
Singular “they” and the many reasons why it’s correct (2009) - shawndumas
https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/
======
Pfhreak
I use singular they, and used it through tech interviewing and onboarding
recently. It was a real challenge trying to figure out whether I wanted to use
singular they during the interview. Correcting an interviewer or recruiter
when they get your pronouns wrong is scary (on top of the anxiety that is
programming job interviews.)

Over the years in tech I've found all sorts of different responses to me
sharing my pronouns -- mostly people being supportive and a bit forgetful. But
also people saying some unnecessarily cruel things, or going out of their way
to say, "I DON'T HAVE TO RESPECT THAT!".

I've had people tell me, "Yes, fine, I'll acquiesce. But you should know you
are wrong and I'm lying to you every time I use singular they."

Ok, sure, but we're colleagues and I'm just letting you know that's what I'd
prefer? You can also always just use my name. I'm not going to go to HR if you
get it wrong, I'm not going to get mad. I might remind you, but the reminder
will be gentle and not accusatory. Why so much aggro?

~~~
avmich
> I'm just letting you know that's what I'd prefer

Do I always need to accommodate your preferences? Some of them could be hard
to, like a frequently used feature of the language over which people have
vocal disagreement.

If I do, can I ask you about reciprocal favors in language expressions of my
choice? For some such preferences may look arbitrary, all underlying reasoning
notwithstanding.

It's surely not a novel thing to have disagreements over language. How in
general they are resolved historically?

~~~
Pfhreak
> Do I always need to accommodate your preferences?

Of course not. I might think it's rude or disrespectful if you willfully
disregard my preferences, but at no point did I ever insinuate you must take
any action.

It's no different than requesting a certain nickname or shortened name over
one's legal name.

~~~
neotrope
> It's no different than requesting a certain nickname or shortened name over
> one's legal name.

You're asking to be treated more special than everyone else because you're
asking for changes in the way people speak, not simply to remember your name
(and people have a hard enough time remembering names). It would be similar if
I asked to you to avoid a specific set of commonly-used words around me and if
you said them, I would perceive it as disrespect. Eventually, people get used
to using the right words, but not without effort.

~~~
progval
You think your misunderstanding is caused by how Pfhrea formulated their first
comment. When they say "I use singular they", they meant they want people use
this pronoun to _refer to themselves_ instead of he/she, because (I assume)
they are non-binary (ie. neither man or woman).

They don't expect you to use the singular "they" other than to refer to them.

And that's not too hard to remember, you already have to remember whether
everyone else is a "he" or a "she"; allowing for "they" is just an extra bit.

And if you do forget it, it's ok, just don't do it on purpose.

------
DennisP
The part that throws me is verbs. "They want to go for a walk." If we're
referring to just one person then it seems it should be "they wants to go for
a walk." It sounds horribly wrong but do we really want plural verb forms to
also be singular sometimes?

Historically, I guess that's how we've always done it. But now, for people who
prefer non-gender-specific pronouns, does it make sense to use plural verb
forms when describing their actions, and singular verb forms for everybody
else? Won't that get confusing sometimes?

Maybe we should bite the bullet and start treating singular "they" as
singular.

~~~
perfmode
Do you wants to go, too?

~~~
DennisP
Heh good point. Thanks for helping me adjust to modern society.

~~~
function_seven
Well _now_ I'm wondering why we have the singular version of the verb. "He
want to go on a walk" doesn't sound so bad to me. Only slightly jarring, but
also an already common construction in some vernaculars.

~~~
progval
I'm not a linguist, but in English it looks more "why are there only two
versions of the verb" than "why we have the singular version of the verb".

In French and German (and probably other related languages), verbs have one
form per "type" of pronoun. Too a lesser extent, English has that too for some
verbs: I am, thou art, he/she is, we are, you are, they are.

But the "I" case is often the same as the "he/she" one, and "thou" fell out of
use, leaving only two forms.

------
ravenstine
I've gotten used to saying "they" when referring to people I don't know. When
it comes to people I _do_ know, I prefer "he" and "her" because it still
provides context when referring to multiple people while saving on syllables.
But I think it's a good thing not to immediately assume gender when referring
to someone(one doesn't know) in an occupational role so we get out of the
habit of thinking of nurses as "she", for instance.

I really appreciate someone pointing out that "they" is perfectly adequate. Ze
and zir are still gendered, and extraterrestrial genders at that.

~~~
scrollaway
> _I really appreciate someone pointing out that "they" is perfectly adequate.
> Ze and zir are still gendered, and extraterrestrial genders at that._

I've always been really confused at these weird attempts at pseudo-gender-
neutral pronouns when "they" exists. It's like… I'm not a native English
speaker. I learned about "they"-as-singular in English year 2. How do native
English speakers not know about it? How do you get to "zir" before you learn
about something this basic?

~~~
umanwizard
The serious answer is that in normal colloquial English, _they_ was typically
only used as a singular pronoun when talking about an unknown person; for
example:

A: Somebody called asking for you.

B: Oh, what did they want?

This has always sounded perfectly natural in colloquial English (at least in
the US; I can't speak for other countries). Contrast with the following:

A: Joe called asking for you.

B: Oh, what did they want?

This construction is slowly becoming more widespread, but would have sounded
absolutely bizarre and ungrammatical to most native speakers (regardless of
literacy/education) before the movement for gender-identity inclusiveness
became mainstream, because people didn't really conceive of the possibility of
knowing a specific person but not being able refer to them as "he" or "she".

\-----

In response to sibling comments: I think this explanation is a lot more
convincing than any variant of "singular they is (or was) wrong". There are
two very different kinds of singular _they_ , which elicit very different
grammaticality responses from native English speakers.

~~~
a1369209993
That doesn't sound any less grammatical than:

A: Joe called asking for you.

B: Oh, what did she want?

(or vice versa if Joe is female)

It turns out that - in a purely objective, language-design sense - the
anatomical details (or clothing, whatever) of the bag of meat hosting the
specific person this particular use refers to is a really, _really_ dumb way
to assign a grammatical gender to a proper noun.

~~~
umanwizard
This is sort of an orthogonal issue. Even without knowing Joe's gender, A
would have accepted _either_ "what did he want" _or_ "what did she want",
under the assumption that B does know Joe's gender.

However, A would not have accepted "what did they want" as grammatical under
any circumstances.

> in a purely objective, language-design sense

There is no such thing as this in linguistics.

"Anatomical details" is certainly not the weirdest or most arbitrary-seeming
way of assigning noun classes, across the world's languages. Compare e.g. the
Ganda language. From Wikipedia:

> ten classes called simply Class I to Class X and containing all sorts of
> arbitrary groupings but often characterised as people, long objects,
> animals, miscellaneous objects, large objects and liquids, small objects,
> languages, pejoratives, infinitives, mass nouns, plus four 'locative'
> classes

~~~
a1369209993
> However, A would not have accepted "what did they want" as grammatical under
> any circumstances.

Huh, so what do they use when B _doesn 't_ know Joe's gender?

> There is no such thing as this in linguistics.

Well, more pedantically: in the sense that it makes determining whether a
sentence is grammically correct more dependent (or dependent, if it wasn't
already) on random details of the outside world that shouldn't matter until we
check for _semantic_ correctness.

> is certainly not the weirdest or most arbitrary-seeming way of assigning
> noun classes

Of course not, natural langauges (actually by definition) are 'designed' by
pseudo-evolutionary processes; if anything, it's surprising they aren't
_worse_.

------
forbin_meet_hal
"Harper presented to the leadership committee and they were confused."

Is 'they' referring to Harper or the leadership committee?

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
Clearly "they" refers to the recipient of this sentence. /s

Unlike e.g. German, English doesn't have a gender neutral singular pronoun to
use. The only one that fits naturally in most peoples' conversation (and
_doesn 't_ sound like something uttered by a science fiction-inspired cult) is
"singular they".

~~~
ernst_klim
>Unlike e.g. German, English doesn't have a gender neutral singular pronoun to
use.

What German pronoun are you talking about?

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
My German is very rusty. I was thinking of the different gendered language
bits in general rather than pronouns in particular.

~~~
ernst_klim
Which bits? In German Er is used for such purposes.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
Me: _says something_

You: _points out I 'm wrong_

Me: _concedes I 'm mistaken_

You: _continues to question me_

Why?

------
baggy_trough
In my dialect of English, singular they works well for unspecified third
persons, but very badly for specific ones.

~~~
Pfhreak
What dialect of English is that?

------
Skunkleton
> “She kept her head and kicked her shoes off, as everybody ought to do who
> falls into deep water in their clothes.”

I fall into category C: Native English speaker who has no idea how to use
English properly. Could someone please explain what is supposedly wrong with
this sentence?

~~~
grardb
I suppose for people opposed to the singular "they," the "correct" way to
write this would be something like:

> “She kept her head and kicked her shoes off, as everybody ought to do who
> falls into deep water in one's clothes.”

or:

> “She kept her head and kicked her shoes off, as everybody ought to do who
> falls into deep water in his or her clothes.”

~~~
furgooswft13
I don't get it. "their" in this sentence clearly refers to "everybody", which
is plural.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Everybody is here. Everybody are here.

The former is the usual form and the latter sounds very odd to me.

Everybody and his dog vs Everybody and their dog sounds fine to me but for
some people it sounds strange.

~~~
furgooswft13
Weird. I guess this kinda reminds me of my revelation that "data" is plural,
"data are" etc. It still sounds odd to me. But data == many datums (right?),
so it technically makes sense. Everybody == many/all people, and yet is
conjugated as singular? English is weird.

Now back to hacking javascript...

~~~
afastow
Using "data" as if it were plural sounds odd to most English speakers. Some
people insist that because it is technically the plural of datum (in Latin
anyway) it has to take plural verbs. But what is technically correct is
meaningless compared to what sounds correct. What sounds normal compared to
what sounds odd is the only thing that really determines if a usage is correct
or incorrect (unless writing in a context that mandates following a specific
style guide).

"Data is" sounds correct to most people so it is correct, Latin be damned.

------
deburo
The first 3 paragraphs could've been skipped.

It really starts at: "I’ve wanted for some time to have one place to send
everyone who complains about singular they".

------
ernst_klim
[https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-
pronouns.html](https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html)

Can somebody explain, what's wrong with `he' referring to a person of unknown
sex? At least in German (er) and in Russian (он) masculine pronoun is still
being used for that purpose.

~~~
ajkjk
It just.. doesn't mean that in English. It doesn't sound right, like in the
examples in this article.

~~~
ernst_klim
Doesn't mean what? Generic he doesn't exist in English?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
person_pronoun#Generic_h...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
person_pronoun#Generic_he)

~~~
Pfhreak
It's out of fashion in a lot of places in English. I'm not saying it's gone
entirely, but there are definitely places or communities where generic he
would sound very awkward.

------
Liquix
Has anyone been disputing the continued use of 'they' in referring to a person
of unknown gender?

I was under the impression that the recent controversy surrounding the word is
linked to the LGBTQ movement.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
> I was under the impression that the recent controversy surrounding the word
> is linked to the LGBTQ movement.

Nobody I know in the LGBTQ community takes issue with "singular they". In
fact, many of my close non-binary friends prefer they/them.

~~~
grardb
I think Liquix is referring to the inverse scenario, which is people _outside_
the LGBTQ community refusing to use "they" to refer to someone who prefers
they/them.

------
jMyles
Although this essay is interesting and amusing (and a great rebuttal to many
of the sillier objections to singular they), it does not address the main
objection I hear (and the one that I find compelling enough to ask that people
not use "they" for me):

I present to you as a singular entity. I find it disempowering to be addressed
with a pronoun that might be understood as plural, as if you might address
some of the needs of the multitudes within me but not others.

I very much prefer to be addressed with a different pronoun if I'm being
addressed alone versus when I'm being addressed in a group.

Is that so weird?

Now, on the other hand, I think that gendered pronouns are downright idiotic.

So the pronoun that I've come to prefer is simply "it." I call many wonderful
living things (think of an elderly redwood tree) "it" all the time, and it
doesn't seem to bother the three nor anyone else.

If it's good enough for it, it's good enough for me.

~~~
progval
"You" is grammatically plural as well, its singular form is/was "thou". But
now everyone sees it as a valid pronoun to refer to a single person.

~~~
jMyles
I always use y'all for second person plural.

~~~
progval
Maybe one day, "y'all" will take the place of "you" as both singular and
plural pronoun

