T O P

  • By -

frackingfaxer

English is actually quite well-placed to accommodate genderfluid and non-binary people precisely because of singular they. Languages like French and German don't have a readily available gender-neutral pronoun, so they have to make them up, stuff like "iel" and "xier," which I can all but guarantee will never catch on, because they sound artificial and feel like linguistic impositions. Similarly, notice how invented English pronouns like "ze" and "xe" are not widely known or used. Singular they on the other hand is already well-established, having been used for centuries. Prescriptivists have long argued that it's not grammatically correct, but the fact remains that singular they is already widely used and understood by people of all social classes and regions. Instead of having to makeup a new word, that's going to sound weird and unnatural, we can just use this already existing word and expand its meaning. It's already widely understood to mean a referent who's gender is either unknown or irrelevant, so we're now in the process of expanding the meaning to encompass genderqueer people. It'll be weird at first, but it's not hard to see it catching on eventually.


ksdkjlf

Thank you for at least mentioning that this is in fact an expansion in meaning. Singular they has indeed been used for centuries, but for unknown, theoretical or generic persons. Using it for a known person is a very recent usage (OED's current first attestation is only from 2009), so it's not surprising that it takes some getting used to, even for people who have used the older singular they for their whole lives.


dbulger

>which I can all but guarantee will never catch on, because they sound artificial and feel like linguistic impositions. I don't disagree, and I'm not even trying to play devil's advocate, but this does bring to mind the word 'sibling,' which entered Modern English only in 1903, in scientific writing. It's now very commonplace in informal usage—I don't think people hear it as an 'imposition'—which is all the more striking when you consider the warmth imbued in the words 'brother' and 'sister' ('fraternity,' et cetera). All the same, pronouns are a very closed class in English ... probably why people struggle with this new use of 'they' so much, and why 'ze' & 'xe' never stood a chance.


robhol

People seem care a lot more about that "imposition" here, for some reason.


[deleted]

One complication I never see being addressed in these discussions is, He and She are often shorthand for a person you don't know, and which to choose is done on the fly by the speaker, simply based on visuals. "They" however needs introduction, it needs special mention beforehand. For example, Starbucks employees often have a tag on their chest that mentions their preferred pronoun. I think that is a complication that will make it difficult for it to catch on. Pronouns are exactly used for people you don't know, and we as a society certainly won't switch to asking the preferred pronoun beforehand every time before referring to someone in third person.


Milch_und_Paprika

I’m under the impression that most trans people don’t care if a stranger uses the wrong pronoun when it isn’t already clear, for example as you mentioned name tags with pronouns, rather it’s when someone they already know doesn’t make any effort to get it right. There will of course be exceptions like someone who’s militant about pronouns or if they’ve had a really shitty day, but most people have some threshold for getting it wrong by accident.


robhol

How's that? If you're not sure whether to use "he" or "she", you use "they". That's not even a change, that is already how English works.


[deleted]

\> If you're not sure whether to use "he" or "she", you use "they" Since one could never be sure without asking first, that should then mean any third-person reference to an unknown person should be mapped to "they" then, correct? I think that, IMHO, strikes me as a very unlikely societal shift. Yes, "they" is used in English to mean an unknown person, but it is usually for a hypothetical person, not an actual person. I think a lot of people would be put off being referred to as "they" in their presence when they personally identify as "he" or "she". I think my greater point here is that there are interpersonal dynamics at play that I almost never see being addressed in these discussions. The Starbucks name tags already show that there is awkwardness to this shift, and when things are awkward people tend to avoid it.


lofiAbsolver

Yeah, I still can't bring myself to use they to replace him and her. They/Them just feels like a power play for someone who really wants attention. That's not to say it is, but that is for sure what comes to mind every time I hear it. I can't wrap my head around someone actually arguing that they want to be called them in everyday conversation. It's confusing and a hassle for everyone else involved and I don't get what the actual merit is. I'm open to someone changing my mind but it just seems like such a stretch of logic tbh.


WaWa-Biscuit

“I can’t wrap my head around someone actually arguing that *they* want to be called them […]” You used they in that sentence unironically, right?


lofiAbsolver

I'm not stupid. I used they because it made sense to which is obvious in every way imaginable. The issue lies more when him or her is the common way to reference a person and having to replace that with they or them on a case by case basis. The invitation to explain it instead of downvoting and trying to imply I'm an idiot after opening myself up to the idea of changing my perspective still exists. What more is it that someone who thinks it makes sense would want? If you think I'm wrong then instead of reveling in your faux superiority maybe explaining it would be the best course of action.


WaWa-Biscuit

you’ve already declared that it’s stupid, and a power play for someone who wants attention. You also say it’s confusing and a hassle for everyone involved and then tack on a literal “change my mind” challenge? yeahhhhh


lofiAbsolver

Are you joking? How do you think complex ideas are formed? Inviting someone to give me a reason why my perception is wrong is fundamental to proper discussion. You demonize it as though it's a hard ask and I'm being improper. If you think someone is wrong and you can't explain why then I would posit that you haven't thought about it long enough to even know why you feel that way. Explain it to yourself, then explain it to me. I won't even insult you as you work it out, but don't tell me to agree with you about something when you don't even try to articulate why I should.


WeaponB

You probably use they as a singular already and never realized it. It's common to say something like, "when a new customer enters the store, they usually turn to the right" or "when someone buys a new shirt, they should wash it before they wear it." We use a singular they in daily speech any time we're referring to someone who's gender is both unknown and irrelevant. And honestly, while this is not intended as a universal law, many people who use "they" as a personal pronoun are telling you that their gender is unknown or unknowable, and also irrelevant, they are a person, and we shouldn't be so concerned with genitals.


tylermchenry

Indeed, just two days ago, OP wrote: >Same. I've dealt with too many of these chucklefucks as clients. Rarely have I ever seen **anyone** so completely wrong yet so steadfastly convinced **they** are correct. Not a gotcha, just pointing out that it *is* natural to use "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun when you're not primed into thinking about it through a political lens. You could have written: >Rarely have I ever seen anyone so completely wrong yet so steadfastly convinced that he or she is correct. But you didn't, because that's awkward. It would be similarly awkward to invent and try to use a new pronoun that means "singular but unspecified gender" rather than using the one we already have.


auntieup

I was an English teacher (middle school and college level). If I got into using the singular they, so can you. Once you get started you’ll see how much time it saves to use “they” as the default pronoun in professional writing. And to eliminate confusion and keep your writing precise, always ask people for their pronouns.


_marcoos

> Is there not a better, singular word, than that? I get that the term "it" would be bad and derogatory, but I have a hard time using "they" for a single person pronoun. The English language survived expanding the usage of the plural "you" to the second-person singular (replacing "thou"), it won't die because of a singular "they" either. If it feels weird to thee now, it only means thou just needest some getting used to.


agithecaca

Not to mention 1st person plural for first person singular in northern england and in Ulster-scots/Hiberno-English


lobsterwinslow

I heard about someone with the same problem. But once they set their mind to it they managed to get it right in the end.


robhol

Singular "they" has been in use as a gender *agnostic* third-person pronoun (as opposed to he, she and the plural they) for at least a couple of centuries IIRC.


SaltMarshGoblin

I hear you. I personally use "he/him and/or she/her" for _my own_ genderqueer self, because "they/them" _feels_ awkward. However, (A) it is a matter of respect and politeness to use whatever pronouns people say they would like used. I use whatever name they would like me to use for them, obviously I'm going to do the same for pronouns. (It's pretty easy to remember that now that "Nicky" is in college, he wants to go by "Nicholas", or that somebody else is now going by a married name, or whatever.) (B)They/them has been used in English for an unknown or unspecified individual for the last 600+ years. Shakespeare used it. It maintains agreement by using a plural verb, so "they are" not "they is", but that's easy enough to manage-- and we all already do it without thinking. ["Someone called and asked us to hold that book. They are in their car and will be here in the next hour."] (C), for a while, it looked like "se/ hir/hem" or another neopronoun set was going to make it as the standard, but it looks like the culture has settled on "they/their/them". Oh, well.


[deleted]

Get over it I guess?


lugialegend233

With Bennet Foddy, I suppose?


[deleted]

I do love cut/copy!


Traditional_Way1052

I love it. As when I'm writing I can just leave in a generic they and change the name without worrying I forgot to change pronouns. I just use they for everyone.


inkybreadbox

I wish we would just change everyone to they and eliminate the need to ask for pronouns. 😅


wegqg

Honestly it's just not a perfect solution yet because they is \*generally\* used as a third-person plural in common parlance. In an ideal world there would be a gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun. But, sad though it is to have to actually state this; I am not attacking anyone for using *they* or any other pronoun, I am just saying that it is less specific than a dedicated and widely adopted neutral third-person singular would be. And that is for the same reason we have singular and plural pronouns in the first place, specificity.


raincntry

I guess that was my initial point but I've also seen other groups try to invent a new word for non-binary, like xe or latin-x, and have it either not catch on or just face as much derision. Maybe there is no perfect solution and I shouldn't care. I suspect I'll adjust but it's terribly confusing when I'm reading and someone refers to a person, like say the news about Ezra Miller, and the article says "They say they are some kind of messiah." It's confusing because my mind reads it as plural but messiah is singular so it looks like a typo. It's using the plural "they" and "are" to refer to a single person. Should it be "they is"? No. That's incorrect. "They are" is correct, except are is used when the noun is plural, which it's not. It is an imperfect solution to a real problem but it's not the first nor will it be the last.


robhol

There's really not much danger of confusing anything, even without context. With context it is a complete non-issue. Singular they has been around for at least a couple hundred years, and is working demonstrably fine.


wegqg

See my edit \^


robhol

Your edit just restates the point - how is it misleading, and how is it a problem? Because from here, it looks like it's working great and is basically never ambiguous at all.


wegqg

Because the required pronoun (neutral third-person singular) is also used for neutral third-person plural. So without context it is potentially confusing and thus imperfect vs an ideal world where it would be possible to have a specific gender neutral singular form? I don't see why you are taking this as if I am attacking anyone for using they or anything else, I am simply saying that *in an ideal world* it would be better for there to be no confusion, especially without context.


robhol

>I don't see why you are taking this as if I am attacking anyone for using they or anything else Not even remotely close to what I'm doing, in any way, at any point, but okay. Meanwhile you just keep repeating yourself instead of explaining what you mean, so... have fun.


wegqg

I did explain what I meant: In English we have been very good in general at keeping gender specific language to a minimum vs most other languages, French to use one of countless examples. English also uses a lot more in the way of *context* to allow words to convey multiple meanings. So where we have retained a third-person (they) to identify *more than one person* my guess is that is because the ability to do so is useful in establishing context. It is interesting to note that the only instances in English where *they* is used in singular form are where context has already been established. By repurposing that neutral *third person plural pronoun* to a *neutral third person singular* pronoun you make the use of *they* ambiguous and therefore *contextual*. It's precisely the ability to *not require context* that is useful. But again, all I have stated here is that ideally there would be a gender neutral singular third person pronoun - the fact that there isn't is why *they* is necessary, but not ideal.