ALT TEXT:
- Panel 1: A person with the text "Singular 'they'" written on them smiling with open arms.
- Panel 2: "Singular 'They'" beaten up by others who said, "Singular they is ungrammatical. It's too confusing," "How can anyone use plural pronouns for singular," and "Every pronoun should only have one purpose."
- Panel 3: "You" hiding from the mob who was beating "Singular 'They'"
- Panel 4: "German 'Sie'" hiding with even more fear next to "You"
I have normally used "they, their and them" when referring to a singular person for about twenty years because I thought that "he/she" and "his/hers" looked ridiculous in emails.
For example; "Next time the engineer feels like he/she needs to overhaul the code..." versus "Next time the engineer feels like they need to overhaul the code...". Clean and simple.
Example of current use:
Bob - "Hey Jo, Frank thinks we should tweak widget X."
Me - "Yeah well, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about."
I don't think that sounds weird.
Singular they sometimes works and sometimes it sounds odd. It usually sounds off when used by itself without following something explicitly singular.
"The customer forgot their wallet. Can you bring it to them?" sounds correct but if you just do
"They forgot to pay their bill" it sounds like you're referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.
Edit: Changed to a better example.
Does it? If multiple people left multiple wallets on the table, it would be, "They left their wallets on the table." Multiple people can't really leave a single wallet behind. Or at least that would be very unusual and unintuitive.
True. I'll change it to a (hopefully) better example.
“A customer forgot to pay their bill” sounds totally normal to me though, you just need a reference before throwing a pronoun out there, if the context doesn’t clear up the number of people referred to.
I agree.
This sounds normal to me, how else would you word it?
If it was a singular customer, I would say "He forgot to pay his bill" (or she/her depending on the gender).
I honestly have never understood why people take the effort to write he/she instead of singular they? Like it's 2 words instead of 1, why bother? Even in academic articles which typically have word count limits lol
If I have to write a he/she, I usually write it as "(s)he", but I usually avoid that too, because to me it seems like I assume a male, but maybe female, which defacto puts an implication on the term that women are not as good as, or equal to their male counterparts.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
The only argument I've ever heard from anyone about why they don't want to use "they" as a singular pronoun is that it feels wrong, or that it's a plural pronoun (which it is not, and never has been). Neither argument is valid IMO, and the entire practice shifts the discomfort of the chosen pronoun from listener to speaker or vice-versa, depending on the situation. If someone wants you to use the pronouns they/them, and you have any respect for them at all, you'll do it, and suffer that discomfort for their benefit.
Not an expert, but I've followed the growth of this word a little on-and-off.
Disambiguity can be important in a language. But it's complicated. Many times we use "he", "she", or "he/she", gender is not required. Back in the 1800's, the standard was to use "he" when gender was uncertain, unimportant, or ambiguous to a conversation. Obviously it had to do with the presumed defaultness of the male gender.
For a while, people toyed with "it" or "which". Honestly, my personal feeling is that it was the way insult could easily be taken (or given) with "it" that it died out.
"They" probably should not be used in cases a less ambiguous word is more appropriate... But that's when the bigots come out. In most cases, the most appropriate word to reference a person is that person's preferred pronoun if you know it, even if it's a genderfluid pronoun. Why? It's significantly more descriptive than "him" or "her". But these same people who consider "they" too general would break down to acknowledge any person having a gender identity different from their birth sex (and probably their genital birth sex for intersex folks, at that).
What all the offense is REALLY about is that they want to pretend some people are fiction, or subhuman. I think "it" would settle well with those folks. Which is why I'm glad that isn't a default.
In German, there is no singular they, so enbies often have to use "it". Fun times, really.
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/1382981
Frank is such an idiot. Why did we ever let them onto this team?
Good example. There are a ton of these.
Lots of people talk past each other on this. Singular they to refer to a known single person is an invention of the last few years and is the thing that a lot of people are up in arms about. It gets confused with the centuries-old usage of using it to refer to an unknown or undetermined person. Your first example is in line with the latter, and your second example is the new usage. TBH I'd be confused by your second example. Is Frank part of some larger group that doesn't know what they're talking about? Or is it only Frank that doesn't know what he's talking about?
No, it's been used for at least 400 years.
It's actually even older than that though. It's over 600 years.
https://nyulocal.com/shakespeare-used-the-singular-they-and-so-should-you-6452240ca9e0
Your confusion here is exactly what I'm trying to clear up. We know the gender of the person in the Shakespeare quote you linked to ("man"), but nothing else. It's a placeholder term that doesn't refer to a specific, known individual. Shakespeare never said anything like "Here's Frank, they're a cool guy", that would be considered ungrammatical until a few years ago.
Just here to support: English is a constantly evolving language. By way of example, historically, the word jealous has been that you're afraid of someone taking something from you, like a relationship, it's something you have, that you may lose due to someone's influence. The term for wanting what someone else has, is envy. If someone has something you want, you are envious of them. But if you go find the definition for jealousy, it now includes that you want something someone else has, because people have conflated the word jealous with the definition of envy. What happened is that the definition of jealous changed. IMO, I'm not a fan of that one specifically, since we already have a word for envy, but it speaks to my point.
The language adapts to the common usage. Historically, they/them has been used as indirect singular/plural. The change that's happening now, is that they/them is being used as direct and indirect singular/plural. In the past, the only direct singular for an individual has been he/she/you. There was no direct singular ungendered term, besides "you", which is only applicable when the subject is the listener. Adding they/them to that is logical, the only alternative I see is to use a brand new word, one likely adapted from another language that already carries that singular and direct meaning. Authoring a new word for something like this isn't new to English either, since many English words have roots in other languages, which is why grammar rules seem to have (and often do have) more exceptions than anything (like i before e, except after c, or congugating a word with "er" or something similar).
I'm personally a fan of adapting they/them to be direct singular, on top of it's current use. While it's uncomfortable for some to use they/them in this manner, myself included, is rather make myself uncomfortable by using that, then make non-binary persons uncomfortable by using pronouns that make them uncomfortable. Besides, the definition of they/them is so close already, that this is a minor adjustment at most. It's barely an inconvenience.
Sure, that's a great discussion to have, and I'm glad you spelled it out well. I just dislike people trying to claim that using "they" to refer to a specific, known individual is "nothing new because Shakespeare did it". He didn't, and it muddies the waters of the conversation to spread falsehoods like that.
I get that. Irrespective of if Shakespeare used they/them in this way or not; I would challenge anyone to even have a conversation about someone, or tell a story and not use they/them to describe a singular individual. Fact is, it's so common in speech, that people breeze past it without thinking about it, because it's natural to use they/them as the indirect singular. Everyone has used they/them this way, and continue to use those words this way, without even realizing they're doing it.... like I just did.
The discussion of when/where/who started it, isn't really material to the point that almost everyone uses it in this manner right now, even if they're not introspective or analytical enough to realize they're doing it.... so I would argue that it's not relevant to focus on the who/what/where/when/why of the use of the words in this context, but rather focus on what's happening now.
Leave the discussions of who/what/where/when/why/how to the historians and the linguists. I agree that such discussions just muddy the waters of the reality of what the common usage of the words are, and therefore it should be set aside and left alone; at least by anyone who doesn't hold a PhD in English literary studies or something...
It's not a thing of the last few years I've been using it for at least a decade.
A few years is a loose term, but it was certainly not in use by Shakespeare, unlike what people try to claim.
To be clear, this example, where the singular they is used for a person of any gender, is confusing to you.
Based on the above questions, the confusion is about attempting to identify if the singular they or plural they is being used.
But these variants with a person with an ungendered name or description are fine. Example with ungendered name:
Bob - “Hey Jo, Kelly thinks we should tweak widget X.”
Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
Example with ungendered description:
Bob - “Hey Jo, the engineer thinks we should tweak widget X.”
Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
If that is true, that the second and third examples are not confusing, then determining whether the singular they or the plural they is being used is not the source of the confusion. As in all three examples, we have a person who was previously referenced excluding the possibility of the plural they. In the first example Frank, in the second Kelly, and the third the engineer. All that has changed in the first example is that the singular they has no restrictions based on name or description. If that grammatical distinction is the source of the confusion, so be it, but let's be clear on what the confusion is.
Source I used to unpick this, specifically the first table in section 3: https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5288/
The root of the problem is that it's an indirect reference to an individual. They/them is commonly (until very recently) referring to a party (singular or plural) that isn't present. When you use it as a direct reference to someone who is present, most people feel like it's incorrect because of the common usage of the term being indirect.
When speaking to someone about Joe: "Joe doesn't know what they're talking about" While directly: "Joe, you don't know what you're talking about"
Both are correct, and possibly the most correct forms of the statements. Substitute Joe for whatever name and it still works. Meanwhile, it's uncommon, in Joe's presence, when not taking to Joe, to refer to (assuming Joe is using gendered pronouns) him as a he/him. "Joe doesn't know what he's talking about"
Both cases are singular, but the difference of Joe being there changes "they" to "he", and not taking directly to Joe changes "you" to "he".
The problem isn't plural vs singular, the problem is direct vs indirect reference.
To the best of my knowledge, using pronouns like he, she, they for a person who is present in the room during the conversation is not part of the most recent change to the singular they. That would be confusing, but I am not aware that that is happening. He, she, and they are still only for indirect references to a person as far as I know.
I don't think you're wrong here; it's just uncommon to refer to someone as they/them even indirectly while they are present and engaged in the conversation that's happening, but may not be the directed recipient of the statement. In almost all cases, at least until recently, the pronouns he/she or him/her would be used instead; therefore it's sort of awkward to use it as a direct pronoun in that context; but using they/them as a direct singular is not new in any capacity and I believe you're correct on that. It's just uncommon, and IMO, would generally come across as mildly dismissive or insulting toward the individual in question.
I believe the (former) dismissive/insulting nature of the context of referring to someone as they/them directly is the root of the discomfort most people (especially cis-normative persons) have around using the term for direct reference of a singular individual. Their brain is uncomfortable at the fact that they're using (mildly) offensive language towards someone who they likely mean no offense to, meanwhile to use he/him or she/her instead is likely going to be far more offensive to someone who is non-binary, so the discomfort only lies within the speaker and their expectation of how what they are saying will be understood.
Your Kelly example is similarly confusing. The "engineer" example is also confusing, but because English already conflates those two meanings, I at least know that I'm parsing a confusable sentence and can pick up on context clues.
If I were writing that, I'd say "Yeah well, that engineer don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about." The "they're" is then not confusing at all.
In this example, the engineer is the antecedent, the thing that is being referred to previously by the pronoun they. The only difference between the above example and this example
is that the antecedent is in a previous sentence said by a different person. This is a common use case for pronouns in general during a conversation and also a common use case for the singular they. My point is this is not confusion related to the most recent change to the singular they, that restrictions to name and description have been lifted. That's fine, but I think a lot of what people are saying about Shakespeare is relevant to this particular form of confusion, singular they vs plural they, because we have been using the singular they for quite some time.
Yep. Using "they" and "them" as singular pronouns is actually really common, but in it's (until very recently) common usage, it's usually an indirect singular pronoun, rather than a direct one.
I'm no linguist, so my terms may be a bit off, but when referring to a single person, or multiple people indirectly (without them involved in the conversation directly and/or, not talking directly to them). So for example, Joe went to fix the thing, and someone asks if the thing is being worked on... Yeah, Joe is on it, they will get it fixed.
That's normal.
The pinch for most people, that they can't seem to grasp, is that many seem to believe, whether they consciously realize it or not, that referring to someone as a "they" or a "them" directly is usually considered .... For lack of a better term, rude. In the same vein as calling someone by their name but getting their name wrong. It's impersonal which comes off, in their mind as insulting.
I'll give you an example, Frank just did a stupid. While standing in a group with Joe and Frank, Joe says, "then they decided to do the stupid."
Same with "they did it!" While accusing a singular individual.
The reason people don't like calling someone "they" and "them" is because on some level, they realize that the language is either dismissive or accusatory of the individual in question. Akin to calling someone stupid or using an undesirable nickname for someone, like referring to them by their race, or doing so via a racial slur; this example is a bit extreme, but you get the idea.
There's an absolute fuckload of examples of using they/them as singular pronouns, but people are still uncomfortable with it, often feeling like it's wrong to refer to someone like that without really understanding why; and because they don't understand why, they'll never intellectually move past the taboo of it.
Non-binary people have reclaimed the word as their own, and have asked the rest of us who are comfortable with our gendered pronouns, to use these words as their pronouns. So while it feels wrong/insulting to do it, it's actually insulting not to.
In German, the whole thing is another level worse because we don't have something such as the sigular they, since our 3rd person plural is already a third person singular pronoun too, the female one, so enbies either use custom neopronouns or the third person neutrum, in English that would be "it". And "it" is only used tor refer to objects, animals or monsters usually, so it feels like a whole other level of disrepect. I wish we had something as easy as the singular they. The latter is usually disrespectful but the former is usually dehumanizing and not even used for people you like, but only people you see as subhuman.
If you think gender neutrality in English is bad you should see other languages. Know steward/stewardess? In German almost every single profession is gendered like that. The solutions are constructs such as steward or stewardess, steward/ess, steward*ess, steward:ess (my favourite), stewardEss, steward_ess, the stewarding, and more. They aren't standardised. Oh and did I mention all singular pronouns are gendered, so its actually the steward or the stewardess, the/the(f) steward/-ess, ...?
Not to mention this applies to plural froms too, historyically the male form was used for mixed and all-male groups, and the female one for female-only ones, but in many cases that leads to people only picturing the male version, especially in historically male fields. Same for the singular version when the gender is unspecified. And these versions still dont include nonbinary persons, or those who use neopronouns here. The latter aren't much of a thing here, you are pressed to have anything gender neutral in language.
All of this doesn't improve readability, "Liebe Mitbürger" (fellow citizens) becomes "Liebe Mitbürger und Mitbürgerinnen, und auch alle anderen" (dear citizens and citizens(f), and all the others too); "Der Fahrer bremst sein Fahrzeug" (the driver slows down his vehicle) becomes "Der/Die Fahrer/in bremst sein/ihr Fahrzeug" (the/the(f) driver/ess brakes his/her vehicle); "die Wissenschaftler befrageten Taxi- und Busfahrer. Jede einzelne Teilnehmer" (the scientists surveyed taxi and bus drivers. Every single participant) becomes "die Wissenschaftlerinnen befragten Taxi- und Busfahrerinnen. Jeder einzelne Teilnehmerin" (the scinetistesses surveyed taxi and bus driveresses. Every*(m) single participant*ess).
German schools try to avoid having to write out "Schüler und Schülerinnen" (students and studentesses) by abbreviating it to SuS, but that has its own issues as you can guess, Among Us was very popular here in Germany too, every student knows memes, and often hangs in online spaces. The teacher equivalent would be LuL, they didn't even attempt that one. Can sound funny but is reality here, sadly until a few decades pass at least, if not much more. This is hard to change. And many hang onto the language, I love it too, more than English since its my own I think in still, I read books in etc. This will need a lot of energy to change somewhere reasonable. And it makes texts much longer in German compared to English, as it wasn't egregious enough already, "the vehicle owners" ( as used in legal documents/law ) becomes "Der/Die Kraftfahrzeugeigentümer*innnen " . This is not very readable at all, especially to foreigners, and fucks up submenus in programs as well as a lot of other formatting. We can't even dream of integrating nonbinary people into these expressions too at the moment yet now here, it is insanely compliated to get somewhere.
Its an absolute shitfest. English they/them is a piece of cake against that, and the poeple who still cry that much about it are oversensitive whiny bitches. In Germany they at least have some practical justifications, albeit I think the use outweighs the downsides, but I see some points. I will continue to use these so-called "gendered" expressions, and they are now recommended for scientific publications, but there is a whole culture war about that, and applying it to spoken language is a whole different level. Don't get me started on dialects. The entire issue is so much fucked here - the gender-neutrality is what I love about English. Its one of its big adavantages. Cherish what you have already out there, its not a given. You are lucky for that situation. Be thankful for it. It is a great help.
Wow, that's crazy. I can certainly empathize with you, though I can't really understand how intense that struggle clearly must be.
I don't have much more to say on that, so I'll leave you with my best wishes.