I don't like gender neutral language

[Gina Stevenson]

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.

Never got to see the last few posts in this thread, as it fell victim to the "mark forums read(!!)" button that is too close under the "What's New?" that happened several times from my tiny tablet where it's too easy to accidentally touch the "mark" button in lieu of the "New" button!

So, anyway, aside from what you pointed out, Shea, "both" could possibly be replaced by "each," since the first "you" in that sentence is addressed to Peggy, while you used Marsha's name to address her. Their being singular entities, they were suddenly lumped together ~~ tho' addressed separately/singularly ~~ as a combined plural by using "both." Seems we recall some vague reference to "each" being used to refer equally to each separately noted (as opposed to having been lumped together in the subject as "you guys," or "you two").

Just having fun ... I might be as prone to use "both" there rather than "each," too.

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

That's something that I've wondered about for a long time, too, Marsha! Since "you" is already plural, well ... the "all of" is redundant. But then, again, that is probably some long-embedded habit down there/South, because ~~ as Shea pointed out ~~ "you" used to be plural, and then they/grammarians came along and confused folks "down there," saying it could also be singular. So, to make sure everyone got included, in case the hearer might think it was a "singular you," rather than a "plural you," they added an "all of" in front of the (possibly singular rather than plural) "y'all" to include each and every one of those "you"s (now where does the quote go there? ). Confusing enough? With me yet?

[Cam Pence]

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

I guess Ill just have to take your word there sir.....think Ill just stick with gender neutral

[Peggy Gray]

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.

Except for the "old dog, new tricks" issue.

[Lucas Finch]

Just speaking for myself . . .

I've grown accustomed to "he or she", and that is my preferred method. I grow a little uncomfortable when I read things that should be neutral and are not, and I've even grown to be a little uncomfortable when listening to Scripture be read in non-gender inclusive translations. I much prefer "brothers and sisters" over "brothers" (of course, assuming that the context is correct to add "sisters"). I do have a bit of a grammar-nazi side that does not like seeing plurals used for singulars, but language is always evolving, so I am not adamantly against that becoming more of the norm. I don't mind "he or she" and "his or hers", but it gets a little cumbersome when it gets to things like "himself or herself".

[Jim Chabot]

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

Or it just raises the hair on the back of a bunch of necks? Just sayin.

[Mike Schutz]

Or it just raises the hair on the back of a bunch of necks? Just sayin.

If I ain't raisin' the hair on the back of a few necks, I ain't workin.' As a certain GS said, deep in the middle of an ordination service, we are called to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." While that saying has been around for a long time, for a GS to put it in an ordination service raises it from nice saying to mandate.

[Ryan Scott]

"He or she" is a grammatical abomination. Properly, one should use "she" in one instance of generic referral and then use "he" in the next. Otherwise you get nasty, inelegant prose that's no fun to read.

[Susan Unger]

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?"

You rabble rouser you!