Why not use more gender neutral language so that the default human being isn’t always imagined to be a man? Men only make up half the population and aren’t the only ones who participate in society. Why shouldn’t our language reflect that?
I am in complete agreement with your goals. Indeed, in several posts here, I have explicitly advocated the use of the non-gendered form of the pronoun “he,” which requires that one reject any connection of that pronoun with gender. That usage reflects our goals.
It is only those who are slaves of sexism who cannot refrain from imputing gender to a defenseless little pronoun.
But it clearly is. How is it not a masculine gender, even when used as a neutral. [quote=“phhht, post:116, topic:97675”]
slaves of sexism
[/quote]
And clearly, you have no interest in an honest interaction and only want to blame people who would like more gender neutral language. Okay. Have a good day.
So what do you suggest should be the masculine pronoun then? The masculine and non-gendered pronoun can’t be the same, people will get confused (if some of the people on this thread are to be believed).
Using non-gendered “he” when the person may be a trans woman is a recipe for disaster. If you want to try it, all I can say is I hope you know a good emergency dentist.
Confusion is not the point, gender exclusivity is. You really need to stop trying to ignore or erase the experiences of the rest of us and how we experience our genders.
Can I clarify that you are maintaining that “he” is a completely gender-neutral pronoun?
OK, reading further down the thread, I see that you are. Well, in that case, I respectfully* disagree. It feels innocuous, but it really isn’t.
(*meaning “with no respect whatsoever”.)
This is not common courtesy… And it probably won’t be any time soon. Most people will look at someone and decide how to talk to/about that person by what they see. And since the vast majority live their lives according to one of the two binary genders, this will rarely go wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, if someone tells me that they would like to be refer to in a specific way I take no issue in honoring that wish. But I’m probably not going to go ask everyone I meet how to address them.
It will almost certainly be “they” as that is the one that is actually being used. All the other ones that have been proposed have failed; they are not fetch enough.
You have put it well. Gender neutral language is a worthy and long-sought goal.
Beyond that, a small minority of our population would like to be recognized, through the use of pronouns by others, as not falling clearly on one side or the other of the gender binary. This seems like a step past the long-understood goal of ameliorating sexism in language. It is, of course, deserving of our attention.
Changing common usage is an inevitable part of the evolution of language. Some changes come about through the revelation that a coinage fits a need; others result from a political movement or mandate (nb: persondate would be an overreach here, given the etymology).
“They” used as a singular is the fix being discussed here. Of course, anyone who is sensitive and interested in the comfort and happiness of others will accommodate them in this matter. One wonders, however, at the further ramifications of this pronoun choice. I still have questions.
Once upon a time, it was common in published material to alternate “he” and “she” as the third person singular pronoun. This was considered sufficient fairness and gender neutrality. It is the standard I have followed in work I have written for publication in English. Must one now change that standard? What should the change be? To alternate “he,” “she,” and “they?” Circumlocution to avoid the singular entirely?
The second thing I still ponder is the gender neutral reflexive pronoun. Ought one to step further into the unavoidably plural with “themselves,” or should one popularize the awkward coinage “themself?”
I would tend towards the last position myself, but it takes a lot of practise to be able to write in that form without it sounding incredibly clunky. But then the alternating approach also takes practise to do well; otherwise it becomes distracting, in that odd way where one can’t quite figure out what is wrong, just that it “feels” wrong. And alternating all three would probably exacerbate that.
I certainly agree that “themselves” is tricky, but I suspect that the only time it would become an issue would be on the occasions when someone is deliberately trying to construct a sentence to make it sound weird. Which is, in my experience, the only time this whole issue is ever a real problem anyway.
I haven’t read the AP’s full opinion but in my (professional) experience writing for different audiences than AP, “he or she” has been bad practice for at least ten years. They, or “you”, is preferable. Or write it out entirely depending.
This just demonstrates how gendered language is a part of the cultural mechanism that maintains binary gender. One must guess another’s gender just to talk to or about them? That creates a situation where mis-guessing increases stress for all involved; it is one aspect of the constant social pressure to conform to binary appearance. For some of us, diminishing the power of binary gender is an integral part of our social goals. As part of that, we must question and provide alternatives to gendered language.
If you imply the wrong gender to someone, and they correct you, do you continue to double down and insist that they are the gender you think they are? If so, then it’s rude (at the very least, I’d say). If someone corrects you on their gender, and you apologize and use their preferred gender going forth, than it’s all good usually. We’re not talking about people making mistakes, we’re talking about people refusing to correct themselves when they do make mistakes.
I mean, it’s not hard to go by how people would like to be addressed, is it? If I was speaking to you, and got your name wrong and then continued to use the incorrect name after you corrected me, wouldn’t you be pissed?
