# Why not just dispense with gendered language/pronouns in English? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2019, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456 "2019-07-03T16:18:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/61 "2019-07-04T00:51:49Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The issue with “Ms” is becoming moot since using honorifics like “Mr”, “Miss” and “Mrs” to address people is getting to be old fashioned. They aren’t just for addressing people, though. They’re also used to refer to people, and in formal contexts, these honorifics are alive and well. In spoken English on TV news, for example, use of “Mr.” (to refer to a person) did seem to drop somewhat in the early 90s, but has remained about the same since then. In magazines, the same. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/62 "2019-07-04T00:56:17Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I am violently opposed to introducing into the English language any words that you have to decorate (with lines or accent marks or whatever). Yeah, I have a hard enough time reaching the “at” sign now with this new email thing everyone is doing. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/63 "2019-07-04T01:03:33Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m okay referring to people by whatever pronoun they might prefer. I’m a he not a they. > [@Acsenray](#): > > To me it’s an unnecessary hurdle. I prefer to have an option that bypasses the entire question of preference. What makes _your_ desire to use whatever pronouns you feel like–and to hell with the preference of the person being addressed or spoken of–different from the desire of right-wing types to use whatever pronouns _they_ feel like (especially when they’re talking about Caitlyn Jenner or Chelsea Manning)? > [@Aspidistra](#): > > On the whole, yes, gendered pronouns have had their day - now that there is much reduced separation of societal roles by sex, they’ve pretty much outlived their usefulness. Knowing whether someone is a “he” or “she” no longer gives us any practical information about their likely roles or abilities, so keeping them is just adding useless complexity to modern life. That may be true for a lot of areas of modern life, but there’s this thing we used to call “the birds and the bees” that makes this statement just a little dubious as a sweeping and absolute generalization. The large majority of people _do_ still have a preference, in at least that one (very important) area of human life. That includes the minority who have a preference for people of the same sex as themselves, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/64 "2019-07-04T01:17:57Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > What makes _your_ desire to use whatever pronouns you feel like–and to hell with the preference of the person being addressed or spoken of–different from the desire of right-wing types to use whatever pronouns _they_ feel like (especially when they’re talking about Caitlyn Jenner or Chelsea Manning)? To be clear, Acsenray is basically suggesting a pronoun version of ‘human’. Man = He Woman = She Human = E Yours and Darren’s complaint is the equivalent of saying “I’m not a human, I’m a man!” which is less than coherent. ---
**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:** [July 4, 2019, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/65 "2019-07-04T01:36:19Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sure, in terms of official grammar rules, but AFAICT we’re not talking about official grammar rules here; we’re observing the actual evolution of spoken language. A pedantic point that strikes to the core of the issue: we’re not talking about official grammar rules here because there are no such things in American English. There is no officiating body. There are only folks with opinions. > [@UltraVires](#): > > When has that ever mattered? A lot of people say “ain’t” and use double negatives in their speech. > … > We tell them that their language usage is wrong and provide free public education to correct it. A double negative is not always “improper.” I would never, never correct someone who uses a double-negative to emphasize a point. > [@UltraVires](#): > > People all over the internet say “loose” when they mean “lose.” No they don’t. They _type_ “loose” when they mean “lose.” This is an orthographic error, not a grammatrical variation. And orthography is much more constrained by constructed rules than spoken language is. Note that if a given accent pronounced the “s” in “loose” as /z/, your description would be accurate: people would say /looz/ when other people would say /loos/ (I’m terrible with phonetic spelling, please bear with me, folks who are good at it). But that wouldn’t be an error, any more than it’s an error when my Southern-born wife pronounces “oil” as if it rhymes with “bowl”. It’s an accent variant. But that’s not how orthography works. Spelling is much less flexible. As for the OP? I wouldn’t mind that change, but I don’t see it as either likely or practical. The solution to the problem of gendered pronouns is that people who have rare pronoun requests make them known, and are gentle with folks who make errors; and people who find out about these requests try to honor them, and are apologetic when they make errors. It’s part of the “we’re just a bunch of sacks of protoplasm trying to muddle through the day, so for fuck’s sake be good to each other” philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/66 "2019-07-04T02:03:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > people would say /looz/ when other people would say /loos/ (I’m terrible with phonetic spelling, please bear with me, folks who are good at it). [luz] [lus] > [@](#): > > The solution to the problem of gendered pronouns is that people who have rare pronoun requests make them known, and are gentle with folks who make errors; and people who find out about these requests try to honor them, and are apologetic when they make errors. To me it’s not a question of error. It’s that often gender is not relevant. What if the person is unknown? What if the person can’t be asked? What if it’s a hypothetical person? What if it’s a person whose gender preference can never be known for certain (the poet Homer? The author of a book of the Bible?) What if it’s any of you on this message board? I don’t know any of you. I don’t know for sure what anyone’s gender is. If you tell me, I’m unlikely to remember for sure just because of the nature of online communication and it doesn’t matter for purposes of our having conversations in text form. All that really matters is that there exists a person—known or unknown, named or unnamed—to whom I want to refer and whose gender is irrelevant in the context of the conversation. I can say “person” or “human.” Those words precede gender. “I” has no gender. “You” has no gender. It makes sense to have a third person pronoun that precedes gender. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/67 "2019-07-04T02:27:47Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > To be clear, Acsenray is basically suggesting a pronoun version of ‘human’. > > Man = He > Woman = She > Human = E > > Yours and Darren’s complaint is the equivalent of saying “I’m not a human, I’m a man!” which is less than coherent. When or if we become a culture intermixed with aliens, AIs, and uplifted animals we will need a pronoun to indicate that the person you are talking to or about is human. Until then, it is stating the bloody fucking obvious. ---
**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:** [July 4, 2019, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/68 "2019-07-04T02:35:04Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > [luz] [lus] I typed that at first and then changed it, because my third-grade-phonics-teacher-self couldn’t help but see those as CVC closed syllables and therefore defaulting to a short vowel sound :). > [@](#): > > To me it’s not a question of error. It’s that often gender is not relevant. What if the person is unknown? What if the person can’t be asked? What if it’s a hypothetical person? What if it’s a person whose gender preference can never be known for certain (the poet Homer? The author of a book of the Bible?) > > What if it’s any of you on this message board? I don’t know any of you. I don’t know for sure what anyone’s gender is. If you tell me, I’m unlikely to remember for sure just because of the nature of online communication and it doesn’t matter for purposes of our having conversations in text form. > > All that really matters is that there exists a person—known or unknown, named or unnamed—to whom I want to refer and whose gender is irrelevant in the context of the conversation. > > I can say “person” or “human.” Those words precede gender. “I” has no gender. “You” has no gender. It makes sense to have a third person pronoun that precedes gender. “They” and “them” seem to me to fill this need nicely. When a person’s gender identity is known, however, my muddling-through-being-a-sack-of-protoplasm rule is to try to respect what the other sack asks, if it’s not a big deal to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/69 "2019-07-04T02:40:30Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > “They” and “them” seem to me to fill this need nicely. They don’t to me. Especially because their singular status has become n identity in itself. There needs to be a pronoun that’s free of identity at all. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/70 "2019-07-04T02:53:39Z")
There is one new pronoun that already gained some traction in certain circles–“somepony.” If somepony doesn’t want to assume gender in language, then somebody can modify somepony’s vocabulary with that. ---
**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:** [July 4, 2019, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/71 "2019-07-04T03:12:27Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > They don’t to me. Especially because their singular status has become n identity in itself. There needs to be a pronoun that’s free of identity at all. Why does there need to be a pronoun that’s free of identity? Look: the gender-neutral singular “they” has been around for centuries. When some folk want to adopt it as the only singular pronoun they use, that’s great. But you’re suggesting that their adoption of this pronoun somehow means it’s no longer adequate for its centuries-old usage. That’s not how language changes. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/72 "2019-07-04T03:50:52Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > They don’t to me. Especially because their singular status has become n identity in itself. There needs to be a pronoun that’s free of identity at all. I still don’t understand what you mean by “identity” here. If you mean the singular “they” is currently only associated with people who specifically identify as gender-neutral, well, I don’t see any evidence of that. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/73 "2019-07-04T04:43:12Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > That may be true for a lot of areas of modern life, but there’s this thing we used to call “the birds and the bees” that makes this statement just a little dubious as a sweeping and absolute generalization. The large majority of people _do_ still have a preference, in at least that one (very important) area of human life. That includes the minority who have a preference for people of the same sex as themselves, of course. Yeah but - it seems like a bit of overkill to have an entire compartmentalisation of the language so as to make the task of indicating ‘people I might be a romantic partner with’ slightly clearer. Especially since the amount of one’s life one spends in choosing a romantic partner out of all the \ people in the world is far less than the amount spent being with that person as a _person_, not as a representative of their gender. Not to mention that, although all the people I might possibly get it on with are male, those male people are VASTLY outnumbered by the male people I would never even consider getting it on with. So the pronoun “he” doesn’t really provide a useful guide to whether I’d consider that person a romantic prospect. 99% of the time the answer’s “no”, whatever pronoun a person has. I don’t think I’m altogether unusual in that ---
**Author:** ![Skies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Skies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skies)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/74 "2019-07-04T04:45:23Z")
Well English already dropped many gender and grammatical rules that several other Germanic languages have retained (to various degrees) for various reasons. But languages are always changing. Centuries from now when we’re all gone who knows what the English language will look like. I personally don’t see why we should get rid of all gendered language but that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/75 "2019-07-04T09:09:42Z")
The English language will make the change and ‘they’ will become the standard gender neutral pronoun. The change can’t be forced, but it will be naturally adopted as the older generations die off and new generations continue using the English language, realising that the above change is necessary and the only realistic solution. Language is a tool and reflects the culture it is used by. If the culture demands a neutral prononun, a neutral prononun will emerge. ‘They’ is the only presently viable candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/76 "2019-07-04T10:30:49Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > “They” is plural. Says whom? ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/77 "2019-07-04T11:05:59Z")
FWIW, I’ve heard people in the English West Midlands use the “a’” form of generic pronoun, just as in Shakespeare’s day. And that was long before anyone was “woke”. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/78 "2019-07-04T15:14:45Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Says whom? They. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/79 "2019-07-04T16:09:24Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Perhaps you can answer why double negatives and “ain’t” are not accepted language such that if I write it in a professional setting, I cannot say that language is evolving? This is precisely like asking, “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?” There’s a lot of bad assumptions to unpack here. The first is that language that’s deemed unprofessional is somehow also incorrect. Using the word “motherfucker” would also be frowned on in most professional settings; that doesn’t mean that “motherfucker” is ungrammatical, it just means that it’s not appropriate to that context. Similarly, there’s nothing ungrammatical about “ain’t,” it’s just considered an informal usage, and as such, not appropriate in some contexts, including many professional fields. Secondly, what is and is not appropriate changes over time. Nobody cares anymore about who/whom, or splitting an infinitive. These formerly important “rules” fell to the wayside simply because people stopped following them. There’s nothing inherent to the language that required them, just as there’s nothing inherent to the language forbidding “ain’t.” If enough people start using it in a formal context, it becomes formal language. Much like biological evolution, this is not an instant or uniform process. Some professional fields are going to resist changes like this longer than others - law, I imagine, is going to be more resistant than, say, the video game industry. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/80 "2019-07-04T16:31:08Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > And just because a handful of millenials use grammar improperly does not mean it is now okay. Just a reminder: most millennials are currently in their thirties. Some millennials have kids in college. You need a new catchphrase for your “kids these days” old man rants. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by the second sentence. If I say, “I ain’t got no money” what do you mean by saying that sentence is “legitimate”? If you mean it in the sense that everyone understands what I mean, then I agree, but it is no more proper grammatically than to say that “Alex brought their laptop.” You say that “Alex brought his laptop” or "Alex brought her laptop.’ The rules of grammar art like the rules of physics. They aren’t rules that mustn’t be broken, they are observations about how things function. If we discovered something that travelled faster than the speed of light, we don’t lecture it for doing physics wrong, we rewrite the laws of physics to explain how the thing we discovered. Similarly, “ain’t” doesn’t “break the rules of grammar,” it’s a part of the grammar in several dialects of English. Which, again, is not the same as saying it’s acceptable in all contexts. Judges and other lawyers might react badly to you if you use “ain’t” in a courtroom. But at the same time, the fellers down at the honky tonk ain’t going to look kindly on someone throwing around a bunch of “whoms.” Neither usage is more correct than the other, but both have their appropriate contexts. To put this back in an evolutionary context, it makes no sense to say humans were “wrong” to evolve to breath air, but we’ll still drown if we go sit on the bottom of a lake. > [@](#): > > “They” is plural. Just because there is a concentrated effort to have a genderless society and eliminate all gender distinctions as a matter of political philosophy does not mean that you can decree that the English language has _already_ changed. It has already changed where I live. It might not yet have changed where you live. But where you live doesn’t have any more claim to “correct” English than where I live. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456.md?page=5)