Do we need a genderless pronoun?

[LionsPride]

It has been brought up a few times that you can't always tell the gender of a member on the forum. Ordinarily, not knowing a person's gender doesn't seem too important for those of us who aren't looking to flirt; that is until you are typing away and need to use a 3rd person singular pronoun. Whether in its subjective, objective, possessive or reflexive form the he/she, his/her, himself/herself just doesn't want to come free of gender. Some avoid it by using "they/their/themselves", but that's technically abusing a plural term, as common as that might be. I suppose you could use "it/its/itself", but if you were leery about offending by getting the gender wrong, chances are "it" isn't going to be thrilled with the same term you would apply to inanimate objects.

So what ways of getting around it do you do? Do you give in and call the members you doubt whatever pronoun you feel like? Do you scour their posts to see if they revealed something gender related? Ask another member? Ask the member in question? Use "they/their" and call it a day?

Is it time for the English language to adopt an official 3rd person singular pronoun that is genderless? After all, does it really matter if it's her resume or his resume? What does gender have to do with it?

[Merle]

surely "their" will suffice?

hmmn, I somehow ignored the line that included it in your post... sorry.

It could indeed be helpful, particularly if you're Ursula Le Guin and writing stories about genderless people...

[Rudy]

I just assign a gender to anyone who conceals theirs. It's easier for me that way. ;)

[Storm]

I usually try to reword the post so as not to have to use a pronoun or just use their screen name in place of a pronoun.

"They" was originally a gender-neutral single pronoun in addition to a plural pronoun, so I don't feel it's really incorrect to use it as such. Thus, I don't mind using "they" when referring to a theoretical person, (see above) but I don't like using it for a particular person - it just comes off as weird.

[Brittle]

"They" was originally a gender-neutral single pronoun in addition to a plural pronoun, so I don't feel it's really incorrect to use it as such. Thus, I don't mind using "they" when referring to a theoretical person, (see above) but I don't like using it for a particular person - it just comes off as weird.

Agreed. While they/their/themselves are traditionally plurals, it is acceptable to use these terms when referring to an indefinite singular pronoun - especially in less formal settings. Of course this does seem a little unweildy when referring to a specific person so it may be easier to restructure your writing to accommodate this.

Is it time for the English language to adopt an official 3rd person singular pronoun that is genderless?

It would be helpful.

[HackerX]

"They" was originally a gender-neutral single pronoun in addition to a plural pronoun, so I don't feel it's really incorrect to use it as such. Thus, I don't mind using "they" when referring to a theoretical person, (see above) but I don't like using it for a particular person - it just comes off as weird.

If you're referring to a particular person, are you perhaps looking for the 2nd person pronoun (Thou, thee, thy, thine)?

I don't mind they.

Just looking at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts..27One.27, "One" or "One's" is suggested as a possible alternative, but it seems to me like they probably should be using a 2nd person pronoun instead. Hmmm.


What about instead of a genderless pronoun, we instead look at singular vs plural? Rather than have a plural noun mean "more than 1" perhaps plural pronouns should mean "1 or more" (and eliminate gender all together and use the plural genderless pronouns)? Just a thought that I haven't given much thought to.

[Rudy]

You could just use "it" until it gets offended enough to reveal its gender. Just saying. ;)

[DanteFalling]

Yes. We do.

[Brittle]

It puts the lotion on its skin..!

[eternaltriangle]

I propose a nautical standard.

When gender is uncertain, think about their name. Does their name sound more or less like a cool ship's name than the average word.

HMS Lion's Pride - that's a ship
HMS Storm - that's a ship

HMS Merle - sounds like a boat somebody named after their wife or daughter... tougher call.

HMS Rudy Henkel - not a ship
HMS Brittle - not a ship
HMS Dante Falling - not a ship
HMS Eternal Triangle - not a ship
HMS Hacker X - not a ship (but could it be an anime airship... hmmm)

[LionsPride]

I'm in the camp of a genderless pronoun other then "their/they/them" is needed. With more communication being done electronically, more women being given boy's names, more names in general being unisex, and increasing global business where Luke, Mark, Sarah and Jane are no longer standard, I'm all for a genderless pronoun.

I use "their/they/them" too, having nothing better, but as Storm mentioned it's cumbersome in certain situations. I bring this topic up because in my job I deal with these annoyances often. It comes across a lot in job hiring. It gets a bit tiring to use the term "the candidate". When we are discussing resumes. It's a lot easier when you can use a pronoun: "his experience is better suited to our needs" or "her education is more aligned to the position". When the candidate is "Chris" or "Mihn" the "their/they/them" start flying all over the place and you can't tell all the time whether a person is talking about one candidate or all of them. Don't even get me started about discussing the position and the raised eyebrows if you refer to the future administrative assistant as "she" and the future engineer as "he"..:P

More and more of my business is done through email and if I get an email from Alex, is it Alexandria or Alexander? When I forward the email on to someone else I have to wordsmith things so I don't say "she said" or "his recommendations were". I have to admit, given the fact that Alex's gender is completely irrelevant to whatever Alex had to say it seems inappropriate that it should be a requirement for me to know to communicate properly.

[Prunesquallor]

they/them etc. is perfectly valid and has been used for hundreds of years. It's just pedantic grammar nuts with no knowledge of linguistics who dislike it.
For the potential awkward phrasings - there are ways to reword it. It's really not that big of a deal.

[LionsPride]

they/them etc. is perfectly valid and has been used for hundreds of years. It's just pedantic grammar nuts with no knowledge of linguistics who dislike it.
For the potential awkward phrasings - there are ways to reword it. It's really not that big of a deal.

That might be true, but that still leaves the ambiguity between 'they' singular and 'they' plural. I think we need to a devoted plural 3rd person pronoun to get rid of the confusion. Having a pronoun that means both is confusing as soon as you need to use it in situations were there are individuals and a group. It's true, you can restructure sentences to avoid ambiguity, but sometimes it doesn't work clearly (and I believe proper grammar should be about communicating effectively) and it hardly works in oral conversation.

If you think it's no big deal, go for a week without using a gender based pronoun. Remove he/she from your vocabulary in written and oral forms. Use only "they" and see if it's as easy as it seems.

[Prunesquallor]

If you think it's no big deal, go for a week without using a gender based pronoun. Remove he/she from your vocabulary in written and oral forms. Use only "they" and see if it's as easy as it seems.

I've gone my entire life using "they" to represent ambiguous gender and it works fine. That's totally easy. Which is what we were talking about it, no?

[LionsPride]

I didn't mean only in ambiguous situations. I meant completely. No she's or he's at all. I don't think a solution should be one that only avoids being confusing if it is used infrequently. Grammar shouldn't be about making things confusing, it should be about effective and consistent communication. I find more and more often in my everyday life these ambiguous situations crop up and "they" is just not cutting it anymore. I also don't think it's fair that due to an unusual or 'foreign' name that a person should have to be relegated to a different term. I think things should be equal.

[tp6626]

Hehe. Yes we need a genderless pronoun, but just for you Lionspride! :p

I've was unable to spot your gender for months after you joined the forum, and it made it difficult for me to reply to your posts. I even questioned myself once, about whether or not Lions were a genderless animal. I had to really think about it!? :)

[Phoenix rising]

This is currently being debated in great length on the INTJ facebook group.

[Prunesquallor]

I didn't mean only in ambiguous situations. I meant completely. No she's or he's at all. I don't think a solution should be one that only avoids being confusing if it is used infrequently. Grammar shouldn't be about making things confusing, it should be about effective and consistent communication. I find more and more often in my everyday life these ambiguous situations crop up and "they" is just not cutting it anymore. I also don't think it's fair that due to an unusual or 'foreign' name that a person should have to be relegated to a different term. I think things should be equal.

But why would completely be relevant? That's my point. It's not.

Grammar is properly the internal structure of a language - it is not teleological, it is not prescriptivist. This is perhaps a stylistic issue, but that's not grammar. What is correct is how people actually speak - which is singular they. Artificial new language constraints are notoriously difficult to implement. People have tried to replace singular they multiple times - it never works.

And connecting usage of a perfectly standard usage to discrimination is a bit weird. If you don't know someone's gender, you don't know. Ignorance is not discrimination. On the forums, if they wanted to make their gender obvious, they are perfectly capable of doing so. Not everyone wants to or cares that much.

I've never seen an example where usage of singular they was inevitably confusing. There are always ways of rewriting and clarifying things.

More writings on this topic (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[TheLastMohican]

they/them etc. is perfectly valid and has been used for hundreds of years. It's just pedantic grammar nuts with no knowledge of linguistics who dislike it.


How does such a preference indicate total lack of knowledge of linguistics? Linguistically, using he/she is arguably superior, since it cannot be confused with plurals. We just don't like doing that too often because we find it clumsy and stylistically distasteful.

I even questioned myself once, about whether or not Lions were a genderless animal. I had to really think about it!? :)
Of course they reproduce by budding! :p

[Prunesquallor]

How does such a preference indicate total lack of knowledge of linguistics? Linguistically, using he/she is arguably superior, since it cannot be confused with plurals. We just don't like doing that too often because we find it clumsy and stylistically distasteful.

Linguists are not prescriptivist.
Thus, one cannot claim forms are superior or not - one talks about what is used. And why. Value-based judgements interfere with the proper study of language. Distaste is pointless. Especially when it involves privileging a way no one actually speaks over how real people talk.

Most stylistic rules are not in the least based on stylistics, but often arbitrrily-based prejudices. For example, we're "not supposed to" end sentences with prepositions because Latin doesn't (in fact it cannot because of its different structure), and Latin is the example of a nearly perfect language.
You'll find many stylistic rules have similar sources. There are certainly some techniques of making one's prose clear, but there is often a totally subjective element to preferences.

[TheLastMohican]

Linguists are not prescriptivist.
Thus, one cannot claim forms are superior or not - one talks about what is used. And why. Value-based judgements interfere with the proper study of language.
You're talking about descriptive linguistics, as opposed to prescriptive linguistics. I said that "he/she" is arguably superior because it has less opportunity for confusion.

I don't see how any of what you said shows that those who prefer not to use "they" in a singular context have no knowledge of linguistics. Since style is subjectively chosen, how can preferring one style over another be seen as ignorance?

[Prunesquallor]

You're talking about descriptive linguistics, as opposed to prescriptive linguistics. I said that "he/she" is arguably superior because it has less opportunity for confusion.

I don't see how any of what you said shows that those who prefer not to use the "their" in a singular context have no knowledge of linguistics. Since style is subjectively chosen, how can preferring one style over another be seen as ignorance?

Prescriptive linguistics is not linguistics, it is balderash. One can talk about what is correct for a certain register, and discuss social factors, but claiming that one format is inherantly better and making up reasons why this is so is foolish. It is perfectly possible to have preferences, so long as one admits that they are subjective and nothing more. I have no patience for squeamishness motivating "grammar" "rules."

[TheLastMohican]

Prescriptive linguistics is not linguistics, it is balderash. One can talk about what is correct for a certain register, and discuss social factors, but claiming that one format is inherantly better and making up reasons why this is so is foolish.
If it can be agreed that the most efficient method of communication is the best, then the prescriptive variety of linguistics is perfectly valid. It is of course too complex for any meaningful consensus in the near future, but I could see it showing a lot of promise with the use of quantum computers.

[Prunesquallor]

If it can be agreed that the most efficient method of communication is the best, then the prescriptive variety of linguistics is perfectly valid. It is of course too complex for any meaningful consensus in the near future, but I could see it showing a lot of promise with the use of quantum computers.

It cannot be agreed. Ask any feeler., for instance. Ask any extravert. Language is not just about the efficient communication of information, sadly.

One can say that certain linguistic quirks accomplish one's personal goals better than others. One cannot say that these goals are 'the purpose of language' or that they're better than anyone else's goals without involving subjectivity and a dash of arrogance.

Moreover, a new made-up word to make this distinction is not necessarily more efficient. It depends on what one is trying to communicate. The only problem with using singular they is that people have arbitrarily decided that it only means plural - which it doesn't, since people use it to mean both - and they have this idea that it is incorrect, so you run into pedantic nags when you use it. Yes, it has less informational content - but so does the fact that we do not have gendered nouns in English. Do we know that tables are feminine/masculine? No. Do we care? No.

There's trade-offs in everything, but you cannot make up values and claim they're objective.

[LionsPride]

Being dissatisfied with "they" as a singular pronoun isn't about squeamishness, it's about confusion. Specifically, confusion with the plural. I would argue the same principle if the term "people" was being used to replace the singular "person". I understand that you believe it's correct to use it both ways, fine, but it doesn't make it useful. At some point a word shifts meaning and I'm saying that shifting "they" back to a dual role to cover the singular isn't working.

As to not using he/she at all it's an experiment to show that as the need to use a genderless singular increases, "they" just doesn't work anymore. The people you converse with have a difficult time understanding and the constant rewording isn't so easy. The forum is only one example and it is avoidable, but in the professional (and relationship) world it gets cumbersome.

As to equality, I'm not really an advocate due to any sense of political correctness. Though I know that one of the ways to break down gender based stereotypes is to remove it from language. If a policeman and a policewoman do the same job, why have different terms for it when the only difference is something as irrelevant as gender? Being forced to refer to someone with a different term because they are an exception to the rule usually just ends up pointing out the difference. As I type my email to Alex, I'm suddenly cognisant that Alex is different than John because with John, I don't have to reword all my sentences. With Mihn Tan's resume, the unavoidable dancing around his/her makes Mihn Tan 'different' than Lucy or Tyson.

[Prunesquallor]

Being dissatisfied with "they" as a singular pronoun isn't about squeamishness, it's about confusion. Specifically, confusion with the plural. I would argue the same principle if the term "people" was being used to replace the singular "person".

As to not using he/she at all, as an experiment, it's just to show that as the need to use a genderless singular increases, "they" just doesn't work anymore. The people you converse with have a difficult time understanding that the rewording isn't so easy. The forum is only one example and it is avoidable, but in the professional (and relationship) world it gets cumbersome.

As to equality, I'm not really an advocate due to any sense of political correctness. Though I know that one of the ways to break down gender based stereotypes is to remove it from language. If a policeman and a policewoman do the same job, why have different terms for it when the only difference is something as irrelevant as gender? Being forced to refer to someone with a different term because they are an exception to the rule usually just ends up pointing out the difference. As I type my email to Alex, I'm suddenly cognisant that Alex is different than John because with John, I don't have to reword all my sentences. With Mihn Tan's resume, the unavoidable dancing around his/her makes Mihn Tan 'different' then Lucy or Tyson.

I don't see how your experiment proves anything, still.
Honestly, I've never found it in the least cumbersome. You seem to be almost more expressing a discomfort about not knowing whether someone is male or female, rather than how to refer to them. If you don't have the information, you needn't express the information. "They" is neutral - so you replace it with a different collection of letters - your "Alex" and "Mihn Tan" are still "different" because you're not using he or she, so what does that accomplish? I still can't see the problem with "they."

[LionsPride]

Even if I have the information, why should I be obligated to use it? Is gender so important in conversation and the workplace that it should continue to be used? Should we keep Chairman/Chairwoman in position titles and only use Chairperson when the gender is ambiguous? It seems unnecessary.

Knowing a person's gender is so irrelevant to me that I wouldn't use he or she at all if "they" wasn't so confusing. Not to avoid offence, but because it's not important most of the time. I don't feel the need to include physical descriptions of people in everyday conversation, why would gender be different? I don't say "Alex, who's blonde, went to the store and met up with Jake, who's green eyed". Why should it matter if it's her money or his money?

I used situations where not knowing the gender caused discomfort as an intent to show that the number of times he/she fails is increasing. It's a problem that wasn't there 10-15 years ago. "They", regardless of correctness, isn't going to meet the rising requirement and as long as men take offence to being called "she" and women take offence to being called "he" I don't see a way around it. I personally don't care if people call me he or she, but I can't say the same for everyone else.

[Prunesquallor]

Even if I have the information, why should I be obligated to use it? Is gender so important in conversation and the workplace that it should continue to be used? Should we keep Chairman/Chairwoman in position titles and only use Chairperson when the gender is ambiguous? It seems unnecessary.

Knowing a person's gender is so irrelevant to me that I wouldn't use he or she at all if "they" wasn't so confusing. Not to avoid offence, but because it's not important most of the time. I don't feel the need to include physical descriptions of people in everyday conversation, why would gender be different? I don't say "Alex, who's blonde, went to the store and met up with Jake, who's green eyed". Why should it matter if it's her money or his money?

I used situations where not knowing the gender caused discomfort as an intent to show that the number of times he/she fails is increasing. It's a problem that wasn't there 10-15 years ago. "They", regardless of correctness, isn't going to meet the rising requirement and as long as men take offence to being called "she" and women take offence to being called "he" I don't see a way around it. I personally don't care if people call me he or she, but I can't say the same for everyone else.

Exactly, why should you designate gender? So you use "they." What's wrong with using a neutral term as a pronoun when the gender is unknown/irrelevant? "They" is a neutral term which serves your purposes. The context makes it clear if it's plural or singular. Everyone's happy. Where's the complication??

Essentially, you're expressing the need for something that already exists.

[Storm]

Well, we could just flip a coin and decide to do away with one of the singular pronouns - either everyone is "she" or everyone is "he." I belonged to a service fraternity in college that had men and women members - everyone was called "Brother." At first, it was a little weird, but once you got use to it, having different names for the same thing based on sex seemed a bit silly.

[wolf]

To answer the original question: Yes.

I'm tired of playing linguistic games to avoid ambiguity in the use of "they" when I cannot discern the gender of another person.

[tp6626]

I still can't see the problem with "they."
Ooh no, I see what you're all talking about now.

The use of they as Prunesquallor is suggesting does feel wrong to me. It clearly does imply that you're talking about multiple parties.

When I write about someone of unknown gender, I see that there are two options available to me.

i) Use he / she in any place that either would have sufficed when gender was known, or,

ii) Omit pronouns and use a predefined term to refer to that person avoiding gender. I.e. instead of saying he or she, use something like the candidate, the subject, or some other identifying feature of the entity.

There is the obvious worry that this is an incredibly depersonalised way to write, but the fact that you don't know the gender in the first place, would only in my view back up the position that you shouldn't be trying to write about someone personally, who you don't actually know personally.

If I read something that haphazardly uses they in any place where he / she should be, it just gives me the impression that the author was some sort of retard, and makes me slightly less willing to finish reading.



tp6626 added to this post, 15 minutes and 41 seconds later...

So you use "they." What's wrong with using a neutral term as a pronoun when the gender is unknown/irrelevant? "They" is a neutral term which serves your purposes. The context makes it clear if it's plural or singular. Everyone's happy. Where's the complication??

Essentially, you're expressing the need for something that already exists.
That word gets its neutrality because it describes a group or set, which can consist of members of mixed gender.

Obviously there was no need felt to distinguish the make up of those groups further. Lets play a hypothetical history out. Maybe the following words could have been used:

they - set of people, mixed gender or gender breakdown unknown
theey - set of men
theeey - set of women
theay - set of people, mixed gender but mostly men
thaey - set of people, mixed gender but mostly women

But all those meet the same intention in describing sets of people, as does the standard word they, which is in actual use.

So using they to describe just one person of unknown gender isn't really an appropriate tactic, and just feels wrong to me; prescriptive or not.

It's like you saw a need for a word, and just picked the nearest one, albeit slightly wrong and possibly confusing to some, and you're trying to say, oh well it'll do. In my view, in a lot of cases, it simply won't do. It will cause confusion / ambiguity / misinterpretation of the texts meaning.

In that sense, I can see why LP might see a need for a genderless pronoun, but I suspect that it may be a want more than an actual need, because he / she in my view does fine when you don't know the gender.

Now actually saying that it is irrelevant to even feel a need to specify gender is a slightly different question. But I can see the logic behind it, and regardless of whether I agree with it or not (I do), I can't see it changing any time soon. :(

[TheLastMohican]

It cannot be agreed. Ask any feeler., for instance. Ask any extravert. Language is not just about the efficient communication of information, sadly.

Why should feelers and extroverts have different standards for "good" langauge? Couldn't we at least agree that speech, in normal situations, is preferable to a more cumbersome method of communication like Morse code?
Efficient communication of information is what language is all about, regardless of the topics at hand.

[wolf]

Now actually saying that it is irrelevant to even feel a need to specify gender is a slightly different question. But I can see the logic behind it, and regardless of whether I agree with it or not (I do), I can't see it changing any time soon. :(
That's because you are living within the box. We have the power to destroy the box and remake our reality. Are we adults or overgrown children?

[thod]

Its all down to this modern equality idea. Even if you use he/she, you get into arguments over if 'he' should proceed 'she'. Although using the third party 'they' is often used it doesn't seem elegant. He and she is one of the few gender forms we still have in english. Consider french where mixed or unknown gender groups are 'ils', the male form. You have to ask if a man eating shark is any threat to women. I just don't like all the politically correct garbage. A blackboard is now a chalkboard and you certainly can't step on a manhole cover in the street.

[tp6626]

That's because you are living within the box. We have the power to destroy the box and remake our reality. Are we adults or overgrown children?
Ok fair enough. I'll make up such a pronoun, and start using it tomorrow.

I suggest xhe, pronounced see, and xem, pronounced sem.

"Alex entered the room, and felt all eyes upon xem. Xhe hurriedly exited, and no one could remember any specific detail about xem at all. Not least whether he was male or female. Alex was a mystery!".

What are the likely chances of that catching on? What are it's chances of dying out rather rapidly?

Does this mean that there isn't a need for such words, or does it mean that people are satisfied to make do with using logically wrong words in preference to rocking the boat with new ones?

[wolf]

Its all down to this modern equality idea. Even if you use he/she, you get into arguments over if 'he' should proceed 'she'. Although using the third party 'they' is often used it doesn't seem elegant. He and she is one of the few gender forms we still have in english. Consider french where mixed or unknown gender groups are 'ils', the male form. You have to ask if a man eating shark is any threat to women. I just don't like all the politically correct garbage. A blackboard is now a chalkboard and you certainly can't step on a manhole cover in the street.
You also have the s/he.

[tp6626]

I do like slashes. I use them all the time, when I want to use a combination of words to describe something when I feel the one word isn't exactly right, or might mislead the reader away from my intention.

So the he / she feels natural for me to use anyway.

[LionsPride]

I know I started the debate based on a "new pronoun" and I agree with you TP that arbitrarily picking one and hoping it catches on has its draw backs and is likely a failed start. He/she is one of the last bastions of gender that hasn't be adequately toppled yet. A friend of mine has taken the challenge to remove gender based words from her vocabulary substituting the unisex version when applicable (waiter/waitress = server) or adopting the masculine form to refer to both genders when the alternative is cumbersome (Chairman/Chairwoman doesn't become Chairperson but remains Chairman). She's done it for years now, but the one thing she still can't successfully avoid are the personal pronouns. She does it to remove discrimination from her dialogue. I know it sounds crazy, but it's her protest against new gender included terms like "male nurse". I have to side with her on that one. Why on earth should anyone append the word "male" to nurse except to point out the oddity of his gender is beyond me. You usually hear it in the phrase "He's a male nurse." :rolleyes:

I see the point about he/she and in print it's not bad. In conversation it's not as fluid. If I tell a story it becomes odd if I say he/she instead of 'he' or 'she'. If it became the standard convention and could be used as often as he or she then I wouldn't have problems with that. Alternatively, we could claim "they" as neutral and decree a new plural form: theys/theirs/thems/...In the Southern US it could be "y'all" or "all y'all" ;)

[Rudy]

Well, we could just flip a coin and decide to do away with one of the singular pronouns - either everyone is "she" or everyone is "he." I belonged to a service fraternity in college that had men and women members - everyone was called "Brother." At first, it was a little weird, but once you got use to it, having different names for the same thing based on sex seemed a bit silly.
In theory, I like this idea the best, but it would never, ever happen, unfortunately. On the other hand, there is a small chance that a gender-neutral word could be introduced at some point. I doubt it, but there's a chance.

[Brittle]

...Or we call always revert to the ol' "So Alex's idea was great. *cough*mutter*cough* obviously put a lot of work into it. I've asked *cough*mutter*cough* to make a copy for your review".

Hmmm..... OK.... not really practical with the written word. Curses! Foiled again..!


"Alex's idea was great. There was obviously a lot of thought put into it and you will receive a copy to review".


Yay for Alex!! :p

[LionsPride]

"Alex's idea was great. There was obviously a lot of thought put into it and you will receive a copy to review".


Yay for Alex!! :p

As a retool, I'd suggest: "Alex's idea was great; there was a lot of thought put into it. You will receive a copy to review."

By separating the thought from the name, it isn't clear (though it is implied) that the thought that went into "it" was solely Alex's. It could have been Alex's idea, but others put a lot of thought into it.

Just to prove a point, if we merely used "they" instead of he, it would be even more unclear whether the thought effort was a singular exercise by Alex or a team effort.

"Alex's idea was great. They obviously put a lot of thought into it and you will receive a copy to review".

Yes, retooling can be done, but why should we spend so much time getting used to avoiding pronouns and shoe horning them in when a new convention (what ever it might be) would just solve a lot of these issues. Trust me, I doubt it will ever come to fruition without some celeb making it the newest thing and even then it will be slang, not proper English, but a lion can dream, right?

[Prunesquallor]

Ooh no, I see what you're all talking about now.

The use of they as Prunesquallor is suggesting does feel wrong to me. It clearly does imply that you're talking about multiple parties.

When I write about someone of unknown gender, I see that there are two options available to me.

i) Use he / she in any place that either would have sufficed when gender was known, or,

ii) Omit pronouns and use a predefined term to refer to that person avoiding gender. I.e. instead of saying he or she, use something like the candidate, the subject, or some other identifying feature of the entity.

There is the obvious worry that this is an incredibly depersonalised way to write, but the fact that you don't know the gender in the first place, would only in my view back up the position that you shouldn't be trying to write about someone personally, who you don't actually know personally.

If I read something that haphazardly uses they in any place where he / she should be, it just gives me the impression that the author was some sort of retard, and makes me slightly less willing to finish reading.


tp6626 added to this post, 15 minutes and 41 seconds later...


That word gets its neutrality because it describes a group or set, which can consist of members of mixed gender.

Obviously there was no need felt to distinguish the make up of those groups further. Lets play a hypothetical history out. Maybe the following words could have been used:

they - set of people, mixed gender or gender breakdown unknown
theey - set of men
theeey - set of women
theay - set of people, mixed gender but mostly men
thaey - set of people, mixed gender but mostly women

But all those meet the same intention in describing sets of people, as does the standard word they, which is in actual use.

So using they to describe just one person of unknown gender isn't really an appropriate tactic, and just feels wrong to me; prescriptive or not.

It's like you saw a need for a word, and just picked the nearest one, albeit slightly wrong and possibly confusing to some, and you're trying to say, oh well it'll do. In my view, in a lot of cases, it simply won't do. It will cause confusion / ambiguity / misinterpretation of the texts meaning.

In that sense, I can see why LP might see a need for a genderless pronoun, but I suspect that it may be a want more than an actual need, because he / she in my view does fine when you don't know the gender.

Now actually saying that it is irrelevant to even feel a need to specify gender is a slightly different question. But I can see the logic behind it, and regardless of whether I agree with it or not (I do), I can't see it changing any time soon. :(

As thod pointed out, there are languages that do distinguish between mixed groups and single-gender groups.

I understand that you dislike the usage, but I would disagree that it implies multiple parties. If it's used to talk about single people, regularly - which it is - then that's a perfectly valid meaning for the term. One hears singular they used all the time and no one is confused save in some, rare, particularly unclear circumstances. If you dislike the usage, fine, you're welcome to. (I do find squeamishness about word usage extremely annoying, but that's just me.) I'm just saying that attempting to justify your distaste by claiming some "flaw" justifies it, or that some imaginary term no one uses or ever will is much clearer just seems silly to me.

Why should feelers and extroverts have different standards for "good" langauge? Couldn't we at least agree that speech, in normal situations, is preferable to a more cumbersome method of communication like Morse code?
Efficient communication of information is what language is all about, regardless of the topics at hand.
It's not a matter of should. They do, period. There are people who really like the sound of their own voice, there are people who do not talk for information exchange, but for reassurance and validation etc. etc. etc. However, this is not precisely what I was talking about in the first place.
There are different forms of clarity and different ones are manifested in different phrasings, different languages. Many languages have specifications in individual words that others can only explain by phrases. It would probably be more precise if we identified the exact kind of tree we went tree-climbing in - would that be more efficient? No. Clearer, with greater informational content, but it is irrelevant in most cases.
With singular they - the singular information is conveyed, not by the word, but by the context. So long as the usage is functional, and here I am arguing that it is, then the information needn't be in the word itself.


Ok fair enough. I'll make up such a pronoun, and start using it tomorrow.

I suggest xhe, pronounced see, and xem, pronounced sem.

"Alex entered the room, and felt all eyes upon xem. Xhe hurriedly exited, and no one could remember any specific detail about xem at all. Not least whether he was male or female. Alex was a mystery!".

What are the likely chances of that catching on? What are it's chances of dying out rather rapidly?

Does this mean that there isn't a need for such words, or does it mean that people are satisfied to make do with using logically wrong words in preference to rocking the boat with new ones?

It's been tried, more than once actually. It doesn't work.

Top-down language change is rarely, if ever, successful. At most, it makes its way into formal reports, but everyday usage follows its own rules and changes itself. Generally, language tends to develop according to the needs of its speakers. If something isn't catching on, it's probably because it's not needed at all, or the usage of regular speakers of the language, however distasteful to some, is serving their purposes perfectly adequately.

[LionsPride]

It's been tried, more than once actually. It doesn't work.

Top-down language change is rarely, if ever, successful. At most, it makes its way into formal reports, but everyday usage follows its own rules and changes itself. Generally, language tends to develop according to the needs of its speakers. If something isn't catching on, it's probably because it's not needed at all, or the usage of regular speakers of the language, however distasteful to some, is serving their purposes perfectly adequately.

I'm aware of all this and if I want a feasibility report on whether introduction of a new word is going to work in the English language, I'll know who to call. The purpose of this discussion is what's the standing on the level of need and how have people been handling it in their own lives. It's clear, you don't think it's needed. I think the need wasn't there 10 years ago. Now, the need is growing, but still only effects the odd aspect of life for most people, but is effecting certain groups of people quite regularly. These groups, just to name a few off the top of my head are HR, people who have significant online interaction with people they have not met (business or pleasure), the population of gender ambiguous people (transsexuals, transgendered, hermaphrodites) and companies/universities that are seeing an influx of unisex or foreign names. In these groups, he/she/they isn't working well. I see this as a need growing phase. It's needed by some, but Granny Anne is not going to be using it at her next finger sandwich party. I think the need is there, but it hasn't hit critical mass yet. As long as more people are joining the Internet world corporate or otherwise and the language of dominance is English, the need is going to grow until finally something will evolve. It could be slang, it could be new word, it could be something different.

The need growing phase reminds me of when homosexuality started to appear in mainstream media. What did John call his lover/significant other Tim? Partner was already commonly used to describe "business partner" so when Jim said "this is my partner Tim", people wouldn't always know what the relationship actually was and the opportunity for embarrassing misunderstandings was present. Soon the term "life partner" was coined and, at least where I am, it died due to the resemblance to something hippie-like. Now partner is being used for same sex and opposite sex couples, but it's causing issues with business partners who can't use the word partner without a raised eyebrow or two. If the term gets used for a man and woman, business isn't the relationship that is thought of first.

These sorts of organic language shift occur, but only when needed and there is often a lag. I think we are at the start of a he/she language shift as the role of gender begins to be questioned and the ability to know gender diminishes. My bet is the text message generation will coin something because using one short term will be faster and less prone to error than the he/she/they stuff. It might undergo some change as it hits the forums, message boards and LOL cats and finally we'll hear Paris Hilton use it on one of her media forms. It's not my preference that language should be developed that way, but should and will are regrettably, two different animals.

[Prunesquallor]

Ah. Now I see where you're coming from. I still don't agree, in fact, I think it's more likely that people will just get less uptight about using "they," but I get your point.

[LionsPride]

Ah. Now I see where you're coming from. I still don't agree, in fact, I think it's more likely that people will just get less uptight about using "they," but I get your point.

It is possible that people will just get better at not using he or she in their writing and this will transfer into speech. Rather then getting used to "they", it *might* be a transitory position and we could pass that into just not using he/she/they much at all. Like in Brittle's example, the sentence was structured with out the 3rd person pronoun. If that started to pass into speech patterns it would alleviate a lot and no one would notice that talking about some people was more awkward than others. Of course, that would hardly have made a lively forum discussion. :laugh:

I think books and literature will be the last area to change I have a hard time picturing good prose and literature switching to genderless words. It removes the ability to paint a picture based on the difference in tone in words. I'm not sure if I would like a book that used all genderless words. :thinking:

[Prunesquallor]

It is possible that people will just get better at not using he or she in their writing and this will transfer into speech. Rather then getting used to "they", it *might* be a transitory position and we could pass that into just not using he/she/they much at all. Like in Brittle's example, the sentence was structured with out the 3rd person pronoun. If that started to pass into speech patterns it would alleviate a lot and no one would notice that talking about some people was more awkward than others. Of course, that would hardly have made a lively forum discussion. :laugh:

I think books and literature will be the last area to change I have a hard time picturing good prose and literature switching to genderless words. It removes the ability to paint a picture based on the difference in tone in words. I'm not sure if I would like a book that used all genderless words. :thinking:

Written language will probably change slower, probably; it usually does and there are more ideas about 'correctness' attached to it. I would question that using genderless words 'removes' the ability, though - a good writer could find a new technique and exploit different aspects of language.

[Storm]

Linguist have discovered through observation that languages evolve with children. There was a school for the deaf in Africa that started in the 1970s about. When they first brought all the children there, they knew no language. They tried to teach them American sign language, but to no avail. Slowly, they started realizing that the children were developing their own sign language. At first it was very unstructured: no grammar, just words which were limited to physical things. Then, they noticed the younger children had started to introduce grammar - they could express abstract ideas to each other. Now, an entire complex language has been developed - almost exclusively by children.

As LP said, if a new words emerges it will start with slang and spread slowly - probably much slower than "fad" slang (e.g. phat), but it will happen.

I think the most likely occurrence would be "they" at first, but then people would find this imprecise in some situations and some new word would crop up. Most likely either "he" for everyone or some newish word like "se."

@HackerX: "thou" "thee" etc. are old versions of an informal "you" not a genderless 3rd person pronoun. Although, it might be possible for these outdated words to come back as a 3rd person pronoun - that would be interesting.

[LionsPride]

I think the most likely occurrence would be "they" at first, but then people would find this imprecise in some situations and some new word would crop up. Most likely either "he" for everyone or some newish word like "se."


I was thinking about "se" and thought it might be a likely candidate if new word was to be generated. Not only is it similar in pronunciation to both he and she, but it is shorter than "they" and could easily gain commonality as a beloved typo. Particularly in the type of population that pwns people. Not only do they embrace typos, but they would also be in the sector that gender might be the most ambiguous, the online sector.

I was skimming an article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)ranting about the removal of the masculine gendered pronoun from vocabulary and replacing it with the neutral they. Their opinion (or should I say rant) was that "he" may represent men, but it was also used as a generic pronoun to represent all when gender was not apparent, producing several dictionary references where the generic meaning was included in the definition. Of course the author's outrage was driven by the shift in printing the International version of the Bible with less he/him/his in it, having been replaced with the "incorrect 'they' pronoun" (his opinion not mine).

While I could get used to using "he" instead of he/she and I could get used to everyone being "he" like Storm's example of "brother", it annoys me that people who champion this sort of thinking are often men and they would be highly outraged if we decided to adopt the female as the generic. It may be true that "he" was/is generic, but (this part is speculative on my part) only because men wrote in their own image and often women were not a part of that thinking. When women needed to be included, it was "oh yah, you're considered people under the law now, so let's assume "he" means you women too." :rolleyes: Yah, who wants to use a term that was based on including women as an afterthought. Joy.

[Storm]

Ok, so we're settled - "se" is the new genderless pronoun. Start using it!

So, for direct object do we use "ser" or "shim" or "sim" or "sher." I like "shim" personally.
And what about the possessive pronoun? "sher?" "shis?" "sis?" I like "sis"

Let's all thank LP for sis starting of this thread and allowing us to finally come to a practical solution.

[TheLastMohican]

Ok, so we're settled - "se" is the new genderless pronoun. Start using it!

Imagine that: we can improve the English language by borrowing from Spanish.

I'm in.

I would choose "shis" and "shim" for the possessive and direct object, respectively. I find them easiest to pronounce, assuming we are keeping the "z" sound in "shis."

[LionsPride]

I'm with TLM, I find shis and shim easier to pronounce. You know, using those probably wouldn't work well here, where we revel in proper language, but if I was a member of boards elsewhere where the the language rules are flaunted, I would start using se/shim/shis. :laugh:

I need to go find me a 12 year old net junkie and get shim and shis 3000 facebook/myspace friends to adopt it. :wiseguy:

[TheLastMohican]

Or we could just talk a popular YouTuber into telling shis subscribers to practice it in the comments. It would spread like wildfire.

[LionsPride]

Have any ideas as to who we should recruit, TLM? ;)

[TheLastMohican]

Have any ideas as to who we should recruit, TLM? ;)

I think communitychannel is the most likely to succeed. She has fairly cooperative subscribers.

(Whoa, I just realized that I wrote "his" in my previous post when it should have been "shis." Oh, the irony!)

[Rudy]

I like "shis" and "shim," but "se" doesn't sit right with me. Pronounced like "see"?

[LionsPride]

I was thinking "se" was pronounced "see".

[Storm]

No, it's pronounced like "say."

[TheLastMohican]

No, it's pronounced like "say."
It does sound better, but shouldn't the pronunciation change when translated to English like that?

[Storm]

Not necessarily - I wasn't basing the pronunciation off the Spanish anyway. I just thought "say" sounded better.

[TheLastMohican]

Not necessarily - I wasn't basing the pronunciation off the Spanish anyway. I just thought "say" sounded better.
:stunned: Subjectivity! DO NOT WANT!

[Storm]

Ok, well then let's pronounce it "say" because it's more inline with English slang. All of language is subjective.

[TheLastMohican]

One way to spread this around: Urban Dictionary!

se (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (definition #4)

I've submitted entries for shim and shis. I'll post again here when they're up.

[PHS Philip]

I think that "se" is a plausible candidate. But not by intention. Observe "pwn" which has in fact entered common usage among high schoolers. That originates from a type of "own." Well, se will develop from someone accidentally dropping the h in "she." Se (see), but I think sem (pronounced "sim") or sim and sers or sirs (pronounced the same as "sirs") work better than shim and shis, which just make you sound drunk.

Maintaining consistent spelling with the root word confounds me here though *sigh*

[Maayan]

AH-HAH! I knew Kisai had posted with genderless pronouns. I finally remembered that he'd done it in one of my own threads:

"What the Bleep Do We Know?" was written by people taking a superficial knowledge of different high level ideas, each which take a doctorate level understanding, and designing their own feel-good religion from them.

I attempted to check on their reasoning by leafing through their booklist. I realized that there are a lot of books out there that present these high level ideas to the common human in a way that the reader cannot judge for hirself if the material presented is actually true or not. Science becomes religion for these people, with the layperson just quoting from books to promote hir worldview.

Knowledge is built, not chosen. If you wish to comprehend complex ideas, you have to start at the bottom, learn and build; learn and build.

[Storm]

How is "hir" pronounced? I really can't figure it out. "Hire" wouldn't make sense because it's not spelled correctly. "Her" wouldn't make sense because it sounds like the already used feminine pronoun. "Here" could be a contender, but is easily confused with the actual word "here."

[PHS Philip]

Well, if you were eliminating genderized pronouns, it might be easier to just coopt a current gender pronoun.

[TheLastMohican]

How is "hir" pronounced? I really can't figure it out. "Hire" wouldn't make sense because it's not spelled correctly. "Her" wouldn't make sense because it sounds like the already used feminine pronoun. "Here" could be a contender, but is easily confused with the actual word "here."

In short, "SHIM" IS SUPERIOR! :nerd:

[TheLastMohican]

"Shis" has been published on Urban Dictionary. Give it a thumbs up!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


For some reason, "shim" was rejected. :disappointed: I have no idea why.

[reb]

'shims' are used to level windows, doors and other mechanical things. this is the 'middle American English' usage of the word among most dirty hands people.

for some long time, popular usage of 'shim' has also been used to designate a person of unknown sexuality. so, shou go figger....

[TheLastMohican]

"Shim" has now been published (definition #9):
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Ted]

(Only read last past of this thread)

Don't quote me on the year, but in (1800?) "it" was the genderless pronoun in English but then they removed it.

[zibber]

A friend of mine has taken the challenge to remove gender based words from her vocabulary substituting the unisex version when applicable (waiter/waitress = server) or adopting the masculine form to refer to both genders when the alternative is cumbersome (Chairman/Chairwoman doesn't become Chairperson but remains Chairman). She's done it for years now, but the one thing she still can't successfully avoid are the personal pronouns. She does it to remove discrimination from her dialogue. I know it sounds crazy, but it's her protest against new gender included terms like "male nurse".

Oh, same here.

I don't necessarily do it to prevent discrimination, though. The thing is that "gender" is a continuity and not a binary. Even if you recognize the two biological categories as fundamentally different, there is no actual opposition there and certainly no need for separate pronouns. (If you are going to separate people by pronouns, why not do it in a more useful way, for instance by having pronouns tell you something about someone's personality type?) The depiction of gender as an opposition between two crude categories is a vestigial remainder of our unnuanced, thoughtless past and as long as it's in use, people may fall into the trap of taking it seriously. Language really does have a huge influence on thought and I see these issues to a very large extent as didactic issues.

I wish some people would let go of the idea of holding on to archaic expressions as some kind of noble resistance to the evil boogeyman of "political correctness" that has come to take away all the fun. Just think about these things for yourself and let go of that concept of political correctness for a moment. That's a secondary issue.


I was skimming an article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)ranting about the removal of the masculine gendered pronoun from vocabulary and replacing it with the neutral they. Their opinion (or should I say rant) was that "he" may represent men, but it was also used as a generic pronoun to represent all when gender was not apparent, producing several dictionary references where the generic meaning was included in the definition.


That, too. (That's where Derrida et al. come in.) This default of "he" implies that in the he/she opposition, "he" is ranked higher. You could go further and say "he" is primary and "she" secondary, or that "she" derives its meaning from the basis, "he". (Also a reason to object to wo-man.) Looking at something like that in 2009, it's incredibly hard to justify.

(I guess that doesn't stop the author of that article from trying though, huh?)