5 ms·

> We already got gender neutral pronouns in English, for which we are seeing a wide adoption now, and new pronouns feel like a pretty big change, much bigger th

by mises 7y ago

> We already got gender neutral pronouns in English, for which we are seeing a wide adoption now, and new pronouns feel like a pretty big change, much bigger than an evolution of the MITM expression. Huh? We don't have such pronouns in English. The closest is perhaps the plural "they". I've heard some mutterings about weird, made-up ones, but they seem very fringe and pushed solely for political reasons rather than as a natural evolution of language. More importantly, what purpose would a "gender-neutral" pronoun serve?

danShumway 7y ago
Singular "they" has been used for hundreds of years dating back to the 14th century -- comparatively, it's a very modern trend for people to say that it should only be used in the plural. Even forms like "themself" have a pretty long historical precedent. > what purpose would a "gender-neutral" pronoun serve? From a technical perspective, these pronouns allow you to refer to a single person without prescribing their[0] gender. This may have the effect of making some technical writing more accessible. From a narrative perspective, these pronouns allow you to write about a character who's gender you might not want to reveal yet[1]. And from a political perspective, these pronouns allow individual to assert that they are nonbinary. The political perspective is what gets people annoyed, but it's worth noting that both language and politics are a reflection of society. It's normal for one to influence the other. It's because of this that we consider language and grammar rules to be descriptive, not prescriptive -- they simply describe the words that people use, even if those words are being used for a political purpose. Ignoring politics, why not use "he" as the gender neutral form and get rid of "they"? For the same reason why it can occasionally be annoying for `0` to be automatically cast to the boolean false in languages like Javascript. If I use the word "he", I don't want someone to have guess whether I'm using it in the gender neutral form or if I'm literally describing the person's gender. Singular "they" serves as a strict typecheck -- it makes "he" into a more useful word because you can use it exclusively to refer to male subjects. [0]: Also note the usage of singular "their" here, which is almost universally accepted. I've never heard someone argue that we should get rid of singular "their" just because we already have "his" and "her". [1]: "The cloaked thief stepped into the house. Their eyes scanned left and right, as if they couldn't decide what they wanted to take first." Is the thief a man or a woman? Only the detective will know!
- jraph 7y ago
  I was also going to speak about the descriptive and prescriptive approaches to languages, and then dropped my paragraphs because it was not clear to me whether OP acknowledged that singular they was a thing in English. I decided to consider that they effectively acknowledged singular they. By taking a prescriptive approach (telling how people should speak English), maybe singular they can be deemed invalid in English… depending on who is prescribing the usage. But people taking a prescriptive approach do not agree between each others, and even if they did, they would never represent the wide, heterogeneous set of English-speaking people. Case in point: they do not agree here, but the usage of singular they seems to be more and more recognized / recommended [1]. A descriptive approach will acknowledge a widespread use of anything, regardless of the reasons why things are used. About politics and languages. Politics are constantly shaping the language. This is not new. It's part of the natural evolution of languages. Politics are not inherently bad neither. We don't have slaves anymore in most countries, thanks to "politics". Actually, I find politics is actually too vague a word, and some people seem to invoke it as a bad thing, saying that we should focus on technical matters when their view opposes the view of people seeing something belonging to the status quo as an issue (which is a political stance in itself… and considering that technical matters and politics are opposed too, ironically). You can't really reject an idea "because politics". You may either argue, or disagree respectfully, but there is no such thing as avoiding politics and remaining technical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Acceptability_and_prescriptive_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Acceptability_an...
  - mises 7y ago
    > About politics and languages. Politics are constantly shaping the language. This is not new. It's part of the natural evolution of languages. Politics are not inherently bad neither. We don't have slaves anymore in most countries, thanks to "politics". > Actually, I find politics is actually too vague a word, and some people seem to invoke it as a bad thing, saying that we should focus on technical matters when their view opposes the view of people seeing something belonging to the status quo as an issue (which is a political stance in itself… and considering that technical matters and politics are opposed too, ironically). > You can't really reject an idea "because politics". You may either argue, or disagree respectfully, but there is no such thing as avoiding politics and remaining technical. All of these are very valid points; I do have a political issue with it as much as anything else. I don't believe it is incumbent upon me to alter the manner in which I speak and write for the convenience of another. There are also, of course, the issues of grammatical horror and the fact that "they" as a singular simply feels clumsy and unnatural when spoken.
jraph 7y ago
I was thinking about singular they and its derivatives: their, theirs, them. Plural they is also gender-neutral, but its usage is not new nor controversial. Defending the use of gender-neutral pronouns was not my point, but since you ask what purpose they would serve, here are some reasons I can think of (and this answer is not limited to English): - to avoid having to specify or think about the gender(s) of the referred person(s), which may be unknown or irrelevant to the subject (to illustrate what I am saying: for instance, if a scientist found something, I don't really care whether they have blue eyes, or breasts, or testicles, or red hair, right, and if I cared, it would still be irrelevant to the discovery in most cases - not always, though: https://www.nature.com/news/male-researchers-stress-out-rodents-1.15106 https://www.nature.com/news/male-researchers-stress-out-rode...). - some people who prefer to be referred to using they (I know some personally, and there was a submission on HN whose author wants that we use they to refer to… them). We therefore should use "they" for them. - some people do not see themselves as neither male nor female, so a gender-neutral pronoun is convenient for them, and for other people to speak about them.
- mises 7y ago
  Plural they is pretty new in wide-spread usage? I usually just stick with generic "he" until I know otherwise; i.e. if a scientist found something, I don't really care whether he has... I'm not sure I get the idea of referring to a known person as "they", and this is at best a controversial issue bound very tightly to one side of the political aisle. A side with which I do not align. I guess I probably wouldn't ever do this, but I can at least see a possible use. Information appreciated. Quick follow-up: I saw your reply to another comment; I do not really acknowledge that it is a "thing" with respect to grammatical validity.
  - jraph 7y ago
    I'm not in an English-speaking place, so I can't say how often it is spoken and for how long it has been, but I see it everywhere on HN and in other parts of the web. It seems that it is more accepted in GB than in the US [1] : “Garner's Modern American Usage (2nd ed., 2003) recommends cautious use of singular they, and avoidance where possible because its use is stigmatized. [...] Garner suggests that use of singular they is more acceptable in British English [...] and apparently regrets the resistance by the American language community: "That it sets many literate Americans' teeth on edge is an unfortunate obstacle to what promises to be the ultimate solution to the problem.” Singular they seems prescribed in the US too, by The Chicago Manual of Style at least since 1993 for instance [1], and proscribed by others. There are many possible reasons people would use singular they, I'm not sure we can put them in an homogeneous political group. It seems generic he is losing acceptance, to the point I wouldn't comfortably use it [2]. It probably depends on the place though. I would kindly invite you to reconsider using singular they instead of generic he, but this sure is controversial and I'm no one to tell anybody how to speak, and I would not want to neither. And when something about the language feels weird… well, it just feels weird. Languages are very personal and intimate. I personally tend to rephrase sentences to avoid they, but use it when doing so is too inconvenient. Thanks for the interesting discussion :-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Acceptability_and_prescriptive_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Acceptability_an... (already cited in another comment of mine) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Prescription_of_generic_he https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Prescription_of_... (I know, always the same link ;-))

by mises 7y ago

danShumway 7y ago

Singular "they" has been used for hundreds of years dating back to the 14th century -- comparatively, it's a very modern trend for people to say that it should only be used in the plural. Even forms like "themself" have a pretty long historical precedent. > what purpose would a "gender-neutral" pronoun serve? From a technical perspective, these pronouns allow you to refer to a single person without prescribing their[0] gender. This may have the effect of making some technical writing more accessible. From a narrative perspective, these pronouns allow you to write about a character who's gender you might not want to reveal yet[1]. And from a political perspective, these pronouns allow individual to assert that they are nonbinary. The political perspective is what gets people annoyed, but it's worth noting that both language and politics are a reflection of society. It's normal for one to influence the other. It's because of this that we consider language and grammar rules to be descriptive, not prescriptive -- they simply describe the words that people use, even if those words are being used for a political purpose. Ignoring politics, why not use "he" as the gender neutral form and get rid of "they"? For the same reason why it can occasionally be annoying for `0` to be automatically cast to the boolean false in languages like Javascript. If I use the word "he", I don't want someone to have guess whether I'm using it in the gender neutral form or if I'm literally describing the person's gender. Singular "they" serves as a strict typecheck -- it makes "he" into a more useful word because you can use it exclusively to refer to male subjects. [0]: Also note the usage of singular "their" here, which is almost universally accepted. I've never heard someone argue that we should get rid of singular "their" just because we already have "his" and "her". [1]: "The cloaked thief stepped into the house. Their eyes scanned left and right, as if they couldn't decide what they wanted to take first." Is the thief a man or a woman? Only the detective will know!

jraph 7y ago
I was also going to speak about the descriptive and prescriptive approaches to languages, and then dropped my paragraphs because it was not clear to me whether OP acknowledged that singular they was a thing in English. I decided to consider that they effectively acknowledged singular they. By taking a prescriptive approach (telling how people should speak English), maybe singular they can be deemed invalid in English… depending on who is prescribing the usage. But people taking a prescriptive approach do not agree between each others, and even if they did, they would never represent the wide, heterogeneous set of English-speaking people. Case in point: they do not agree here, but the usage of singular they seems to be more and more recognized / recommended [1]. A descriptive approach will acknowledge a widespread use of anything, regardless of the reasons why things are used. About politics and languages. Politics are constantly shaping the language. This is not new. It's part of the natural evolution of languages. Politics are not inherently bad neither. We don't have slaves anymore in most countries, thanks to "politics". Actually, I find politics is actually too vague a word, and some people seem to invoke it as a bad thing, saying that we should focus on technical matters when their view opposes the view of people seeing something belonging to the status quo as an issue (which is a political stance in itself… and considering that technical matters and politics are opposed too, ironically). You can't really reject an idea "because politics". You may either argue, or disagree respectfully, but there is no such thing as avoiding politics and remaining technical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Acceptability_and_prescriptive_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Acceptability_an...
- mises 7y ago
  > About politics and languages. Politics are constantly shaping the language. This is not new. It's part of the natural evolution of languages. Politics are not inherently bad neither. We don't have slaves anymore in most countries, thanks to "politics". > Actually, I find politics is actually too vague a word, and some people seem to invoke it as a bad thing, saying that we should focus on technical matters when their view opposes the view of people seeing something belonging to the status quo as an issue (which is a political stance in itself… and considering that technical matters and politics are opposed too, ironically). > You can't really reject an idea "because politics". You may either argue, or disagree respectfully, but there is no such thing as avoiding politics and remaining technical. All of these are very valid points; I do have a political issue with it as much as anything else. I don't believe it is incumbent upon me to alter the manner in which I speak and write for the convenience of another. There are also, of course, the issues of grammatical horror and the fact that "they" as a singular simply feels clumsy and unnatural when spoken.

jraph 7y ago

I was thinking about singular they and its derivatives: their, theirs, them. Plural they is also gender-neutral, but its usage is not new nor controversial. Defending the use of gender-neutral pronouns was not my point, but since you ask what purpose they would serve, here are some reasons I can think of (and this answer is not limited to English): - to avoid having to specify or think about the gender(s) of the referred person(s), which may be unknown or irrelevant to the subject (to illustrate what I am saying: for instance, if a scientist found something, I don't really care whether they have blue eyes, or breasts, or testicles, or red hair, right, and if I cared, it would still be irrelevant to the discovery in most cases - not always, though: https://www.nature.com/news/male-researchers-stress-out-rodents-1.15106 https://www.nature.com/news/male-researchers-stress-out-rode...). - some people who prefer to be referred to using they (I know some personally, and there was a submission on HN whose author wants that we use they to refer to… them). We therefore should use "they" for them. - some people do not see themselves as neither male nor female, so a gender-neutral pronoun is convenient for them, and for other people to speak about them.

mises 7y ago
Plural they is pretty new in wide-spread usage? I usually just stick with generic "he" until I know otherwise; i.e. if a scientist found something, I don't really care whether he has... I'm not sure I get the idea of referring to a known person as "they", and this is at best a controversial issue bound very tightly to one side of the political aisle. A side with which I do not align. I guess I probably wouldn't ever do this, but I can at least see a possible use. Information appreciated. Quick follow-up: I saw your reply to another comment; I do not really acknowledge that it is a "thing" with respect to grammatical validity.
- jraph 7y ago
  I'm not in an English-speaking place, so I can't say how often it is spoken and for how long it has been, but I see it everywhere on HN and in other parts of the web. It seems that it is more accepted in GB than in the US [1] : “Garner's Modern American Usage (2nd ed., 2003) recommends cautious use of singular they, and avoidance where possible because its use is stigmatized. [...] Garner suggests that use of singular they is more acceptable in British English [...] and apparently regrets the resistance by the American language community: "That it sets many literate Americans' teeth on edge is an unfortunate obstacle to what promises to be the ultimate solution to the problem.” Singular they seems prescribed in the US too, by The Chicago Manual of Style at least since 1993 for instance [1], and proscribed by others. There are many possible reasons people would use singular they, I'm not sure we can put them in an homogeneous political group. It seems generic he is losing acceptance, to the point I wouldn't comfortably use it [2]. It probably depends on the place though. I would kindly invite you to reconsider using singular they instead of generic he, but this sure is controversial and I'm no one to tell anybody how to speak, and I would not want to neither. And when something about the language feels weird… well, it just feels weird. Languages are very personal and intimate. I personally tend to rephrase sentences to avoid they, but use it when doing so is too inconvenient. Thanks for the interesting discussion :-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Acceptability_and_prescriptive_guidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Acceptability_an... (already cited in another comment of mine) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Prescription_of_generic_he https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Prescription_of_... (I know, always the same link ;-))