Random grammar poll, because hey.

[vdeane]

I think a few articles already do that; I know I've read some where they alternate using "he" and "she".

[kkt]

It'll make it hard to follow in a conversation between a man and a woman about the same hypothetical person, the women referring to "she" and the man to "he".

[empirestate]

It'll make it hard to follow in a conversation between a man and a woman about the same hypothetical person, the women referring to "she" and the man to "he".

Think so? Maybe; I'm trying to imagine an example.

Anyway, there could be other ways to divide usage other than based on the speaker's gender. But even doing it that way, aren't there languages, such as Japanese, where the speaker's gender does change the lexicon? How do they fare in keeping track of conversations?

[Duke87]

I think a few articles already do that; I know I've read some where they alternate using "he" and "she".

Yes, I've seen this too - I'm not a fan of the practice because it's confusing. Makes it sound like two different people are being talked about when that's not necessarily the case.

It'll make it hard to follow in a conversation between a man and a woman about the same hypothetical person, the women referring to "she" and the man to "he".

Yeah, good point. This policy works great in writing articles and such but when having a conversation it breaks down hard.

The idea of "she" being used to refer to a subject of unspecified gender does mess with my head a bit, but that might just be because I'm not used to it. Objectively, there is no reason why that wouldn't work.

[empirestate]

I think a few articles already do that; I know I've read some where they alternate using "he" and "she".

Yes, I've seen this too - I'm not a fan of the practice because it's confusing. Makes it sound like two different people are being talked about when that's not necessarily the case.

Yeah, you can't just switch around willy-nilly; even in a book where you alternate by chapter, it takes a second to catch up. That's another reason I suggest using the speaker's own gender, at least as the default.

It'll make it hard to follow in a conversation between a man and a woman about the same hypothetical person, the women referring to "she" and the man to "he".

Yeah, good point. This policy works great in writing articles and such but when having a conversation it breaks down hard.

The idea of "she" being used to refer to a subject of unspecified gender does mess with my head a bit, but that might just be because I'm not used to it. Objectively, there is no reason why that wouldn't work.

I don't see why conversation would be especially problematic. We already take a lot of non-verbal cues in conversation; it's not much of a stretch to think that the gender of the speaker could serve as one more cue to help us know the meaning of certain words. I mean, we have no problem hearing a sarcastic "yeah, right" and knowing that the speaker means neither "yeah" nor "right".

But even if there were a case where the usage became confusing, remember that both pronouns are still available. One could switch to the other if it made better sense in a particular conversation. And of course, you could always revert to the still-correct "he or she".

[english si]

And of course, you could always revert to the still-correct "he or she".

It's not correct. Not everyone is a 'he' or a 'she'.

Not to mention its inelegance.

[empirestate]

And of course, you could always revert to the still-correct "he or she".

It's not correct. Not everyone is a 'he' or a 'she'.

Not to mention its inelegance.

Who's left out? Both words would now mean everyone, so who's "not everyone"?

Too late on the inelegance; it's already been mentioned a lot!

[english si]

Who's left out? Both words would now mean everyone, so who's "not everyone"?

I hadn't realised that you were in the realms of generic 'he' and 'she'. But as it isn't correct now, it can't still be correct.

Too late on the inelegance; it's already been mentioned a lot!

Including by me, hence why I did a throwaway line, rather than a big rant about how I hate 'he or she' for being awful in every possible way.

---

Random musing:

Where jobs have traditionally been split by gender without using a <term>man/woman construct (which become <term>person), especially the ones that aren't plebby service industry jobs (so actress is much worse than waitress), it's becoming the height of offence to not call females by the masculine term. But to use the historic 'masculine as unknown gender' usage is beyond the pale.

Just seems odd to get offended for the use of terms that have always had neuter-gendered meaning as well as a masculine-gendered meaning to refer to someone unknown, but at the same time get offended if someone doesn't use a term that has been historically masculine-gendered only to refer to a known female. They are totally opposite approaches to trying to fix the same problem of 'patriarchy'.

[empirestate]

Who's left out? Both words would now mean everyone, so who's "not everyone"?

I hadn't realised that you were in the realms of generic 'he' and 'she'. But as it isn't correct now, it can't still be correct.

Why isn't it correct now (apart from inelegance)?

[freebrickproductions]

Who's left out? Both words would now mean everyone, so who's "not everyone"?

I hadn't realised that you were in the realms of generic 'he' and 'she'. But as it isn't correct now, it can't still be correct.

Why isn't it correct now (apart from inelegance)?

Non-binary people who use they/them for their gender?

[empirestate]

Who's left out? Both words would now mean everyone, so who's "not everyone"?

I hadn't realised that you were in the realms of generic 'he' and 'she'. But as it isn't correct now, it can't still be correct.

Why isn't it correct now (apart from inelegance)?

Non-binary people who use they/them for their gender?

Wouldn't they be covered by generic "he" (and "she", if added)?

[english si]

Non-binary people would indeed be covered by generic 'he' (or a generic 'she', if added).

But "he or she" doesn't have a generic 'he' or a generic 'she' in it - both pronouns are gendered. When one gives two options for the pronoun, then it is clear that neither are being used in an all-encompassing generic sense, because there is no need for the choice otherwise.

And even if there was a generic 'she' (which is a good idea) in common usage, the phrase would still imply that the pronouns in it are being used in their gendered, rather than generic, sense.

[empirestate]

Non-binary people would indeed be covered by generic 'he' (or a generic 'she', if added).

But "he or she" doesn't have a generic 'he' or a generic 'she' in it - both pronouns are gendered. When one gives two options for the pronoun, then it is clear that neither are being used in an all-encompassing generic sense, because there is no need for the choice otherwise.

And even if there was a generic 'she' (which is a good idea) in common usage, the phrase would still imply that the pronouns in it are being used in their gendered, rather than generic, sense.

OK, if we grant for that reason that "he or she" is slightly less correct than "he" or "she", does that incorrectness preclude us from using it as an alternative to the standalone pronouns in cases where there might be confusion because of different-gendered speakers?

And in any event, do we agree that there would be some still-correct alternative if not "he or she"–in other words, whatever the correct usage is today would still be correct if we added the generic "she"?

[english si]

And in any event, do we agree that there would be some still-correct alternative if not "he or she"–in other words, whatever the correct usage is today would still be correct if we added the generic "she"?

Of course. Generic 'he' and singular 'they' would both be correct before and after a generic 'she'.

[empirestate]

And in any event, do we agree that there would be some still-correct alternative if not "he or she"–in other words, whatever the correct usage is today would still be correct if we added the generic "she"?

Of course. Generic 'he' and singular 'they' would both be correct before and after a generic 'she'.

Ok, great. *phew* So we can rest assured that multi-gendered conversations aren't a deal-breaker; there's still another correct option to fall back on.

[Duke87]

Yeah, good point. This policy works great in writing articles and such but when having a conversation it breaks down hard.

The idea of "she" being used to refer to a subject of unspecified gender does mess with my head a bit, but that might just be because I'm not used to it. Objectively, there is no reason why that wouldn't work.

I don't see why conversation would be especially problematic. We already take a lot of non-verbal cues in conversation; it's not much of a stretch to think that the gender of the speaker could serve as one more cue to help us know the meaning of certain words.

Perhaps, but ambiguity arises in determining whether the gender of the subject is unknown.

I would also hypothesize that the difficulty in adapting to this usage might be highly variable depending on the listener's existing internal way of processing these things.

I expect I might struggle with it because, in my mind, the only actual gender neutral pronouns are "it" and singular "they". I do not interpret "he" used in a generic context as representing a subject of undetermined gender, I interpret it as representing an explicit presumption that the subject is male until proven female. Generic "she", therefore, would be the inverse - an explicit presumption that the subject is female until proven male.

So, if I heard two speakers in a conversation using different pronouns to describe the same person it would sound to me like they were having a passive-aggressive argument over what gender they think the subject is or should be presumed to be. Getting used to this being normal would take time.

[empirestate]

Yeah, good point. This policy works great in writing articles and such but when having a conversation it breaks down hard.

The idea of "she" being used to refer to a subject of unspecified gender does mess with my head a bit, but that might just be because I'm not used to it. Objectively, there is no reason why that wouldn't work.

I don't see why conversation would be especially problematic. We already take a lot of non-verbal cues in conversation; it's not much of a stretch to think that the gender of the speaker could serve as one more cue to help us know the meaning of certain words.

Perhaps, but ambiguity arises in determining whether the gender of the subject is unknown.

I would also hypothesize that the difficulty in adapting to this usage might be highly variable depending on the listener's existing internal way of processing these things.

I expect I might struggle with it because, in my mind, the only actual gender neutral pronouns are "it" and singular "they". I do not interpret "he" used in a generic context as representing a subject of undetermined gender, I interpret it as representing an explicit presumption that the subject is male until proven female. Generic "she", therefore, would be the inverse - an explicit presumption that the subject is female until proven male.

So, if I heard two speakers in a conversation using different pronouns to describe the same person it would sound to me like they were having a passive-aggressive argument over what gender they think the subject is or should be presumed to be. Getting used to this being normal would take time.

I think that's apt, and it might clarify if I point out that my argument assumes that time has already passed. Naturally there might be confusion in a new usage to those only familiar with the old–but as you point out, you and I are already familiar with different old usages, so whatever new confusion arose would only offset that amount of existing confusion.

It's similar to some of the discussions of self-driving cars we've had lately. A lot of the reservations people have with the technology are based on it being deployed by today's drivers amongst today's vehicle. When the self-driving car hit the non-self-driving bus, many people cited it as proof that the system couldn't work. But of course, the aim is that the bus would also be self-driving; it would have known the car was pulling out and either told it not to do so, or taken evasive action, and there'd have been no accident.