3 ms·
"they" was a gender-neutral pronoun when I was in school in the 1990s.
by gwbas1c 2y ago
"they" was a gender-neutral pronoun when I was in school in the 1990s.
- ryoshoe 2y agoSingular they was used by respected authors even as far back as the 19th century.
- mrob 2y agoindoordin0saur is correct. Traditional use of singular "they" was restricted to persons of unknown sex, where it is correct and unobjectionable. But the article uses it for persons of known sex. This is a modern innovation, and it should be resisted because it reduces the clarity of the writing.
- gwbas1c 2y agoThey were people of unknown sex. Keeping the gender unspecified is part of the anonymity. Requiring to identify someone's gender when that person is anonymous is just pointless bigotry.
- mrob 2y agoYou're already making up fictitious names, so how is making up fictitious sexes any different? By using non-unisex names you're implying specific sexes already. It's implausible that you would know somebody's name and details about their working conditions without knowing their sex.
- mrob 2y agoAlternative solution: abbreviate all the fictitious names to single letters. This is commonly understood to mean obviously and intentionally concealed identity (e.g. "M" and "Q" from the James Bond franchise), which returns the singular "they" to traditional and unobjectionable usage.
- indoordin0saur 2y agoIt has been considered normal in some colloquial uses for a long time. But until the late 2010s/early 2020s all style guides considered it to be poor form due to the ambiguity and muddy sentence structure it creates. Recommendations were changed recently for political reasons.
- spacecadet 2y agoShit changes. You can either let it roll off you or over you. Alot less painful rolling off.
- akimbostrawman 2y agoComply with new speak citizen or else
- spacecadet 2y agoOr else what? Your heart will melt?
- xzsinu 2y agoMaybe recommendations changed recently because it has been considered normal in colloquial use for a long time.