'He or she' versus 'they' - what to use?

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote [in another thread]:

S/he said in the OP that s/he's going inworld ...

---

/me observes above a new (novel?, original?) solution for the he or she dilemma in English language, which lacks the gender neutral third person singular pronoun when referring to a single person.

Sometimes I see that a single person is referred as they instead of he or she in an effort to avoid any hint of gender of the person or if the gender of the person is not known.  I have observed that Linden Lab does so.

What interests me as a non native English speaker, is that how widespread is the usage to replace the singular pronoun he or she with the plural pronoun they?  Is it widely accepted and/or used practice when the gender of the person referred to is not known?

Like in this case, Phil said in referring to the single OP person [in another thread]:
S/he said in the OP that s/he's going inworld.

In this manner Phil obviously tried to avoid the cumbersome:
He or she said in the OP that he's or she's going inworld.

How about, would it be ok to say in this case:
They said in the OP that they're going inworld.

Oh, by the way, I just saw an article where one person said that all numbers what we use are UPPERCASE.
[Quote]
I think we need lower case numbers. It is clear just by looking at them that the numbers we use now are upper case. 1, 4, 9, 5, 8? Come on people, it is like you are shouting them. Upper case numbers are fine for when you are doing math or giving phone numbers, but we really should have something less formal for less formal occasions. If you are just using a number in idle chitchat, you should have the option of using a version that blends a little better with text. Writing out the number in long hand can be such a hassle. All we need is a softer number. One that dips below the line, like a “g” or a “j.” It baffles me that such a thing does not already exist.
[Unquote]

:matte-motes-big-grin-squint:

[Charolotte Caxton]

The Most Complicated Words in Engish: 'He,' 'She,' and 'They'

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote [

in another thread

]:

S/he

said in the OP that

s/he's

going inworld ...

---

/me observes above a new (novel?, original?) solution for the

he

or

she

dilemma in English language, which lacks the gender neutral third person singular pronoun when referring to a single person.

Sometimes I see that a single person is referred as

they

instead of

he

or

she

in an effort to avoid any hint of gender of the person or if the gender of the person is not known.  I have observed that Linden Lab does so.

What interests me as a non native English speaker, is that how widespread is the usage to replace the singular pronoun he or she with the plural pronoun they?  Is it widely accepted and/or used practice when the gender of the person referred to is not known?

---

I've seen the "s/he" usage ever since I was in elementary school - such as a mimeographed (anyone remember the time before computers? *grins*) note being sent home that the parent needed to fill in the student's name and sign.  This was usually permission slips for field trips and similar situations. (I had a friend in Jr. High who had a younger brother.  He brought a note home from school like that for a field trip and upon seeing the s/he - their mother said, "Oh, both of them are going?" )

Where the subject could be male or female and it really doesn't matter with the context, using "he" or "she" alternately within the same written arcticle is often used.

Using "they" to refer to a single person is incorrect/bad grammar, although I see it used widely, but it is still in error. 

 

[KlistiesSeMio Ewinaga]

'They' is grammatically incorrect, but everyone uses it. Technically 'they' refers to a group of people of any or mixed gender in which the gender of the persons described does not matter.

However, without a lack of a proper singular gender neutral pronoun, most English speakers use 'they' instead when the gender is not clear.

The meaning is understood by the recipient party and therefore, despite being grammatically incorrect, it still works fine when used.

[Pussycat Catnap]

Language changes over time.

I've always found it funny that the dictionaries will add 'lol' and 'gnarly' or 'email', but not the longer-used and more common things like 'ain't' (which might now be in some of them) or using 'they' and 'them' as singular gender neutral pronouns.

All ready to be commercial and hip, but not ready to be 'common' and 'down with the peasants'...

People get it when you use they... so I will keep on using it... and my high school English teacher can take her fake British accent and shove it. Maybe get some real Brits to shove it for her while speaking Cockney...

 

[Lynda Baran]

A much simpler solution if you are unsure of the person's gender is to refer to them by their name.   All this gender neutral stuff is just more political correctness in an attempt to promote sameness and less attention to individualism.

I'm not a they, i'm a she or her.   And I'm not like everyone esle, I'm and individual.  I'm not a worker, I'm a citizen.  I refuse to play the game and give up to become just one more face in the mass of humanity to be ignored like everyone else.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Lynda Baran wrote:

A much simpler solution if you are unsure of the person's gender is to refer to them by their name.   

---

 

That  only works if you know what the person's gender is, though.  It's a particular issue in SL, when quite often you can't work out the avatar's gender from the name, and not always from the profile picture (certainly not with non-human  avatars).

Take a hypothotical example.   Someone called Xlox  has posted "I like pizza" and you want to put it into reported speech.   How would you do it?

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Lynda Baran wrote:

A much simpler solution if you are unsure of the person's gender is to refer to

them

by

their

name.   All this gender neutral stuff is just more political correctness in an attempt to promote sameness and less attention to individualism.

I'm not a they, i'm a she or her.   And I'm not like everyone esle, I'm and individual.  I'm not a worker, I'm a citizen.  I refuse to play the game and give up to become just one more face in the mass of humanity to be ignored like everyone else.

---

And yet you yourself are just here guilty of this "radical socialist conspiracy to change the God fearing male dominated Queen's English into some hippy Castro-loving technocommunist bunny-fest" by using "them" and "their" above.

 

Everybody's favorite CAPITALIST NATION: Red China, has a language with no gender pronouns.

Then again, that evil socialist country, South Korea; also has no gender pronouns. And they're taking us over with their Gangnam style ways!!!

 

* Then again, this might just have nothing to do with "political correctness" paranoia, or "individualism" paranoia... and be about the fact that language always changes over time, and its easier in a society that has less gender divisions to break it out of the pronouns...

- Oþþe wit þē cweþan gecynde Engle.

[Charolotte Caxton]

:cathappy:

[Dillon Levenque]

Coby, you've already gotten an answer but since this question is asked frequently I really could not help myself.

Using the word 'they' to describe a single person is incorrect, as Czari pointed out. There isn't any way around that. Calling one person 'they' is incorrect, period. Like it or not, the word 'they' has a definition and that definition declares it to mean a plural. More than one. If you're interested here's Merriam-Webster on the word. There is only one appropriate non-gender pronoun available in English: 'it'. Problem is that if you're an English speaker 'it' is by default if not by actual defininition a thing, but not a human.

I don't have any scholarly research to back this opinion up but I do have an opinion on why the whole problem came to be. I also don't have any linguistic knowledge to know if the same sort of problem exists in other languages but I'd be astonished to learn it did not.

The written and spoken language we use was crafted almost entirely by males and is descended from languages that were propogated primarily by males. Worldwide. That being the case, history made the natural pronoun to use when describing some unknown person 'he', as in: "If a person is not very careful when walking along the Nile after dark, he may find himself the victim of brigands."

In our (hopefully) more enlightened age we are able to conceive of that 'person' being female. That leaves us the choice of 'he or she' or 's/he'. Awkward but still way bettter than 'they', which is flat out wrong.

Pussycat: I'm USA born and bred. I just happen to appreciate the language being used properly (I also appreciate it being used improperly when the usage is done right).

 

 

[Charolotte Caxton]

Singular They, Wikipedia

Singular they is the use of they (or its inflected forms, such as them or their) to refer to an entity that is not plural, or not necessarily plural. Though singular they is widespread in everyday English and has a long history of usage, debate continues about its acceptability. It typically occurs in these situations:

 

• Indeterminate gender – when they refers to an individual person of unknown or unspecified sex, as in, for example, "One student failed their exam". This usage is known as epicene they.
• Indeterminate number – when they has no definite antecedent, or can be interpreted as referring to either a singular or plural entity. This usage is also known as generic they. For example, in "Anyone who thinks they have been affected should contact their doctor", they and their are within the scope of the universal, distributive quantifier anyone,[1] and can be interpreted as referring to an unspecified individual or to people in general (notwithstanding the fact that "anyone" is strictly grammatically singular).

In some cases, they is used even when both the number and gender of the subject are known, but the identity of the person is generic, e.g. "If some guy beat me up, I'd leave them."

Though semantically singular or ambiguous, singular they remains morphologically and syntactically plural (e.g. it still takes plural forms of verbs).

 

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

English has a perfectly good gender-neutral singular pronoun - "it". People use "it" for generic non-human animals and children - you might as well use it for human grown-ups too. If you're trying to be efficient, correct and non-namby-pamby, just use 'it". It will make you look like a tool, of course, but you'll be efficient, correct and non-namby-pamby.

Or just use "they" and "their" singularly, jeez. They're technically incorrect - so what? There's a job that needs to be done and these words have volunteered to do it and the use in this way doesnt' cause any confusion. Language is a tool for communication. Over the years we've adapted languages all over the place. I imagine people who are bothered by using plural pronouns singularly would also admonish someone for treating "data" as a singular word because it's actually the plural of "datum." However, I almost never hear them saying things like, "Are the spaghetti ready?" despite the fact that "spaghetti" is the plural of "spaghetto." Are only dead Italians worthy of this gramatical respect?

This is all completely ignoring the fact that so many people in SL have multiple avatars that they could be considered plural their ownselves.

[ncidentally, there ARE lowercase numbers that are used in typesetting - they just got left out in the cold when the typewriter keyboard was put together. And iif you have a REALLY old typewriter?" No exclamation point - it was made with "apostrophe - backspace - period."]

 

[Charolotte Caxton]

Your link says that they for singular is acceptable.

b : 1he 2 —often used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent <everyone knew where they stood — E. L. Doctorow> <nobody has to go to school if they don't want to — N. Y. Times>

They used as an indefinite subject (sense 2) is sometimes objected to on the grounds that it does not have an antecedent. Not every pronoun requires an antecedent, however.

The indefinite they is used in all varieties of contexts and is standard.They, their, them, themselves:

English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns

 <and every one to rest themselves betake — Shakespeare> 

<I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly — Jane Austen>

 <it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy — W. H. Auden>.

The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons 

<'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'er hear the speech — Shakespeare> 

<a person can't help their birth — W. M. Thackeray>

 <no man goes to battle to be killed. — But they do get killed — G. B. Shaw>.

The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts.

This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.

[Dillon Levenque]

I deny the allegation and I deny the allegators! My LINK said that? Then I deny the link as well.

As for these hacks you've used for examples, Bah. Shakespeare? Really? I mean what did he know? He couldn't even spell his own name right half the time!

Austen and Auden...I just blame that on poor editing. I'm sure they'd be mortified to see that still in print.

As for Shaw...hmm. I'm running out of room here, I think.

I still say it's incorrect, and whenever I run up against it I go back and restructure the sentence to remove the obstacle. I shall continue to do so, G.B. Shaw notwithstanding.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

Take a hypothotical example.   Someone called Xlox  has posted "I like pizza" and you want to put it into reported speech.   How would you do it?

---

I'd handle this the way I handle reporting about my alt, Snugs. I've consciously left Snugs' gender unspecified, simply because it's amusing to me and a bit of a challenge, like rhyme... or haiku. If Snugs posted "I like pizza", I'd report that as "Snugs has expressed a fondness for pizza, without cayenne. This doesn't suprise me. Some people have no taste."

[Charolotte Caxton]

Lol, my personal opinion is that if a word conveys the meaning it is meant to convey then the word is correct. Language evolves, there is no supreme ruler of what is and isn't correct, it is decided by common usage. If everyone says they and knows what it means, being nitpickity about it is just being nitpickety.

 "One thing that shouldn’t stop you from using an undictionaried word: worrying about whether it’s “real” or (as Wordnik users like to say) “madeupical.” All words (aside from unintentional errors and malapropisms) are words at their birth. All you have to decide is whether the word in question is the right one for the job. Dictionaries don’t measure realness; they serve as rough proxies for the extent of a word’s use." - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/using-undictionaried-words/

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 I imagine people who are bothered by using plural pronouns singularly would also admonish someone for treating "data" as a singular word because it's actually the plural of "datum." 

---

 

Bingo.

And for the record I always use 'pasta'. Muahaha.

 

 

ETA Okay I was kidding but the opportunity was too good to miss. I call 'it' data too. I still can use the pasta as an escape though.

[Charolotte Caxton]

I would say, Xlox says they like pizza.

[Snugs McMasters]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

Take a hypothotical example.   Someone called Xlox  has posted "I like pizza" and you want to put it into reported speech.   How would you do it?

---

I'd handle this the way I handle reporting about my alt, Snugs. I've consciously left Snugs' gender unspecified, simply because it's amusing to me and a bit of a challenge, like rhyme... or haiku. If Snugs posted "I like pizza", I'd report that as "Snugs has expressed a fondness for pizza, without cayenne. This doesn't suprise me. Some people have no taste."

---

Who are you to complain about my taste? You sprinkle cayenne on your hot chocolate.

(I could have used "b1tch" instead of "complain", but I'm returning Maddy's favor.)

[Innula Zenovka]

That's very clever!   You're right, I'm sure; the only solution is to try to write your way round it.

I've just looked it up in New Fowlers's Modern English Usage (the 1998 edition) and he is perfectly content with "they" as a singular pronoun, even though the original, 1926, Fowler's disliked it.    

The online Oxford Dictionaries Pro (to which I can't link directly; it's a service available through my local library) has this to say:

The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used since at least the 16th century. In the late 20th century, as the traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under scrutiny on the grounds of sexism, this use of they became more common. It is now generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as anyone, no one, someone, or a person, as in anyone can join if they are a resident; and each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular nouns, the use of they is now common, though less widely accepted, especially in formal contexts. Sentences such as ask a friend if they could help are still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly.

[Dillon Levenque]

No, really. On hot chocolate? That's just wrong.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

No, really. On hot chocolate? That's just wrong.

---

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/hot-cocoa-recipe/index.html

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/mayan-hot-chocolate/

http://www.grouprecipes.com/57640/best-hot-cocoa-ever.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090513195645AAROLny

http://www.food.com/recipe/godiva-devilishly-hot-hot-chocolate-with-cayenne-whipped-cream-108061

 

As I said, some people...

[Peggy Paperdoll]

It may be acceptable but it is grammatically incorrect.  It is politically correct though.  Up to the 60's (wasn't that about the time that Gloria Steinam started burning her bras?) the "accepted" gender neutral pronoun was "he" or "him".  The English language has changed (or evolved) mostly out of convenience but, in this case, it was for political  reasons.  There is no harm with the "them/their" usage when the context makes it obvious what the meaning is.  It' when that context doesn't add up that problem arise.  I'm sure it will all evolve some more as time dictates..........I just hope it's not for political reasons like this evolution was.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Historical alternatives to gender-neutral pronoun

[edit] Universal "he"

**Only uploaded images may be used in postings**://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png" border="0" alt="Question book-new.svg" width="50" height="39" />

This section does not cite any references or sources. (January 2012)

Main article: He

The use of "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender was prescribed by manuals of style and school textbooks from the early 18th century until around the 1960s, an early example of which is Anne Fisher's 1745 grammar book "A New Grammar".[12]

• The customer brought his purchases to the cashier for checkout.
• In a supermarket, anyone can buy anything he needs.
• When a customer argues, always agree with him.

This may be compared to usage of the word man to humans in general.

• "All men are created equal."
• "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
• "Man cannot live by bread alone."

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one said English was a simple language to learn the correct usage.  It's probably one of the hardest with so many contridictions (like this example) or words that are spelled the same with different tenses ("read" a book or I "read" a book) or words that are pronouned exactly the same but very different words all together (reed, read, red, read).  The world is not going to come to an end over any word, grammatically correct or not.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

No, really. On hot chocolate? That's just wrong.

---

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/hot-cocoa-recipe/index.html

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/mayan-hot-chocolate/

http://www.grouprecipes.com/57640/best-hot-cocoa-ever.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090513195645AAROLny

http://www.food.com/recipe/godiva-devilishly-hot-hot-chocolate-with-cayenne-whipped-cream-108061

 

As I said, some people...

---

 

I am unmoved by the Mainiacs.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I am unmoved by the Mainiacs.

---

They're more moving if you turn off the sound.