3 ms·

I disagree. "They" and "them" are - as far as I am aware (and I work in a highly-charged (some out say overly-so) diversity-aware company) - the currently pref

I disagree. "They" and "them" are - as far as I am aware (and I work in a highly-charged (some out say overly-so) diversity-aware company) - the currently preferred terms. The sand may well have moved under my feet (this happens every month or so) but as far as I understand this is the politically-correct term for referring to generic "people" without referencing gender one way or another. For better or worse, I think we can all agree that only ever saying "him"/"he" or "she"/"her" is currently considered unacceptable (for better or worse) in English-speaking companies. I do wonder though how this plays out in companies where gender is a major part of the the dominating-language. How can you eliminate her/him in a language where such simple concepts even a table has a gender stereotype (der tish, la mesa, la table etc)

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>where such simple concepts even a table has a gender stereotype (der tish, la mesa, la table etc) // Linguistic gender and whatever "gender" is supposed to mean for people are entirely orthogonal. It's not "la table" because it has traits related to the female sex.
smacktoward 8y ago
> For better or worse, I think we can all agree that only ever saying "him"/"he" or "she"/"her" is currently considered unacceptable (for better or worse) in English-speaking companies. Hi, I'm the person who wrote the (apparently offending) comment. I am sensitive to and aware of these issues. However, using they/them is not necessarily an obvious slam dunk in these contexts either, as that's technically not grammatically correct when used in the singular. There are those who argue that the singular they is useful enough in our modern gender-fluid context that we should just start using it and let the grammar rules catch up when they will, but this is definitely not a settled currently-considered-the-only-acceptable-choice-everywhere kind of thing. Grammarly tackled this question on their blog last year (here: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/use-the-singular-they/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/use-the-singular-they/), and while I think that piece makes some good arguments, note that it approaches the subject as "while non-standard, this is a good thing that people should be doing anyway" rather than "everyone knows this is the only way to approach this." Similarly, Merriam-Webster (see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbi...) judges this a matter of still-evolving usage rather than long-settled grammatical law. The last thing I wanted to be when I grew up is a grammatical pedant, so please don't take this as an invitation to a war over which usage is the right one. I can see merit in both arguments (though I tend to think the singular they will eventually reach consensus acceptance, just because it's so useful). I just mention it to illustrate that it's not necessarily the case that failure to reach for the singular they automatically marks a writer out as oblivious or sexist.
- mattlondon 8y ago
  Thanks - if you're not comfortable using "they" yet, then you might want to consider something like "he/she" and "her/him" rather than excluding a single gender entirely by only ever using one gender. That will go a long way to addressing the inequality (but obviously this ignores non-binaries) Thanks for engaging either way. We need to challenge sexism (either implicit or explicit) in our industry.
  - smacktoward 8y ago
    Why do you assume from a single comment that I "only ever us[e] one gender"? If I were a writer who is sensitive to these issues, and who tries to address them by taking care to mix up using he/his and she/hers when writing, would it not be the case that you might see one comment from me using he/his and then another one later using she/hers? (And note that for some singular-they advocates "he/she" and "her/him" aren't really any better either, as they omit trans folk and other non-binary people as much as using "he" in one place and "she" in the next does.) This is a place where the language is rapidly evolving, is all I'm saying, and therefore maybe we should lean towards reading people charitably until such time as a consensus has been reached.
  - detaro 8y ago
    IMHO you're really overreacting here. It's not unusual or bad style to pick a random set of pronouns for a specific imagined person in such a few sentences of scenario.
    - mattlondon 8y ago
      It is a sackable-offense where I am; using He/Him and She/Her is absolutely forbidden. I don't agree with sacking people over this but we 100% absolutely need to confront sexism (in every direction, and implicit & explicit) in our industry.
      - zzzcpan 8y ago
        Using he/him/she/her has absolutely nothing to do with sexism. It doesn't sound like you are in a healthy environment if you can get sacked for that. We don't need that in our industry.
toomim 8y ago
This counterargument fits into Paul Graham's hierarchy of debate at level DH4: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html > Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it. Whereas you are arguing about what is politically correct, I argued that the "politically correct" usage of they/them has a problem. I actually agree that they/them is politically-correct, and think we should change that. So your argument does not, in fact, disagree with mine.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

>where such simple concepts even a table has a gender stereotype (der tish, la mesa, la table etc) // Linguistic gender and whatever "gender" is supposed to mean for people are entirely orthogonal. It's not "la table" because it has traits related to the female sex.

smacktoward 8y ago

> For better or worse, I think we can all agree that only ever saying "him"/"he" or "she"/"her" is currently considered unacceptable (for better or worse) in English-speaking companies. Hi, I'm the person who wrote the (apparently offending) comment. I am sensitive to and aware of these issues. However, using they/them is not necessarily an obvious slam dunk in these contexts either, as that's technically not grammatically correct when used in the singular. There are those who argue that the singular they is useful enough in our modern gender-fluid context that we should just start using it and let the grammar rules catch up when they will, but this is definitely not a settled currently-considered-the-only-acceptable-choice-everywhere kind of thing. Grammarly tackled this question on their blog last year (here: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/use-the-singular-they/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/use-the-singular-they/), and while I think that piece makes some good arguments, note that it approaches the subject as "while non-standard, this is a good thing that people should be doing anyway" rather than "everyone knows this is the only way to approach this." Similarly, Merriam-Webster (see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbi...) judges this a matter of still-evolving usage rather than long-settled grammatical law. The last thing I wanted to be when I grew up is a grammatical pedant, so please don't take this as an invitation to a war over which usage is the right one. I can see merit in both arguments (though I tend to think the singular they will eventually reach consensus acceptance, just because it's so useful). I just mention it to illustrate that it's not necessarily the case that failure to reach for the singular they automatically marks a writer out as oblivious or sexist.

mattlondon 8y ago
Thanks - if you're not comfortable using "they" yet, then you might want to consider something like "he/she" and "her/him" rather than excluding a single gender entirely by only ever using one gender. That will go a long way to addressing the inequality (but obviously this ignores non-binaries) Thanks for engaging either way. We need to challenge sexism (either implicit or explicit) in our industry.
- smacktoward 8y ago
  Why do you assume from a single comment that I "only ever us[e] one gender"? If I were a writer who is sensitive to these issues, and who tries to address them by taking care to mix up using he/his and she/hers when writing, would it not be the case that you might see one comment from me using he/his and then another one later using she/hers? (And note that for some singular-they advocates "he/she" and "her/him" aren't really any better either, as they omit trans folk and other non-binary people as much as using "he" in one place and "she" in the next does.) This is a place where the language is rapidly evolving, is all I'm saying, and therefore maybe we should lean towards reading people charitably until such time as a consensus has been reached.
- detaro 8y ago
  IMHO you're really overreacting here. It's not unusual or bad style to pick a random set of pronouns for a specific imagined person in such a few sentences of scenario.
  - mattlondon 8y ago
    It is a sackable-offense where I am; using He/Him and She/Her is absolutely forbidden. I don't agree with sacking people over this but we 100% absolutely need to confront sexism (in every direction, and implicit & explicit) in our industry.
    - zzzcpan 8y ago
      Using he/him/she/her has absolutely nothing to do with sexism. It doesn't sound like you are in a healthy environment if you can get sacked for that. We don't need that in our industry.

toomim 8y ago

This counterargument fits into Paul Graham's hierarchy of debate at level DH4: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html > Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it. Whereas you are arguing about what is politically correct, I argued that the "politically correct" usage of they/them has a problem. I actually agree that they/them is politically-correct, and think we should change that. So your argument does not, in fact, disagree with mine.