# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/81 "2019-07-04T16:45:04Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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. Well, he’s over yonder from the holler, so… ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/82 "2019-07-04T17:19:43Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. So where you live, you never hear the words he, she, his, or her? Or are you more accurately saying that some, a very few people, use they or their as you are describing? I understand that some words are used informally, but it is still not proper English usage. If your kid said to you that he ain’t got no money, would you correct him or just let it go because, hey, he is just evolving the language, or there is nothing inherently improper with what he said? I agree with the previous poster. Language evolves in the sense that we say google or automobile, or referred to the first decade of the 1900s as the aughts or the naughts, but simply refer to the first decade of the 2000s as “the 2000s.” We could have used motor carriages or any other word. Indeed, even among English speakers for big eighteen wheelers, on this side of the pond we say “trucks” but our friends over there say “lorries.” But evolution of a language is not a purposeful tool that can be wielded by people with a political axe to grind. Can I call Republicans “The Wonderful Party” or instead of moderator of the SMDB, I say “Asshole” and claim that I am merely evolving the language? You would call me out of that immediately, and it does not work any better when others do it. The gender neutral pronoun is not an evolution but a concerted effort to eliminate gender references no different that a 1984 type doublespeak to train the good citizens into the politically correct way of eliminating gender distinctions. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/83 "2019-07-04T17:33:43Z")
E’s uncovered the plot!!! Abort! ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/84 "2019-07-04T17:49:46Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > it is still not proper English usage. Again, there is no such thing. ---
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/85 "2019-07-04T18:25:50Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But evolution of a language is not a purposeful tool that can be wielded by people with a political axe to grind. Can I call Republicans “The Wonderful Party” or instead of moderator of the SMDB, I say “Asshole” and claim that I am merely evolving the language? You would call me out of that immediately, and it does not work any better when others do it. That’s not how any of this works, UltraVires. Are you genuinely trying to understand what folks are telling you here? Because you’re ignorant of some very basic linguistics, and it’s a bit like someone coming into a thread on solar energy and arguing that it’s not practical because the sun is so far away. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/86 "2019-07-04T19:12:56Z")
Can we work on a good alternative to “You all…y’all…you folks…” first please? Somewhere between that and “The lot of you” if you would. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/87 "2019-07-04T19:14:53Z")
> [@Chingon](#): > > E’s uncovered the plot!!! Abort! Yeah this doesn’t work. Just makes everyone sound like Dick Van Dyke. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/88 "2019-07-04T19:23:50Z")
I like “y’all’m”. You+all+them. Fight me. ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/89 "2019-07-04T20:16:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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. Damned Muskie-lovers! ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/90 "2019-07-04T20:51:13Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So where you live, you never hear the words he, she, his, or her? Or are you more accurately saying that some, a very few people, use they or their as you are describing? No matter where you live, it’s not just “a very few people” who use indefinite singular “they” as a gender-nonspecific singular pronoun. I can pretty much guarantee you, **UltraVires** , that if you spent more than four or five hours engaging in or listening to spoken US English during the past week, then at least once during that week you heard somebody use indefinite singular “they” in a construction such as _“Someone across the street was shouting, but I didn’t hear what they said”_. The use of **definite** singular “they” for a specific individual, as in “Alex brought their laptop” instead of “Alex brought his laptop” or “Alex brought her laptop” because Alex identifies as gender-nonbinary and prefers they/them pronouns, is less common. But it’s already widely recognized and gaining acceptance over time. > [@UltraVires](#): > > But evolution of a language is not a purposeful tool that can be wielded by people with a political axe to grind. :dubious: Sometimes it absolutely is exactly that. Didn’t you read my remarks on just that sort of political “directed linguistic evolution” several posts back? > [@Kimstu](#): > > If it’s any comfort to you, “libtard” is a recognized dictionary word now, and the erroneous use of “Democrat” rather than “Democratic” as a proper adjective (as in “Democrat Party”) is gradually developing into an accepted variant, even though “the left” doesn’t approve of either of those particular shifts. So you’re not the only one having to put up with linguistic evolution that you don’t happen to like. > [@UltraVires](#): > > Can I call Republicans “The Wonderful Party” Sure, and if enough other people follow your example, it will eventually become a recognized synonym for the Republican Party. Haven’t you ever heard of the very similar nickname “Grand Old Party” or “GOP” for the Republicans? How do you think that that became a recognized term? It happened by [exactly the same sort of political “directed linguistic evolution”](https://www.history.com/news/election-101-why-is-the-republican-party-known-as-the-g-o-p) as you’re suggesting: > [@](#): > > As early as the 1870s, politicians and newspapers began to refer to the Republican Party as both the “grand old party” and the “gallant old party” to emphasize its role in preserving the Union during the Civil War. > [@UltraVires](#): > > or instead of moderator of the SMDB, I say “Asshole” and claim that I am merely evolving the language? Not on these boards, because that’s a violation of the official rules by which this messageboard community is run. But outside of these boards, if you somehow manage to persuade enough people to routinely accept the term “Asshole” as a synonym for “SDMB Moderator”, then that usage will become part of the evolution of the language. It’s mystifying to me why you’re continuing to be so obtuse about this. Have you really never encountered (or at least never thought about, because you’ve certainly encountered them) any other term that became a recognized part of the language as a result of some people making a deliberate effort to popularize it among users of the language? Some of the many, many examples include the honorific “Ms.” as a non-marital-status-specific way of referring to a woman, the term “pro-life” as a synonym for “anti-abortion”, “mail carrier” as a non-gender-specific alternative to “mailman”, “flight attendant” as a non-gender-specific alternative to “stewardess”, and thousands more. Honestly, **UltraVires** , **Left Hand of Dorkness** is right that you need to extract your head from its safe space and acknowledge reality on this issue. It is simply ridiculous to deny that language shifts happen all the time as a result of **deliberate** efforts to change usage, as well as happening in random and non-directed ways. There is nothing impermissible or “improper” about treating specific features of a language as a “purposeful tool” to try to change existing usage. That’s not to say that all such efforts will necessarily be successful: for example, I doubt that your hypothetical attempt to establish “The Wonderful Party” as a nickname for the Republicans would have any greater success than **Acsenray** ’s likely to have in replacing gender-specific pronouns by “e/es/em” or some such. But there is nothing linguistically illegitimate about making the attempt. As I’m sure you’ll realize if you actually start thinking about this issue, especially with regard to the examples I’ve already given. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/91 "2019-07-04T20:53:34Z")
When people suggest these kings of absurdities, I just wonder what kind of weird ass bubble they’re living in. No, nobody asks anyone else for “their pronouns”. That’s a fake liberal meme. No, nobody thinks transgenderism is a topic worth discussion. No, nobody has a problem with the English language as it is today. No, nobody has an issue with identifying their gender by the pronouns used to address themselves. It’s just weird, crazy, liberal pearl clutching to think there’s any problem with “he” or “she”. Hey, here’s a plan: how about if the person we’re referring to is a man or boy, we say “he,” but if it’s a girl or woman, we say “she”? Could it possible, maybe, perhaps, work? It just might! ---
**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, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/92 "2019-07-04T21:09:46Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Hey, here’s a plan: how about if the person we’re referring to is a man or boy, we say “he,” but if it’s a girl or woman, we say “she”? Could it possible, maybe, perhaps, work? It just might! I don’t see anybody stopping you from doing this, so whose pearls are being clutched, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/93 "2019-07-04T21:16:31Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > No, nobody asks anyone else for “their pronouns”. The [United States military disagrees with you on that](https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/03/u-s-military-instructed-to-be-sensitive-of-pronoun-use-warned-against-gender-assumptions/) (or did back in 2016, before persecution of transgender people became official administration policy). > [@](#): > > A new Department of Defense handbook on transgender persons released Friday instructs service members to be “sensitive” of each other’s preferred pronouns and warns against making “assumptions” about another person’s gender. > > The handbook also states that anti-transgender “bias” will not be tolerated and suggests that “attitudes, or comments that marginalize transgender Service members” may constitute harassment. […] > > The 71-page handbook is meant to facilitate the full integration of transgender persons into the U.S. military, in accordance with a policy change in June allowing transgender individuals to openly serve in the armed forces. […] > > “You should be sensitive to the use of pronouns when addressing others,” another tip says. “This will vary by individual and unit. If there is ever any question about pronoun usage, do not hesitate to ask the Service member how they wish to be addressed.” > [@Chessic Sense](#): > > No, nobody thinks transgenderism is a topic worth discussion. I wish that were true, and that transgender identity could be universally recognized as a normal though relatively rare variant of gender identity that doesn’t require a whole bunch of controversy and fuss. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of “gender authoritarians” having conniption fits about whether somebody else is using the “wrong” bathroom or using the “wrong” pronouns, and it’s probably going to take quite a while to get those people’s heads out of their asses. > [@Chessic Sense](#): > > Hey, here’s a plan: how about if the person we’re referring to is a man or boy, we say “he,” but if it’s a girl or woman, we say “she”? Yup, and if the person is nonbinary/agender and prefers “they/them” or other gender-nonspecific pronouns, we use those pronouns for them instead. Sounds like a perfectly good plan to me. ---
**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, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/94 "2019-07-04T21:18:02Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Hey, here’s a plan: how about if the person we’re referring to is a man or boy, we say “he,” but if it’s a girl or woman, we say “she”? Could it possible, maybe, perhaps, work? It just might! What if you don’t know whom you’re referring to? What if es not a specific person? What if you don’t know em? What if you can’t ask em? What if es gender isn’t relevant to what you’re saying? For example, all the users on this board. A few of them I think I’m reasonably sure of their genders. But for most of them, I’m not. And with respect to most of them, if any one of them told me, I probably wouldn’t remember. And frankly, for the purposes of discussion on this board, for the most part it doesn’t matter what a user’s gender, or gender preference, is. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/95 "2019-07-04T21:26:38Z")
Turkish has genderless pronouns and genderless job titles, but there’s nothing laudable about the way Turkey or any other Turkish majority speaking country handles issues of gender identity and acceptance. So, before I accept this system, what are we going to gain? It seems like the time I’d spend changing my speech and writing patterns would be better spent doing something to actually improve gender inequality and the acceptance of people based on their identity. ---
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/96 "2019-07-04T21:47:39Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Turkish has genderless pronouns and genderless job titles, but there’s nothing laudable about the way Turkey or any other Turkish majority speaking country handles issues of gender identity and acceptance. So, before I accept this system, what are we going to gain? It seems like the time I’d spend changing my speech and writing patterns would be better spent doing something to actually improve gender inequality and the acceptance of people based on their identity. It takes you time and effort to change a word? Also this is a fallacious argument. Relative privation, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/97 "2019-07-04T22:04:36Z")
You know…99% of these ideas can be better implemented by “Hey! Lets all stop being an asshole.” Because thats what it boils down to. Someone made the ‘OK’ sign just to troll? So he was being an asshole? Ok stop doing that. Someone misgendered someone else? Is he an asshole? Tell him to stop. Are you really offended by a mural? Think about it…you may be an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/98 "2019-07-04T23:04:53Z")
Unfortunately, I think using third person plural for third person singular is going to win the gender-neutral personal pronoun struggle. I say “unfortunately” because I don’t like it : 1. Expanding the use of one pronoun to try to cover others seems gives short shrift non-binary people. \*Sorry, Pat, but we couldn’t agree on a gender-neutral substitute for gendered pronouns, so you even though you’re non-binary, you don’t get one of your own. You don’t mind sharing, do you, even though this might imply you’re simultaneously multiple people? \*How is this better than the old days when “he” was supposed to refer to both males and females? 2. Yes, “they” has replaced “he or she” in common usage, but only for those indefinite pronouns that used to be considered singular (everyone, everybody, etc.) Most of these words were antecedents for singular pronouns because they each originated as two separate words ( every one), so “one” was the antecedent and the pronoun was accordingly singular. The rule remained in effect long after the words were combined (circa 1200). Yet when we say “everyone,” we refer not to a single individual but to all individuals. Furthermore, having failed to agree on a gender-neutral pronoun back in the Second Wave of Feminism (1960s through 1970s), we were left with the awkward and pedantic he/she or he or she. Dropping the outdated use of the singular pronoun for these antecedents made sense: it’s easier, and it reflects the plural nature of those particular indefinite pronouns. 3. It gets confusing. _Pat and Fran had a big argument. He wanted to see Rocket Man, and they wanted to see_ Dark Phoenix\*. They got very upset. Eventually, they gave up. \* Who got upset, both Pat and Fran or just Fran? Who gave up, both of them or just Fran? You could, of course, fix this by using the antecedents in each case, but it gets awkward: \*Pat and Fran had a big argument. Pat wanted to see _Rocket Man_, and Fran wanted to see _Dark Phoenix_. Eventually, Pat and Fran gave up trying to decide. OR Eventually, Fran gave up, and they went to see Rocket Man. \*I I’m sure I’m going to have to get used to “they” being used that way, and I shall try to be gracious. It’s a shame we couldn’t have agreed on a gender-neutral pronoun back in the Seventies. Its use would be established by now, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2019, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/99 "2019-07-04T23:17:56Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > 1. It gets confusing. > > _Pat and Fran had a big argument. He wanted to see Rocket Man, and they wanted to see_ Dark Phoenix\*. They got very upset. Eventually, they gave up. \* > > Who got upset, both Pat and Fran or just Fran? Who gave up, both of them or just Fran? This is not actually significantly different from the confusion that can arise from referring to two people of the same gender using the same gendered pronoun: _Joe and Bob had a big argument. He wanted to see Rocket Man, and he wanted to see_ Dark Phoenix\*. He got very upset. Eventually, he gave up. \* Which “he” is being referred to in each case? No way to know. But we’re so used to having to employ workarounds to avoid such ambiguities in the use of gendered pronouns that they seem natural to us. The same sort of workarounds can be employed just as easily for two people when one uses “he” and the other one “they”. ---
**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, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/100 "2019-07-04T23:29:37Z")
Heck, change the names to “Sean and Robin” for extra ambiguity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456.md?page=6)