# they feed <themself>



## e2efour

Suppose you are a journalist writing about a patient in hospital who died through being unable to take food.
Unfortunately, you don't know the sex of the patient. Would you write the following, and if not, why not?

The patient died because they were unable to feed themself OR The patient died through being unable to feed themself.
(It would be unacceptable to write the very clumsy "because he or she was unable to feed himself or herself".)

It should be noted that themself was first used in English in the 14th century. It has recently (since the 1970s) been on the increase, but most books and dictionaries describe it as non-standard.


----------



## heypresto

Although Chambers Dictionary, for instance, claims it to be 'informal' and 'unrecognised in standard English', I suppose we have to accept 'themself'. 

However, in the real world, I would try my hardest to avoid it, either by rewriting the sentence, or simply, doing my job as a journalist and finding out the sex of the patient in question.


----------



## Chasint

heypresto said:


> ...doing my job as a journalist and finding out the sex of the patient in question.


I agree. If a single patient is involved then we can specify the gender. If however a more general statement is required, e.g.

"In many cases it was found that the patient died because they were unable to feed themself."

We can substitute "In many cases it was found that patients died because they were unable to feed themselves."


----------



## rhitagawr

I'd never heard of the awkward "themself" before, although I see it's in Chambers. The combination of the plural "them" and the singular "self" sounds ridiculous to me. I wouldn't use the word whatever its pedigree. I'm one of those sexist pedants who let nouns of common gender default to the masculine. I'd write "The patient died because he was unable to feed himself". If the sex of the patient isn't important, we may as write the grammatically correct "he". If it is important, the journalist should establish it before writing about the patient's death. I don't see how we can have the plural "they" with the singular "patient". To write something like "The patient died because s/he was unable to feed him/herself" is an admission that we've been too lazy to establish the sex of the patient.
(You sometimes hear "Everyone's got their pen(s)." Strictly speaking, unless we know that they're all women or girls, it should be "Everyone's got his pen" because "everyone" is singular. But the idea of plurality in the word is so strong that the first sentence doesn't sound unnatural.)


----------



## e2efour

Let us assume that it is not possible to find out the sex of the patient, which would not be an uncommon situation.

What is it you find "awkward" about _themself_, I wonder? After all, the use of _they_ to refer to a person or individual has been used for a long time and few people would question it. For example, "you shouldn't give a gun to someone who has shot themselves in the foot." However, I feel unhappy about using the plural _themselves_ when we are clearly talking about one person.


----------



## JustKate

I agree with Rhitagawr that _themself_ is simply horrible - and rare, too. Since your scenario mentions a journalist, allow me to add that _themself_ is not even mentioned in either _The Associated Press Stylebook_ or _The Reuters Style Guide_.

Either use the traditional gender-neutral _he_ or follow the increasingly common practice of using plural pronouns as gender-neutral singlular pronouns: "The patient died because they were unable to feed themselves." I'd use the first one myself, but much as I dislike the second one, it's much better than _themself _and even I have to concede that plural pronouns being used as gender neutral singular pronouns has become acceptable in many contexts.


----------



## rhitagawr

I'm inclined to agree with JustKate. See my previous posting for my objections to "themself". Personally I'd say "You shouldn't give a gun to someone who's shot himself in the foot". I wouldn't take this to imply that it may be acceptable to give a gun to woman who's shot herself in the foot.
A lot of this discussion has been about personal styles and preferences. Language changes all the time and some people are more willing than others to accept neologisms.


----------



## Chasint

It's a quandary. Unfortunately almost any politically correct solution will sound wrong to someone.

Of course you can always resort to "The patient's inability to self-feed proved fatal."

Maybe in 50 years...


----------



## Loob

In an earlier thread on this (Themself?), mplsray provides a link to an interesting Language Log post: 





mplsray said:


> .....
> 
> Addition: Language Log has an interesting post on _themself_ here, in which evidence is presented that suggests that _themself_ may be "the wave of the future."



PS.  I would "write round" e2efour's original sentence, too.


----------



## JustKate

I don't use either _them_ or _themselves_ as singular pronouns - because I'm often stodgy and generally stubborn, that's why  - but if one can be considered a singular gender-neutral pronoun, then the other can be too. If you can accept _them_ as singular, what's the problem with _themselves_? I just don't get it.

Edit: And in reference to Loob's post, the question is, has "the future" referred to started already? AP's and Reuters' style guides would suggest that the answer to that is "no."


----------



## natkretep

I don't think I can bring myself to write _themself_, and would reformulate the sentence, _eg_

*Being unable to feed him/herself, the patient died. 

*​(I think a single him/her is fine.)


----------



## JulianStuart

Even if it has been used by some over the centuries, "themself" grates, for me, just as much as "they is"


----------



## dreamlike

JustKate said:


> *Either use the traditional gender-neutral *_*he*_ or follow the increasingly common practice of using plural pronouns as gender-neutral singlular pronouns:



That's something of a surprise to me. How can "he" be a gender-neutral pronoun when the gender is readily apparent, it's male?  
Would "*him"* and "*his*" respectively mean "*them*" and "*their*" in such contexts:

_If anybody comes, tell him.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. 
_
Is it more common to convey the idea using "him" and "his" or "them" and "their"?
I think this "gender-neutral" thing dates back to Old English. 
I've just remembered a construction using it: 
_He who..._. and it clearly can be both male and female.


----------



## JustKate

dreamlike said:


> That's something of a surprise to me. How can "he" be a gender-neutral pronoun when the gender is readily apparent, it's male?



The reason is that he/him have been used as gender-neutral pronouns for centuries...while also being used as masculine pronouns. It's just one of those things. I agree that it is illogical and even at times confusing, but there it is. It wasn't an issue, at least not one that bothered very many people, until the 1970s or thereabouts. Perhaps it should have been, because it can cause misunderstandings.


----------



## dreamlike

Frankly, I didn't expect anyone to offer any logical explanation. So that's simply the way it is. Then it would seem there is no perfect pronoun to be used in such a sentence, for instance:

_Everyone is entitled to his/their own opinion. _

Both "his" and "their" having _their _obvious drawbacks... curious.


----------



## Loob

Thinking further about e2efour's question....

As I said before, in e2efour's context I would "write round" the problem (I particularly like Biffo's "self-feed" solution).

But in a more informal context, I'm not sure what I'd use. If I was chatting to someone about what I'd do - hypothetically - if someone fell over in front of me in the street, would I say:
_If they'd injured themselves, I'd call for an ambulance_
or
_If they'd injured themself, I'd call for an ambulance_
?

I'd *probably* say _themselves_ - but I might well say _themself_....


----------



## e2efour

dreamlike said:


> Frankly, I didn't expect anyone to offer any logical explanation. So that's simply the way it is. Then it would seem there is no perfect pronoun to be used in such a sentence, for instance:
> 
> _Everyone is entitled to his/their own opinion. _


_Everyone_ is followed by a singular verb and a plural pronoun in good English and has been for 400 years. If anyone doesn't like "their opinion" above, they can write "his or her own opinion" if they prefer (but try writing this sentence without using _they_!).
See for example: "...everybody had their own importance" (Jane Austen), "Let us give everybody their due" (Dickens), "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes" (Oscar Wilde) etc. etc.
So why not _themself _to make it clear that one person is involved? It is certainly on the increase.


----------



## heypresto

Notwithstanding the fact that if someone fell over in front of me, I am very likely to know the sex of the unfortunate person, I agree with Loob. I'd probably say 'themselves'. 

In fact, I would definitely say, 'themselves'.


----------



## JustKate

Everyone/their is debated elsewhere in this forum, so I'm not going to start the whole thing up again here. 

But as for _themself_ being "on the increase"? Maybe. But it's still rare (allow me to again point out that it's not even mentioned by either the AP or Reuters style guides, and your scenario did suppose that the writer is a journalist), and it's still, to most people, illiterate-sounding and therefore unacceptable. 

It wouldn't be too bad under informal circumstances, such as those mentioned by Loob, but your sentence isn't informal, and the context you describe isn't informal either. Sure, you can use it. But it sounds wrong to most people, at least those who notice such things, and when it comes to grammar, if it sounds wrong to most educated speakers, it pretty much _is_ wrong.


----------



## e2efour

May I recommend anyone who is interested in _themself _two references:

http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/is-there-a-case-for-the-pronoun-themself, and
http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/reflecting-on-the-reflexive-pronoun-themself/ both dated May 2012.
Carey also refers also to the article mentioned by Loob above in #9 and quotes from a journalist: *Walking through Pilsen, the casual observer might easily think themself back in 1945* (_The_ _Times_, 7 May 1990).

There are 24 examples in the British National Corpus (including 5 from newspapers) and 98 in Coca (Contemporary American English), which suggests that it is not uncommon, at least informally.

Reactions to _themself_ range from the hysterical "*Whether it’s making a comeback or not, 'themself' is stupid, wrong, ungraceful, and unnecessary*" to more balanced comments, which point out that it is substandard, to those who think it fills a gap in English ("*I had forgotten ‘themself’ and it makes perfect sense! We were advised  as English students long, long ago that if we didn’t want to specify  gender then it was perfectly acceptable to use the plural pronoun with a  singular noun, as in 'the child wanted to visit the zoo by themselves'.*") (quoted from the macmillandictionaryblog.com above).


----------



## JustKate

But e2efour...your suggested sentence isn't informal. Your scenario isn't informal either - a journalist writing about somebody dying isn't likely to use informal writing. So what difference does its commonness (or rarity) under informal circumstances matter? I know plenty of people who under informal circumstances say "We was," and my own quite literate father frequently in conversation said things like "Get them weeds pulled," but that doesn't mean "we was" and "them weeds" is appropriate everywhere.


----------



## Loob

e2efour said:


> [...]
> Reactions to _themself_ range from the hysterical "*Whether it’s making a comeback or not, 'themself' is stupid, wrong, ungraceful, and unnecessary*" to more balanced comments, which point out that it is substandard, to those who think it fills a gap in English ("*I had forgotten ‘themself’ and it makes perfect sense! We were advised  as English students long, long ago that if we didn’t want to specify  gender then it was perfectly acceptable to use the plural pronoun with a  singular noun, as in 'the child wanted to visit the zoo by themselves'.*") (quoted from the macmillandictionaryblog.com above).


I think "themself" does fill a gap in English, and I'm fairly sure that if we came back to this thread in 100 years people would wonder why we were worrying about it.

That said, I agree with Kate on this: I don't think it's usable, yet, in formal English.


----------



## ewie

At the risk of going over the top, I'd sooner have my tongue torn out by vultures and my hand chewed off by guinea pigs than ever commit _themself_ to speech or writing.

That's it.


----------



## Wildcat1

I agree with Loob, disagree with ewie.

I think most of us are in agreement that, informally at least, they/them/their are OK with an indefinite singular antecedent like "everyone". The question then arises, what should the corresponding reflexive pronoun be. I _think_ people tend to say "themself" rather than "themselves" (again, with _singular_ antecedent), and, as a native speaker of English, this seems "right" to me (not formally correct, but colloquially "right"). I accept that not everyone will agree with me.

I would _not _use "themself" in any kind of formal writing.


----------



## JustKate

Loob said:


> I think "themself" does fill a gap in English, and I'm fairly sure that if we came back to this thread in 100 years people would wonder why we were worrying about it.
> 
> That said, I agree with Kate on this: I don't think it's usable, yet, in formal English.



To paraphrase columnist Dave Barry, in 100 years I plan to be dead  , so perhaps I won't have to deal with it. I feel...well, not perhaps quite as strongly as Ewie, but jeeeeeeeeze, I'm almost there. If _them_ is OK as a singular pronoun - which it isn't to me, but it is to many, many fine and grammatical people - why's the singular _themselves_ so bad? And how in the world can it be considered less acceptable than - yuck! - _themself_?

Either plural pronouns can be considered singular under certain circumstances (just as masculine pronouns can be considered gender neutral under certain circumstances) or they can't. If they can, why accept _them_ but not _themselves_?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I would avoid 'themself' in formal speech and in writing because it sounds so awful that it impedes effective communication despite me being a huge fan of 'themselves', 'their' and gender neutrality in general. It sounds plain wrong, however irrational that might be and whatever historical precedent there is. If I didn't know the sex of the individual concerned I might have to reconsider my choice of career.

In the highly unlikely event that nobody knew or was prepared to divulge the sex of the patient, I would certainly compose my article in a way that avoided using 'himself/herself' or 'themself'.

Hermione


----------



## Wildcat1

JustKate said:


> If _them_ is OK as a singular pronoun - which it isn't to me, but it is to many, many fine and grammatical people - why's the singular _themselves_ so bad? And how in the world can it be considered less acceptable than - yuck! - _themself_?
> 
> Either plural pronouns can be considered singular under certain circumstances ... or they can't. If they can, why accept _them_ but not _themselves_?


I think the answer to these questions is that they/them/their have a centuries-old tradition of being used in a singular sense, and more importantly, are _currently_ widely used as singulars.  The same is not true of "selves".

It would be interesting to do the following survey.  Ask a random group of native speakers:
_Forget everything you learned in school; ignore what grammar books might say. Which of the following *sounds* better to you:_
1. Someone just shot themself - call the police!
2. Someone just shot themselves - call the police!
I'd put _my_ money on #1.


----------



## JustKate

I just disagree. Sorry. I think most native speakers would recoil from _themself_ if given a chance (now, anyway - this could easily change, of course). That is, it might slip out of their mouth if they were talking carelessly - many things do, after all - but I don't think most people would chose to use that word if they thought about it for even a couple of seconds. I think _themselves_ would sound much more natural because that at least has been a word in use for a very long time. 

But hey, the only way to see who's right and who's wrong is to wait and see.


----------



## e2efour

In English _you_ can be singular or plural. Correspondingly, we have _yourself _and _yourselves.

_They/them are usually plural but can be used as gender-neutral pronounswith a singular subject_._ So why not themself/themselves? It seems to me a useful distinction.
I also note that themself has been used in "respectable" prose, e.g. F. Scott Fitzgerald and Emily Dickinson, so there's hope for me yet.

Just to satisfy you, JustKate, I do avoid using _themself_ in formal writing, you will be glad to hear. I hardly think, however, that it can be compared with "we was" and "get them weeds pulled out". 

But I do think it clumsy to write sentences where "he and she" or "him and her" occur twice.

It is worth saying that legal texts (e.g. insurance conditions) nearly always use _he/him_ throughout. This does not mean that _he_ is a gender-neutral pronoun, but merely reflects the inconvenience of having to write "he and she" etc.


----------



## JustKate

Oh, E2, you are breaking my heart.  _Themself_ sounds *at least* as bad as "pull them weeds out." Wait, I'm wrong. It sounds worse. I truly loathe it with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns, so I hope I'm right about the future of this little device and you're wrong. 

Besides, if there's no need to differentiate between the singular and plural _them_, as is apparently the case for many people, why is it necessary and "useful" to differentiate between the singular and plural _themselves_? If one isn't confusing and is good grammar, what's so bad about the other one? Either people can handle a word that does double duty as both plural and singular, or they can't. No?

I agree, more or less, on _he or she_ - if it's overused, and twice in one sentence would definitely be overused. I think it's absolutely fine so long as you only have to toss a _he or she_ and a _his or her_ into the mix now and then, though. If you do it right, most people won't even notice.


----------



## Miss Julie

<< Moderator's note: These comments have been moved from this thread, where they were off topic: selfie >>


Stoggler said:


> No, it's nothing to do with being selfish.
> 
> A selfie is a photo someone takes of them*self* (hence, selfie), usually using the phone on their mobile phone.  These types of photos are everywhere on social media.
> 
> The word was declared "Word of the Year" recently by the Oxford English Dictionary people - article on the BBC here



*Note:* _There is no such word as "themself." It's either *himself* or *herself*._


----------



## Stoggler

Miss Julie said:


> *Note:* _There is no such word as "themself." It's either *himself* or *herself*._



A lesson for me to proofread my posts!  I'll edit it

(thanks by the way)


----------



## e2efour

Miss Julie said:


> *Note:* _There is no such word as "themself." It's either *himself* or *herself*._


Not so! See The American Heritage Dictionary:
*1. * _Informal_   Himself or herself. Used as a gender-neutral reflexive pronoun: _"Relationships are hard, but all the work is worth it, unless the person you're with has totally let themself go"_ _(John Metz)._


----------



## Miss Julie

e2efour said:


> Not so! See The American Heritage Dictionary:
> *1. * _Informal_   Himself or herself. Used as a gender-neutral reflexive pronoun: _"Relationships are hard, but all the work is worth it, unless the person you're with has totally let themself go"_ _(John Metz)._



It is far from being universally accepted, however. It is still considered substandard usage.


----------



## Egmont

Miss Julie said:


> It is far from being universally accepted, however. It is still considered substandard usage.


The question of pronouns that do not imply that a person is male or female is evolving rapidly. I think most people would agree with the first quoted sentence, but many would not agree with the second. I don't particularly like it either, but I no longer wear a doublet, I replaced my horse-drawn carriage with one of those newfangled automobiles a few years ago, I recently figured out that a radio does not have little people inside it, and I'll probably have to accept "themself" soon as well.


----------



## e2efour

It may be worth noting that the OED (Online version) seems to have accepted _themself_ in the meaning _himself or herself_ in its latest revision in line with the third edition (September 1913).
In the 2nd printed edition _themself _did not even appear as an entry. In the latest online version it now has a whole entry to itself, while the original entry _themselves_ still remains. Here are a couple of quotes that have been added:

                                                 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*In apposition to a singular noun or pronoun of undetermined gender: himself or herself.*

1997    _Independent on Sunday_ 21 Dec.  i. 6/4 Every six to eight weeks a man or a woman—usually a man—kills their partner or their children and them[typo for _then_?] themself.
2005    B. Flaws  & P. Sionneau _Treatm. Mod. Western Med. Diseases Chinese Medicine_ Intro. 5/1 Mostly reported by the patient themself or their close family members.
                                                                                                        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The OED only mentions as substandard in the US the use of _themself_ to refer to plural objects. It does not use the word _informal_, as far as I can tell. But it is a little confusing to have to entries for both _themself_ and _themselves._
So we don't have to wait 100 years for this word to become acceptable. 

You may also be confronted by a form which asks you to send a photo of yourself. The common wording (and this is also used in Canadian legislation) is something like _An applicant must submit a photo of themself. _The OED would also, it seems, allow _themselves_. 

But I know which one I would choose!


----------



## Loob

e2efour said:


> [...] So we don't have to wait 100 years for this word to become acceptable.[...]


Oh, I'm with you, e2!  I mentioned 100 years only to indicate that things are evolving, and that resistance to "themself" would surely be long-gone in 100 years.

"Themself" seems a useful word to me, and a good parallel with singular "yourself" vs plural "yourselves".


----------



## nonchalant slacker

If a patient is not taking their medication, they should tell me about it before I have to ask them what their problem is

In my opinion I wouldn`t use Themself, but only because there are ways to avoid it, not because I think it`s wrong.

"The patient died because they were unable to feed themselves."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The patient died because he was unable to feed himself"


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Hi,

Loob called my attention to this thread (now called a "discussion") today, a year after the last post (now "comment").

In the OP (now called an "OP"), e2four wrote:
"...a patient in a hospital who died through being unable to take food..." I find it hard to believe this could happen; a patient in a hospital who was unable to take food orally would be fed intravenously, no?

heypresto < ---- > wrote in#18:
"Notwithstanding the fact that if someone fell over in front of me, I am (tense agreement, hp ?) very likely to know the sex of the unfortunate person..." As Loob specified in the post to which hp was referring,she was speaking hypothetically, so she couldn't know.


< ---- > Chat removed. Cagey, moderator.


----------



## e2efour

The reference to the patient "being unable to take food" meant that food or liquid was deliberately withheld because the patient was dying (called the "Liverpool care pathway" in UK hospitals). It could have been better rephrased as "not being allowed access to food or drink".

If you don't know the gender of a person, you more or less have to use _they/them_/_themselves_ or the informal _themself_, which is certainly not substandard English when applied to one person.


----------



## heypresto

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> (tense agreement, hp ?)



You've got me bang to rights there. And I thought I had got away with it for the past three years or so. 

It's especially humiliating for me, as when I set a pizzle puzzle I go to great lengths to ensure the parts of speech of definition and answer agree.


----------



## bennymix

e2efour said:


> It may be worth noting that the OED (Online version) seems to have accepted _themself_ in the meaning _himself or herself_ in its latest revision in line with the third edition (September 1913).
> In the 2nd printed edition _themself _did not even appear as an entry. In the latest online version it now has a whole entry to itself, while the original entry _themselves_ still remains. Here are a couple of quotes that have been added:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *In apposition to a singular noun or pronoun of undetermined gender: himself or herself.*
> 
> 1997    _Independent on Sunday_ 21 Dec.  i. 6/4 Every six to eight weeks a man or a woman—usually a man—kills their partner or their children and them[typo for _then_?] themself.
> 2005    B. Flaws  & P. Sionneau _Treatm. Mod. Western Med. Diseases Chinese Medicine_ Intro. 5/1 Mostly reported by the patient themself or their close family members.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The OED only mentions as substandard in the US the use of _themself_ to refer to plural objects. It does not use the word _informal_, as far as I can tell. But it is a little confusing to have to entries for both _themself_ and _themselves._
> So we don't have to wait 100 years for this word to become acceptable.
> 
> You may also be confronted by a form which asks you to send a photo of yourself. The common wording (and this is also used in Canadian legislation) is something like _An applicant must submit a photo of themself. _The OED would also, it seems, allow _themselves_.
> 
> But I know which one I would choose!



Oxford now recognizes that 'themself' is coming back in, and gives examples.   kThe word 'substandard' is not applied, but rather 'not widely accepted... in standard English'

I wonder if people in US and UK are getting used to it.    {There are lots of other examples cited.}

_‘the casual observer might easily think themself back in 1945’_
*Usage*
The standard reflexive form corresponding to they and them is themselves, as in they can do it themselves. The singular form themself, first recorded in the 14th century, has re-emerged in recent years corresponding to the singular gender-neutral use of they, as in this is the first step in helping someone to help themself. The form is not widely accepted in standard English, however.

themself | Definition of themself in English by Oxford Dictionaries

====

Among earlier threads:\

Themself?


----------



## Orble

Adding the (admittedly older) Australian view to the UK and US views, I would definitely never use “themself” in any context. I would see it as an aberration if I ever saw it written and I’m not sure I ever have. 

I’d put “themselves” in another category altogether as a rising and useful substitute for the odious (and in Australia thankfully almost extinct) use of male pronouns when gender is unknown. I therefore can see the argument that “themself” might find a legitimate place on the coattails of its plural, but it’s not there yet.


----------



## velisarius

I always dither over singular "themself v themselves", forced (?) by political correctness to choose between two forms that don't come naturally to me and probably never will.


----------



## DonnyB

I wouldn't either say or write "themself", and just for the curiosity value, I throw out the information that my spellchecker has marked it as a mistake.  Most of the example sentences in the Oxford Dictionaries link that benny has given in his post (#42) sound better to me as "themselves", even those where it would amount to a grammatically incorrect mix of singular and plural.

I tend to agree with those members who've said the neatest solution to the dilemma is simply to rephrase the sentence so as to avoid the need to use either.


----------



## Andygc

I do use "themself" and have done so in this forum. The sky didn't fall in.  

If I use the singular "they" the only logical reflexive pronoun to go with it is "themself". The objections are just an example of grammatical indoctrination or fashion and are as rational as "no split infinitives" and "don't end sentences with prepositions". This singular form has a long history and is making a comeback. In 50 years time, anybody seeing this thread will wonder what the fuss was about. I see no dilemma to solve.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I certainly don't see it as "political correctness". I have long hated the lack of a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun in English and so routinely use plural forms, but the reflexive form is a bit of a problem. Since whoever invented this language saw fit to add "yourself" when "you" became used in the singular (it is of course a plural form), I think that "themself" is justified for a singular "they". However, I rarely have the courage to put my belief into practice, and usually write "themselves". Perhaps I'll have more confidence after reading this thread.


----------



## bennymix

Andygc said:


> I do use "themself" and have done so in this forum. The sky didn't fall in.
> 
> If I use the singular "they" the only logical reflexive pronoun to go with it is "themself". The objections are just an example of grammatical indoctrination or fashion and are as rational as "no split infinitives" and "don't end sentences with prepositions". This singular form has a long history and is making a comeback. In 50 years time, anybody seeing this thread will wonder what the fuss was about. I see no dilemma to solve.



Thanks for your contribution, Andy.   Things do change and often the change involves a form that's in fact found in history, e.g. the singular 'they' found in Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Dickens and others.


----------



## kentix

I have found myself on the verge of using it several times here but avoided the controversy by rewriting it since I had more important fish to fry.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

kentix said:


> I have found myself on the verge of using it several times here but avoided the controversy by rewriting it since I had more important fish to fry.


I subscribe to the tsunami theory of_ themself_.  It will come, so best be as prepared as one can be.

Faced with the practical problem, and as an act of reverse political incorrectness, I sometimes assume, when I don't know the person's sex, that she is a woman, which makes _herself_ available.  This can startle the ladies who assume I'm a mcp, but other ladies and people in general take it in their stride, though I wouldn't recommend it generally.  It's a boring old fart's response to a problem which is insoluble in the short run.

Wild horses on their bended knees couldn't make me adopt Ewie's heroic approach.


----------



## Rover_KE

If you accept 'them' as a gender-neutral pronoun, it's illogical to refuse to use 'themself' as its reflexive equivalent.

We all accept 'ourself', don't we?


----------



## ewie

Thomas Tompion said:


> Faced with the practical problem, and as an act of reverse political incorrectness, I sometimes assume, when I don't know the person's sex, that she is a woman, which makes _herself_ available.  This can startle the ladies who assume I'm a mcp, but other ladies and people in general take it in their stride, though I wouldn't recommend it generally.  It's a boring old fart's response to a problem which is insoluble in the short run.


I'm afraid you've totally lost me there, Mr T 


Rover_KE said:


> We all accept 'ourself', don't we?


Erm ... do we?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ewie said:


> I'm afraid you've totally lost me there, Mr T


Sorry, Mr E.  I'll expand.

The old norm, when talking of someone of whose sex one was ignorant, was to talk of the person as a man, and say he, him, and himself.

The feminists objected to that as sexist, so I was tempted, and it was a temptation I didn't always resist, to talk of the person as a woman, and say she, her, and herself.

That was just as sexist, but nobody seemed to mind.


----------



## ewie

Thomas Tompion said:


> Sorry, Mr E.  I'll expand.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Logically, there's no reason for _themself_.  OK.  But since when has logic had anything to do with English usage?  _Themself _was as popular in 1820 as it is today*, and it seems the simple way out of a difficult but rare dilemma.  Likewise, I don't often use the concentric hole attachment to my electric drill, but it's a tool I have available in my armoury.  Why would I want to deprive myself of the facility?  Vultures and guinea pigs don't come into it.

* Google Ngram Viewer.


----------



## FukuokaSunshine

I was reading a thread on our Facebook messenger group chat and found a small notification saying _Mike replied to themself_.
I wonder why Facebook uses such a "gender-neutral" word where in fact Mike is male or they are just being safe?


----------



## Uncle Jack

FukuokaSunshine said:


> I was reading a thread on our Facebook messenger group chat and found a small notification saying _Mike replied to themself_.
> I wonder why Facebook uses such a "gender-neutral" word where in fact Mike is male or they are just being safe?


Does Facebook know Mike is male? Does Facebook have a policy of not revealing people's gender? Do Facebook programmers think that it unnecessary or a waste of resources to add code to look up a person's gender in order to select which pronoun to use? Does Facebook have a policy of only using gender-neutral pronouns? These all seem valid reasons to me, but they are questions for Facebook.

Over the past few years, I have increasingly used gender-neutral pronouns even when I know the gender of the person I am talking about, and I am sure you will find many examples in my posts on this forum.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Uncle Jack said:


> Over the past few years, I have increasingly used gender-neutral pronouns even when I know the gender of the person I am talking about...


Sorry, Uncle Jack, but that's plain daft.  Why would you deliberately remove meaning from what you say?  

Or do you mean that you do it by accident, in the heat of the moment?  If so, I'm sure we forgive you.


----------



## Uncle Jack

No, I do it deliberately. I have always been happy with my own gender identity, but I have known enough people who aren't, and who hate the enforced categorisation and labelling, that I have come to see it as unnecessary.


----------



## Loob

Uncle Jack said:


> Does Facebook know Mike is male? Does Facebook have a policy of not revealing people's gender? Do Facebook programmers think that it unnecessary or a waste of resources to add code to look up a person's gender in order to select which pronoun to use? Does Facebook have a policy of only using gender-neutral pronouns? These all seem valid reasons to me, but they are questions for Facebook.



I'm often momentarily taken aback when I see_ {Friend X} updated *their *profile picture_.  But then I think "How very sensible, Facebook!"


----------



## velisarius

FukuokaSunshine said:


> I was reading a thread on our Facebook messenger group chat and found a small notification saying _Mike replied to themself_.
> I wonder why Facebook uses such a "gender-neutral" word where in fact Mike is male or they are just being safe?


I don't understand what that means.
Another good reason why I'm not on FB (Hasn't it changed its name?)


----------



## Ikwik64

According to Bodmer and Hogben in _The Loom of Language_, the usage was already common in 1944. They called it the _common gender singular. _I don't mind it - language evolves and we got used to singular "you" centuries ago.


----------



## speedier

natkretep's idea seems good to me, though I'd probably alter it a little and go the whole hog as follows:

*Being unable to eat without assistance, the patient died.*


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

speedier said:


> natkretep's idea seems good to me, though I'd probably alter it a little and go the whole hog as follows:
> 
> *Being unable to eat without assistance, the patient died.*



While your formulation sounds good, although it could describe the cause of the death of a person* living alone wouldn't a hospitalized person who was unable to eat without assistance be provided with the necessary assistance to take nourishment?

*Edit: In that case the person in question would have been identified earlier, so either "he" or "she" (but not "they") would be used instead of "the patient".


----------



## Swati Aiyer

I would try to get around the issue by stating "The patient died due to inability to feed."  Very obviously the patient would not be trying to feed somebody else.


----------



## cyndycita

Sometimes you just have to re-write - divorce yourself from the words and marry the meaning - 
Instead of
 "The patient died because they were unable to feed themself OR The patient died through being unable to feed themself."
How about
"The patient died due to the inability to eat without assistance."   Same meaning, right?


----------



## juanitainfante

JustKate said:


> I just disagree. Sorry. I think most native speakers would recoil from _themself_ if given a chance (now, anyway - this could easily change, of course). That is, it might slip out of their mouth if they were talking carelessly - many things do, after all - but I don't think most people would chose to use that word if they thought about it for even a couple of seconds. I think _themselves_ would sound much more natural because that at least has been a word in use for a very long time.
> 
> But hey, the only way to see who's right and who's wrong is to wait and see.


I agree. Most people would say themselves, not themself.


----------



## Andygc

juanitainfante said:


> I agree. Most people would say themselves, not themself.


I do not believe anybody would actually say "themselves" to refer to a single person. "The patient could not feed themselves." 


Rover_KE said:


> If you accept 'them' as a gender-neutral pronoun, it's illogical to refuse to use 'themself' as its reflexive equivalent.


As the OED states about singular use:


> With a generic or indefinite antecedent referring to an individual (e.g. _a person_, _someone_, _the patient_), used esp. so as to make a general reference to such an individual without specifying gender.


And it goes back a long way:
1463–5    _Rolls of Parl.: Edward IV_ (Electronic ed.) Parl. Apr. 1463 §38. m. 12   Inheritementes, of which any of the seid persones..was seised by *theym self*, or joyntly with other.


----------



## juanitainfante

Andygc said:


> I do not believe anybody would actually say "themselves" to refer to a single person. "The patient could not feed themselves."
> 
> As the OED states about singular use:
> 
> And it goes back a long way:
> 1463–5    _Rolls of Parl.: Edward IV_ (Electronic ed.) Parl. Apr. 1463 §38. m. 12   Inheritementes, of which any of the seid persones..was seised by *theym self*, or joyntly with other.


In recent years, people have started to use _themself to _correspond to this singular use of they and them: it’s seen as the logical singular form of themselves. For example:

_This is the first step in helping someone to help themself._

This form is not yet widely accepted, though, so you should avoid using it in formal written contexts. If you were writing the sentence above, you should say:

_This is the first step in helping someone to help themselves._


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

juanitainfante said:


> _This is the first step in helping someone to help themselves._


For me, that would only work if the person addressed suffered from Multiple-Personality Disorder (I think that's the term).


----------



## Andygc

juanitainfante said:


> This form is not yet widely accepted, though, so you should avoid using it in formal written contexts.


Thank you for your guidance on how to use my native language. I'm perfectly happy using a form of words that has been in use for more than 500 years.


----------

