I recently ran into a discussion on another forum that involved the use of gender neutral pronouns. Here's the basic thread ...
Which of these constructions is grammatically correct?
1. If your child wants to find the best school for a specific major, he should talk to a counselor. (uses the historically gender-neutral "he")
2. If your child wants to find the best school for a specific major, he or she should talk to a counselor. (fine for single use, can be awkward if repeated)
3. If your child wants to find the best school for a specific major, he/she or s/he should talk to a counselor. (concise variations of #2)
4. If your children want to find the best school for a specific major, they should talk to a counselor. (re-written to guarantee noun-pronoun agreement)
5. If your child wants to find the best school for a specific major, they should talk to a counselor. (the "controversial" gender-neutral "they")
Well, I've been using #5 for a long time, and occasional #4 (though that's not always possible in context). My editors never flagged that construction. I think #1 is seriously outdated, and non-intentionally sexist. I have no issues with "mankind" as being gender-neutral, as the corpus of that use is extensive.
#2 and #3 are both awkward, imho, especially if they need to be used more than once in the same sentence or paragraph.
A search for "singular they" yields 116,000 hits. A search for "gender neutral they" scores 13,500 hits. Apparently, the debate is ongoing. Then I found this at the Oxford Dictionaries, and learned that although the usage started in England, it's spreading and becoming more acceptable in US English. Being more of a descriptionist, I was pleased to see my preferred solution has a lot of support. But there's still a lot of hard-line holdout prescriptionists who disagree.
I'd be interested to hear what other forum members think about this. I know what Grant (ever the descriptionist) would say.
They as indefinite pronoun is common enough, as when the antecedent is someone, a person, whoever, etc . But does 'your child' above really fit that usage ? It seems kind of cold to refer to an individual as they. Though there is a degree generalization in 'your child,' it still seems too specific for they. In any case I doubt very much that there are many instances in literatures where they stands for a specific ( or half specific like so) person.
Robert said: I doubt very much that there are many instances in literatures where they stands for a specific (or half specific like so) person.
Ah, but there are. At least in literature from earlier times. This is from the Oxford Dictionaries I cited in my previous post.
Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.
My point was that, even though I was taught to avoid that usage, I find I have gravitated toward it over the years. It's just a simpler way to express an idea than using the awkward "he or she" "he/she" "s/he" constructs when the gender is unknown.
It does seem kind of "cold" and "detached" to refer to an individual in that manner. Obviously you're on the prescriptivist side of this debate, and that's the kind of feedback I was looking for, thank you. I started this thread because I wanted to hear how fellow logophiles felt about this "singular they" trend. Simply declaring it ungrammatical is falling back on the rules without providing insights into the reasoning.
Correction: I previously used the terms "prescriptionist" and "descriptionist" instead of the proper "prescriptivist" and "descriptivist." My apologies.
I think it has become quite accepted. I take no issue with it even with "your child" when the gender of that child is unknown to the speaker. It sounds perfectly fine. If the speaker knows the gender, then I might find it jarring.
"At your child's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
* "At your daughter's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
Just because it isn't fully accepted, I would try to edit it out of formal writing by rephrasing. I'm not fond of "he or she" except in the the most occasional use and in the simplest of constructions.
For those who claim it is ungrammatical, refer them to "you" used as a singular. Unless they speak King James's English and use "thou" and "thee" when speaking to one person, they should admit the possibility of the plural taking on the role of the singular, and that, in fact, it could go from being ungrammatical to perfectly grammatical in fairly short order.
Glenn said
"At your child's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
* "At your daughter's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
My eighth-grade english teacher was a spinster, and she learned me right.
It's "At yuour child's last brthday, did he enjoy tyhe day?" and "At your daughter's last birthday, did she enjoy the day?" or my knuckles get severely rapped with a ruler. No, not a nun. a Presbyterian.
In the English language, the feminine specifies a female person, while the masculine is indefinite. For instance, an actress is always female, but an actor may be either male or female, and a stewardess isd always female, but a steward may be male or female. It even works for proper nouns. You won't find any guys named Michelle, but Michael may be male or female.
At one time, Claire was the feminine form of Clair and Clare was indefinite, but on the last couple of decades, people asl me why I have the female middle name. I tell them I was named for my uncle Clair, who was a marine drill sargeant. Not at all true; Clair was his middle name, and he was a machinist's mate on a Navy destroyer in WWII, but my story is effective in shotting them up....