# Gender-neutral pronouns; Singular they, she, he



## mink-shin

> * Frequency and Duration*
> 
> Duration has a unique quality in that the more time you spend with a person, the more influence *they* have over your thoughts and actions. Mentors who spend a lot of time with their mentees exercise a positive influence over them. <...> (Source : The Like Switch)



Hi, 

What do you think the bold _'*they*' _refers to?

I think it refers to_ 'a person'_, which doesn't seem grammatical to me. It strikes me as odd. I think it should be written as _'...s/he has...'_.

What do you think of it?

Thanks.


----------



## Andygc

"a person". There are previous threads which discuss the use of "they" as a singular pronoun of indeterminate gender. It is normal and correct English.

*Gender neutral pronouns: he or she, s/he, they?*
*he vs. he or she vs. they*
*his, her or their?*
*Everyone, everybody - singular or plural? ... everyone please shut their mouth(s)*
*Gender-neutral third person singular pronouns: December 2005: Everybody - singular or plural?*
*Gender-neutral third person singular pronouns: May 2005: Everyone has a right to <?> privacy? his, her, its, their?*


----------



## dojibear

This is a fairly new thing: using *they* as a singuler pronoun to mean "he or she" and *them *as a singular pronoun to mean "him or her". Feminists started using it 15 or 20 or 25 years ago and it gradually became acceptable to (and used by) everyone.

It started because feminists objected to the tradition (hundreds of years old) of using "he/him" as the default pronoun when the gender is not known or is not being specified.

The only problem it can cause is that "they" and "them" are still used as plural pronouns.


----------



## mink-shin

Hi.

Thank you, Andy, for relevant threads.

I thought this must have been discussed here, but there was no easy way of guessing what thread title to look for.


----------



## mink-shin

dojibear said:


> This is a fairly new thing: using *they* as a singuler pronoun to mean "he or she" and *them *as a singular pronoun to mean "him or her". Feminists started using it 15 or 20 or 25 years ago and it gradually became acceptable to (and used by) everyone.
> 
> It started because feminists objected to the tradition (hundreds of years old) of using "he/him" as the default pronoun when the gender is not known or is not being specified.
> 
> The only problem it can cause is that "they" and "them" are still used as plural pronouns.


Hi, dojibear.

Thank you for your kind explanation. It helps me to understand why "they"/"them" can mean "he or she"/"him or her".


----------



## Andygc

dojibear said:


> This is a fairly new thing


No it is not. That point has already been covered in the linked threads. The earliest citations in the OED date from the 14th century.


----------



## e2efour

In the classic American story for children _Charlotte's Web_ (published in 1952) we read "But somebody taught you, didn't they?".

What is interesting about this is that the author was E.B.White, the co-author of the notorious _Elements of Style _(by Strunk and White), which did not approve of using _they_ in this way.


----------



## entangledbank

The _tradition_ is using 'they'. That has always been normal English.


----------



## Kirill V.

In some contexts singular _they_ does seem to create an undesired ambiguity.
Somebody asked about this sentense a month ago or so:
_If your friend is attacked help them._

If I had any political weight I'd use it to address a most obedient request to native speakers of the English language to please kindly consider whether there could be any way to legalize _he_ in these contexts.
We could call it something like "gender-neutral he" or even better - "inclusive he" to address any gender equality concerns some people may experience.


----------



## Keith Bradford

kayve said:


> ...
> If I had any political weight I'd use it to address a most obedient request to native speakers of the English language to please kindly consider whether there could be any way to legalize _he_ in these contexts...


There is no "political" weight involved here.  No politician (in Britain at least) has any authority to influence language usage, and I can imagine the uproar it would cause if they [NB] should even try!  Our language belongs to us all as free citizens and we've been perfectly happy to use "singular they" for at least five hundred years.  Live with it.

There's nothing to prevent, say, a lawyer from inserting a clause in a contract that says "in this particular contract, the masculine shall embrace the feminine and the singular shall embrace the plural" or whatever.  But don't imagine that lawyer-speak in contracts has any impact on real human beings.

Can I suggest that, in fact, many foreign learners of English have simply been mistaught.  Their teachers told them that *they *is the 3rd-person plural pronoun, so they believe it to the extent of telling native speakers it's obligatory.  *They *is no more the 3rd-person plural pronoun than *you *is the 2nd-person plural pronoun_ -- _that is to say, both can perfectly well be singular, in some contexts.


----------



## mink-shin

e2efour said:


> In the classic American story for children _Charlotte's Web_ (published in 1952) we read "But somebody taught you, didn't they?".
> 
> What is interesting about this is that the author was E.B.White, the co-author of the notorious _Elements of Style _(by Strunk and White), which did not approve of using _they_ in this way.



Hi.

Very interesting is it! Thank you for giving me this information. 

Firstly, I just would like to admire that White made a character who doesn't have same writing style with him.

It seems that there are some people do not approve of using _they_ in this way. Considering that numerous editions of the notorious book were printed, there should be many such people that don't approve of it, I guess.


----------



## Kirill V.

Keith Bradford said:


> Can I suggest that, in fact, many foreign learners of English have simply been mistaught.  Their teachers told them that *they *is the 3rd-person plural pronoun, so they believe it to the extent of telling native speakers it's obligatory.  *They *is no more the 3rd-person plural pronoun than *you *is the 2nd-person plural pronoun_ -- _that is to say, both can perfectly well be singular, in some contexts.



Yes, that's what we were taught... Now thanks to you and other native speakers on this forum and elsewhere I as well as many other foreign learners have learnt that _they_ *can* be used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun in appropriate contexts.

I have only one question left:
Can _he_ be used as a gender-neutral pronoun where such use of _they_ would not be appropriate?


----------



## PaulQ

kayve said:


> I have only one question left: Can _he_ be used as a gender-neutral pronoun where such use of _they_ would not be appropriate?


That is what is known as "a loaded question". It strongly encourages the responder to say "Yes". However, the truth is that the answer is very much *"Yes but..." *followed by a very long explanation with hundreds of examples. 

So the answer is "Yes but."

_If your friend is attacked help them. -> If your friend is attacked help your friend. _

(Many laws that were written earlier now have the caveat "where "he" is written "she" shall also be understood." (or something similar.))


----------



## e2efour

The obection by feminists (raised by dojibear) to the use of _he _as a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to a man or a woman comes from the early 1980s.
One example quoted in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is _The successful candidate will be expected to take up his duties in January_.
In this sentence the successful candidate can easily be taken to be male by default.

This is not satisfactory since the primary meaning of _he_ is male, which goes against using it to cover both males and females.
In legal texts the situation is different. _He_ is often used since it would not be practicable to use _he or she/his or her_ etc. throughout the text.

A more recent development is the use of _she_ as the gender-neutral pronoun.


----------



## Kirill V.

Thank you, Keith, PaulQ and e2efour! Looks like I've figured it out at last.


----------



## mink-shin

e2efour said:


> The obection by feminists (raised by dojibear) to the use of _he _as a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to a man or a woman comes from the early 1980s.
> One example quoted in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is _The successful candidate will be expected to take up his duties in January_.
> In this sentence the successful candidate can easily be taken to be male by default.
> 
> This is not satisfactory since the primary meaning of _he_ is male, which goes against using it to cover both males and females.
> In legal texts the situation is different. _He_ is often used since it would not be practicable to use _he or she/his or her_ etc. throughout the text.
> 
> A more recent development is the use of _she_ as the gender-neutral pronoun.



Oh, I see why feminists objected to it.

She? As a foreigner, I guess it should be hard to parse it at a moment if I met _'she'_ as a gender-neutral pronoun, I've never met any though.


----------



## PaulQ

mink-shin said:


> She? As a foreigner, I guess it should be hard to parse it at a moment if I met _'she'_ as a gender-neutral pronoun, I've never met any though.


They are relatively rare and tend to stick out like a sore thumb as being a conscious and obvious attempt at gender equality.


----------



## Keith Bradford

I think we can identify three different cases:

There is an unknown person in a future situation (say the appointment of a candidate to a job).  In this case, English law *demands* that references to the post be gender-neutral.  Doji's quotation in #14 _The successful candidate will be expected to take up *his *duties in January_ is illegal in the UK, becauses it shows an intention to discriminate against women candidates.  Use _*their*_ or *his or her*.  Clearly *their *is simpler.

There is an unknown person in a present situation (say an anonymous caller knocking at the door). It's irrelevant which pronoun you use because it's not going to influence the caller's sex!  You can say _See who's at the door and tell them/him/her that I'm busy_.  Most of us use _*them *_in this situation.  But writers wishing to sound unbiased do adopt all sorts of devices - *he *in the first chapter and *she *in the second, for example.  And yes (Mink-Shin in #16) we native speakers sometimes find that odd, too.

There is a known person in a past, present or future situation.  Here, you use the appropriately-gendered pronoun!  This may sound obvious, but some people, influenced by case no.1, have taken to using _they_.  So you get totally ridiculous instances like: _The pregnant mother will be expected to produce a letter from *their *doctor_. As if we don't know that only women can have babies!


----------



## Roymalika

[This question and the following posts have been added to a previous post discussing the same topic.  Please read down from the top.  DonnyB - moderator].
An English teacher has told me that when gender is not known, we should prefer to use male pronoun (i.e., _he, his, him_) instead of female pronoun_ (i.e., she, her, her)._

Eg,
When a person does not fulfill his obligations, then others' rights are violated.
Someone has stolen my pen. If I find him, I will give him a hard slap. Next time he will not commit such a mistake.

Is this guidance correct?


----------



## owlman5

Roymalika said:


> Is this guidance correct?


It is, but it represents a biased and old-fashioned point of view. 

This bias has led many people to use the plural _they _in references to singular, unknown people.  I _hate_ this practice, but I understand how it came about.


----------



## entangledbank

It's long out of date. It's the way English worked fifty years ago, not today. We say 'they'.


----------



## lingobingo

It certainly used to be commonplace. But so many people get upset about things like that these days, that we’re now expected to use the illogical and problematic pronoun *they* instead - or, worse still, to use “she” to redress the balance even when we mean anyone, of whatever gender.

slowly cross-posted and agreeing with owlman


----------



## Egmont

It is often - not always, but often - possible to avoid the problem by rewriting the sentence to use plural forms. For example, the first sentence in the original post can be rewritten as "When people do not fulfill their obligations, then others' rights are violated." The second sentence can't be rewritten this way - that's why I wrote "often," not "always" - but, in my experience as a writer, most sentences can be.

Also, the use of "they" as a singular pronoun for a person of indeterminate gender goes back at least to Shakespeare. (One source traces it back to 1375.) It was used by 19th-century writers such as Byron, Austen, Dickinson, and Dickens. It fell out of fashion for a while, but is coming back. Those who think it's a 21st-century innovation based on political correctness don't know its history.


----------



## Roymalika

owlman5 said:


> I _hate_ this practice


Sorry, owlman, which practice are you talking about? Using "they" when gender is not known?


----------



## lingobingo

Egmont said:


> Also, the use of "they" as a singular pronoun for a person of indeterminate gender goes back at least to Shakespeare.


So I understand. But just as a matter of interest, when *they* was used as singular in the past (e.g. by the authors you cite), what object pronoun and possessive were used with it? Still *them* and *their*?


----------



## Keith Bradford

Egmont said:


> ... the use of "they" as a singular pronoun for a person of indeterminate gender goes back at least to Shakespeare. (One source traces it back to 1375.)... Those who think it's a 21st-century innovation based on political correctness don't know its history.




I do hope this is the last time we see the totally false allegation that "they" is some kind of modern feminist invention.  Its true origins have been repeated enough times on this forum. 

From memory, the earliest example I've found, Lingobingo, was in the 15th century.  It was something like "If a man, woman or child be buried, *their* grave shall be marked..." Look through the many posts on the subject and I'm sure you'll find it.


----------



## owlman5

Roymalika said:


> Using "they" when gender is not known?


That is right.


----------



## lingobingo

Keith Bradford said:


> I do hope this is the last time we see the totally false allegation that "they" is some kind of modern feminist invention.


I think that rather skips over the point that usage has changed radically over the past half-century, say. We don’t use *they* these days (even though he or she is so much simpler grammatically) because it’s a long-established usage. We use it because various groups have only recently stood up and stated that they find certain terms offensive, so we’ve bowed to their wishes and adapted the way we speak and write. Hence not only a lot of words rightly becoming taboo, but also mankind becoming humankind, actresses becoming actors, chairmen becoming chairs or chairpersons, and the rest.


----------



## Packard

owlman5 said:


> It is, but it represents a biased and old-fashioned point of view.
> 
> This bias has led many people to use the plural _they _in references to singular, unknown people.  I _hate_ this practice, but I understand how it came about.


   
I was taught to address a letter to "Dear Sirs" if I did not know the name of the actual recipient.


----------



## Keith Bradford

lingobingo said:


> I think that rather skips over the point that usage has changed radically over the past half-century, say. We don’t use *they* these days (even though he or she is so much simpler grammatically) because it’s a long-established usage...


Speak for yourself.  Many well-established writers have used _singular they_ pretty continually over the centuries from 1500 to the present day.  True, there was a period from 1800 to 1950 when grammarians unsuccessfully tried to abolish it as "illogical" (as if that ever had anything to do with English usage) and if a feminist impulse had a late hand in re-establishing it, so much the better.

I think it's probably one of those cases (like _It's me_ instead of _it is I_) which have come back into accepted use after a period of being denounced as vulgar by Latinist Victorians.

Here's a test case, reply honestly and don't try to use an alternative construction to avoid the answer:

*If you don't want to be disturbed and someone says to you "There's a phone call for you", will you instinctively reply: *

*Tell him I'll ring him back.*
*Tell her I'll ring her back.*
*Tell him or her that I'll ring him or her back.*
*Tell them I'll ring them back.*


----------



## Roymalika

Keith Bradford said:


> Speak for yourself.  Many well-established writers have used _singular they_ pretty continually over the centuries from 1500 to the present day.  True, there was a period from 1800 to 1950 when grammarians unsuccessfully tried to abolish it as "illogical" (as if that ever had anything to do with English usage) and if a feminist impulse had a late hand in re-establishing it, so much the better.
> 
> I think it's probably one of those cases (like _It's me_ instead of _it is I_) which have come back into accepted use after a period of being denounced as vulgar by Latinist Victorians.


Keith, what would you say about the teacher's guidance? Can it be applicable in modern English?


----------



## Packard

I just googled "gender neutral pronouns" and found this site where they have some invented gender neutral pronouns.  Instead of "she", I am guessing I am to use "ze", though the chart is not very clear to me.  Maybe I should be using "xe" or "ve" or maybe "per".

Gender Pronouns | LGBT Resource Center


----------



## Keith Bradford

Roymalika said:


> Keith, what would you say about the teacher's guidance? Can it be applicable in modern English?



Your teacher is teaching you the English of about 1950.*  Here is what I wrote in an earlier thread, slightly edited:

---   I think we can identify three different cases:

There is an unknown person in a future situation (say the appointment of a candidate to a job).  In this case, English law *demands* that references to the post be gender-neutral.  A sentence like _The successful candidate will be expected to take up *his *duties in January_ is illegal in the UK, becauses it shows an intention to discriminate against women candidates.  Use _*their*_ or *his or her*.  Clearly *their *is simpler.
There is an unknown person in a present situation (say an anonymous caller knocking at the door). It's irrelevant which pronoun you use because it's not going to influence the caller's sex!  You can say _See who's at the door and tell them/him/her that I'm busy_.  Most of us use _*them *_in this situation.  But writers wishing to sound unbiased do adopt all sorts of devices - *he *in the first chapter and *she *in the second, for example. And yes, we native speakers sometimes find that odd, too.
There is a known person in a past, present or future situation.  Here, you use the appropriately-gendered pronoun!  This may sound obvious, but some people, influenced by case no.1, have taken to using _they_.  So you get totally ridiculous instances like: _The pregnant mother will be expected to produce a letter from *their *doctor_. As if we don't know that only women can have babies!
_____________________________________________________
*  This often happens -- foreign-language teachers learn from people of an generation ago, using textbooks of two generations ago.  When I learnt French in 1960 we used books from 1930, which contained vocabulary that was no longer in use.  French children of my own age laughed at me.


----------



## Egmont

Keith Bradford said:


> From memory, the earliest example I've found, Lingobingo, was in the 15th century.  It was something like "If a man, woman or child be buried, *their* grave shall be marked..." Look through the many posts on the subject and I'm sure you'll find it.



The first instance cited by the OED is from 1375, in the Romance of William of Palerne. I don't have the sentence.

While I am not Keith, I would say the teacher's guidance is probably meant well but is seriously out of date in American English. That said, Indian English has preserved many forms that are not used in other types of English today. That is not a criticism; it is a statement of fact, just as one might say that British English preserves the spelling "colour" while American English uses "color." Perhaps the teacher's guidance is appropriate for India. I don't know.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Packard said:


> I just googled "gender neutral pronouns" and found this site where they have some invented gender neutral pronouns.  Instead of "she", I am guessing I am to use "ze", though the chart is not very clear to me.  Maybe I should be using "xe" or "ve" or maybe "per".
> 
> Gender Pronouns | LGBT Resource Center


  Dear oh dear!  Sometimes I worry about my fellow LGBT people.


----------



## Roymalika

I personally don't like the teacher's guidance, neither do I follow it. I always use "they" for unknown gender.
I hope majority of the native speakers share my opinion.


----------



## Packard

A quick google search for "English style guide India" revealed many sources of information:  English style guide India - Google Search

The Indian government produces a style guide but strangely has no references to pronouns, but this maybe just for the specific office represented.  

https://saiindia.gov.in/sites/default/files/guidence_notes/style_guide.pdf?download=1

*Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Style Guide *


----------



## lingobingo

Keith Bradford said:


> I think it's probably one of those cases (like _It's me_ instead of _it is I_) which have come back into accepted use after a period of being denounced as vulgar by Latinist Victorians.


I couldn’t agree more (apart from “Latinist Victorians” – I know nothing about that!). That’s precisely what I’m saying. The usage has changed relatively recently. It hasn’t always been the norm.


Keith Bradford said:


> Here's a test case, reply honestly and don't try to use an alternative construction to avoid the answer:
> 
> *If you don't want to be disturbed and someone says to you "There's a phone call for you", will you instinctively reply: *





Keith Bradford said:


> *Tell him I'll ring him back.*
> *Tell her I'll ring her back.*
> *Tell him or her that I'll ring him or her back.*
> *Tell them I'll ring them back.*



Why would I try to shirk the issue? I’d say it the way everyone would: Tell them I’ll ring them back. No biggie. You obviously totally misunderstand where I’m coming from.


----------



## Packard

Roymalika said:


> I personally don't like the teacher's guidance, neither do I follow it. I always use "they" for unknown gender.
> I hope majority of the native speakers share my opinion.


Even when using the singular form?  How does that work.

T_he killer escaped in a red Jaguar, but the police quickly captured they/them?_ (One killer, so "they/them" does not work for me.)


----------



## Edinburgher

Keith Bradford said:


> It was something like "If a man, woman or child be buried, *their* grave shall be marked..."


That's a poor example because it involves an enumeration.
Although "or", unlike "and", doesn't really make a plural from three singulars,  this particular _their grave_ could be thought of as "the grave of whichever of them it be".


Keith Bradford said:


> and if a feminist impulse had a late hand in re-establishing it, so much the better.


Hmm.  It's hardly consistent first to dismiss the idea that singular _they_ is a modern feminist invention, and then to applaud that it might be.

As a matter of interest, was plural _they_ historically always gender-neutral, or were there gender-specific versions of it, just as there are in French?    They use "elles" for a group of girls and "ils" for a group of boys or of boys and girls, right? Or has that changed?


----------



## Packard

Edinburgher said:


> That's a poor example because it involves an enumeration.
> Although "or", unlike "and", doesn't really make a plural from three singulars,  this particular _their grave_ could be thought of as "the grave of whichever of them it be".
> Hmm.  It's hardly consistent first to dismiss the idea that singular _they_ is a modern feminist invention, and then to applaud that it might be.
> 
> As a matter of interest, was plural _they_ historically always gender-neutral, or were there gender-specific versions of it, just as there are in French?    They use "elles" for a group of girls and "ils" for a group of boys or of boys and girls, right? Or has that changed?



I've used "guys" as a gender neutral noun for at least 55 years.  I've yet to have anyone complain.  Of course it could be out of respect for my doube-0 status. 

_Hey guys, what do you say we go for a few martinis, stirred, not shaken._


----------



## Keith Bradford

Packard said:


> Even when using the singular form?  How does that work.
> 
> T_he killer escaped in a red Jaguar, but the police quickly captured they/them?_ (One killer, so "they/them" does not work for me.)


Agreed.  But how come the writer knows that this person is a killer, and the colour and make of the car, and yet doesn't know their sex? Odd.


----------



## Roymalika

Packard said:


> Even when using the singular form?


Yes. 




Packard said:


> *T*_*he* killer escaped in a red Jaguar, but the police quickly captured they/them?_ (One killer, so "they/them" does not work for me.)


We don't know whether the killer is a man or a woman, do we?


----------



## Packard

Roymalika said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know whether the killer is a man or a woman, do we?


We don't know if it is a man or a woman, but we do know that it is just one person.  "They" would not sound like one person to me.  Neither would "them".  I would sooner use "him or her" than  "them" if it were just one person.  To do otherwise is to mislead the reader.


----------



## Edinburgher

Roymalika said:


> We don't know whether the killer is a man or a woman, do we?


Once they had been captured, you surely would, wouldn't you?


Packard said:


> but we do know that it is just one person. "They" would not sound like one person to me


I think it's quite normal these days to use "them" for that case.  If you've already said "the killer" (which means one person), what's misleading about that?  Oh, wait.  "Them" might not refer only to the killer, but to both the killer and the car.


----------



## Roymalika

Edinburgher said:


> I think it's quite normal these days to use "them" for that case. If you've already said "the killer" (which means one person), what's misleading about that? Oh, wait. "Them" might not refer only to the killer, but to both the killer and the car.


Does modern English use "they" in Packard's killer example?


----------



## Andygc

lingobingo said:


> The usage has changed relatively recently. It hasn’t always been the norm.


I consider that to be an inaccurate statement. The OED gives clear evidence of use throughout the late 14th to late 20th century. The temporary aberration in the mid to late 20th century of insisting on using such things as "his or her" was a reflection of prescriptivism by a group of grammarians who completely ignored the grammar of the language as it was spoken by normal people. The rejection of singular they, them and their was never the norm. It might, perhaps, have had something to do with the acoustics of ivory towers and the inadequate performance of analogue hearing aids.

I readily admit to having accepted what my English teachers taught me, but I am much happier now that what I write matches what I and other people say.


----------



## Andygc

Keith Bradford said:


> Agreed.  But how come the writer knows that this person is a killer, and the colour and make of the car, and yet doesn't know their sex? Odd.


In this day and age? The bodies of killers are rarely stripped naked at the roadside to check which bits they might have.

Edit. Lest there be any doubt.

The body of a killer is rarely stripped naked at the roadside to check which bits *they* might *have*.


----------



## Packard

Roymalika said:


> Does modern English use "they" in Packard's killer example?


There may be an American English vs British English distinction.  But for my American ears "they" or "them" is never singular.


----------



## Roymalika

Andygc said:


> I readily admit to having accepted what my English teachers taught me, but I am much happier now that what I write matches what I and other people say.


Andygc, with due respect, what do you yourself use today for unknown gender? They or he/she?


----------



## Andygc

I've already made that clear. They, them and their, like almost the entire population of the British Isles.


----------



## Roymalika

Andygc said:


> I've already made that clear. They, them and their, like almost the entire population of the British Isles.


Thank you very much. Just one more question please, could you please let me know whether you would use "them" too in Packard's killer example (post#21)? Packard says that "they/them" cannot be used for one person.


----------



## Packard

Roymalika said:


> Andygc, with due respect, what do you yourself use today for unknown gender? They or he/she?


But be advised that *I believe* that "they, them, their" for the singular form may be acceptable in the UK, but not in the USA.


----------



## Myridon

Packard said:


> There may be an American English vs British English distinction.  But for my American ears "they" or "them" is never singular.


No, it's mostly just you.


----------



## Andygc

Roymalika said:


> Thank you very much. Just one more question please, could you please let me know whether you would use "them" too in Packard's killer example (post#21)? Packard says that "they/them" cannot be used for one person.


No, he didn't. He referred to American ears. I have not a single American cell in any part of my ears.


----------



## Packard

Myridon said:


> No, it's mostly just you.


I just viewed six different websites that show charts for pronoun usage in the USA.  Not a single one shows "they" or "them" as singular.

This is a typical example:


----------



## JulianStuart

Packard said:


> I just viewed six different websites that show charts for pronoun usage in the USA.  Not a single one shows "they" or "them" as singular.
> 
> This is a typical example:


Do any of them provide guidance for English learners on the topic of the thread - when the gender of the person is not known?  Your example is silent on the issue.


----------



## Packard

JulianStuart said:


> Do any of them provide guidance for English learners on the topic of the thread - when the gender of the person is not known?  Your example is silent on the issue.


None seem to consider that an option.  It was not an option when I learned English.  I never hear it or read it in the Eastern portion of the USA.  This thread is the first time I've seen it seriously entertained.  I don't consider it correct English.  And even if it is "correct" it is misleading.  "They" almost invariably refers to two or more people.  

If I said to a cop, "they went that way" and he spotted a car with just one person aboard he would likely ignore it as a possible suspect vehicle.


----------



## Myridon

Packard said:


> I never hear it or read it in the Eastern portion of the USA.  This thread is the first time I've seen it seriously entertained.


I can't see how that is remotely possible. You should have seen it many times in this forum.  You may note that Keith made a remark "I do hope this is the last time we see ..." indicating that we've had this argument many times.


----------



## Packard

Myridon said:


> I can't see how that is remotely possible. You should have seen it many times in this forum.  You may note that Keith made a remark "I do hope this is the last time we see ..." indicating that we've had this argument many times.


If I was a witness to a mugging and the police arrive on the scene and ask me, "Did you see which way they went?"  My response would be, "It was just one person, but because he or she was wearing a balaclava I can't tell you if it were a man or a woman."

I would not use "they".  It would imply more than one person and would be misleading.  

This  may be a cultural thing for the north eastern portion of the USA.  I would not say "they" to represent one person.


----------



## Myridon

Packard said:


> If I was a witness to a mugging and the police arrive on the scene and ask me, "Did you see which way they went?"


You must then believe that the police officer was very sure that there were multiple suspects or they couldn't possibly say "they."


----------



## owlman5

Packard said:


> This may be a cultural thing for the north eastern portion of the USA. I would not say "they" to represent one person.


I wouldn't either, Packard. Many speakers are dissatisfied with _they _as a singular pronoun, and I'll bet you that you can find them all over the country.


----------



## tunaafi

Packard said:


> I don't consider it correct English.  And even if it is "correct" it is misleading.


It is certainly accepted in all parts of the UK.

We don't find it all misleading.


----------



## Myridon

owlman5 said:


> I wouldn't either, Packard. Many speakers are dissatisfied with _they _as a singular pronoun, and I'll bet you that you can find them all over the country.


I can find people who won't split an infinitive or end a sentence with a preposition (and some of them started life being left handed and now aren't).  Those teachers used to smack your hand with a ruler.  Some people can't get past that.


----------



## owlman5

Myridon said:


> I can find people who won't split an infinitive or end a sentence with a preposition (and some of them started life being left handed and now aren't). Those teachers used to smack your hand with a ruler. Some people can't get past that.


I see no reason to _get past _my dislike for a pronoun that I consider stupid and confusing. It doesn't matter to me how happy others may be with this solution to the gender-bias problem. I find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns too reasonable and useful to abandon that distinction in an effort to avoid possible offense to others who choose to take offense. I sure don't expect anybody else to like or agree with my position, however.


----------



## Myridon

owlman5 said:


> I see no reason to _get past _my dislike for a pronoun that I consider stupid and confusing. It doesn't matter to me how happy others may be with this solution to the gender-bias problem. I find the distinction between singular and plural pronouns too reasonable and useful to abandon that distinction in an effort to avoid possible offense to others who choose to take offense. I sure don't expect anybody else to like or agree with my position, however.


I'm sorry, I did mean to suggest that you should change your mind.  However, as others have noted above, this isn't a feminist invention.  People have been doing it both ways all along.  It seems unlikely to me that using "him or her" and "he/she" is an original feature of the language - I hope you won't mind if I consider that to be stupid.


----------



## JulianStuart

Myridon said:


> I'm sorry, I did mean to suggest that you should change your mind.  However, as others have noted above, this isn't a feminist invention.  People have been doing it both ways all along.  If you think about it, it unlikely that "him or her" and "he/she" is an original feature of the language.


Indeed.  We use the same pronoun for singular and plural second person, but no-one seems upset about this "confusion"


----------



## owlman5

Keith Bradford said:


> There is a known person in a past, present or future situation. Here, you use the appropriately-gendered pronoun! This may sound obvious, but some people, influenced by case no.1, have taken to using _they_. So you get totally ridiculous instances like: _The pregnant mother will be expected to produce a letter from *their *doctor_. As if we don't know that only women can have babies!





JulianStuart said:


> Indeed.  We use the same pronoun for singular and plural second person, but no-one seems upset about this "confusion"


_Upset _is too strong a word to describe _my_ reaction to this sort of thing, Julian. _Mildly annoyed _would be a little more accurate.  The problem that Keith noted is one of the reasons that _I_ find the singular use of _they _problematic. I have noted a growing uneasiness among fluent native speakers with the normal use of gender-specific pronouns even in sentences that clearly refer to individuals with definite gender.   This is an unfortunate and fairly recent trend in U.S. English.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Roymalika said:


> Is this guidance correct?



Here is the answer I usually give to this question:

When you need to choose a pronoun to refer to a single person whose sex you do not know:
- if you are very old fashioned, and don't care that people will misunderstand, use "he". You will be correct by the standards common 100 years ago, but you will offend many people today who think using "he" this way is sexist.
- if you want to be concise, use "they". You will be correct by the standards of some people today, but not all, and will annoy those of us who consider "they" a plural that should not be used to refer to one person.
- if you want to be grammatical but are also worried about not being sexist, use "he or she". You will be correct grammatically, but you will use a wordy phrase that becomes awkward when repeated, and you might offend some more extreme feminists who would object to the placement of the pronoun "he" before the pronoun "she".

You will note that no matter what you choose to do, some reader somewhere will think you should have chosen something else.


----------



## JulianStuart

owlman5 said:


> _Upset _is too strong a word to describe _my_ reaction to this sort of thing, Julian. _Mildly annoyed _would be a little more accurate.  The problem that Keith noted is one of the reasons that _I_ find the singular use of _they _problematic. I have noted a growing uneasiness among fluent native speakers with the normal use of gender-specific pronouns even in sentences that clearly refer to individuals with definite gender.   This is an unfortunate and fairly recent trend in U.S. English.


My comment was not directed at anyone in particular  There are people who are annoyed (some probably rise to "upset") over a split infinitive, the use of who when "older, Victorian" grammar required "whom", or using a preposition to end a sentence with. These are exsmples of things changing in a language over time. There seems to be an innate desire to "regularize" language and the objection to "they/them" is probably related to this. The popular and historical use had been "regularized out of existence" for the people who feel it is (now) wrong. See for example: Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language )
However, things get a bit murkier when "they" is used for some reason even when the gender is known.


----------



## owlman5

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> You will note that no matter what you choose to do, some reader somewhere will think you should have chosen something else.


 That's for damn sure.



JulianStuart said:


> My comment was not directed at anyone in particular


I didn't think it was, Julian. I'm sorry that the earlier post led you to believe that I did.


----------



## velisarius

owlman5 said:


> I have noted a growing uneasiness among fluent native speakers with the normal use of gender-specific pronouns even in sentences that clearly refer to individuals with definite gender. This is an unfortunate and fairly recent trend in U.S. English.


 I've  noticed it too, owlman. It can be very confusing at times; other times it's just senseless:  if the gender of the person is known, or has already been mentioned, "they/their" leaves me asking myself, "Eh? Who are they, then?"


----------



## Roymalika

I have observed that most AE speakers consider "they" a plural that cannot be used to refer to one person. While BE speakers (and some AE speakers) think the oppsite: it can be used to refer to one person. 


Am I right or am I missing some point?


----------



## JulianStuart

I have not observed much in the way of AE/BE difference.  In both forms, there are people who are comfortable and some who are not


----------



## irish_elmo

Packard said:


> T_he killer escaped in a red Jaguar, but the police quickly captured they/them?_ (One killer, so "they/them" does not work for me.)



“Captured them” works for me here. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## irish_elmo

Packard said:


> There may be an American English vs British English distinction.  But for my American ears "they" or "them" is never singular.



You might not realise it’s being used to express the singular, but from my experience it is just as common in AE as BE.

If the gender of a person (a single person) in a particular circumstance is not yet known, most native speakers will use “they” instinctively:

“Tell my next customer [singular] I can’t see them right now. Ask them [one person] to come back in an hour.”

This is singular.


----------



## irish_elmo

Packard said:


> I just googled "gender neutral pronouns" and found this site where they have some invented gender neutral pronouns.  Instead of "she", I am guessing I am to use "ze", though the chart is not very clear to me.  Maybe I should be using "xe" or "ve" or maybe "per".
> 
> Gender Pronouns | LGBT Resource Center



This is a different concept to the rest of the thread. This is about individuals who may not identify as either “he” or “she”, because gender identity is not a simple, binary thing for everyone. (If anything, this underscores why using the longhand “he or she” instead of “they” is likely to fall more and more out of favour. “He or she” reinforces a binary view of gender identity that is at odds with many people’s lived experience.)

The table above is a summary of the most common pronouns people identify with. If you like, you could describe this as a person’s pronouns of choice/someone’s “preferred pronouns”. Although the vast majority of people will identify with he or she, some people won’t. 

If you don’t know the gender of a person you are talking about, I reckon that using “they” singular is the most inclusive approach, and would be least likely to cause offence.


----------

