# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2019, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/121 "2019-07-05T17:41:29Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > God: “So this is what y’all…errr…you lot get up to when you figure out where your next meal is coming from? Color me unimpressed.” Pfffft. Anybody who devoted several hundred million years and about one-quarter of the entire animal kingdom to creating over 380,000 different species of beetle has no room to criticize **us** for being preoccupied with comparatively trivial distinctions. ---
**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 5, 2019, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/122 "2019-07-05T18:09:33Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Now, who wants to start another Great Vowel Shift? I’m in, who’s with me? I’m still holding out for [Mark Twain’s reforms](https://www.plainlanguage.gov/resources/humor/spelling-in-the-english-language/). Bloopity really had bloopity’s shit together. (“Bloopity” is my own candidate for the new gender-neutral pronoun.) ---
**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 5, 2019, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/123 "2019-07-05T19:08:40Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Pfffft. Anybody who devoted several hundred million years and about one-quarter of the entire animal kingdom to creating over 380,000 different species of beetle has no room to criticize **us** for being preoccupied with comparatively trivial distinctions. We also need to fix ‘you’. Consider this retort: “You leave my beetles out of this!! You waste all this energy on trivial matters, beetles don’t! They build empires…speaking of which, you know when you play Age of Empires and the horrible voice acting takes you right out of that? I hate that.” In the above ‘you’ means: Kimtsu (“You leave”) Mankind (“You waste”) “one” (“When you play”…you’re really saying “when one plays”) Edit: And I don’t even know what “You know” is. i guess “Bear with me a second” or “focus here, I’m relating a shared experience” ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2019, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/124 "2019-07-05T19:15:47Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > I’m still holding out for [Mark Twain’s reforms](https://www.plainlanguage.gov/resources/humor/spelling-in-the-english-language/). Bloopity really had bloopity’s shit together. (“Bloopity” is my own candidate for the new gender-neutral pronoun.) Dude. We have a gender neutral pronoun. It’s they. The controversy is over. There’s nothing more to discuss. But I’ve got my own plans for spelling reform. Here are the parameters: We will only use ASCII characters. No diacritics. We’re just going to change what letters represent what sounds, because what we have is a goddam mess. Vowels are a fucking mess. We standardize vowels so that one vowel or vowel pair represents one and only one sound. I don’t give a fuck what, but let’s do it, and no more silent “e”. Long vowels are represented by doubled vowels, short vowels by single vowels. Yeah, get used to aa and ii pairs. Consonants. “G” is only hard G. Soft G is a J. “C” is useless. Hard C is replaced by K, soft C is replaced by S. That leaves C open to be used to represent the SH sound. Bullshit like GH and PH is replaced by F. “X” is useless. It is replaced by KS. That leaves X open to go back to represent the CH sound. “Y” is useless. We use regular vowels, not Y, which leaves Y open to be used to represent both TH sounds. Yeah, we’re gonna have it do double duty to represent both hard and soft TH, but we’re working on an ASCII limit, so no Thorn and Edh, which would be my first choice. “Q” is useless. Replace current uses with KW. That leaves it open to represent some other half-assed sounds that we barely realize exit, like the Zuuujj sound in “pleasure”. Simple, effective, universal. You’re welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2019, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/125 "2019-07-05T19:23:56Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > But I’ve got my own plans for spelling reform. Spoiler alert: They will go nowhere, just like all the previous plans for English-language spelling reform. Can’t blame a guy for trying, though. ---
**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 5, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/126 "2019-07-05T19:28:17Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Dude. > > We have a gender neutral pronoun. It’s they. The controversy is over. There’s nothing more to discuss. > > But I’ve got my own plans for spelling reform. > > Here are the parameters: We will only use ASCII characters. No diacritics. We’re just going to change what letters represent what sounds, because what we have is a goddam mess. > > Vowels are a fucking mess. We standardize vowels so that one vowel or vowel pair represents one and only one sound. I don’t give a fuck what, but let’s do it, and no more silent “e”. Long vowels are represented by doubled vowels, short vowels by single vowels. Yeah, get used to aa and ii pairs. > > Consonants. > > “G” is only hard G. Soft G is a J. > > “C” is useless. Hard C is replaced by K, soft C is replaced by S. That leaves C open to be used to represent the SH sound. > > Bullshit like GH and PH is replaced by F. > > “X” is useless. It is replaced by KS. That leaves X open to go back to represent the CH sound. > > “Y” is useless. We use regular vowels, not Y, which leaves Y open to be used to represent both TH sounds. Yeah, we’re gonna have it do double duty to represent both hard and soft TH, but we’re working on an ASCII limit, so no Thorn and Edh, which would be my first choice. > > “Q” is useless. Replace current uses with KW. That leaves it open to represent some other half-assed sounds that we barely realize exit, like the Zuuujj sound in “pleasure”. > > Simple, effective, universal. You’re welcome. I see that bloopity has put some thought into this… ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2019, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/127 "2019-07-05T19:54:13Z")
Can we fix possessive pronouns while we’re at it? We say “my opinion”, “my socks”, "my violin (that’s been in the closet for ten years and I wouldn’t notice if it disappeared), “my violin (which specific not-replaceable instrument is an essential part of both my work and my personal life)”, “my cat”, “my spouse”, “my country”, “my home”, “my God.” These are not all the same relationship by a long shot. And confusing the “my” in “my socks” with the “my” in “my spouse” causes a whole lot of problems. (No, I don’t actually think it’s the pronoun causing the problem. But the mindset between having only one possessive and considering relationships in general to be possessive in the sense of “my socks” may be related.) I want a mutual possessive: one that only applies if both parties agree to it. And one for cases in which “owning” the thing doesn’t, or shouldn’t, include the right to damage or destroy it. And one for cases in which it’s more that whatever’s claimed owns you (as in “my God”), or you’re a part of it (as in “my country”). – I don’t know even what word I want to use for any of these; so this is clearly not a fully fledged out proposal. – all those spelling reform theories run up against the difficulty that even within the USA people pronounce things differently; and said pronunciations change from time to time. We wound up in this spelling mess in large part through such pronunciation changes. Some spelling changes will happen on their own over time, just as other language changes do. While it still bothers me to see “lite” for “light”, I recognize that this particular botheration makes no sense, and I expect the dictionaries and style books will eventually recognize it. It’s been a really long time since anybody much actually pronounced that “gh” sound in the middle of words in English. ---
**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 5, 2019, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/128 "2019-07-05T20:24:39Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > While it still bothers me to see “lite” for “light”, I recognize that this particular botheration makes no sense, and I expect the dictionaries and style books will eventually recognize it. The three dictionaries I have on my phone have it now: _American Heritage_: > [@](#): > > lite (līt) > adjective Slang > 1. > a. Having fewer calories or less of an ingredient than a food or beverage of the same kind: lite beer; lite salt. > b. Having less weight than others of the same kind: lite trucks. > c. Less serious, severe, difficult, or extensive than others of the same kind: “lite music, shimmering on the surface and squishy soft at the core” (Mother Jones). > 2. Used after a common noun or especially a proper noun to indicate that something, such as a work or action, is less serious, severe, difficult, or extensive than what is considered typical of the specified noun: “Compared with ‘Gravity’s Rainbow’ or ‘V.’ … this novel is Pynchon Lite” (Michiko Kakutani). > [Alteration of light​2.] \*Oxford Dictionary of English: \* > [@](#): > > lite /lʌɪt / > ▸ adjective denoting a low-fat or low-sugar version of a manufactured food or drink product: > lite beer. > ▪ [often postpositive] informal denoting a simpler or less challenging version of a particular thing or person: > the film was dismissed by many of the more serious critics as Woody Allen lite. > ▸ noun [mass noun] light beer with relatively few calories. > – ORIGIN 1950s : a commercial respelling of light1, light2. _Merriam Webster_: > [@](#): > > adjective > > \ˈlīt > : containing fewer calories or less fat than usual > > Full Definition > > 1: 4light lite beer lite salad dressing > > 2: diminished or lacking in substance or seriousnesslite news; specifically : being an innocuous or unthreatening version — often used postpositivelyit is film noir lite — James Greenberg > > First known use: 1962 ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2019, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/129 "2019-07-05T22:26:21Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Can we fix possessive pronouns while we’re at it? Would it fix things if we just started calling them “genitive” instead of “possessive”? ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2019, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/130 "2019-07-05T23:20:15Z")
Thudlow Boink, I suppose it might sufficiently confuse the character who keeps going on that “it’s my dog/land/child and I’ve got a right to do what I want with it!” that they’d instead be sidetracked into snarling because they thought you’d said something about their genitals. ---
**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 6, 2019, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/131 "2019-07-06T00:59:43Z")
All this talk of adding more complexity to English has me declenching my fists. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2019, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/132 "2019-07-06T02:13:59Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > :dubious: Thou shouldst bear in mind that once there was thought to be “a clear linguistic need” in English for separating **second** -person singular from plural pronouns; but lo, in our own day thou givest not a single fuck about it. And yet English stubbornly continued to insist that it needs singular and plural first-person pronouns, unless the person speaking happens to be a monarch. Come to think of it, English already has a non-gendered third-person singular pronoun, it has simply fallen into disuse. One. As in “someone.” As in, “I will know one when I see one.” I seem to remember that in the 1970s “one” was sometimes employed to replace “man” or “woman” in some contexts, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion. I will put it up for discussion here. Would the words “one/one’s” be a useful replacement for he, she, him, her, his, hers, his’n, her’n, etc.? I could embrace it. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/133 "2019-07-06T02:24:23Z")
I’ve tried using ‘one’, but one problem with it is that it has no distinct subjective and objective forms, which seems to me to make some sentences awkward. “I gave it to one” just doesn’t sound right to me, somehow. Which is not of course an overwhelming reason against. “You” has the same form in both those cases; it’s probably just that I’m used to “I gave it to you” as well as to “You gave it to me,” whereas IME one rarely hears/sees “one” in the objective. ---
**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 6, 2019, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/134 "2019-07-06T03:46:41Z")
[quote=“thorny\_locust, post:133, topic:836456”] I’ve tried using ‘one’, but one problem with it is that it has no distinct subjective and objective forms, which seems to me to make some sentences awkward. “I gave it to one” just doesn’t sound right to me, somehow./QUOTE] Plus, everybody is all like “Who is Juan?” ---
**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 6, 2019, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/135 "2019-07-06T04:08:23Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > > > I’ve tried using ‘one’, but one problem with it is that it has no distinct subjective and objective forms, which seems to me to make some sentences awkward. “I gave it to one” just doesn’t sound right to me, somehow. > > Plus, everybody is all like “Who is Juan?” Only other Juans are familiar with Juan. Because it takes Juan to know Juan. ---
**Author:** ![Haldurson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/51bf81/32.png) [@Haldurson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haldurson)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/136 "2019-07-06T17:31:24Z")
Several modern Science Fiction books that I’ve read recently, have adopted genderless language. It’s interesting in that I’ve seen science fiction ahead of the curve, as far as social progressiveness, for as long as I’ve been reading it (starting back in the 1960s, but also in the classic SF I read that dates from the 1940s and on up). There’s always resistance to change. But the thing about SF writers and readers is that they know this better than anyone and tend to not only adapt better to it, but also are often the heralds of it (as in this case). I’m not sure that this change will take hold (at least, as it is). But it is happening right now in small ways, and how it will evolve is something to watch. Keep in mind that some things that seem sensible take forever to happen (such as the US switching to the metric system). And other things start out slow, but then take huge leaps when the time is right. But there is nearly ALWAYS a backlash. ---
**Author:** ![wanderer2575](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2acd7d/32.png) [@wanderer2575](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wanderer2575)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2019, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/137 "2019-07-07T13:10:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Why don’t we just dispense with gendered pronouns altogether? Why don’t we just stop going out of our way to find ways to be offended about everything, and instead accept words in the context and manner in which they are intended? ---
**Author:** ![Kyomara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8edcca/32.png) [@Kyomara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyomara)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/138 "2019-07-07T20:31:55Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So when people use language in an improper way and you do not like it, then that is bad. If they use it in an improper way, but you like it, then that is simply “evolution” of the language. You’re being silly. We’re not talking about standardizing a mistake, we’re talking about a conscientious movement toward new expressions for a specific purpose. People say “less cars” because they don’t know any better. But they say “Dave brought their laptop” because they are aware that Dave is non-binary. ---
**Author:** ![Kyomara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8edcca/32.png) [@Kyomara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyomara)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2019, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/139 "2019-07-07T20:38:16Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Changing language is superficial nonsense. Changing our pronouns isn’t going to change the way we think about people. That’s hilarious. Think about all the words men and white people can no longer get away with calling women and minorities. Think about the extinction of the formal address of a woman as “Mrs.” plus her husband’s name. And I would posit that a person telling you they prefer to be called by a particular pronoun immediately changes the way you think about them, even if it’s in a negative way. Words have meaning. That’s the whole point. ---
**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 7, 2019, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456/140 "2019-07-07T20:45:59Z")
I’ve dabbled a bit with German, French, Italian, and Spanish, and I love those languages _except_ for the gender issue. If gender is annoying in English, it’s far worse in those languages, which require memorization of nonsensical, arbitrary gendering of nouns. I love learning case, person, number: etc., but gender? Ugh. So annoying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-dispense-with-gendered-language-pronouns-in-english/836456.md?page=8)