Mods, please remove.

[enderlord99]

Nothing to see here, move along. I've decided to just call people their names every time.

[golentan]

I'd say so. Gender is important to a lot of people, even if it isn't to you, and "it" is used frequently as a slur for some folks I care very much about.

What's wrong with "they" as a less inhuman neutral pronoun? For that matter, what's wrong with "he" or "she" if you know that's the right one?

[enderlord99]

I'd say so. Gender is important to a lot of people, even if it isn't to youRace is important to a lot of people as well, but people (essentially) never specify race in something as basic as a pronoun. Likewise with height, Meyer-Briggs personality-type, or I.Q.
and "it" is used frequently as a slur for some folks I care very much about.But me'm making the fact clear (via the signature itself) that it's not meant as a slur when me say "it." The word (when coming from me) is not meant to imply anyone below anyone else; calling someone "worse" by using the same word for which me am calling someone else "better" doesn't even sound possible!
What's wrong with "they" as a less inhuman neutral pronoun?Plurality; it is one thing, but they are a bunch of things.
For that matter, what's wrong with "he" or "she" if you know that's the right one?The fact that only one pronoun is needed each for the first-person plural ("we"), first-person singular ("me"), second-person plural ("y'all"), second-person singular ("you"), or third-person plural ("they")... but in the third-person singular suddenly three pronouns are needed ("he" "she" "it") for some reason; that fact irks me, because me like symmetry.

[Zrak]

Generally, I think it's rude to call people something they don't want to be called, whatever your reasoning.


I'd say so. Gender is important to a lot of people, even if it isn't to you, and "it" is used frequently as a slur for some folks I care very much about.

What's wrong with "they" as a less inhuman neutral pronoun? For that matter, what's wrong with "he" or "she" if you know that's the right one?

"It" is actually used to refer to humans a lot more often than people seem to think; it's been advocated as a gender neutral pronoun as far back as Coleridge, which is almost as far as prescriptive grammar goes back. I could see an aversion based on its use as a slur, and of course would respect others' pronoun preferences regardless of their reasons, but as I pedant I do feel the need to point out that the argument that "it" is a dehumanizing pronoun in and of itself, or at least that it doesn't refer to humans in standard usage, just doesn't really hold water.


Plurality; it is one thing, but they are a bunch of things.

The singular they has been around since Chaucer. It's been a part of English for longer than "you" has been the standard second-person singular pronoun. Speaking of which, "you" is the second-person singular pronoun and yet takes "are" rather than "is."

[golentan]

Okay, now, I'm of the opinion that the intent of a word is far more important than the word, but in this case the existence of gendered language combined with refusing to use the gender appropriate word is a source of dysphoria and discomfort for people, regardless of your intent. I don't think an equivalent source of pain is associated with race, height, IQ or Meyers Briggs type, but I'm pretty sure calling someone a slur associated with any of those would get a pretty strong gut reaction even if you say it's not a slur, certainly unless you're a known member of an affiliated group trying to reclaim it or an already close friend of the person you use it for.

Dysphoria is a thing, pronouns remind people it's a thing, and improper pronoun use is a weapon used to cudgel cis-folks as well, not to mention going after the LGBT community in general, and trans folks in particular. It's not that you're calling someone worse, it's that the word used is one that has been used to HURT people in the past, and the first reaction isn't "Boy, I should sure check that person's signature to see if they're being careful" it's "Oh, no, I put a female to male gender marker and now I'm having that same slur hurled at me, I can't escape it even on GitP." Or even just "I had a minor dispute with this person, and now I'm being dehumanized, like an animal... or a machine, because even dogs are usually afforded non-object pronouns..."

It is one that makes me so uncomfortable that when people request "it" as a pronoun of choice that I cannot bring myself to comply. More than fresh invented pronouns such as xe (which makes me squirm because I'm not sure how to pronounce it, nor have any frame of reference for its intent), more than any of my fears of undue language creep leading to obfuscation rather than clarity, "it" is a pronoun which I associate with slavers, with abusers, with people who have in the past attacked me or people I care about, it is the pronoun that I will point blank refuse to use, ever, until there is a radical shift in the language (and thank you Zrak, aye, I know that it has been pushed in the past, but I've never had any positive association experience with "it" and it continues to make me squirm when applied to a thinking person, regardless: It is literally triggering to me, in context of being used for a person, "Haha, 'It's' scared" is one of the phrases the boy who molested me would say when he was coming after me)

Singular they (https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/) has been used by Shakespeare and Chaucer, I trust them on the linguistic value and accuracy more than you, and in fact more than any style guide.

There are numerous languages with gendered first person pronouns (see Japanese Watashi-wa/Ore-wa/boku-wa). Granted, we're talking english here, but gendered pronouns or partially gendered pronouns are a common element of dozens if not hundreds of languages not always limited to 3rd person, and I'm not sure that ripping them out entirely would be a good idea even if it could gain consensus between linguists and the populace: I suspect they'd be more likely to creep back in than not, anyhoo.

Language evolves. It hasn't been evolving the way you want it to, and having a definition fight never wins anything, much less trying to force a linguistic evolution through demanding a definition fight.

[Astrella]

Your comparison to race doesn't really work out though, cause you are still using a pronoun to address people. Anyways, don't go calling people it without their consent, if you have to use a neutral one use they, at least that one doesn't have a history of dehumanization behind it. (and yes, I know you don't intend to use it that way but you can't just shake off the context a word is used in most of the time.)

@Zrak; It is often used along with other slurs and vile language to make trans people out to be freaks and monsters. Do not call me it, I don't care about the reasoning one might have.

----

Pronouns, just like names, aren't about you either, they're about the person you are addressing. Ideally I'd like pronouns to be gender neutral, but that's not how the world as is is, and I've had to fight hard to get my reality as a trans woman acknowledged, so I'm not gonna be okay with someone referring to me with pronouns that have a bad history for me.

[Razade]

I would put this in Board/Site Issues, but I'm really asking how people feel about it, rather than if it's allowed or not (though I'm sort of asking that, too; I'm guessing it's fine, though.)

While certainly people might take umbrage with your over all statement it's more the tone that's off-putting. You're free to feel it stupid, the majority on this board and in general don't particularly seem to agree and unless you can give me a convincing argument as to why your position is the one with merit I'll continue to use gender pronouns regardless of how you feel.



Singular they (https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/) has been used by Shakespeare and Chaucer, I trust them on the linguistic value and accuracy more than you, and in fact more than any style guide.

It's odd that you say this but then not much later say


Language evolves. It hasn't been evolving the way you want it to, and having a definition fight never wins anything, much less trying to force a linguistic evolution through demanding a definition fight.

Language does evolve and in common parlance They is plural. That's just how it is now adays. Language has changed quite a bit since Billy's day ya know? You most certainly don't have to like it but then you're in the same boat with Ender up there.

[Astrella]

They is used as a singular neutral pronoun, either because that's what the person prefers, or because the persons preferred pronouns aren't known. I hate doing the dictionary link but:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they

Clearly lists they as being used singular as well.

----

And the comparison with ender doesn't really go up considering they these days, especially in more trans-oriented / gender-aware circles is used as singular for one.

[golentan]

It's odd that you say this but then not much later say

Language does evolve and in common parlance They is plural. That's just how it is now adays. Language has changed quite a bit since Billy's day ya know? You most certainly don't have to like it but then you're in the same boat with Ender up there.

I'd say the difference is I view Shakespeare as a powerful influence on language to today, and I feel like the attempt to limit They to plural use 1) was an attempt at a definition fight imposed by style guides, and 2) never reflected actual use, where singular they has remained a feature of the language in books of every time period.

~shrug~

[Zrak]

Language does evolve and in common parlance They is plural.

The singular they is still common usage, people just bring up the historical usage because the typical criticism is that it's a newfangled invention that's ruining the language, not an archaic formation. Just of the top of my head, Doris Lessing is a relatively modern author who used the singular they.


@Zrak; It is often used along with other slurs and vile language to make trans people out to be freaks and monsters. Do not call me it, I don't care about the reasoning one might have.

Sure, of course. Like I said, I can totally understand that. I just feel the need every time this topic comes up to point out that the claim that "it" doesn't refer to humans in standard usage is erroneous. Both because I am, as I mentioned, a hopeless pedant and because, more seriously, the wrong sort of people will abuse mistakes like that to attempt to legitimize an entire position. While that type of person will probably try something like that anyway, it's better to make it harder for them, at least.


I'd say the difference is I view Shakespeare as a powerful influence on language to today, and I feel like the attempt to limit They to plural use 1) was an attempt at a definition fight imposed by style guides, and 2) never reflected actual use, where singular they has remained a feature of the language in books of every time period.

This is pretty much exactly the case. Ann Fisher, incidentally the first female grammarian published in English, made the first published objection to the term in 1745, advocating defaulting to "he" rather than using the singular "they." That didn't really gain traction in style guides until the 19th century, when people really tried to make it a thing, with only moderate success. Renowned authors have used it throughout, and I don't think it's ever been documented to have fallen out of common usage.

[The_Snark]

Generally, I think it's rude to call people something they don't want to be called, whatever your reasoning.

This is the lynchpin, I think. If you want to be referred to as 'it', sure, that's your prerogative. If other people don't want that pronoun being applied to them, then it seems unkind to insist on doing so.

[SaintRidley]

The fact that only one pronoun is needed each for the first-person plural ("we"), first-person singular ("me"), second-person plural ("y'all"), second-person singular ("you"), or third-person plural ("they")... but in the third-person singular suddenly three pronouns are needed ("he" "she" "it") for some reason; that fact irks me, because me like symmetry.

If you're going to do this, be consistent in your choices at least. We, y'all, and they are all nominative pronouns. You is now, but used to be the dative and accusative. If you're going to do it, you might as well go back to thou. Which means learning how to conjugate with thou. And me? Me isn't nominative. Me is dative/accusative. It's the object of the verb, not the subject of the verb. So I'm confused by the choice to go with me rather than I.

Of course, they isn't even English originally (We kind of stole Old Norse's masculine plural to get it - yes, Old Norse distinguished the plural in three genders as well), so you might just want to go with the English hy/hi. and if you do that, you might as well run with the fact that the English plural nominative was in many dialects indistinguishable from the feminine singular accusative. So our plural pronoun might as well be her.

Seriously, though, pronoun cases. They're an important thing. And what are you even going to do as far as the genitive (possessive)? Your system just seems silly.