I don't like gender neutral language

[Peggy Gray]

Now I'm not saying I don't see a need for it. I understand the purpose. I just don't like the mess it's made of things grammatically. Instead of saying, "If someone left his lunch here, he should pick it up tonight", we're stuck with saying "If someone left his or her lunch here, he or she should pick it up tonight." If writing, or have a few seconds to reformulate the sentence before speaking, we can say, "If someone left a lunch here, it should be picked up tonight." Usually what we end up with is, "If someone left their lunch here, they should pick it up tonight." UGH!

I'm reading a book by a university professor, "one of the world's leading Bible scholars", and was distracted by this phrase: "Such a person is deceiving themselves." Really? If he'd written "himself", would the gender neutrality police have swooped in on him? Would anyone truly have presumed he meant only men?

Some sources tell me that mixing singular and plural pronouns is now considered acceptable. Guess what? I even find myself doing it myself, much to my chagrin. I'll find myself in the middle of a sentence with three choices: back up and start over, follow through with an awkward he/she, his/her construction, or grit my teeth and listen to myself say, "I won't give the person's name in order to protect their privacy." It might be acceptable, but it's like fingernails on a blackboard.

[Ian Gentles]

Now I'm not saying I don't see a need for it. I understand the purpose. I just don't like the mess it's made of things grammatically. Instead of saying, "If someone left his lunch here, he should pick it up tonight", we're stuck with saying "If someone left his or her lunch here, he or she should pick it up tonight." If writing, or have a few seconds to reformulate the sentence before speaking, we can say, "If someone left a lunch here, it should be picked up tonight." Usually what we end up with is, "If someone left their lunch here, they should pick it up tonight." UGH!

I'm reading a book by a university professor, "one of the world's leading Bible scholars", and was distracted by this phrase: "Such a person is deceiving themselves." Really? If he'd written "himself", would the gender neutrality police have swooped in on him? Would anyone truly have presumed he meant only men?

Some sources tell me that mixing singular and plural pronouns is now considered acceptable. Guess what? I even find myself doing it myself, much to my chagrin. I'll find myself in the middle of a sentence with three choices: back up and start over, follow through with an awkward he/she, his/her construction, or grit my teeth and listen to myself say, "I won't give the person's name in order to protect their privacy." It might be acceptable, but it's like fingernails on a blackboard.

I total agree.

[Marsha Lynn]

Agreed, Peggy. I posted a couple of weeks ago:

[I think] we need to authorize an international English language commission to give us pronouns for second person singular and she/he, him/her, and his/hers. We also need to add warmth to the word "sibling" so we can use it as a generic term for addressing dearly beloved brothers and sisters. Why do we put up with these annoying deficits in our language and corrupt yet another plural pronoun to make up for the lack of proper terms?

If anyone agrees with this, I wish they (he/she) would get on their (his/her) soapbox and do something about it!

It's good to see you taking up the cause. Have you selected some gender-neutral pronouns to submit to the commission when we get it formed?

There's a children's book about a middle school class introducing a new word into the language. One of the noted ingredients was controversy to spread it. I suggest you introduce it in the current events forum.



Marsha

[Sarah Smith]

I like gender neutral language.

But then, I did time in the SBC and had pastors try to tell me "What is man that thou art mindful of him?" proved God was NOT mindful of women!

But I prefer a translation that lets me know if the Hebrew or Greek word used meant all humans or just the guys.

[Billy Cox]

It's good to see you taking up the cause. Have you selected some gender-neutral pronouns to submit to the commission when we get it formed?

There's a children's book about a middle school class introducing a new word into the language. One of the noted ingredients was controversy to spread it. I suggest you introduce it in the current events forum.

Language is quite fascinating. I have noticed more Americans using the British phrase 'spot on' to describe something done well or with precision. I'm pretty sure that British TV celebrities like Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsey are largely responsible for this expression seeping into American common usage.

New words are coined out of necessity, not by commissions. Sometimes that is a good thing; other times, not so good.

[Marsha Lynn]

New words are coined out of necessity, not by commissions.

Well, we need gender-neutral third-person, singular pronouns, as well as a second-person singular, in order to communicate clearly. Let's start coining rather than allowing society to nonchalantly force third-person plural pronouns into a singular role they were never meant to fill and further confuse us.

I'm just calling for a little social activism here for the good of the English-speaking world. "If it has to start somewhere why not here?"

[David Pettigrew]

English is already the most gender neutral of the languages. Most of the others assign gender to objects.

[Marsha Lynn]

English is already the most gender neutral of the languages. Most of the others assign gender to objects.

Sure, we're good for objects, but replacing "he or she" with "it" is just not going to fly. We need a whole new set of words.

OK, folks, the mild controversy is good, but we still need word suggestions before we can escalate it.

she/he = ? (not they)
his/hers = ? (not theirs)
him/her = herm? (not them)

[Gina Stevenson]

Sure, we're good for objects, but replacing "he or she" with "it" is just not going to fly. We need a whole new set of words.

OK, folks, the mild controversy is good, but we still need word suggestions before we can escalate it.

she/he = ? (not they)
his/hers = ? (not theirs)
him/her = herm? (not them)

Just one small change here, Marsha: her'm . . . an apostrophe where a couple of letters were left out, maybe?

[Marsha Lynn]

Just one small change here, Marsha: her'm . . . an apostrophe where a couple of letters were left out, maybe?

Hmm... I don't know about adding pronouns with apostrophes. But you may be onto something with the combination words. How about:

he/she = sheehee
his/her = hizzer
him/her = herrim

Whoever left hizzer backpack on the table, would sheehee please return to collect hizzer belongings so we don't have to hold it for herrim?

Luke 9:23 Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, sheehee must deny herrimself and take up hizzer cross daily and follow me."

What do you think?

[John Kennedy]

Hmm... I don't know about adding pronouns with apostrophes. But you may be onto something with the combination words. How about:

he/she = sheehee
his/her = hizzer
him/her = herrim

Whoever left hizzer backpack on the table, would sheehee please return to collect hizzer belongings so we don't have to hold it for herrim?

Luke 9:23 Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, sheehee must deny herrimself and take up hizzer cross daily and follow me."

What do you think?

No more daunting that some questons relating to eschatology.

[Peggy Gray]

I think that the average (?) person would balk at the extra syllables, and say "Whoever left their backpack on the table, would they please return to collect their belongings so we don't have to hold it for them." Actually, I think the average person would read all this and think, "What in the world are they talking about?"

[Gina Stevenson]

Marsha, consider that laugh button pushed about three times, b/c I had to laugh through most of it.

[Ryan Scott]

I read somewhere recently that some society of grammarians officially announced it was proper to use they/their for gender neutral singular purposes.

Personally, I prefer to keep him and her, choosing one and then alternating the gender throughout the writing.

"His or her" is not an appropriate way to write anything.

[Jim Poteet]

I read somewhere recently that some society of grammarians officially announced it was proper to use they/their for gender neutral singular purposes.

Personally, I prefer to keep him and her, choosing one and then alternating the gender throughout the writing.

"His or her" is not an appropriate way to write anything.

Try writing a dissertation and you will find the bolded statement untrue.

[Benjamin Burch]

I've seen some folks (like Mike Shutz and Eric Frey) just use "her" and "she". Skip the gender-neutral, and use the feminine as the default. I personally like that one a lot.

[Marsha Lynn]

I read somewhere recently that some society of grammarians officially announced it was proper to use they/their for gender neutral singular purposes.

Personally, I prefer to keep him and her, choosing one and then alternating the gender throughout the writing.

"His or her" is not an appropriate way to write anything.

Why not? We need everyone to choose his or her own path on this. How else would it be written to make it gender-inclusive (without new pronouns or a redefinition of the old)?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think that if a person doesn't like gender generic pronouns he's going going to have to get used to it. After all, her friends are all going to continue writing and speaking that way, so he's just stuck with it no matter what she prefers.

(Just trying it on for size)

[Alisa Stoll]

I've been thinking about this since Marsha posted. I think E would work well for he/she.
For his/her perhaps one's. For the one who left the lunch in the refrigerator, please pick up one's lunch immediately before I throw it away.

Alisa

[Hans Deventer]

Can't we just refer to people with "it" and "its"? That would at least make us gender neutral equal offenders.

[Murray Woods]

Hans could comment on this problem perhaps more accurately than many of us. I think the problem may lie in the fact that English does not have many gender/sex non-specific pronoun references, whereas many other languages use generic pronouns like "on" in French, "man" in German, along with possessive adjectives which are attached to the gender (grammatical) and number of the person.
I just finished wading through a (probably) Google translation of some Spanish news articles, and although the main subject of the articles was a female mayor (mayoress) of a village, almost all the possessive adjectives and pronouns referred to "her" as "he", "him", "his", etc.
As far as the use of "they", "them", "their" instead of "he/she". etc. is concerned, this misuse is, in my opinion at least, a linguistic abomination, as is the misuse of "lay" versus "lie".
But, one of the glories of the English language is its evolutionary "progress"; however much we (or some of us old geezers) might like the old language forms and beauty (KJV, Shakespeare, etc.), the language moves on. How else to account for the world-wide "linguistic imperialism" of this language?
Now spelling, related to pronunciation, that's another topic for discussion. Just ask any English language teacher.
Pace.

[Marsha Lynn]

I've been thinking about this since Marsha posted. I think E would work well for he/she.
For his/her perhaps one's. For the one who left the lunch in the refrigerator, please pick up one's lunch immediately before I throw it away.

Alisa

I like the 'E' idea. We already have 'I', why not choose an equivalent form for she/he?

Of course, we can already use one's for limited application. It requires extra thought, however, when using verbal language. Like Peggy mentioned, it's easy to run into a dead end in the middle of a sentence.

Would this work for his/her?

The person who left one's lunch in the refrigerator ... Neh.

Maybe we could make it "E's" It would be more comfortable verbally in that we could think of it as saying "his" with a Spanish accent.

Whoever left E's lunch in the fridge, would E please return for it?

So ... along that line, can we use "Em" for him/her? It would be like slurring "them." (Americans in particular are already highly skilled at slurring.)

I don't know who is going, Pete or Sally, but I'm going with Em. (Hmm... verbally, it's still "them," but doesn't compromise the written language.)

When a child reaches the goal, a blue ribbon is handed to Em.

I think we're making progress here!

[Peggy Gray]

So...we're going to be capitalizing pronouns other than "I" now?

[Gina Stevenson]

E sounds good . . .

E sounds good when E sings with Em, too! (still seems Em needs an apostrophe instead of being capped, like this: 'em)

[Peggy Gray]

"EM" is a new word. "'em" with an apostrophe is a contraction for "them", which we're trying to avoid...I think.

[Marsha Lynn]

So...we're going to be capitalizing pronouns other than "I" now?

Well, we're still in the discussion stage. We can try without.

When a contestant wins, e receives a gold medal. E's award is given to em at a special ceremony.

Maybe upper case for "e" and lower for "em"?

[Rich Schmidt]

I personally like using third-person plurals (they, them) for gender neutrality. Besides the official grammar police saying it's ok to do so now, I thought I read something a while back saying that there's actually historical precedent for it & that our hangup over it is a relatively recent thing. But I could be mistaken. It's been too long now, so they might have been talking about some other grammatical tidbit, like ending sentences with prepositions.

[Marsha Lynn]

I personally like using third-person plurals (they, them) for gender neutrality. Besides the official grammar police saying it's ok to do so now, I thought I read something a while back saying that there's actually historical precedent for it & that our hangup over it is a relatively recent thing. But I could be mistaken. It's been too long now, so they might have been talking about some other grammatical tidbit, like ending sentences with prepositions.

Dear Rich,

Go away. You need to start your own thread titled "I don't mind using plurals for gender-neutral singulars". You're messing up the energy field here.

Sincerely,
Marsha Lynn,
on behalf of the NazNet Commission for Better Gender-Neutral English Pronouns (NNCBGNEP).

[Billy Cox]

I personally like using third-person plurals (they, them) for gender neutrality. Besides the official grammar police saying it's ok to do so now, I thought I read something a while back saying that there's actually historical precedent for it & that our hangup over it is a relatively recent thing. But I could be mistaken. It's been too long now, so they might have been talking about some other grammatical tidbit, like ending sentences with prepositions.

Rich, it's already happeninng, much to the chagrin of those who hate the willy-nilly coining of new words and repurposing of old ones.

[Gina Stevenson]

"EM" is a new word. "'em" with an apostrophe is a contraction for "them", which we're trying to avoid...I think.

Oh, yeah ... oops!

Well, we're still in the discussion stage. We can try without.

When a contestant wins, e receives a gold medal. E's award is given to em at a special ceremony.

Maybe upper case for "e" and lower for "em"?

Yes, just one letter, standing alone, has a better chance of even being noticed if capitalized (almost said "capped" ... is that a valid abbrev yet (notice abbreviated is abbreviated)?

Rich, it's already happening, much to the chagrin of those who hate the willy-nilly coining of new words and repurposing of old ones.

And that prep(osition) at the end of the sentence very often, too, avoiding the occasional awkwardness of trying to keep it from appearing at the end. Was going to illustrate in my post, but not up to thi king of a wsy at the moment with too much else on my mind.

[Marsha Lynn]

Okay, back to work. I'm referencing this thread in another and need a good summary of what has been developed here. From now on, everyone is invited to use the following gender-neutral pronouns for all NazNet posts. (Language evolution has to start somewhere, right?)

he or she: E

his or hers: E's

him or her: em

Got it? OK, go.

Now.

You can start any time.

Oh well, I'll at least try it for one post. I never have figured out how real leaders get people to follow them.

[Shea Zellweger]

Now I'm not saying I don't see a need for it. I understand the purpose. I just don't like the mess it's made of things grammatically. Instead of saying, "If someone left his lunch here, he should pick it up tonight", we're stuck with saying "If someone left his or her lunch here, he or she should pick it up tonight." If writing, or have a few seconds to reformulate the sentence before speaking, we can say, "If someone left a lunch here, it should be picked up tonight." Usually what we end up with is, "If someone left their lunch here, they should pick it up tonight." UGH!

I'm reading a book by a university professor, "one of the world's leading Bible scholars", and was distracted by this phrase: "Such a person is deceiving themselves." Really? If he'd written "himself", would the gender neutrality police have swooped in on him? Would anyone truly have presumed he meant only men?

Some sources tell me that mixing singular and plural pronouns is now considered acceptable. Guess what? I even find myself doing it myself, much to my chagrin. I'll find myself in the middle of a sentence with three choices: back up and start over, follow through with an awkward he/she, his/her construction, or grit my teeth and listen to myself say, "I won't give the person's name in order to protect their privacy." It might be acceptable, but it's like fingernails on a blackboard.

You and Marsha need to study your history. If you or Marsha did, you would both realize that what I'm doing in this sentence would have made the 19th century versions of you cringe.

"You" was originally second-person plural. You, your, ye, were all plural pronouns. Thou, thine, thee were singular. Some time during the 19th century, some English speakers decided to start using you in singular situations as well as plural. Eventually, the laws of grammar came to conform with this switch, so we now have a word like "yourself." That word did not exist in Shakespeare's time, because it made no sense. Your = plural, self = singular, therefore the structure is impossible. So he wrote "this above all, to thine own self be true." Had he been writing in the 20th century, that sentence would've come out quite differently.

The movement with Them/their/they needs to take a similar turn. Right now, we have awkward plural usage of them, so when we write the reflexive, the standard is to write "themselves," even when referring to a single person. I've been replacing that with "themself" for years, and I've not yet had a professor call me on it. Swap in "themself," and the whole thing is a lot kinder to the sensibilities. Acknowledge the fact that we've already singularized one plural pronoun, and it gets a little bit easier. Then look around at how other languages refer to a genderless singular- if it exists in the language, it's almost always a singularized version of the gender-neutral plural in that language- and the last wall comes tumbling down.

[Jim Chabot]

I personally like using third-person plurals (they, them) for gender neutrality. Besides the official grammar police saying it's ok to do so now, I thought I read something a while back saying that there's actually historical precedent for it & that our hangup over it is a relatively recent thing. But I could be mistaken. It's been too long now, so they might have been talking about some other grammatical tidbit, like ending sentences with prepositions.

That's the method that I use here. Unless there is a specific he or she involved, I will do my best to not use either word. Turns out that most times you have to reformat your sentences and use a few more words that you would have. But it effectively keeps the grammar jackals at bay.

Funny how some get so offended by those who use the time honored method of referring to all people as men or as he, although I can see how it's been abused by some. What I don't understand is how those who use she as gender neutral don't realize that it's equally offensive. Come on people, do a little work, the task can be accomplished with the present language. There's no real need to use the sexist term "she."

[Marsha Lynn]

You and Marsha need to study your history. If you or Marsha did, you would both realize that what I'm doing in this sentence would have made the 19th century versions of you cringe.

"You" was originally second-person plural. You, your, ye, were all plural pronouns. Thou, thine, thee were singular. Some time during the 19th century, some English speakers decided to start using you in singular situations as well as plural. Eventually, the laws of grammar came to conform with this switch, so we now have a word like "yourself." That word did not exist in Shakespeare's time, because it made no sense. Your = plural, self = singular, therefore the structure is impossible. So he wrote "this above all, to thine own self be true." Had he been writing in the 20th century, that sentence would've come out quite differently.

The movement with Them/their/they needs to take a similar turn. Right now, we have awkward plural usage of them, so when we write the reflexive, the standard is to write "themselves," even when referring to a single person. I've been replacing that with "themself" for years, and I've not yet had a professor call me on it. Swap in "themself," and the whole thing is a lot kinder to the sensibilities. Acknowledge the fact that we've already singularized one plural pronoun, and it gets a little bit easier. Then look around at how other languages refer to a genderless singular- if it exists in the language, it's almost always a singularized version of the gender-neutral plural in that language- and the last wall comes tumbling down.

Shea, what do you mean I need to study history? It's the very history you cite here that sets me against this latest shift in our language! Do you realize how much confusion results from our lack of a second-person singular pronoun? You need go no further than English translations of the Bible to find it. Scattered throughout the footnotes will be clarifying statements that "you is singular in the [Greek/Hebrew]" It is important information that gets completely lost in the translation for lack of appropriate pronouns.

After we get this business of gender-neutral third-person pronouns settled, we can take up the challenge of the second-person singular versus plural.

I'm trying to remember where and why someone was recently reading aloud a copy of a hand-written document when they stumbled over the word "youse" (non-standard second-person plural pronoun). I can't pin it down. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe an old letter someone brought into the library. Whatever. I think I'll cast my vote against that choice. I prefer "y'all". We just need to persuade the southerners in the U.S. that it's already plural and doesn't need an "all of" in front of it and the northerners and other English-speakers that it's standard English.

Marsha

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea, what do you mean I need to study history? It's the very history you cite here that sets me against this latest shift in our language! Do you realize how much confusion results from our lack of a second-person singular pronoun? You need go no further than English translations of the Bible to find it. Scattered throughout the footnotes will be clarifying statements that "you is singular in the [Greek/Hebrew]" It is important information that gets completely lost in the translation for lack of appropriate pronouns.

After we get this business of gender-neutral third-person pronouns settled, we can take up the challenge of the second-person singular versus plural.

I'm trying to remember where and why someone was recently reading aloud a copy of a hand-written document when they stumbled over the word "youse" (non-standard second-person plural pronoun). I can't pin it down. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe an old letter someone brought into the library. Whatever. I think I'll cast my vote against that choice. I prefer "y'all". We just need to persuade the southerners in the U.S. that it's already plural and doesn't need an "all of" in front of it and the northerners and other English-speakers that it's standard English.

Marsha

My greek prof requires the use of y'all for all 2 person plurals.

I can actually respect your stance for its consistency. Most people who oppose they/them/their in the singular have no problem using you/you/your in both singular and plural.

[Cam Pence]

I've seen some folks (like Mike Shutz and Eric Frey) just use "her" and "she". Skip the gender-neutral, and use the feminine as the default. I personally like that one a lot.

How is using only the feminine any better than using only the masculine....seems you would run into the same problem

[Shea Zellweger]

How is using only the feminine any better than using only the masculine....seems you would run into the same problem

people read "she" in a gender neutral context and mentally add "or he," because it's nonstandard. We often read over "he" without giving it a second thought, but "she" is unexpected, and causes us to think, at least long enough to mentally interject the necessary gender-neutral language. It's basically relying on the inherent patriarchy of society to reject that selfsame patriarchy, which makes it both effective and subversive, which are two very good things in my book

[Marsha Lynn]

There's no real need to use the sexist term "she."

How is using only the feminine any better than using only the masculine....seems you would run into the same problem

people read "she" in a gender neutral context and mentally add "or he," because it's nonstandard. We often read over "he" without giving it a second thought, but "she" is unexpected, and causes us to think, at least long enough to mentally interject the necessary gender-neutral language. It's basically relying on the inherent patriarchy of society to reject that selfsame patriarchy, which makes it both effective and subversive, which are two very good things in my book

Well, it's a good thought, anyway. Personally, I agree with Jim that "she" is as sexist as "he". And even more irritating than placing females in every unnamed character role is having the unnamed subject undergo literary sex-change operations throughout the narrative. It makes me want to file a literary malpractice suit!

(Not that I have an emotional investment in pronoun usage or anything. Just saying ...)

I think the third-person singular neutral pronouns we have developed here will clear up this mess in a very satisfactory way without further blurring our language.

We just need to get the marketing department up and running and blast those "they/them/their" people out of the water with our "e/em/e's. (I tried the capital E and decided it's too radical to sell, but I'm open to the opinion of others.)

Marsha

[Mike Schutz]

Having a daughter who is a member of the grammar police, I regularly have to defend myself over such usage transgressions as my love of dashes ("If it was good enough for Jackie Onassis, it is good enough for me!") and exclamation points, such as demonstrated in the previous parenthetical statement.

My use of the feminine pronoun in reference to hypothetical persons is done exclusively in reference to pastors. I use it for the exact reasons Shea has described, and only when it is just as likely that the hypothetical colleague whom I am referencing could be a female as a male. Why pass up an opportunity to make several important statements just by adding an "s."

[Jim Franklin]

Regionally it is "youse guys." It seems the term "guys" used to refer to ruffians, delinquents, bad behavors etc. "Folks" was the more accepted term for a group of people. But that maybe folklore.