Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would it make sense for the English language to include gender-neutral pronouns when referring to someone generically?
This will avoid having to incorrectly use 'them'/'themselves' when referring to a single individual, and the awkwardness and inefficiency of using 'him/her' and 'himself/herself'.
Obviously not really a pressing issue, but hey, why not? It's such a simple thing.
I would propose 'em'/'emself', as it's similar yet distinct from the 'them' people are tempted to use in this context.
Would it make sense for the English language to include gender-neutral pronouns when referring to someone generically?
This will avoid having to incorrectly use 'them'/'themselves' when referring to a single individual, and the awkwardness and inefficiency of using 'him/her' and 'himself/herself'.
Obviously not really a pressing issue, but hey, why not? It's such a simple thing.
I would propose 'em'/'emself', as it's similar yet distinct from the 'them' people are tempted to use in this context.
English is a really confusing language. The "gender-neutral" pronoun is currently
him and that applies to men and women. But that's rather annoying. Since I am female, I don't like being referred to as a he or a him.
Them and themselves are both gender-neutral and have different meanings. Them is the objective case of they (nominative) and themselves is what other than denotes possession - possessive case. It's confusing, too, and I'd leave that alone since there is no gender. That's why these days I probably would write him/her rather than just him when I don't know the gender of someone.
Language is evolving and I'm all for 'em/'emself .
It's not a simple thing at all.
I think we need to call it what it is. Have you ever tried to describe someone without using their most distinctive attributes? Imagine in a crowded room and not being able to use a gender description while trying to keep it PC in this PC sensitive world.
language is evolving all the time but we need to keep it descriptive as possible.
I didn't interpret OP's question to be related to "PCness" at all (that is, the topic of gender fluidity, cis/trans, etc). I think he or she is saying that, when someone doesn't know someone else's gender, then there is no good pronoun for him or her to use.
My bolded parts are, obviously, an example of this. This occurs all the time while posting here at CD, and in other situations. In written communication, I generally type "s/he," but to verbalize "he or she" is a bit much.
He refers to both men alone and men+women. She, on the other hand, is special, being used for women alone. Doesn't bother me.
I agree with this. I try not to take offense where not is meant. I'm tired of political correctness. It makes it really hard to describe a situation accurately.
Location: In Thy presence is fulness of joy... Psa 16:11
299 posts, read 263,695 times
Reputation: 380
The egalitarian movement says "everyone's the same." But basic biology shows that is not so!
My wife had to have knee replacements. They had to get "female" knee replacements; because a woman's legs (as well as hips, etc.) are differentthan a man's. (Those who cannot say 'amen' here can now say 'duh'.)
Studies indicate that women and men have different nutritional needs. One of many examples: Men Have Special Nutritional Needs, Too
Men and women generally have different ways of looking at things (hence the Men are Waffles and Women are Spaghettitype books). Emotionally they are wired differently.
So to get to the point, if education and books in general become "gender neutral," they will be boring and meaningless.
Can you imagine Sense and Sensibilityor Les Miserablesin gender neutral? "Empty" hardly describes it! Gender neutral Bibles are not only blasphemous to those of us who take the Bible seriously; but it strips the Scriptures of the heart of God.
For those who want a totally vanilla society where there is no color (skin, hair or gender-wise), no flavor will exist. Bleah!
Example: One should pay more attention in English class lest one make a fool of oneself.
But one/oneself doesn't always work. For example, the following sentence:
If a runner does not properly stretch before (his/her/one's) run, (he/she/one) could injure (himself/herself/oneself).
"One" definitely won't work. So we're stuck with the awkward "his or her," or just say "his," which could conceivable be interpreted to mean that the advice does not pertain to females.
This is one of a zillion instances where a gender neutral singular pronoun would be helpful.
NT Fellowship, this has nothing to do with the fact that there are hormonal, emotional, and knee size differences between males and females. It has nothing to do with gender neutral Bibles or theatrical productions. It has everything to do with effective communication, which is difficult due to the lack of a gender neutral pronoun for instances such as I have demonstrated.
Generic "he" has been the standard for centuries. But attitudes change, and language changes with them. Gender-neutral pronouns have been tried many times before ("co," "tey," and "ze" are three I can think of off the top of my head), and they never catch on, in part because they're so foreign to the way people speak. I think what will happen is that "they" will evolve into functioning as both a singular and a plural. It's a word people are familiar with, and it's often already used in the singular. Like it or not, that seems to be the direction the language is heading in.
But one/oneself doesn't always work. For example, the following sentence:
If a runner does not properly stretch before (his/her/one's) run, (he/she/one) could injure (himself/herself/oneself).
"One" definitely won't work. So we're stuck with the awkward "his or her," or just say "his," which could conceivable be interpreted to mean that the advice does not pertain to females.
This is one of a zillion instances where a gender neutral singular pronoun would be helpful.
NT Fellowship, this has nothing to do with the fact that there are hormonal, emotional, and knee size differences between males and females. It has nothing to do with gender neutral Bibles or theatrical productions. It has everything to do with effective communication, which is difficult due to the lack of a gender neutral pronoun for instances such as I have demonstrated.
Sure one will work:
If one does not properly stretch before one's run, one could injure oneself.
Or, one could say
If runners do not properly stretch before their runs, they could injure themselves.
Or
Properly stretching before running helps prevent injuries.
If it bothers you to use he or his as gender neutral, just rewrite the sentence to eliminate the problem.
I consider it a quirk of the English language, and, though I am female, it does not bother me. Using their to refer to one person does bother me. That is ambiguous. Did you misspeak? Are we talking about one person or more than one?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has nothing to do with gender neutral Bibles or theatrical productions. It has everything to do with effective communication, which is difficult due to the lack of a gender neutral pronoun for instances such as I have demonstrated.
