4 ms·

Wow, that's some extraordinary condescension. They/them/their has been seeing broad adoption as a, y'know, actually gender-neutral pronoun, and it should be en

by MBlume 12y ago

Wow, that's some extraordinary condescension. They/them/their has been seeing broad adoption as a, y'know, actually gender-neutral pronoun, and it should be encouraged. I know some people prefer he/him/his but a) many people think that reeks of implicit sexism b) even ignoring a), elevating that to The One Correct English Way is ridiculous overreach

sgrove 12y ago
Meh, I like 'hen'[0] a lot, wouldn't mind seeing a concerted effort to introduce it in English as well. I doubt it would go over well in the states, however. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_%28pronoun%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_%28pronoun%29
- evincarofautumn 12y ago
  Unfortunately, pronouns are a closed class[1] in English; the possibility of getting people to adopt a new one is vanishingly unlikely. Fortunately, we already have “they”, which has been used as a gender-neutral pronoun in the singular for at least half a millennium. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed_classes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed...
  - sgrove 12y ago
    Interesting, hadn't heard about closed/open classes in speech. I agree that "they" serves the purpose well, but it's nice to see an explicit, consciousness-raising fix (though it's the ultimate bikeshed politically, everyone feels they're qualified to comment - even me!)
Dewie 12y ago
I think I've only seen "they" used as a gender-neutral pronoun once or twice, outside of contexts where the topic itself is gender neutral pronouns. So going by that experience, I don't have much faith in broad adoption if the term can't seem to penetrate usage in writing outside of contexts where people are actively discussing the term itself.
- unhammer 12y ago
  Shakespeare good enough for you? http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.h... or Jane Austen? http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austhlis.html http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austhlis.html For more fun facts and rants about gender-neutral they, see: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005423.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005423.h... ----- Note: there's a strong difference between gender-neutral they when the gender is unknown, and singular they when the gender is known. Some people actually prefer being referred to with 'they/their' in sentences such as "Mary finished their ph.d. at Oxford". I doubt you'll find much historic precedence for that usage, but the use of 'their' when the gender is unknown/unspecified has a long history. Well, each to their own.
  - tekacs 12y ago
    I myself use they as a neutral pronoun, but I'd suggest that Shakespeare and Austen aren't great examples, especially the former, as the poster was looking for widespread adoption and those authors[1] both use language in ways that are very uncommon. [1]: this right here is why 'they' as neutral is problematic, as I would have been able to use 'they' unambiguously (instead of 'those authors') had 'they' not grown a singular meaning. It's the point made above about two dimensions rather than one of uncertainty.
    - unhammer 12y ago
      Maybe not the best examples, but people do tend to think of the usage as something new, while it's been around forever. I wouldn't say "they both" is very number-ambiguous, though sure you can always find ambiguous examples, but then language is full of ambiguity and humans still seem to manage fine.
      - Dewie 12y ago
        > Maybe not the best examples, but people do tend to think of the usage as something new, while it's been around forever. To bad then that I never said anything about history, but just widespread adoption. So there is not much need to condescendingly point out Shakespeare and Austen, when they are just tangentially related.
bigtunacan 12y ago
Interesting how you focused on "he/him/his" when I said "He/She" and "his/hers", noting that either gender based term can be used in a gender neutral manner, but that "traditionally the masculine form is used". My point was to indicate that it is common enough that insult should not have been taken to the original post. I certainly never said anything about "The One Correct English Way". As for the condescension; yes that was intended. The response was overly hostile and out of line so the condescension was deserved IMHO. Don't worry yourself though Mike; I spread around the condescension equally to all genders.
- dang 12y ago
  > I spread around the condescension equally Please don't spread any more condescension on Hacker News. Although I'm sure you don't mean to, it's one of the worst things you could do to damage this community.
Devthrowaway80 12y ago
Claiming that the author is sexist for using "he" in a gender neutral setting, which has been standard practice for decades, is an over-reach. Is "they" or "him/her" a better way forward? Sure. Is it standard practice? No. Can you infer anything about the author's attitudes by his use of standard English grammar? No.

by MBlume 12y ago

sgrove 12y ago

Meh, I like 'hen'[0] a lot, wouldn't mind seeing a concerted effort to introduce it in English as well. I doubt it would go over well in the states, however. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_%28pronoun%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_%28pronoun%29

evincarofautumn 12y ago
Unfortunately, pronouns are a closed class[1] in English; the possibility of getting people to adopt a new one is vanishingly unlikely. Fortunately, we already have “they”, which has been used as a gender-neutral pronoun in the singular for at least half a millennium. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed_classes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed...
- sgrove 12y ago
  Interesting, hadn't heard about closed/open classes in speech. I agree that "they" serves the purpose well, but it's nice to see an explicit, consciousness-raising fix (though it's the ultimate bikeshed politically, everyone feels they're qualified to comment - even me!)

Dewie 12y ago

I think I've only seen "they" used as a gender-neutral pronoun once or twice, outside of contexts where the topic itself is gender neutral pronouns. So going by that experience, I don't have much faith in broad adoption if the term can't seem to penetrate usage in writing outside of contexts where people are actively discussing the term itself.

unhammer 12y ago
Shakespeare good enough for you? http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.h... or Jane Austen? http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austhlis.html http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austhlis.html For more fun facts and rants about gender-neutral they, see: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005423.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005423.h... ----- Note: there's a strong difference between gender-neutral they when the gender is unknown, and singular they when the gender is known. Some people actually prefer being referred to with 'they/their' in sentences such as "Mary finished their ph.d. at Oxford". I doubt you'll find much historic precedence for that usage, but the use of 'their' when the gender is unknown/unspecified has a long history. Well, each to their own.
- tekacs 12y ago
  I myself use they as a neutral pronoun, but I'd suggest that Shakespeare and Austen aren't great examples, especially the former, as the poster was looking for widespread adoption and those authors[1] both use language in ways that are very uncommon. [1]: this right here is why 'they' as neutral is problematic, as I would have been able to use 'they' unambiguously (instead of 'those authors') had 'they' not grown a singular meaning. It's the point made above about two dimensions rather than one of uncertainty.
  - unhammer 12y ago
    Maybe not the best examples, but people do tend to think of the usage as something new, while it's been around forever. I wouldn't say "they both" is very number-ambiguous, though sure you can always find ambiguous examples, but then language is full of ambiguity and humans still seem to manage fine.
    - Dewie 12y ago
      > Maybe not the best examples, but people do tend to think of the usage as something new, while it's been around forever. To bad then that I never said anything about history, but just widespread adoption. So there is not much need to condescendingly point out Shakespeare and Austen, when they are just tangentially related.

bigtunacan 12y ago

Interesting how you focused on "he/him/his" when I said "He/She" and "his/hers", noting that either gender based term can be used in a gender neutral manner, but that "traditionally the masculine form is used". My point was to indicate that it is common enough that insult should not have been taken to the original post. I certainly never said anything about "The One Correct English Way". As for the condescension; yes that was intended. The response was overly hostile and out of line so the condescension was deserved IMHO. Don't worry yourself though Mike; I spread around the condescension equally to all genders.

dang 12y ago
> I spread around the condescension equally Please don't spread any more condescension on Hacker News. Although I'm sure you don't mean to, it's one of the worst things you could do to damage this community.

Devthrowaway80 12y ago

Claiming that the author is sexist for using "he" in a gender neutral setting, which has been standard practice for decades, is an over-reach. Is "they" or "him/her" a better way forward? Sure. Is it standard practice? No. Can you infer anything about the author's attitudes by his use of standard English grammar? No.