# Gender-neutral third person singular pronouns: April 2009



## ManPaisa

On the English-Spanish forum we've been debating the grammaticality of _*singular they/their*_ (as in _*the student should talk to their teacher*_).

I insist that it's correct in all but highly-formal registers, and that it has long been used by even the best of authors.

What do you say?


----------



## lrosa

I don't like it in this particular sentence because "they" is so clearly referring back to "the student". It's not as bad when you just squeeze in "they/their" in the middle of a sentence, without making it too noticeable. However, in writing, I'd always go to pains to avoid it.


----------



## panjandrum

This takes us into the search for a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun.
I could ask you to read all of these:
gender neutral
... but that would be cruel, though you might wish to browse some of them.

Instead, I would like to point you in particular to:
Gender neutral pronouns: A shift to genderless she? Historic use of singular their
And even more particularly to this fine post:


> There's a fascinating diatribe about the use of "their" as a singular (with many, many quotation from the works of Jane Austen and others) at http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html . Here's a little sample:
> 
> "Singular "their" was an accepted part of the English language before the 18th-century grammarians started making arbitrary judgements as to what is "good English" and "bad English", based on a kind of pseudo-"logic" deduced from the Latin language, that has nothing whatever to do with English. And even after the old-line grammarians put it under their ban, this anathematized singular "their" construction never stopped being used by English-speakers, both orally and by serious literary writers."
> 
> The real problem, I think, is how to convince English teachers to accept "they" as a "neutral third-personal singular pronoun." Until then, I'll be using plural antecedents wherever possible and the politically incorrect "he" as my second choice, with he/she as a distant third if needed.


----------



## ManPaisa

Thanks so much for your comments, Irosa and Panjandrum.

Anyone else!


----------



## Forero

I agree with Irosa about this particular short sentence.  _Their_ seems jarring in the context.


----------



## ManPaisa

Forero said:


> I agree with Irosa about this particular short sentence.  _Their_ seems jarring in the context.



Yes, you guys are right.  It's not a very good example.

How about _*everyone should bring their own sandwich*_?


----------



## Forero

That sounds better.


----------



## lrosa

That sounds absolutely fine.


----------



## johndot

Not to me it doesn’t; a plural pronoun is being used in a sentence with a singular subject and a singular object, which sounds awful to my tender ears and sensibilities. Is the speaker exhorting everyone to bring everyone else’s sandwich?


----------



## panjandrum

johndot said:


> Not to me it doesn’t; a plural pronoun is being used in a sentence with a singular subject and a singular object, which sounds awful to my tender ears and sensibilities. Is the speaker exhorting everyone to bring everyone else’s sandwich?


But it's just the normal (venerable) way of avoiding the very clunky alternatives.  The other normal (and perhaps just as venerable) escape, using his, is no longer acceptable.

Everyone ... their ...
- has a long and reputable pedigree in English.

_(With apologies for repeating what has been said already, many times, in the threads linked earlier.)_


----------



## lrosa

"Everyone" should bring its own sandwich?


----------



## johndot

I’m aware that I’m on a losing wicket, panjandrum, but I’ll go down fighting anyway. To me it’s an anathema. It’s always easy, with a little imagination and wit, not to have the ‘politically correct’ problem, by rearranging the sentence. A simple alternative is to do as is done in some other languages when the gender could be either or both (or all): default to the masculine or impersonal.

"Everyone" should bring its own sandwich? Yes, Irosa; the French do—why shouldn’t we? Now _there’s _non-sexist!


----------



## panjandrum

But johndot, you are fighting for an ephemeral cause.
Using their as a singular gender-neutral pronoun was OK with Shakespeare, CS Lewis, Oscar Wilde, Lewis Carroll, ...
See Everyone loves their OED
(Borrowed from the links posted above.)

Having made my protest, of course, I should add that I would normally avoid the issue by writing round it - by using a different construction 
It's a much better option than creating a mental disturbance in my readers.


----------



## johndot

panjandrum said:


> Having made my protest, of course, I should add that I would normally avoid the issue by writing round it - by using a different construction
> It's a much better option than creating a mental disturbance in my readers.



That’s precisely my point, panjandrum.

But, the lineage issue: I know it has a noble history—_I’m_ saying (and this will upset the applecart further) _it should have no longer! It should be disambiguated_

There! I’ve said it!


----------



## lrosa

johndot said:


> "Everyone" should bring its own sandwich? Yes, Irosa; the French do—why shouldn’t we? Now _there’s _non-sexist!



I totally agree! We need to invent a new word.

PS I wouldn't hold the French up as a paradigm of non-sexism, however. I recently discovered that when they have one adjective which refers to two nouns of masculine and feminine gender respectively, the masculine noun always "wins the battle" for modifying the adjective.


----------



## ManPaisa

One of the problems is that English speakers conflate grammatical gender with sexual identity, which are two different things.

In Spanish, a man (masculine) can be referred to as a person (feminine), a human being (masculine) and, jokingly, a beast (feminine),all without the audience's questioning his 'male' sexual identity.


----------



## johndot

ManPaisa said:


> One of the problems is that English speakers conflate grammatical gender with sexual identity, which are two different things.
> 
> In Spanish, a man (masculine) can be referred to as a person (feminine), a human being (masculine) and, jokingly, a beast (feminine),all without the audience's questioning his 'male' sexual identity.



But that’s a separate (and off-topic) issue, isn’t it? It’s true that in (some?) other languages the pronoun defaults to the masculine where there is a mixture of masculine and feminine objects (whether they’re humans or not), but the English language does not have gender. This is why _he she it they etc_ can only be regarded as sexist and care must be taken when using them not to offend more sensitive individuals like me. And as I’ve clearly stated, I object to the plural being used to describe the singular at least as much as a lady judge dislikes being referred to as a masculine ‘he, the judge’. The point that we’re trying to resolve is: would the lady judge prefer to be called _the judgess_—or _they?_

Imagine this scenario (bearing in mind that usernames on the Forum are often not indicative of the gender of their owners):

“Hey you guys! You know that prissy johndot? Come and look at their last post! They’ve made three real clangers about agreement of tenses!”

I _object_ to being called _“they”._


----------



## lrosa

johndot said:


> “Hey you guys! You know that prissy johndot? Come and look at their last post! They’ve made three real clangers about agreement of tenses!”
> 
> I _object_ to being called _“they”._



What would you prefer?


----------



## johndot

lrosa said:


> What would you prefer?



And there’s another, subtler issue I think, to my comments in post #17. An aspect which marks a person as being truly virtuous, truly non-sexist. (And yes, this does answer your question, Irosa!):

If a female writer is mistakenly referred to as ‘he’ and she thinks to herself “Oh, the reporter thinks I’m as good as a man”.... and if a male writer is mistakenly referred to as a ‘she’ and he thinks to himself “Oh, the reporter thinks I’m as good as a woman”... now _that’s_ (as I said before) non-sexist!


----------



## ManPaisa

johndot said:


> The point that we’re trying to resolve is: would the lady judge prefer to be called _the judgess_—or _they?_


 
Language should not be shaped by the preferences of individuals. Otherwise we're going to have to deal with thousands (millions?) of terms to describe the same thing.  

As far as I'm concerned, a woman who happens to be a judge can only be called a _*judge*_ (you yourself said there was no gender in English).  And if there are male and female judges in the same room, each one should not be concerned about how *they're* referred to by others (see?, no gender either).

Talking about off-topic, this discussion, which I started, is not about gender/sex issues in language, but about *singular they.* 

Let's stay focused.


----------



## Na'ilah

The real (ORIGINAL) question has not been addressed in this thread. ManPaisa failed to give the original context, which happens to referr to an INFORMATIVE TEXT (the whole discussion can be seen at this link: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1356038 WAY at the bottom)

The "singular they/their" is only acceptable in CONVERSATIONAL ENGLISH. Sorry guys (AND GALS, just in case someone - not somehe/someshe - takes offence to being called a guy). 

Shakespeare, CS Lewis, Oscar Wilde, Lewis Carroll, ... ALL WRITE NARRATIVE TEXTS which are meant to tell strories and appeal to the masses, and conversational English makes up the bulk of their genre. 

And my final point: there clearly is a singular pronoun in English that does not carry gender. And it ain't "_they"... _There is a prize waiting for the ONE who gets it right. 

Cheers.


----------



## Packard

There is always "his/her" (awful, and especially awful if you don't alternate it with "her/his").

Whenever I find myself in this sort of situation I simply "write around the problem".

*I think we should all bring our own sandwiches.*

This avoids the problem but does not provide any answer to the question raised.   (But some questions are best left unanswered).


----------



## ManPaisa

> The "singular they/their" is only acceptable in CONVERSATIONAL ENGLISH. Sorry guys (AND GALS, just in case someone - not somehe/someshe - takes offence to being called a guy).


 
What's your source for that asseveration regarding conversational English?

Also, what made you change your mind regarding *singular they?*. On that Spanish-English thread you clearly stated that it was news to you that *they* could act as a singular pronoun, didn't you?

As far as I'm concerned, all texts are *informative*. They all inform you about things real, fictional or both.


----------



## Na'ilah

ManPaisa said:


> What's your source for that asseveration regarding conversational English?


 
Authors of novels and shortstories, playwrites and poets practice what we call CREATIVE writing. They have artistic license. Your own examples of writing that use the "singular they" are - again - mostly made up of conversational English. 

As for the reference to the "singular they", like I said, in conversational English it flies. 



ManPaisa said:


> As far as I'm concerned, all texts are *informative*. They all inform you about things real, fictional or both.


 
There are basic categories or text structures: 
-Narrative (or fictional) text tells a story
-Expository (or infomational) text provides factual information about a subject matter. 

Let's not confuse the two. 

l


----------



## johndot

ManPaisa said:


> Talking about off-topic, this discussion, which I started, is not about gender/sex issues in language, but about *singular they.*
> 
> Let's stay focused.



I don’t think you can separate the two issues. The reason that some people promote the singular ‘they’ is precisely _because_ of the sexist issue.

What is wrong with ‘he’ for a man, ‘she’ for a woman, ‘one’ for the unknown, ‘it’ for the impersonal or androgynous?

Which leaves ‘they’ for the plural.


----------



## cuchuflete

ManPaisa said:


> On the English-Spanish forum we've been debating the grammaticality of _*singular they/their*_ (as in _*the student should talk to their teacher*_).
> 
> I insist that it's correct in all but highly-formal registers, and that it has long been used by even the best of authors.
> 
> What do you say?



I say you are correct.  It may even be correct in the most highly formal register. However, and there often is a pesky 'however' when dealing with matters of stylistic preference, if it sounds clunky, as in your first example, the singular _they_ should be avoided.

The confusion of grammatical gender and human sex is lamentable.  Those who choose to be bound up in that tangle are
welcome to use alternative constructions or unpalatable neologisms, if they can stand the sound of them.


----------



## Na'ilah

johndot said:


> I don’t think you can separate the two issues. The reason that some people promote the singular ‘they’ is precisely _because_ of the sexist issue.
> 
> What is wrong with ‘he’ for a man, ‘she’ for a woman, ‘one’ for the unknown, ‘it’ for the impersonal or androgynous?
> 
> Which leaves ‘they’ for the plural.


 EXACTLY!


----------



## ManPaisa

johndot said:


> I don’t think you can separate the two issues. The reason that some people promote the singular ‘they’ is precisely _because_ of the sexist issue.
> 
> What is wrong with ‘he’ for a man, ‘she’ for a woman, ‘one’ for the unknown, ‘it’ for the impersonal or androgynous?
> 
> Which leaves ‘they’ for the plural.


 
By dictate? 
How pretentious of us!


----------



## ManPaisa

cuchuflete said:


> I say you are correct. It may even be correct in the most highly formal register. However, and there often is a pesky 'however' when dealing with matters of stylistic preference, if it sounds clunky, as in your first example, the singular _they_ should be avoided.
> 
> The confusion of grammatical gender and human sex is lamentable. Those who choose to be bound up in that tangle are
> welcome to use alternative constructions or unpalatable neologisms, if they can stand the sound of them.


 
Thanks, Cuchuflete, for the response.  
I admire your good judgment.  And rest my case.


----------



## cuchuflete

Na'ilah said:


> Their are basic categories or text structures:
> -Narrative (or fictional) text tells a story
> -Expository (or infomational) text provides factual information about a subject matter.
> 
> Let's not confuse the two.
> 
> l


 "Their" (_sic) _are many more categories. One additional one, that coincidentally may be "infomational" (_sic_) is polemical writing. This thread offers many examples.  It is neither fictional by intent, nor is it necessarily informational or factual; it presents opinion and tries to persuade others to accept that opinion.  This discussion is ultimately not about a fixed rule of grammar.  Rather, it is about stylistic preferences among a number of alternatives, all of which may be grammatically acceptable.


----------



## Na'ilah

cuchuflete said:


> "Their" (_sic) _are many more categories. One additional one, that coincidentally may be "infomational" (_sic_) is polemical writing. This thread offers many examples. It is neither fictional by intent, nor is it necessarily informational or factual; it presents opinion and tries to persuade others to accept that opinion. This discussion is ultimately not about a fixed rule of grammar. Rather, it is about stylistic preferences among a number of alternatives, all of which may be grammatically acceptable.


 
I brought up only two categories because they are the two in question. On the one hand, the original text, which created the discussion between me and ManPaisa yesterday, is an expository text. And on the other hand, all of the cited authors, whose names are used as examples of those who have used the "singular they" in writing, write narrative texts. 

I have no problems with the conversational use of the "singluar they/their." I have never corrected anyone for it, and I use it myself. But I still think it stands out in expository texts as erroneous and thereby weakens the expertise of the author and the credibility of the information provided. 

(Oh, and on another topic, I do apologise for my atrocious spelling. It's never been my strong suit. It's sic, I tell you! Sic, sic, sic! )


----------



## johndot

cuchuflete said:


> However, and there often is a pesky 'however' when dealing with matters of stylistic preference, if it sounds clunky, as in your first example, the singular _they_ should be avoided.



I would go further: whether it sounds clunky or not the singular ‘they’ should be ostracised, vilified, pilloried, hung drawn and quartered, burnt at the stake and shot at dawn.

And, ManPaisa, if all texts are "informative" (post #23), I assert that the singular ‘they’ is dis-informative.


----------



## cuchuflete

Na'ilah said:


> And on the other hand, all of the cited authors, whose names are used as examples of those who have used the "singular they" in writing, write narrative texts.


 You do C.S. Lewis a disservice by dismissing many of his non-narrative works.

We could both find many examples of "their" used in expository writing, some of it formal.  Then we could withdraw to our respective corners and yell "Sounds erroneous!" or "Fluid exposition!" or "Hmmm, maybe it works there, but it would sound better if rewritten..." until the proverbial cows come home.  Johndot has made his/her preference unavoidably clear.  Some of us mightn't be quite so quick to condemn.


----------



## panjandrum

johndot said:


> I would go further: whether it sounds clunky or not the singular ‘they’ should be ostracised, vilified, pilloried, hung drawn and quartered, burnt at the stake and shot at dawn.
> 
> And, ManPaisa, if all texts are "informative" (post #23), I assert that the singular ‘they’ is dis-informative.


In that case, johndot, you had better arrive here at dawn tomorrow.
I have frequently used these forms as gender-neutral pronouns  in very formal texts and never yet have I been criticised for it.

As this is clearly a cause that really gets you ag_*g*_ravated, I offer myself as a sacrifice in the hope that your quest for my life will distract you from obsessing in this thread.  You'd better hurry up.  You have a lot to get through in the next nine hours.


----------



## Na'ilah

cuchuflete said:


> You do C.S. Lewis a disservice by dismissing many of his non-narrative works.


 
Well, I didn't say that all of the cited authors ONLY write narrative texts, but just in case...

Dear C.S. Lewis,

I offer my sincere apology for dismissing a portion of the body of your work.  Please forgive this inadvertence.  

Humbly yours,

Na'ilah


----------



## cuchuflete

Dear Na'ilah:

Many an author has had their entire work characterized by only those items that have
met with the most popular acclaim.  An author so treated may, depending on the position of the moon, the day of the week, and the weather, choose to flap their wings, howl at the moon, or retire to a comfortable chair, wearing a faint smile.

With deepest respect,
C.S. Lewares


----------



## mplsray

ManPaisa said:


> On the English-Spanish forum we've been debating the grammaticality of _*singular they/their*_ (as in _*the student should talk to their teacher*_).
> 
> I insist that it's correct in all but highly-formal registers, and that it has long been used by even the best of authors.
> 
> What do you say?


 

I think you're right. Do a search via Google of

site:*.edu "the student should * their"

and you will see that relatively formal documents (a university's instructions to its student body) do use "the student is" with the pronoun _they_ referring back to the student. I think those who find that usage odd but are not bothered by _they_ used to refer back to _everyone_ are a bit behind the times.


----------



## Packard

mplsray said:


> I think you're right. Do a search via Google of
> 
> site:*.edu "the student should * their"
> 
> and you will see that relatively formal documents (a university's instructions to its student body) do use "the student is" with the pronoun _they_ referring back to the student. ...


 

My sister taught at Harvard Medical School while she was a student there.  Her English was pretty good, but not something I would aspire to.  Some other teachers there were better; some were worse.  I don't think you can declare something correct or incorrect by sourcing it to a school document.


----------



## johndot

panjandrum said:


> In that case, johndot, you had better arrive here at dawn tomorrow.
> I have frequently used these forms as gender-neutral pronouns  in very formal texts and never yet have I been criticised for it.
> 
> As this is clearly a cause that really gets you ag_*g*_ravated, I offer myself as a sacrifice in the hope that your quest for my life will distract you from obsessing in this thread.  You'd better hurry up.  You have a lot to get through in the next nine hours.



You misunderstand, panjandrum. I mean not the perpetrators but the perpetration; the casual acceptance of something that I cannot help but see as dumbing-down.


----------



## lrosa

johndot said:


> You misunderstand, panjandrum. I mean not the perpetrators but the perpetration; the casual acceptance of something that I cannot help but see as dumbing-down.



How can you launch an attack on perpetration?


----------



## mplsray

mplsray said:


> I think you're right. Do a search via Google of
> 
> site:*.edu "the student should * their"
> 
> and you will see that relatively formal documents (a university's instructions to its student body) do use "the student is" with the pronoun _they_ referring back to the student. I think those who find that usage odd but are not bothered by _they_ used to refer back to _everyone_ are a bit behind the times.


 
I just discovered another objection to making this distinction. From page 179 of The American Heritage Book of English Usage:

"Many writers might now consider this too fine a distinction—rejecting _they_ for singular nouns but allowing it for singular pronouns that are plural in meaning—perhaps because they feel it will be missed by readers, who might merely think that the writer is being inconsistent."


----------



## johndot

lrosa said:


> How can you launch an attack on perpetration?



That was rhetorical, yes?

As I’ve already said, I’m aware that others have different views, and I’m on a sticky wicket, and I’m not likely to change the world; but I will defend my stance until the close of play... the end of the innings... The Ashes...

You see how the subject of “singular ‘they’” moves me to tears.


----------



## mplsray

johndot said:


> You misunderstand, panjandrum. I mean not the perpetrators but the perpetration; the casual acceptance of something that I cannot help but see as dumbing-down.


 
What possible justification is there for thinking of it as "dumbing-down"?


----------



## Loob

Oof, what a lot of conflicting emotions! _Prescriptivists 3 points, descriptivists 3 points._

_They/them/their_ is a (relatively) recent addition to the English pronoun system; there's no particular reason - to my mind - why it shouldn't be used for singular reference as well as plural reference if that's what usage demands.


ManPaisa said:


> On the English-Spanish forum we've been debating the grammaticality of _*singular they/their*_ (as in _*the student should talk to their teacher*_).
> 
> I insist that it's correct in all but highly-formal registers, and that it has long been used by even the best of authors.
> 
> What do you say?


Reverting to the original question - my answer is two-fold:

(1) We would normally expect "the student" to refer to a particular student, whose sex would therefore be known;

(2) If we are generalising - as in _*a* student should talk to their teacher *-*_ my answer would be that "their" is natural in informal registers, but that, at this stage of the game, it would be best avoided in formal registers (not just 'highly-formal' ones).

In 100 years, I'm pretty sure it will be accepted in all registers: singular "their" is so useful, and it makes such a lot of_ sense_


----------



## JoanTaber

I wrote an entire paper on singular they and received lots of angry mail when it was published. But, I defend its usage. 

Indeed, it was perfectly acceptable usage until 19th-century prescriptivists decided it (and split infinitives and prepositions rearing their ugly heads at the end of sentences) was against the grammatical laws of nature. 

It's used in everyday speech, and no one gives it a thought. And, yes, Shakespeare and Austen and many other literary wonders used it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Loob said:


> Oof, what a lot of conflicting emotions! _Prescriptivists 3 points, descriptivists 3 points._


 In fairness to johndot, we have 1 point for the _proscriptivists_, with oak leaf clusters.


----------



## johndot

mplsray said:


> What possible justification is there for thinking of it as "dumbing-down"?



Every. I believe that where students are not guided away from the overuse (or in my view, the misuse) of ‘they’ to mean a singular noun—in the same way that they’re guided away from the overuse of the verb ‘get’ in favour of wider and richer diction and imaginative expression—the teachers have an easier life, and the students suffer a less painful learning curve at the expense of improved articulacy.

In any case, there is _no need_ to use ‘they’ in this fashion; the English language contains an adequacy of pronouns and doesn’t need to be hampered by the gross ambiguity of this one, when used thus. Any sentence can be improved, easily, by rephrasing it to omit the offending word.

A _few_ people may disagree with these comments—I’m prepared for that (but sad, too)—they are simply my beliefs. And although they are beliefs that I have long held, that doesn’t mean I have a closed mind; it’s just that, to date, I haven’t been persuaded that the “singular ‘they’” is a good idea.


----------



## mplsray

johndot said:


> Every. I believe that where students are not guided away from the overuse (or in my view, the misuse) of ‘they’ to mean a singular noun—in the same way that they’re guided away from the overuse of the verb ‘get’ in favour of wider and richer diction and imaginative expression—the teachers have an easier life, and the students suffer a less painful learning curve at the expense of improved articulacy.
> 
> In any case, there is _no need_ to use ‘they’ in this fashion; the English language contains an adequacy of pronouns and doesn’t need to be hampered by the gross ambiguity of this one, when used thus. Any sentence can be improved, easily, by rephrasing it to omit the offending word.
> 
> A _few_ people may disagree with these comments—I’m prepared for that (but sad, too)—they are simply my beliefs. And although they are beliefs that I have long held, that doesn’t mean I have a closed mind; it’s just that, to date, I haven’t been persuaded that the “singular ‘they’” is a good idea.


 
I disagree. The use of generic _they_ is a reasonable solution to a _defect_ of the English language. Not only that, but it is a natural, rather than an artificial solution (compare to the artificial pronoun _s/he_ or the artificial process of alternating _he_ and _her_ in the same document to substitute for a generic third-person pronoun).

Whether _his or her_ was originally a natural or an artificial solution to generic _he,_ it is a less-than-satisfactory solution, because it becomes very awkward when it is necessary to repeat it many times in the same document.


----------



## mplsray

Packard said:


> My sister taught at Harvard Medical School while she was a student there. Her English was pretty good, but not something I would aspire to. Some other teachers there were better; some were worse. I don't think you can declare something correct or incorrect by sourcing it to a school document.


 
My reason for choosing the search items I did was not because I thought that standard speakers at a university would be any more correct than standard speakers elsewhere. It was, rather, because it fit well with the example suggested by the original poster and it was likely to represent official documents from a university to its students, and thus formal (but likely not extremely formal) usage.

As far as standard usage is concerned, all that is necessary is that the speakers be educated--which is likely the case with the writers of documents such as those I refer to. You cannot point to any particular group of educated speakers and insist that their writing is more standard than that of any other particular group. (This is separate from the question of writers imitating nonstandard speech in print.) So, as far as I can see, my choice was an apt one.


----------



## ManPaisa

mplsray said:


> I think you're right. Do a search via Google of
> 
> site:*.edu "the student should * their"
> 
> and you will see that relatively formal documents (a university's instructions to its student body) do use "the student is" with the pronoun _they_ referring back to the student. I think those who find that usage odd but are not bothered by _they_ used to refer back to _everyone_ are a bit behind the times.



Thanks for the comment, mplsray.  
I wouldn't have thought of doing such a search.


----------



## Forero

_They_/_them_/_their_/_theirs_/_themselves_ began as a plural personal pronoun that could be distinguished from feminine singular.  It is interesting that it is such an indispensable part of the language that we feel we sometimes need to "borrow" it as an undifferentiated singular, with a plural verb.


----------



## Na'ilah

mplsray said:


> I think you're right. Do a search via Google of
> 
> site:*.edu "the student should * their"
> 
> and you will see that relatively formal documents (a university's instructions to its student body) do use "the student is" with the pronoun _they_ referring back to the student.


 
This was a good idea, but if you do the following search you get more than 2 times the hits that you get for the "singluar they":
site:*.edu "the student should * his/her"


----------



## mplsray

Na'ilah said:


> This was a good idea, but if you do the following search you get more than 2 times the hits that you get for the "singluar they":
> site:*.edu "the student should * his/her"


 
That does not pose any conflict with the point I was trying to make. It still shows the generic _they_ used with a singular subject to have a substantial use in that sort of context.


----------



## Ali Smith

So, if a professor wrote an e-mail to his class and said, "Every student should submit his assignment on time." knowing full well that roughly half the class is female, would the females object?


----------



## MattiasNYC

My hunch tells me not only female but male students would as well. Not all maybe, but several.


----------



## Egmont

Ali Smith said:


> So, if a professor wrote an e-mail to his class and said, "Every student should submit his assignment on time." knowing full well that roughly half the class is female, would the females object?


In 2021, I would only expect to see this either from a doddering 88-year-old professor who is hanging onto a tenured position because he can't think of anything else to do with his life and can't be fired, or from someone - probably not a native speaker - whose English education was based largely on works written before the middle of the last century.


----------



## kentix

In that case, it is so easy not to say it. And it sounds better (I think).

- All students should submit their assignments on time."


----------



## Keith Bradford

It is a defect in the language, but it is one that was solved in the 16th century (or sooner) by the adoption of "they".  

People who are not very well-read in historical literature, or who have a rigid concept of language, or who were taught by Latinising teachers, or who (dare we say it?) are ever so slightly sexist will persist in railing against the use of "they".  But it has been a proven feature of good English for centuries.  Why throw away a handy tool?  Why reinvent the wheel?

That said, many people (myself included) are still aware of a slight disjunction from logic and habit when they encounter it.  So I will persist in saying without a qualm: "If anybody phones, ask *them *to leave a message" and "I think there's someone at the door; go and see what *they *want."  But if I am to draft a technical or administrative document I will try to let myself and my readers off the hook by choosing a consistent plural: "_Student*s*_ should leave their details at the college office" etc.


----------

