unpopular opinion: gendered pronouns are wrong for English

[mellowtigger]

How about something new for the Moody Monday tradition? I think that gendered pronouns are ruining the (already too complicated) English language, and we should stop using them altogether, the same way we abandoned gendered titles for job roles.  Simplification is good.

Read more about how I came to this position...

When I last worked as a programmer, I had to stand up in my cubicle and look down the hall at cubicle nameplates so I could address an email to my coworkers. I worked fulltime for half a decade with these people, and I still didn't know their names. At my last job, I had to look back at previous emails with my supervisor in order to remember their name/email. If I couldn't consistently remember the given name/noun of these people that I encountered frequently, then why would anyone think that I'd remember their 3rd-person name/pronoun?

I think that a somewhat-hidden reason explains this new cultural kerfuffle. Emotionally, I have no vested interest in my gender "as other people see it". As a nearly-lifelong longhair male, I've been misgendered enough to know that I simply don't care. I don't view "the other gender" as awful or lesser, so the confusion doesn't twist my emotions. I likewise don't particularly care if people call me by the wrong name. I seldom correct anyone for that. I've been called a coworker's or sibling's name plenty of times. If I know someone is referring to me by any means, then I'll respond. The particular verbiage doesn't influence me positively. If they are using a reference that I think is intentionally wrong as an attempt to insult me, then I might feel an emotional response. As a rule, though, I simply don't feel one in response to verbalization. I understand that some people have experienced a journey in their life that makes them care deeply about gender, especially how others see them.  I maintain, however, that it's simply unreasonable to expect other people to maintain a detailed model-in-their-head of anyone else. It smacks of egoism. As someone with an autism diagnosis, I know a thing or two about egoistic self-importance. I don't give you permission to live in my head, and that's probably why I seldom remember anyone's name.

The more prominent issue, though, is that pronouns are supposed to be used instead of the noun. They are supposed to be less accurate versions of the original... mere placeholders for convenience. The new trend in English culture, though, runs in diametrically the opposite direction. It's trying to turn pronouns into accurate depictions of people-as-they-see-themselves. We might as well append pronouns as additional components to names. "Hi, my name is Terry-he-him."   Great, more syllables that I can immediately forget.

This pronoun usage destroys the very reason for one of the 8 parts of speech in English.  Some languages have even more parts to their communication. I am intellectually opposed to this trend. Similarly, I learned some Spanish during middle school, and I never understood the purpose or relevance of "tu" versus "usted" for 2nd-person pronouns. Just pick one, because it simplifies interpersonal relationships. Why complicate this stuff? (Maybe it's another autistic perspective there.) Long ago, I tried using Xe vocabulary here in my blog for 3rd-person pronouns. It didn't stick. Too unwieldy. Again, don't complicate things.  Simplify.

Now, I have 2 related solutions to propose together.

1) Everyone is "they". I'm unsure at this point if I'm willing to concede that pronouns should even indicate 'number'. "They" already has a rich history of singular use. If necessary, then we conveniently have "one" to provide that distinction. But as a general rule for all occasions, with no cause for personal insult when used: Everyone is "they".

2) Adopt the Spanish protocol of 'familiarity', used in that language with 2nd-person pronouns. Maybe it's time we implement it in English for 3rd-person pronouns. With this corollary rule, then anyone with a strong interest in their own pronoun would be able to keep it, and people who are closest to them could display their closeness by using pronouns individually chosen by their target.

Rule #1 still reigns supreme for simplicity's sake and the common peace, but Rule #2 is a reasonable compromise, I think.  Haters would still get to violate Rule #2 by choosing inappropriate pronouns to misgender someone, but their decision would also violate Rule #1 thereby explicitly exposing the intention in their choice of language.  Does that plan give everyone a good outcome?

Comments

[kathmandu]

"They" actually does not have a rich history of singular use. Every example I've ever seen people give, dated from before the 1900s, is one of two categories:

1) Indefinite they, referring to person or persons unspecified or unknown. That is the example given in your OED-blog citation. Other examples would be things like "Well, we don't know who broke into the pharmacy, but we do know they wore size nine shoes".

2) Corporate they, as in "I called the customer help line and they said--" where the line was answered by an individual, but the individual was functioning as an organization's mouthpiece. 'They' refers to the organization.

Using 'they' to refer to a known, named individual is quite recent. And I favor reserving it for persons with multiple personalities in a single body: the only time that usage is really precise.

English does need a 3rd-person gender-neutral singular pronoun, but I'd rather adopt a new one like 'zie' or 'per'.

[mellowtigger]

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something here, because I agree that the non-specificity of "they" is exactly what makes it an ideal candidate for the universal pronoun. Ooh, that terminology just came to me! I should've used that phrase for the title! This story from the Oxford English Dictionary article made me remember discussions in the gay student group in college about people either misgendering (a deliberate lie) or using "they" (as an honest escape route) when talking about their significant other. It's been nearly a quarter-millenium, and no other word is poised to take its place, a substitute for many possible meanings at once.

In 1794, a contributor to the New Bedford Medley mansplains to three women that the singular they they used in an earlier essay in the newspaper was grammatically incorrect and does no ‘honor to themselves, or the female sex in general.’ To which they honourably reply that they used singular they on purpose because ‘we wished to conceal the gender,’ and they challenge their critic to invent a new pronoun if their politically-charged use of singular they upsets him so much.

Rule #2 does not prohibit using "they" with additional specificity in the familiar context. My own given name is an "overloaded operator", from the helpful terminology in computer programming, used to suggest either female gender or male gender. It is indistinguishable in the general context but particular in the familiar context. I find it charming and desirable as a name, and I'm glad my parents chose it for me. (Distracting detour: There are a lot of names in that flexible category. The most famous name is probably "Jackie" (Jackie Chan (male), Jackie Onassis (female)), but apparently the most evenly-split is "Kerry".)

[kathmandu]

I agree on the desirability of a non-gendered, third-person-singular pronoun. And on the awkwardness of "trying to turn pronouns into accurate depictions of people-as-they-see-themselves."

The aspect of specificity I was advocating to keep is singular vs. plural. It becomes too hard to follow conversations if 'they' could refer to a person splitting off from a group, or the rest of the group. English has plenty of ambiguity already; I don't want more in this area.

As for 'tu' vs. 'usted', that works out in practice to have a strong hierarchical component: upper-ranked people get to be 'usted', and lower-ranked people get addressed as 'tu' whether they like it or not. Same reason the Quakers used 'thou' exclusively, as a way to get rid of the hierarchical distinction. So I'd favor sticking with just one level of pronoun, and not trying for familiar vs. formal.

[mellowtigger]

I suspect that my proposed "everyone is they" standard might lead eventually to a new suffix for when some kind of plurality specifically needs to be distinguished from something else. We already have the example of "you" growing suffixes for kinds of plurality (you both, you all, y'all, and the terrible 'youse guys'), so it wouldn't be much of a leap for English to do the same here (they both, they all). Those word pairs have already been used, so there's some measure of consistency to it. It's not awful, at any rate.

[kathmandu]

Yes, adding disambiguation tags for they-all or they-group or they-one would certainly help a lot.

[darkoshi]

I misunderstood #2 the first time I read this. Now I get what you mean, and I like the idea.

But even though I've chosen "they" as one of my pronouns, I still think it would be better to have a gender-neutral pronoun that isn't ambiguous in terms of one vs multiple people, and to have that used for #1.

[mellowtigger]

The 'familiarity' standard is weird, no lie. It's just so... subjective? How can that be a language rule? It's hard to describe to someone who hasn't encountered it before, and I've never appreciated its use in Spanish before now. I'm beginning to see how it can have some theoretical benefits maybe. :) I mentioned just now in another comment that suffixes might eventually fill the gap. Just as we grew "you both" and "you all" for 2nd person pronouns, maybe we'd begin using "they both" and "they all" for 3rd person pronouns meant to indicate plurals of different forms.

While I enjoy shows that explore the multiple processes of consciousness (Herman's Head, Inside Out, the mind palace of The Flight Attendant), I don't know much about official DID. If anybody is using "they/them" pronouns intending to convey that reality, I wonder if "they them" would work as the new suffix using the same pronounced syllables as before but with new grammar?

[mellowtigger]

P.S. I'm still pondering my original suggestion, so I keep coming back to this thread. Oops. I realize now my reply maybe suggests you are a plural personality. I don't actually think that. I was just following another rabbit-thought down another brain-tunnel. I'm sorry for the miscommunication. I enjoy what I call "permutation exploration", and I end up doing it a lot without providing suitable guideposts for any potential followers. :)

[darkoshi]

No worries; I didn't take your comment to mean that.

I do like your suggestion of using "they both" and "they all" for disambiguation.

I learned German as a child and Spanish in school, so the 'familiarity' protocol is somewhat familiar to me (hehehe). I was sometimes corrected on which to use when back then. I might have used "Sie" speaking to people like my aunt, thinking it was how one spoke respectfully to an older person (or not thinking about it at all), when really I should have been using "Du". I'm still not sure I always get it right, and from what I've heard the usage has changed a lot over recent decades anyway.