singular pronoun for a person?

[supereater14]

Does anybody know of a singular genderless pronoun for a person - like "he" or "she", but genderless. I know "they" is plural, and therefore, improper (note the odd use of commas, oh well.)

[Sizik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neu ... un#English

[supereater14]

the problems that i find with those is that "it" implies that the subject is not a person, "they" is seen mostly as plural and "one" does not fit the sentences i a trying to make ( for example, "one kicks down the door" doesn't sit right with me).

[TaintedDeity]

I tend to use the singular 'they' because it's already widely used. I wouldn't at all say it's mostly thought of as plural. It covers both meanings.

[Shivahn]

I tend to use the singular 'they' because it's already widely used. I wouldn't at all say it's mostly thought of as plural. It covers both meanings.

Yeah, it's a pretty common thing, actually. A lot of people don't realize it, but they're kind of silly.

[supereater14]

but it needs to be accepted by mt english teacher

[Shivahn]

There's always newer pronouns such as "ze" or "xe." But if someone is so silly that they don't accept "they" as a singular pronoun, I doubt they'd accept those. I mean, I've slipped it in as a singular pronoun thrice in my last two posts and I'm pretty sure it doesn't seem unnatural, at the very least.

It might be different if you're asking for a singular pronoun for an individual person of unknown or non-male and non-female gender. Then you really have to go wtih "ze" or "xe" or something. You could still go with "they," of course, but it sounds a bit strange there, and I'm less confident in its correctness (whatever that really means).

[supereater14]

well, going with common, formalist english, is that acceptable?

[Shivahn]

It really depends on the person, and the context. I don't know what exactly your teacher will and won't find acceptable, as linguistics is kind of gray in a lot of ways.

[supereater14]

think, conforming extremely well with traditional, formalist english

think of it this way, is it accepted in formal writing and standardized tests?

[GhostWolfe]

for example, "one kicks down the door" doesn't sit right with me.

Would "they kicked down the door" not convey your meaning? If other indicators in your text clearly point to a single person, there should be no confusion about how many people you're referring to.

As for whether your English teacher would accept it, maybe you could ask them instead of us. Your teacher's the only one who knows the answer to that particular question.

/angell

[cntrational]

I personally prefer the singular they, but "he or she" is the more formal version.

[gmalivuk]

Singular they is well attested in formal English, but as already mentioned, only your teacher can tell you whether your teacher would accept it.

[supereater14]

well, today was a snow day (well, technically yesterday-it's 12:18) so i will ask her on the morrow

[Derek]

"They", and if your teacher doesn't like it they can shove it. Thats always been my approach. Otherwise, either use "he or she" or avoid pronouns altogether, "The person kicked down the door".

[Foremorrow]

The appropriate and well-established gender-neutral singular personal pronoun is "they" in most contexts. "One" may be acceptable in some contexts, but it's quite rare.

Examples using "they":
Applicants must submit their CVs before Monday 1st.
That person just hit my car! It's too bad I didn't get a pretty good look at them. (This can be confusingly vague, causing thoughts of several persons, but it's fine so long as you establish beforehand that it was only one person.)

Examples using both "they" and "one":
At this college, one's expected to submit their coursework on time.

Artificial words created in an attempt to fill a void such as "yo" are ridiculous and incur laughter from me. A rare few people might know them, but the vast majority of people will not understand you at all.

[manictheatrefan]

This is just me being nitpicky, but I prefer "they" over "he/she; s/he; he or she" because the latter forms assume a gender binary.

[Qaanol]

I would specify that only a single person is being referred to, I would use “they”, and I would include a footnote detailing at length both the historical precedent for the generic use of “they” in English and the inadequacy of “he or she” to account for non-binary gender possibilities. But that’s just me.

Edit: If your teacher balks, then I would use “she or he”, making a deliberate reversal of the traditional word ordering to call attention to its cumbersome nature and the necessity of acknowledging “they” as the one true generic third-person pronoun in English.

[Foremorrow]

This is just me being nitpicky, but I prefer "they" over "he/she; s/he; he or she" because the latter forms assume a gender binary.

Well the reason "he/she" and "s/he" bothers me is for romantic reasons really — just aesthetics. This is a thread for linguistics and not social ethical issues so I'm just asking a simple question without the intention of getting into a conversation about ethics or something similar, but when you say, "...the latter forms assume a gender binary." do you mean as opposed to taking into account people of intersex and transgendered individuals? If so, I think it's a bit silly to discount the usage of "he/she" on that premise because of possibly offending some of the rare amounts of intersex persons (I've read it's something like 1 in 200,000 for complete intersexuality), or transgendered persons. (I don't know the statistics for transgendered persons.) The reality is that there are essentially two biological sexes, male and female; socially things can be a bit shady but "he/she" covers the sexes pretty well.

[TaintedDeity]

Yeah, fuck those people in the minority. Who cares about them, eh? There's not that many of them, so whatever.

By the way, this site gives some rather different statistics than the ones you've used, and that ignores the majority of the transgender community and those that choose to live outside the gender binary without necessarily having any biological reason.

It's not so much 'don't offend minorities' (although that'd be nice) it's more 'don't contribute to a harmful and restrictive social construct'.

Also, um. Language and shit.

[fənɑlədʒɪst]

but it needs to be accepted by mt english teacher

Your English teacher doesn't know anything about linguistics. Punch THEM in the face. haha

[ThomasS]

but it needs to be accepted by mt english teacher

You could ask them how it can be good enough for Jane Austin, but not good enough for class.

"Everybody must find his or her own way." just seems awkward compared to "Everybody must find their own way."

[gmalivuk]

The reality is that there are essentially two biological sexes, male and female

Which, if true, would be fine, if we were talking about biological sex. But since we're talking about gender, which *is* a social thing, your argument, even if it held water in some other context, isn't relevant in this one.

[Sasha S]

Just a reminder ... not all restrictive social constructs are harmful. While not explicitly stated, that seems far too often assumed or implied these days.

[gmalivuk]

I don't much care for generalizations about all restrictive social constructs, since that's not what we're talking about here. Restrictive (and ignorant and exclusionary) ideas about gender identity *are* harmful to those who don't fit into the same box(es) you think they should.

[Sasha S]

I would argue that society (and language) create 'boxes' primarily as a matter of convenience to ease social interaction, not from ignorance or a desire to be exclusionary. I would argue that 'He/She', 'His/Hers' etc. evolved as language conventions not from ignorance of other states of gender identity or a desire to 'exclude' all those who didn't fit into accepted 'boxes', but as a matter of convenience that covered 99%+ of all situations the speaker (and listener) were likely to encounter. For those remaining edge cases, rules like using 'They/Their' covered rather nicely. Someone who, for example, feels that neither 'He' nor 'She' nor 'They' acceptably covers their perceived gender identity, refuses those labels and demands that special accommodations be made to acknowledge their 'special' status is going to rather more effort to exclude themselves than I think society should reasonably be forced to accommodate.

[gmalivuk]

I would argue that society (and language) create 'boxes' primarily as a matter of convenience to ease social interaction, not from ignorance or a desire to be exclusionary.

It's not necessarily a desire to be exclusionary, but it most certainly is borne out of an ignorance that it is, in fact, exclusionary.

Also, convenience is a pretty ridiculous excuse...

[Sasha S]

While I would agree that 'convenience' would be a ridiculous excuse to cover actual willful exclusion, I believe that there is social utility in broadly categorizing people, both in a linguistic sense and otherwise, and it was this utility (and not some sort of malevolent exclusionary urge, or even gross ignorance) that gave rise to our current rules of pronoun usage. And while those with more nuanced gender identities have been around for as long as language, it seems that only recently has there arisen in certain quarters the demand for an increased number of special rules to cover special cases. Is this merely a symptom of our hyper-politicized era? Is it a true desire to have language reflect at a more granular level an increased level of inclusiveness? How much should language and society change to accommodate these special cases? Is They/Their good enough? It has been for a long time ... if no longer acceptable, then why? I don't have good answers to most of these questions (hence why I ask them), but it would be interesting to hear them discussed.

[gmalivuk]

It has been for a long time ... if no longer acceptable, then why?

Because sensibilities change. There are millions of little things that were fine for centuries but aren't okay any more. Why is it no longer acceptable to burn witches? Hold slaves? Make blacks and whites go to separate schools? Why is it no longer acceptable to say women shouldn't be sullied by the evils of voting?

Some people might say it's because we now realize that all those things were fucking stupid.

But maybe you're right, and it's just minorities getting uppity and demanding special consideration...

[Makri]

Because sensibilities change. There are millions of little things that were fine for centuries but aren't okay any more. Why is it no longer acceptable to burn witches? Hold slaves? Make blacks and whites go to separate schools? Why is it no longer acceptable to say women shouldn't be sullied by the evils of voting?

From the immediate context in Sasha S's post, it is apparent that the question why acceptability should have changed only concerns "they". And for that case, an argument from a change in sensibilities would be ridiculous.

The annoying thing with "they" is that it is exclusively a bound pronoun. But obviously, that's not argument for preferring "s/he" to it for bound contexts. Maybe some day children will acquire it also as referential gender-neutral pronoun and come up with a new plural form... Who knows.

Also, the whole mess only arose in the first place because some people insisted on grammatical masculines not being generic... Only now that sensibilities have changed, we have a problem; because it's difficult to just blame people for having acquired certain connotations for certain expressions. On the other hand, it may be questionable whether a significant number of people feel about generically used masculine pronouns in a way similar to racial slurs or something.

The comparison with burning witches is totally off. It's inconceivable that a woman not be harmed by being burnt - but it seems at least logically possible that she wouldn't be harmed by being referred to with a generic masculine pronoun. Whether it's anthropologically possible seems to be a question that we're not going to learn the answer to anytime soon...

[Sasha S]

*sighs* Nothing like oblique suggestions that your opponent is a bigot to chill the open discussion of a topic. And from a forum moderator, no less.

[TaintedDeity]

I think it's a fair suggestion if you're acting like a bigot.

[Sasha S]

I think it's a fair suggestion if you're acting like a bigot.

And that would be how in context of this thread?

[Sasha S]

Another thought that just occurred to me (and which hopefully shan't further brand me as someone wanting to 'keep uppity minorities down') is this ... one could argue that the concept of society as a whole is one large 'restrictive social convention', for it seems its principal purpose is to establish norms and mores that put restrictions on behavior such that we might live as individuals an existence which, in the aggregate, is preferable to that lived under conditions of primal anarchy. Please note that I am not making the argument that one particular set of norms and mores is superior to another, merely that the recognized existence of (and general adherence to) these conventions (including standards of language) allows certain possibilities to open that might otherwise be impossible or much more difficult to realize.

We say He/She/They (or whathaveyou) because it is a language convention that facilitates clearer communications and easier understanding. It allows for the ability to occasionally specify an individual based on a generally readily-discernable and almost universally agreed-upon trait (their sex, not their gender) as well as allowing for ambiguous cases through the use of 'They' ... it is easily learned, practical to consistently apply, and relies on no additional knowledge save casual observation. That is why I believe pronoun gender evolved as a nearly-universal language standard as opposed to having pronouns based on, say, national origin (less easy to determine, if not impossible), age category (too subjective) or hair color (again, subjective, and requiring too many special cases for true ease-of-use). It is this combination of simplicity and utility that I believe to be the true principal motivation behind the evolution of this language convention, not (as has been suggested) some sort of universal closed-mindedness or colossal pan-historic ignorance of gender realities.

[TaintedDeity]

Are you saying that knowing somebody's sex "relies on no additional knowledge save casual observation"?
Gendered pronouns aren't based on somebody's sex, which I think is what you said here "It allows for the ability to occasionally specify an individual based on a generally readily-discernable and almost universally agreed-upon trait (their sex, not their gender)".

[Sasha S]

Yes, that is what I am saying, because it is a rule that generally holds true. We are talking about general rules (i.e. conventions) here. Does it mean that people will never occasionally discern something incorrectly through casual observation? No, but they'll get it right often enough for it to hold true as a valid language convention.

And yes, gendered pronouns ARE based on someone's biological sex as perceived by the person using the pronoun. If I see what appears to be a woman walking down the other side of the street and I admire her hat, I will say to my friend beside me 'She's wearing a nice hat', regardless of the fact that the person I am referring to is, in fact, a biological woman who views herself as a woman, someone who views herself as a man trapped in a woman's body, or a male transvestite or preoperative transsexual successfully passing as a person of the opposite gender. The convention was based on casual observation, successfully communicates what was intended to my friend, the recipient, and to all save those willfully looking for an excuse to take umbrage should cause no offense. People will, in the absence of other information, use the pronoun that seems to best fit the biological sex you appear to belong to, and I see nothing sinister or willfully ignorant inherent in that.

[Qaanol]

And yes, gendered pronouns ARE based on someone's biological sex conforming to a gender role as perceived by the person using the pronoun.

Fixed.

If I see what appears to be a woman walking down the other side of the street and I admire her hat, I will say to my friend beside me 'She's wearing a nice hat', regardless of the fact that the person I am referring to is, in fact, a biological woman who views herself as a woman, someone who views herself as a man trapped in a woman's body, or a male transvestite or preoperative transsexual successfully passing as a person of the opposite gender.

You have in fact provided an example of exactly what you were arguing against. The fact is, when you see someone walking down the street who “appears to be a woman”, that gives you a lot of information about the gender role that person is showing to the world, but only ancillary information about her biological sex (by way of whatever correlation may exist between biological sex and apparent gender role.)

[Makri]

And yes, gendered pronouns ARE based on someone's biological sex conforming to a gender role as perceived by the person using the pronoun.

Fixed.

Is that a fact? It has some plausibility, but it has been repeated in this thread a little too confidently for me not to be suspicious, and a quick Google Scholar search didn't reveal anything. But I must admit I don't really know where to look for this kind of sociolinguistics.

[Qaanol]

And yes, gendered pronouns ARE based on someone's biological sex conforming to a gender role as perceived by the person using the pronoun.

Fixed.

Is that a fact? I think it's quite plausible, but it has been repeated in this thread a little too confidently for me not to be suspicious, and a quick Google Scholar search didn't reveal anything. But I must admit I don't really know where to look for this kind of sociolinguistics.

For general purposes, yes. If you know what gender a particular person identifies as, it would be disrespectful to identify said person by a different gender pronoun. Conversely, if you do not know what gender a particular person prefers to identify as, then all you have to base your choice on is your observations. And unless you have the expertise, equipment, and opportunity to analyze the person’s chromosomes, then you do not have direct evidence for biological sex.

In medical contexts (or other times when biological sex is directly relevant), then pronouns should reflect biological sex.

[Makri]

For general purposes, yes.

It's quite obvious to me that you think that, but what you say after this is not evidence, but conclusions drawn from the assumption. Except perhaps for the last sentence:

And unless you have the expertise, equipment, and opportunity to analyze the person’s chromosomes, then you do not have direct evidence for biological sex.

It's not clear that the concept of biological sex (which may also be vague), as employed by natural language, would have to be tied to chromosomes.

I'm not sure I consciously understand the idea of "identifying with a gender" very well. I can see how it could be construed as disrespectful to refer to a person who doesn't identify with their biological sex and wants to be of the other sex with a pronoun that agrees with her actual biological sex. But surely there are gender-roles where the people are still fine with their biological sex. What's disrespectful about referring to them with the respective pronoun then?