
Better Genderless Pronouns in English - feross
https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html
======
Carpetsmoker
I like the singular they; it can be easily integrated and isn't a radical
change as "pers" or other similar neologisms. Anyone will understand what you
mean, whereas they will have to look up the meaning of "pers".

rms writes that this "violates the grammar of English so deeply that it feels
terribly wrong"; I don't see how; the grammar of most languages is
inconsistent anyway. Perhaps it doesn't feel as "wrong" to me as I'm not a
native English speaker, or because I'm younger.

He is right that it can be used in confusing ways, but the same holds true for
a lot of language. "It depends on what the meaning of is, is", and all that
;-)

Either way, it seems fairly clear to me that the singular they is the way to
go for gender-neutral language in the foreseeable future. Is it perfect?
Perhaps not. But it's practical, achievable, and a good improvement over
exclusively using "his" or using the clumsy "his or her". Don't let perfection
be the enemy of good!

~~~
NeedMoreTea
I don't see how either considering using singular they goes all the way back
to Chaucer or earlier (1400s).

~~~
Carpetsmoker
I'm not 100% sure if I understand your comment (it's a bit confusing), but as
I understand it using the singular they as a pronoun is fairly new, even using
the singular they in other contexts isn't. This is what I meant with "singular
they" (perhaps I should have been clearer about that).

~~~
NeedMoreTea
It's only new, as I understand it, as a _non-binary_ singular pronoun. Many of
those contexts have also been used for a very long time as singular pronoun
where gender isn't at present relevant, was clarified elsewhere or in person.
An example.

I might send out a mail about Dave, the new hire, and introduce _him_ in my
opening sentence. I might write every subsequent sentence and paragraph with
they where gender is neither stated nor implied. This is a form we're
perfectly comfortable with, used to and doesn't break any grammatical law.
They will be starting on Monday. Their desk will be the free one by Alice.
etc. There are one or two contexts where we're not used to seeing it, so its
use may seem contrived or unnatural.

The only difference as I see it, thanks to the recent rise of non-binary
identity, is a wish for some not to ever have someone use he or she in their
context. i.e. They always prefer "This is Bob, they started this morning and
they will be taking the desk next to you" over "This is Bob, he..."

That, I suspect, is why some might dislike they. It's already natural in many
contexts, but it's also natural to drop to he/she in a few other contexts. So
it may inadvertently encourage accidental use of a non-preferred pronoun in a
way that an impersonal it, or per would not.

------
DoreenMichele
I've written about this topic myself, though the piece I have in mind is
probably not online anymore. No one particularly cares what I think because
I'm not famous.

I find myself wondering exactly why we should particularly care what Stallman
thinks. Because he's famous? I see no reason to think that the area of
expertise that makes him famous somehow qualifies him to decide what's best
here.

Granted, to some degree, it's framed as "This is what I do." But he knows many
people will read it and take it seriously simply because he's famous.

Anyway, I have found myself tending towards using fewer pronouns and, as
above, more frequently reiterating the name or descriptor of the person in
question. I also tend towards use of singular _they_ and rewriting sentences
to sidestep such issues. It's hard at first, but, like any habit, gets easier
over time.

An example is to say "whether you are a manor not" rather than to say "whether
you are a man or a woman." The second phrase not only that excludes non-binary
individuals etc, it is also agist: It excludes _boys._ The first phrase
elegantly sidesteps all those issues.

It's often a case of _less is more._ Trying to actively be _inclusive_ is
typically a worse solution than trying to avoid being _exclusive._ Just don't
implicitly exclude various categories rather than trying to figure out all the
things you ought to include.

~~~
belorn
I am not sure how often a person blog posts are posted on HN but I find it
fairly common. HN do not follow the same rules as Wikipedia when it comes to
judge whose opinion is worthy to be considered, neither requiring expert
recognizing in the topic or third-party sources. It simply a question if
enough people find the topic interesting within the time frame that a article
has to be pushed to the front page.

On the topic itself, I find from experience that people tend to default a
pronoun as to themselves when they don't know the gender of a person and there
is no other social clues. I prefer to not attribute malice to that which has a
equal likely natural reason, and defaulting to oneself is a rather good
explanation for why groups with mostly single-gender tend to use a pronounce
of that gender. For that I agree that fewer pronouns, "they", and "person" is
more clearer and honest than defaulting when one do not know the gender.

------
doodliego
That solution ("per, pers") is as artificial and contrived as "zhe, ze" or
other invented words. Will never get traction.

------
teddyh
Using “they” in the manner he describes, and gives examples of, is indeed
wrong. But that does not mean that it’s bad, it only means that using “they”
is not a _drop-in replacement_ for traditional gendered pronouns. Using
“they”, you simply have to construct your sentences so as to avoid any
ambiguity.

English speakers managed this transition once before with the abandonment of
“thou” – many sentences which were previously comprehensible with “thou” would
be unclear or downright misleading if “thou” were simply replaced with “you”.
But the modern speaker has no problems with using only “you”. Why? It’s
because they are _aware_ of the ambiguity and structure their sentences
accordingly.

Don’t simply treat “they” as a drop-in replacement, just use it, and get used
to writing a bit differently. Yes, it’s a slightly different language that
what you were used to. Languages change.

------
ggm
In english, I find that few ideas advocated for get traction. The example of
this is the US editorialist in newspapers across the turn of the 19th century
who advocated for spelling reform and made the newspaper follow his lead. Once
he died, the paper quietly reverted to something closer to "queens" english
(and I don't mean the suburb of New York)

------
lsh
urgh. stick to emacs and the gpl, please.

~~~
platinumrad
Stallman has always been eccentric but I don't see how writing inoffensive
political manifestos on your personal website that nobody reads is hurting
anyone.

