AARoads Forum

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.)

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'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.

Quote from: corco on January 01, 2016, 11:37:10 PM
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

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.

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

Quote from: empirestate on January 01, 2016, 11:41:33 PM

Quote from: corco on January 01, 2016, 11:37:10 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 01, 2016, 11:39:15 PM
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?

Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 02, 2016, 12:10:24 AM
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.)

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 02, 2016, 12:26:04 AM
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?

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.

Quote from: empirestate on January 02, 2016, 12:41:49 AM
But isn't "he" easier than both?

Yes, but not everybody is a "he".

Quote from: empirestate on January 02, 2016, 12:41:49 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 01, 2016, 11:39:15 PM
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.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 02, 2016, 12:40:48 AM
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.

Quote from: empirestate on January 01, 2016, 11:30:17 PMAs 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?

QuoteProbably 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!

QuoteWhat's your approach?

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

Quote from: oscar on January 02, 2016, 03:32:04 AMAgreed. 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.

QuoteI 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).

Quotethough 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!

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).

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 02, 2016, 01:45:17 AM

Quote from: empirestate on January 02, 2016, 12:41:49 AM
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.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 02, 2016, 02:42:26 AM
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.

Quote from: english si on January 02, 2016, 09:59:03 AM

Quote from: empirestate on January 01, 2016, 11:30:17 PMAs 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."

QuoteWho 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."

Quote"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.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 02, 2016, 10:57:10 AM
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.

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.

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.

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

"One" can also be employed in the mix.

Quote from: empirestate on January 02, 2016, 11:04:33 AM
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.

Quote from: empirestate on January 02, 2016, 11:04:33 AMYes, "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.

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

And German. It seems to be in all sorts of languages. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction#In_specific_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.

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

Quote from: english si on January 02, 2016, 09:59:03 AM

Quote from: empirestate on January 01, 2016, 11:30:17 PMAs 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet) like nothing.

Quote from: empirestate on January 02, 2016, 11:04:33 AMYes, "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.

Quote from: dcbjms on January 02, 2016, 01:03:15 PMThat'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.

Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2016, 12:09:12 PMI'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).

And while I'm posting youtube videos, here's Tom Scott


Who points out that Shakespeare did it!

Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2016, 12:34:51 PM

Quote from: empirestate on January 02, 2016, 11:04:33 AM
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.

I'm thinking about it, but I guess I don't see the distinction you're making. Do you mean that people would be less likely to say "Not every woman who marries takes their husband's name" because "takes" is more likely to suggest "her" instead of "their"? I wouldn't think that would be so, but I'll try and look out for this situation and see what I observe.

Quote from: english si on January 02, 2016, 01:44:26 PM

Quote from: dcbjms on January 02, 2016, 01:03:15 PMThat'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.

Ah, I see.  In my case,as I mentioned, it's probably a conscious transfer from French (which has 3rd person indefinite/generic "on") considering how sometimes I catch myself saying stuff like "side by each" (which was VERY popular among us kids, and not just because my city historically had high amounts of French-Canadian immigration), but interestingly not registering stuff like "throw me down the stairs my laundry" (French grammatical transfer to English instead of "throw my laundry down the stairs" and very common among the old folks 'round here) since I know better than that.

Quote from: english si on January 02, 2016, 01:44:26 PM
Certainly it's formal language, which tends to have posh connotations in the UK.

The way I use it, I also use it in informal situations as well, so in my case "one" has become register-neutral - thus, consequently, context-neutral.  Only in writing when it would be awkward would I resort to s/he.

Quote from: english si on January 02, 2016, 01:44:26 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on January 02, 2016, 12:09:12 PMI'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.

Same here, though everyone who grew up watching (or got obsessed with) the 1990s film Clueless have picked up the habit of using "like" as the generic filler.  I didn't watch the film, but acquired it through osmosis due to being around people who did watch it.

Quote from: english si on January 02, 2016, 01:44:26 PM
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).*

Not always, as noted above.

Quote from: dcbjms on January 02, 2016, 03:08:18 PMSame here, though everyone who grew up watching (or got obsessed with) the 1990s film Clueless have picked up the habit of using "like" as the generic filler.  I didn't watch the film, but acquired it through osmosis due to being around people who did watch it.

I think you may be giving this movie too much credit.  People were abusing "like" well before it came out.

Lest we forget:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_girl#Sociolect

I generally use "he" and "his" for generic gender-neutral references.  It isn't technically correct, but it's simple and effective.  For formal purposes, I like the way the Texas legislature has been rewriting the statutes, removing genders.

"A person commits an offense if the person..."  They use the terms "person," and, when needed, "actor."  It's clear, precise, and accurate.  Of course, it doesn't make for good informal speech.

I dislike singular "their"s and "they"s.  I really hate "theirself."  I even more hate "themself."

Quote from: wxfree on January 02, 2016, 11:01:02 PM
I generally use "he" and "his" for generic gender-neutral references.  It isn't technically correct, but it's simple and effective.

Isn't it technically correct? I've never read that it's incorrect, only that it's socially objectionable.

Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2016, 01:29:02 AM

Quote from: wxfree on January 02, 2016, 11:01:02 PM
I generally use "he" and "his" for generic gender-neutral references.  It isn't technically correct, but it's simple and effective.

Isn't it technically correct? I've never read that it's incorrect, only that it's socially objectionable.

Well, if the person's identity is unknown, it's technically incorrect to label them as a "he" when you're not actually sure they are. At best, I'd say using masculine pronouns is neither right nor wrong, just "accepted".

Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 01:37:30 AM

Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2016, 01:29:02 AM

Quote from: wxfree on January 02, 2016, 11:01:02 PM
I generally use "he" and "his" for generic gender-neutral references.  It isn't technically correct, but it's simple and effective.

Isn't it technically correct? I've never read that it's incorrect, only that it's socially objectionable.

Well, if the person's identity is unknown, it's technically incorrect to label them as a "he" when you're not actually sure they are. At best, I'd say using masculine pronouns is neither right nor wrong, just "accepted".

I agree with this reasoning.  It's accepted, in my words "simple and effective," but is not correct for the reason you describe.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 01:37:30 AMWell, if the person's identity is unknown, it's technically incorrect to label them as a "he" when you're not actually sure they are. At best, I'd say using masculine pronouns is neither right nor wrong, just "accepted".

But, like with many languages, English uses (or used to use) the masculine as a stand in when gender is unknown.

The only reason why we don't think it correct it any more is this happens whenever one uses it:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F36.media.tumblr.com%2F697be10cd30efbd3765efcba55ab2dca%2Ftumblr_nusp5jmZkZ1r4o9xho1_r1_500.jpg&hash=91497e7a3cb89a66639fd7a145808c3d3629e5c6)

He who uses 'he' for unknown gender would not have the PC police on them if one had used 'one' instead. (and yes, I use three different pronouns there, just to wind up everybody!)

Quote from: empirestate on January 02, 2016, 02:29:58 PM
I'm thinking about it, but I guess I don't see the distinction you're making. Do you mean that people would be less likely to say "Not every woman who marries takes their husband's name" because "takes" is more likely to suggest "her" instead of "their"? I wouldn't think that would be so, but I'll try and look out for this situation and see what I observe.

In this example the not-obviously singular subject "every woman" remains, so there's still that.

The real test would be to listen for something more along the lines of "A woman takes their husband's name when they get married". If you hear that, then my previous assertion that it's improper pluralization is clearly incorrect.

As I think about it more, though, I can see a reason why even this might happen - because of the anonymity of the subject. When we don't know the subject's gender, we usually also do not know the subject's identity. If we're trained to say "they" when the subject's gender is unknown, it's easy to overcorrect and say "they" whenever the subject's identity is not known, even if the subject's gender is known.

Compare, for example, the sentence "Jane got married and took their husband's name". That sounds just weird and you will probably not hear anything like it.

Quote from: english si on January 03, 2016, 05:00:41 AM
But, like with many languages, English uses (or used to use) the masculine as a stand in when gender is unknown.

The only reason why we don't think it correct it any more is this happens whenever one uses it:

Right, but the reason the PC police will go after you for it is because of the very real impacts of it.

Remember when I said before that I presume all other drivers on the road to be male until proven female? This has the very real effect that when I notice that the person driving a car is a woman, it seems surprising and unexpected - it shouldn't, because probably close to half the cars on the road are driven by a woman, but since I don't make eye contact with 99.9% of other drivers it makes it look like only 0.05% of them are female (that is, half of the 0.1% whose gender I actually confirm).

The practice of defaulting to male pronouns is not just a matter of language, it is part of a broader psychological phenomenon of assuming that an unidentified person is male, which in turn creates the perception that women live on some sort of quantum plane where they don't exist until observed.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 01:37:30 AM

Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2016, 01:29:02 AM

Quote from: wxfree on January 02, 2016, 11:01:02 PM
I generally use "he" and "his" for generic gender-neutral references.  It isn't technically correct, but it's simple and effective.

Isn't it technically correct? I've never read that it's incorrect, only that it's socially objectionable.

Well, if the person's identity is unknown, it's technically incorrect to label them as a "he" when you're not actually sure they are. At best, I'd say using masculine pronouns is neither right nor wrong, just "accepted".

That's only if you consider "he" to be exclusively masculine. If "he" is also neuter in some contexts, then it's also correct to use "he" when the gender is unknown.

Part of the problem comes from trying to know what's "technically correct" in the usage of a language, since languages are flexible and mutable enough that there often isn't a strict enough set of rules by which one can determine what's "technically correct".

Quote from: Duke87 on January 03, 2016, 12:38:10 PM
In this example the not-obviously singular subject "every woman" remains, so there's still that.

The real test would be to listen for something more along the lines of "A woman takes their husband's name when they get married". If you hear that, then my previous assertion that it's improper pluralization is clearly incorrect.

Indeed, I do hear constructions like that as well; less often, but I do hear it. (Take again the Facebook example, but I also hear it from living speakers.)

But I'd still consider that improper pluralization; I guess the only thing I didn't get was the difference between that and the incorrect use of singular "they".

If referring to one of our "fearless" politicians I use idiot. 

Quote from: Duke87 on January 03, 2016, 12:38:10 PMRight, but the reason the PC police will go after you for it is because of the very real impacts of it.

Sure, but those seeking to gentrify language* do not control what is correct language (at least as far as English goes).

Does using 'he' as a neuter 3rd person pronoun cause negative impacts? One can certainly make a case for that. But that doesn't make it incorrect English, merely insensitive English.

And if the using 'he' as a neuter 3rd person pronoun was politically correct (ie had no perceived issues), no one would be thinking it bad grammar.

As such, my point - that the PC sirens sounding when you use it is the only reason why people think that 'he' as a neuter generic is wrong - is correct.

*Be it PC, be it the Brits who do not like Americanizing tendencies like -ize, rather than -ise, bawlderisation/euphemisms, dislike of dialect/slang, etc.

Quote from: Duke87 on January 03, 2016, 12:38:10 PM

Quote from: english si on January 03, 2016, 05:00:41 AM
But, like with many languages, English uses (or used to use) the masculine as a stand in when gender is unknown.

The only reason why we don't think it correct it any more is this happens whenever one uses it:

Right, but the reason the PC police will go after you for it is because of the very real impacts of it.

Remember when I said before that I presume all other drivers on the road to be male until proven female? This has the very real effect that when I notice that the person driving a car is a woman, it seems surprising and unexpected - it shouldn't, because probably close to half the cars on the road are driven by a woman, but since I don't make eye contact with 99.9% of other drivers it makes it look like only 0.05% of them are female (that is, half of the 0.1% whose gender I actually confirm).

On those, I usually default to a wonderful neuter pronoun we have in English: "it".  If I do not know the gender, I use the term "it" for them.  Of course, on bad drivers, "fucker" works as well.

Quote from: english si on January 03, 2016, 05:00:41 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 01:37:30 AM
Well, if the person's identity is unknown, it's technically incorrect to label them as a "he" when you're not actually sure they are. At best, I'd say using masculine pronouns is neither right nor wrong, just "accepted".

But, like with many languages, English uses (or used to use) the masculine as a stand in when gender is unknown.

Didn't Tom Scott just say that we don't use masculine/feminine anymore (outside of rare situations like Blond/Blonde, which isn't even English anyways)?

The only reason the PC police get onto you is because it makes no sense to label someone who could be a she as "he".

Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2016, 01:01:15 PM
Part of the problem comes from trying to know what's "technically correct" in the usage of a language, since languages are flexible and mutable enough that there often isn't a strict enough set of rules by which one can determine what's "technically correct".

If languages are so flexible, you should be able to understand why using "he" is out-of-date.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 05:21:33 PMDidn't Tom Scott just say that we don't use masculine/feminine anymore (outside of rare situations like Blond/Blonde, which isn't even English anyways)?

No, he said that we don't have grammatical gender for things like the French, etc anymore. We still quite clearly do masculine/feminine wrt people (and animals) and Tom Scott doesn't like doing that for an unknown person and feels that we need a different approach and promotes a singular 'they' (used by Shakespeare, no less) over other proposed alternatives.

QuoteThe only reason the PC police get onto you is because it makes no sense to label someone who could be a she as "he".

Didn't you just say that Tom Scott just said we don't use masculine/feminine anymore. Why, then, should using 'he' matter as surely then no words are gendered? ;)

Using "he" only makes no sense if one holds that 'he' is exclusively masculine - which it has only been to a sizeable enough amount of English speakers for about 15 years, if that. It makes sense to people speaking outside of various fringe movements and college campuses pre-2000ish that 'he' for an unknown person is not assuming masculinity because they know that is the convention of most Indo-European languages rather than impute some sort of slight against women onto the speaker's motives.

While we are still transitioning away to a less flexible definition of 'he', we need to not exclude those who still also hold the older, less binarist (not explicitly encouraging the either/or model of gender that the more modern definition does) definition of a generic 3rd person of whatever gender. 15 years isn't a long time in linguistic changes - 'gay' also means 'happy' to some who haven't let go of the old definition of the word, for instance, and that is about 30 years down the line.

As you say - languages are flexible. For instance, empirestate and I are using 'flexible' in a sense of an allowance for multiple definitions for a word, with new ones coming and old ones going (if they go) organically: bendable, stretchable, pliable, malleable - there's no such thing as out-of-date, just putting the word into a position it might not have been for a while. You mean it in a sense that it's constantly changing and you have to keep up with the one meaning allow: fluid? about to go over a waterfall in a straight-jacket?

Like how you struggle to see a generic non-gender specific definition of he, I am struggling to see how your definition of flexible can possibly be a use of that word (but as I hold a flexible approach, I can't say it is wrong - just very very different). I see the way you are using it and think of antonyms: rigid, unforgiving, unyielding (my definition or else). Rather than variable, you have varying, but worse - rather than language being compliant to and shaped (in context) by those communicating, those communicating must comply to and be shaped by the language.

There's a reason why PC is basically a endless stream of micro-aggressions (though obviously, those excluded by PC would never use those words) to some - like all gentrification, it makes better by excluding the 'undesirable'*: old, old-fashioned, non-trendy, less-well educated, what we call in the UK the working class, the poor, etc.

Now, sure, there is an issue with a generic "he" as enough people have started only using it as part of a binary model of gender (oddly as the culture moves away from such notions) that it causes confusion and discomfort and normally isn't the best fit. However the issue - especially for those transitioning to the new definition - is that there is no consensus on what to use instead: obviously there is 'one' there and waiting with that generic 3rd person singular pronoun definition for centuries, but once more it fails to get traction over another pronoun (in the past 'he', now 'they') that also is a pronoun used for a different scenario; artificial constructs from '(s)he' and 's/he' to 'xe' and 'je' are ugly and haven't taken off; 'he or she' is just clunky; 'they' gets people on your back for similar reason to 'he' (the other definition). Without an alternative that doesn't raise some eyebrows (if not start an argument), let alone a consensus, how can the person using the genderless generic 'he' change his word choice if there is no word to actually change it to!

*Take, for instance the case of British Boxer Tyson Fury, who was catapulted into the public eye last month. Of Irish Gipsy descent, and very recently converted to Christianity, he was asked a set of questions designed to expose him as a bigot (and so smear both Christians and Gipsies by association for no other reason than allow certain people to feel superior) and then the mob descended on him for not being a middle-class, well-educated, media-savvy, articulate and nuanced, guy that grew up in a house rather than travelling around and doesn't get his head bashed in for a living. While Fury's words were far from excusable, that doesn't excuse the PC mob's flat out xenophobia in hounding him.

I keep it gender-neutral, especially if I know I will be talking to an audience of mixed gender. I wouldn't really say that masculine is "default" because we have a well-defined system of neutral pronouns. Contrast that with Spanish, which only has "masculine" or "feminine" pronouns and every word is masculine or feminine. There, masculine is default because something has to be.

Quote from: Brandon on January 03, 2016, 04:58:29 PM
On those, I usually default to a wonderful neuter pronoun we have in English: "it".  If I do not know the gender, I use the term "it" for them.  Of course, on bad drivers, "fucker" works as well.

Only if you assume "fucker" to be gender neutral. The term is not typically used to describe someone known to be female and I would argue it's implicitly masculine. But now I'm picking nits here. :bigass:

Of course, there are other cases where a nominally masculine term is generally used to describe anyone, male or female, who meets the qualifications. For example, a woman who obtains a college degree would in theory properly be referred to as a Spinster of Science or Arts rather than a Bachelor of such, but this isn't done, possibly due to negative connotations associated with the term "Spinster". I suppose "Bachelorette" could be used instead, but that term is a neologism which is newer than most institutions of higher education in the US.

Likewise, you'd think a woman with a graduate degree should be a Mistress of Science or Arts, but the term Master is used, and the female equivalent once again has negative connotations associated with it.

Certainly says something about how society treats women that we turn what should be innocuously feminine terms into insults, doesn't it?

Quote from: english si on January 03, 2016, 08:30:17 PM
Didn't you just say that Tom Scott just said we don't use masculine/feminine anymore. Why, then, should using 'he' matter as surely then no words are gendered? ;)

Touché.

Quote from: english si on January 03, 2016, 08:30:17 PM
<clipped>

I'm just gonna keep this simple. This is what I was taught at school in the early 2000s:

1) An unknown male (of any domain) is a "he"
2) An unknown female (of any domain) is a "she"
3) An unknown-gender domain is "they"

And I do want to be very clear here: I am not trying to be politically correct (I'm not quite sure if you are labelling me as PC or not). It just sounds silly to me to say "he" when you're not sure if they are indeed a man. It would seem that I (and inevitably, many of my peers) were not taught that "he" could be gender neutral. As a result, I don't think my generation is "revolting" against the idea of using non-gender-specific "he" to mean "unknown domain" because it might offend a woman (though many might use that reason), but rather revolting against the idea of using (what is now) a masculine pronoun to describe a neutral being.

Quote from: english si on January 03, 2016, 08:30:17 PM
While we are still transitioning away to a less flexible definition of 'he', we need to not exclude those who still also hold the older, less binarist (not explicitly encouraging the either/or model of gender that the more modern definition does) definition of a generic 3rd person of whatever gender. 15 years isn't a long time in linguistic changes - 'gay' also means 'happy' to some who haven't let go of the old definition of the word, for instance, and that is about 30 years down the line.

Let me put it this way: the style of English taught at school (in the current year) ought to be what is considered correct (for whatever country you're in). There are plenty of historical changes to English. All I'm saying is that, at this point in time, "he" is no longer gender-neutral for new English speakers. Is it wrong to use "he" to mean "they"? Technically (if that word can even be used in the context of linguistics), no, but you're gonna confuse more people than I think it's worth.

Though, I think there is a slight difference between "gay" meaning "happy" and "he" meaning "they". There are many, many adjectives in the world, so much so that you could get away with not saying "happy" or "gay". It's really, really hard to get away with ignoring pronouns. In essence, I think it's pretty important that the meanings of pronouns be more rigid than the meanings of adjectives (if only because of the number of each -- very few vs many).

Quote from: Duke87 on January 04, 2016, 12:58:14 AM

Quote from: Brandon on January 03, 2016, 04:58:29 PM
On those, I usually default to a wonderful neuter pronoun we have in English: "it".  If I do not know the gender, I use the term "it" for them.  Of course, on bad drivers, "fucker" works as well.

Only if you assume "fucker" to be gender neutral. The term is not typically used to describe someone known to be female and I would argue it's implicitly masculine. But now I'm picking nits here. :bigass:

Of course, there are other cases where a nominally masculine term is generally used to describe anyone, male or female, who meets the qualifications. ....

....

Then there are some words where people probably don't even realize that the generic masculine is in fact the masculine form. "Alumni" is the one that most readily comes to mind. (I frequently see it misused as though it were singular, as in "he is an alumni of ____," but that's a separate matter.) "Alumni" is the plural of the masculine "alumnus." The feminine singular is "alumna" and its now seldom-seen plural form is "alumnae." I can't say as I've ever seen anyone use a form like "alumni/ae" or whatever to try to be "gender-neutral" or whatever, though I've head "alums" often enough in casual speech (not normally in written English, though). People who object to the generic "he" should, on principle, object to the generic use of words like "alumni" or similar.

I think the real issue is people looking for a "problem" where none exists.

At least nobody in this thread has engaged in some of the bizarre behavior that existed in academia 20 years ago, where some people objected to the use of "person" and "history" because those words contain "son" and "his" (even though those letters aren't used in the masculine sense in those words). That sort of silliness seems to have died a quick death, thankfully. I do think that's one reason (just one, mind you) to be wary of jakeroot's idea of "whatever is the current fad in school should be deemed correct." Educational fads change constantly.

I was taught similar to jakeroot, but my district preferred to use he/she instead of they (never mind that they as a singular pronoun was perfectly acceptable until some Victorians pulled a rule out of their rear ends, just like the with ending a sentence with a preposition thing).  I do not think of he as possibly meaning gender neutral; when I see the word "he" in a sentence, I think of a man, period.

I'm not motivated enough to try to break down the replies by age, but I think that might be an interesting exercise.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 05:21:33 PM

Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2016, 01:01:15 PM
Part of the problem comes from trying to know what's "technically correct" in the usage of a language, since languages are flexible and mutable enough that there often isn't a strict enough set of rules by which one can determine what's "technically correct".

If languages are so flexible, you should be able to understand why using "he" is out-of-date.

Of course I do; I mentioned it in the very first post. But your assertion was not that it was out-of-date, but that it was technically incorrect.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 01:02:37 AM
It just sounds silly to me to say "he" when you're not sure if they are indeed a man. It would seem that I (and inevitably, many of my peers) were not taught that "he" could be gender neutral. As a result, I don't think my generation is "revolting" against the idea of using non-gender-specific "he" to mean "unknown domain" because it might offend a woman (though many might use that reason), but rather revolting against the idea of using (what is now) a masculine pronoun to describe a neutral being.

And to many of us, it sounds just as silly to use "they" to indicate a singular person, even if you are not specifying the gender of that person.

There's ample precedent for using the singular "they".  Chaucer, Shakespeare, etc.

I used "he" when I was younger but more recently I have been consciously using "they" in casual speech or "him/her" in formal speech or recasting the sentence.

Quote from: GaryV on January 04, 2016, 06:04:46 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 01:02:37 AM
It just sounds silly to me to say "he" when you're not sure if they are indeed a man. It would seem that I (and inevitably, many of my peers) were not taught that "he" could be gender neutral. As a result, I don't think my generation is "revolting" against the idea of using non-gender-specific "he" to mean "unknown domain" because it might offend a woman (though many might use that reason), but rather revolting against the idea of using (what is now) a masculine pronoun to describe a neutral being.

And to many of us, it sounds just as silly to use "they" to indicate a singular person, even if you are not specifying the gender of that person.

"They" can be plural and/or singular, depending on the context. I can't think of any situation where "he", in modern 2016-era English, makes sense to describe any being of any sex. Current practice more then likely dictates that the ambiguity of singular vs plural when using "they" is preferable to the ambiguity of using "he" to mean "they". Of course, if your version of English accepts using "he" to mean "they", then by all means continue to use "he". Your just going to confuse more people than I think it's worth.

"Ask someone if they could help" (singular)
"Ask if they could help" (singular or plural)
"They did a great job" (singular or plural)
"Demand from your boss that they give you a raise" (singular)

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 07:39:45 AM
Then there are some words where people probably don't even realize that the generic masculine is in fact the masculine form. "Alumni" is the one that most readily comes to mind. (I frequently see it misused as though it were singular, as in "he is an alumni of ____," but that's a separate matter.) "Alumni" is the plural of the masculine "alumnus." The feminine singular is "alumna" and its now seldom-seen plural form is "alumnae." I can't say as I've ever seen anyone use a form like "alumni/ae" or whatever to try to be "gender-neutral" or whatever, though I've head "alums" often enough in casual speech (not normally in written English, though). People who object to the generic "he" should, on principle, object to the generic use of words like "alumni" or similar.

This is a higher level of complexity because now we're discussing gendered plural terms, which in English exist only for nouns, never for pronouns.

It is interesting, though, how it is considered normal to say "alumni" when referring to a mixed-gender group, but not to say "gentlemen" when referring to the same. If we can say "ladies and gentlemen", it logically follows that we should say "alumni and alumnae". But we don't, perhaps because in Latin this would not be considered correct.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 02:30:58 PM
I'm not motivated enough to try to break down the replies by age, but I think that might be an interesting exercise.

More interesting then breaking it down by gender, anyway.  I feel like if this was a less gender-homogenous group there might be a very different conversation going on.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 07:36:31 PM

Quote from: GaryV on January 04, 2016, 06:04:46 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 01:02:37 AM
It just sounds silly to me to say "he" when you're not sure if they are indeed a man. It would seem that I (and inevitably, many of my peers) were not taught that "he" could be gender neutral. As a result, I don't think my generation is "revolting" against the idea of using non-gender-specific "he" to mean "unknown domain" because it might offend a woman (though many might use that reason), but rather revolting against the idea of using (what is now) a masculine pronoun to describe a neutral being.

And to many of us, it sounds just as silly to use "they" to indicate a singular person, even if you are not specifying the gender of that person.

"They" can be plural and/or singular, depending on the context. I can't think of any situation where "he", in modern 2016-era English, makes sense to describe any being of any sex. Current practice more then likely dictates that the ambiguity of singular vs plural when using "they" is preferable to the ambiguity of using "he" to mean "they". Of course, if your version of English accepts using "he" to mean "they", then by all means continue to use "he". Your just going to confuse more people than I think it's worth.

....

Who has used "he" to mean "they"? That would sound really stupid: "I'm rooting for the Redskins on Sunday and I will be very disappointed if he lose."

What you meant to say is that people are using "he" in a situation where YOU BELIEVE "they" is more appropriate. That's a very different matter from "using 'he' to mean 'they.'"

I think the argument that using "he" as the generic form will "confuse people" is a rather weak argument. Certainly some people will dislike it or object to it, and those people are certainly welcome to their opinion. But it's hard to think of too many situations where the generic masculine, or for that matter the generic feminine, is genuinely confusing to an intelligent English-speaking person.

Regarding the boldfaced sentence, I assume what you meant to say is that in your opinion, you can't think of any situation where "he" is appropriate when referring to a generic person of an unknown sex? I ask because that's not what you said. The way you worded it comes across as saying "he" is never appropriate to refer to anyone. Obviously, that's absurd. Regardless of one's position on the generic, "he" is of course perfectly appropriate when referring to someone one knows to be male. (I'm not even going to touch the issue of how to refer to transsexuals or transgender people or the like for several reasons.)

Perhaps the best solution, for those people who think this is a big deal, is just to re-word the entire sentence to try to avoid the issue!

(I'm deliberately refraining from commenting on the indisputable grammatical mistakes you made because they're not directly relevant, although they do go to credibility.)

---

Edited to add: BTW, FWIW, I'm sure I've probably mentioned at some point that my mother was an English teacher (she's now retired), so I had grammar drilled into me for years. I'm not sure if it's a sign of a dysfunctional family, but we had some rather interesting discussions at the dinner table about comma usage over the years. Anyway, my mom once commented on the "generic pronoun" issue by noting that it posed a conundrum for her as a teacher: On the one hand, as a woman, she wasn't a fan of using "he," but on the other hand, as a grammarian, she found forms such as "s/he," "he or she," or "they" to be awkward at best and tacky or patronizing at worst. She said "patronizing" because she felt people who slavishly use things like "s/he" or "he or she" every single time are, in effect, insulting the reader by assuming the reader isn't intelligent enough to recognize that the reference could be either masculine or feminine–in other words, a noble intent (avoiding a form some readers consider sexist) that backfires (by insulting the reader).

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2016, 09:36:22 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 02:30:58 PM
I'm not motivated enough to try to break down the replies by age, but I think that might be an interesting exercise.

More interesting then breaking it down by gender, anyway.  I feel like if this was a less gender-homogenous group there might be a very different conversation going on.

I know of one particular poster (whom I have not met in person) I suspect would have an interesting take on the issue if said poster wanted to delve deeply into the matter.....

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 09:40:15 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2016, 09:36:22 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 02:30:58 PM
I'm not motivated enough to try to break down the replies by age, but I think that might be an interesting exercise.

More interesting then breaking it down by gender, anyway.  I feel like if this was a less gender-homogenous group there might be a very different conversation going on.

I know of one particular poster (whom I have not met in person) I suspect would have an interesting take on the issue if said poster wanted to delve deeply into the matter.....

It's just that it was pretty late in the conversation that there was questioning of the fact that what's been called "political correctness" quite a bit here might actually just be simple "fairness," a concept it's less popular to oppose.  (And to be fair, the OP did not frame it that way at the outset.)

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2016, 10:01:34 PM
It's just that it was pretty late in the conversation that there was questioning of the fact that what's been called "political correctness" quite a bit here might actually just be simple "fairness," a concept it's less popular to oppose.  (And to be fair, the OP did not frame it that way at the outset.)

I just looked back at the original post and I noted the comment about how "it" is not considered appropriate for referring to adult humans. I've actually read some old historical material where "it" was indeed used to refer to human beings, and the context of those makes it even weirder to consider using "it" (except when referring to an unborn child whose sex is unknown, of course). The material? Old court cases from Southern states from the early 1800s adjudicating property rights involving slaves. The judges would usually first refer to "a negro slave named ____" and subsequently refer to said slave as "it." From a property law standpoint you could view this as emphasizing the legal principle that the courts were dealing with chattels, such that using "it" recognized that a slave was, under then-current legal principles, no different from a horse or a wagon or a whiskey still or whatever. (Believe it or not, every once in a while old slave cases can still be good law from a purely property-law standpoint if you ignore the slavery aspect, but it's far better to find other case law to cite because the same principle will almost always be stated in a less-distasteful context.) You could also argue that it was the judges' way of trying to ignore the cases' posture of adjudicating the property status of human beings. Either way, encountering something along the lines of the following is downright weird and rather creepy in today's society: "A negro slave named Willie ran away from Raleigh. It was captured in Virginia and its leg was broken in the process. Its owner now seeks restitution for blah blah blah...."

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 09:38:45 PM
(I'm deliberately refraining from commenting on the indisputable grammatical mistakes you made because they're not directly relevant, although they do go to credibility.)

Fair enough. I probably owe my glaring grammatical errors more to writing on an iPhone while at work (attention to detail level: 1/10).

As for what we've been talking about, once I begin to sound like an idiot, it kind of kills my stamina. Probably just not going to post in this thread anymore. I can't seem to get my point across properly.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 10:39:05 PM
Fair enough. I probably owe my glaring grammatical errors more to writing on an iPhone while at work (attention to detail level: 1/10).

....

Heh, I hear you there. I typed my last few posts on my iPad using the touchscreen keyboard (I have an external Bluetooth keyboard, but it's upstairs somewhere) and I feel like I'll wear out the "backspace" location on the screen from correcting so many of my €Â£^% typos!

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 10:50:26 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 10:39:05 PM
Fair enough. I probably owe my glaring grammatical errors more to writing on an iPhone while at work (attention to detail level: 1/10).

....

Heh, I hear you there. I typed my last few posts on my iPad using the touchscreen keyboard (I have an external Bluetooth keyboard, but it's upstairs somewhere) and I feel like I'll wear out the "backspace" location on the screen from correcting so many of my €Â£^% typos!

The worst occurs when I turn on low-battery mode. When I'm typing, the words appearing on the screen lag behind my typing. I'll be well into the next paragraph before I spot spelling errors (that may explain my terrible grammar in some posts).

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 10:54:49 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 10:50:26 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 10:39:05 PM
Fair enough. I probably owe my glaring grammatical errors more to writing on an iPhone while at work (attention to detail level: 1/10).

....

Heh, I hear you there. I typed my last few posts on my iPad using the touchscreen keyboard (I have an external Bluetooth keyboard, but it's upstairs somewhere) and I feel like I'll wear out the "backspace" location on the screen from correcting so many of my €Â£^% typos!

The worst occurs when I turn on low-battery mode. When I'm typing, the words appearing on the screen lag behind my typing. I'll be well into the next paragraph before I spot spelling errors (that may explain my terrible grammar in some posts).

I have a new android phone that has a not-so-user-friendly auto-correct.  Even when I spell the word correctly it sometimes thinks I meant another word.  And when I use any sort of punctuation, it cancels out the spellcheck feature.  There's probably some sort of setting I have to modify, but I haven't bothered to look for it yet.

As much as I try to keep an eye on what I write, I usually don't catch it until I re-read my post later on, or catch my quoted post in someone's response.

Quote from: english si on January 03, 2016, 03:13:53 PM
*Be it PC, be it the Brits who do not like Americanizing tendencies like -ize, rather than -ise, bawlderisation/euphemisms, dislike of dialect/slang, etc.

Someone forgot about the OED and Hart's Rules (and even then the OUP is inconsistent on this).

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 10:55:53 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 10:54:49 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 10:50:26 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 10:39:05 PM
Fair enough. I probably owe my glaring grammatical errors more to writing on an iPhone while at work (attention to detail level: 1/10).

....

Heh, I hear you there. I typed my last few posts on my iPad using the touchscreen keyboard (I have an external Bluetooth keyboard, but it's upstairs somewhere) and I feel like I'll wear out the "backspace" location on the screen from correcting so many of my €Â£^% typos!

The worst occurs when I turn on low-battery mode. When I'm typing, the words appearing on the screen lag behind my typing. I'll be well into the next paragraph before I spot spelling errors (that may explain my terrible grammar in some posts).

I have a new android phone that has a not-so-user-friendly auto-correct.  Even when I spell the word correctly it sometimes thinks I meant another word.  And when I use any sort of punctuation, it cancels out the spellcheck feature.  There's probably some sort of setting I have to modify, but I haven't bothered to look for it yet.

As much as I try to keep an eye on what I write, I usually don't catch it until I re-read my post later on, or catch my quoted post in someone's response.

Autocorrect is a devil's deal.  I keep it off.  I see people send professional communication with obvious autocorrect errors all the time and it makes me cringe.  Nothing replaces human proofreading.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2016, 09:13:55 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 10:55:53 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 10:54:49 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2016, 10:50:26 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 10:39:05 PM
Fair enough. I probably owe my glaring grammatical errors more to writing on an iPhone while at work (attention to detail level: 1/10).

....

Heh, I hear you there. I typed my last few posts on my iPad using the touchscreen keyboard (I have an external Bluetooth keyboard, but it's upstairs somewhere) and I feel like I'll wear out the "backspace" location on the screen from correcting so many of my €Â£^% typos!

The worst occurs when I turn on low-battery mode. When I'm typing, the words appearing on the screen lag behind my typing. I'll be well into the next paragraph before I spot spelling errors (that may explain my terrible grammar in some posts).

I have a new android phone that has a not-so-user-friendly auto-correct.  Even when I spell the word correctly it sometimes thinks I meant another word.  And when I use any sort of punctuation, it cancels out the spellcheck feature.  There's probably some sort of setting I have to modify, but I haven't bothered to look for it yet.

As much as I try to keep an eye on what I write, I usually don't catch it until I re-read my post later on, or catch my quoted post in someone's response.

Autocorrect is a devil's deal.  I keep it off.  I see people send professional communication with obvious autocorrect errors all the time and it makes me cringe.  Nothing replaces human proofreading.

Mom's Kindle is the same way, and I cringe.  There are some areas where the Kindle spell-check is useful, and other times where it isn't.  What makes me laugh is that when I use two different languages on my laptop (and it functions similarly in both browsers, but is more apparent on Chrome) is that if I use the English dictionary, any foreign-language stuff is flagged as being spelling/grammatical errors; when I switch to a foreign language (French, for example), then all the English text is marked likewise.  It's very interesting to see.

---

For the most part, when I was taught English in school, somehow we never got around to talking about gender-neutral pronouns - all that we learned for the 3rd person was "he", "she", "it", and "they", with "they" taught as always plural.  There was, of course, a single 2nd-person pronoun, "you", though when delving into history of English literature mention was made of "thou" as an archaic pronoun.  When I started learning French, however, my big holdup was not in the 3rd person (where either "il" or "elle" is used depending on the gender of the word) but in the 2nd person.  OK, I get it that "tu" is singular and "vous" is plural, but "vous" as a formal pronoun?  Spanish was much worse - you have "tú" (2nd person singular informal), "usted" (2nd person singular formal but grammatically 3rd person singular), "vosotros" (in Spain only, 2nd person plural informal), and "ustedes" (3rd person plural, either general [Latin America] or formal [Spain]), and even then in several countries in Latin America (Argentina and Nicaragua, for example) "tú" is replaced entirely by "vos" - the old 2nd person plural and formal pronoun (and the origin of "vosotros").  Yet the T-V distinction is such a constant part of human language, even elaborate distinctions like in Asian languages, that I wonder how much of it is natural and how much of it is forced.

Compare that with, say, Esperanto.  When devising the pronouns, Zamenhof not only had a plural "vi", but also singular/informal "ci" /tsi/ and formal "Vi"; modern Esperantists discard this in favour of "vi" in all cases.  Zamenhof also had "ĝi" /dji/ serve not only the function of English "it", but also as the gender-neutral pronoun in cases where the gender is unknown or in mixed company.  Apparently modern Esperantists don't feel that way (unless if it's children) and hence use a demonstrative instead.  But it does open up a few ideas.  The most outlandish and interesting being for an Esperantido, Universal:
http://www.math.bas.bg/~iad/univers.html
Now here's an elaborate pronominal system indeed.
*1st person singular: mi "I", ami "I" (masc.), mai (fem.)
*2nd person singular informal: ti "tu/tú/thou", ati "thou" (masc.), tai (fem.)
*2nd person singular formal: vi "you", avi "you" (masc.), vai "you" (fem.)
*3rd person singular: li "s/he", ali "he", lai "she", lo "it"
*1st person plural: imi "we", mimi "we" (exclusive), timi "we, thou/ye and I" (inclusive, informal), vimi "we, you and I" (inclusive, formal)
*2nd person plural: iti "ye" (informal), ivi "you" (formal)
*3rd person plural: ili "they", alali "they" (masc.), lalai "they" (fem.)
Has your head spun yet?

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2016, 10:01:34 PMIt's just that it was pretty late in the conversation that there was questioning of the fact that what's been called "political correctness" quite a bit here might actually just be simple "fairness," a concept it's less popular to oppose.  (And to be fair, the OP did not frame it that way at the outset.)

I believe I have maintained a difference between PC and "fairness" - fairness is understanding that "he" might cause offence, but not thinking it is wrong because of that. PC is about saying it's wrong on non-moral levels because of that perceived offence. A generic 'he' might be insensitive (fairness), but it is not incorrect (PC).

I'd also argue that fairness would understand that 'he' is not always understood as a exclusively masculine pronoun and not to insensitively think it wrong or archaic, but merely raise questions about its suitability given the recent shifts in language and society. Fairness would also understand that the main candidate for replacement of the generic 'he', "they", is fighting a lot of people's hard-wired grammar concepts (in the same way that the generic 'he' is totally alien to jakeroot, though those people tend to be a bit more flexible on the validity of using the singular 'they'), and the other alternatives (except 'one', which has its own, different, problems) are a load of tosh.

----

Compare these various Bible translations of 1Cor 15:6, from different time periods. The original uses the generic male (ἀδελφός) in the Greek, but is describing a mixed gender group.
KJV (1611) "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."
TLB (1971) "After that he was seen by more than five hundred Christian brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died by now."
GNT (1992) "Then he appeared to more than five hundred of his followers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have died."
NIV (2011) "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."

Which is the most inclusive? Other than the GNT, with "followers" (which is somewhat lacking as a translation, but we'll leave that aside), it's probably the KJV - brethren is considered an archaic term for 'brothers', but still means 'fellow members' (see dictionary.com). The TLB is a bit confusing if you are under ~25, as it suggest only males, but if you were alive in 1971, you would know that it didn't mean just the men. I'd argue that NIV is the least inclusive as it demands a binary view of gender by rejecting the notion that 'brothers' can be gender-neutral and inclusive of all, and feeling that adding 'and sisters' covers all bases of exclusion - excluding those who don't feel they fit in that binary system - yet it was a version (rehashing the older 1974 NIV that had 'brothers') which prided itself on 'inclusive' language.

I utterly reject 'he/she' or similar as being valid alternatives to a generic 'he'. I'm very happy with 'they' though, but I don't think it works as a direct subsitute for the generic 'he' all of the time, and I know others aren't au fait with a singular 'they', and so I use 'one' and (rarely) 'he' as alternatives on occasion.

----

Quote from: dcbjms on January 05, 2016, 09:10:45 AM

Quote from: english si on January 03, 2016, 03:13:53 PM
*Be it PC, be it the Brits who do not like Americanizing tendencies like -ize, rather than -ise, bawlderisation/euphemisms, dislike of dialect/slang, etc.

Someone forgot about the OED and Hart's Rules (and even then the OUP is inconsistent on this).

Not at all - for said Brits, the OED has got it wrong. I'm not one of them, I had it completely backwards which way was which until really recently.

Quote from: Duke87 on January 04, 2016, 09:32:53 PM
It is interesting, though, how it is considered normal to say "alumni" when referring to a mixed-gender group, but not to say "gentlemen" when referring to the same. If we can say "ladies and gentlemen", it logically follows that we should say "alumni and alumnae". But we don't, perhaps because in Latin this would not be considered correct.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that many prestigious universities were all-male until the 60s?  "Alumnae" wouldn't have been used nearly as often as "alumni", so some people might have started to use "alumni" for everyone without knowing there was a distinction (I don't recall a distinction before this thread, actually) and it caught on?

I tend to try to use "they/them" for gender-neutral pronouns when someone's gender isn't known, but I still sometimes say "he/him" in the same situation.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 01:02:37 AM
I'm just gonna keep this simple. This is what I was taught at school in the early 2000s:

1) An unknown male (of any domain) is a "he"
2) An unknown female (of any domain) is a "she"
3) An unknown-gender domain is "they"

Ah–now I know where you're coming from! This is the bit of information I needed to understand your view of a "technically correct" usage of "he"; I was missing the actual "technique"–the specific set of rules or facts–that you were comparing against.

No "technique" I've ever seen goes so far as to prohibit the use of "he" for subjects of unknown gender; it's only stated to be objectionable to some listeners. So that's why I questioned why you said it was prohibited. Now I see that it's because you were taught a technique that prohibits this.

Of course, as has been made more than clear by now, since languages are flexible, there is never one single set of rules that supersedes all, so even if there is a usage that goes against one set of teachings, it can never be assumed to be an ultimatum. I'm a bit surprised that you weren't taught these rules with that caveat–but then again, I don't remember learning much in the way of pure grammar and syntax in school myself, either. It's largely been through absorption and assimilation as I've gone through life.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 07:36:31 PM


"Ask someone if they could help" (singular)

That could be plural.  My first reading of that sentence is, "Ask someone [e.g. Bill] if they [e.g. Tom, Dick and Harry] could help."

Quote
"Demand from your boss that they give you a raise" (singular)

Wouldn't you know if your boss was male or female?  (Or at least "identifying" as such.)  :-P

Quote from: GaryV on January 05, 2016, 05:19:14 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 07:36:31 PM
"Demand from your boss that they give you a raise" (singular)

Wouldn't you know if your boss was male or female?  (Or at least "identifying" as such.)  :-P

Yes, but the person telling you to demand something of your boss mightn't.

Another thought - if they is singular, shouldn't you say "they is"?   :poke:

Quote from: GaryV on January 05, 2016, 07:29:05 PM
Another thought - if they is singular, shouldn't you say "they is"?   :poke:

"They" is not always singular. Didn't we already cover this?

Looks like word of the year 2015 is singular 'they'.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/donald-trump-may-win-this-years-word-of-the-year/

I thought of this thread during Sunday night's Capitals—Senators game because Caps play-by-play man Joe Beninati at one point used the word "they" or "their" in the singular when referring to NHL players (I don't remember the exact context of what he said, though). That was a situation where I thought even the people who are the most strongly against the "generic masculine" ought not object to using "he" or "his" for the simple reason that it's inherently correct–there are no female players in the NHL, so it cannot be incorrect to use the masculine.

As I type this I find myself wondering whether anyone here object to terms like "manhole cover" to refer to the places on the street with the metal covers that were famously exploding in DC a few years back.

Bringing up an old (-ish) thread, but I wanted to add something because of a Facebook conversation I was having yesterday that made me think differently about this.

I had mentioned that I think the fairest option is for speakers to use their own gender to refer to subjects of multiple or unknown genders. A friend of mine had said that "he" denotes the male gender, and that using it to refer to subjects of both genders was unacceptable because of its prejudicial roots. His solution was to use "he or she" or "she or he".

I agreed that "he" means male gender, but I added that it has a second meaning (as many words do) which is neuter.  Since I also recognize the prejudicial roots, I propose adding that second meaning to "she" as well. I said that his method was also perfectly fine, just a little awkward, but then it also struck me that my solution is actually more "progressive", for two reasons.

First, my method actually requires a slight change to the lexicon–it adds a sense of meaning to "she" and related pronouns–whereas his solution leaves the language unchanged. (Which is also perfectly fine, but those with more progressive motivations typically prefer seeing an evolution of the "system" rather than accepting the status quo.)

Second, my method can be seen as more empowering to the female gender, because it affirms that "she", used alone, can carry the same breadth of meaning as "he" always could. His solution, on the other hand, requires "she" to appear alongside "he" in order to have its full strength; "she" on its own cannot refer to everyone under that system, whereas "he" still can (even though you may reject that usage).

So there you have it! If gender equality is truly your aim, then "he or she" is a false flag. Only when "she" stands alone as an equal to "he" will we have truly progressed as a society.  :D

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

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".

Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2016, 01:58:32 PM
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?

Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2016, 01:07:10 PM
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.

Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2016, 01:58:32 PM
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.

Quote from: Duke87 on March 31, 2016, 06:49:13 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2016, 01:07:10 PM
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.

Quote

Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2016, 01:58:32 PM
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".

Quote from: empirestate on March 31, 2016, 08:33:31 PMAnd 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.

Quote from: english si on April 01, 2016, 06:29:36 AM

Quote from: empirestate on March 31, 2016, 08:33:31 PMAnd 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!

Quote from: empirestate on April 01, 2016, 10:45:12 AMWho'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.

QuoteToo 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'.

Quote from: english si on April 01, 2016, 12:56:31 PM

Quote from: empirestate on April 01, 2016, 10:45:12 AMWho'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)?

Quote from: empirestate on April 01, 2016, 05:05:52 PM

Quote from: english si on April 01, 2016, 12:56:31 PM

Quote from: empirestate on April 01, 2016, 10:45:12 AMWho'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?

Quote from: freebrickproductions on April 01, 2016, 11:49:31 PM

Quote from: empirestate on April 01, 2016, 05:05:52 PM

Quote from: english si on April 01, 2016, 12:56:31 PM

Quote from: empirestate on April 01, 2016, 10:45:12 AMWho'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)?

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.

Quote from: english si on April 02, 2016, 11:20:27 AM
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"?

Quote from: empirestate on April 02, 2016, 11:41:10 AMAnd 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'.

Quote from: english si on April 02, 2016, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: empirestate on April 02, 2016, 11:41:10 AMAnd 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.

Quote from: empirestate on March 31, 2016, 08:33:31 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on March 31, 2016, 06:49:13 PM
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.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 03, 2016, 11:08:44 AM

Quote from: empirestate on March 31, 2016, 08:33:31 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on March 31, 2016, 06:49:13 PM
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.