Pronouns

[Liquidsabre]

I'm an individual, damn it.

I don't like my language implying that plurality is the default condition of humanity.

Well humanity is quite numerous. Resistance is futile...

 

[Zander]

What I've been trying to communicate is that the "gender-neutral" usage of "he" is itself, inherently a sexist phenomenon. Not that it was deliberately established that way; most societies on Earth treat masculinity as normative without an explicit or conscious program to do so.

So I'm sexist but don't know it because it's lodged in my unconscious. But somehow you know what's in my mind, even though I don't. Not likely.

Not that anyone who defends it is necessarily sexist themselves; people are capable of supporting the usage for other reasons, such as a desire to preserve the traditional way of doing things. Just that the usage is itself inherently, necessarily gender-biased.

If the usage is "inherently, necessarily gender-biased" then how can someone who ascribes to that usage not be "gender-biased"? If, as you point, those who defend the use of "he" as the neuter pronoun are not necessarily sexist and may support it for other reasons, then why change the language at all? To change the thinking of those who really are sexist, perhaps?

If you want to extol feminism, I don't mind (though the mods might). Just don't use insidious methods like changing the language to promulgate your views. Languages, while not static, do have their own aesthetic and I find it very sad that some people are willing to vitiate that beauty for political ends.

 

[Thunderfoot]

The number agreement issue is a recent grammatical construction. They has been used as a way to deal with both number ambiguity and gender ambiguity (with great controversy) for a long time. Of course, a key problem is that many of our grammar rules are imposed latin rules rather than outgrowths of the germanic root language or applied usage, and tend not to come out of any real process for vetting the rules, so proscriptive grammar tends to lead to problems.

My old linguistics professor was making the case for the gender neutral back in the late 1980s. When someone told him he didn't know what he was talking about based on a high school education, his response (which was a little snotty) was "I think my Ph.D. in linguistic trumps you high school English teacher's training." The truth is, the rules on the neuter plural are a mess, have always been a mess, and always will be a mess, because they are an attempt to deal with the fact that English a largely ungendered set of nouns, except in the case of our personal pronouns, which does put a lot of weight on how they are perceived.

That said, ongoing discussion on how to use this is a healthy way to resolve issues of linguistic clarity and style, and is good for the language and literacy. And, since there is no external authority in the English language, is the only way we come to a social consensus.

I agree - let's all throw this about and maybe we'll come up with something better

 

[hexgrid]

It's not the use of "her" that makes people associate "nurse" with women. You've got it backwards. "Her" is often used because people tend to think of nurses as female. As I mentioned, earlier, the gender-baggage is attached to the subject, not to the pronoun.

But do you really think that "he" doesn't have any gender-baggage associated with it?

Personally, I've been speaking english exclusively for 30 years now, and had no idea until reading this thread that "he" could even be defined as a gender neutral pronoun. (I should add it to the "words I leaned through D&D" thread.)

 

[Umbran]

I simply don't see the big deal.

Frequently, the big deal is about gender roles and inequallity, and that is political and not a fit subject of discussion here.

However, there is another deal, which you may or may not consider big - the darned thing is imprecise. Whether it matters in the specific case of the firemen article is not relevant - the usual English construction does not allow us to easily make the distinction for the cases that do matter. That's kind of silly, as the whole point of having a pronoun is to make things easy while maintaining clarity.

This is about practical communication. When you speak or write, there's always an intended (often implicitly assumed) audience. One should choose words that'll reach the desired audience with your desired meaning. If pronoun useage is going to get in the way (whether it sticks in the craw of your audience, or has the unintended result of giving your product a gender bias you don't want it to have, or simply makes what you've written unclear) it makes sense to find different wording.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Personally, I've been speaking english exclusively for 30 years now, and had no idea until reading this thread that "he" could even be defined as a gender neutral pronoun. (I should add it to the "words I leaned through D&D" thread.)

Same here.. well, almost. I've come across that usage of 'he' many times, but only in *some* literature, and (I think.. not sure with this one) in *some* movies & TV. In Real Life (tm) though, I have never encountered it. That's right across the board too, from young to old, educated to un-, male and female. And so on.

Apparently, the use of 'singular they' and co. is encouraged (on a national level) in Australia (where I happen to live). That might be a contributive factor in my experiences, of course.

Then again, I have travelled. . . hm.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

So I'm sexist but don't know it because it's lodged in my unconscious. But somehow you know what's in my mind, even though I don't. Not likely.

I didn't say that, so I choose not to respond to the rest of your post which assumes I did.

My argument is not, and has never been, "People who support the gender-neutral he are sexist." My argument is, and has always been, "The gender-neutral he is inherently biased towards masculinity as the baseline of existence."

If you don't like the "singular they", or White Wolf's habit of deliberately using "she" instead of "he", or Wizards of the Coast's habit of using the genders of the iconics, for whatever aesthetic or traditional reasons, that's fine.

You don't have to be sexist yourself to end up supporting a sexist phenomenon. It's not sexist to prefer the "gender-neutral he" for aesthetic or traditional reasons - I would simply say that your preference has the consequence of supporting a sexist phenomenon.

If you don't think it's a sexist usage, again, that's fine, but I really think you're seriously wrong.

 

[Zander]

I didn't say that, so I choose not to respond to the rest of your post which assumes I did.

No, all of the rest of my previous post is not contingent on that argument. You seem to be using that as an excuse which leads me to suspect that you didn't address my points because you couldn't.

My argument is, and has always been, "The gender-neutral he is inherently biased towards masculinity as the baseline of existence."

Please present some evidence in support of this assertion. Note that demonstrating that some people have accepted your position, i.e. have succumbed to feminist indoctrination, is not itself any evidence in your favour. It merely demonstrates that didacticism works on those people.

If the aesthetics of the English language are to be ruined, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the gender-neutral "he" supports "a sexist phenomenon." In the meantime, it behooves you and the people in your camp not to alter the language until you have proven both that the "gender-neutral he is inherently biased towards masculinity" and that the traditions and aesthetics of the language are worth damaging.

 

[woodelf]

Does it bother anyone else how wizards deals with unknown gender pronouns? It makes it difficult for me to read their material. I suppose this could be a different situation entirely for female gamers. I don't know, I'm not one. It just throws me when they use the feminine pronouns for unknown gender players, 'cause I always learned that he/him/his was proper usage for unknown gender.

Other options I suppose are he/she or "he or she", both of which are cumbersome, and they/them/their, which is gramatically incorrect (although it does have precedent). Another option would be to just use 'it'.

I don't really mind when they use the female pronoun when the art for the character class or whatever is female, because then I can see a reason for it... but...

Well, ENWorld? What do you think, did wizards make the right choice?

My personal test? I've never heard a woman complain that 'she' was jarring, while i've heard plenty of men complain. This, to me, makes me think it's just shoe-on-the-other-foot syndrome, which, further, means that all the claims that 'he' is generic are bogus. IOW, every time 'generic' she throws you, assume that [some] women have the same reaction to 'generic' he, and then ask yourself if using he/him/his as the default pronouns is such a great idea--especially in a hobby that apparently fails to attract women in the same numbers as it does men.

And you'll find all sorts of reputable sources listing they/them/their as legitimate, grammatically-correct, third-person singular pronouns. And even more listing them as acceptable third-person singular pronouns.

That said, i think that the best solutions are (1) invent a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun--pressing they/them/their into service would qualify-- or (2) alternate, either randomly, or with some sort of pattern (WWGS books have long used female pronouns when referring to GMs and male pronouns when referring to players, frex). Of course, the downside of using any existing pronoun in this manner (and this goes for 'he', 'she', and 'they' equally, IMHO) is the confusion that can arise over when a generic person is being referenced, and when a specific person is being referenced. Good writing can avoid most of this, but not all. So, really, a new word that has no meaning other than as a third-person gender-neutral singular pronoun would really be the best way to go. But probably not going to happen.

Oh, and on generic-she as a pronoun: in some of my writing, i use it exclusively. Had one person nearly throw the book down in disgust, and give me one heck of a tongue-lashing over that. But once he got over the initial shock, it seems to have receded into the background. He's since become the game's biggest fan. So i think there's reason to believe that 'she' could be thoroughly genericized in discourse, at least to the degree that 'he' has been, if we wanted it to be--mind you, i'm not yet convinced that 'he' is anywhere near as free of gender connotations as most supporters claim.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think this discussion is about dead.

Please present some evidence in support of this assertion.

We have, nurses for example.

If the aesthetics of the English language are to be ruined,

Asymmetrical things are hard to make aesthetic; beauty in the mind of a bilateral human tends to be in terms of bilateral symmetry.

the onus is on you to demonstrate that the gender-neutral "he" supports "a sexist phenomenon."

To whom? They have demonstrated it to the satistfaction of millions; there's no way they can convince everyone.

You stepped up the rhetoric level in this post a lot. If this thread has any chance of continuing, I think dropping accusations of indoctrination, among others, would help.