Talk:Gender-neutral pronoun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Source of original text

Original text (now heavily modified) imported from h2g2. I'm the original author (Researcher number 129960), and I copied only the unedited version, to which I retain a copyright. Martin

[edit] Is 'Thon' a contraction 'The One'?

Is 'thon' a contraction of 'the one'? 'The one feeds the ones self'? > 'Thon feeds thonself'. --Haldrik (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] man/woman/black/white

Suppose that instead of 'he' and 'she', we had different pronouns for people with different coloured skin. When referring to a black person we'd say 'ne', and when referring to a white person we'd say 'ge'. For example:

'Ge hit nim several times for nir disobedience - for ge did not want gir hard work to be wasted.'

Or, in normal English:

'The white person hit the black person several times for the black person's disobedience - for the white person did not want the white person's hard work to be wasted.'

It's a pretty silly idea, and it's clear to see how racist it could be. Yet we follow exactly the same idea with regards to gender -- our language is very sexist. And think of romance langauges which assign a gender to every rock, tree, and stone! Is this something that should be changed - and if so, how?

You raise an interesting point, and one that isn't getting much public discussion. But the thing that commonly escapes attention is that there is no public support for such changes; they are being pushed by people with an agenda, regardless of whether the change is something that would actually be good for the language or good for society in general. The supporters of such a change simply assume, based on their own preconceived notions, that anything that reduces the raw quantity of what they see as "sexism" in the world, must automatically be a Good Thing. It's just not that simple, but they're moving ahead anyway, pretending to themselves that the lack of public debate is an indication of consent.
Of course the people who are "pushing", as you put it, these pronouns have an agenda. The agenda is fairness and equal representation for certain minorities. There is no conflict between that, and what is good for the language and good for society in general. (And yes, I have a personal stake in this issue, as you can probably see from my name.) David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As an ardent lover of the English language, I can't help but see the drive to androgynify it as a destructive act motivated by childish pique. It seems to display only the ignorance of linguistics among those who push this movement. All languages have built-in biases and detritus from their past, that's what makes them languages! A language isn't just words, it's an intimate relationship between those words and the culture they arose from. It arises from a process very similar to natural selection, and it meets the needs of that culture at any given time. So tell me, once you're done stripping "sexism" from English, will it be time to strip "hierarchism" from Japanese and do away with its various traditional formal modes of address?
I have to say that watching a group of shrilly ignorant volunteer offendees appointing themselves the job of directing the course of a language that serves a far broader group just churns my guts. If you want there to be a perfectly nonoffensive language, then invent one. There are already several; lojban is one. It was designed from the ground up in order to circumvent all the leftovers of ten thousand years of barbarism, and it's as sterile as they come. Hmm, but lojban doesn't seem to be taking off in terms of popularity. I can tell you why - it's because people like their languages the way they are, as a natural extension of their culture, not a set of rules handed down by the most narrow-minded among them.
If you want the language to change, wait a while, and see what happens. Or change the culture, and the language will follow it. Just please, don't try to stuff human expression into a little box. It's the most precious gift we have. -Kasreyn 06:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how changing a pronoun is an assault on the English language. If languages didn't change, we'd all be speaking Indo-European right now. This issue is the result of cultural changes. Because of these cultural changes, 'he' is no longer adequate as a generic pronoun. Languages don't change themselves, changes represent how people are actually using the language.--RLent 15:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What strikes me is that heretofore, changes in language have been largely unconscious, evolutionary processes. That is to say, there were not conscious movements to push specific usages of language, it simply was molded over time to reflect the needs of the people using it. That is what I would call natural or organic change in language. What is being attempted today, I would describe as artificial or forced change in language. A very small minority has made a political decision to alter the language of the majority, and are going about it by any and all means necessary, including attacks upon the character of those who refuse to change their usage.
The trouble with conscious, directed change is that I don't think individuals, or even groups, are wise enough to deliberately choose a good future for the language. It mirrors the way we have attempted to sieze control of our environment and consciously direct nature - and will result in an equal litany of failure. There are systems in this world which have too many variables and are too complex to be glibly directed on a momentary whim. Language is one of those systems.
If people honestly feel that English is degrading or offensive to women, I suggest they push to supplant it with a language that lacks its ingrained bias (such as lojban). Alternatively, they can strive to build a society in which the majority will come to the same conclusion on their own. I really don't think that a minority of English speakers has any right to demand specific changes in the language, and to behave in a condescending manner towards those who don't agree. Kasreyn 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the above sermonette here, because it's not encyclopedic. It's an appeal to the reader to agree.

We could revise it by reporting that some people (or many people) believe that this or that is "silly" or "racist" or "sexist". --Ed Poor

"separate pronouns for the genders has no more logical basis than separate pronouns for any other grouping of ovjects of people" -- how about that, ed? -- Tarquin

Expressing that idea directly in the article as fact may be NPOV.

Or original research. Amcfreely 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

However, I encourage you to to quote an influential essay expressing that idea:

"A Person Paper on the Purity of Language" by Douglas R. Hofstadter, collected in Metamagical Themas: questing for the essence of mind and pattern. 1985 (reviewed at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/h/hofstdtr.htm ).

Agree. Amcfreely 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "singular they" is inevitable, however much we might prefer the alternatives

I have attempted to add a little linguistic perspective to this article, including a statement of the problem in the first paragraph and the observation that speakers of English are simply switching from he-her etc. to they and their. I did not say, what I think, that none of these other solutions will ever happen. This article is fundamentally POV, isn't she?

I also think the treatment of other languages ignores the whole idea of grammatical gender, wherein the gender is attached to articles and modifiers and considerably simplifies sentence structure. Ortolan88 16:35 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)


Perhaps it would make sense to completely delete the section on other languages? I'm not really qualified to say what tortures have been inflicted on them, and no info is better than badly expressed/researched info.

"none have been successful outside of narrow contexts, such as this article"

Well, singular they is widespread. Universal male is widespread (though becoming less so). Recasting to avoid the issue (eg into plural, 2nd person) is widespread. 'he or she' is widespread. All of these are mentioned/linked in the article.

The options in the entry which aren't widespread are 'it', 'one', and 'neologisms and slang'. The first two are occasionally suggested by opponents to (eg) singular they, and are worth mentioning here, I think. The neologism section points out that most of these are "the failed ideas of dead people".

Seems to be a bit of duplication now: how many links to singular they do we need? ;-) -Martin

The none in "none have been successful" is a pronoun (non-gender-specific, as it happens), referring to gender-neutral pronouns, the subject of the article. The "singular they" (second link removed) and "he or she" are not part of the the collection of gender-specific pronouns touted in the bulk of this article. I'll look at the wording though. It may be confusing. I think "it" and "one" are certainly worth mentioning.
'none' is a singular pronoun. I find it amusing that people make this mistake in an article dealing with pronouns.
The article is mutating from one specifically pushing hairy solutions like "sie and hir" into one discussing general approaches in English to making discourse non-sexist, of which the "sie and hir" are a minor part, all due respect to the proponents and the originator of the article. Ortolan88

Ahh: I would consider singular they to be an example of a gender-neutral pronoun. 'he or she' is discussed briefly under the table marked 'dual'. Only one paragraph, though, and it's not NPOV (dang!). -Martin

I just restored a rewritten version of the "singular they" paragraph to this article and put it back as the second paragraph. This gives some proportion to this article.

A passing link to the singular they is not enough:

  • Most people don't want to offend
  • Most people tried out "he or she" and "his or her" and got tired of it quickly
  • Some people (me, in 1972) switched over to she and her or simply wrote around it.
  • Most people consciously or unconsciously switched to the singular they.
  • A tiny tiny minority is fighting it out among themselves over various proposals like sie and hir that will never be part of the language.

I am too polite to say that in the article, but I feel strongly that the solution chosen by average speakers of the language, chosen out of a combination of good manners and wanting to speak and write smoothly, should have a prominent place in this article lest naive readers think the only solution is one of the clumsy, ideology-ridden solutions touted in the rest of the article. Ortolan88

I agree, and anyway the Wikipedia is not in the business of endorsing (or suppressing) any particular idea. If they is being used by a lot of English-speakers as a gender-neutral pronoun, it should get at least a paragraph in this article. --Ed Poor
I'm not convinced. According to the usage note at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=he , very few people in the usage panel suggested the use of 'they'. See also http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=they which comments: "Eighty-two percent find the sentence The typical student in the program takes about six years to complete their course work unacceptable". The figures are summarised in the article itself. If that information is out of date, find me stuff that's more in date.
That's not to say that singular they doesn't deserve more space than sie and hir - it does, and it gets it. However, it's not the solution, and the article shouldn't promote it as such. -Martin
You're right, Martin. In fact, the article should not present any form of usage as the solution. It should just report what people use for pronouns. --Ed Poor
The point, though, is that practically nobody uses the generic pronoun neologisms. Amcfreely 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't promote it. It grates on my ear too. However, my belief is that it is not necessary to promote it because it is happening anyway. And, if I may say so, usage panels and the like are always very conservative and up-tight, and generally are prescriptive rather than descriptive. If I encountered the singular they in an article I was editing, I would take it out and replace it by rewording. Personally, I use her most of the time. That does not change my belief that the singular they is the solution, but I don't say so in the article, except to note that people have done it since the 1500s and are doing it even more today than ever. Ortolan88 19:11 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

I just put the singular they back again! I don't know who is taking out, but it is a mistake. Look, the article cannot be NPOV if it ignores the most common solution to this problem. I know it is ungrammatical. I know that many worthy people are addressing this problem with more formal solutions, but to suppress the common solution is the worst form of political correctness and I will keep putting the singular they back in this article forever. Ortolan88 19:28 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

The articles should not ignore singular they: I totally agree. What I don't agree is that it needs to mention it four times: twice in the introduction, again under 'options', and a fourth time under 'see also'. Doing so gives it preferential treatment above other options, and I've yet to see any evidence that it is so much more common than, say, rewording, that it deserves this extra exposure. There is a middle way between ignoring singular they, and mentioning it four times. -Martin

Four mentions of singular they is preferable treatment and four screensful of politically correct claptrap isn't? Ortolan88

[edit] the intro is for summaries, not specific details

If people would refrain from adding specific information about specific solutions to the intro, I believe that would improve the article. The point of an introduction is to summarise what comes later, not to make it redundant. That means name-checking each of the four most common solutions, but not going into detail:

That's what I've done. If more detail is added to the intro regarding singular they, then corresponding info must be added to the intro regarding the other three, or the intro becomes unbalanced. Alternatively, if anybody would like to offer any actual evidence that one of these four is vastly less common than the other three, and can be dropped, then please go ahead.

In my personal experience, which is not evidence, the percentages would be rougly as below. Of course knowing how often a rewording strategy is used is inherently difficult because it is impossible to distinguish between a sentence that was drafted as plural and one that was drafted as singular and changed to the plural to avoid the he/she problem. Also it is difficult to tell the difference between the generic male used properly, and male pronouns used because the speaker is assuming that all members of the relevant group are male.

  • singular they (30%)
  • generic male (25%)
  • he or she (15%)
  • rewording the sentence (30%)

FWIW, I personally hate the generic male, and hope it dies a quick and painful death. The other three I find clumsy but tolerable, while sie and hir (which I use when I can) I find elegant but hopelessly naive.
The sections in this article about singular they and the generic male could do with much work, because they were constructed by cutting and pasting from the previous introduction. *steps down from soapbox* -Martin 15:46 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] ... not a style guide

Wikipedia is not a style guide, or a soap box for social engineers. I moved nearly the entire page here. --Ed Poor

Ok, I can accept the style guide argument. Not clear on why it might be viewed as social engineering, though. *shrug* -Martin

This is now a more useful article. Personally, I will continue my practice of the last 30 years of using the unmentioned solution, the generic she , or writing around it entirely. I like the external link to the meta discussion though. Ortolan88

I'm a little perplexed as to what exactly made this a style guide. I can see that the usage examples could be bad... but Ed added some of those (for it and him), so I did think I was on the right track there. Current guess is just too much detail and detail that's not necessary in an encyclopedia - am I close?
I don't want to make same mistake with gender-specific pronoun (which mentions generic she), sie and hir, singular they, spivak pronoun... -Martin

A styleguide tells people how they should use language. Your styleguide is excellent, which is why I preserved it. However, the Wikipedia is not in the business of telling people how to act. If it were, the arguments over the stardard of right conduct would be endless and all-consuming. --Ed Poor

[edit] "impute" vs. "reveal"

"Gender-neutral pronouns neither reveal nor impute sex or gender when referring to people, animals or things."

(1) I had to look up "impute". Is there a particular reason why "reveal" and "impute" are both used? To me they mean pretty much the same thing in this context, is there some subtle implication that I'm not getting? How about just "indicate"? GGano

Consider this sentence: "Chris washed her hair" - 'her' reveals that Chris is a woman (Christine, one imagines).
Consider this sentence: "every doctor cares for his patients" - 'his' imputes that all doctors are male, something that isn't the case.
"indicate" is probably fine. Martin

(2) More controvertially: "sex or gender" seems weird here, and linking to gender roles seems completely wrong, at least with the current content of that page. Pronouns do not indicate anything about the role of the person, only their biological sex (or at least their perceived biological sex). I think the gender page is being naive when it says that "gender" cannot mean "sex". This usage may be "incorrect" according to some people, but it certainly is the most common everyday usage, and the above sentence is a good example. It uses "gender" to mean "sex", but this questionable prohibition causes it to link to "gender role", which is wrong.

GGano

regarding the gender page, why not take it up at talk:gender - I happen to agree with you.
imo, pronouns don't merely impute biological sex, they also impute gender. A pre-op female-to-male transsexual may be biologically female, but he will still typically prefer to be referred using male pronouns to reflect his current gender. Martin
I did, we'll see what happens. IMO pronouns may impute gender or sex, depending. E.g. if your pre-op transsexual were to visit a doctor, the doctor would probably use "she" in his/her notes. And I've seen no end of "she - I mean he" or vice versa in popular writing about RuPaul, etc. I think the answer is that pronouns were originally meant to impute sex, but now it varies (in the relatively small number of cases where the sex and gender may be different). Of course, this all assumes that "gender" means something along the lines of "the sex you identify with", rather than "your biological sex, used when talking about sociological issues", which I think remains controversial. GGano

[edit] "co" and "cos"

I am moving this question from the article:
In the Example section about Co and Cos, User:Daniel_Quinlan asked, "(What do they mean?)"
Paige 14:39, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just a note: I put the question in the article on purpose — I'm well aware of how to use Talk pages. I don't want any readers to think they're stupid for not knowing the answer. It seemed rather non-obvious enough for me. I think it's okay to indicate when articles are incomplete in the article itself. Daniel Quinlan 17:32, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
Daniel, I want you to know that certainly no offense, implication or insult was intended, but quite often those questions have a way of staying in the articles for some time, especially considering that the info has been in the article for a while and is in the disambig page co (since the contributor may not check the article again for some time). As far as the meaning, I understand it to be simply what the section says, a neologism that is used as a gender-neutral third person pronoun. It seems to be used mainly by groups like the Federation of Egalitarian Communities, a commune group, and seems to have evolved from the prefix "co-" as in co-ed, originally from the Latin "com-." However, there are no formal definitions available. There is also a pronoun "co" in Polish and possibly Czech, but since I know very little about those languages, I do not know if this could be related. There is an article about it here: [1], and an almost humorous discussion involving it here : [2], including this line: "supposedly the "co/co/cos/cos/coself" scheme had some actual use among alternative co-opters in the 1970's." Can you think of anyway we could clarify this section in the article? -Paige 18:21, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

co is an English (proposed) gender-neutral pronoun, right? Doesn't say that anywhere, and I want to be sure before I add it. --Spikey 17:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "she" as generic

Please read this slowly and carefully:

A book made in the distant past will very likely tell you that the word "he" is a legal generic pronoun. However, according to what sounds natural to me, "she" makes more sense than "he", because "she" already contains "he" in its letters. How about other forms of the pronoun?? As for other forms, neither word already contains the letters of the other word in it, so the best solution is simply to use the forms of "she", unless you want to create new words, which can be hard to get accepted. This gives us the following pronouns:

  • First Person Singular (I, me, my, mine)
  • First Person Plural (we, us, our, ours)
  • Second Person (you, your, yours)
  • Third Person Singular Masculine (he, him, his)
  • Third Person Singular Feminine/Generic (she, her, hers)
  • Third Person Singular Neuter (it, its)
  • Third Person Plural (they, them, their, theirs)

Examples:

  • CORRECT: Each BOY in this class raised HIS hand to indicate HE needed a question.
  • INCORRECT: Each STUDENT in this class raised HIS hand to indicate HE needed a question. (Unless, of course, all the students are boys.)
  • CORRECT: Each STUDENT in this class raised HER hand to indicate SHE needed a question.

How often do people ask questions about what word to use as a generic pronoun?? Please identify to yourself which word, "he" or "she" sounds more logical to you for whatever reason. Please make sure it is a reason based entirely on what YOU say, not on what other people tell you.

This seems to be offtopic to me. What bearing will this have on the article? We aim to report on what the current status of using gender neutral pronouns are, not advocating or asking for change. Dysprosia 23:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia sadly is not the place for advocacy of different generic pronouns. Martin tried once, but sie learnt soon enough.

Where is a better place on the Internet for such a thing??

I would recommend usenet for general debate: alt.usage.english. However, do lurk before you leap. Martin 00:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I got to http://alt.usage.english and it appears that no such URL exists on the Internet.

You need to go to news://alt.usage.english. You'll need a usenet reader, such as many email client. You probably already have one. Martin 00:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
'She' is no better than 'he', it presents the same problem. It is interesting that old books would use 'she' as a generic pronoun when talking about tasks that were presumed to be 'female' tasks, like cooking, sewing cleaning, etc. 'He' was used in tasks that were, at the time, presumed to be male.--RLent 16:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Indeed, at my work we sometimes use the generic male to refer to dictators (eg, doctors) and the generic female to refer to transcriptionists (eg, medical secretaries). It's useful in an Alice and Bob kind of way, though I do cringe at the implicit assumptions. Plus, when discussing dance I often refer to a generic leader as "he", and a generic follower as "she", even though I can follow and I know women who can lead. So this isn't even a thing just of the past. Martin 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table

The Sie and hir article has a little table showing different forms. I think this article should have a table with all the different forms in it, alternative words, sie zie co it ey etc. and maybe have another column to show how popular they are. I came here looking for information on these words, and there isn't much. - Omegatron 14:40, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any stats on popularity around, but if you find any I'd be interested. Martin 22:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
they don't need to be scientifically exact. it already says that some forms are more popular than others. even something like a google search gives a general idea:
Results 1 - 10 of about 862 English pages for zie zir.
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,180 English pages for hie hir.
According to this page [3]: "Depending on how one counts, there are between three and five active groups. The two most popular seem to be "sie, hir, hir, hirs, hirself", (especially "hir"), and "zie, zir, zir, zirs, zirself"." - Omegatron 05:25, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ve and verself were introduced by Keri Holme in 1976, according to [4].

[edit] even more-specific pronouns

I've been told that Vietnamese have a much larger set of pronouns. A single pronoun reveals not only first, second, or third person? and male or female?, and also older than speaker, or younger than speaker?.

If this is true, is it worth mentioning in the article?

[edit] "soul" as gender-neutral pronoun?

In books on early American history, I often see the term "souls" used, where I would expect "men and women" to be used in 1990 era writing. For example,

For example, "... the Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower in 1620 ... Today there are tens-of-millions of individuals descended from these brave souls." http://mayflower.org/

Although I know little about linguistics, I was bold and added "soul" to the list in the main article. (And removed " a man " -- yes, it is commonly used as a pronoun, but I doubt someone who is trying to avoid a gender-specific pronoun would pick "a man" instead).

--DavidCary 02:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No, "soul" and "man" are nouns, not pronouns. — Paul G 11:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the table is dumb

What's the point of that table of neologisms? I've never heard any of those before and it's overwhelmingly unlikely they will ever be used. It just seems too prominently placed for such a stupid and useless set of information. - Stoph 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You state that it's overwhelmingly unlikely they will ever be used. I have cited references where they have been used. What do I win? A lot of it will be to do with what sort of things you spend reading, and who you talk to. These kind of neologisms are very niche (and not uniformly used within those niches).
If you feel the information is stupid and useless, you are reading the wrong article. I find much of the information in Star Trek to be useless, but I'm aware that some people feel it's vitally important to know the exact speed of Warp 9.
Anyway, the point of the table is that it's simpler and easier to update than describing each of the neologisms in long-hand, and allows readers to quickly gather how such words would be used in practice. In many cases, this will allow them to understand and hence reject the idea much more quickly. Martin 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French in terms of English?

The section on French explains why singular they isn't "an option" or something in French. This is the English page, but none of the other language subsections treat the question of "why no singular they?". Thus, I'm removing it. Dave 08:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a singular they in French-- "on." It's used roughly like the English "one" but unlike in English, it's used frequently. If we're going to get specific with listing all the other subject pronouns, it needs to be listed along with "il" and "elle" which it corresponds to. Or perhaps a different language should be used as an example. 15:25, 14 May 2007

Hi. I don't think that makes much difference, because the French on is not equivalent to "they". Two differences:

  • "On" is always generic; "they" isn't. (English actually uses "you" as a generic pronoun.)
  • "On" takes verbs conjugated in the 3rd. person singular, not plural. FilipeS 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender oppression in Chinese Culture?

Does it just seem to me that the brief discussion on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and chinese culture seems to take it as a given that the reader knows/believes that china is heavily sexist? Or at least believes china to be MORE oppressive/sexist than other, gender-specific-pronoun-languaged cultures. The very next paragraph, in fact, goes on to explain that gender specific pronouns DO exist in chinese. Was there a change in the way chinese culture viewed gender? Did its model become more european during this cultural revolution? This section seems very under analyzed.

-- osairuit

[edit] Why not epicene?

Just curious as to the redirect from "epicene pronoun", as I thought that term was considered more technically correct. I wasn't able to find mention of it on the talk page. Was there ever a reason given for the redirect? -Kasreyn 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting with bated breath for a response. Kasreyn 08:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Might it be because most people know "gender-neutral pronoun", even if "epicene pronoun" is more technically correct? — Paul G 11:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found this interesting quote

here:

" Like most efforts at language reform, these well-intended suggestions have been largely ignored by the general English-speaking public, and the project to supplement the English pronoun system has proved to be an ongoing exercise in futility. Pronouns are one of the most basic components of a language, and most speakers appear to have little interest in adopting invented ones. This may be because in most situations people can get by using the plural pronoun they or using other constructions that combine existing pronouns, such as he/she or he or she."
-The American Heritage Book of English Usage.

Worth including? Kasreyn 08:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks worthwhile to me. I've added it. Martin 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spivak

I'm having a little trouble accepting the Spivak referenced in the article. They way Spivak is referenced, it makes it seem like it is an accepted part of the language. I could imaging a non-English speaker from, for example, China reading this article and thinking that the Spivak is actually part of the language.

I'd like to see the Spivak moved to the article on Nomic, where it is used. It's an online shorthand and a game language, like leet-speak. At most there should be a link to Spivak in this article, under invented languages. Sorry if this sounds snarky, but the Spivak detracts greatly from the article. Markspace 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Gojira)

[edit] "It" is not gender-specific

Why are "it" and "its" listed as being gender-specific near the top of the article when they are not? — Paul G 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed now... 惑乱 分からん 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"It" is a neuter gender pronoun... FilipeS 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "it" is gender-neutral. If I understand well the meaning of "gender-neutral", the idea is that it must be a word which can be used to refer to a male or a female person, without revealing their gender. This cannot be done with "it", not because it specifies a gender, but because in standard English it is never used to refer to people. See also grammatical gender, and gender-specific pronoun. FilipeS 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, "it" can be used to refer to people in a gender-neutral way, but only when they are still babies (A: I saw her newborn baby yesterday, it looked so cute. B: Is it a boy or a girl?) or when referred collectively as a group (I was seeking information about their group and its activities). Uaxuctum 09:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is a rare exception to the rule that "it" means "neither male nor female". FilipeS 10:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Indo-European language

I don't know if the PIE section belongs. The modern descendants of the words noted are generally not gender-specific either (except for *swe, where in German and Dutch sich/zich means "oneself", and the related word sein/zijn today means "his"). The information about reconstructed PIE is so scarce, that it's impossible to tell how they referred to "him" and "her". 惑乱 分からん 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pronoun 'per;

check this one out.

per isn't in the wikipedia article, but it's one i prefer to use. it's on here a little bit. here's a list that includes per http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/listing.html and on their faq it's mentioned as well http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/faq.html

[edit] The article as a whole

..is pretty poor. Hardly anything has any references, and the survey of languages is a) uneven and b) mostly uninformative, as the majority of the entries say essentially 'Language (group) X does not distinguish genders in its pronouns'.

I have some ideas about how to restructure it, which I will think about if I have time. --ColinFine 09:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far from scholarly

The articles makes claims by word choice instead of by material support or logic. For example, the word reform implies without proving that there is something morally wrong with language not gender-neutral, a sort of reasoning by innuendo.

For another example of poor scholarhood, look at one phrase in the introduction:

Since the 1960's many people have felt this forced distinction in English and other languages to be unsatisfactory ... .

Many people? Who? References, please? Only since the 1960s and never before? Why say the phrase "English and other languages" instead of just "languages?" Unsatisfactory to whom and why? The arguments are weak and poorly outlined. Forced is a loaded word implying unfair power. One is only forced to the degree that one wishes to communicate in the chosen language. Your keyboard is forcing you to use only the keys on it. Perhaps this forced action should be resisted.

In regards to English, I am satisfied with the convention of using one non-gender-neutral pronoun or the other when the gender is uncertain, so long as we can agree on which one to use. Consider that for an awfully long time, the agreement to use the masculine worked! This notion that we should now use a generic feminine because she happens to contain he in it is silly! (Should we now call ourselves huwoman instead of human?) Readers will simply believe that the person or people referenced were indeed all female. With the masculine as a convention, they should make no such assumption, which is the point of the entire exercise. If yes is the answer to "Does the reader understand that there could be gender-uncertainty or mixed gender in this case?" then the job is done. He may not like it but that, frankly, is immaterial.

The example about blacks and whites is a wholly inappropriate analogy, as there is no language convention, agreement, or standard by which one uses white to refer to both. Don't be swayed by baldly fallacious logic!

This is not a human rights or unfair discrimination issue. It's just an artifact of language and the article needs rewriting or heavy editing to reflect that.

I am personally flexible enough to use newly invented gender-neutral pronouns, but that's not going to happen any time soon on a large enough scale for anyone to understand me if I start doing so.

Yes, as a grammar-lover I dislike using they to mean he or she. It is grammatically incorrect. But by the dictates of the unwashed masses, that's what's come and it is here to stay. Ya gotta love language. --Erik Eckhardt 09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's tempting to debate the merits of various approaches to language to you, but I'll try to stay focused on the article itself.
Per your request, I have added references for people who have disliked the "forced distinction", and corrected the date to "at least" the 19th century. I've also removed "english and other languages" and the word "forced". As for the "why" of those creations: I think that is discussed at gender-neutral language, which is linked in that paragraph.
I think reform is a reasonably commonly used word when discussing artificial/proposed changes to language. See language reform. There could be a better term, though. Suggestions? Martin 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well, I believe I have one idea

One can pretty easily find a gender neutral pronoun that's quite accepted--one simply needs to see it for oneself to believe. As long as one's mind is open. --Stancollins 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islandic gender-neutral?

Can someone explain to me what Islandic is doing among the languages with gender-neutral pronouns? Little surprisingly for a Germanic language, the entry actually states the opposite, or am I overlooking something? --Ibn Battuta 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a strange case, because it seems that in Icelandic and a few other Germanic languages the neuter article can be used to refer to people. Since it's the neuter, you're not giving away the person's gender... FilipeS 21:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you speak Islandic (or at least know about this phenomenon), you might want to change the article accordingly. All it says right now is that Islandic does differentiate three genders, and that they can be also differentiated in plural. That's not by any means about a gender-neutral pronoun. --Ibn Battuta 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not speak Icelandic, but that's not quite what the article says. It also says that the neuter pronouns, það (singular) and þau (plural) can be used as gender-inclusive. FilipeS 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possessive of one

The current "Neologisms" table shows ones as the possessive of one, obviously in parallel with the non-use of apostrophes in other possessive pronouns. (Technically, one is not a neologism, having been around at least since Mark Twain, and in not-uncommon use in major modern English dialects.) But I was under the impression that one's is the correct indefinite (formal) possessive pronoun, as if one is more like a noun. This is supported by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which features an example of this use. The American Heritage Book of English Usage shows a similar example. Merriam-Webster Online is somewhat disdainful of the pronoun, not providing any possessive-use example (and confusingly calling it first-person, as if it is only used as a formal substitute for I et al). But no reference I found so far omits the apostrophe. Unless someone can cite opposing evidence, we should probably change ones to one's in the table. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean "possessive pronoun" in contradistinction to the absurdly misnamed "possessive adjective"? There's an example of the former: I am one's. Its orthography is a trivial matter. Is it even possible?
Let's try predicative complements, subjects, verbal objects, and prepositional objects:
  • My post became his.
  • My post became one's.
  • His is worse than my own.
  • One's is worse than my own.
  • I lost his.
  • I lost one's.
  • I ran over his.
  • I ran over one's.
In my idiolect, none of the stuff with "one's" (or, if anyone prefers, "ones") is possible. Putting aside the whimsy and trivia in the article, the core material seems dodgy. Can anyone point to a reference grammar that lists this? -- Hoary 09:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiss? KISS? Why not endanger?

Hello dudes and dudettes of Wikipedia! (Wait, I mean 'people' of wikipedia - unless 'dude' itself is gender-neutral? What?)

It has come under my all-seeing gaze that a certain wikipedian (whom I shall refer to as 'Mr. X') has edited back my changing of 'kiss' to 'endanger'.

While perhaps Mr. X has been endangered many a time, possibly inducing a sort of shell-shock whenever he comes across the word, I suspect this not to be the case!

Indeed, I suspect that this Mr. X has committed a HORRENDOUS crime! This is something I would never want to come across, nevermind accuse somebody of, but it is with a heavy heart I accuse Mr. X of...

Lengthism!

It is to this end that I let all people - be they gender neutral or otherwise - decide what verb should go there! No word too obscure, too long, too short, too average will be avoided! --Arkracer 13:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You ask "Why not endanger?"
Here's the edit in question. The edit summary explains: aside from laboriously having three syllables rather than just one, "endanger" increases the risk that horizontal scrolling will be needed to view the table. -- Hoary 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that 'endanger' is a good idea! But his question, nay demand, was that we come up with another, not an insult slash demand for explanation form Hoary. --91.105.6.113 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Somebody who so dislikes kiss is free to come up with a better alternative and to edit accordingly. -- Hoary 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the table originally had "hit". Does anyone here like that one best? FilipeS (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xir

"Xir" redirects here, but the word is not mentioned in the article. Probably it should be? // habj 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One/He/'man'

If you want to refer to something in a gender-unspecific way, repeat the original noun. "The person went to the window; the person looked outside." If it's just a hypothetical (unrealized) person, then use 'he'. As in the German 'man' or english 'one'.

This article is ridiculous.

MM962 04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely free to repeat the original noun phrase, MM962. As for your claim that the article is ridiculous, feel free to argue this persuasively here. -- Hoary 04:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive encouragement. =) The article has an undertone of suggesting that there is a movement afoot — a movement to somehow enlighten English with somehow politically correct alternatives to the "old" way of doing things. Actually, I meant to suggest that "he" or "she" are both fine, but I don't understand how English usage and grammar can be so politicized as to invent new words or change the conjugation of verbs. If this article were really about just "gender-neutral pronouns" then it would simply be a list of those self-evidently gender-neutral pronouns. But somehow, describing these words requires a life story about them. That tone betrays the authors' apparent presumption that there is actual need for these pronouns, when no prescription or allowance for these pronouns exists in English — nor does common usage necessarily reflect the general popluation's need for this word, but probably more readily its gross contortion of the English language due to poor education and practice using the language. The article is based on a non-existent problem, with a non-existent solution, brought about by non-existent reasoning. Hence, this article is ridiculous! =) MM962 05:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. You seem to be writing about English. Let's consider what the article says. Here it is (stripped of links, etc.), with my comments:

The gender-specific pronouns are the personal pronouns of the third-person singular: 'he'/'him'/'himself'/'his' (for male persons or possessors), 'she'/'her'/'herself'/'hers' (for female persons or possessors), and 'it'/'itself'/'its' (for neither).

Some people would argue that 'he' and its different forms are sex-neutral. Otherwise, though, this seems unexceptionable.

The third-person plural pronouns 'they', 'them', 'themselves', 'their', and 'theirs' work equally well for either sex and are androgynous.

Seems obviously true to me.

A speaker may not know or may want to avoid specifying a person's gender. Traditionally, when one wishes to refer to a single definite person androgynously with a pronoun in the third person, the masculine pronoun is used.

"Is used" seems an overstatement. I'd say "is an option". Otherwise, though, this seems unexceptionable.

Some people have begun to challenge this tradition, however, usually by resorting to plural pronouns such as 'they', 'them' and 'their' for singular uses. This is called the singular 'they'.

I see no suggestion that this challenge is to be praised or regretted. (I dislike this bit, in that it suggests that singular they is new. It isn't.)

Other common solutions include the generic 'she', 'one', the generic 'you', circumlocutions such as 'he or she', or using 'he' and 'she' in alternate passages, and rewording sentences to avoid pronouns. (See pronoun game.)

This may be contentious if it's taken to imply that there is a problem to which solutions are needed. But to me it's clear that this instead goes back to statement that A speaker may not know or may want to avoid specifying a person's gender. Well, such speakers may see a problem, and if they do then here are they may see as solutions. Again, non-judgemental. -- Hoary 06:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] languages where verbs rather than pronouns indicate gender

Should we mention languages like Hindi, which have gender-neutral pronouns, but are not gender neutral because the verb ending has to agree with the gender? These make the problems that English has seem insignificant [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The same happens in many Slavic languages. But this article is about pronouns. If you wish to give a couple of examples from Hindi, do it in the article Gender-neutrality in languages with grammatical gender. FilipeS (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Closed word class"? There's no such thing in English

However, pronouns in English belong to a closed word class, to which no new items can normally be added.

This is simply false, and certainly not NPOV. Some of the pronouns in the table (especially Spivak and sie/hir) are in common use in the transgender and genderqueer community. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, of course there are closed word classes in English, just as there are in any other language. FilipeS (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does singlular they use singular or plural verb forms?

Looking at the "Neologisms" table, it is unclear what verb forms are usually used with singular they. The "Nominative" column uses a verb in the past tense which is the same for singular and plural subjects. The "Reflexive" column uses the subject form too, and it's verb is in the present tense. However, the example for singular they seems wrong to me:

They likes themself/themselves

I am not a linguist, but I'm pretty sure that you'd use "like" rather than "likes". The intro to singular they seems to bear this out:

"Singular" they remains morphologically and syntactically plural (it still takes plural forms of verbs).

I'll be bold and change that one example, but I think the whole "Nominative" column should have its examples changed to be in present tense so that the different verb forms (laugh versus laughs) are clear. I hesitate to do this because I wonder if any other neologisms in the chart use plural verb forms.

BlckKnght (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)