Random grammar poll, because hey.

[empirestate]

Nothing to do with anything roads, but I figure some of us might be interested in this question.

As we know, English has no singular neuter pronoun for use when the subject's gender is unknown. (We have "it", but that's never considered appropriate when referring to adult humans.) The historically accepted usage was "he" or "him" for both masculine subjects as well as unknown cases, but some speakers now consider this dismissive to females. Probably most people these days use plural pronouns for this instead, but that's not correct when referring to a singular subject (and even less so when the subject's gender is known). Another common approach is to use compound constructions like "his or her" or "his/her", but that's awkward and verbose. What's your approach?

(Myself, I'd vote "something else". The most equitable solution I can think of that is still grammatically correct is for each speaker to use his own gender whenever the subject's isn't known. So while, for me, that means I always use the masculine pronoun, it results in a equal number of cases where the speaker would use a feminine pronoun, because the speaker is female.)

[corco]

I use "he" or "he or she" depending on my audience. If it's a general audience, I just use "he" - if I'm specifically writing with the idea that women might be reading, I use "he or she"

[Pete from Boston]

I'm comfortable with a judicious use of "his or her" tempered with a periodic "their."  I don't entertain any made-up, gender-neutral neologism because making prose read uncomfortably to most readers is not what I consider an egalitarian ideal.

I was an editor once, and feel strongly that an item reading cleanly trumps any imperative of pleasing everyone.

[empirestate]

I use "he" or "he or she" depending on my audience. If it's a general audience, I just use "he" - if I'm specifically writing with the idea that women might be reading, I use "he or she"

I'd count that as a combination, then.

(Though I'm trying to imagine an example of writing for a general audience in which women are not expected to be reading.)


iPhone

[wanderer2575]

I hate singular "they"; I can't get myself to accept the twisted grammar.  I will ever-so-rarely go with "he or she" or "his or hers" but usually I go with the traditional singular masculine.  Like Pete from Boston, proper grammar resonates more strongly with me than being politically correct.  (I also go bonkers when television commercials improperly use "less" instead of "fewer"; e.g. "less calories.")

Only once have I gotten myself into some trouble with this.  I'm in the payroll profession and frequently give lectures and presentations.  I once presented a lecture on child support and kept referring to employees in the masculine singular, after which several attendees scolded me for assuming that noncustodial parent employees owing support are the fathers.  Now when I give that presentation, I am careful to emphasize several times that I intend the reference as gender-neutral.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I use "they/them/their" and have for years, because it's easier than saying "he or she/his or her".

[jeffandnicole]

I use "he" or "he or she" depending on my audience. If it's a general audience, I just use "he" - if I'm specifically writing with the idea that women might be reading, I use "he or she"

I'd count that as a combination, then.

(Though I'm trying to imagine an example of writing for a general audience in which women are not expected to be reading.)


iPhone

That's not really a "general" audience If only males would be reading it.

I try to say he/she, although sometimes I gravitate to him or her, depending on the topic.

[hbelkins]

I will say that this "ze/zhe/hir" nonsense is about the goofiest thing I've ever heard of in my life.

[empirestate]

I'm comfortable with a judicious use of "his or her" tempered with a periodic "their."  I don't entertain any made-up, gender-neutral neologism because making prose read uncomfortably to most readers is not what I consider an egalitarian ideal.

I was an editor once, and feel strongly that an item reading cleanly trumps any imperative of pleasing everyone.

But surely, "his and her" and "their", which you say you're comfortable with, are the least clean-reading and the closest to a made-up gender-neutral neologism of all the options? From your rationale, I'd expect you to prefer the old-fashioned "him" or "he". Or am I mis-reading you?

Only once have I gotten myself into some trouble with this.  I'm in the payroll profession and frequently give lectures and presentations.  I once presented a lecture on child support and kept referring to employees in the masculine singular, after which several attendees scolded me for assuming that noncustodial parent employees owing support are the fathers.  Now when I give that presentation, I am careful to emphasize several times that I intend the reference as gender-neutral.

That's another reason I'd go with the speaker's own gender: if this ever came up for me (so far it hasn't), I'd think it would be a pretty satisfactory explanation to say that I was using my own gender in place of the unknown, and I'd expect female speakers to do the same. (A less-helpful approach would be to point out that you're using the gender-neutral "he", and so it is they who are making the false assumption that in doing so you're referring only to fathers.)

I use "they/them/their" and have for years, because it's easier than saying "he or she/his or her".

But isn't "he" easier than both?

[jakeroot]

I don't consider myself very politically correct ("Men at Work" signs don't bother me, though I know why they bother other people), but I tend to use "they/them/their" when I don't know the gender.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

But isn't "he" easier than both?

Yes, but not everybody is a "he".

[Pete from Boston]

I'm comfortable with a judicious use of "his or her" tempered with a periodic "their."  I don't entertain any made-up, gender-neutral neologism because making prose read uncomfortably to most readers is not what I consider an egalitarian ideal.

I was an editor once, and feel strongly that an item reading cleanly trumps any imperative of pleasing everyone.

But surely, "his and her" and "their", which you say you're comfortable with, are the least clean-reading and the closest to a made-up gender-neutral neologism of all the options? From your rationale, I'd expect you to prefer the old-fashioned "him" or "he". Or am I mis-reading you?

I think "his or her" and "their" can be incorporated (with other rhetorical tricks) comfortably enough that it doesn't read awkwardly.  It requires some creativity here and there.

My neologism rejection regards hbelkins's example–employing proposed pronouns that are hardly known, much less agreed-upon.  I'd rather be understood.

[oscar]

I will say that this "ze/zhe/hir" nonsense is about the goofiest thing I've ever heard of in my life.

Agreed. But that seems to cover a different situation, where the speaker is uncertain about his or her own gender identity, or insists on a third gender identity (such as "androgynous"), rather than going with one of the standard two.

The Washington Post occasionally runs front-page articles about such people (somebody there as a thing for that issue, out of proportion to reader interest -- I guess it's something for slow news days). One of them asks to be referred to as "they" or "them", but she (born female, and hasn't established a male identity nor does she want to do so) is nice about people balking at her request to use a plural word to refer to one person. Others are less graceful about it, to the point that you resist using a plural form because you're glad there is only one of them.

I agree that the lack of a gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun is a misfeature of the English language. But so is the lack of a second-person plural pronoun distinct from the singular "you", though the Southern "y'all" or "you all" is a fix for that problem.

[english si]

As we know, English has no singular neuter pronoun for use when the subject's gender is unknown.

It's archaic (and posh-sounding), but "one" surely is the 3rd person singular pronoun?

Probably most people these days use plural pronouns for this instead, but that's not correct when referring to a singular subject

Who defines 'correct'? the singular "they" is a change little different from the singular "you" that is so widely accepted that we see it as a problem that needs to be fixed by coming up with a plural "you" despite "you" being plural in the first place!

What's your approach?

A mix of "he", "they" and "one", depending on the context.

Agreed. But that seems to cover a different situation, where the speaker is uncertain about his or her own gender identity, or insists on a third gender identity (such as "androgynous"), rather than going with one of the standard two.

Is it just for that? I think there's certainly groups pushing for gender neutral pronouns even when the gender is known and fits in the binary pattern, because they want to tear down the edifice of gender down.

Sweden has an nursery where they have been entirely gender neutral in everything - paying particular attention to language (and inventing a gender-neutral pronoun for the purpose). I gather, however (like is so often the case when families do it), there is despair at the boys if they just play with the 'boy' toys and not with the 'girl' toys (not the other way round though). The first batch has nearly got to the age where children tend to self-segregate by gender, so it won't be long before the experiment shows the opposite of what it set out to do - that gender is more than a from-nurture social-construct.

I agree that the lack of a gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun is a misfeature of the English language. But so is the lack of a second-person plural pronoun distinct from the singular "you",

"you" is plural, but is used like "they" is beginning to be used - as a singular.

The 2nd person singular pronoun is "thou" (and its variants for different cases, possessives and the like: thee, thy, thine).

though the Southern "y'all" or "you all" is a fix for that problem.

Is it? I was taught that "y'all" is singular and "all y'all" is plural! There's also things like "yous" that Irish, some Scottish, some Northern English and Australian dialects of English use. Of course, as "you" is plural, we need a singular not a plural!

[1995hoo]

I usually use the generic masculine. In legal writing, such as discovery requests, I wind up having to define it anyway to state something like, "The words 'he' and 'his' are used consistently with the traditional English generic masculine construction such that they include the feminine and neuter usages unless otherwise specified in a particular request." If you don't do that, some hypertechnical opposing counsel will construe it as being masculine-only and you may not get all the information you were seeking.

In the scheme of things, while I think using "they" and "their" in the singular is awkward, I find it far less awkward and burdensome than things like constant use of "he or she," or the hideous "s/he," or the arbitrary and strange insistence on alternating between masculine and feminine in alternating sentences (which can be downright weird if applied too slavishly).

[empirestate]

But isn't "he" easier than both?

Yes, but not everybody is a "he".

Ah, I see; you didn't mention that as your reason.

I think "his or her" and "their" can be incorporated (with other rhetorical tricks) comfortably enough that it doesn't read awkwardly.  It requires some creativity here and there.

My neologism rejection regards hbelkins's example–employing proposed pronouns that are hardly known, much less agreed-upon.  I'd rather be understood.

Got it. I hadn't seen his reply when I was typing mine, but I do now. I agree that there are enough options available to solve the problem without having to invent new words; often, simple care taken in constructing a sentence will do the trick.

As we know, English has no singular neuter pronoun for use when the subject's gender is unknown.

It's archaic (and posh-sounding), but "one" surely is the 3rd person singular pronoun?

Yes, "one" is another option, but it doesn't precisely replace "he" or "she" in situ. You can't, for example, say "Each student opened one's textbook to the first page."

Who defines 'correct'? the singular "they" is a change little different from the singular "you" that is so widely accepted that we see it as a problem that needs to be fixed by coming up with a plural "you" despite "you" being plural in the first place!

A long and complex process that I haven't elected to go into so far, but I can add a couple things about the plural option. Indeed, there is a body of use for the singular "they" that goes back a long time and encompasses perfectly well-educated speakers. I do think the usage is more forgivable in certain contexts, such as when it goes with quasi-plural words like "everyone" that are in fact singular but refer to a numerous group.

Other times, the singular "they" is much more egregious, such as when there's a readily-available way to rephrase the sentence such that "they" is correctly plural. For example, why say "Each student opened their textbook..." when you can just as easily say "The students all opened their textbooks..."? (True, there's a slight difference in meaning; the first sentence suggests each student making an individual effort to open an individual textbook, while the second connotes a singe group effort to open a single group of textbooks. The semantics are probably moot here, but one could imagine other cases where the distinction would be more apparent.)

Worse yet, as I've mentioned, is when singular "they" is used for subjects of known gender: "Not every woman who marries chooses to take their husband's name."

"you" is plural, but is used like "they" is beginning to be used - as a singular.

The 2nd person singular pronoun is "thou" (and its variants for different cases, possessives and the like: thee, thy, thine).

And as I recall, this grew into a formal/informal classification; the pural "you" became in essence a "royal you", just as there's a "royal we": we address a monarch as "Your Majesty", not "Thy Majesty" (who would in that case respond "We are not amused"). The same formal/informal construct is still current in Spanish and French.

In the scheme of things, while I think using "they" and "their" in the singular is awkward, I find it far less awkward and burdensome than things like constant use of "he or she," or the hideous "s/he," or the arbitrary and strange insistence on alternating between masculine and feminine in alternating sentences (which can be downright weird if applied too slavishly).

Yes, "they" is definitely preferable to "he or she" (except, as I've said, in cases where "he or she" wouldn't even be correct). Another great example of this is Facebook's erstwhile use of "they" when a user hasn't specified his gender. We have all likely experienced cryptic notifications like "John Doe updated their profile picture".

And alternating use by the same speaker is equally difficult to follow, which is why I find using the speaker's own gender consistently to be the most satisfying option.

[noelbotevera]

I just throw caution to the wind and always use "he" when describing someone with no gender. I'm so used to it I actually forget to use "he or she" when writing essays sometimes.

[Duke87]

I've always considered using "he" to describe a person of unknown gender to be presumptuous, although this has not stopped me from using it in cases where I am doing exactly that - presuming the subject to be male until proven female. Which I do with some frequency, for example when I'm on the road I presume all other drivers I encounter to be male.

If I am speaking generally I will begrudgingly use singular "they" and such, with the caveat that I will type or say "themself" (which isn't actually a word) because I can't bring myself to use the obviously-pluralized "themselves" to refer to a single person.

But if I have to refer to a single person in a gender-neutral way I ideally prefer to minimize my use of pronouns if not outright eliminate it because I don't really like using "they" in singular form, I only do so for lack of a better alternative.

I've also been known when speaking to deliberately use the slang "em" with no consonant sound at the beginning because this can be interpreted as meaning either "them" or "him" by the listener.

[Pete from Boston]

I find the blanket "he" to feel either overly formal or archaic.

"One" can also be employed in the mix.

[Duke87]

Worse yet, as I've mentioned, is when singular "they" is used for subjects of known gender: "Not every woman who marries chooses to take their husband's name."

This isn't inappropriate use of singular "they", it's inappropriate pluralization.

Think about it - if the speaker fails to recognize the use of the infinitive "to take" in the complex verb construction, the fact that it says "take" rather than "takes" can easily be mistakenly interpreted to imply plurality. Especially since realizing that the subject "every woman" is singular requires thinking about it for a second, the speaker's gut might say it's plural since it's talking about a group of people.

This is why language drives people crazy. "All women" is quite logically plural, but "Every woman", which means more or less the same thing, is counterintuitively singular.

[english si]

Yes, "one" is another option, but it doesn't precisely replace "he" or "she" in situ. You can't, for example, say "Each student opened one's textbook to the first page."

You will merely get slightly different funny looks than if (for an all male group of students) you said "Each student opened his textbook to the first page." That said, the funny looks won't be for the pronoun but for the parallel singular construction of the sentence, as opposed to the plural!

And 'their' is only inappropriate as the quasi-plural "each student" is confusing.

The same formal/informal construct is still current in Spanish and French.

And German. It seems to be in all sorts of languages.

What's odd is that old hymns, King James Bible etc have made 'Thou' be treated as the formal in certain parts - reserved only for God.

[dcbjms]

When I write, I alternate between "one" (cf. French <on>, which incidentally comes from the Old French oblique case, IIRC, for "person, man") or "s/he".  When speaking, I also invariably use either "one", "some people", or "in general".

[dcbjms]

As we know, English has no singular neuter pronoun for use when the subject's gender is unknown.

It's archaic (and posh-sounding), but "one" surely is the 3rd person singular pronoun?

That's interesting, because I don't find it posh-sounding.  (Then again, I'm an American that prefers using a semi-Canadian spelling, though with a few spellings that even Canadians don't use but Brits do for no explainable reason.)  I guess in my case it's a possible linguistic import from when I was learning French, and found that it made sense and adopted it.

But yeah, overall linguistics and me fit together like a glove.  I can read my way through grammatical sketches and IPA like nothing.

[Pete from Boston]

Yes, "one" is another option, but it doesn't precisely replace "he" or "she" in situ. You can't, for example, say "Each student opened one's textbook to the first page."

I apparently skipped over the part where "one" had already been brought up.  No, you can't use "one" successfully in that situation, but if you're asking for one solution that works in all situations, it doesn't exist.  It's incumbent on the writer to use the various tools at his or her disposal (see what I did there?) to craft prose that feels right.

[english si]

That's interesting, because I don't find it posh-sounding.

That probably relates to the upper classes, and in particularly Her Majesty the Queen (who doesn't really use the Royal 'We' anymore), using it instead of I.

Certainly it's formal language, which tends to have posh connotations in the UK.

I've also been known when speaking to deliberately use the slang "em" with no consonant sound at the beginning because this can be interpreted as meaning either "them" or "him" by the listener.

In English English, that's what gets used as the generic in speech. This is as, if not the important thing, when speaking informally, we don't really say the filler words but make noises that sound similar (Americans tend to emphasis the key words with volume instead).* Therefore we wouldn't sound the difference between "them" and "him" in speech unless formal or important. Both are just 'm'.

*This Jeremy Corbyn lookalike put me on to this (from about 3 minutes in onwards).