific words: Latin is the root of the Romance languages. There's therefore a lot of overlap between English and these languages. If I might speak colloquially, English is a cousin to German, and a step-cousin of the Romance languages.
Slavic, on the other hand, isn't related to English at all! Then there's the Arabic family, and the various African and Asian languages. Those are hard for English speakers to learn!
I mean, Slavic languages are definitely related by way of Indoeuropean, but certainly more distanced that Romance.
I agree with the fact that a lot of vocabulary is shared by English and Romance languages, but that is just one factor. The morphological complexity is several orders of magnitude over that of English. Just noun genders, adjective-noun agreement and conjugations are pretty tough for English speakers. (Same with German and they also have declensions.) Much more so than the other way around.
When learning a language it is easier for a speaker to reduce morphological features (going from declension to non declesion, or from synthetic conjugation of tenses to auxiliary verbs or from gendered nouns to non gendered) than the other way around.
I'll take your word for it: I might know a lot about my native language, but that's as far as my knowledge goes.
Haha, ok. You should definitely try and learn a foreign language if you're interested in your own. It gives a lot of perspective, I think.
I know. One day I will.
Yeah, I get how "they" is used as a gender-neutral way of referring to people, but usually I see that when the person is hypothetical or their gender is unknown or not relevant to the listener. It's a different use, akin to how "he" and "he or she" have been used in the past as "neutral" pronouns in some formal writing. For people whose issues with "they" pronouns are based on faulty grammatical arguments, the fact we use singular "they" in those contexts may be a convincing argument.
For people who don't think nonbinary genders exist (those who don't want to "affirm" someone's gender), I don't think the prior existence of a singular "they" will change their outlook or lead to them using "they" when referring to a specific person.
Probably not.
I have a cousin who goes by they. I don't at all mind really, but I do forget as I don't see them often. They don't get pissed at me for not remembering, because they know it is an unnatural way of referring to someone, especially when they've gone by a "traditional" label for decades. As long as it comes with that sort of understanding, then I have no qualms about doing my best to change the way I refer to them
I wouldn't characterize using they/them pronouns as an 'unnatural way of referring to someone' since the history of using singular they is long. https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-singular-they/
History or not, it feels unnatural to me. I'm not saying that anyone should be told what they are to be called, I'm saying that there should be understanding for honest mistakes.
The singular "they" is very much an uncommon way of referring to a specific, known, person. All its previous usage until the past decade or so has been to refer a non-specific unknown person.
For example:
"When a user opens the login page, they type in their ID and password."
"Every student must do their homework."
"Everyone should mind their own business."
They're all referring to general people: a general user, a general student, a general busybody. You don't know which user or student or busybody you're referring to: it's just a hypothetical person, a single but unknown member of a group.
However, taking the singular "they" and using it to refer to a specific person who you know...? That's new. That's unusual.
"I went to dinner with my friend. They told me an interesting story."
Wouldn't you normally say "He told me..." or "She told me..."?
"Look at Pat playing football. They're playing very well."
You would normally say "She's playing..." or "He's playing..."
This is a new usage for the singular "they". It will take some getting used to.