Sure seem to be a lot of nobodies on these boards.
In a number of other places I’ve been, also, both IRL and online; and ever since, at least, the 1970’s. Quite possibly sooner, that may just have been when I first started noticing it.
There may be some confusion as to just who’s in the bubble.
I’ve been in circumstances in which everyone is asked their pronoun preferences. So that by itself disproves “no one.”
You’re really questioning whether it takes time and effort to change a word? This thread is on 3 pages and you haven’t even found the surface to scratch.
Changing language is superficial nonsense. Changing our pronouns isn’t going to change the way we think about people.
Obviously untrue, since so many people are so passionate about, for example, the opinion that we shouldn’t use gender-nonspecific pronouns for a specific individual. Hotly contested linguistic changes may be “nonsense” depending on your criteria, but they are generally very far from “superficial”.
Eh, it can become a virtuous cycle. For example, it is much more rare these days than it used to be for people to use “he” as an allegedly gender-neutral indefinite pronoun. That usage fell out of favor because people started complaining that it wasn’t sufficiently inclusive of women, owing to a change in “the way we think about people”: i.e., that men are not the “generic” or the “default” form of human beings, any more than women are. But arguably the continued use of more inclusive indefinite pronouns reinforces that change in the way we think.
Wow, this is some level of goalpost moving.
I asked you how much time and effort it takes you to learn a new word and start using it. I expect the answer is actually “none at all,” because that’s what it takes me.
Then you say “they” like we’ve done for hundreds of years.
Buddy, I’ve been saying that for years.
You. It’s definitely you.
I didn’t believe I was moving any goalposts. It takes time and effort for me to break the habit of using one word and replace it with the use of a different word. I would need several 100 iterations before I could use the term as automatically as the word it replaced. This would especially be true for pronouns.
In the end, I would definitely use the new pronoun and it would only get easier. But for what? My perceptions of people, the flexibility of gender identification, and my desire to accommodate their needs wouldn’t have improved or changed. Like I said before Turkish doesn’t have a gendered pronoun. Their general attitudes toward transgendered individuals aren’t nearly as enlightened as the average person in the English-speaking world.
If you are seriously attempting to argue that nobody discusses transgender identity or the issue of using non-gender-specific pronouns for specified individuals who identify as nonbinary or agender, that’s just delusional. Did you read the cite I provided about a 2016 Department of Defense manual discussing precisely these issues of gender identity and pronouns as they relate to servicemembers?
In the first place, my keyboard doesn’t have any of those variations on the letter e. What should I do, remember to type Alt-something every time I want to use the third person singular?
As for a deeper look at the issue.
There’s a clear linguistic need for separating third-person singular from plural pronouns. Therefore, “they”, “their,” and “them” don’t really serve the purpose for third-person singular pronouns.
The next logical candidate would be “it”, and that’s really unpopular with many people.
Agreed that the English language needs a short and easily remembered word that works for both spoken and written communications. Then we need to fight the use of gendered pronouns that goes back at least to the time of the Law of AEthelberht manuscript from the 12th Century.
I’m all for it, but I don’t see it coming in my lifetime.
Thou art correct. We really need to avoid confusing plural and singular pronouns. Spread thy gospel, thou speaker of truth.
: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.
(ETA: damn, ninja’d by Kamino Neko, who at least has a linguistically appropriate name for ninja’ing.)
It is seldom reliable to try to extrapolate from characteristics that a language currently does have to characteristics that a language supposedly has to have.
Plural -> singular third-person pronouns like “they” and “them” are increasingly accepted in a wide variety of contexts in English, so I don’t buy your assertion that they “really don’t serve the purpose”.
See? You started with what YOU thought was a simple request, and you broke physics.
Way to go hero.
My bubble’s bigger than your bubble . . .
mine’s got you in it, and Kimstu, and the Department of Defense, and considerably etcetera. (I may be happier about some of these contents than others. But I’m not the one trying to argue that my not being happy about somebody means that they don’t exist.)
Yes, technically. But only to try and shift them back after you shifted them. IMd posted that it is difficult to change a word that is so embedded in someone’s vocabulary. You moved the goalposts by changing that to “learning and using a new word.”
The answer to the OP: because having different grammatical genders is useful for third person singular pronouns, and English nouns don’t have grammatical gender. So biological gender (plus person/nonperson) stepped in to fill the void. And if people didn’t find it useful, it would fall out of favor.
Does it perfectly get around the awkwardness? No, as sometimes the two antecedents are both of the same gender. But it helps often enough that we keep it.
I can’t agree with Kimstu that the circumlocutions are automatic. On this very board, I’ve actively noticed how much easier it is to just be able to use pronouns and not have to work around two people using the same pronouns. Sure, it’s doable, but it takes a bit more mental effort, both initially, and when I look back to try and make it look less awkward.
Are there better solutions? Sure. I could see having a set of short pronoun suffixes that you could add at the ends of words, and then just use the suffixes. That would be a superior system. But that’s a bigger change than trying to force people use a different singular gender neutral pronoun when “they” already exists. The current system is good enough for most people, so that’s what they will continue using.
I do agree that it is annoying when singular and plural “they” are ambiguous. However, I suspect this will be dealt with the same way we did with “you.” We started adding words after you for the plural, e.g. “you all,” “you guys,” or even creating contractions, like “y’all” and “y’uns.” I suspect something similar will happen with “they.” I already find “those guys” to be useful at times.
As a practical matter, the language that requires the least amount of effort to change works best. There’s a reason why “Ms.” was chosen: it is already pronounces the same way some people would say either “miss” or “Mrs.” when speaking quickly. My second grade teacher was Mrs. Sutton, as opposed to my first grade teacher who was Ms. Buxton. I remember noticing that most people actually called the first teacher “mizsutton”, not “missessutton.”
*I initially wanted to write “her” but realized that would create momentary ambiguity, and replaced it. I then had to decide which of the multiple workarounds was the least awkward. So, all in all, it took more mental effort–exactly as I said earlier.
Not just enbees - I’m binary, and I prefer “they/them” pronouns IRL too.
Rather obviously, the second. I’m not claiming that, where I live, everyone is referred to as “they,” nor am I arguing that everyone should be referred to as “they.” I’m arguing that referring to the small population of people who perceive themselves as having no gender as “they” is not ungrammatical, and indeed is an extension of a standard feature of English that’s existed for centuries.
So long as I were assured they were able to speak in other vernaculars when necessary, I would not correct them. If they said it while hanging out with their friend, who cares? If they’re consistently getting marked down in school for using it in their schoolwork, that’d be different.
People already call the Republicans “The Grand Old Party,” and that seems to have stuck pretty well. And, as already pointed out, there are tons and tons of grammatical changes that have been imposed out of political concerns that have stuck around. “Ms.” “African American.” “Marriage” referring to same-sex partnerships. The general abandonment of gendered professional terms. “Alsatian” instead of “German Shepherd” in UK English. It’s not always successful (see: Freedom Fries) but its hardly impossible.
That would still be an evolution. You can force evolution down particular paths to meet a desired end result. That’s how we got dogs.
I don’t think the elimination of gendered pronouns is necessary or desirable. Gendered pronouns are fine, but some people are uncomfortable using them, and prefer to be referred to as “they” or “them.” Which is fine. There’s no point shouting, “That’s not how grammar works!” at them. We invented grammar. We can change it if we want, and this is a pretty easy change to make. We already use “they” as a singular pronoun when the subject is unknown (“Someone left their backpack here.”) or hypothetical (“If somebody finds my backpack, I hope they turn it into lost and found.”) Adding, “or deliberately eschewed,” (“This is Pat. They prefer gender neutral pronouns.”) isn’t a massive change.
If people get the gendered pronoun right for me, I’m OK with that; but I strongly prefer they/them to people guessing and getting the wrong gendered pronoun, which is quite common both online and in snail mail.
Since some people prefer they, and some other people prefer a gendered pronoun but I usually don’t know (except often in personal conversation) which one is right, I try to use they/them as the default. This is becoming considerably more automatic as time goes on. If somebody wants me to use something else, I’ll do my best to remember to do that.
To everyone who says that using “they” as a singular pronoun is incorrect, I guarantee that they’ve heard that usage in the last week or so, but it seemed so normal that they didn’t even notice it.
I didn’t make this rule. I’m not forcing it down their throats. But people do use this, and not just when they’re trying to be politically correct and not refer to someone’s gender. It’s a natural usage when dealing with hypothetical singular people that you don’t actually know. You might sometimes get a little bump when seeing a construction like “Tell Chris to bring their book”. But eventually people who think like that are going to die, and only people who think it is a normal usage will be left. And then what happens? As for whether it would be useful to preserve a distinction between a plural pronoun and a singular pronoun, well, it may very well be useful, but languages lose and/or gain useful features all the time. Many languages lack the feature of being able to tell someone’s gender from the pronouns used to refer to them. Maybe we should start a campaign to get the Turks to invent new pronouns, I’m sure they’ll get right on that.
This is how languages evolve. Read some Shakespeare, and count up all the grammatical and usage and and pronunciation and spelling and vocabulary errors he made, if you score by the metrics you were taught in Mrs Grundy’s 6th grade English class back in 1963. Languages adopt features and lose features.
For honorifics, we used to have a distinction between honorifics for married or unmarried men, but we lost the honorific “Master” for unmarried men, but preserved “Miss” for unmarried women. And so? Should there have been a campaign to bring back the distinction for unmarried men? Or did we just stop caring about the married/unmarried distinction? And of course, the use of honorifics is declining precipitously. I remember watching Mr. Rogers on TV. You’re not going to find many people on kids shows who use an honorific today. When I was a kid, a kid referring to an adult by their first name hardly ever happened. Nowadays, it’s commonplace.
Of course, none of these changes in usage are set in stone. We could very easily have a wave of formality wash over the country in the future, and start adopting titles and honorifics again.
But what probably won’t happen is the widespread usage of bespoke pronouns. “He” and “She” will continue to be used, but “My name is Chris, and I use xie/xir pronouns” is not gonna happen, so stop trying to make fetch happen. “They” will be considered as the default pronoun to use for people when you don’t already know whether they prefer he or she. People might get upset if you continually use “she” to refer to them when you know darn good and well they prefer to be called “he”. But nobody is going to get upset when you use “they”. So the inversion is that “he” and “she” are going to become the bespoke pronouns of the future. We’ll refer to everyone as “they” unless they tell us to use “he” or “she”.
You all know this is the future. You don’t have to like it, you might have better ideas for how to run the English language, you might like it, but that doesn’t matter. This is how the language is likely to evolve, and the people who don’t like it will be dead soon enough, same as the people who like it.
Now, who wants to start another Great Vowel Shift? I’m in, who’s with me?
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.”