Pronouns (No Attacks Please!)

[SimonDoom]

If Robin's gender has yet to be described, the reader just has to take they/them as the correct pronouns.

What RedChamber said. Obviously, the author knows Robin's gender. It's playing a weird game of hide the ball if the author writes as though the author is in the dark.

I can't speak for everyone's perspective. I can tell you if I saw this I would say: that's wrong. And I think to most avid, careful readers it would look weird.

 

[TheRedChamber]

What RedChamber said. Obviously, the author knows Robin's gender. It's playing a weird game of hide the ball if the author writes as though the author is in the dark.

I can't speak for everyone's perspective. I can tell you if I saw this I would say: that's wrong. And I think to most avid, careful readers it would look weird.

Reading again, I came to the conclusion that Whoopsie means Robin has 'they' gender pronouns and the usage is this correct. (if it were the first sentence in a story the reader should assume Robin is a 'they' from the available information)

If the writer is hiding whether Robin is he or she that would be wrong.

 

[NakedNymph]

I don't agree with this at all. If you know Robin is a woman, it sounds completely wrong. Most editors, proofreaders, grammar teachers, and experienced writers would tell you that's wrong. "Robin lost her wallet" is the correct version. I can't speak for people around your age, although I think my kids, who are around your age, would think that's wrong.

If I know Robin's a woman, and I know whoever's talking knows Robin's a woman, I'd think they're being overly careful but it's still fine. If I know whoever's talking doesn't know Robin's gender, it'd sound perfectly natural to me.

A more omniscient narrator should know (it'd be weird if they didn't) but a more limited narrator or a specific character might not, and they're all possible sources for a sentence like "Robin lost their wallet". So having this conversation without context just seems like literal semantics to me.

Personally, I try to use whatever pronoun a person identifies by, since that's what they want to be called. But if I don't know yet, better that than "him or her" and I think that's the more important comparative. We should be careful to make sure our pronoun use is comprehensible but that's true of all pronouns and antecedents, not just they.

 

[NakedNymph]

If the writer is hiding whether Robin is he or she that would be wrong.

Not necessarily, it's still context-dependent imo. Like, let's say I'm the narrator, and I meet Robin and they don't actually identify as enby but their gender expression is fairly neutral, and it's only later in the conversation that it turns out she's a girl. That way, it's tied to what the narrator knows.

This is also pretty big for Internet spaces. Like, TheRedChamber is a fairly nonindicative name; without context, I'd have no idea what gender you are.

 

[alohadave]

If you know Robin is a woman, it sounds completely wrong.

Only if you are an absolutist regarding gender.

 

[Bramblethorn]

A couple of years ago, I remember being thoroughly confused by a news story. It went on over several long paragraphs but the basic gist of it was.

1) Jane flew to New York to visit her friend Sophie.
2) A week later they flew back to Los Angeles.
3) That evening they were victim to an attempted sexual assault.
4) They flew back to Sophie for comfort and told her the story.

In the context of this thread its easy to see that Jane is using 'they' as a pronoun

As you've given it here, the story isn't consistent on Jane's pronouns - it starts out using "her". I'd find that switch confusing too. OTOH, if it was using "they" throughout, I'd find #2 and #3 ambiguous but not actively misleading - I'd be aware of the two possible interpretations there.

If it was as you've described, I'd guess that the story was originally written with Jane referred to as "she"/"her" throughout, then corrected to they/them but missing that line.

One fairly common practice in stories about non-binary people is to mention the pronouns up front: "Note: Jane is non-binary and goes by "they"/"them"."

Some people, particularly gender-fluid, do switch pronouns from day to day, but an article of this kind wouldn't normally need to echo those shifts.

 

[SimonDoom]

Only if you are an absolutist regarding gender.

No. Things can seem wrong to one without one being an absolutist. I'm not an absolutist on matters of grammar. But I'm widely read, and I feel confident in saying that most widely read people would look at that and say it's wrong. At least, people over 30.

I would challenge this view this way: give me an example in published fiction where this is used. If you can't, then you cannot say with any confidence that most people would think this is OK. There's no basis for that opinion.

 

[SimonDoom]

No. Things can seem wrong to one without one being an absolutist. I'm not an absolutist on matters of grammar or gender. But I'm widely read, and I feel confident in saying that most widely read people would look at that and say it's wrong. At least, people over 30.
If it's clear that Robin is gender fluid or nonbinary, then this is fine. But if Robin's gender clearly is female, then this is wrong.

I would challenge this view this way: give me an example in published fiction where this is used. If you can't, then you cannot say with any confidence that most people would think this is OK. There's no basis for that opinion.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Replace keys with wallet or phone and it still doesn't sound incorrect.

"Robin lost their wallet" isn't going to sound wrong to most people.

It's going to sound odd to a fair chunk of the population older than thirty or so. "They" as a gender neutral term is relatively new, so far as changing word conventions go.

 

[TheRedChamber]

As you've given it here, the story isn't consistent on Jane's pronouns - it starts out using "her". I'd find that switch confusing too. OTOH, if it was using "they" throughout, I'd find #2 and #3 ambiguous but not actively misleading - I'd be aware of the two possible interpretations there.

If it was as you've described, I'd guess that the story was originally written with Jane referred to as "she"/"her" throughout, then corrected to they/them but missing that line.

One fairly common practice in stories about non-binary people is to mention the pronouns up front: "Note: Jane is non-binary and goes by "they"/"them"."

Some people, particularly gender-fluid, do switch pronouns from day to day, but an article of this kind wouldn't normally need to echo those shifts.

Sorry my slip. It may have said something like 'to see a friend, Sophie.'

 

[TheRedChamber]

Not necessarily, it's still context-dependent imo. Like, let's say I'm the narrator, and I meet Robin and they don't actually identify as enby but their gender expression is fairly neutral, and it's only later in the conversation that it turns out she's a girl. That way, it's tied to what the narrator knows.

Fair enough, with only one sentence and no 'I', I was probably assuming either an omniscient or limited third person POV with Robin as the MC.

Still, if the MC is confused about Robin's gender I'd expect that to be mentioned earlier in the story...unless it starts in media res...argh!

This is also pretty big for Internet spaces. Like, TheRedChamber is a fairly nonindicative name; without context, I'd have no idea what gender you are.

Ok and I suppose a story about a Lit forum member who loses their keys would need to use 'they' as well.

 

[NakedNymph]

I would challenge this view this way: give me an example in published fiction where this is used. If you can't, then you cannot say with any confidence that most people would think this is OK. There's no basis for that opinion.

My lord, he’s going to his mother’s closet.
Behind the arras I’ll convey myself
To hear the process. I’ll warrant she’ll tax him home.
And, as you said (and wisely was it said)
‘Tis meet that some more audience than a mother—
Since nature makes them partial—should o’erhear
The speech, of vantage. Fare you well, my liege.
I’ll call upon you ere you go to bed
And tell you what I know.

and here's one that even makes me intuitively go "huh":

They shut me up in Prose –
As when a little Girl
They put me in the Closet –
Because they liked me “still” –

Still! Could themself have peeped –
And seen my Brain – go round –
They might as wise have lodged a Bird
For Treason – in the Pound –

Himself has but to will
And easy as a Star
Look down opon Captivity –
And laugh – No more have I –

Emily Dickinson really did like the themself...

But I'm just being facetious. It's totally possible (and it is the case) that writers have at some point used singular they, even to refer to people of known gender, while it also being the case that for older living generations, it was taught as a rule that "they" is plural and shouldn't be used as singular. A rule is truly successful when it feels fully natural and breaking it feels like a violation of the natural order

Those nuances are important to keep in mind, of course, but that's why I generally try to write comprehensibly in general, regardless of specific pronouns.

 

[Voboy]

Reading again, I came to the conclusion that Whoopsie means Robin has 'they' gender pronouns and the usage is this correct. (if it were the first sentence in a story the reader should assume Robin is a 'they're from the available information)

If the writer is hiding whether Robin is he or she that would be wrong.

I caught Whoopsie's meaning, and it's not misplaced, but it still complicates the comprehension situation when it's in a written piece. I'm sure people will get accustomed to it slowly and organically, which is how the OP's new pronoun will arise: slowly and organically.

None of these things will gain acceptance or comfort by fiat, whether from a government passing a law or a writer constructing a passage for a captive reader.

 

[Winter_Fare]

It appears that they/them is now widely used for nongendered singular, and that earlier proposals for coining a new nongendered singular in English have been escorted to the dustbin of history. So, is there a way to reduce the singular/plural confusion in they/them usage?

Easiest is just to use "their", and if it seems ambiguous switch to using specific names for clarity. Read it out loud and if their sounds clunky, use the name, or even title or descriptor: red-head, youth, friend, captain etc.

I think it's right to use "they were" rather than "they was", "they are" rather than "they is". It's not confusing if you're careful with context eg.

Someone was run over earlier. I didn't get a good look at them. They were texting on a mobile phone, stepped out into traffic and bang! A taxi pulled up and the driver did CPR. I have the phone. I picked it up once the crazy died down. Do you know which hospital they were taken to?

I may try the following in a story I’m working on now. This approach addresses only part of the confusion, because these would be spoken the same way (essentially as homophones), but written differently. The singular ‘they’ would be spelled ‘thay,’ singular ‘them’ would be ‘themm,’ and singular ‘their’ would be ‘therr.’ Yes, the latter could add to the homophone confusion that can already exist among ‘their,’ ‘there,’ and ‘they’re.’

I'm not a fan. It reads different. You say they're homophones but the eye lies! I'm hearing a piratical aaargh! With therr. Plus, you will grow to utterly despise auto correct if you do this. I hate auto correct and the only thing it regularly fucks up is my Ventrue/venture.

I have no control over the content of replies in this thread, but I would appreciate it if people addressed only this specific suggestion, and not the larger topic of the acceptability of singular they/them. There, I’ve written that. This gives me deniability on whatever follows.

There's a great deal to be said about normalising their as a gender neutral singular, the more people see it, the easier it becomes to read.

 

[alohadave]

I'm not an absolutist on matters of grammar. But I'm widely read, and I feel confident in saying that most widely read people would look at that and say it's wrong.

You are also accustomed to how it's been done in the past. Styles change and this is something that is changing. It doesn't make it right or wrong.

I would challenge this view this way: give me an example in published fiction where this is used. If you can't, then you cannot say with any confidence that most people would think this is OK. There's no basis for that opinion.

I did not say that most people would think it's okay. That is you putting words in my mouth, saying things I did not say.

If you really do not know of any published examples, you aren't as widely read as you think. It's very common in LGBTQ literature.

 

[SimonDoom]

and here's one that even makes me intuitively go "huh":



Emily Dickinson really did like the themself...

But I'm just being facetious. It's totally possible (and it is the case) that writers have at some point used singular they, even to refer to people of known gender, while it also being the case that for older living generations, it was taught as a rule that "they" is plural and shouldn't be used as singular. A rule is truly successful when it feels fully natural and breaking it feels like a violation of the natural order

Those nuances are important to keep in mind, of course, but that's why I generally try to write comprehensibly in general, regardless of specific pronouns.

I read these as examples of an indefinite plural "they." Like "They can put a man on the moon . . . ." These are not examples of an identified, named single individual being matched with the pronoun "they."

 

[SimonDoom]

You are also accustomed to how it's been done in the past. Styles change and this is something that is changing. It doesn't make it right or wrong.



I did not say that most people would think it's okay. That is you putting words in my mouth, saying things I did not say.

If you really do not know of any published examples, you aren't as widely read as you think. It's very common in LGBTQ literature.

Examples?

I agree styles change, but I don't think this style has in fact changed. I don't think there's evidence to support that assertion. I don't pretend to be an expert on LGBTQ literature. To be clear, what we're looking for here is examples of "they" being used with regard to a person whose gender is clearly identified. I don't dispute that "they" would be appropriate with regard to a non-binary person or a person where gender was, for some reason, deliberately left ambiguous.

 

[NakedNymph]

I read these as examples of an indefinite plural "they." Like "They can put a man on the moon . . . ." These are not examples of an identified, named single individual being matched with the pronoun "they."

If we want to quibble, in the first case, imo Polonius is referring to Hamlet's mother when he says "makes them partial", since the point is that he'll hide and listen in on their private conversation since Hamlet's mother would be biased by her natural love for her son (nature making her "partial") in reporting back what he says. In context, I think it makes sense as a singular they referring to a woman.

In the Emily Dickinson case, the "themself" is singular, I think we can both agree on that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

‘Tis meet that some more audience than a mother—
Since nature makes them partial—should o’erhear

In that example I'd take "them" to be standing in for "mothers", rather than a singular. It's a generalisation about mothers in general.

If a character said "I'm not willing to take the word of a Spaniard, I've had too many dealings with them", we'd take the 'them' to be referring to Spaniards in general, not that particular Spaniard. Same here.

 

[NakedNymph]

In that example I'd take "them" to be standing in for "mothers", rather than a singular. It's a generalisation about mothers in general.

If a character said "I'm not willing to take the word of a Spaniard, I've had too many dealings with them", we'd take the 'them' to be referring to Spaniards in general, not that particular Spaniard. Same here.

Eh, that's fair, I'll accept that But can you demonstrate that my proposed singular they interpretation is outright wrong?

The English language is truly amazing

 

[SimonDoom]

In the Emily Dickinson case, the "themself" is singular, I think we can both agree on that.

It might be, but I think it's more ambiguous than you suggest. But whether or not it's singular, there's no gendered noun to which the pronoun is attached. It's still not an example of what I'm asking evidence of.

 

[NakedNymph]

It might be, but I think it's more ambiguous than you suggest. But whether or not it's singular, there's no gendered noun to which the pronoun is attached. It's still not an example of what I'm asking evidence of.

Where would you introduce the ambiguity, if I might ask?

Fair enough that there's no gendered noun antecedent, but the existence of one is implied. What do you think "themself" refers to?

 

[NakedNymph]

I do want to point out that I find it funny and ironic that "a mother" (singular) can be intuitively read as "mothers" (plural) in context but we're quibbling over interpreting whether "they" should be read as singular or plural in context.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

No. Things can seem wrong to one without one being an absolutist. I'm not an absolutist on matters of grammar. But I'm widely read, and I feel confident in saying that most widely read people would look at that and say it's wrong. At least, people over 30.

I would challenge this view this way: give me an example in published fiction where this is used. If you can't, then you cannot say with any confidence that most people would think this is OK. There's no basis for that opinion.

William and the Werewolf (1375)

Also Jane Austin used it pretty frequently.

They as a singular third person pronoun in published english is centuries old.

Here's the Oxford English Dictionary on the subject

And here is Merriam Webster on the subject

 

[Bramblethorn]

Eh, that's fair, I'll accept that But can you demonstrate that my proposed singular they interpretation is outright wrong?

The English language is truly amazing

Hard to prove beyond doubt what a dead guy meant 400 years ago, but it doesn't ring right to me.

Polonius is saying that Gertrude shouldn't be the only witness, but there's nuance in how he expresses that. In the previous line he refers not to "Hamlet's mother" or "the mother", but "a mother" - the indefinite article. The choice to use the indefinite article frames this as a generalisation about mothers in general, rather than about Gertrude in particular. That generalisation is quite likely a matter of tact: suggesting to her face that Queen Gertrude is not a credible witness might not be the most diplomatic of moves.

The implied message here is something like "of course I'd never say that you, Queen Gertrude, are unreliable! But as a general principle, a mother shouldn't be the only witness."

Having made that a general statement about mothers, plural is the natural interpretation for the following "they".

If one reads it as singular, then he is specifically saying that nature has made Gertrude partial, which is a bit more confrontational, with somebody who Polonius has no desire to confront.