Pronouns (No Attacks Please!)

[Bramblethorn]

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.

This is pretty common in English!

When I say "a snake will bite if you step on it", the normal interpretation is that I'm talking about a general tendency of snakes, not one snake in particular. Similarly for things like Boromir's "one does not simply walk into Mordor", where he's talking not about one person but all people.

 

[NakedNymph]

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.

Now I'm the one saying, no, you can't definitively say whether "they" is singular or plural, and you're the one trying to dissuade me by explaining how it's easy - natural - to be able to interpret whether they is singular or plural given context.

This is pretty common in English!

When I say "a snake will bite if you step on it", the normal interpretation is that I'm talking about a general tendency of snakes, not one snake in particular. Similarly for things like Boromir's "one does not simply walk into Mordor", where he's talking not about one person but all people.

I'm not disputing that it's common in English, I'm just drawing a parallel between this particular grammatical construction and the argument over whether singular they is intuitive

 

[Bramblethorn]

Now I'm the one saying, no, you can't definitively say whether "they" is singular or plural, and you're the one trying to dissuade me by explaining how it's easy - natural - to be able to interpret whether they is singular or plural given context.

That's my normal position though!

(Not an absolute one; I acknowledge there are some cases where "they" can be ambiguous. But I see those as fairly rare, and not a strong objection to the use of singular "they".)

 

[NakedNymph]

That's my normal position though!

(Not an absolute one; I acknowledge there are some cases where "they" can be ambiguous. But I see those as fairly rare, and not a strong objection to the use of singular "they".)

Whoops, I missed that entirely! The troubles that come from a conversation suddenly branching two ways

As I said earlier, my attempt to find examples (I still think the Emily Dickinson one is good) was mostly facetious, I don't find the "it's the way it's been done before" to be particularly interesting, it's more of a deflection from the actual point of writing comprehensibly and mainly reflects what was in vogue at the time of any given person's education. Give it 50 years and times will change and it'll be some totally new change to English that us once-rebellious zoomers will complain about

 

[SimonDoom]

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

Those are not examples, because, if you read them, they are referring to instances where the gender of the antecedent noun is unknown. I acknowledged that "they" has been used as a singular pronoun where the gender of the antecedent noun is unknown. My challenge was to provide support for the use of "they" where the antecedent singular noun was of a known gender. Nobody in this thread, so far, has provided examples of that, so I stand by my view that this is, at best, irregular.

 

[NakedNymph]

Today's conversation in a nutshell: everyone agrees singular "they" is fine, gets into argument over minor details about what that means exactly.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

Nobody in this thread, so far, has provided examples of that, so I stand by my view that this is, at best, irregular.

I don't think anyones suggested using it on a character who is known sooooo. When it comes to gender neutral language there is no meaningful difference between a character who's gender is unknown and a character who's gender isn’t male or female. If she/her traditionally applies to a woman and he/him traditionally applies to a man, they/them is the traditional pronoun for anyone who for whatever reason isn't being portrayed as male or female. Grammatically there is no difference in treatment between someone who's gender is unknown and someone who's gender is definited as being neither male or female.

 

[firmbutgentle]

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.

So many, many examples, but one I just finished last week: The Story Of Silence, by Alex Myers, a modern retelling of a 13th century Arthurian poem about a woman knight that even in the original messes around with gender and pronouns. I liked it a lot.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Those are not examples, because, if you read them, they are referring to instances where the gender of the antecedent noun is unknown. I acknowledged that "they" has been used as a singular pronoun where the gender of the antecedent noun is unknown. My challenge was to provide support for the use of "they" where the antecedent singular noun was of a known gender. Nobody in this thread, so far, has provided examples of that, so I stand by my view that this is, at best, irregular.

... My challenge was to provide support for the use of "they" where the antecedent singular noun was of a known gender. Nobody in this thread, so far, has provided examples of that, so I stand by my view that this is, at best, irregular.

I think it's changing rapidly. I work with a lot of bright young things who would probably be considered the wokerati (several vegans, lots of hipster beards, though man-buns are going out of fashion). From the off five years ago, it was common to hear one or two of them talk about 'my partner' just as the standard word for girlfriend/boyfriend/fiancé (e)/spouse, and refer to said partner as 'they', and now it's the norm for all the staff in their twenties and early thirties.

I imagine you don't get as far as a mortgage with someone without finding out what gender they are!

I did chat to one guy about the language change, and how previously someone talking about their 'partner' and particularly talking about what 'they' did would be assumed to be hiding a same-sex partner.

He told me it wasn't about hiding the sex or gender of the partner, just why mention it when it's not relevant? To his eyes, referring to someone as he or she is like saying "that black guy" when the guy's race isn't relevant to the discussion - makes you sound like an old fart.

I have to admit I'm very happy to embrace a singular they, simply because I'm shit at detecting gender or sex - if they don't have large breasts or obvious facial hair, I'm stuffed.

 

[SimonDoom]

He told me it wasn't about hiding the sex or gender of the partner, just why mention it when it's not relevant? To his eyes, referring to someone as he or she is like saying "that black guy" when the guy's race isn't relevant to the discussion - makes you sound like an old fart.

This definitely represents a generational shift in thinking.

I'm an old enough fart that I confess it makes me sad. I have no problem with being flexible enough to accommodate non-binary thinking and people who want to identify that way. But if we default to non-binary thinking, I think we have lost more than we have gained, because I think the reality is that most of us DO think in binary terms and for us it makes life richer and more interesting. To me, it's not at all like race, which is mostly a fiction and is an artifact of a far more invidious way of thinking.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think it's changing rapidly. I work with a lot of bright young things who would probably be considered the wokerati (several vegans, lots of hipster beards, though man-buns are going out of fashion). From the off five years ago, it was common to hear one or two of them talk about 'my partner' just as the standard word for girlfriend/boyfriend/fiancé (e)/spouse, and refer to said partner as 'they', and now it's the norm for all the staff in their twenties and early thirties.

I'd agree there. My kids are 29, 31, both with long term partners and with peers getting married, having babies. They're too old now to have "boyfriends" or "girlfriends", that's what they had in their early twenties.

"Partner" is generally accepted here in Oz as either gender, and who cares anyway? Besides, most people give it away with their Facebook status.

Thank God about the man-buns though, that was a terrible phase!

 

[yukonnights]

This definitely represents a generational shift in thinking.

I'm an old enough fart that I confess it makes me sad. I have no problem with being flexible enough to accommodate non-binary thinking and people who want to identify that way. But if we default to non-binary thinking, I think we have lost more than we have gained, because I think the reality is that most of us DO think in binary terms and for us it makes life richer and more interesting. To me, it's not at all like race, which is mostly a fiction and is an artifact of a far more invidious way of thinking.

I'm in agreement with the fact that most people do think in binary terms — most readers of Lit stories do also. Thus, in response to the original question about how to write a story in our predominantly binary speaking world — If it were me trying to do this, I'd probably have a scene early in the story where the non-binary character / characters correct and explain their own preferred pronouns to someone in the story. After that, the readers should have a better grip on the seemingly misuse of the obscure non-binary pronouns. Perhaps even put 'them' in single quotes so 'they' read more smoothly?

 

[AlexBailey]

This definitely represents a generational shift in thinking.

I'm an old enough fart that I confess it makes me sad. I have no problem with being flexible enough to accommodate non-binary thinking and people who want to identify that way. But if we default to non-binary thinking, I think we have lost more than we have gained, because I think the reality is that most of us DO think in binary terms and for us it makes life richer and more interesting. To me, it's not at all like race, which is mostly a fiction and is an artifact of a far more invidious way of thinking.

Individual thinking needs to shift as the values of society shift and language plays a big part. When thinking doesn’t shift it creates unnecessary friction.

It’s not an attack or an attempt to make your life any less rich or interesting, it’s an effort to include more people as those whose lives and lifestyles are socially valid.

Take for example how so many people are offended and making a stink, saying “they’re trying to outlaw the use of the word ‘woman’,” or “they’re trying to say men can get pregnant.”

Think about it. In many places it is possible for people to switch their gender -both socially and legally without altering their genitals. If someone has eggs and a uterus they can become pregnant, therefore it is possible for a man to become pregnant.

This is not a common occurrence but it does happen, and lo and behold, there are people in positions who can be gatekeepers who do not support trans rights. There are people whose job it is to protect insurance companies against any claims they can reasonably deny, there are many programs designed to help pregnant ‘women,’ and there are people who refuse to recognize trans people as their chosen gender.

In order to protect the rights of transgender individuals the language of the law needs to be changed. We live in a world of laws and if the language of the law doesn’t respect a minority class there are many people who won’t either.

For some reason there are people who feel threatened by this and they use this issue to stir up fear and hatred against trans people. Changing the language and the laws help prevent abuse.

It’s similar to how so many people try to say that allowing same sex couples to marry somehow damages other people’s hetero marriage.

I know many couples who were “married” for years before they were granted the right to legally call their partner their spouse. While their love was always real they did not have the same rights, respect, or recognition as hetero couples who so easily could take it for granted.

Having someone who refuses to recognize a person’s chosen pronoun is as disrespectful as someone who insists on still calling someone by their maiden name after they have taken their spouse’s last name.

 

[AlexBailey]

Thank God about the man-buns though, that was a terrible phase!

Yeah? Lol.

My parents still hate my ponytail.

 

[SimonDoom]

Individual thinking needs to shift as the values of society shift and language plays a big part. When thinking doesn’t shift it creates unnecessary friction.

A few thoughts.

I don't agree that "individual thinking needs to shift." Individuals should be free to think however they want, without punishment or censure. Person A's thoughts do not threaten person B's rights. Actions, not thoughts, threaten people's rights.

The issue here is language, not thoughts. Language changes over time to reflect changing values. On the issue at hand, we're witnessing a change in the use of pronouns to reflect the fact that many people don't identify as binary, and society increasingly is accepting of that fact.

But it doesn't follow logically from this fact that we should shift to the nonbinary "they" as a default pronoun. It doesn't follow that the majority of people have to completely change the way they think and use pronouns. It seems more logical to me to adopt "they" as a permissible alternative rather than as a default. I think most people prefer to use gendered pronouns in most cases and I don't see a strong case for changing that.

 

[AlexBailey]

A few thoughts.

I don't agree that "individual thinking needs to shift." Individuals should be free to think however they want, without punishment or censure. Person A's thoughts do not threaten person B's rights. Actions, not thoughts, threaten people's rights.

The issue here is language, not thoughts. Language changes over time to reflect changing values. On the issue at hand, we're witnessing a change in the use of pronouns to reflect the fact that many people don't identify as binary, and society increasingly is accepting of that fact.

But it doesn't follow logically from this fact that we should shift to the nonbinary "they" as a default pronoun. It doesn't follow that the majority of people have to completely change the way they think and use pronouns. It seems more logical to me to adopt "they" as a permissible alternative rather than as a default. I think most people prefer to use gendered pronouns in most cases and I don't see a strong case for changing that.

Fair enough. I’ll grant that saying that “individual thinking needs to change” is probably hyperbolic.

I will insist that those who hold a position of prejudice need to not be in a position of power over those they disapprove of when it comes to gender identity, yet that power dynamic is common.

What makes any social acceptance “a need” when the “need” is not intrinsically required by the majority?

Writing fiction or any other mainstream media doesn’t need to respect everyone, but legal language does or else those not included will be underserved or abused with the permission of society.

 

[Voboy]

I will insist that those who hold a position of prejudice need to not be in a position of power over those they disapprove of when it comes to gender identity, yet that power dynamic is common.

That's problematic at least two ways.

You can't account for prejudices. Everyone has them. You've got a preference for one set of such prejudices over others; well and good. I agree with your preference. But not everyone does, and you and I do not get to be the arbiters for who gets to be "in a position of power over" anyone.

Which brings me to my second problem: if you're in California, we don't live under benevolent dictators. We live in a republic underpinned by democratic processes, so it's natural that those in power WILL reflect the majority, whether you like it or not. To the extent that the majority agrees with your prejudices, then you'll like who gets elected. And, fortunately, you get to move to polities where that can occur.

But not everyone is interested in living the way you want them to, regardless of what you "insist" on.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

Don't make me point to the politics forum.

 

[AlexBailey]

That's problematic at least two ways.

You can't account for prejudices. Everyone has them. You've got a preference for one set of such prejudices over others; well and good. I agree with your preference. But not everyone does, and you and I do not get to be the arbiters for who gets to be "in a position of power over" anyone.

Which brings me to my second problem: if you're in California, we don't live under benevolent dictators. We live in a republic underpinned by democratic processes, so it's natural that those in power WILL reflect the majority, whether you like it or not. To the extent that the majority agrees with your prejudices, then you'll like who gets elected. And, fortunately, you get to move to polities where that can occur.

But not everyone is interested in living the way you want them to, regardless of what you "insist" on.

I think the quibble here is my use of the word “need”. I understand that my “needs” are not the same as those of many others, so although I feel it’s a “need” that society and the individuals that make it must become more tolerant and understanding, others may feel the “need” to be the complete opposite.

My insistence is only backed by my own voice and actions and I don’t claim that my opinions should weigh more heavily than anyone else’s.

The problems come when people disrespect each other and feel that their “needs” are more important than someone else’s wellbeing. I feel that those people should not be in positions of power. My voice and my vote will insist on it.

Unfortunately we don’t all “need” to get along, and although the judiciary that oversees our representative democracy is supposed to be blind, public opinion does weigh in the balance.

I see a “need” for more acceptance in society and I think there is a good case to make for that.

Hopefully they/them will not be seen as offensive by those looking for something to be offended by.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

. Language changes over time to reflect changing values. On the issue at hand, we're witnessing a change in the use of pronouns to reflect the fact that many people don't identify as binary, and society increasingly is accepting of that fact.

It's not just representing non-binary people that's leading to increased ungendered pronouns, though. There's also realisation that someone's sex isn't always relevant to a conversation and, like in job applications, might lead to bias so why not just not mention it?

Just in my lifetime, words like manageress and authoress have become archaic, and firefighter and barstaff and police officer have become norms; fireman, barmaid and WPC are rare unless their sex is relevant to the story.

In a story on Lit, someone's perceived sex and gender will be important. In the rest of the world? Not so much.

It seems more logical to me to adopt "they" as a permissible alternative rather than as a default. I think most people prefer to use gendered pronouns in most cases and I don't see a strong case for changing that.

Most people will continue to use what they grew up with unless there's a reason not to, sure. But I wouldn't be surprised if gendered pronouns in a professional context become rare by the time I retire. In the pub after work, when the young'uns have pairing up on their minds, I suspect more gendered language. I will eavesdrop at our Xmas do and report back...

When I started work, people would use your argument for why it was important to address single vs married women differently - it was the norm, it was what people preferred to do, it was polite, Ms was an abomination from America for divorcées... Now it's normal for bureaucracy that doesn't know you personally. The social factors pushing women to defend their status as one team or the other are gone - my godmother would vigorously insist on her Miss, having fought for her own bank account in the 1920s, her own mortgage in the 1930s, etc. Those battles are, I hope, over.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's not just representing non-binary people that's leading to increased ungendered pronouns, though. There's also realisation that someone's sex isn't always relevant to a conversation and, like in job applications, might lead to bias so why not just not mention it?

Just in my lifetime, words like manageress and authoress have become archaic, and firefighter and barstaff and police officer have become norms; fireman, barmaid and WPC are rare unless their sex is relevant to the story.

In a story on Lit, someone's perceived sex and gender will be important. In the rest of the world? Not so much.

I admit that I had not really thought about examples where the author is trying to make a point of de-emphasizing gender. That's a legitimate artistic/social aim. I think it would still seem odd to many readers today, but possibly not a generation from now. Example: "Mary took their dog to the park" seems odd to me and would seem odd today to many readers, I think.

Somebody mentioned legal writing. There's been a pronounced trend in the last 30 years to eliminate or minimize gendered language in legal documents, either by using "his or her," "they" (this one still is not in favor in most legal documents, to my knowledge), or changing singular nouns to plural so a plural ungendered pronoun can be used, eliminating the problem.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I admit that I had not really thought about examples where the author is trying to make a point of de-emphasizing gender. That's a legitimate artistic/social aim. I think it would still seem odd to many readers today, but possibly not a generation from now. Example: "Mary took their dog to the park" seems odd to me and would seem odd today to many readers, I think.

Somebody mentioned legal writing. There's been a pronounced trend in the last 30 years to eliminate or minimize gendered language in legal documents, either by using "his or her," "they" (this one still is not in favor in most legal documents, to my knowledge), or changing singular nouns to plural so a plural ungendered pronoun can be used, eliminating the problem.

In UK legislation office-holders are referred to by the sex the holder was when the law rolled off Her Majesty's Printer (His, now). Turns out that the PM isn't referred to that often or is referred to as Prime Minister, so it wasn't until about a decade after Thatcher and we started getting references to 'the Secretary of State for X shall speak to her XYZ. The XYZ will appoint herself two deputies...' that people complained it was weird.

Those people generally shut up upon being told it was good enough for Thatcher...

I do know people with names like Mary who would like you to refer to their dogwalking like the above, which I have to admit seems incongruous with a classical gendered name, but I suppose it's a lot of hassle to change names everywhere.

One thing I do wonder about is how many people actually care about their gender or that they have one - back when the concept of gender vs sex was first explained to me, people were asked how they'd feel if they woke up in the body of the other sex. About 3/4 of the room gasped in total horror. The rest of us were rather bemused and were only worried about our partners no longer being interested, before admitting we'd have to run off and see how the new genitals worked. It's very hard to get an idea - people say I could legit call myself genderqueer or non-binary, but I generally don't, as that would imply I gave a shit.

 

[JuanSeiszFitzHall]

In UK legislation office-holders are referred to by the sex the holder was when the law rolled off Her Majesty's Printer (His, now).

That makes me wonder which will happen first: Officialdom in the U.K. switching to "Their Majesty's," or the U.K. saying goodbye to monarchy.

 

[ElectricBlue]

That makes me wonder which will happen first: Officialdom in the U.K. switching to "Their Majesty's," or the U.K. saying goodbye to monarchy.

Unless William or George express a wish to change their gender address, not until at least the 22nd Century. I can't see the monarchy being abandoned any time soon.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Unless William or George express a wish to change their gender address, not until at least the 22nd Century. I can't see the monarchy being abandoned any time soon.

Thing with the monarchy is most people wouldn't mind getting rid, (ditto the House of Lords), but no-one can agree on what we should have instead.

And we've had a vote 6 years ago that proved what a mess can happen if you vote to get rid of something without any idea of how to replace it.