This makes me wonder if there would be value in a top level post discussing the implications of social anxiety arising from lack of clear gender markers. I have an unverified hunch that gender-related privilege plays a role in this, too.
I’m not any kind of regular here but is “they” really discouraged? Why?
The Pronoun Question is a recurring topic of idle conversation around here that never makes definitive progress, and a fairly standard sub-pattern is someone suggesting “they” and someone else asserting that singular “they” is ungrammatical and thus to be avoided.
Other standard sub-patterns include someone suggesting Spivak pronouns and someone else asserting that they are dysphonious, someone suggesting “he” and someone else asserting that “he” is not in fact gender-neutral, and someone suggesting alternating “he” and “she” (either regularly, pseudo-randomly, or true-randomly) and someone else asserting that that’s too much work. (I’ve been known to assert some of those things myself.)
That said, I use “they” as a third-person singular pronoun all the time and have never gotten any negative comments (or, as far as I can tell, downvotes) because of it. Various other people use Spivak with equal success. And some people use “he” and “she.”
I endorse “they” but encourage you to use whatever works for you.
someone else asserting that singular “they” is ungrammatical and thus to be avoided.
Has that happened? It seems pretty well established that singular “they” is grammatical english, and if someone said otherwise, they may have been talking about a special ungrammatical use of “they” (there may be some cases where “he” or “she” is correct and “they” isn’t, but I can’t think of many off the top of my head)
I don’t feel like digging through links to find examples, and I accept that me repeating “Yes, it happens” is not actually additional evidence, so I won’t be offended if you remain skeptical.
That said: yes, it happens.
Though I suppose it’s possible that they meant a special ungrammatical use and I misunderstood them to mean the singular “they” in general.
That sounds like a lot of social anxiety to me if it’s enshrined as a routine group behaviour—heat & light make me tend to think something interesting is going on that isn’t being directly discussed.
I’m surprised that a group predicated on doing things better would appeal to tradition and authority as a reason for, well, anything.
And—seriously? Argument that “he” is gender-neutral? More argument for an eventual discussion of privilege as a pervasive bias.
The privilege-as-bias discussion has been had a few times, including in the context of gendered pronouns.
Which is no reason not to have it again, I suppose, but I encourage you to think carefully before doing so about your strategy for progressing it further than previous incarnations have, so we don’t keep going ’round the same mulberry bush.
Unrelatedly, tradition isn’t a bad thing to appeal to when it comes to the meaning of words, or really to any activity that depends on a community’s predictable adherence to conventions.
Why do we drive on the right side of the road in the U.S. rather than the left, and stop at red lights and go at green lights rather than vice-versa, and use “hello” to greet people rather than “ahoy” or “shoelace”? Basically, tradition.
Would it be better to switch? Well, maybe. But for at least some of those things, it’s better only if we all switch at once, which is difficult to manage.
This makes me wonder if there would be value in a top level post discussing the implications of social anxiety arising from lack of clear gender markers. I have an unverified hunch that gender-related privilege plays a role in this, too.
I’m not any kind of regular here but is “they” really discouraged? Why?
No, not really.
The Pronoun Question is a recurring topic of idle conversation around here that never makes definitive progress, and a fairly standard sub-pattern is someone suggesting “they” and someone else asserting that singular “they” is ungrammatical and thus to be avoided.
Other standard sub-patterns include someone suggesting Spivak pronouns and someone else asserting that they are dysphonious, someone suggesting “he” and someone else asserting that “he” is not in fact gender-neutral, and someone suggesting alternating “he” and “she” (either regularly, pseudo-randomly, or true-randomly) and someone else asserting that that’s too much work. (I’ve been known to assert some of those things myself.)
That said, I use “they” as a third-person singular pronoun all the time and have never gotten any negative comments (or, as far as I can tell, downvotes) because of it. Various other people use Spivak with equal success. And some people use “he” and “she.”
I endorse “they” but encourage you to use whatever works for you.
Has that happened? It seems pretty well established that singular “they” is grammatical english, and if someone said otherwise, they may have been talking about a special ungrammatical use of “they” (there may be some cases where “he” or “she” is correct and “they” isn’t, but I can’t think of many off the top of my head)
I don’t feel like digging through links to find examples, and I accept that me repeating “Yes, it happens” is not actually additional evidence, so I won’t be offended if you remain skeptical.
That said: yes, it happens.
Though I suppose it’s possible that they meant a special ungrammatical use and I misunderstood them to mean the singular “they” in general.
That sounds like a lot of social anxiety to me if it’s enshrined as a routine group behaviour—heat & light make me tend to think something interesting is going on that isn’t being directly discussed.
I’m surprised that a group predicated on doing things better would appeal to tradition and authority as a reason for, well, anything.
And—seriously? Argument that “he” is gender-neutral? More argument for an eventual discussion of privilege as a pervasive bias.
Fascinating, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
The privilege-as-bias discussion has been had a few times, including in the context of gendered pronouns.
Which is no reason not to have it again, I suppose, but I encourage you to think carefully before doing so about your strategy for progressing it further than previous incarnations have, so we don’t keep going ’round the same mulberry bush.
Unrelatedly, tradition isn’t a bad thing to appeal to when it comes to the meaning of words, or really to any activity that depends on a community’s predictable adherence to conventions.
Why do we drive on the right side of the road in the U.S. rather than the left, and stop at red lights and go at green lights rather than vice-versa, and use “hello” to greet people rather than “ahoy” or “shoelace”? Basically, tradition.
Would it be better to switch? Well, maybe. But for at least some of those things, it’s better only if we all switch at once, which is difficult to manage.