Gender-Neutral Language

Michael Ossipoff

Sometimes we want to speak of unspcified people, when we don't know what one or more people we're referring to. If they're known to be plural, then there's no gender problem, because, in English, plural pronouns don't specify gender.

What if it's singular, or might be?

I write "s/he" if it's a subject, and "hir" (his/her) if it's an object or a possessive.

Of course the problem is in speech, as opposed to writing. It's common to use "they", even for singular:

"If someone wants to catch a bus, then they have to get to the bus-stop early."

But there's still a modern problem: What if you're referring to a particular person who rejects gender?

(Though there are a very few people of ambiguous physical gender, physically without a particular gender, there are of course many times more people of definite physical gender, who reject gender or adopt the gender opposite to their physical gender.)

There was recently an Internet article about that situation. In deference to personal preference (...and I support that deference), the article advocated the gender-neutral plural "they, them, their" to refer to that person.

Of course then there could be confusion about whether the speaker is referring to that individual, or to some group that is also part of the topic The author of the article (partly) avoided that problem by using singular verbs with "they". ...resulting in sounding like Popeye The Sailor "I fights to the finish."

I agree with the author's position that languages are constantly changing (..but let's not let Esperanto change so as to lose its logical simplicity and elegance). ...and that it's reasonable to bend a language by using it to express whatever distinctions one wants to (or not express distinctions that one doesn't want to).

I myself often do so, with no apologies.

But the trouble with "they, them, their" isn't just that it's "incorrect" (a distinction that I have little regard for), but only that it's contradictory, A plural pronoun for a singular meaning. Alright it's common in use when we don't know who we're referring to. But it gets too contradictory when we do know, and we use a plural pronoun to refer to one person. ...and it gets even more incongruous, contradictory and funny-sounding when we use a singular verb with "they".

What would be better:

Many languages allow verbs without a specified subject. ...just the verb.

When I took Latin, there were Latin sentences that our instructor (and we) translated as "this one", or "that one". I don't know if those were just sentences having a subject-less verb, or whether Latin actually has a gender-neutral singular personal-pronoun.

Either way, though, it suggests a much more reasonable and better substitute for "they, them, their":

Just say "this one" or "that one".

...or, if Latin (or whatever other language) has a gender-neutral singular personal pronoun, we could adopt that into English.

....or use subject-less verbs in English: "Hasn't left yet". Meaning that that person hasn't left yet.

...or even objectless transitive verbs: "They didn't find."

Those are better solutions for that situation,

Michael Ossipoff

MindForged

A plural pronoun for a singular meaning. Alright it's common in use when we don't know who we're referring to. But it gets too contradictory when we do know, and we use a plural pronoun to refer to one person. ...and it gets even more incongruous, contradictory and funny-sounding when we use a singular verb with "they". — Michael Ossipoff

How is it contradictory? It's just an instance of using a gender neutral pronoun to refer to a singular person who prefers such pronouns be applied to them. As you say, we often use "they" in its singular form when speaking of people we don't know. So if I hear someone talk about a person named Riley, I've no clue as to their gender because the name is fairly ambiguous due to being commonly held by people of any gender. So if I get no further information about them than their name, I just use "they" in the singular. In fact, I did so in this very comment.

Is it really so odd to see it used this way when it's for an explicitly gender neutral person? It seems exactly the same to me.

Michael Ossipoff

Is it really so odd to see it used this way when it's for an explicitly gender neutral person? It seems exactly the same to me. — MindForged

Yes, I see what you mean. "They" is already in wide use for referring to some unspecified one person, and so why not use it to refer to a specified one person.

But wouldn't it be better to instead:

1. Use subject-less verbs, as so many other langluages allow? ...and even object-less transitive verbs?

2. Use "This one", "That one", "This person" or "That person"?

3. Or adopt a gender-neutral singular personal pronoun from a different language?

So, I'm not so much criticizing "They, Them, Their" for that purpose. Mostly, I'm just suggesting something better.

By the way, would you use a singular verb with "They"? That doesn't have the long-established usage we spoke of, and it's a further direct contradiction in a sentence.

Michael Ossipoff

Forgottenticket

I can see lots of legal issues opping up with they/them.
I suppose Xe/Xir is popular in some communities. There just isn't enough non-binary people yet for it to take off and become legal or mainstream.

MindForged

↪Michael Ossipoff

I would probably use plural verbs for they simply for aesthetic reasons. It sounds better that way, basically. "They is" is a bit cringey to the ears

BC

But there's still a modern problem: What if you're referring to a particular person who rejects gender? — Michael Ossipoff

If a particular person rejects gender, then I think they should deal with that decision themselves, and not require that everybody else also deal with their choice. Even if 1 million English speakers out of the 1.5 billion people who speak English reject gender,it's still their problem, not mine.

English has 2 singular gendered pronouns, one of which has been used to represent individuals of either masculine or feminine gender, 'he', and latterly, 'she'. "If a student wants to study geology, she should be encouraged to do so." doesn't mean that males need not apply.

Granted, there was/is a preferential option for the masculine built into the language, but for most female English speakers, that has not been a huge problem. What has been a problem for the 1.5 female English speakers is having material limitations placed on them only because of their sex. But even this varies from place to place.

Almost a billion people speak romance languages which are decidedly gendered. Life is not an unendurable hell of gendered words in those language areas. If women's options are limited in a province of romance language, then it's discrimination based on something much more material than a pronoun.

MindForged

not require that everybody else also deal with their choice. Even if 1 million English speakers out of the 1.5 billion people who speak English reject gender,it's still their problem, not mine. — Bitter Crank

You make it sound like an arduous task. It requires at most the reworking of the occasional sentence. Come on

ssu

Almost a billion people speak romance languages which are decidedly gendered. Life is not an unendurable hell of gendered words in those language areas. If women's options are limited in a province of romance language, then it's discrimination based on something much more material than a pronoun. — Bitter Crank

Yep.

My own mother tongue has a gender neutral word for the third person: "hän". The word hän refers to both sexes, hence a Finn cannot now exactly which gender one is from the word. Yet I don't think this changes the culture or gender relations in any particular way.

Michael Ossipoff

My own mother tongue has a gender neutral word for the third person: "hän". The word hän refers to both sexes, hence a Finn cannot now exactly which gender one is from the word. Yet I don't think this changes the culture or gender relations in any particular way. — ssu

How is it pronounced?

It would be quicker and easier to say than "This one", "That one", "This person" or "That person"

Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

↪Bitter Crank

But many progressives want there to be a wide progressive unity, as wide as possible. ...including when something doesn't seem very important to most, but is important to some (without regard to whether we agree on the importance). ...especially in any instance when there are people who are perceived to be, or arguably are, on the wrong end of things.

You didn't say "PC", but I'll just add that things like that don't qualify for objection as "PC" unless someone is wronged by them. We're talking about something that's harmless, and so it isn't problematic.

Michael Ossipoff

ssu

How is it pronounced? — Michael Ossipoff

ˈhæn/, [ˈhæn]

Or the first word in this song...

Dawnstorm

↪Michael Ossipoff

By the way, would you use a singular verb with "They"? That doesn't have the long-established usage we spoke of, and it's a further direct contradiction in a sentence. — Michael Ossipoff

No. As far as I can tell, you treat singular they gramatically as plural with one exception: "themself" instead of "themselves". As it happens, that's exactly what happened around the 18th century with "thou" being replaced more and more by "you" (which was a plural form). Grammatically, "you" is actually a plural form for a singular referent, except nobody sees it like that, because there's no alternative and people have just internalised it as a singular form.

Using singular "they" for a specific referent is going to be a little odd at first, but I'm seeing evidence from people who use it a lot that there's actually a good chance to internalise it, if you give it a chance. Reading will at first also be a little slower since you're not yet automatically connecting "they" + plural verb with a singular referent, but I can tell from experience that it's a transitional problem.

Forms like "this one" are "stylistically raised" and not equivalent to pronouns. "Jo ate the cake, but this one didn't like it." vs. "Jo ate the cake, but they didn't like it." I much prefer "they".

BC

You make it sound like an arduous task. It requires at most the reworking of the occasional sentence. Come on — MindForged

You may not be aware of the time and energy devoted to nouns and pronouns in liturgical circles. Where once (and still usually) the priest said, "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", some priests say something else. Maybe, "in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer" or some such formulation. Is that a problem? For one, it doesn't have the well rounded patina of centuries of use. And "Creator / Redeemer" erases the parenthood of God from Jesus. Now, personally, I'm not losing sleep over this, but if I happen to be at a funeral where a nouvelle rendition is in use, I find it grating (much like scraping off the end of one's nose with a cheese grater).

Some people in liturgical circles don't like the word "lord" either. So the table grace,
"Come, Lord Jesus, be our Guest,
and let these gifts to us be blessed.
And may there be a goodly share
on every table everywhere."
becomes something else. Come coordinator Jesus...

Our Father who is in heaven
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come
--oops, there's that royal supreme male again,
...
for the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours... What kind of triumphalist bullshit is this?

Hey, I'm not joking. There are liturgical cliques who actually say such things.

BC

But many progressives want there to be a wide progressive unity, as wide as possible — Michael Ossipoff

That's nice. They should be as progressive as they want; just keep it in the family. They seem to want everyone to march in lock step. Surely progressives don't want to be dictatorial, do they? I say "he"; you say "they". He/they. They/he. Let's call the whole thing off.

Marcus de Brun

Someone who rejects gender, implicitly rejects my gender as well as their own.

Gender rejection as such is little different to homophobia.

Notwithstanding that, the rejection of one's gender implies the existence of a dis-ease with ones genetic gender.

When we respect the choice of others (as we apparently must do) we also ignore the pain that lies behind the disassociation. People have the right to choose that their pain should be ignored by self and by others. However that which is ignored can rarely be ameliorated.

M

Michael Ossipoff

They should be as progressive as they want; just keep it in the family. — Bitter Crank

They are. It's just a question of form for those who want to observe that particular progressive courtesy. No one's suggesting that any grammar should be compulsory.

They seem to want everyone to march in lock step. Surely progressives don't want to be dictatorial, do they?

No, it's just a discussion regarding how that (at least presumed) preference by some could best or most easily be accomodated by those who choose to.

But I haven't read anything by professed nonbinary-identified people regarding that grammatical question, and so that's why I used "presumed" in the previous paragraph.

Is it important? Are some people of definite physical gender really inborn-ly gender-nobinary? Or is it just cultural? I won't claim to have the answer to that. That's a whole other issue. I was just addressing the grammataical issue, a simpler subject.

But, just to speak thoroughly, of course there are a very few people who are genuinely physically not of specific or definite gender. They're so few that practically none of us would have any use for this grammatical question in regards to them, but it's a hypothetical question. ...and philosophy forums like hypothetical questions.

Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

Someone who rejects gender, implicitly rejects my gender as well as their own. — Marcus de Brun

I don't see how, unless it's taken to the extreme of criticizing the rest of us for accepting the physical nature that we were born as. ...if it's a cultural creativity thing, and if it turns critical of others who don't share that cultural path (if that's what it is).

But all that is getting outside of what I was talking about, which was just a grammar-convenience matter.

Gender rejection as such is little different to homophobia.

Notwithstanding that, the rejection of one's gender implies the existence of a dis-ease with ones genetic gender.

I didn't want to address the question of whether the person professing no-gender, or gender-non-binary-ness (but who is physically of definite gender, as nearly all are) is right about themself, or deceived about themself, or just following a cultural pursuit.

That isn't for me to say. But progressives usually agree to allow everyone's individuality, of whatever form, as long as no one else is wronged or harmed.

Anyway, this is just about grammar. ...a language-philosophical, largely hypothetical, question. As I mentioned in another reply, hypothetical questions aren't unusual at a philosophy-forum.

When we respect the choice of others (as we apparently must do) we also ignore the pain that lies behind the disassociation.

Well, there's nothing we can do about that. We can't get into someone else's head and understand them, much less fix them, or know if that's possible or needed.

But surely, if someone whom you knew were professing that attribute, you might ask them if they're really sure about it, and why they think so, etc. There's something to what you say, in the sense that a counselor, therapist or medical professional should talk to the person some, instead of immediately assuming that they're right about themself. Surely sometimes uncritically taking someone at their word is a dis-service. ...but I'm not saying that the person should be pressured.

(On a related topic, I don't understand why "sex-change" surgery is done on physically-normal people, I can't believe that doctors do it. But that's a whole other topic.)

People have the right to choose that their pain should be ignored by self and by others. However that which is ignored can rarely be ameliorated.

As I said above, I don't think it should be completely ignored,

Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff

↪Dawnstorm

Thanks for the reasonable grammatical comments, which I agree with.

But:

Forms like "this one" are "stylistically raised" and not equivalent to pronouns. "Jo ate the cake, but this one didn't like it." vs. "Jo ate the cake, but they didn't like it." I much prefer "they". — Dawnstorm

Maybe "Jo ate the cake, but that one didn't like it" would be better.

When I took Latin, we routinely said "that one" in translations. I just like it because it doesn't contradict other grammar.

But, as you point out, the singular "You" contradicts previous grammar, and so such grammatical changes to a language do happen. And the singular "they" already has gotten fairly well-established.

-----------------

"Y'all" sounds regional and has cultural connotations about the speaker. And, because "Y'all" is used so much as singular, some consider it necessary to say "All y'all" for plural,

"You-Lot" is specifically British, and when I used it, someone asked me in what part of the South (where I was living) they said that.

"You folks" is too informal sometimes, and also has some cultural connotation.

"You people" seems to carry a disparaging sound.

"You Guys" is out of the question when it calls females "guys".

Maybe I should go back to "You Lot".

Michael Ossipoff

Dawnstorm

Maybe "Jo ate the cake, but that one didn't like it" would be better.

When I took Latin, we routinely said "that one" in translations. I just like it because it doesn't contradict other grammar. — Michael Ossipoff

Well, there's a reason I said "I much prefer..." rather than a more convinced "...is better." But "this" vs. "that" doesn't make much difference for the problem at hand. The only difference is perceived distance. I'm not sure I'd use "this one" for Latin translations either, unless you have something in the original that merits it like (like some instances of, say, "ipse/ipsa/ipsum", my Latin's a little rusty).

The problem I have is that "this" is demonstrative. It's the language equivalent of pointing. It feels, to me, like an act of singling-out, if you use it in cases where you'd usually just use personal pronouns.

It's true that it doesn't contradict grammar, but if non-binary felt called out be the usage (which would undermine the intended courtsey) I wouldn't be surprised.The only way to really know is try and see where it goes. It's certainly not up to me to make that judgment.

It's interesting, really. Many langauges still have infelctional endings to nouns and adjectives that indicate gender, so it's a lot more difficult to dodge gender, than just replacing a pronoun. (And with the neuter endings usually being reserved to things, that's usually not something a person wants to claim...)

BC

↪Michael Ossipoff

So far, in my 72 years, I have met and interacted with one person who was not male or female sexually -- this 40 some years ago. This person was self-named "neither shehe. Shehe did not look normal as the result of a major chromosomal disorder. (Shehe was quite bright, and was active in the peripheral politics of the peripheral gay community.)

There are a small number of hermaphrodites--persons whose bodies are inter-sexual; neither xx nor xy chromosomes dominated. I have no idea how this works, biologically, but it does happen once in a while.

Outside of those few individuals whose chromosomes did not establish clear sexual form, mammals are one or the other. As mammals, so are we one or the other. However, we can wish we were otherwise. Any of us might wish we could change who we appear to be -- not just along the lines of gender but how good are brains are, how nicely defined our muscles are, how tall we are, how sensitive our senses are, how much sex drive we have, and so on. Fortunately, we can not (at this point) be so easily changed. Some people can't even make big muscles, even though they can get extremely fit. We can change our hair color easily -- provided we commit to regular trips to the hair people.

Gender change has become a fashion. If we could redesign our bodies to suit the movements of body fashion, a good number of people would be doing it. Bertrand, with his remodeled jaw, bulging muscles, greater height, deep voice, hairier body, and enhanced pheromones, would probably change his name to Hank, and might trade French Literature for a hard hat job. Or maybe he'd just be the professeur dur à cuire (professor tough guy).

Michael Ossipoff

↪Dawnstorm

True, "That one" or "This one" has a pointing connotation, which could sound rude, or make someone uncomfortable.

Michael Ossipoff

Hanover

What most of us do to remedy the conundrum of expanding gender identification is to associate only with those who share similar views and to think those outside our box are foolish. That's what I do.

Marcus de Brun

↪Michael Ossipoff

There is so much error here on this thread that one does not know where to begin.

But all that is getting outside of what I was talking about, which was just a grammar-convenience matter. — Michael Ossipoff

Grammar is never a "convenience". It must be exact, in that it must be true, or as close to truth as possible; otherwise it is pointless and even deceptive in the attempt to convey truth via honest communication.

Because modernity is in lust with 'convenience', grammar should not fall prey to delusions of convenience.

M

Baden

Grammatically, pronouns are a closed class and very resistant to change. It's explained quite well here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3daf1k/why_custom_personal_pronouns_dont_work_a/

You can go against the grain on this one, of course, but you'll sound awkward and it won't catch on. New pronouns are not something people in general are going to start using for political reasons.

Marcus de Brun

What most of us do to remedy the conundrum of expanding gender identification is to associate only with those who share similar views and to think those outside our box are foolish. That's what I do. — Hanover

"The box"

The place where the herd lives.

M

Gender-Neutral Language

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions