7 ms·

Singular "they" was one I resisted for a long time, but it's a lost cause. I've had almost the opposite experience from you. I'd long embraced it as the correc

Singular "they" was one I resisted for a long time, but it's a lost cause. I've had almost the opposite experience from you. I'd long embraced it as the correct word to use when referring to a person of unknown gender or to a hypothetical individual, but having to use it regarding real people caused me problems. When my wife became coworkers with a non-binary person and its usage came up every few days, the better I got at gendering them properly the worse I got at everyone else. First I started accidentally calling her other friends "they", and then I started sometimes referring to any woman as "they". Fortunately that coworker took a job elsewhere before I started referring to men as they too.

nicoburns 2y ago
I purposefully and unapologetically try to refer to everyone as "they" these days. A person's gender is rarely relevant (and can often lead to stereotyping), so I see no need to mention it every time I refer to them. And it makes life a lot simpler.
- vsnf 2y ago
  While not strictly improper, this feels needlessly confrontational and pushing of an ideology. You might find you ruffle more feathers than you think by doing this.
  - nicoburns 2y ago
    Some people seem not to like it (most don't care), but nothing else gets special treatment in language (one doesn't refer to people of different races using different pronouns for example - there are special titles like sir/lord/reverend, but I try to avoid those too), and I think it's good to challenge people's assumptions around this kind of thing.
SoftTalker 2y ago
I have no objection to avoiding assumptions about a person's gender. It's unfortunate in my opinion that we chose "they" which is gender-neutral but also plural. That is entirely where the issue is for me. I'd have no objection to a singular gender-neutral word (which unfortunately doesn't exist in English). "One" sometimes works, but often sounds too formal. Or reworking the sentence so that "they" is approprate, e.g. "Each person should do it for themselves" isn't terrible, and not too confusing, but better is either "People should do it for themselves" or "One should do it for oneself." The worst is something like "The manager decided that they should do it for themselves" which I see a lot, especially recently. Who is "they" referring to here? The manager? Some other group? It's confusing. Yes I know that singular "they" has existed for a long time but nobody apparently told my English teachers who would circle it in red every time I accidentally used it.
- Izkata 2y ago
  > Yes I know that singular "they" has existed for a long time but nobody apparently told my English teachers who would circle it in red every time I accidentally used it. I remember reading in the 80s or 90s there was a movement to actively eliminate it.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Yes, I learned (mostly from female teachers) that "he" should be interpreted as gender-neutral if the gender of a singular subject was unknown, e.g. "A writer should always consider his audience" did not imply that only males are writers. It would be nice if people could charitably assume that, but I understand that it can be problematic.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  > I'd have no objection to a singular gender-neutral word (which unfortunately doesn't exist in English). Yes it does. "He" is the gender neutral expression in English and has been since forever. It's just that politically correct people get bent out of shape about it.
  - djur 2y ago
    It isn't gender neutral, it's a gender default. Unless you think it would be correct for the student handbook at an all-girls school to read "every student shall store his books in his assigned locker".
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      I do in fact think that would be correct.
  - rvba 2y ago
    It so weird that ships and boats somehow are female and are referred to using the word "she", when neutral gender "it" exists.

nicoburns 2y ago

I purposefully and unapologetically try to refer to everyone as "they" these days. A person's gender is rarely relevant (and can often lead to stereotyping), so I see no need to mention it every time I refer to them. And it makes life a lot simpler.

vsnf 2y ago
While not strictly improper, this feels needlessly confrontational and pushing of an ideology. You might find you ruffle more feathers than you think by doing this.
- nicoburns 2y ago
  Some people seem not to like it (most don't care), but nothing else gets special treatment in language (one doesn't refer to people of different races using different pronouns for example - there are special titles like sir/lord/reverend, but I try to avoid those too), and I think it's good to challenge people's assumptions around this kind of thing.

SoftTalker 2y ago

I have no objection to avoiding assumptions about a person's gender. It's unfortunate in my opinion that we chose "they" which is gender-neutral but also plural. That is entirely where the issue is for me. I'd have no objection to a singular gender-neutral word (which unfortunately doesn't exist in English). "One" sometimes works, but often sounds too formal. Or reworking the sentence so that "they" is approprate, e.g. "Each person should do it for themselves" isn't terrible, and not too confusing, but better is either "People should do it for themselves" or "One should do it for oneself." The worst is something like "The manager decided that they should do it for themselves" which I see a lot, especially recently. Who is "they" referring to here? The manager? Some other group? It's confusing. Yes I know that singular "they" has existed for a long time but nobody apparently told my English teachers who would circle it in red every time I accidentally used it.

Izkata 2y ago
> Yes I know that singular "they" has existed for a long time but nobody apparently told my English teachers who would circle it in red every time I accidentally used it. I remember reading in the 80s or 90s there was a movement to actively eliminate it.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Yes, I learned (mostly from female teachers) that "he" should be interpreted as gender-neutral if the gender of a singular subject was unknown, e.g. "A writer should always consider his audience" did not imply that only males are writers. It would be nice if people could charitably assume that, but I understand that it can be problematic.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
> I'd have no objection to a singular gender-neutral word (which unfortunately doesn't exist in English). Yes it does. "He" is the gender neutral expression in English and has been since forever. It's just that politically correct people get bent out of shape about it.
- djur 2y ago
  It isn't gender neutral, it's a gender default. Unless you think it would be correct for the student handbook at an all-girls school to read "every student shall store his books in his assigned locker".
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    I do in fact think that would be correct.
- rvba 2y ago
  It so weird that ships and boats somehow are female and are referred to using the word "she", when neutral gender "it" exists.