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.
No your not the only one. The singular they had emerged by the 14th century and is common in everyday spoken English, but its use has been the target of criticism since the late 19th century. Its use in formal English has increased with the trend toward gender-inclusive language.
Singular they is the use in English of the pronoun they or its inflected or derivative forms, them, their, theirs, and themselves (or themself), as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. It typically occurs with an antecedent of indeterminate gender, as in sentences such as:
"Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?"
"The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."
"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources."
The singular they construction can almost always be avoided by rewriting the sentence.
"Somebody left an umbrella in the office. Please collect it."
"Patients should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."
"Journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources."
Note that making the antecedent plural is often the easiest solution.
The gender of the antecedent may be clear even if not specified. If you are talking about NFL football players, use he, him, himself, and his. If the discussion is pregnant women, use she, her, herself, and hers.
I have no problem with the default use of the male pronouns with the gender of the antecedent is unknown, either, and I am female. I think trying to be politically correct by using the singular they is silly.
Once again, IMO, much ado about nothing.
If one cannot be bothered to know the difference between "your" and "you're", and use the correct word in context, how can one expect that they will use the correct gender pronoun?
I will not name names, read through the posts, you will find it.
It seems to me the wailing and gnashing of teeth should be reserved for truly important issues, like should Houston start rebuilding or hunker down and wait to see what Hurricane Irma does?
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.
I have no problem using the plural form or gender neutral terms when gender is irrelevant to the topic. It's like inserting some reference to race when race adds no information at all that is pertinent - it draws attention to something in a negative way. No need to complicate things unnecessarily by coming up with a bunch of new pronouns. In fact, that's just a smokescreen - just be more mindful when speaking and writing.
I don’t see a problem with the usage of “they” as a courtesy towards individuals who indicate to me that they don’t perceive themselves to be either male or female.
I think it is vastly preferable to the creation of new words that are designed simply to accommodate the personal and biologically-tenuous perceptions of an extraordinarily small percentage of the population.
The call for new pronouns is largely a sociopolitical one which is being pursued by a small group of activists. English is certainly a living language, and if new words develop organically, I’m fine with it. However, until there is a social logic that transcends gender and gender identity politics, we should refrain from engineering such changes.
I am content to use Them/Themselves, though 'em/'emselves is a nice and,
I suspect, catchy neutral pronoun.
This does seem to be an increasingly resonant issue within the LGBTQ community - there is currently a call in the UK to address the necessity of gender identification by omnitting the classification from forms.
One beneficial effect might be to draw the language away from gender-binary qualifications and into a gender-equality stance, broadening language and promoting inclusion and equality.
Unless a particular position requires a specific gender, then I'm all for this.
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.
> If a runner does not properly stretch before one's run, one could injure oneself.
Awkward by current standards, but both correctly non-gender specific and quite understandable by any one. Meaning - it's totally workable, one should find a better example when it won't work.
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.
