I go by "they" on a day-to-day basis and generally I don't have any issues with it; it's fairly obvious when someone's referring to me singularly, and people will sometimes use my name a little more often if it's ambiguous.
It's not a big deal except when people elect to make it a big deal; I've had Stallman's blogpost thrown at me on IRC a few times by people who also like dying on the vanishingly small hill that is "People who don't identify with any gender in particular shouldn't be able to use the existing non-gendered pronoun because it's BAD GRAMMAR and that INFRINGES ON MY RIGHTS or some shit"
Tom Scott put it well in an older video of his; "Some people are "They", get over it!"
"Oh, my goodness!" I exclaimed, "We have to help!!!"
My professor paused to look at the scene for a moment, then said, "Nah, six should be enough."
But even a maximally charitable reading of this note - which assumes that Stallman genuinely cares deeply about both gender identity and proper classical grammar, and ignores the long historical use of "they" as a singular pronoun - still doesn't pass the smell test for me. A code of conduct is supposed to articulate your organization's higher ideals and how they are put into practice. A link to your personal blog post about how you think modern language is wrong just has no place here.
This is probably different. I for one don't think there are enough non-binaries out there to warrant a generalised pronoun, let alone its generalised used. I believe even most trans people identify as either "he" or "she".
On the other hand, I like to maintain uncertainty whenever someone's gender is either unknown or undisclosed. When talking about a hypothetical individual for instance, being able to refer to them neutrally is convenient. On the other hand, I hate to use "they" whenever there might be a number ambiguity. In those cases, I'll use "he" or "she", or find another phrasing.
Finally, gender-full pronouns are pretty good at disambiguating roles without having to repeat people's names all the time. Crypto examples with Alice and Bob for instance benefit from saying "he" and "she", so the audience (or student) readily understand whether we are talking about the initiator or the recipient.
Referring to Alice and Bob with gendered pronouns is fine becauae we know their genders. Also, the same logic suggests it's convenient for any third party to be nonbinary.
Yet. Who knows how things will be next century.
I refuse to use singular 'they' for the same reason I don't name variables 'if' or 'printf'.
If a set of people want another personal pronoun then invent one. Don't overload an existing word.
He / she / ke. There you go.
However while I think his examples of where "they" can lead to ambiguity are fair, his argument that "we have a clean, clear and natural solution" is not supported by his own examples. Take the first one for they:
>"When my child was removed and placed with Dad, they internalized it and took it like they did something wrong."
Let's try his "natural" answer:
>"When my child was removed and placed with Dad, person internalized it and took it like pers did something wrong."
What. That's awful. Certainly no better then "ze internalized it" or any other entirely made up word. "Per" and "pers" and "perse" are not "equivalent and interchangeable" with person in normal English at all, and in fact "per" is already in usage as a preposition. He does this whole setup but then his solution falls hilariously flat, and in fact illustrates precisely why people use "they".
If people just want to bite the bullet and try to push a universal gender neutral singular pronoun like "ze" or "zhe" or whatever for English I don't have any problem with that. I think it also might be practical to achieve, it's just "the singular of they" so plural doesn't change and nobody ever needs to think about it again. It has the advantage of laziness, everyone can just start using it everywhere and never have to think about it again. I don't think it can really be pretended that anything existing can just slot in there though, certainly not what RMS came up with.
It's already been achieved, and is totally ignored by activist types - "they" has been singular for "they" for hundreds of years.
I have this same feeling but I also recognize you can be as pedantic as we want to be, or you can be happy and get along with normal humans.
What makes you think this is a modern thing?
Gender and Numerus (Singular Plural) ia usually not the kind of precision valuable in my opinion so I am fine with singular they.
Also, as a non-native speaker I don't get how people get outraged about singular they but not singular you. For credibility stallman should start using they.
Saying it's not a big deal unless people make it a big deal is not useful. Many people say the same about assuming gender. Language and the way we express ourselves matter and affect the way we think.
There is ambiguity in all natural language and we work around it quite effectively with either assumed knowledge or phrasing which removes the ambiguity (while often adding other ambiguities which aren't plausible so ignored).
Stallman says himself that he can understand his examples, and a couple aren't even ambiguous. He's adding in hypothetical other people to make them ambiguous.
Stallman has highlighted a problem with English and happened to use singular they as an example. He hasn't highlighted a problem with singular they.
Ambiguity –or specificity– has nothing to do with why we talk the way we do. Sometimes, ambiguity is the whole point of a sentence.
It's an interesting observation. Speakers of a language often (always?) have a strong feeling of what is right and wrong in the language, and this feeling is not usually formally justified. People just know how to speak right- and hearing an incorrect expression feels jarring.
Stallman has touched on something deep here, and although his insistence to pick at it is probably part and parcel of his personality, it is not an unreasonable insistence. Unusual use of pronouns is likely to make many people feel uncomfortable.
I agree, totally. Different people have a different sense of what is right and wrong to say. I'm guessing that is how languages change over time.
But the fact remains that there are things that are very likely to be nearly universally received as wrong. For example, if I say "My mother will eats here tonight" - most people will wonder why I don't say "eat", etc.
Equally, hearing or reading someone use a pronoun like "ey" or "zie" that are not part of what the majority of English speakers will recognise as English is likely to raise an objection from many. I assume listeners or readers who have only a fleeting familiarity with non-binary people, though this may be a bit unrealistic, given the internet etc.
'They/them' has been used as a singular for many centuries. It's the least-worst option in English to express third person singular. It sounds strange when someone uses it to refer to a specific person, because we are used to gendered pronouns in that context. However, it's used ubiquitously to refer to nonspecific individuals.
'they' as a singular isn't my favorite thing in the world, but it doesn't matter much to me, and it clearly matters much, much more to some others. So, I think it's best to just use what pronouns folks prefer (within reason anyway).
I'm not a native speaker, so I can't comment how the construct sounds to natives. To me, it sounds wrong, so I'd avoid communicating with people who demand this form of speech.
(seriously just playing devil's advocate here)
It's not a big deal until somebody makes a big deal about it, on either side of the issue. What we have is one group making a HUGE deal about pronouns, and another equally making a HUGE deal about not using pronouns. At the same time each side is saying each other is horrible.
It's not a big deal until you make a big deal about it...
In my experience, this "microscope" simply doesn't exist. Turns out it's pretty easy to be nice to people, and when you're acting in good faith, those same people are nice to you in return. Wild, huh?
Claiming that the social justice warrior enclaves don't exist, however, ignores fact.
Yes, there are individual people who get hyper-offended when you say something wrong. I've been chastised for not admitting that vaccines are a big government conspiracy. I've even been in arguments with social injustice warriors who were pissed off about being asked to use the singular pronoun "they". There are all types in the world.
Those who see the world in terms of good and evil tend to do more evil themselves. Take care that your perception of militancy does not similarly take over your own effect on the world.
Peace.
I simply choose not to put myself in a position where I must interact with those who want to tell me how I must use a language that predates their existence by thousands of years.
Modern English didn't even come about till the 14th century
I'm not a native speaker of French, but what I know makes various French Creole languages sound wrong. I wouldn't think to avoid speaking to someone who spoke a French Creole because I might feel like they're not talking grammatically correct French.
As a non-native speaker, you learned it correctly and thus it sounds wrong once you've actually paid attention to it and studied it. Many native speakers never really study grammar and don't understand it -- I'm no exception, I took a course years ago but can't quote grammar rules and go almost exclusively on how things sound to my native ear. It makes it interesting at times when my non-native spouse asks me "why do you say it that way" and I have to research the rule so I can explain it properly or fix my incorrect impressions.
You're contradicting yourself. If most people don't shudder over it, and people understand what is being communicated when it is used, then it is correct. Any opinion stating that it is incorrect would have to rely on authoritative sources, which do not exist in the English language.
You fall into the trap of confusing your tiny enclave of English speaking cliques as being representative of the rest of the planet where English is spoken regularly.
>You could argue that it's been in debated use, but not common use. Otherwise there wouldn't be a debate...
This is just like people claiming "ain't" is improper English, or that you shouldn't split infinitives.
Any kind of "debate" is irrelevant because language prescriptivism is nonsense. There's no authority on high to say whether something is correct or not. If many people use a construct, it is correct because they are communicating with it.
> Former Chief Editor of the OED Robert Burchfield, in The New Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1996), dismisses objections to singular they as unsupported by the historical record. Burchfield observes that the construction is ‘passing unnoticed’ by speakers of standard English as well as by copy editors, and he concludes that this trend is ‘irreversible’. People who want to be inclusive, or respectful of other people’s preferences, use singular they. And people who don’t want to be inclusive, or who don’t respect other people’s pronoun choices, use singular they as well. Even people who object to singular they as a grammatical error use it themselves when they’re not looking, a sure sign that anyone who objects to singular they is, if not a fool or an idiot, at least hopelessly out of date.
Just for the record, it's not me calling you a fool or an idiot or hopelessly out of date, it's the former Chief Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. The only debate here is the politically charged one with fake grammar authority that you have made up in your head.
I've found that using "they" in the singular is ambiguous and confusing to non-native speakers especially, and I interact with many people in that category. Using "person" in more formal, and words like "folks" in more informal settings is more understandable.
German has sie, which means 'they' (in addition to 'she'). However, they also have Sie which means formal 'you'. This is the same mechanism at work, albeit formalized and thus further along the path to acceptance.
French has a more recent example. The pronoun on means 'one', in the third person singular, gender-neutral sense. In recent history, it has been transformed to take on the sense of 'we'. The motivation, as with many things French, is to shorten words and to make things less formal. The on conjugation of verbs is more brief than the nous (we) equivalent.
These languages have re-purposed pronouns in a natural way, and have accepted it--even formalized it in grammar books. English needs to do the same.
Why? Because less than half a percent of the population would prefer it? I don’t think so. That part of the population should be respected and referred to as they prefer, but I’m not interested in them dictating how the other 99.96% of the population refers to itself.
Is that a trick question?... because I didn’t mention that. So I guess the answer is, you, just now for reasons I’m not totally clear on.
I know someone who was dragged into some HR process because she did not sufficiently respect the wishes of a subordinate who did not self-identify as a human being, identified as a "non-binary organism" instead, and selected "it" as the only acceptable pronoun. Fortunately, the process got bogged down for a couple of years between the various unions, human rights committees and administrative processes and the complaint went away when the individual moved on.
1: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391
2: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/pull/7391#issuecomment...
If it's really petty, it doesn't matter so stop talking about it. If it's not petty then OK, it's reasonable for him to spend the time to have an opinion, so go argue against that.
He includes a statement that he prefers chicken soup, which people have very strong views about. You write a comment saying "it's very petty to write about chicken soup we should have higher values than this and not get sidetracked into arguments on nonsense". But where do you post the comment? On a public forum which you're inciting to have that argument.
It's not honest. If you don't like chicken soup and you think that's important, then have the guts to say that. It's actually the oldest meaning of trolling - starting a big fight whilst pretending not to.
In fact, the wording of the Code of Conduct actually contradicts RMS's linked article in the footnote. The article specifically states that RMS won't use certain forms even if the he's asked to by the recipient.
To provide an example of a what an alternative third-party gender neutral option is. Even with this example, you assumed he meant "they don't want to acknowledge gender identities outside of the male/female binary."
His blog post is more about his personal preference and reasons for them, not about what is "correct."
Personally I switched over years ago after a faux pas too many. Getting embarrassed sucks, and using gender neutral in most or all cases saves me mental cycles anyways.
What do people sensitive to these pronouns do if their own language will make a distinction?
We have an advantage here, because you can translate "belongs to" as just "é do/a", so you can write "it belongs to the group" as "é do grupo".
To add further confusion: "de eles" is usually contracted to "deles", but only if "eles" is not a subject in the statement :)
Long term, the language will change, as languages tend to do. Short term? Probably a lot of cultural conflict.
I am annoyed at losing “they” as a plural though, because number often does add useful information. I’d much rather we invented a new pronoun.
That shop has sailed though, so I try not to worry about it anymore.
everything else is just rationalization.
Saying it's grammar and you can't use bad grammar is a rationalization -- grammar's also an entirely invented thing and it changes over time and if it changes now because we're all getting on board with NB folks existing, then that's just one of a million grammar changes in the 2010s.
Saying we have other words and they should be happy we're using other words is just a rationalization -- it's their call to make and we can either let them own that or we can keep insisting NB folks don't get that self-determination.
"Neat," right???
Blaming folks for not falling in line with a very tiny point is unreasonable. Arguing around it with moralizing and appeals to guilt is manipulative.
That a neat summary in my opinion.
How is that PC? How is that not common courtesy??
If someone sincerely believes that people cannot choose their own gender, then it's not very clear to me that misgendering a trans person is disrespectful, rather than an honest indication of differing views on a single social issue.
Why not? People do similar things all the time.
If I introduced my friend Richard to you and he said "Please, call me Rich", would you say "Sorry buddy, no can do; Richard is your name, and that's what I have to call you"?
Why are pronouns so special compared to names?
I guess I would say that pronouns are primarily syntactic constructs while proper nouns are not.
If somebody mistook me for a girl and referred to me as "she" or "her", I would correct them. Are you saying that I didn't have the right to do that, because a pronoun is a syntactic construct?
Thus, when people misgendered me as a child because they mistook me for a girl, it seems to follow that you're asserting that I shouldn't have corrected them because a pronoun is a syntactic construct and I don't get to choose what pronoun they use to refer to me by, regardless of how I personally identify. I can correct them if they mispronounce my name, but not if they mistake me for a girl.
If that's not what you're saying, then I guess I don't understand your position.
This is way different than the transgender case in that no deep-seated & conflicting beliefs came into play. Language is deep-seated, syntax more than names. Beliefs about gender are also obviously deep-seated.
I would say that I'm undecided on transgender issues, so mostly my position is that you shouldn't assume that skepticism is equivalent to bigotry.
What deep-seated and conflicting beliefs come into play here? This doesn't need to be about transgender issues, that's just where it comes up a lot (for obvious reasons).
If I get to say that I want people to use masculine pronouns and correct people when they refer to me as "her" or "she", that seems reasonable to me. And it sounds like it seems reasonable to you too.
That seems like a solid case for saying "people should get to choose their pronouns". I choose masculine ones. Somebody else might make a different choice, but it doesn't become "special treatment" just because they're making a different choice.
If you're using third person pronouns, you're generally not speaking to the person in question anyway.
If somebody says about me, "She's been really busy this week" and I overhear them and say "Excuse me, I prefer masculine pronouns", somebody following your line of argument can respond by saying "Sorry, but a pronoun is a syntactic construction, you don't have the right to choose which one refers to you."
What about that doesn't follow from your position here?
1. The general rule that English speakers use to choose a gendered pronoun depends on what the speaker believes a person's gender is, not what the referent prefers or believes. You don't get to choose their words for them.
2. You should clearly be offended if someone uses the opposite gender that they believe you to be. (If someone thinks you're male but refers to you as female).
3. It's not at all clear whether or not you should be offended when someone uses the opposite gender that you believe yourself to be, even if they know what you prefer. (If you believe you're male, but they believe you're female). The fact that I'm neutral or uncertain in this case might be why you couldn't pin down my argument.
Specifically, you've stated that people _don't have the right_ to choose their pronouns, and that's where you lose me. What does it mean to "choose" a pronoun, and what harm does allowing people to confidently assert "This is how I am properly referred to, all other ways are incorrect"?
You don't get to choose the words that other people speak. It's invasive and destructive to a person's integrity, and potentially dangerous to do even with good intentions.
Free speech aside, I'm confused as to why you're pushing back so hard on this. You've used "they" as a singular third-person gender-neutral pronoun multiple times in ancestor posts ("Someone referred to you with the wrong gender because they mistook you for a girl") so clearly this isn't a principle in which you're particularly invested.
Part of my problem with the way I've seen people get corrected "with free speech" is that there seems to be no tolerance for making mistakes, and no time allowed for people to think. You're assumed to be a bigot if you're not already 100% on board the PC train. It seems quite unreasonable given that most peoples' experiences with transfolk can be measured in seconds.
When it occurs more than once, it starts to move from the realm of "accident" to "deliberate", and I can easily imagine that in such a scenario, the corrections would become less gentle and less polite. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable, nor does it strike me as a free speech issue.
But notably, you're giving rather more power to free speech than is usually ascribed, which I find interesting. You're asserting that your right to free speech trumps my right to self-definition; if you want to call me a woman, you have that right under free speech, and if I want to correct you by explaining that actually, I'm a cisgender male, I can't do that because you have the right to free speech.
This seems patently ridiculous to me, and hopefully it does to you too. I don't see a way to reconcile your desire for free speech with my desire for bodily autonomy and self-definition. Can you clarify how allowing other people to choose the proper referential terms for me doesn't erase my ability to define who I am?
EDIT: At least one of my comments about this was regarding strategy rather than rights. Think about the scenarios like this: If someone misgenders you as a mistake, then a polite correction is appropriate. But if they do it as an insult, than a correction is probably not the best response.
If they do it because they don't even believe you're the gender that you claim to be, then a correction is a terrible tool for changing their mind. Both sides will only dig their heels in and come away feeling hostility for each other.
What would an explanation provide that saying "I prefer masculine pronouns" doesn't?
> If they do it because they don't even believe you're the gender that you claim to be, then a correction is a terrible tool for changing their mind. Both sides will only dig their heels in and come away feeling hostility for each other.
I agree with you! That's why I think the social standard should be "Everybody chooses their own pronouns", because then there's no external interpretation needed and it doesn't matter whether or not somebody believes something, the only key thing is whatever the stated preference is.
Imagine a dialogue where Marcus introduces his colleague Sam to somebody.
Marcus says, "This is Sam, he's a real hard worker." Sam says, "Excuse me, I'm a woman and prefer female pronouns". Marcus says, "Uh, yeah right. I don't believe you."
Who's the unreasonable party, here? Is it Sam, who's stated their identity and preference? Or is it Marcus, who feels like Sam needs to do something to convince him of her femininity? Why is Marcus's belief about Sam's identity the record as opposed to the statement from the primary source?
You've said that your issue here is that people get corrected in impolite ways, but if people just _believed everybody when somebody stated a pronoun preference_, that problem would go away.
I don't know; that has to be negotiated through dialogue.
This problem can't be limited only to pronouns, unless you're okay with people saying things like "she's a man". Otherwise you're expecting people to falsify their opinions.
EDIT: It may be that trans individuals will simply always encounter friction on this issue, since transgenderism presents such big challenges to entrenched ideas on both sides of the political spectrum. (If it's not obvious where the friction is on the left, consider that the legitimacy of transgenderism depends on gender having a biological basis. If gender is socially constructed then conservatives have a straightforward case against transgenderism, along the same lines as "just choose not to be gay.")
How am I making them falsify their opinions? My identity is not an opinion-based phenomena; you can refer to me by female pronouns and be incorrect, or you can refer to me by male pronouns and be correct. Your opinion on whether or not I'm male or female seems entirely beside the point.
If I believe you're female, but call you male because that's what you prefer, in what way is that not speaking contrary to my beliefs (i.e. lying)?
And again, why does your opinion have anything to do with my gender? You can call me a female, and you'd be incorrect; whether or not you think I'm a woman has nothing to do with whether or not it's correct to refer to me as such.
But what if someone strongly believes that biological sex and gender are inseparable? I suspect that the majority of the planet believes there is only male and female, and that it's fixed at birth. That doesn't seem so hateful to me.
The whole point of this is that you (or codes of conduct, or communication guidelines) cannot both insist on accepting other peoples' pronouns and also claim not to discriminate on the basis of personal beliefs. You have to choose one or the other, and I think it's more reasonable to choose the latter in most cases.
It seems only intuitive that if I get to define my own gender identity, as I have and as the world lets me, then everybody else should get that same privilege. And yes, I would say that denying that privilege from some people while granting it to others is inherently hateful.
You can swing your fist all you like, but you can't punch me in the face and claim that I'm infringing on your right to swing freely. You can have all the personal beliefs you like, but as soon as you start imposing them on somebody else's identity, they're not personal beliefs anymore and you don't get to enforce them on other people. When you misgender somebody else, you're imposing your own personal beliefs on them, and that's wrong.
You think of misgendering as someone imposing a false identity on you. This is an injustice because you have a right to determine your own identity.
I view the expectation to utter words I think are false to be the real imposition. I don't think people have total freedom to define themselves however they wish because they are constrained by the necessity to negotiate it with other people. I didn't choose my own gender identity and neither is anyone else entitled to.
I don't think these positions can be reconciled, but I would point out a disadvantage to your approach is that it leaves no possibility to foster peace between people who believe differently. Because if they don't accept your identity they should be written off as hateful.
EDIT: s/understanding/peace/
Being more concerned with what you believe about people over facts about them seems pretty selfish, but at this point if I haven't convinced you that perhaps people are a better judge of their identities than random strangers, I don't think I'm going to, and I agree that our positions are irreconcilable.
I'd point out, however, that your position doesn't really leave possibility to foster understanding between people who believe differently either; if I say I'm a man and somebody disagrees, they're ignoring the most primary of primary sources. That's not the position of somebody who's open to compromise; that's the position of somebody who's already made their decision and refuses to consider any other factor.
Compound this with, the words seem silly and contrived. How about you address me as "Mr. Oingy Boingy" from now on. To get a flavor of the emotional content of language. Just as an example; choose your own.
Let me be more helpful and less obtuse. Language is an emotional issue, so yes folks become pedantic and argumentative. That route (arguing) is unlikely to get a favorable response.
What will work then? Empathizing, suggesting ways to help folks who are sensitive and understand their point of view. Things like that.
I understand the frustration that comes with failure to convince, particularly when its a point that seem obvious and simple. I apologize for vectoring off with unhelpful comments about trolling. I'll try to understand the issue better in future.
See? That was easy and didn't cost me anything. I'll take my own advice more in future.
I personally find it polite to call people what they wish, given it does not unreasonably burden my natural expression. No contradiction here with compelled speech or free speech, which are hills I am quite literally willing to die on.
This seems along those lines, allowing further investment by those interested in less common pronouns to express themselves, while not burdening those who are not, while respecting everyone by setting clear expectations for conduct.
Can you expand on your objection? Perhaps I missed nuance...
> There are various ways to express gender neutrality in third-person singular pronouns in English; you do not have to use “they.”
This feels like a vanishingly small hill to die on, given the ideals that are at stake in the GNU project. It certainly feels very out-of-place on a high-level code of conduct such as this one.
EDIT: to clarify, I'm referring specifically to the insistence that "they" is an invalid singular pronoun. I'm being maximally charitable when I say that I'm not sure why RMS's personal views on what constitute "correct" pronouns merits mention on an organization's code of conduct.