Pronouns

[the Jester]

Let's hope the public doesn't buy into the concept that the word "women" is offensive, too, or we'll start seeing "women/womyn" wars in mainstream writing, too... :\

Slight tangent: I firmly believe we would all be well-served by switching the definition of "man" and "human" around. That way, we would all (male or female) be men, with some humen and some women. The base word- "man"- should be modified to make male and female terms, rather than the male term being modified to make female and neutral terms.

I'm fairly certain that PJ here will disagree with me, along with many others, but I'm okay with that.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I'm trying to see how this is not a political discussion.

When one has an issue with this type of problem, one's proper recourse is most likely to choose an appropriate forum of one's choosing. This, however, is not likely to be an appropriate forum in which one should properly choose to deal with this situation.

Although I cannot see this discussion going anywhere positive, I'm going to leave it open for a short time to see if it can somehow manage to avoid further discussion of "political correctness" or other topics one should not bring here.

 

[Psion]

Although I am not too fond of arbitrarily assigning genders to things, using "they" makes me wince as well. I think the solutions of making a gendered iconic character makes the assignment seem less arbitrary, and therefore works for me. So yeah, I think they took a good, creative approach.

 

[Pielorinho]

For me, it's not about politics: it's about precision of meaning.

Is the following sentence awkward? (Leave aside your feelings about its contents for a moment)

Although Madonna, George Michaels, and Tiffany were all lousy artists, each had his own fan club during the 1980s.

That sentence sounds terrible to me: "his" in it refers to Madonna and Tiffany. But it follows the prescriptive rule faithfully. In doing so, it suggests that when we read "his," we implicitly believe that the pronoun refers to a male. If you do not want folks to have this implicit belief, then it behooves you to rephrase your sentence.

All about accuracy of meaning.

Incidentally, "female" as a noun is perfectly acceptable.

Daniel

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Is the following sentence awkward? (Leave aside your feelings about its contents for a moment)

Although Madonna, George Michaels, and Tiffany were all lousy artists, each had his own fan club during the 1980s.

That sentence sounds terrible to me...

Yeah, I'd probably rephrase that one to avoid using "his." I don't find that "his" has that problem when the subject is truly ambiguous and gender-neutral, but the use of the specific people right there in the sentence muddies the context and pulls "his" towards a gender-specific meaning.

 

[Wayside]

Although Madonna, George Michaels, and Tiffany were all lousy artists, each had his own fan club during the 1980s.

That sentence sounds terrible to me: "his" in it refers to Madonna and Tiffany. But it follows the prescriptive rule faithfully.

I believe there's an exception to the prohibition against they/them/their in the singular after 'each,' 'n/either,' 'every' and so on. If you fleshed the sentence out, it would be "each [of them] had," for example.


There's no option for my vote, which is to use the second person, not the third. PHB p.55 in 2nd person:

As a wizard you depend on intensive study to create your magic. You examine musty old tomes, debate magical theory with your peers, and practice minor magics whenever you can. For you, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art.

Adventures: You conduct your adventures with caution and forethought. When prepared, you can use your spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, you are vulnerable.

Etc.​

It's an RPG, after all. Why not draw the reader into character from the ground up?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Although I cannot see this discussion going anywhere positive, I'm going to leave it open for a short time to see if it can somehow manage to avoid further discussion of "political correctness" or other topics one should not bring here.

Unfortunately the OP "brought" those topics with the way he introduced the question and his constant assertions that "he" is gender neutral. :\ If it is political to argue that assertion, but not to make it in the first place, the rules are favoring one side of a political argument.

However, in respect for your mod-voice, I will accept that the OP has won by default simply by asserting "loudly" enough that his stance is correct and traditional grammar rather than political.

 

[hexgrid]

There's no option for my vote, which is to use the second person, not the third.

I think it's sort of creepy how this blurs the distinction between the player and the character, though. I am most definitely not a wizard, and will not be casting any spells.

I don't like any of the standard solutions to this problem. If "he" is bad for being gender specific, then "she" isn't any better, and I find the grammatical issues with "they" to be very distracting.

As was suggested earlier, the only real solution would be to add more words to the english language.

 

[king_ghidorah]

It is when I write; I use he, his, and him in their long-established inclusive sense.


That's one of the more annoying options, IMO, because I see "their" being used as a singular pronoun. Using "her" as a generic pronoun can be distracting, but at least it's the correct number (i.e. singluar). Using "their" for a singular pronoun (e.g. "a fighter's best friend is their sword") is not only distracting because it's non-standard, but also because it's grammatically incorrect and outright poor English.

Except for the fact that it was for many decades established as standard English, and considered correct until grammars of the last century focused on its use. The big change is that while once used for vague references toward number ("nobody in their right mind would use a singular 'they'"), the singular plural is now being used to count toward a broader reference of generic statements.

In other words, it isn't exactly true that this is a new construct with no precedent of grammatical acceptance. It's more of a controversial re-application of a previously abandoned construction....

 

[lukelightning]

I don't mind the way Wizards does it; it's a simple solution that doesn't sound gramatically akward (though I believe there isn't anything deeply sexist about using male pronouns, and even if it is significantly sexist there are much more important issues to fight).

Saying he/she him/her or s/he, etc. is the worst option. It shifts the focus of the sentance onto the pronouns and is cumbersome.