31
votes
Do you use gender-neutral pronouns? Which one do you prefer?
A series of gender neutral alternatives for the third person singular pronouns (he/she/it) have been proposed throughout the recent years (and maybe decades). I wonder the preferences of fellow users here in that regard. So I'd be glad if you could answer the questions in the title, and maybe elaborate a bit on the reasons of your preference. I'm both interested in this generally, and it could be useful as a means to help me practice quantitative linguistic variation (obviously this would hardly be scientifically usable source of data for actual real research so I'm not asking this for that purposes). I'll add my preference as a comment.
I use 'they' where appropriate. Because English already has a gender neutral third person singular pronoun. None of the proposed alternatives are any good in my opinion. Synthetic words often seem to be clunky that way.
Obviously if people express a preference for something else then I'll try my best to remember to use what they prefer, of course.
I really hate 'they' being the best we have of a bad lot of option because it's often ambiguous whether you're talking about a singular person. The other day I saw someone talking about an account here and I wasn't sure if the account was managed by multiple people or they didn't want to assume the accounts gender.
I can't recall ever encountering this ambiguity. It is always clear to me whether "they" is a single person or a group of people.
I mean most of the time it's clear to me but I'm not clairvoyant enough to pick it out even given the context 100% of the time.
If you're looking for a language where you don't need to rely on context at all, then English isn't the right choice. This is a Frankenstein of a language that uses all kinds of bastardized grammatical rules and word meanings to create communication. How many times have you seen "all but" used to mean "everything except" and "everything including"? Hell, English isn't even the worst. If you want to see a hellscape of required context, how about FInnish?
In terms of what's more important: gender identity or plurality... well, that depends on context! There are plenty of situations where either can be more important than the other. If you're being careful about referring to someone, gender is way more important than how many people you think they might be. If you're referring to groups of people, then suddenly the gender doesn't matter all that much. It depends on what you're talking about.
If the biggest concern with this is trying to figure out if it's one person or multiple, that's a pretty benign problem as far as the English language's problems go.
I do agree that 'they' can lead to confusion. However using 'he' for everyone gets into the "no girls on the internet" mentality (related Tildes thread). It keeps up the appearance that everyone is male, and to be female (or nonbinary) is to be different. And if you assume everyone is male, it makes those that aren't feel invisible.
edit for spell check
This is somewhat off topic and not meant to be inflammatory, just a piece of information.
References to "Apache attack helicopters" are really annoying and detrimental when talking about gender. The phrase "I identify as an Apache attack helicopter ha ha ha" has been used for years to put down and discredit those that have a gender identity different than male or female (aka, nonbinary). While I really don't think you meant to hurt anybody here, the fact that out of all the random professions or titles you could pick you used "Apache attack helicopter pilot" means it was on your mind to some degree.
Please, do not bait people by using a reference that you know is charged and/or harmful.
If you're using an example like 'a Tildes user' on Tildes, then it's a fact. If you know for a fact that they are a Breitbart subscriber, then 'a Breitbart subscriber' would be a fact. Calling someone an attack helicopter pilot (when they are not) is false and so should not be used. But if they also pilot an Apache, great! Call them an Apache attack helicopter pilot.
Using singular they as a default when you don't know the gender isn't 'being respectful to non-binary genders', it's being respectful to every gender. Language changes constantly, maybe we'll start using a neopronoun to refer to specifically singular people. Maybe plural 'they' will be split off and given a different name. But for right now, 'they' is definitely singular and is grammatically correct.
This is a bit of a red herring. Unlike a given gender identity, being a Tildes user is not usually a fundamental aspect of one's social identity and psychosomatic processes. It is usually better not to assume that people will get offended as you say, but rather to try to facilitate respectful and open lines of communication. This will get you much further toward your apparent goal of understanding how to mindfully interact with people who are different from you.
Take a moment to contemplate why others might prefer pronouns you are not accustomed to using regularly, and how those use cases might serve them. Defending your values surrounding what you perceive to be the etymologically and syntactically ideal means of pronoun gendering... that's just going in a thought loop. Personally I prefer to exercise some neuroplasticity as I get older. If you want to cling to conservative modes of expression as you age, that's your choice, but take note that it will reduce the occasions in which some people will take you seriously.
How is "he" ambiguous in gender? it's the masculine form. The singular form that's arguably ambiguous in gender is "it".
Meanwhile, singular "they" has been in use for years on end. One can argue ambiguity all they want, language is by it's very a nature a system of ambiguities and arbitrary conventions which require additional contextual information, you're not going to escape that unless you actively rationalize all of it.
And what if the user in question is not a "he"? Also, "a Tildes user" is not a pronoun.
"When a Tildes user posts in Tildes, the user will go to a group where the user will see a button saying 'Post a new topic'. The Tildes user clicks on this button... etc."
At some point, you need a pronoun. If you use "he", you're alienating all the women (and non-binary) people on Tildes. "They" is the only option left.
Pronouns always require context to understand. Just ignore her.
(I'm intentionally breaking the rules by using a pronoun without any adequate context to show what I mean. I can already tell it makes my comment confusing.)
Back to the point, you understood the sentence with context, and brought up that if it lacked context it would have been confusing, which isn't a surprising concept. When you used singular they to refer to a character who I assume had a binary gender (I'm guessing this wasn't a conscious decision), you presented it with adequate context - did you have to think about it?
Like I said, I think it's the best of a bad lot. It may be occasionally confusing but it doesn't offend anyone.
I always make sure to include a "this person", "someone", or other word to indicate individuality at least once when I use they and it's ambiguous whether it's a single or multiple people.
As I wrote just the other day, we English speakers generally don't like to use a new word when we can re-purpose an existing one.
Agreed. Also, people usually don't go along with concerted efforts to deliberately make new words, preferring that they arise more naturally. See this reference video on the subject.
Do any languages do this?
I've been using singular "they" ever since middle school at the latest. I always found the use of "he" or "she" when discussing an arbitrary person to be clunky and awkward because it assumes a gender where none is specified. Why write about "him" if it could turn out that I'm referring to "her" or vice versa?
It honestly amazes me that people still use gender-specific pronouns when discussing arbitrary hypothetical people. It just doesn't make any sense.
Seeing a gendered pronoun in a sentence about an arbitrary person is pretty off putting but when it's clearly done on purpose its like a brick to the face. I can understand when people slip up and default to using a stereotypical pronoun in a sentence but some people go out of their way to make sure they use the reverse stereotypical pronoun
The author knows and understands the problem but they chose to continue propagating it instead of going with a gender neutral pronoun.
Or the author will pseudo-randomly switch between the two gendered pronouns. That's even more confusing.
So I'm definitely pretty ignorant on this topic, but why is there a need for this at all? Can't one just use the he/she pronouns depending on how a person looks? And if someone wants to be called a pronoun that's at odds with how they present themselves, then isn't that on them to inform people?
Well in the internet, you don't know how they look. And somebody that looks 'like a she' to you may really be nonbinary. And every time you call them 'she' it's reminding them that you see them as female and can cause intense gender dysphoria.
Very true. I was thinking about meatspace. I wouldn't want to assume gender when I have no indicators at all such as online (unless the name indicates a gender).
Yes, but if they wanted to be treated in some way that falls outside of the status quo, shouldn't that be on them to tell others?
Again, isn't that on them to tell others if they want someone to use some other pronoun? Also, I firmly believe that no one is responsible for other people's feelings, not that I want to go out of my way to offend anyone or cause them discomfort.
Getting people on board to use 'they' until told differently is really a small linguistic difference that makes all the social difference to trans and nonbinary people. Right now, I have to introduce myself with "Hi, I'm Pamy and my pronouns are they/them," if I want my pronouns to be used. But that immediately paints a target on me. I have to judge if the person is going to ridicule me, hate me, dehumanize me, possibly even assault me. And I don't always want to take the chance. So that person will never know my pronouns aren't she/her because I wasn't in a safe space (public) to tell them and I'll have to listen to them refer to me as a woman and girl until the interaction ends. This isn't that specific person's fault, but more a situational/society thing.
As someone who's had few/perhaps-no interactions with trans people, may I ask you a question in good faith?
Yes!
For reference, I am trans masculine. Meaning that I was assigned the female sex at birth, but am transitioning towards a more masculine appearance. I'm also nonbinary (not man, not woman).
You mentioned in another comment that it's a bit of a gamble asking others to use "they" because you're not sure of the reaction. Wouldn't it just be easier to ask them to use "he" since you said above that you're transitioning to a more masculine appearance? And follow up to that if I could, if the answer is "no" or "not right now" then do you plan on switching to the masculine pronoun when you've finished with your transition?
But I'm not a man. There's a very deliberate reason why I say I'm trans masculine, not a trans man.
The precise word for my gender is 'Neutrois'. Nonbinary is an umbrella term that just means 'not woman or man'. I only prefer he/him because it's not she/her.
When I'm going to work I wear feminine rings, a binder (to compress my chest to look masculine) have short masculine hair, wear a casual buttondown plaid shirt, a packer (gives my pants a bulge) and somewhat baggy jeans. But when I'm going out on the town or even just grocery shopping I wear mixed clothing. Binder for the chest, a casual dress, hairy legs, hairy armpit hair, feminine voice inflections (with an androgynous to low voice pitch), sometimes a purse. Or sometimes it's a baseball cap, baggy shirt, binder and packer, yoga pants, and combat boots. I purposefully try and confuse people when they look at me. "Are they a boy... or girl?" I just find it easier to do if I have a masculine 'base' to work off of.
(Disclaimer: this is not the opinion of every trans masc, or nonbinary, or neutrois, or trans person.)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I can tell you care a lot about this topic I appreciate you sharing your thoughts/experiences with me.
OK, thanks for clarifying. I guess I'm asking from the point of view of "ease of interactions." In no way is this a direct corollary, but I can think of an example in my own life. I'm from suburb X which is near city Y. When people ask where I'm from, I say city Y because I know they've heard of it whereas no one knows what X is and I'll have to stop and explain.
Similarly, I know some folks from China and when people ask where they're from they say "China" rather than their particular province because that's what people are familiar with.
I realize that those examples aren't as core to their identity as being nonbinary might be to yours. It seems like that would be easy to do, but you've chosen a more difficult (and braver) path and so I'm curious why.
Well, if you notice I say I'm nonbinary instead of Neutrois. Because Neutrois is contained within nonbinary and more people know what that means.
I'm curious. Have you ever had gender dysphoria explained to you?
This sounds like not a big deal because it says 'uncomfortable'. But for a lot of people, it's more than just 'uncomfortable'. Somebody referring to me as a woman makes me suddenly extremely self conscious. I check my chest and binder to make sure it's not sticking out too much, I start fidgeting with my clothes. Is my shirt too tight? Am I talking wrong? Hows my hair? Once I paid $20 at a super shitty haircut place last minute that screwed up my hair because I was CONVINCED that it was just slightly too long. They cut off less than an inch (unevenly, hence the 'screwing it up'). But until I cut my hair, I could not focus on ANYTHING other than how feminine my hair looked. One of my partners will spend over an hour in the mirror trying to pluck stray hairs from their beard after shaving, trying to look less masculine. I've had dreams where I cut off my own breasts.
But at the same time, I'm not a man. I only prefer 'he' over 'she' because it means that I'm doing something right in not looking like a girl.
Edit: This video is titled 'Gender Dysphoria' and is done by ContraPoints. It communicates a lot of the same feelings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayuqizp4fyY
I'm glad I started this topic! These two comments of yours, you can't get to read this sort of stuff on wikipedia or papers or books on gender, thanks a lot! I'm truely learning stuff from this thread.
To your partner: they can try getting their cheeks waxed. I don't know if it's commonplace on your side of the world but here in Turkey barbers do that in order to clean up edges of beards that creep up the cheekbone. They can also try using a rope to do "threading", it seems to work but I failed to do that. Again, barbers do that here, hairdressers too. Both of these techniques you can apply to yourself, and I tried both because I have a bit of an excess of facial hair in terms of area, but I failed (then eventually gave up on it because if I'm also growing a beard, which I do, the straight edge when you shave or pluck to clean it up looks very awkward to me, but it should be fine when you're removing all of it). IDK if that was because I am clumsy and short-tempered or if people are just experts at it (probably a bit of both), but I do know that it works for many people.
Glad to be of service bows while curtsying
Their beard is so full and grows so fast that the only luck they're going to have is to get is lasered off (which they definitely want!). It's just so expensive to get it done. But one day we'll get it for them.
They are lucky to have nice friends like you!
Thank you sincerely for the insight. I'll watch that video right now.
Because it's handy to have, and writing or saying "he or she" all the time is annoying as hell.
Many languages have a gender neutral pronoun, called an epicene. They're often used when referring to a singular person without a gender, such as when giving instructions. For example, in French you will see the pronoun "on" used, such as "on a une balle" (they have a ball).
Presumption is uncouth.
Yes.
All very true. English is lacking in many things so I'll throw the lack of an epicene on the pile :)
Many (I think most, actually) languages have gendered words, as well.
We often struggle with people using the language "properly". What makes you think they're really going to be willing to adjust how they speak just to cater to someone else? If they cater to one group, what's to stop another from asking the same? At what point do they draw the line?
I do what I can to accommodate other people, but the simple fact is sometimes you don't run into these people until you use the wrong word, and sometimes you try to use the right word around the right people until you run into someone who doesn't look like the right person but happens to be.
In short - It's impossible to keep everyone happy at first interaction. I think it's reasonable to get upset at someone who refuses to accommodate, but to get upset at someone because they don't accommodate before you even ask is absurd and unrealistic.
Please complete these sentences:
I was discussing fruits with another person on Tildes. I like bananas, but _____ like apples.
When someone buys a ticket via our website, we have to send the ticket to _____.
If someone invests money in the stock market, _____ could lose _____ life savings.
I'm not sure I follow. Is there some word that you're hinting at other than "they?"
Algernon is saying that 'they' is needed to fill that blank, a direct response to the quote "why is there a need for this at all?"
Nope. I'm hinting directly at "they" (and "them" and "their"), to show you there is a need for a gender-neutral pronoun, because you asked why there is a need for such a thing.
I guess I'm still confused. Why not say "he" if you can see someone and they're a "he?" Are we saying we should always say "they?"
I'm confused! You questioned the need for "they" at all - not just in specific situations. I showed you lots of needs for "they".
Now you're narrowing down your question from a need for a gender-neutral pronoun at all to a need for it in one particular situation.
If you have met a person, and he is a "he" (and he has confirmed that he is a "he"), then, yes, you can use "he" and not "they". Similarly, you can use "she" if she is a "she".
However, not all people are "he's" or "she's". Some people do not have a gender. They are genderfluid or non-binary or transgender or whatever they choose to call themselves. These people are not a "he" or a "she". They need a pronoun which does not specify a gender. And, we users of English are in the process of re-purposing the singular "they" for this usage.
Aw, that's what I wasn't following. OK. "They" in that case sounds weird to me as if there are more than one person, but if someone asks me to call them that, I'd be happy to.
On a tangent: Do folks do similar things for people with multiple personalities? I think that'd make sense to use it there as well since there are more than one "person" inhabiting the physical body.
I'm no expert, but I have read a few books about and by people with multiple personalities.
It depends on context.
Mostly in these cases, one single personality will be in charge of the body at any given time. If Mary is in charge of the body, then she is the one who walks down to the shop to buy milk. If something happens along the way, and Mark becomes the dominant personality, then he is the one who walks back from the shop with the milk. She went to the shop to buy milk and he brought the milk home. However, like with any group of people, you could say that they - Mary and Mark - bought the milk as a joint effort.
If the personalities are in communication with each other (as often happens as therapy progresses), then the personalities can discuss issues together and make decisions together. In this case, a group of people is acting, so they discuss it and they agree.
In a book that I read which was written by a group of multiple personalities, they repeatedly referred to themselves as "we", and never "I". However, in most other cases of multiple personalities, the current dominant personality would refer to themself as "I", and use "we" only when referring to a discussion that more than one personality had participated in.
The use of "they" depends on whether you're referring to one of the personalities or more than one of them.
Was that book Sybil? Sadly they were determined to be faking it :(
However we do exist! And you put everything wonderfully. I have no objections (as a person with multiple identities).
Which book? I have a few on this subject! (Yes, including 'Sybil'.) However, the one written by the multiple personalities themselves was 'When Rabbit Howls' by The Troops for Truddi Chase.
Thank you! I saw that you had written and posted your shorter reply while I'd been writing my longer reply, and considered deleting mine seeing as your personal experience obviously overrides my readings as an outsider. However, I trusted in my readings about this subject to see me through. :)
Thank you for that thoughtful answer!
Well depends. Are the people with multiple identities (language around the disorder has changed. 'Personalities' got replaced with 'identities') open and/or 'out'? It's really not common to be open about having the disorder in person, there's a lot of stigma.
Depending on the situation, my partners will refer to me as plural or singular. Depends on if they're talking to all of my alters/identities, or just the me that's out and talking.
I routinely and unconsciously use gender-neutral pronouns for other people: specifically, the singular "they".
I've previously done some research and I found this PDF document which shows that the New South Wales state government implemented the singular "they" in its legislation back in 1983, and the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department started using the singular "they" back in 1995. A few years back, I was watching a re-run of an Aussie television show from the early 1990s, and the characters used the singular "they" quite regularly.
In that context, I've been using the singular "they" for as long as I can remember. It's common practice here in Australia.
Whenever I've written training documents over the decades, I've consistently used the singular "they" to refer to people. For example: "The user opens the login page, where they type in their login id and password."
Since I've been active on the internet, this tendency has been even further reinforced. When I don't know the gender of any person behind a username, everyone becomes a "them". In fact, I sometimes have to deliberately pull myself up and remind myself to change to "she" or "he" in those cases where I do know someone's gender, because the habit of using "they" is so deeply ingrained in me.
I use "they" without thinking.
I've done the same thing, where I use they to refer to somebody that's already told me their pronouns. Surprisingly, the person felt like they had been misgendered. I'm actually worried that people are going to start gendering 'they' to be nonbinary. It's already starting to happen, I just hope that the same people recognize that it's the best 'go to' when you don't know somebody's gender.
You just made me remember that interestingly, in engineering papers I have seen she more often than he or they.
I'm getting to this point as well. I've even been practicing to read "they" in (older) texts where generic humans are referred to with "he". It's remarkably easy to get in the habit of doing, even with the on-the-fly recasting of the accompanying verbs.
Thanks! I thought this was recent phenomemon, i.e. of the last couple of decades. But apparently it has a longer history.
I think the increased modern use of the singular "they" came about as a result of the Women's Liberation movement of the 1960s & 1970s, with its drive towards more inclusive language.
P.S. Singular "they" actually goes back at least 600 years, to the time of an English writer called Geoffrey Chaucer. He wrote one of the earliest known examples of the singular "they". This usage has gone in and out of style over the centuries since then.
If you check out my other comment in this thread, I think that that 600 years is a bit of a stretch because the examples in the wiki article do not prove that singular they like we intend it today was a thing (though I didn't look at other examples, someone linked the wiki article on singular they in this thread, and the example you cite was present there, so it is possible that there are other examples that prove that 600 year assumption). It seems to me that "they" was used in a very particular situation, namely when referring to an undeterminate subject like everyone or each with a pronoun. It's not a big deal (I think it kinda is if that assumption is indeed false, but still) given that sort of justification needn't be necessary for something good in and of itself like singular they.
People reading this topic might also be interested in these previous discussions:
"Guy" should be a neutered term. Change my mind.
On the matter of calling a child "they"
I've heard that people complain about singular they as a grammatical abomination ...
they are ignorant blowhards with no excuse for their intolerance.
I'm no expert on older stages of English but the examples cited in that article seem to be limited to a certain case, namely when the "they" refers to an indeterminate subject (eche, whoso, a person, nobody; same with the examples taken from Baskervill). If there aren't any examples where it is used with determinate subjects and indeterminate and determinate objects, it's a bit of a stretch to say that singular they was used back then as we use it today. Judging from the examples alone, it seems to me that it was a grammatical construct that faded away which does not really replace the functions of 3rd.p.sing. pronouns; so the view you and the article suggests seem to be a subjective look at the history. But as I said my knowledge is scarce in this regard. Yet the fact that all of the almost ten examples are of similar constructs is indicating that way. Nevertheless I don't think it detracts from the value of singular they even if it was recent phenomenon.
Edit: with indeterminate I mean grammatically indeterminate, not a certain person of indeterminate/unknown sex that's referred by the pronoun.
I'm not an expert either, just an armchair descriptivist.
I expect since the birth of language people have railed against change.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I've heard people use singular they (spoken and written) my whole life. Admittedly mostly for generic use or unknown gender. I've also heard people complain about it for much longer than the current resurgence linking to identity. Style guides have their place, but that place is not to define language, it's to guide specific writers how to use language.
Still I think it's rapidly become a cultural/political stance now. So my (obvious) opinion is that I simply can't see what's wrong with it and if some groups have taken it as a claim to identity, then all power to them. You have to be a small minded bigot to object and a coward to hide behind the excuse of grammar.
Don't even get me started on fewer.
I don't understand this sentence.
Hopefully this "you" is not directed at me? I can't really tell, I'm sorry.
Apart from that, I do not object that it was used since a long time ago, and as a rather young non-native speaker of English whose focus of study is not English either, I'm not in the position to tell. But I do read quite a bit of English daily since many years and speak English for more than 15 years now, and I have not encountered this construct before some time between 2011 and 2015. WRT the wiki examples, well, they are centuries old and what I collect from the examples in the article (and only those, I haven't researched further), saying that singular they was used as a generic gender neutral pronoun since the 14th century is far-fetched, not unlike suggesting a 14th century painter was an LGBTQ+ activist because they painted a rainbow in their picture (and the use of "they" in this sentence is similar to those examples in that "a ... painter" is indeterminate, as opposed to saying e.g. "Van Gogh"; if there was/is an example like "Van Gogh said that they liked macarons", that would be evidence that it was indeed singular they that was used back then).
"Don't get me started" is a short colloquial version of "Don't get me started on Topic X, because I could talk about it for hours!" In other words, the person is very passionate and/or angry about Topic X, has very strong opinions about it, and will express those opinions to you at length if given any chance at all.
The problem with "fewer" is that "less" is often used when "fewer" would be grammatically correct. "Less" refers to a smaller quantity of a non-countable item, like water or sand. "Fewer" refers to a smaller quantity of a countable item, like ice cubes or rocks. You would have less water, but fewer ice cubes, less sand, but fewer rocks.
In many supermarkets, there is an express lane where you are allowed to queue up for faster service if you have a small number of items in your shopping. This express lane is often marked with a sign like "8 items or less". However, your items of shopping are countable (not non-countable), so "fewer" is correct: the sign should read "8 items or fewer".
Some people make a big issue of complaining about these supposedly ungrammatical signs. Some other people get bothered by people making a big issue out of a little thing.
By writing "Don't even get me started on fewer.", bhrgunatha is saying that they have strong opinions about the use of "fewer" or "less" and the people who complain about these words. Given their attitude regarding "they", I assume that they dislike people being grammatical purists and complaining about signs that say "8 items or less" instead of "8 items or fewer". "Don't get me started on..." is their way of saying this is another issue that makes them angry.
Thanks a lot for the explanation! I do know the "don't get me started" part but I thought the entire thing was an idiomatic thing for some reason.
I now discover that, while I didn't know the fewer/less distinction, I have a sort of inner "sense" for which one to use, but I wouldn't recognise "8 items or less" as ungrammatical or off-sounding. The obsession with grammar is unfortunate and annoying. I think it's the schools that do that, they fail to tell people that grammar is the description of an abstract system that represents a language, and people think of grammar as if it was some sort of religion or dogma.
That fast lane thing is cool! They don't do it here in Istanbul, you have to wait even if all you'll get is a bottle of water.
No, absolutely not directed at you at all. We're having a friendly discussion about language use.
But some people use grammar as an excuse to avoid, discredit or dismiss what I think is a very modern change for "they" in gender identity (which I know even less about.)
Edit: Less important, but a personal pet hate of mine, is people claiming that "less" can't be used for countable nouns in general, and that fewer is "correct".
Cool then, sorry for the misunderstanding! I share that dislike for the abuse of grammar, it's cringy and annoying.
I don't believe anyone here is saying that "they" was widely used as a personal pronoun for centuries; just that it's been used as a singular pronoun for centuries.
Many people who object to non-binary people using "they" as a personal pronoun do so under the excuse that "'they' is plural and always has been, why are we changing the English language for this tiny minority of overly fragile people?!" We counter that with these historical examples of "they" being used in singular fashion even centuries ago to show that yes, "they" is singular in addition to being plural. That doesn't address the validity of using it as a personal pronoun, but that's not the point of the examples.
Still, looking at those examples it is hard to say if it was used as a singular pronoun too. It is an idiomatic use in a very specific environment where the nature of the subject is plural (collective or enumerative). I don't think it is acceptable to deviate from facts in order to advocate for a certain thing, no matter how good or bad such thing be.
It doesn't really matter if it was used in the past; language is conventional. If it's not accepted as correct nowadays by most speakers, it's not correct (you can still advocate that it should be though). Personally I would prefer a completely new form instead of they, it would bring less confusion and also be more fun (e.g. he/she/dhe).
Language is constantly changing, and people are constantly founding new sociolects without even being aware of it. If it's not accepted as correct by most speakers, it's not a part of most lects, but of course it's correct to the people who use it.
Singular they is in constant contemporary use. If you don't see it, it sounds like it doesn't bother you.
Y'all just need to live in the American South. We've used gender-neutral pronouns all along.
"You", and "you all", and "y'all", and "youse" are all gender-neutral. However, there is no gendered second-person pronoun (When have you ever specified the gender of the person you're talking to?). Therefore, there is no issue regarding non-gendered second-person pronouns, because the only options are already non-gendered.
The only time that a gender-neutral pronoun matters is in the context of third-person pronouns, where the most common pronouns are gendered: "he" and "she". How do you refer to someone you're talking about (not someone you're talking to) when you don't know that person's gender?
I do use such pronouns, and I use the singular they. I generally use it when the sex of a human entity is unknown (i.e. if I can say he/she w/o ambiguity, I do use that instead). The reason for using gender neutral pronoun is that while it does not eliminate the ambiguity of the pronoun, it at least doesn't sway the possibilities towards one gender (i.e. like "he" does). My preference for singular they roots in the fact that it's the only word that sounds English among the many alternatives, and even if someone is unfamiliar w/ the concept, the resulting utterance is still rather clear, i.e. "they" is obviously a pronoun, whereas the other alternatives can be confused for a noun or even a proper name.
edit: pronouns not pronounce
edit 2: I think it's also worth mentioning that my mother tongue, Turkish, lacks gendered pronouns and grammatical gender in general.
My understanding is that the use of "he" for a person of unknown gender is considered gender default (as opposed to gender neutral) due to men historically being the primary actors in our society.
A native speaker understanding something as correct (or rather, not seeing it as an error or mistake) is in fact the basis for how linguists describe language. So, if it sounds right, it is right. If it sounds wrong to you, but sounds right to someone else, it is right: but might not (yet) be in your particular lect
Creating new words (that don't describe something new) rarely works. Expanding or shifting the use of existing language often does.
I use whatever someone tells me they prefer, but when I'm writing about someone whose gender is unknown, I always stick with they/them. A lot of times, I'll even use they/them when the gender of the referenced individual is known but the noun referencing them is gender-neutral. Like if I'm writing a report for my job and I have to reference (for example) "the attorney" who I know is male or female, I'll go with they/them. I prefer neutrality in a professional setting, plus my audience may not know the individual's gender unless I refer to them by a certain pronoun. It's just part of best practices IMO.
Also, I want to thank the show Billions for making me more comfortable with gender-neutral pronouns. I don't interact with or refer to genderfluid individuals on a regular basis, and Billions gave me that everyday familiarity through Taylor's character. Using they/them feels natural to me now when it was admittedly awkward (but not unwelcome) at first.
I use the singular they when referring to other people when their gender is unknown, nonbinary, or irrelevant. I answer to he/him out of habit, and am fine with they/them as well.
I used to use "guys" which is absolutely a neutered pronoun at this point.
However, someone recently told me that it could offend, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized they were right. I was very offended that "guy" lost its gender while "gals" did not. So now I use "gals" as my gender neutral pronoun.
Absolutely not the case depending on who you talk to. I was strongly discouraged from using that in corporate culture.
I work in the corporate world and we have a strong culture of inclusion... I've never heard anyone complain... Although I think you're a prime candidate to help me start introducing the neutered "gal".
Oh so that's a fun discussion!
So, there is a problem in the English language where we don't have a accepted non-formal word for woman that isn't diminutive. You'll her people get mad at others for calling a grown woman a "girl" (and rightfully so). But it's usually a language issue rather than deliberate misogyny because the only counterpart to the informal "guy" is "gal" and NO ONE uses that except for my 87-year-old father. There just isn't a good alternative!
I personally default to "folks" rather than "guys" because it's gender neutral.
I'm not a native speaker of English, but I don't think "guys" is a pronoun, but more of a collective name. The singular "they" pronoun is a replacement for 3rd.p.sing. and in its gender neutral version is used as a pronoun and refers to a single person. I don't think you can use "guys" as such if it was a pronoun. Actually, of course you can, but language is a code for communication and by "you can't use" I mean that probably noone or very few persons would understand that.
You are correct about guys being a singular pronoun. And in fact "guy" is gendered, whereas "guys" is not.
In another comment I refer it as a "collective" pronoun. Sorry for being less clear in this one.
No problem!
I use "they" as the default, and it didn't require much of a change at all. Where I'm at in America, that is normal and anything which subverts that (defaulting to "he" or "she") is almost always done to make some kind of statement. That's just how it is, it would catch me off guard if even a very old person defaulted to "he".
The only change I had to make was what I consider to be a confirmation of gender to start using gendered pronouns instead. Before it was mostly based on looks and how one presents themselves, but now I wait for them to reference something themselves that gives that information, someone who knows them better to use one, or something else. Even then I like to use "they" more often than not, it usually just sounds better.
I use they for my own pronouns. My gender is nonbinary (specifically neutrois, a neutral gender). She makes me feel dysphoric and just reminds me that society sees me as a girl. He is a little better, because I'd rather present masculine rather than feminine. On the internet and places where people accept me and my enbyness, I use they/them. In places where people have never heard of nonbinary, I use he/him.
They/them is really not that hard to use, but so many people get borderline upset by the idea. I've gotten so many responses to my pronouns that boil down to "They is used for multiple people. You are one person." My favorite response is always "Oh no! Somebody that I don't know anything about, especially not their gender, dropped their wallet! I'll turn it in to lost and found so they can get it back." We already use they everywhere to talk about people we don't know. Now just expand it to those who ask.
There is a difference between using "they" to refer to an unknown unspecified person and using "they" to refer to a known specified person. Talking about some unknown person who has lost their wallet is an old and well-worn habit, going back centuries. Talking about some known person who is gender non-binary is a totally new issue.
I've been using the singular "they" for longer than I can remember. However, when I met a gender non-binary person a couple of years ago who told me their pronoun was "they", I found it extremely difficult to adapt. This person was not an unknown unspecified hypothetical person who could be of any/either gender. This was a known and specific person. For all my life, known and specific people have been either "she" or "he". Only unknown people like users in training manuals and denizens of internet forums are "they". Suddenly, I had to take a pronoun that I've previously reserved for hypothetical people and apply it to a real person. It took me a while to adjust.
I guess I can see that. I suppose I adapted easier than most then (even when I personally didn't know I was nonbinary). Thanks for the clarification :)
I actually should've added that as a separate question, i.e. which variety do you use in writing and which in verbal communication, but I forgot, and it's too late to add it unfortunately.
It's not that easy unfortunately. First time I encountered it, it was quite off-putting to me, but then I quickly adopted it when I saw it be used by others, mostly on HN. And my first language does not have gendered pronouns or grammatical gender at all. Pronouns are among the most static parts of language in general, so I'd say it's more than expected that people are reluctant to change.
I use "they", but only because nothing else has gained traction. Mostly because it's like a big brand name soft drink going up against only store brand or local competitors. I mean, if you're given a choice between a Coke and, say, a Splash, a Thunder, and a Blast, you'll go with the Coke because at least you know what it is. If there is to be a replacement for singular they (and I agree that it presents pluralizing issues), then there needs to be a marketing-like push to get the communities involved to back a single horse.
"Guys" has plenty of traction and is completely gender neutral. Although to make things more fair, I've actually been exclusively using "gals".
Counter argument to "guys".
If you were to have a date with a woman, would you then go to your mates the next day and say "I had this awesome date with this one guy,"?
Ah. See, I didn't say "guy" was gender neutral.
I said guys is gender neutral. It's a finer nuance of the english language. When used as a collective pronoun, "guys" carries no gender connotation with it.
"I saw this guy I knew".
Gendered. You saw a guy.
"I went to the bar and saw the guys"
Neutered, you saw a group of people.
Like I said, though, I've moved on to using exclusively "gals". I hope you'll join me.
The problem with guy is it's not a he/she/they or him/her/them replacement. It's also not completely gender neutral (although in a couple of generations, it will be.)
I'm down with using whatever pronoun somebody asks me to use to them personally, but usually I just default to "they" since it's perfectly serviceable. I haven't had to confront this issue in any context other then English though, I'm actually fairly curious to know how non-binary people get around these issues in other languages. French, for example, has no gender-neutral pronouns as far as I'm aware, but I didn't know any non-binary people while living in France so the discussion never really came up.
There's no viable neutral form in French, there's some attempts but I'm not it's very successful. For example you could use "iel" instead of "il/elle", but since the rest of the sentence is also gendered one would also need new declensions for adjectives and nouns.
For example :
Here "content" is masculin.
Here "contente" is féminin.
The whole language would require quite an extension, e.g.
Or with a noun:
Instead of:
I've encountered uses like ancien.ne or anciEnne which are supposed to be gender neutral, and I've seen, IIRC, pronouns used like il/elle; but I'm just starting out with French, so my knowledge is quite limited. In Italian I don't know of a gender neutral form, usually the masculine is used, and sometimes slashed forms like un/a vecchio/a and lui/lei (= "he/she").
il/elle is a sort of polite deferral in written text I often encountered too, but it is by no means gender-neutral. It also doesn't really get used in speech all that much, unless converted to "il ou elle" which still has the same issues.
No, because it's not a thing in my native language. It would sound really awkward.
I go by they with those who know that I identify as genderfluid - it’s definitely the pronoun that makes the most sense for my identity and it’s not like it’s unprecedented to use it in this setting. I find it way more comfortable than any other third gender style pronounced like ‘zir’ because it’s already in the generic lexicon.
I'm in the "they" camp. I also see no issue with the English default for groups being masculinely described (one female hispanic is a Latina, but a group of unknown gender are Latinos is the first example that comes to mind). I was using "they" since before this was a public issue for people of indeterminate gender anyway.
As far as addressing somebody, they'll be "he" or "she" or "sir" and "ma'am" as long as I don't know they have a difference, and mixed groups as "folks." I've never encoutered somebody who was nonbinary that I could notice, but if corrected I would be respectful. I don't k ow of a reacement for "sir" or "ma'am," so I would probably dispose of it altogether.
In all cases, they'd still be "dude," though. "Dudette" is just patronising and weird, we don't need to gender "dude."
Correct. "Dude" is already gendered:
"A man; a guy (often as a form of address)"
"informal : FELLOW, GUY"
"A dude is a man."
"Dude is American English slang for an individual, typically male. [...] In the 1960s, dude evolved to mean any male person"
You need to de-gender it.
I've come across "Misser" as a replacement for "Miss" and "Mister", though I also tend to use it for "Sir" or "Ma'am" if I know the person prefers neutral pronouns.
For the comment about not encountering somebody that 'looked' nonbinary and so defaulting to whatever they look like, I wrote a few comments about it elsewhere in this thread.
If the person I'm speaking to or about has a preference I'll use that. I try to use singular they. Otherwise I randomly flip his / her and she / he.
Are you saying you'll use feminine and masculine pronouns to refer to the same person?
I often use “they” when I’m paying attention, opting in to what I see as the accepted norm after a lost fight trying to preserve “thee” and “thy.” I still mourn the loss of the second person singular, but that shift happened for the exact same reason: perceptions of rudeness upon misuse.
The fight is over, whether the latin loving grammarians get it or not.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but "they/them" is a third-person pronoun, while "thou/thee" is second-person pronouns. "They/them" and "thou/thee" are not interchangeable.
So... I'm not sure why you mentioned "thee" in the context of a discussion about gender-neutral pronouns.
I wasn't the clearest when I wrote this line:
The movement away from the second person singular happened for the same reason as the movement toward a third person singular: fear of being seen as rude.
The reason I don’t use those in English is that I don’t know how, but I’m usually neutral in my language.
English is really hard, I don't blame you. Here are some examples of they/them pronouns.
They went to the store.
They are pretty.
Their chocolate milk is delicious.
They love themselves.
It's treated in grammar like you're talking about several people, but it's also correct to use it for one person.
To be clear, it's actually very hard to be neutral in Portuguese, a very gendered language (even chairs, staplers and cars have sex...), but I try my best. Sometimes I just use the feminine pronouns instead (like "She" instead of "he").
Grammatical gender is more about inflectional categories than assignment of sex to inanimate things. It's also confusing as hell, I have observed many Turkish youth learn Italian (I did italianistica at uni) and learning it was the single hardest thing. Luckily the natural inclination of languages is to move away from these complexities.