# What were you THINKING? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2023, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532 "2023-10-13T19:36:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/661 "2024-01-01T14:13:36Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Hey look, I just found somebody’s wallet on the ground. I wonder whose it is. I bet **they** are looking for it. I’d like to return it to **them**. When i was a child, i was taught that the grammatically correct way to say that was > Hey look, I just found somebody’s wallet on the ground. I wonder whose it is. I bet **he** is looking for it. I’d like to return it to **him**. Because “the male embraces the female”, and because “somebody” is singular and must be matched to singular pronouns and verbs. That use of the singular _they_ was common in Shakespeare’s time, but had been wiped out by (male) grammarians who liked to impose “logical” rules. As i mentioned above, rules change over time, and this one has gone in both directions. But i bet i could find grammar books from my childhood and young adulthood that stress the importance of that. And i used to do it. And that helped my SAT score. I used “he”, or recast the sentence to be plural or to avoid pronouns. I had to be taught that, because that use of the singular “they” was never completely wiped out of common parlance. But it was officially incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/662 "2024-01-01T14:27:42Z")
Of course. But there is a novel use of the singular “they”. The following is not a plausible Shakespeare quote: > Forsooth! 'Tis Henry’s wallet on the ground. > I keep it for them, lest they should come 'round. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/663 "2024-01-01T14:34:53Z")
Of course not, the rhyme scheme is all wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/664 "2024-01-01T14:50:10Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But there is a novel use of the singular “they”. Sure, but the novel part isn’t using “they” to refer to a single person. The novel part is recognizing that you may not _know_ the gender of a particular single person, even though you know that person’s name or have seen their appearance (or, that some people feel that being ambiguous is their natural state). This could have also happened in Shakespeare’s day, and the example you gave wouldn’t have been confusing in terms of how many people were being referenced (the controversy, such as it would have been, would have been over transgenderism, not the use of the words). Also, Google leads me to this Shakespeare line (from Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3) > [@](#): > > _There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me > As if I were their well-acquainted friend_ He uses “their” after using “man”. We know the _sex_ of the person he’s referring to, but he still uses the singular they (well, in this case, _their_), instead of his. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/665 "2024-01-01T15:01:55Z")
> [@MrAtoz](#): > > That was part of my friend’s purpose in leaving the reveal of her character’s race until later. “White characters never get their race established. Why should we do it with black characters?” > > If it matters (it probably shouldn’t, but it probably does), the writer I’m taking about is a white woman. Implicit biases are hardwired into the way our brains work. It’s really great for a reader (or for any person) to be aware of their implicit biases, but it honestly sounds like your friend was very much hoping to have that conversation with _somebody_ so that she could have her “oh, I guess you just made an **assumption** ” moment. Representation is _important_. One of the reasons the first Black Panther movie was so exciting for a lot of black kids was because they’d never gotten to see a big budget superhero movie full of people who looked like them. Withholding race like your friend did robs the black reader of that kind of representation, and robs the white reader of a chance to read a book that challenges their implicit biases. There are narrative reasons to not give the reader important information, but “ho ho ho aren’t _you_ the biased fellow?” isn’t one of them. Of course you’re biased. So am I. We all are. ---
**Author:** ![colinfred](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colinfred/32/21338_2.png) [@colinfred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colinfred)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/666 "2024-01-01T15:05:35Z")
It’s Shakespeare. Shakespeare bends many rules of language in order to get melodic flow. Even so, in this case he’s not referring to a man, he’s referring to many generic men so is well within standard use of singular they. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/667 "2024-01-01T15:13:17Z")
> [@colinfred](#): > > Shakespeare bends many rules of language in order to get melodic flow. Substituting their for his in that sentence doesn’t change the melodic flow one bit. > [@colinfred](#): > > he’s referring to many generic men so is well within standard use of singular they. Thank you for confirming that the use of the singular they has been in existence since _at least Shakespeare’s time_ (although I could go back further and quote the Bible). ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/668 "2024-01-01T15:50:39Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Didn’t Heinlein do that once? In _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_, the narrator is identified as dark skinned more than halfway through the book. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/669 "2024-01-01T15:56:46Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > > [@Sylvanz](#): > > > > The paper dealt with how recent the singular they is and the grammar and language implications. I did well, and I researched it deeply. > > Oh for fuck’s sake… > > The singular _they_ isn’t recent. Your paper sucked. > > > [@](#): > > > > Hey look, I just found somebody’s wallet on the ground. I wonder whose it is. I bet **they** are looking for it. I’d like to return it to **them**. Yes and no. I agree with your closing example as a long-standing use of singular they to refer to _a completely unknown person._ What is novel and is still unexpected or actively annoying to many people now in 2023 is to use singular they to denote a _known person._ > I was talking to Robert yesterday and they said “blah blah blah.” I’m all for moving forward with singular “they” as a gender-nonspecific term for _known_ individuals of known gender. Would’ve been better if a new coinage had caught on, but that ship has long-since sailed. But ISTM it’s obtuse to think those two uses of singular they are equivalent or equally long-standing. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/670 "2024-01-01T16:02:51Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > What is novel and is still unexpected or actively annoying to many people now in 2023 is to use singular they to denote a _known person._ I get the distinction, but not how it is in any way annoying or jarring. If I don’t know Pat’s gender, I might say that _they_ are running down the street, because I don’t know if I should put them in category Male or Female. If I know that Pat identifies as non-binary, then I know not to place them in the category of Male or Female. So again, _they_ are running down the street. The _only_ way I could possibly imagine being bothered by this is _if the idea of someone being nonbinary bothered me_. And that’s bigotry (even if we are unconscious about that being the cause of our discomfort because we didn’t bother to think about it for very long). ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/671 "2024-01-01T16:13:17Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > > [@Sylvanz](#): > > > > The paper dealt with how recent the singular they is and the grammar and language implications. I did well, and I researched it deeply. ⁢ > > Oh for fuck’s sake… > > The singular _they_ isn’t recent. Your paper sucked. I don’t think that’s fair. They didn’t link their paper, and the only other information we have about it is that they “did well,” suggesting they got high marks from it. Your statement is oversimplified. Yes, you can find use of singular they in older works. But, around a century or two ago, it fell out of fashion in formal and later standard English. Writers were taught to use “he” as a generic pronoun. In the mid-20th century, this changed to “he or she.” Singular they has only regained wide acceptance again in standard English in the current century. I know that I was taught “he or she” as recently as my high school in the early 2000s. And that fit with my experience. Singular they was only used in informal speech or written dialog. I think an interesting time capsule is the NIV translation team. In 2002, they set out to create a version of the Bible with updated language, based on actual statistics. And one major thing they decided was that the generic masculine no longer existed in standard English. However, they did not use singular they, but would recast sentences to use the plural, or replace pronouns with nouns. The same team later created the NIV 2011. And, at that point, they said the statistics showed that singular they was the most common way to render gender neutral pronouns. That suggests that widespread acceptance of singular occurred some time between those two dates. And that is all about singular indefinite _they_. As others have said, singular **definite** _they_ is even newer. And it is the kind that gets the most objections today. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/672 "2024-01-01T16:54:57Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Singular they was only used in informal speech or written dialog. Which is to say, it was _how people talked_. _Nobody_ speaks like formal written English. _That_ sounds weird and stilted. Recall, this discussion is about people being annoyed, upset, or disjointed because they hear an example of “singular they.” Not that it was corrected on their school assignments; they are talking about something strange to their ears. Despite the fact that it has existed in their own speech patterns, and those around them, for a very long time > [@](#): > > “someone is knocking at the door.” > > “Well, then find out what they want.” Is it a _new_ application? Yeah, sure - we used to presume Pat’s gender. Now, we are taught it’s polite not to. > [@Babale](#): > > I get the distinction, but not how it is in any way annoying or jarring. Precisely. > [@Babale](#): > > If I don’t know Pat’s gender, I might say that _they_ are running down the street, because I don’t know if I should put them in category Male or Female. > > If I know that Pat identifies as non-binary, then I know not to place them in the category of Male or Female. So again, _they_ are running down the street. Regardless of what formal rules of speech might be taught for scoring on the SATs, or AP English, these are perfectly cromulent sentences. > [@Babale](#): > > The _only_ way I could possibly imagine being bothered by this is _if the idea of someone being nonbinary bothered me_. Hear hear. It’s not the speech that offends. It’s the bigotry against the idea that some people may opt out of their presumed gender. > [@](#): > > You can’t _do_ that. You _have_ to be either a boy or a girl. And it’s not up to _you_. That’s just how it’s _done_. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/673 "2024-01-01T17:00:38Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Recall, this discussion is about people being annoyed, upset, or disjointed because they hear an example of “singular they.” I thought this was about otherwise good or innocuous posters who go bad in one particular thread and need to be called to account–not as trolls, but in the pit all the same? ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/674 "2024-01-01T17:02:23Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > I thought this was about otherwise good or innocuous posters who go bad in one particular thread and need to be called to account No, I meant my _hijack_ of the thread. Also, touché. Also, I’ll stop. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/675 "2024-01-01T17:07:22Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > It’s not the speech that offends. It’s the bigotry against the idea that some people may opt out of their presumed gender. > > > [@](#): > > > > You can’t _do_ that. You _have_ to be either a boy or a girl. And it’s not up to _you_. That’s just how it’s _done_ Exactly. The sound of the word “they” is not grating. It can’t be - we use “they” constantly. What some find “grating” is the reminder that not everyone fits the comforting gender binary the listener grew up with. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/676 "2024-01-01T17:07:26Z")
Gosh, maybe somebody should open a _fourth_ type of pit thread for “pittings that aren’t important enough to spawn their own threads and also don’t belong in the trolls omnibus thread and also don’t belong in the thread created for pittings that don’t fit either of those categories but we still would like to talk about them.” ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/677 "2024-01-01T17:09:14Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > I thought this was about otherwise good or innocuous posters who go bad in one particular thread and need to be called to account–not as trolls, but in the pit all the same? It’s the Pit, hijacks are allowed. Want to fight about it? [![](https://y.yarn.co/fa6d3869-20f5-408b-b376-137b2fc41048_text.gif) ](https://y.yarn.co/fa6d3869-20f5-408b-b376-137b2fc41048_text.gif) ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/678 "2024-01-01T17:09:48Z")
ETA: > [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > Gosh, maybe somebody should open a _fourth_ type of pit thread for “pittings that aren’t important enough to spawn their own threads and also don’t belong in the trolls omnibus thread and also don’t belong in the thread created for pittings that don’t fit either of those categories but we still would like to talk about them.” Yeah. I had the same thought. Then 10 _more_ posts appeared while I was writing this one … Maybe best to retire this whole discussion to a different thread. Which may not be a Pit thread at all since we’re all being so polite and non-personal about it. > [@Babale](#): > > I get the distinction, but not how it is in any way annoying or jarring. > > If I don’t know Pat’s gender, I might say that _they_ are running down the street, because I don’t know if I should put them in category Male or Female. > > If I know that Pat identifies as non-binary, then I know not to place them in the category of Male or Female. So again, _they_ are running down the street. > > The _only_ way I could possibly imagine being bothered by this is _if the idea of someone being nonbinary bothered me_. And that’s bigotry (even if we are unconscious about that being the cause of our discomfort because we didn’t bother to think about it for very long). I agree with you that I personally don’t find it annoying. There are spots where, particularly in convoluted sentences involving both singular known people, and singular unknown people, and groups, it can be hard to parse who the referent is. And that, to me, is jarring. Occasionally. Which IMO signals a need to restructure that particular sentence, not a need to quit using “they” in those general circumstances. I’ll point out that you chose an example that was gender ambiguous while I chose one that was not gender ambiguous. That’s a significant difference in set-up that produces IMO a legitimate difference in outcome. And yes here in 2023 in the absence of specific gender info it’s more polite to assume ambiguous than unambiguous. > The _only_ way I could possibly imagine being bothered by this … That seems a bit over the top to me. Only & possibly are pretty rarified territory. You do you of course. We could also quibble about “bothered”. Yes, there are folks, such as the person who launched this massive digression who are incensed by the very idea of the existence of non-binary or brain doesn’t match assigned-at-birth gender. Screw them (the incensed ones that is). But there are lots of ways, including rigid thinkers who imbibed their 4th grade English teacher’s many dictums as Inerrant Gospel, for folks to be bothered without being active (or even subconscious) bigots. Labeling any discomfort / confusion whatsoever as purely the result of bigotry is itself zealotry. For me I’ll take a less zealous POV. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/679 "2024-01-01T17:10:18Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Since we’ve ventured down this side trail, Lois McMaster Bujold’s female characters are all well-rounded and intelligent (without being Mary Sues). In fact, the widowed grandmother who is the protagonist of _Paladin of Souls_ is the hero of the book, in exactly the traditional mold of a fantasy hero - she even rescues the fair maiden, who is in this case a male calvary officer. The more impressive thing for me is that she also writes strong, well-realized male characters, who are authenticly masculine, without being toxic. Reading Bujold’s Vorkosigan Saga was one of the best experiences of my life, and Aral Vorkosigan may be the only character I’ve ever encountered that I straight-up want to marry. My son is named after the series protagonist. I just received _The Curse of Chalion_ as a Christmas gift, thus I will soon venture into her fantasy stuff. It’s worth noting that Bujold also writes about rape, and even a sympathetic rapist, but there is nothing she ever puts in one of her books that doesn’t later turn out to have a significant storytelling purpose. It’s one of the reasons I’m in awe of her. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532/680 "2024-01-01T17:14:32Z")
Gah. Friday was one of his late works, and I dislike the late Heinlein. Try one of what’s called the juveniles; they’re fun adventure stories (with some serious undercurrents) without a lot of the crap in the later work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-you-thinking/991532.md?page=35)