It never ceases to amaze me the amount to which people are prepared to display their indignation. I don't recall the article mentioned any form of punishment for anybody choosing not to comply. By all means, continue to use your chosen pronouns regardless of the subjects wishes or expressed desire. All this fuss about the integrity of the English language which is not being stolen or replaced incidentally. There is always the option of being considerate to the individuals within the conversation.
We ought to speak of and with others as though we can at least see they are Human beings.
I think it might be very difficult for children to understand how or why any Human Beings might be concerned so much about whether people are male or female.
I think it might be very difficult for children to understand how or why any Human Beings might be concerned so much about whether people are male or female.
"It" is also "non-binary."
1
Yes, It certainly are.
1
This is absolutely mind boggling. First of all, the words "they" and "them" refer to more than one individual. Any editor should immediately correct that usage if directed towards one person, even one for a 6th grade newsletter. Then...a 1000 word apology for referring to someone as "she?" Where are we living, planet Bizarro?
7
People who claim pronoun usage to be fixed are misinformed. Our language is a living example: some centuries back, "you" was only used in an objective plural sense. "You" eventually replaced "thee" (nominative singular), "thou" (objective singular), and "ye" (nominative plural).
Nonstandard usage might sound awkward at first, but language (and meaning) evolves over time. And in a broader sense, why does anyone care if someone prefers to opt out gender identifier?
Nonstandard usage might sound awkward at first, but language (and meaning) evolves over time. And in a broader sense, why does anyone care if someone prefers to opt out gender identifier?
2
If you want to know why liberals are universally mocked I would cite this article. We are at the point where Facebook expanded its possible designation of gender to 71 choices. We can all understand the need to not discriminate & treat others with dignity & respect, but this list is sheer madness. The two "genders" that actually refer to one's biological sex at birth, woman and man, are the only two can be proven. However progressive fanatics want to force society to believe that "gender" is solely based on feelings. Furthermore, nobody has the right to question one's perceived sense of gender. Since no proof is needed then the request to be "addressed with their preferred pronoun" must be honored. Progressives are exploiting language deception. When does anyone get the "right" to define 71 "genders" & impose it on a society at large let alone the NYT?
If psychosis is broadly defined as involving a "loss of contact with reality," then surely recognizing 71"genders" without any evidence is a mental disorder? Why are we forcing this disconnected view from biology of human sexuality on our children and in schools? This unsound thinking has managed to decouple the language of human sexuality from the physical world. To accept this world view at will is to risk the human ability to function and interact with some degree of normality. It's against common sense and reason. And this is why the acceptance of "gender fluidity" at will must be rejected. It paves the road to insanity.
If psychosis is broadly defined as involving a "loss of contact with reality," then surely recognizing 71"genders" without any evidence is a mental disorder? Why are we forcing this disconnected view from biology of human sexuality on our children and in schools? This unsound thinking has managed to decouple the language of human sexuality from the physical world. To accept this world view at will is to risk the human ability to function and interact with some degree of normality. It's against common sense and reason. And this is why the acceptance of "gender fluidity" at will must be rejected. It paves the road to insanity.
11
How is this a 'liberal' issue? It's a human issue which has been squelched for all history.
3
Gender neutral pronouns are not commonly used in the English language. Therefore, consider the link below.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/04/25/178788893/yo-said-what
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/04/25/178788893/yo-said-what
I believe that one should be able to use a singular, gender-neutral pronoun if they wish to do so.
3
The Onion, right?
7
One thousand words when they use her for a woman. But they make a mistake about fake Russia news it is 10 words and even then only dances around it
3
"They is going to the theater" ... Um ... that's not how this works.
This article is stunningly out of touch and Liz Spayd shows no indication that they ever contacted any organization such as GLAAD or the The National Center for Transgender Equality for feedback. Had they done so, they might have learned that "they" works as a pronoun with a singular antecedent the same way whether that antecedent refers to a specific known person (as I'm using it here) or an unspecified person ("Someone left their keys in the break room."), and there's really little confusion when you use that set of pronouns in this manner.
This article is stunningly out of touch and Liz Spayd shows no indication that they ever contacted any organization such as GLAAD or the The National Center for Transgender Equality for feedback. Had they done so, they might have learned that "they" works as a pronoun with a singular antecedent the same way whether that antecedent refers to a specific known person (as I'm using it here) or an unspecified person ("Someone left their keys in the break room."), and there's really little confusion when you use that set of pronouns in this manner.
3
I am stunned by the insensitivity and pedantry of both the Times' editors and commenters. Language changes. It's not fixed. We use gay to mean people with a homosexual orientation, although such a usage would have been unthinkable before the 1960s. Insisting on the use of he/she pronouns imposes the journalist's viewpoint rather than respecting that of the subject, which is the antithesis of the objectivity I assume the Times strives for. They is an imperfect gender-neutral pronoun, but it is what many gender non-conforming individuals use. A competent journalist should be able to easily explain to readers that the subject uses the pronoun they and move on, trusting that the Times' readers are capable of basic reading comprehension.
2
'We use gay to mean people with a homosexual orientation, although such a usage would have been unthinkable before the 1960s.'
Not so. "Gay" as a term for "homosexual" dates back to the first half of the 20th C., if not earlier - at least among those 'in the life' so to speak.
To say that language evolves is not the same as Humpty Dumpty's exchange with Alice:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
There's glory for you!
Not so. "Gay" as a term for "homosexual" dates back to the first half of the 20th C., if not earlier - at least among those 'in the life' so to speak.
To say that language evolves is not the same as Humpty Dumpty's exchange with Alice:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
There's glory for you!
Language may change but the rules of grammar among most rational adults is fixed. This is political correctness taken the nth degree. Please get a grip on reality... this is overkill. Pronouns are not things that a person can own and distribute like business cards. Our steadfast belief in our own importance has brought us finally to this point, where we think we can not only reject the laws of biology and the English language, but insist that everything within earshot plays along. You don’t get your own “preferred” pronouns for the same reason that you don’t get your own preferred prepositions. These aren’t subjective terms. These are classes of words that exist to convey factual information, not feelings. Words have meanings. If you were to search for the word “he” in the dictionary, you would find that it is, by definition, a pronoun used to refer to a male human or animal. If you’re a male human or animal, that’s your pronoun. Or I should say, that’s the pronoun that applies to you. You don’t own it. You can’t change it or reject it or outlaw it any more than you can change, reject, or outlaw gravity. It is what it is, you are what you are, and words mean what they mean. Your feelings do not come into play here at all. They have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the meanings of things. We as a society have to stop this madness. It’s delusional. It’s childish. It’s pretentious. And it’s completely out of control. No one is buying into this anymore.
5
It is stunning that educated speakers of English are even having this conversation at all. I know a personhole cover that I can remove in order to reveal the fetid chasm into which I might stash all of this bombastic, self-adulatory bloviation.
If the very talented actress [sic] Asia Kate Dillon does not want someone to use the female pronoun when referring to any actions on the part of the very talented actress [sic] Asia Kate Dillon, then the very talented actress [sic] Asia Kate Dillon should be prepared for spare coverage in most of the world's media.
When a small group of people force their will upon a larger group of people among whom they have, apparently, dwelt in harmony, it is called tyranny. Asia Kate Dillon cannot claim "damages" when a publication does not use "they" in an article related to the very talented actress Asia Kate Dillon any more than a muslim in Dearborn, Michigan can claim "damages" because a pepperoni pizza they ordered did not contain "halal" pork.
If the very talented actress [sic] Asia Kate Dillon does not want someone to use the female pronoun when referring to any actions on the part of the very talented actress [sic] Asia Kate Dillon, then the very talented actress [sic] Asia Kate Dillon should be prepared for spare coverage in most of the world's media.
When a small group of people force their will upon a larger group of people among whom they have, apparently, dwelt in harmony, it is called tyranny. Asia Kate Dillon cannot claim "damages" when a publication does not use "they" in an article related to the very talented actress Asia Kate Dillon any more than a muslim in Dearborn, Michigan can claim "damages" because a pepperoni pizza they ordered did not contain "halal" pork.
10
There is a moral or ethical dimension at play when one refers to people generally with a singular gendered pronoun.
At least, I have long thought so. It bothered me decades ago as a teenager and young man. I asked women I knew what they thought and felt about it. Almost always they said they knew what was intended and didn't think much about it. Still, it bothered me. I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it if I were a woman.
When it seemed we were all participating in liberating women from outdated and unfair arrangements, before some managed to turn all that into the gender wars, I thought we would naturally alter grammar and choose the plural as necessary to avoid the moral or ethical problem. To my astonishment that did not happen.
The ways in which the gender wars involved soft pedaling or low rating the worth of men and the value or difficulty of the roles they played is another topic.
An easy willingness to accede to the wishes of people for whom gender is not binary by using a plural pronoun is one thing. But juxtapose that with the unwillingness to do so more generally, while "she" slowly supplants "he" as an acceptable way to refer to people generally, and, well, y'all look bad.
At least, I have long thought so. It bothered me decades ago as a teenager and young man. I asked women I knew what they thought and felt about it. Almost always they said they knew what was intended and didn't think much about it. Still, it bothered me. I was pretty sure I wouldn't like it if I were a woman.
When it seemed we were all participating in liberating women from outdated and unfair arrangements, before some managed to turn all that into the gender wars, I thought we would naturally alter grammar and choose the plural as necessary to avoid the moral or ethical problem. To my astonishment that did not happen.
The ways in which the gender wars involved soft pedaling or low rating the worth of men and the value or difficulty of the roles they played is another topic.
An easy willingness to accede to the wishes of people for whom gender is not binary by using a plural pronoun is one thing. But juxtapose that with the unwillingness to do so more generally, while "she" slowly supplants "he" as an acceptable way to refer to people generally, and, well, y'all look bad.
2
“There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend.” (Comedy of Errors, Act 4, Scene 3)
--Shakespeare, using the singular "they"
--Shakespeare, using the singular "they"
7
Well, it IS a 'comedy of errors,' after all ....
3
Oh lord, what a kerfluffle over what should be nothing .. and isn't.
I have a transgender kid, and have been through all of this, and there seems to be no way out, except to remove all gender from the English language ... not going to happen any time soon.
The singular "they" is exceedingly ambiguous and annoying. The xe/(xem or xer)/xem ... is not commonly used and has a host of variants ... see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Transgender_pronouns
Must one look up every individual before meeting or talking to them to find out what their preferred pronoun is ... to avoid offense? All wear little lapel tags? Shall we all engage in the battle of just which non-binary system of identification is "right?"
And of course this leads to "Use the person’s name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible." Yuck. So Dillon bought Dillon's sibling a book. Go on for a paragraph that way.
I love my kid, but Trans people need to be less precious and whiney than this.
I have a transgender kid, and have been through all of this, and there seems to be no way out, except to remove all gender from the English language ... not going to happen any time soon.
The singular "they" is exceedingly ambiguous and annoying. The xe/(xem or xer)/xem ... is not commonly used and has a host of variants ... see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Transgender_pronouns
Must one look up every individual before meeting or talking to them to find out what their preferred pronoun is ... to avoid offense? All wear little lapel tags? Shall we all engage in the battle of just which non-binary system of identification is "right?"
And of course this leads to "Use the person’s name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible." Yuck. So Dillon bought Dillon's sibling a book. Go on for a paragraph that way.
I love my kid, but Trans people need to be less precious and whiney than this.
22
I didn't realize that it was such a slur to be referred to as "she" or identified as a "woman." Should we add the "s" word and the "w" word to the "n" word?
How awful to refer to someone who is biologically female as "she."
Do "gender advocates" believe that women should not participate in traditional "male" roles or conduct?
Why can't we just accept that the pronouns identify a person's biological sex (not their role in life) and that any individual, regardless of biological sex, has a right to do/dress/act/work/love, etc., however that person would like?
The irony here is that transgender/non-binary gender position reinforces defined gender roles.
How awful to refer to someone who is biologically female as "she."
Do "gender advocates" believe that women should not participate in traditional "male" roles or conduct?
Why can't we just accept that the pronouns identify a person's biological sex (not their role in life) and that any individual, regardless of biological sex, has a right to do/dress/act/work/love, etc., however that person would like?
The irony here is that transgender/non-binary gender position reinforces defined gender roles.
12
The crow sings in Disney’s Dumbo, “I will have seen everything when I see an elephant fly.”
Forget flying elephants. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . .
Never mind.
Forget flying elephants. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . .
Never mind.
2
If culture is outpacing language, there must be some mechanism for language to catch up. Must we accept the fact that there are no gender neutral third person singular pronouns when they are needed, and not just in cases of the sexual ambiguity of a particular person. For most practical purposes, women and men are peers. Any third person reference to a non specific person must be rendered in the altogether ugly "she or he", "him or her". The substitution of "they" or "them". seems not only ugly but incredibly confusing to a reader/listener who is unaware of the practice. "The soloist for tonight is Hjfiue Ohobherkpp, they will be arriving shortly to perform with their Stradivarius."
Maybe we need an international commission, with representatives from all English speaking countries, to create these pronouns. An international write-in contest, in which all can submit suggestions, might be just what we need for a diversion from health care, Comey, and Russia.
Or maybe we should just ask Elon Musk to come up with the pronouns and be done with it.
Maybe we need an international commission, with representatives from all English speaking countries, to create these pronouns. An international write-in contest, in which all can submit suggestions, might be just what we need for a diversion from health care, Comey, and Russia.
Or maybe we should just ask Elon Musk to come up with the pronouns and be done with it.
1
People should be referred to how they wish, but "they" and "their" are already spoken for. They are plural pronouns. A new term that should be adopted; "it" strikes me as disrespectful (and it likewise is already taken). It happened with "Ms.," with of course backlash from those who did not want to be inconvenienced or couldn't fathom why a woman wouldn't want her marital status to be automatically declared.
4
Growing up and even upon joining newspapers as a journalist, I always thought Mrs. was for adult women, miss for teens, and Ms. for old ladies. I don't think the history (or function) of the terms was ever taught to me. Perhaps that's why I took photos and stuck to writing only captions.
I am curious as to where you grew up. Adult women were assumed to be married and referred to as Mrs. and old ladies were not considered adults, just "old"? What was the determining transition point for an adult woman to no longer be considered an adult, but an "old lady"? Chuckle of the day for me.
Using "they" or "them" may, in the future be considered insulting to the person. As in, "I wish they would come to work on time." Instead of referring to an individual with an on-time problem, the phrase could be taken to refer to the whole transgender community. What we need is another word, like "shim", or "hishe"
This is sheer stupidity at best. You cannot be "they" if you're a single person unless the English language decides to change the meaning of "they". Why do so few intentionally try to create chaos and the media seems to follow along.
Somewhat similar is the Times insistence on using the word "undocumented" rather than illegal. This may be a surprise to some but words do have meaning. You can't just substitute whatever you want without creating confusion. Now if you happen to believe illegals should be allowed to stay that's fine and dandy. But surprise, surprise they are still illegal until they're legal. Undocumented fails to tell the whole story.
I have zero against transgenders and they're entitled to their rights like anyone else. However, if you have a female body, or a male body society is going to call you a female or a male. Thinking you're not the sex you were born with doesn't change your sex.
"They"... such total absurdity!
Somewhat similar is the Times insistence on using the word "undocumented" rather than illegal. This may be a surprise to some but words do have meaning. You can't just substitute whatever you want without creating confusion. Now if you happen to believe illegals should be allowed to stay that's fine and dandy. But surprise, surprise they are still illegal until they're legal. Undocumented fails to tell the whole story.
I have zero against transgenders and they're entitled to their rights like anyone else. However, if you have a female body, or a male body society is going to call you a female or a male. Thinking you're not the sex you were born with doesn't change your sex.
"They"... such total absurdity!
10
I believe "they" accurately reflects the schizo-confused mentality of those who insist on the pronoun having applicability to an individual, but I see no reason the rest of us need to share the madness. And I don't see it as insulting. If I call the Sun "the Moon," that shouldn't obligate anyone else to adopt my preferred nomenclature. What makes the gender-undecided grammarians?
8
"They is coming by for lunch", I think the Ebonics movement beat they to the punch.
7
Why not invent new pronouns? Hes and hir might work. Hes is coming to dinner, and I really like hir.
2
Codify a completely new word (not they/them etc) and until such time, use the words matching the chromosome pair of the individual.
4
Since race and gender are both social constructs, why does the Times seem to believe that people can pick their gender but not their race? Surely Rachel Dolezal, who had a black husband and a black son, has had to deal with racism as much as Caitlyn Jenner has had to deal with gender discrimination. Why deride Dolezal's choice but honor Jenner's?
6
Because there's not an awful lot of logical thought process going on behind these choices. The palm goes to those who scream the loudest and toss around the most intimidating rhetoric. That has tended, as always, to go to the young (and the perpetually adolescent), who have jumped on multiple bandwagons in the Social Justice Wars, without noticing they aren't necessarily all heading in the same direction, and may even collide. Rather than think through the contradictions honestly, they simply solve the issue by screaming 'bigot!' at anyone who points this out.
Not only is race a social construct, it is changeable - ask generations of light-skinned blacks who 'passed'.
Not only is race a social construct, it is changeable - ask generations of light-skinned blacks who 'passed'.
2
"They" is used all the time as a singular pronoun, as a substitute for - unfortunately, in my opinion.
When language gives in to the "politically correct" language becomes the tool of the political hegemonist.
Sorry. Not buy any of this.
Sorry. Not buy any of this.
8
"That alone is enough to quell the possibility that the subject of a story might actually be identified by the pronoun they prefer." Higher in the piece, we are treated to the lovely usage "they is." So shouldn't we be reading "they prefers" in this instance? Not that I would recommend it. By my lights, agreement of subject and verb is still a standard worth defending.
3
There was a period when Ms. was invented and adopted to avoid the sexist practice of identifying the marital status only of women. They, them, etc. already have meaning and sentences using them as singular pronouns are awkward. We need to invent and adopt new, gender-neutral, singular pronouns.
1
Didn't The Addams Family lay this to rest a half century ago?
The correct pronoun is: "Itt"
The correct pronoun is: "Itt"
2
Is the article a general informational piece, written without consultation with the subject; or is it a "puff piece", written based on interviews with the subject, etc.? If there are personal interviews involved, why would an author want to antagonize his/her subject?
Ideally, the gender-neutral community should somehow arrive at an agreed third set of pronouns. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're stuck with either the pronoun the subject prefers, or a potentially awkward work-around.
Ideally, the gender-neutral community should somehow arrive at an agreed third set of pronouns. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're stuck with either the pronoun the subject prefers, or a potentially awkward work-around.
Spare us from this absurd anguish over the mangling of the simplest rules in English language. I had to look up "nonbinary identity" and choked on such a diluting of the language. If one is neither he nor she (or him nor her), then "they" should be "it." And since when is "they" considered singular in contemporary English? One only has to Wiki "they's" entry to suffer the destruction of coherency. "They" is nonsense for a person masquerading as "sexless."
10
Hesh. Hisher. Himmer.
Just a suggestion.
Just a suggestion.
Find a unique pronoun that is not a ubiquitous plural one. Xe is fine, but don't pick one that leads to confusion and sounds grating to the vast majority of English-speakers.
Xe is also not actually a word, and has no meaning to most English speakers. I'll go with she or he, which make sense to me and reflect reality. The reality is, Kate Dillon is female, so I'd refer to her as "she".
3
"Society’s fast-evolving views of gender identity seem at the moment to be outpacing the rules of grammarians" This is the contemporary version of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin." Get over it. There are real problems in the universe.
14
What's wrong with "it?" It's both gender neural and singular.
14
"It" refers to things, not people.
It is also demeaning to those for whom micro-aggressions are a way of life.
We wouldn't want to hurt their fellings, now, would we.
We wouldn't want to hurt their fellings, now, would we.
1
The problem with 'it' is that English usage, including the NYT, has long reserved the pronouns 'he' and 'she' for the species H. sapiens, while referring to members of other species as 'it'. This makes it much easier to abuse them, rather in the same way that the Nazis found it easier to kill people who had been reduced to numbers. Times style does make an exception for named animals, e.g., a bull on a feedlot who does not escape being reduced to steak remains an 'it', but if it manages to escape, get rescued and taken to a sanctuary, and become a cute item in the NY Metro section, the steer becomes a 'he'.
Ironically, while English speakers resist the objectification supposedly implicit in 'it' as 3d person singular, other languages such as Spanish and French not only don't distinguish but have gendered nouns for inanimate objects. A car is el coche, masculine, but a bicycle is la bicycleta, feminine. And a horse is el caballo.
Ironically, while English speakers resist the objectification supposedly implicit in 'it' as 3d person singular, other languages such as Spanish and French not only don't distinguish but have gendered nouns for inanimate objects. A car is el coche, masculine, but a bicycle is la bicycleta, feminine. And a horse is el caballo.
1
I am astonished at the arrogance of the Times (and many commenters). Why would you not respect the self-identification of the person you're referencing? If you feel a need to parenthetically explain a singular plural pronoun to educate your readers, fine. But to impose your preferred identification is just plain wrong. Would you change their quotes to suit your agenda, too?
11
The problem here is that a legitimate distinction is being blurred in the name of political correctness, and that is the distinction between sex and gender.
Your gender is masculine, feminine, neuter, fluid, etc. It is not the same as your sex, which is male, female, neuter or intersex, and which is a biological fact. Nor is it the same as your sexual orientation.
So-called sex change surgery does not produce a female. It produces a mutilated male who needs hormone treatments to continue producing the superficial attributes ('born this way', indeed).
On the whole I don't care if you call yourself Mr., Ms., or Serene Excellency Misty Malarkey Ying Yang. And if a 'transgender woman' wants to affect the stereotypical social attributes of a female, fine. He can change his *gender*. I've changed mine several times over the past 50 years. But simply screaming 'bigot' at anyone who begs to differ, or collapsing on your fainting couch crying 'I'm so offended!' does not change your *sex*.
(Aside to Yee Ping: Damned if I'm going to Google everyone just to see what his-her-its-their preferred pronoun may be.)
Your gender is masculine, feminine, neuter, fluid, etc. It is not the same as your sex, which is male, female, neuter or intersex, and which is a biological fact. Nor is it the same as your sexual orientation.
So-called sex change surgery does not produce a female. It produces a mutilated male who needs hormone treatments to continue producing the superficial attributes ('born this way', indeed).
On the whole I don't care if you call yourself Mr., Ms., or Serene Excellency Misty Malarkey Ying Yang. And if a 'transgender woman' wants to affect the stereotypical social attributes of a female, fine. He can change his *gender*. I've changed mine several times over the past 50 years. But simply screaming 'bigot' at anyone who begs to differ, or collapsing on your fainting couch crying 'I'm so offended!' does not change your *sex*.
(Aside to Yee Ping: Damned if I'm going to Google everyone just to see what his-her-its-their preferred pronoun may be.)
2
Arrogance is insisting that you are entitled to dictate to the rest of the world what "he" or "she" or "they" means and change those definitions to suit your fancy. Arrogance is insisting that everyone else engage in a charade because you are unhappy that you were born biologically male or female.
3
First of all, the Times does (or at least has) changed quotes to correct grammar where the literal quote might make the person quoted appear to be a moron.
Second, without getting into the loaded question of sexual identification, there are objective measures of sex -- oh, maybe not -- since surgeons can change a person's appearance.
So perhaps be need an androgynous term like Ms.
Second, without getting into the loaded question of sexual identification, there are objective measures of sex -- oh, maybe not -- since surgeons can change a person's appearance.
So perhaps be need an androgynous term like Ms.
1
The awkwardness of "he or she," "he/she," etc. has given rise to the widespread use of "they" or "them" as singular pronouns, especially by the younger generations. A sentence like "Anybody who drives while intoxicated should have their license suspended" would hardly cause a raised eyebrow among most Americans today.
Language use should be seen as a living organism that adapts to its environment. In this age of increasing demographic variety, pronoun usage is doing exactly that. Majority vote by the US public decrees that using "they" (or "them," "their," etc.) as a singular pronoun is now quite acceptable in many if not most circumstances.
Language use should be seen as a living organism that adapts to its environment. In this age of increasing demographic variety, pronoun usage is doing exactly that. Majority vote by the US public decrees that using "they" (or "them," "their," etc.) as a singular pronoun is now quite acceptable in many if not most circumstances.
4
Emmanuel Goldstein says,"A sentence like "Anybody who drives while intoxicated should have their license suspended" would hardly cause a raised eyebrow among most Americans today."
And what does that say about most Americans?
And what does that say about most Americans?
I just call everyone 'he-she-it-they' now. Saves time for when someone decides his-her-its-their actual identity is plural, not individual. 'It' is a good option for when someone decides he-she-it-they are actually born in the wrong species, and is-are a budgerigar.
Sheesh. I wish my biggest problem was that someone called me 'he' instead of 'she' or 'it'. (Sex female, gender fluid.) Just one more damn thing to beat you over the head with.
Sheesh. I wish my biggest problem was that someone called me 'he' instead of 'she' or 'it'. (Sex female, gender fluid.) Just one more damn thing to beat you over the head with.
4
Or maybe. ACW, we should introduce that all-inclusive pronoun of "hesheitstheir" and insist on its usage in all civil...or uncivil...discourse.
Everyone can be equally pleased or equally offended that way.
I am sure that someone would complain about the order of the politically incorrect mega-pronoun, at which we could make it "theiritshehe based on the number of people what each element actually covers.
Everyone can be equally pleased or equally offended that way.
I am sure that someone would complain about the order of the politically incorrect mega-pronoun, at which we could make it "theiritshehe based on the number of people what each element actually covers.
1
Wouldn't she-he-it-they make more sense?
Sorry, but until evolution brings us more than two actual/chromosomal genders, we are stuck with the ones we have. We can be sensitive to the transgendered without butchering the English language. The media should always respect someone's personal identity as much as possible, but has a responsibility to the general public.
16
There are rare individuals who do not have just two sex chromosomes: XX or XY. There is a list of the various conditions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders
These are all functionally medical disorders, varying in degree of abnormality/disability, but the individuals appear sexually normal.
Distinct from this are developmental/hormonal abnormalities that result in non-normal genitalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders
These are all functionally medical disorders, varying in degree of abnormality/disability, but the individuals appear sexually normal.
Distinct from this are developmental/hormonal abnormalities that result in non-normal genitalia.
4
"until evolution brings us more than two actual/chromosomal genders"
Behold, that time is now, and indeed has been upon use since the dawn of humanity. Although the vast majority of humans have throughout history been aligned according to the XX=woman=female; XY=man=male norm, this has never been the entire picture, whether at the level of chromosomes and development or at the level of language and culture. Intersex people have existed for all of human history and prehistory and non-binary gender categories have existed in human cultures throughout human history. The English language, however, has evolved in a strictly binary culture and is not sufficient to respectfully denote such people and their identities without modification. Minor surgery is sufficient to the task; no need for butchery.
Behold, that time is now, and indeed has been upon use since the dawn of humanity. Although the vast majority of humans have throughout history been aligned according to the XX=woman=female; XY=man=male norm, this has never been the entire picture, whether at the level of chromosomes and development or at the level of language and culture. Intersex people have existed for all of human history and prehistory and non-binary gender categories have existed in human cultures throughout human history. The English language, however, has evolved in a strictly binary culture and is not sufficient to respectfully denote such people and their identities without modification. Minor surgery is sufficient to the task; no need for butchery.
1
So, some (you?) are suggesting we adjust rules of grammar to accommodate functional medical disorders? Really?
Ms. Spayd, I believe you need to read that article I saw a few days back on this website about how to avoid apologizing too frequently.
Using "she" wasn't a misstep; it was correct English.
Using "she" wasn't a misstep; it was correct English.
13
"They" simply does not work, when the reference is to one person only. "They" creates confusion precisely when the goal is greater clarity. Perhaps "it," or there needs to be a new suggestion?
Sadly, this discussion repeats and repeats, seemingly without a sensible solution proposed by those who feel offended.
Sadly, this discussion repeats and repeats, seemingly without a sensible solution proposed by those who feel offended.
9
Your comment, Bill P, raises the question of just how many people are actually offended by the assignment of biologically accurate pronouns.
I don't mind changing, but don't expect me to do it until everyone is in agreement with what the change is going to be. I only have a few brain cells left and I have to save them for finding my keys.
11
I applaud the Times for wrestling with this issue. I'm shocked to see the hatred, dismissiveness, derision, and mockery in the comments. What great sadness it is when people react to something new - something that doesn't even affect them directly! - with fear and disdain.
I imagine many of these angry, fearful commenters are older; such hard, callous hearts often beat in the chests of people who have given up on the possibilities of the world. I eagerly await the day when this bitterness dies out. There are millions of us whose hearts are able to welcome change with curiosity and love, and we're fast on your hateful heels.
Look to the young people and believe in them - they are our future, whether you like it or not.
I imagine many of these angry, fearful commenters are older; such hard, callous hearts often beat in the chests of people who have given up on the possibilities of the world. I eagerly await the day when this bitterness dies out. There are millions of us whose hearts are able to welcome change with curiosity and love, and we're fast on your hateful heels.
Look to the young people and believe in them - they are our future, whether you like it or not.
6
You can’t honestly be so naive as to actually believe that any of this is “new”.
People are free to live their lives as they see fit. But no matter how much you wish you were a dragon, you’re not, and no amount of wishing is ever going to make it so. People who insist on describing things in a manner consistent with objective reality are not hardhearted, angry, or fearful. In other contexts, we might call such people “realists”, perhaps, even “scientists”. Because a subjective view which defies objective fact is, essentially by definition, deeply problematic.
The only thing “new” about circumstances is that some folks (often young) passionately believe that objective reality can be wished away.
PC jargon insists that people get to “identify” as they see fit, and that such identity is incontestable, however nonsensical it might be.
How you choose to act is your call. What you actually are is not.
People are free to live their lives as they see fit. But no matter how much you wish you were a dragon, you’re not, and no amount of wishing is ever going to make it so. People who insist on describing things in a manner consistent with objective reality are not hardhearted, angry, or fearful. In other contexts, we might call such people “realists”, perhaps, even “scientists”. Because a subjective view which defies objective fact is, essentially by definition, deeply problematic.
The only thing “new” about circumstances is that some folks (often young) passionately believe that objective reality can be wished away.
PC jargon insists that people get to “identify” as they see fit, and that such identity is incontestable, however nonsensical it might be.
How you choose to act is your call. What you actually are is not.
4
You only derserve two words, Horse Manure!
Maybe your heart is callous too if you have such ill will towards others.
1
Slow day on the "journalistic integrity" beat?
6
No, not really...
The NY Times now allegedly has a photographer claiming the work of another.
I wonder if the Times itself will cover this, or Ms Spayd is going to offer a few remarks about integrity in the newsroom and the "dark room".
The NY Times now allegedly has a photographer claiming the work of another.
I wonder if the Times itself will cover this, or Ms Spayd is going to offer a few remarks about integrity in the newsroom and the "dark room".
2
I propose "hey".
3
"Among the rank and file, you’re apt to get different answers, as I did, depending on who you ask."
How can we have a conversation about wrestling grammatical rules into submission about new uses and identities moderated by someone who mistakes "who" for "whom?"
How can we have a conversation about wrestling grammatical rules into submission about new uses and identities moderated by someone who mistakes "who" for "whom?"
9
Singular "they" has been used for centuries. By everyone (even those who say they don't use it): "Someone is at the door; I wonder what they want."
8
you're correct...but I still don't approve.
I'm surprised that the NY Times would give such attention to a story on the gender of pronouns when there are so many more important articles in today's paper, such as the review of Baywatch and the guidelines for when to use gas versus charcoal for summer grilling.
For those of you who think this topic is trivial, if it's important enough for you to read and then complain about then you should be thanking the NY Times for giving you the opportunity.
And I assume that you're done reading and commenting on the Manchester terrorist attack, possible leaks to the U. S., today's appeal court ruling on Trump's travel ban, Trump's speech to NATO, the Republican "health care" plan, Trump's budget, the war in Syria, the removal of Confederate memorial statues, the investigation into Russian involvement into U. S. politics and government, ethical issues surrounding the Trump administration, and the various other topics of passing interest that are addressed on the pages of the NY Times today.
For those of you who think this topic is trivial, if it's important enough for you to read and then complain about then you should be thanking the NY Times for giving you the opportunity.
And I assume that you're done reading and commenting on the Manchester terrorist attack, possible leaks to the U. S., today's appeal court ruling on Trump's travel ban, Trump's speech to NATO, the Republican "health care" plan, Trump's budget, the war in Syria, the removal of Confederate memorial statues, the investigation into Russian involvement into U. S. politics and government, ethical issues surrounding the Trump administration, and the various other topics of passing interest that are addressed on the pages of the NY Times today.
4
Consider me properly scolded. Take comfort in the fact that my head is hanging.
Merriam-Webster offers some sensible advice. Since the singular they "has been in consistent use since the 1300s," adopting it as the singular nonbinary pronoun "is vastly preferable [to using "it"]. It’s not quite as newfangled as it seems: we have evidence in our files of the nonbinary they dating back to 1950, and it’s likely that there are earlier uses of the nonbinary pronoun they out there."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
9
For a sample of what it's like for a 21st-century reader to digest the nonbinary use of they, I recommend the Wikipedia entry for Asia Kate Dillon. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Kate_Dillon)
1
You are so ahead of me. I am still cringing over manhours, mankind, man made, caveman, etc. which are in common usage in most journals. While the subject of a story must be respected, I, the reader, must also not be subjected to gender bias either.
3
How about s/he?
3
I once suggested 'she/he/it', but alas, that would inevitably be compressed, with unfortunate results.
3
Refusing to address someone or to refer to someone as they have explicitly asked is disrespectful. How would you feel?
It's also not nearly as difficult as people seem to be claiming. The singular 'they' has been in use for years and years already. E.g. an announcement comes on over the PA system at the public library: "Someone left their books at the front desk" or a street sign is positioned ambiguously: "Someone couldn't make up their mind." This usage may have existed as a colloquialism (as opposed to more formal written expression), but to declare yourself incapable of imagining a world in which you use this construction gracefully and respectfully is simply to dig in your heels and deny entire groups of people basic dignity. You're being stubborn and you're being a jerk, frankly.
I'm all for updating the style manuals to reflect these changes. Things change! The singular 'they' was the Word of the Year in 2015! Things are changing! They'll keep changing. We should all be very suspicious of people who refuse to allow their language to adapt. Fundamentalism rarely gets us anywhere worth getting.
It's also not nearly as difficult as people seem to be claiming. The singular 'they' has been in use for years and years already. E.g. an announcement comes on over the PA system at the public library: "Someone left their books at the front desk" or a street sign is positioned ambiguously: "Someone couldn't make up their mind." This usage may have existed as a colloquialism (as opposed to more formal written expression), but to declare yourself incapable of imagining a world in which you use this construction gracefully and respectfully is simply to dig in your heels and deny entire groups of people basic dignity. You're being stubborn and you're being a jerk, frankly.
I'm all for updating the style manuals to reflect these changes. Things change! The singular 'they' was the Word of the Year in 2015! Things are changing! They'll keep changing. We should all be very suspicious of people who refuse to allow their language to adapt. Fundamentalism rarely gets us anywhere worth getting.
7
This is a tough call. Using the pronoun "they", as we currently understand, it to describe a singular person is as misleading as using a he/she pronoun to describe a person who doesn't identify with either. Maybe Naomi is on to something with the suggestion of a new set of pronouns.
1
As a transgender man and former English major who also once struggled with the singular "they" I can assure you: the English language doesn't care about any of our feelings and will continue to change and adapt like it always has. This column will seem quaint and ridiculous in about 10 years. In the meantime, to those of you writing glib and clueless responses: try to be a bigger person today, even though the editors of the Times won't make you. What do you care what people call themselves? You aren't getting harassed and murdered on the street for being who you are. Take a risk. Use a word that makes you feel slightly uncomfortable. You could save someone's life. That's courage.
8
This is a self-imposed problem. Just use the system used for centuries: XX is a "she", "XY" is a "he". You shouldn't have to look in Wikipedia to find out how to address somebody.
6
There are genetic anomalies that are neither of those, such as XO and XXY. Not all as simplistic as your thinking. From a former genetics major.
4
I hope that the next piece by the Public Editor will address the Times decision to publish the photos of the Manchester bomb pieces - after the UK had already objected to American publication of information, including the bomber's name, because it was interfering with their attempt to arrest others who may be implicated, perhaps allowing some of them to escape arrest.
5
Speaking of pronouns . . . .
"Among the rank and file, you're apt to get different answers, as I did, depending on who you ask." Shouldn't that have been "depending on whom you ask"?
"Among the rank and file, you're apt to get different answers, as I did, depending on who you ask." Shouldn't that have been "depending on whom you ask"?
4
Yes, putting a crimp into her credential to referee brave new grammar.
2
In an only half factious tone how about "it". "They" implies duality. "It" implies nothing and recognizes not knowing anything.
2
Let the dystopian nightmare begin. Now you must censor yourself, you must avoid using gender pronouns altogether lest you offend someone. You are not free to write how you wish. You may only write ridiculous, grammatically incorrect sentences to appease the whims of a priveleged fringe who apparently has nothing better to worry about. If this person who, biologically, is undisputably a woman, wants to call herself "they", that's fantastic, but I'd say everyone else is free to keep speaking normal English. Respect is a two way street.
11
It's not clear to me that newspapers should fully outrun the larger society when it comes to usage.
I am a gay man. I remember how long and hard the battle was to get the Times and others to stop using "homosexual" and to start using "gay" but I admit that the term "gay" took a while to establish itself as the preferred usage, even among homosexual/gay folks.
I also dimly remember how long it took for the "Ms." construction to replace the "Miss/Mrs." construction.
Language evolves. I accept that the use of gender constructions is a freighted one, particularly in a language that doesn't offer many alternatives to gendered usage.
That said, I'm all for using pronouns that respect the subject and which, also, provide a context while the larger society is grappling with gender construction and terminology.
I am a gay man. I remember how long and hard the battle was to get the Times and others to stop using "homosexual" and to start using "gay" but I admit that the term "gay" took a while to establish itself as the preferred usage, even among homosexual/gay folks.
I also dimly remember how long it took for the "Ms." construction to replace the "Miss/Mrs." construction.
Language evolves. I accept that the use of gender constructions is a freighted one, particularly in a language that doesn't offer many alternatives to gendered usage.
That said, I'm all for using pronouns that respect the subject and which, also, provide a context while the larger society is grappling with gender construction and terminology.
4
Call this individual Anna Log.
Why on earth would anyone write "They is going to the theater?" The word you're looking for is "are." The Times already uses this in a sentence like "There's someone in the room and they're being very loud."
1
Maybe "It" or "S(he)?"
I knew exactly zero about the person who plays Taylor on Billions until now, except that Taylor is a great character and Asia Kate Dillon is great in the part. (Note: If hedge-funder Axe on Billions is like a fictional Steven Cohen, Taylor is like Steven Cohen's fictional, slightly amoral new protege. But IMO if Taylor didn't have a crew cut & dress in a "traditionally masculine" way, Taylor wouldn't be Axe's slightly amoral protege because Axe treats women differently.)
I can't say what real person Dillon should be called in the NYT. But googling I see that Dillon has submitted in the Best Supporting Actor category at the Emmys - but also considered submitting as Best Supporting Actress. Dillon wrote to the Television Academy asking about the categories:
"The Television Academy celebrates inclusiveness, and as we discussed with Asia, there is no gender requirement for the various performer categories. Asia is free to choose the category they wish to enter.”
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/billions-star-asia-kate-dillon-emmy-awar...
I daresay that's going to open up a whole other can of worms. (i.e., If there's no gender requirement in Actor/Actress awards, what's going to stop someone from entering the category in which they have the best chance to win? That's what I would do!)
So the societal reaction to fluid gender in competitions will be interesting - and may be what the NYT writes about instead of setting gender pronoun usage itself.
I can't say what real person Dillon should be called in the NYT. But googling I see that Dillon has submitted in the Best Supporting Actor category at the Emmys - but also considered submitting as Best Supporting Actress. Dillon wrote to the Television Academy asking about the categories:
"The Television Academy celebrates inclusiveness, and as we discussed with Asia, there is no gender requirement for the various performer categories. Asia is free to choose the category they wish to enter.”
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/billions-star-asia-kate-dillon-emmy-awar...
I daresay that's going to open up a whole other can of worms. (i.e., If there's no gender requirement in Actor/Actress awards, what's going to stop someone from entering the category in which they have the best chance to win? That's what I would do!)
So the societal reaction to fluid gender in competitions will be interesting - and may be what the NYT writes about instead of setting gender pronoun usage itself.
4
"Billions" is a guilty pleasure watch for me.
While Taylor is a fascinating character, the way Taylor fits into Axe Capital, dripping with testosterone, just somehow rings false.
Other than askance looks, nobody makes any kind of crack? Um, writers, have you MET your characters?
Somehow, Taylor is not only absorbed into the fabric, but ascends like a rocket to become chief investment officer by the end of the season, somehow engendering ZERO jealousy, zero wisecracks, and zero resistance? That didn't fly with me.
While Taylor is a fascinating character, the way Taylor fits into Axe Capital, dripping with testosterone, just somehow rings false.
Other than askance looks, nobody makes any kind of crack? Um, writers, have you MET your characters?
Somehow, Taylor is not only absorbed into the fabric, but ascends like a rocket to become chief investment officer by the end of the season, somehow engendering ZERO jealousy, zero wisecracks, and zero resistance? That didn't fly with me.
1
I am so embarrassed reading the comments on this article. I had thought the policy of "allow nongender pronouns but first try reworking sentences to avoid them" was a bit too cautious. Why avoid them? Why not embrace them?
But reading the responses from my fellow NYTimes readers I get the sense that the paper knows its calcified audience well. How depressing.
But reading the responses from my fellow NYTimes readers I get the sense that the paper knows its calcified audience well. How depressing.
2
I refuse to be characterized as "calcified" just because I'm an octogenarian and a many decades-long reader of the Times. How depressing.
While we're on the subject of personal preferences, I've always felt much bigger than my 70 inches and 160 pounds. So I'd like it very much if everyone would address me as "big guy". And, if it's not too much trouble, look just a little bit intimidated by my bulk when we cross paths. Thank you very much.
6
I thought "it" was the singular neuter pronoun. This pronoun is typically used to refer to objects or animals, not humans, but it is grammatically correct. There is no reason why "it" cannot now be used to refer to a person who rejects gender-specific pronouns. "They" is a plural pronoun and isn't used to refer to an individual.
5
My daughter's transgendered college apartmentmate went by "xe."
1
Query why anyone would be offended by a pronoun which reflects objective reality. "Gender" has been described as a "performance". But pronouns do not reflect a person's "gender", but his sex, which IS binary. Is it not most curious that the NYT seems to be suggesting that language should be bent to ignore indisputable fact?
If a person passionately believes that he is actually a she, he can "perform" any way he wishes. But he will ALWAYS be a he.
If a person passionately believes that he is actually a she, he can "perform" any way he wishes. But he will ALWAYS be a he.
5
I don't understand why everyone acts so put upon when confronted with these gender topics. The 'singular they' has been used in common vernacular for literally centuries, it's just that publications and old institutions turned their nose up at the usage. Just because its new to you doesn't mean it is new, and that goes for the 'singular they' and nonbinary gender identities.
3
Firstly: "The Times is not looking to lead the way, set the rules or break new ground" is pretty telling...and more than cowardly.
Secondly: as Andy Rooney once asked about those who were "Born Again," do those non-binary individuals who refer to themselves as "they" have to file more than one tax return?
Secondly: as Andy Rooney once asked about those who were "Born Again," do those non-binary individuals who refer to themselves as "they" have to file more than one tax return?
2
As a linguist, I find discussions --popular, academic, & journalistic -- of gender identity and preferred pronouns both interesting and fraught with misunderstandings of the nature of language and grammar. Grammar changes naturally and much more slowly than any other part of language, and cannot be forcibly changed by decree or style manual. Nouns and adjectives that refer to communities of people (e.g., native, Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino/a/x, gay, LGBT, etc) can much more easily be 'prescribed' by requesting or requiring that people use the currently preferred noun or adjective in print and in formal speech. However, grammatical conventions change slowly, through increasing use, and are the most resistant to attempts at 'linguistic engineering' or prescription. Witness the many decades it has taken for 'they/their/them' -- traditionally only allowed to refer to a plural non-specific antecedent -- to become more accepted as gender neutral singular pronouns referring to a generic or unknown antecedent. It will be decades before they/their/them will become more widely used & accepted as a gender neutral specific pronoun. We can't 'will' the grammar of a language to evolve, nor can we expect people to abandon their learned grammar anymore than we can force non-dialect pronunciations or any other feature of grammar. Don't interpret resistance by others to using 'your preferred pronouns' as anything other than resistance to socio-grammatical linguistic engineering.
6
He, she or it.
I don't think it is offensive at all. Call me it all day long. Or she. Or he.
Gender is imaginary and I refuse to care what people think about mine.
I also refuse to mutilate myself to conform to society's idea about what a man is, or a woman is.
I don't think it is offensive at all. Call me it all day long. Or she. Or he.
Gender is imaginary and I refuse to care what people think about mine.
I also refuse to mutilate myself to conform to society's idea about what a man is, or a woman is.
3
Seems completely unimportant to me. Kate Dillon is biologically female, it's fine to refer to her as "she", because it's accurate. Referring to her as "he" would be rude, as would using "it".
If she wants to believe she has no particular gender, that's fine, all sorts of people enjoy living in delusion. Doesn't mean the rest of the world has to pretend the same.
As for her taking offense, well, people are always going to take offense. It's important to realize their taking offense doesn't actually mean any harm was done, and move on to important subjects, like climate change and so forth.
If she wants to believe she has no particular gender, that's fine, all sorts of people enjoy living in delusion. Doesn't mean the rest of the world has to pretend the same.
As for her taking offense, well, people are always going to take offense. It's important to realize their taking offense doesn't actually mean any harm was done, and move on to important subjects, like climate change and so forth.
7
We have a neuter singular pronoun. Let them be called "it."
5
One person, two votes?
2
"They" when applied to a singular being offends me and I will never use it, even if that use enters common usage. I really do not care what anyone does with their sexual organs or identity as long as they keep both to themselves. If you want to be communicated with then use standard pronouns. I choose to reject your fantasy, no matter who you are or who you want to be (very often, if not always two different beings). There is no such thing as a non-binary identify sexually for all but a very, very few people (less than one out of 100,000) none of whom has ever been depicted by the media.
4
What a complete waste of ink and pixels. This is so completely trivial under the current political circumstances. Aren't readers complaining about real journalism?
And yes, "they" as a singular pronoun is absurd.
And yes, "they" as a singular pronoun is absurd.
1
"depending on who you ask"—does the Times's stylebook prescribe "who," instead of "whom," in such a construction?
3
There are many languages with no gender pronouns. My native language, Turkish, uses the single letter "o" for he/she/it. Perhaps another alternative is to stop using gendered pronouns and settle for he (shorter). I am a woman and I would not have a problem with that.
I also agree with others who say this is not a burning issue, but we cannot discuss matters of national security and budgets and healthcare all the time.
I also agree with others who say this is not a burning issue, but we cannot discuss matters of national security and budgets and healthcare all the time.
1
If Asia Kate Dillon still requires gynecological services when seeking reproductive system health care, she's a she. Reserve the "they" until she can use a urologist and/or proctologist too.
How about, say, I now demand to be called a person of color? Like, say, Linda Sarsour? My Jewish lineage, by specific sub-category, can be traced back beyond my ancestors' sojourn in Europe to its origins in the Middle East, making me an undeniable ethnic cousin to Arabs, who are, as I understand, regarded as people of color.
Wait--I can't assume that label for myself?
Dillon is a singular individual, not a multiple. Sorry. This is foolishness, not correctness.
By the way--transgender people do not become biologically other than what they were born as (not "assigned at birth" which can only apply to those of anatomical ambiguity). To acquire a new social identity is not to change one's biology.
Speaking of that biology, though--I'm a person of color now, right?
How about, say, I now demand to be called a person of color? Like, say, Linda Sarsour? My Jewish lineage, by specific sub-category, can be traced back beyond my ancestors' sojourn in Europe to its origins in the Middle East, making me an undeniable ethnic cousin to Arabs, who are, as I understand, regarded as people of color.
Wait--I can't assume that label for myself?
Dillon is a singular individual, not a multiple. Sorry. This is foolishness, not correctness.
By the way--transgender people do not become biologically other than what they were born as (not "assigned at birth" which can only apply to those of anatomical ambiguity). To acquire a new social identity is not to change one's biology.
Speaking of that biology, though--I'm a person of color now, right?
3
As sure as you seem to be, rest assured that women see urologists and proctologists, too.
Ah, the proctologist, bringing back memories of the Seinfeld "Assman" episode. "Doc, I swear, it was a million to one shot!"
Ah, the proctologist, bringing back memories of the Seinfeld "Assman" episode. "Doc, I swear, it was a million to one shot!"
1
We need more pronouns, not fewer! For hundreds of years English speakers have struggled with the the loss of our 2nd person singular "thou," while the. plural "you" tries to stand in, but fails. Speakers use workarounds -- "y'all," "youse," "you guys," etc.
I do NOT want "they" to start replacing gendered singulars in addition to its regular work. We need to ADD a non-gendered singular form -- I nominate "xe" (pronounced "zee").
I've been working on an alternative future novel, and that's what my characters all want to use when they need a non-gendered singular. They also routinely use "M." (pronounced "em") instead of Mr. and Ms.
Why not?
I do NOT want "they" to start replacing gendered singulars in addition to its regular work. We need to ADD a non-gendered singular form -- I nominate "xe" (pronounced "zee").
I've been working on an alternative future novel, and that's what my characters all want to use when they need a non-gendered singular. They also routinely use "M." (pronounced "em") instead of Mr. and Ms.
Why not?
18
Ha ha ha ha, best laugh I've had all day!
Some prefer "xe," which evades seeming disagreement in number. It is pronounced "zee."
1
Because its insane... thats why not!
2
What does "they" mean? Does it mean you are both genders? That you have a split personality? I genuinely don't get it.
19
I can mean both, or neither, gender.
Like how 'queer' can mean anything not straight or cisgendered, 'they' is common catch-all term for anyone not strictly male or female.
Like how 'queer' can mean anything not straight or cisgendered, 'they' is common catch-all term for anyone not strictly male or female.
Gosh. Wonder how them deplorables feel?
4
Does the person in question have two X chromosomes? If so, that person is a "she."
28
It's more complicated than XX and XY. Really -- look up "androgen insensitivity syndrome."
We all start on the female model. The Y chromosome simply triggers a hormone process that converts the fetus to a male. Like all complex biological processes, it can go wrong at any point, in many different ways. And it does, more often than we imagine. We are all unique variations on a set of themes, not uniform widgets off an assembly line.
I studied ultrasound and was struck with wonder at how many little differences we all have inside, and never realize it. And there are so many more that we can't yet see or understand. Rigid categories are useful adaptive tools, artifacts of our brain's evolution, but they are not the whole truth of nature.
We all start on the female model. The Y chromosome simply triggers a hormone process that converts the fetus to a male. Like all complex biological processes, it can go wrong at any point, in many different ways. And it does, more often than we imagine. We are all unique variations on a set of themes, not uniform widgets off an assembly line.
I studied ultrasound and was struck with wonder at how many little differences we all have inside, and never realize it. And there are so many more that we can't yet see or understand. Rigid categories are useful adaptive tools, artifacts of our brain's evolution, but they are not the whole truth of nature.
3
Must be nice to be able to tell people what they are.
1
There are also genetic anomalies, such as XO and XXY.
1
This can't be serious. It has to be a hoax or something.
27
"Actor" Dillon is clearly female. Why is the NYT allowing itself to be bullied by such females? With nonsense like calling herself a "they"? Why is this issue worthy of discussion?
Ever hear of contra dancing? Its roots go back to the British 17th cent., or earlier. It’s a form of progressive line dancing, with couples moving back and forth in "sets." The set combinations can be vigorous, complicated, and require focus of mind to do. It's a common social activity in Folk Music clubs in the US and abroad.
About two years ago, I noticed the latest fad in contra is "gender neutrality". The male and female have clear roles in the structure of the dance, but the gender-equity fascists have decreed it’s ok to confuse everybody in line by reversing roles w/o warning as the dance starts. That means: a man in a skirt and bearded face can dance the female role. Is this polite? No. Are the gender-equity fascists and the dance organizers polite in allowing it? No. They're just frickin' rude, they have their own agenda, and expect everyone to embrace it. I don’t contra dance anymore at so-called "gender neutral" events.
Ever hear of contra dancing? Its roots go back to the British 17th cent., or earlier. It’s a form of progressive line dancing, with couples moving back and forth in "sets." The set combinations can be vigorous, complicated, and require focus of mind to do. It's a common social activity in Folk Music clubs in the US and abroad.
About two years ago, I noticed the latest fad in contra is "gender neutrality". The male and female have clear roles in the structure of the dance, but the gender-equity fascists have decreed it’s ok to confuse everybody in line by reversing roles w/o warning as the dance starts. That means: a man in a skirt and bearded face can dance the female role. Is this polite? No. Are the gender-equity fascists and the dance organizers polite in allowing it? No. They're just frickin' rude, they have their own agenda, and expect everyone to embrace it. I don’t contra dance anymore at so-called "gender neutral" events.
3
Not to criticize the PE, but the PE uses various non-pronominal references that are notable:
"... the actor ..."
"Actress" was eliminated years ago. Does anyone ever ask actors their preference?
"... nonbinary identity ..."
The word "nonbinary" imposes binary logic on everyone's identity -- you are either "binary" or "nonbinary".
"... but not before the [sic] upsetting the subject of the piece."
Police use the word "subject" to dehumanize a person:
Sam Cochran quoted in the Times: "It’s not just about the subject’s safety; it’s about the officer’s safety."
When ‘Yelling Commands’ Is the Wrong Police Response
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
SEPT. 29, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/when-yelling-commands-is-the-wrong...
"... the actor ..."
"Actress" was eliminated years ago. Does anyone ever ask actors their preference?
"... nonbinary identity ..."
The word "nonbinary" imposes binary logic on everyone's identity -- you are either "binary" or "nonbinary".
"... but not before the [sic] upsetting the subject of the piece."
Police use the word "subject" to dehumanize a person:
Sam Cochran quoted in the Times: "It’s not just about the subject’s safety; it’s about the officer’s safety."
When ‘Yelling Commands’ Is the Wrong Police Response
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
SEPT. 29, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/when-yelling-commands-is-the-wrong...
1
I think "it" would be a better gender-neutral pronoun. It is singular.
Grow up, millennial narcissists. Stop looking for reasons to be offended.
Grow up, millennial narcissists. Stop looking for reasons to be offended.
51
I did run across a situation where a person who was transgendered preferred the pronoun "it". I was, frankly, appalled. In the English language, "it" refers to objects, not people. Why people would want to dehumanize themselves by using a term used for things is beyond me.
Clearly the use of plural pronouns to refer to individuals is a source of confusion, as would be assigning new meaning to any common word. I would think a better solution would be to create a new, unambiguous word that is explicitly gender non-binary, rather than co-opting an indispensable word already in use. I'm not about to propose one, but perhaps the affected community should do so.
10
There have been many suggested (the most popular being 'xe') but it's much harder to convince people to use a new word than it is to use a word people already use in the singular (whether or not its grammatically correct may be up for debate, but people use the singular 'they' all the time without realizing).
In the meantime, how about "uh..." (nominative" and "um..." (accusative)?
Seriously? With all that you could be focusing on (take your pick of any number of NY Times left-leaning miscues) this is something you spend a column on? And please tell me where "American culture is outpacing the language"? One character on tv? Outside of NYC you'll see this is a non-issue. You usually hit the nail on the head in this space and typically do great work, but not with this column.
29
"Outside of NYC you'll see this is a non-issue." Pretty ignorant and parochial belief stated as a fact by someone who places themselves IN New York. There is DEFINITELY a movement toward acknowledging non-binary gender identity, just as there is toward acknowledging transgender status. This is a real issue, it harkens back to VERY old racist thinking (white/nonwhite, straight/queer).
1
Not a topic of discussion in my community or those surrounding us...
And we live in an area where gays and lesbians and all the others in or passing through are treated like eminently likable human beings
And we live in an area where gays and lesbians and all the others in or passing through are treated like eminently likable human beings
As journalists, our primary obligation is to our audiences, not to our sources or the people, companies and organizations we report about. Clarity is one of the ways in which we fulfill that obligation to the audiences. While it is important to be sensitive to human feelings, that shouldn't be at the price of confusing or misleading the audiences.
It's always possible to write and edit a story to repeatedly use surnames instead of pronouns, even if it sounds awkward -- and thus avoid the pronoun problem.
Eric Freedman
Professor of Journalism
Michigan State University
It's always possible to write and edit a story to repeatedly use surnames instead of pronouns, even if it sounds awkward -- and thus avoid the pronoun problem.
Eric Freedman
Professor of Journalism
Michigan State University
36
I nominate Eric Freedman to be the next public editor of the New York Times.
1
Ok, if some analogy to gender and number free pronoun like "you" could be codified for third person that would be fine. But to adopt number to make gender neutral is jarring to my ears ("they is" ?##!?#). Why not invent a new pronoun for third person gender neutral singular? Why create havoc with the "they"? Why not, say, "ty" or "nhe" or "ne" or even "it" [easier to erase the human/nonhuman distinction than the singular/plural]--or "thit" [for human "it"?]. There must be better solutions to the creation of a new convention.
5
You wouldn't use 'is.'
"I invited my friend, they're on their way."
"God Casey used to hate avocado, but now guac is all they eat.
"Did you see their new car? It's so nice!"
It's really not that hard.
"I invited my friend, they're on their way."
"God Casey used to hate avocado, but now guac is all they eat.
"Did you see their new car? It's so nice!"
It's really not that hard.
1
Well said. I would prefer the creation of another singular pronoun set rather than confuse the issue of singular/plural.
5
I/we/he/she/it have/has seen the enemy and it is you/me/them/they.
Go ahead, make a rule for the Stylebook but, really, lets not spin ourselves[?] into a pretzel.
Go ahead, make a rule for the Stylebook but, really, lets not spin ourselves[?] into a pretzel.
8
I sympathize with the writer's dilemma in which he or she must break one rule (that plural pronouns take plural verbs) in order to follow to a trend demanding neutral references. But I don't understand how the public editor of The Times can defend her usage in the sentence: "Among the rank and file, you’re apt to get different answers, as I did, depending on who you ask." Whom did she ask?
17
Touche!
Your suggestion that 'American culture is outpacing the language' doesn't ring true. It rather seems that radicals are using vague style rules to their advantage.
I don't see the Times choice of pronouns offending the public here. The public simply seeks information. Style should support clarity, not be a tool for advocates.
I don't see the Times choice of pronouns offending the public here. The public simply seeks information. Style should support clarity, not be a tool for advocates.
33
Culture ALWAYS outpaces language; language ALWAYS must adapt to cultural shift. In my lifetime, the word "colored" was an accepted word by mainstream Americans, and was standard style (ie NAACP). However, when the community of people of color found that language was used to maintain a culture of suppression, the COMMUNITY began to change the culture. The language followed (Negro --> black --> person of color). Rules of language and style are meant to be expressions of a culture, not proscriptions on the culture. As we culturally adapt to the acceptance of non-binary gender identity, we will of necessity as a culture stumble over the evolution of the language. It has always been thus.
1
This obsession with gender has reached insane proportions. Those whose world view is so myopic, so close-minded, and so self-indulgent should be
dragged into the real world where real people need help with education, health care, family services and a sense of belonging to the greater society at large.
This ridiculous focus on "gender identity" achieves none of that except to enable (or should I say "empower," another favorite word of elitist pinheads)
privileged dilettantes to waste their time on nonsensical agendas.
dragged into the real world where real people need help with education, health care, family services and a sense of belonging to the greater society at large.
This ridiculous focus on "gender identity" achieves none of that except to enable (or should I say "empower," another favorite word of elitist pinheads)
privileged dilettantes to waste their time on nonsensical agendas.
59
Real people kill themselves when their gender identity is denied. Real people are kicked out of their parents home and turn to survival prostitution when their gender identity is revealed. Real people are murdered for using the wrong bathroom. This issue is not, as you imply, trivial; it has real impacts on real individuals who are as deserving of protection as any other person who is struggling with health care, education, family services.
If you wish to foster a greater sense of belonging to society at large, I respectfully suggest you accord the same respect to people who do not identify with an imposed binary gender system.
If you wish to foster a greater sense of belonging to society at large, I respectfully suggest you accord the same respect to people who do not identify with an imposed binary gender system.
1
I agree. I also bemoan the rise of "gender studies" at universities. If a child of mine chose to major in gender studies as opposed to history or math or English or philosophy or biology or computer science, I'd say good luck, but not on my dime.
If someone not born as a woman decides to live as a woman as a woman, that's fine by me, and vice versa. I honestly don't give a hoot, nor should anyone. If an unenlightened person wants to persecute someone for being different, let that unenlightened person be prosecuted or otherwise appropriately punished. But please, let's not obsess over questions of gender. It isn't worth obsessing about. It just is.
If someone not born as a woman decides to live as a woman as a woman, that's fine by me, and vice versa. I honestly don't give a hoot, nor should anyone. If an unenlightened person wants to persecute someone for being different, let that unenlightened person be prosecuted or otherwise appropriately punished. But please, let's not obsess over questions of gender. It isn't worth obsessing about. It just is.
1
Realy, is this the most important issue of interest to readers of The New York Times? Or to the editors?
34
"They" is a plural pronoun. It refers to several items or people. Making "they" a singular pronoun contradicts the most basic sense of the word. If individuals or special groups are allowed at will to change the basic meanings of words--by their own fiat--then, language as a universal source of shared meaning is lost. Multiculturalism then devolves into a chaos of multiple, self-created meanings. I realize "they" is now used instead of "he or she" at times, but this usage is a special case. It doesn't cause confusion and contradiction. Perhaps this group can invent a new word to describe this "new" reality, if there is one.
6
It seems to me that a new third-person singular, gender-neutral pronoun, such as "xe," would cause less confusion and be less awkward.
4
I have no objection to folks rejecting he, she, him, her formulations if those pronouns seem inappropriate. I DO object to confusing us by using a pronoun that already exists (like "they") in a new and confusing way. Why can't we choose new pronouns? Make 'em up! "Shim?" "Sher?" Or anything else!
8
After years of writing and editing proper pronoun matching I cannot bring myself to use "they" in a singular sense. No more than I could call a "person" a "people." It creates confusion, and corrupts communication, meaning, and identification. As the AP advises, I use the person's name. Over and over.
42
I too am all in favor of sensitivity toward issues of gender identity, but I think it unreasonable for a person to insist on the usage of a word to refer to him/her self individually ("they") when the word chosen is a word clearly understood to be plural. This sows confusion rather than add clarity.
Does this mean that we all get to choose our own pronouns? If so, I'll take "Emperor" (with an upper-case "E" please) for mine.
Does this mean that we all get to choose our own pronouns? If so, I'll take "Emperor" (with an upper-case "E" please) for mine.
11
You got there first so you can be called "emperor" I actually prefer, and claim, "excellency.", preceded or not by "your."
2
I have dibs on Exalted Potentate.
Thanks C Richard, but you didn't give me my upper case "E" so now I am offended.
1
It's not that difficult to use a singular they or to use their name in place of the pronoun. If you're struggling with this you're likely just being intentionally antagonistic.
3
It's also not difficult to accept the pronoun "she" if one is biologically female. Likewise, it's not difficult at all not to care what people want to delusionally refer to themselves as, and just go with what's real.
1
Well - at least "they" are clean-shaven, without a three-day hipster beard --
There's something to be said for that...
There's something to be said for that...
4
Clever!
"The Times guidelines don’t offer a simple yes or no to the question of whether “they” or some other nonstandard pronoun is acceptable in its pages."
I disagree. The Times does have guidelines about how to refer to people; I read it right here some time ago. It's to use the label the person prefers - examples: Donald J. Trump (with J.), Bernie Sanders (not Bernard), Rudy Giuliani (who used to be Rudolph), etc.
So, what's the difference?
Further, the suggestion of the public editor to avoid pronouns except when necessary discounts the feelings of the people who find it important. It's analogous saying let's avoid calling Trump by his full name, since some people are unfamiliar with the "J." part.
I disagree. The Times does have guidelines about how to refer to people; I read it right here some time ago. It's to use the label the person prefers - examples: Donald J. Trump (with J.), Bernie Sanders (not Bernard), Rudy Giuliani (who used to be Rudolph), etc.
So, what's the difference?
Further, the suggestion of the public editor to avoid pronouns except when necessary discounts the feelings of the people who find it important. It's analogous saying let's avoid calling Trump by his full name, since some people are unfamiliar with the "J." part.
1
Now we're getting back to the honorariam of Mr., Miss, Ms, of Mrs.
The finest example of the was from the Times where the use of Mr. Ant was used after first using his full name, "Adam Ant".
I think you are going down a road against which Ms. Spayd has railed several times.
The finest example of the was from the Times where the use of Mr. Ant was used after first using his full name, "Adam Ant".
I think you are going down a road against which Ms. Spayd has railed several times.
1
Owl, my favourite was the review of a Meat Loaf concert that observed Mr. Loaf was in fine voice.
1
The unreasonable demands of a tiny number of activists do not constitute "shifting cultural norms."
49
I'm actually confused by the argument about the singular usage of they as "They is." I have friends with gender neutral pronouns. I describe them as "they are going to meet us there." It actually comes very naturally once you've done it just a couple of times.
Similarly, if the reader can't follow "The writer went to the conference, and they found something strange there," then that's a failure on the reader's part. The world is changing. The reason they/theirs/their pronouns are struggling is not because of the people who ask to be identified that way. It's because of the readers who refuse to engage the idea that a person could go by anything other than he or she, and the people who will continue to call someone non-binary by she or he no matter what they say about their own identity.
Similarly, if the reader can't follow "The writer went to the conference, and they found something strange there," then that's a failure on the reader's part. The world is changing. The reason they/theirs/their pronouns are struggling is not because of the people who ask to be identified that way. It's because of the readers who refuse to engage the idea that a person could go by anything other than he or she, and the people who will continue to call someone non-binary by she or he no matter what they say about their own identity.
6
I was beyond disappointed to see the AP’s recent suggestion to use “they” where a singular pronoun “he“ or “she” previously was standard and acceptable.
At the risk of sounding gender-insensitive, I’m ready to begin using gender-free, nonbinary “it” when neither “he” nor “she” is acceptable. It seems less grammatically abrasive that the plural “they.”
At the risk of sounding gender-insensitive, I’m ready to begin using gender-free, nonbinary “it” when neither “he” nor “she” is acceptable. It seems less grammatically abrasive that the plural “they.”
3
"At a time when American culture is outplummeting the language to describe it, easily referenced rules can prevent the kinds of embarrassing mistakes that could leave The Times seeming out of touch."
Fixed it for you.
Fixed it for you.
3
If we do use "they" for one person, it still needs to be paired with the plural verb form; "they is" is even more awkward and confusing than just "they are" for the one person. That seems like the best solution to this new usage: keep it sounding NORMAL ("they are" flows just fine) and just work the phrasing a little more carefully so that, as the style recommendation states, it is clear that the wording is referring to one person. As an English professor, I used to object to "they" as a singular pronoun, and it has taken me a while to accept that usage, but I have come to understand its importance (mainly from talking to students); but I do feel strongly that "they are" is the logical solution to how we need to use "they"--we just can't speak easily saying "they is..." etc.
6
Language, daphne, as you know, is a tool for communication.
When is is used for patently political purposes, it risks becoming propaganda. And this argument is rapidly approaching that inappropriate point.
When is is used for patently political purposes, it risks becoming propaganda. And this argument is rapidly approaching that inappropriate point.
2
When the first rule in applying a new usage is to avoid that usage if at all possible...maybe the new usage isn't such a hot idea. Making someone's preferred pronoun a last resort seems both insulting and indecisive.
2
What's the problem with always using the person's name? Things started going off the grammar rails with 'Ms.' as if it were an abbreviation, but today meltdown is a prospect.
2
"When the runner stumbled on a personhole cover and broke their leg, the doctor told them they would operate on them immediately." How many people are involved here, not counting the ambulance crew?
25
Love it!
Written communication must prioritize clarity based on existing cultural norms; or else attempt to facilite changes in such norms that negate the function of pronouns which is to refer back to the specific individual without breaking the flow of the sentence.
"Gender", previous known as "sex", had been a primary indentifyer of not only biological characteristics, but social roles. If discussing the activities of husband and wife, "they" would indicate the pair while the gender singular would advance the flow of the story with ease.
We are now accepting that male and female is both a biological binary, while being a social continuum. If the nature of the continuum must be precise, that effort overshadows the substance of the story itself, or there will be imprecision that could be seen as demeaning.
I can't see grammatical standards emerging before we reach some kind of social consensus on gender roles. Top down rules, such as the universal "comrade" that attempt to shape social norms, rarely work
AlRodbell.com
"Gender", previous known as "sex", had been a primary indentifyer of not only biological characteristics, but social roles. If discussing the activities of husband and wife, "they" would indicate the pair while the gender singular would advance the flow of the story with ease.
We are now accepting that male and female is both a biological binary, while being a social continuum. If the nature of the continuum must be precise, that effort overshadows the substance of the story itself, or there will be imprecision that could be seen as demeaning.
I can't see grammatical standards emerging before we reach some kind of social consensus on gender roles. Top down rules, such as the universal "comrade" that attempt to shape social norms, rarely work
AlRodbell.com
This is the sort of issue that the right throughout America and the world sees and then proceeds to mock the left for. Many people are still not comfortable with this fast-changing culture shift when it comes to gender and the binary, and yet one can totally see how these elite newspapers, meant to be read by an "educated audience," will alienate a whole segment of the population. This sort of social issue is one of the reasons that Trump got elected ("no more political correctness"). I can't help but sympathize with those who feel that this is too much, too quickly.
14
What is so strange? Journalists have long avoided pronouns when referring to themselves, preferring 'this reporter' to 'me' or 'I.' Would something similar be apt in this case?
The author is remiss in not pointing out changes to come in the next edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, allowing for the more inclusive use of "they" in many situations. It's still a partial victory, but there is notable progress. See: https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/stylebooks-single-they-ap-chicago-ge...
1
>> Corbett approaches the dilemma this way: “The Times is not looking to lead the way, set the rules or break new ground. Our hope is to reflect accepted, standard usage among educated readers. <<
Oh, how ironic. Corbett still refuses to use the generic singular they as in Sting's hit, "If You Love Somebody, Set Them Free." From Shakespeare to Sting, it has been prevalent in English. Not leading the way? He's 400 years behind the times and drinking the Kool Aid of the prescriptive grammarians of a hundred years ago that tried to force English to conform to Latin grammar.
Singular They is accepted, standard usage among educated readers. Use it, please.
Oh, how ironic. Corbett still refuses to use the generic singular they as in Sting's hit, "If You Love Somebody, Set Them Free." From Shakespeare to Sting, it has been prevalent in English. Not leading the way? He's 400 years behind the times and drinking the Kool Aid of the prescriptive grammarians of a hundred years ago that tried to force English to conform to Latin grammar.
Singular They is accepted, standard usage among educated readers. Use it, please.
1
'Phil Corbett, associate masthead editor for standards, said that as a first choice such pronouns are to be avoided, noting that many readers are still unfamiliar with them and their usage can cause confusion.'
Unfamiliar? Yeah, right. The first recorded usage of 'they' for he or she is only more than six centuries old — see entry and quote from OED Online below — so I guess we have to wait until a full millennium has passed before they, the typical NYT reader, can cope with such new fangled terms.
'2. In anaphoric reference to a singular noun or pronoun of undetermined gender: he or she.
Especially in relation to a noun phrase involving one of the indefinite determiners or pronouns any, each, every, no, some, anybody, anyone, etc.
This use has sometimes been considered erroneous.
a1375 William of Palerne (1867) l. 2179 Hastely hiȝed eche wiȝt..til þei neyȝþed so neiȝh..þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.'
Unfamiliar? Yeah, right. The first recorded usage of 'they' for he or she is only more than six centuries old — see entry and quote from OED Online below — so I guess we have to wait until a full millennium has passed before they, the typical NYT reader, can cope with such new fangled terms.
'2. In anaphoric reference to a singular noun or pronoun of undetermined gender: he or she.
Especially in relation to a noun phrase involving one of the indefinite determiners or pronouns any, each, every, no, some, anybody, anyone, etc.
This use has sometimes been considered erroneous.
a1375 William of Palerne (1867) l. 2179 Hastely hiȝed eche wiȝt..til þei neyȝþed so neiȝh..þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.'
5
Just another sop(bribe) to the misborn mutant LBGT's from the liberal PC group!
2
As a person who identifies somewhere along that non binary gender spectrum (let the Internet arrows fly, America!) I see no reason why "they" can't be used without the gymnastics of trying not to use any pronouns. When I try to do that, it is demeaning and self erasing to myself.
“The Times is not looking to lead the way, set the rules or break new ground. Our hope is to reflect accepted, standard usage among educated readers.”
Well, educated readers already know and do this, in part because the Times writes extensively about trans.
This is very interesting. The Times demands our American Courts to set a unilateral agenda when it suits the Times' ends, like in abortion or gay rights (as I do), but wants to let consensus develop slowly and democratically when it comes to what is really important to IT - perfect grammar! This lacks logical consistency and shows a glaring lack of support for the trans people it constantly writes about. It's feckless, and shows it's for an issue only when it suits its ends. Hoisted by its own petard, eh? Tell me how liberals are not the mirror of arch conservatives. When, horrors, grammar comes into the picture, the Great Grey Lady blushes!!!
“The Times is not looking to lead the way, set the rules or break new ground. Our hope is to reflect accepted, standard usage among educated readers.”
Well, educated readers already know and do this, in part because the Times writes extensively about trans.
This is very interesting. The Times demands our American Courts to set a unilateral agenda when it suits the Times' ends, like in abortion or gay rights (as I do), but wants to let consensus develop slowly and democratically when it comes to what is really important to IT - perfect grammar! This lacks logical consistency and shows a glaring lack of support for the trans people it constantly writes about. It's feckless, and shows it's for an issue only when it suits its ends. Hoisted by its own petard, eh? Tell me how liberals are not the mirror of arch conservatives. When, horrors, grammar comes into the picture, the Great Grey Lady blushes!!!
1
About a year or so ago my alma mater, Amherst College, hired a Director for a Women's and Gender Center, and in the announcement the Director's bio constantly referred to that person as "they." It took a while for those of us who are the age (or older) of New York Times' editors to figure out exactly what was going on (our fair college is now a capital of political correctness, clearly ahead of the NYT in so many ways). Changing use of language can clearly catch you. When I was a boy my mother, a very progessive woman who was a feminist ahead of her time, had a short list of words I could never utter, including not only the "N" word, but "Biddy" - a scathing reference to unmarried women of a certain age. Today Amherst's first female President, Caroline Martin, insists on being called "Biddy." It is easy to be a victim these days of cultural whiplash.
1
The problem is similar to that when college department heads were no longer being called chairmen, but chairs. The change at first seemed awkward, but now it just seems normal.
Perhaps the Times could promote new words in our language that are gender-neutral. A word like 'se' (pronounced 'c' but not grammatically confused with 'see') could be used. Eg.: Asia was seen on 5th Ave. Se was walking with Matt Damon. 'Se' could also be used in place of the 's/he' dilemma. Eg.: If your child has a fever, se should see a doctor. At this point, many use 'they' as the gender-neutral pronoun....'they should see a doctor'.
The object pronoun to replace 'him/her' could be 'ses' (pronounced 'sees' or 'says' but not grammatically confused with either). Example: Se was walking down 5th Ave. with ses dog.
Sure, it's a leap. But language evolves as culture evolves, sometimes fluid, sometimes created.
The object pronoun to replace 'him/her' could be 'ses' (pronounced 'sees' or 'says' but not grammatically confused with either). Example: Se was walking down 5th Ave. with ses dog.
Sure, it's a leap. But language evolves as culture evolves, sometimes fluid, sometimes created.
How about “it” as a gender-neutral pronoun? There would be fewer grammatical challenges.
2
With all the feedback you're surely getting about having divulged details of the Manchester bombing-- against the strong wishes of the UK government, because they say these leaks are damaging their investigation and pursuit of his accomplices-- you run a column on ... pronoun use.
What? All out of deck chairs to rearrange?
What? All out of deck chairs to rearrange?
11
"First, codify the policy on gender pronouns in a written entry to the formal stylebook."
Or - you could always wait about six months until it inevitably changes and morphs into some other coded word that will be embraced and subsequently rejected by some/all groups during their annual convention to select pronouns.
However, I did enjoy the irony of: "A simple Google to their Wikipedia article..."
This is what we have become - the notion of correct is within a wikipedia article now.
Or - you could always wait about six months until it inevitably changes and morphs into some other coded word that will be embraced and subsequently rejected by some/all groups during their annual convention to select pronouns.
However, I did enjoy the irony of: "A simple Google to their Wikipedia article..."
This is what we have become - the notion of correct is within a wikipedia article now.
2
...hate to be picky; but didn't you make another grammatical error? I think the sentence should read: "Among the rank and file...depending on WHOM you ask." ...sorry! :-)
5
How do your translate: 'When she met up with them she suggested they all go to the theatre.' ?
Pronouns seem like they will be risky for many years to come. Probably best to skip them and just say 'When Asia met up with her friends Asia suggested the whole group of them go to the theatre.'
It would be quite difficult to understand 'When they met up with them they suggested they all go to the theatre.'
But I'm sure over the decades ahead language and people will continue to evolve.
Pronouns seem like they will be risky for many years to come. Probably best to skip them and just say 'When Asia met up with her friends Asia suggested the whole group of them go to the theatre.'
It would be quite difficult to understand 'When they met up with them they suggested they all go to the theatre.'
But I'm sure over the decades ahead language and people will continue to evolve.
As faculty adviser to the LGBTQ student group at a Louisiana university, I have learned the importance of the proper use of personal pronouns in addressing individuals, whether trans or non-binary gender. The use of "they" with the singular verb "is" is awkward. While it makes clear that the person being referred to is an individual, it also draws attention to non-normal characteristics of that person. I will suggest that this is not the best solution. Either use the standard verb, "they are," and rely on context for clarity, or use the specifically non-gender pronoun, the subjective "ze" whose possessive form is "hir." There are many available references for the grammatical use of this pronoun.
Your editor might not be willing to lead the way on this cultural shift and its pressure on our use of language, but I ask "why not?" If the New York Times cannot serve as an example for the universal acceptance and codification of a gender neutral pronoun, then who will? The Times began printing gay wedding announcements long before gay marriage was legalized across the country. Yes, please establish a policy for the use of gender neutral pronouns. This will likely provide the necessary impetus for the universal codification of this important topic.
Your editor might not be willing to lead the way on this cultural shift and its pressure on our use of language, but I ask "why not?" If the New York Times cannot serve as an example for the universal acceptance and codification of a gender neutral pronoun, then who will? The Times began printing gay wedding announcements long before gay marriage was legalized across the country. Yes, please establish a policy for the use of gender neutral pronouns. This will likely provide the necessary impetus for the universal codification of this important topic.
2
In future, the Times should take more care that these pieces actually reflect standard usage of non-gendered pronouns. No one would ever say "They is going to the theater"--the standard usage is "they are," in both singular and plural. These things are easy to check--simply ask someone who uses non-gendered pronouns.
1
Disagreement in number - subject and predicate. I would never say "The New York Times announced their new policy ...." The Times is an "it."
Well - this is clearly a matter of taste. The British, who have some experience with the English language, consistently use the plural verb form following a collective noun subject, e.g., Harrad's are having a sale.
"They" as a singular pronoun retains its grammatical nature as a plural noun. I know a genderqueer person. I say "They are going to the play", not "They is". Nobody I know uses the grammatical singular with the "they" pronoun.
1
That's not how non-binary people use the pronoun they. Quoting from the article: "Either confuse many of your readers with sentences like “They is going to the theater” or risk falling behind shifting cultural norms."
The correct grammar and how every non-binary person I know uses this pronoun would be: "They are going to the theater".
In case this confusion stems from the AP saying that "the phrasing does not imply more than one person", then that's absolutely not what this means.
The correct grammar and how every non-binary person I know uses this pronoun would be: "They are going to the theater".
In case this confusion stems from the AP saying that "the phrasing does not imply more than one person", then that's absolutely not what this means.
6
It would be as ridiculous to write "They is" as it is to write "You is." Both pronouns take plural verbs, even when referring to a single individual. If we can manage it with "you"—and we all do—we can handle it with "they."
6
"They is" is African-American vernacular, which the Times guards against like the Plague. However, the Times is being told to bend over backwards to conform to transgender vernacular. Something not right...
From the comments on John Scalzi's blog post, Pronouns,:
">> If “they” is being used as a singular pronoun, should it not take a singular verb? >>
“They” as a singular pronoun goes back centuries. Shakespeare used it. In all that time, it has consistently taken a plural verb."
So "They is going to the theater" is wrong.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/03/23/reader-request-week-2016-5-pronouns/
">> If “they” is being used as a singular pronoun, should it not take a singular verb? >>
“They” as a singular pronoun goes back centuries. Shakespeare used it. In all that time, it has consistently taken a plural verb."
So "They is going to the theater" is wrong.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/03/23/reader-request-week-2016-5-pronouns/
3
I was taught grammar by nuns, so I almost always cringe at the prospect of relaxing any grammatical rules just to reflect common usage. But it seems to me that the time has come to accept the singular "they", because it serves a useful purpose. In the old days we would just use "he" if there was ambiguity, but half the world quite reasonably takes offense to that, and "he or she" is needlessly clumsy.
1
I too was taught similarly by nuns. But our sensitivity can't stand up to that of the non-binary community.
No I do not vote Republican.
No I do not vote Republican.
A solution that is completely incorrect, so far as politics go.
"It."
Granted, this is jarring. But the solutions bandied about are also far short of satisfying. "They?" When we're talking about one person? No. Can a gender nonbinary person vote twice (outside Chicago)? "He?" Doesn't make it for the same reason "she" doesn't work.
I do not mean to extend nastiness toward gender nonbinary people. But the solutions put forth in this column are short of satisfying. And so I propose "it." These folks would, actually, be in good company, so far as grammar rules go.
According to AP style, an animal absent a name must be referred to as "it." And so Fido is bestowed with "he" (or "she"), but a dog that's gone stray and ends up in the pound is referred to as "it," as is a bear or whale or any other non-domesticated animal. There are many fine dogs in pounds, finer, in many cases, than dogs that, at their owner's side, bite and snap and pee and do all sorts of things that an "it" dog at the pound would never do.
I don't have a dog, so to speak, in this fight, not being nonbinary or knowing such folk. But, perhaps, we should all embrace our inner it. The Great Waldo Pepper, a throwaway film from the 70's, had a character dubbed the Great It Girl Of The Skies--"it" was a slang term denoting someone in the spotlight.
There is no good solution. But "it," perhaps, is as good as any put forth here. If nothing else, such references might make animals a bit more human.
"It."
Granted, this is jarring. But the solutions bandied about are also far short of satisfying. "They?" When we're talking about one person? No. Can a gender nonbinary person vote twice (outside Chicago)? "He?" Doesn't make it for the same reason "she" doesn't work.
I do not mean to extend nastiness toward gender nonbinary people. But the solutions put forth in this column are short of satisfying. And so I propose "it." These folks would, actually, be in good company, so far as grammar rules go.
According to AP style, an animal absent a name must be referred to as "it." And so Fido is bestowed with "he" (or "she"), but a dog that's gone stray and ends up in the pound is referred to as "it," as is a bear or whale or any other non-domesticated animal. There are many fine dogs in pounds, finer, in many cases, than dogs that, at their owner's side, bite and snap and pee and do all sorts of things that an "it" dog at the pound would never do.
I don't have a dog, so to speak, in this fight, not being nonbinary or knowing such folk. But, perhaps, we should all embrace our inner it. The Great Waldo Pepper, a throwaway film from the 70's, had a character dubbed the Great It Girl Of The Skies--"it" was a slang term denoting someone in the spotlight.
There is no good solution. But "it," perhaps, is as good as any put forth here. If nothing else, such references might make animals a bit more human.
2
The slang term was "it girl," as in "girl of the moment." I don't think it applies at all.
1
The original 'It Girl', I believe, was silent film star Pola Negri. The 'It' in question was sex appeal.
This sentence from an editor writing about grammar:
Among the rank and file, you’re apt to get different answers, as I did, depending on who you ask.
Among the rank and file, you’re apt to get different answers, as I did, depending on who you ask.
12
Language is never "finished". It is constantly evolving, moving, reshaping itself based on the usage of the people.
Written language strives to keep up with the oral usage, but never has, never will, and in the fast paced communication of today and tomorrow is bound to fall further behind faster and faster. We must be more forgiving of those who strive to communicate through the written word without offense.
I taught high school for a few years and embarrassed myself many times trying to use what I thought was the "current" vernacular, so just reverted to trying to express myself in the way most comfortable to me, with a good heart and good intent.
"They" when used to refer to one person, is not comfortable for me. What do I use when multiple people are involved then, as a plural pronoun?
Practically, If I am writing about several individual gender-neutral persons along with several gender identified persons in a scene or chapter where they move in and out of different groupings, and using their names every time disrupts the prose, what pronouns are acceptable?
I am not making light of this, I respect the written word and the denotation and connotation of words and their power over people and society much too much to do so, I am just confused, and need direction - and am relieved to find the NYT is struggling as well.
Written language strives to keep up with the oral usage, but never has, never will, and in the fast paced communication of today and tomorrow is bound to fall further behind faster and faster. We must be more forgiving of those who strive to communicate through the written word without offense.
I taught high school for a few years and embarrassed myself many times trying to use what I thought was the "current" vernacular, so just reverted to trying to express myself in the way most comfortable to me, with a good heart and good intent.
"They" when used to refer to one person, is not comfortable for me. What do I use when multiple people are involved then, as a plural pronoun?
Practically, If I am writing about several individual gender-neutral persons along with several gender identified persons in a scene or chapter where they move in and out of different groupings, and using their names every time disrupts the prose, what pronouns are acceptable?
I am not making light of this, I respect the written word and the denotation and connotation of words and their power over people and society much too much to do so, I am just confused, and need direction - and am relieved to find the NYT is struggling as well.
1
As a mother of a transgendered child and an English teacher, there are both professional and personal growing pains for me on this issue. Luckily my child appreciates my attempts to embrace their evolution, which includes remembering to use the pronoun of choice. I, for one, appreciate the NYT's initial article about a nonbinary person, as well as the subsequent reflection regarding pronouns. In our home, it's about progress, not perfection.
3
@NPB: The opening sentence of your comment reads to me as if your transgendered child is an English teacher.
I think that for the sake of clarity, you might have written: "As an English teacher and the mother of a transgendered child..."
Otherwise, you probably shorted yourself another "as." As in: "As the mother of a transgendered child and as an English teacher..."
It is amazing how we attempt to hold a discussion about the rules of the grammatical road concerning nonbinary gender identity and an English teacher and Public Editor both write grammatical howlers having nothing to do with the subject at hand. How can we break new ground when we can't seem to understand the old ground, as in Spayd's misuse of "who" for "whom?"
I think that for the sake of clarity, you might have written: "As an English teacher and the mother of a transgendered child..."
Otherwise, you probably shorted yourself another "as." As in: "As the mother of a transgendered child and as an English teacher..."
It is amazing how we attempt to hold a discussion about the rules of the grammatical road concerning nonbinary gender identity and an English teacher and Public Editor both write grammatical howlers having nothing to do with the subject at hand. How can we break new ground when we can't seem to understand the old ground, as in Spayd's misuse of "who" for "whom?"
2
One would not write, "They is going to the theater." It would be written, "They are going to the theater." You use a singular they in writing the same way you would use a singular they in speech.
2
And singular "they" takes a plural form of "to be" just as singular "you" does. What? You didn't realize that "you" is a plural pronoun? Where were you 300 years ago?
You write here of gender neutral and non-binary pronouns, but it seems to me that most of the challenges you describe don't have to do with that issue per se, but only with the choice of some individuals to use plurals to refer to their singular self. There have been many other non-binary and gender neutral pronouns mooted - and adopted in the real world - that do not trigger the same linguistic confusion. Perhaps a little more precision when discussion this topic would also be appropriate.
1
This one is silly. Sorry, person is singular, and they is plural. If individual sexual identity can make a person a "they" then the term must also be used for people with multiple personalities. That would rightly bring the wrath of many. If we need a new word for a person in Dillon's position, then create one. Don't abuse English to make a point.
4
Question: Is "English" a person? No. People invented English. We can therefore change English. English cannot be "abused." People can. This kind of seems obvious, and it's funny how much we cling to "rules of English" as if they dropped from heaven rather than being invented by human beings!
Why not use "it" for third person singular pronouns for folk who want to avoid he or she?
1
Dillon can call herself whatever "they" wants, but the rest of us, Times included, don't have to follow "them" down this path to insanity dressed up as "shifting cultural norms." And not incidentally, this is why Trump got elected.
23
"it" works and is not confusing.
1
My daughter had a transgendered apartmentmate who preferred "xe."
1
Yep - try talking to a friend about your loved one, and using IT as a pronoun, see how ugly it feels.
'It' is fine. To people who assert 'it' is dehumanizing because it's the pronoun of choice for inanimate objects and nonhuman species, frankly I know a fair number of humans who are about on the level of inanimate objects, and for most of my human acquaintances over the years, to be compared to any other species would be a gross insult to the latter.
As far as I'm concerned, every third person singular is an 'it', at least within the confines of my mind; though, like my opinion of an individual, I may choose not to utter it, simply to avoid a hoo-hah.
As far as I'm concerned, every third person singular is an 'it', at least within the confines of my mind; though, like my opinion of an individual, I may choose not to utter it, simply to avoid a hoo-hah.
The Op-Ed was mainly about the unpleasantness of censorship in Singapore, and frustration with presenting entertainment to the viewer with some of the information withheld. It sounds as though some people are insisting that news organizations must practice that same kind of censorship by withholding information about a person's true gender, whenever the subject requests their true gender identity be withheld. Since when do good reporters pull their punches like that? I assume there continues to be plenty of cases where a person's age is reported even though the person would prefer it wasn't.
Asia Kate Dillon was born female and appears female. Unless a person has had gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatments, the gender they were (we assume correctly) assigned at birth is what they still are. I don't see a compelling enough reason for that knowledge to be automatically withheld from readers. If printing the full truth is too problematic, for whatever reason, I would prefer that these people just not be discussed at all.
Asia Kate Dillon was born female and appears female. Unless a person has had gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatments, the gender they were (we assume correctly) assigned at birth is what they still are. I don't see a compelling enough reason for that knowledge to be automatically withheld from readers. If printing the full truth is too problematic, for whatever reason, I would prefer that these people just not be discussed at all.
4
Oh, the "misstep" was merely prescient, soon "they" will grow out of this fetishized narcissism, or so "we" hope. In the meantime, steering clear of "them" out of fear of becoming the object of "their" next witch hunt.
3
Bring on clarity via new word(s).
Just bizarre.
9
How about "s/he?"
N-G (non-gender). NYT should also stop publishing Kristof pieces about reproductive health to honor N-Gs, the hope of which incentivizes my contribution here.
Sorry. "They" is a plural pronoun.
7
So is "you." Your point?
Oh God. I prefer to be referred to as the Supreme Potentate of Pemberton. Although I hope never to be the subject of a news story, I trust the Times will accommodate me. In fact, failing to do so will erase my identity so, if this situation ever arises, you must use the correct phrase or I will be aggrieved. You and Asia Kate deserve endless mocking and scorn for this whole kerfuffle.
7
"Seeming" is another vague word that should be purged. On this issue, truth is, the Times is "out of touch."
4
walterhett: '"Seeming" is another vague word that should be purged.'
You should suggest an alternative to "seeming".
You should suggest an alternative to "seeming".
doxob: vague is as vague does! Purged literally means eliminate. I suggest eliminating seem/ed/s, except in rare instances when it points to a fake or false or contradictory appearance.
walterhett: "Purged literally means eliminate."
You seem to be unaware of the concept of copy-editing. Rewrite the PE's sentence so that it has the SAME MEANING as the one used in the post:
Original: "... the kinds of embarrassing mistakes that could leave The Times seeming out of touch."
If you simply "eliminate" the word "seeming", you change the meaning.
walterhett: "I suggest eliminating ..."
The verb "suggest" is weak. You should "eliminate" it from that sentence.
You seem to be unaware of the concept of copy-editing. Rewrite the PE's sentence so that it has the SAME MEANING as the one used in the post:
Original: "... the kinds of embarrassing mistakes that could leave The Times seeming out of touch."
If you simply "eliminate" the word "seeming", you change the meaning.
walterhett: "I suggest eliminating ..."
The verb "suggest" is weak. You should "eliminate" it from that sentence.
Hey, I'm all in favor of gender rights, but this millennial obsession with designer identities and mangled pronouns is absurd. Everbody ends up sounding like Gollum, and the reader is left to scratch his/her/its/our/yours/their headses.
The purpose of language is to communicate, and if the reader doesn't know what's going on, communication has failed. Let the little preciouses have his/her/its/our/yours/their pronouns and trigger warnings and comfort animals in the privacy of their own dormitories and disruptive protests, but please, leave the rest of uses alone.
The purpose of language is to communicate, and if the reader doesn't know what's going on, communication has failed. Let the little preciouses have his/her/its/our/yours/their pronouns and trigger warnings and comfort animals in the privacy of their own dormitories and disruptive protests, but please, leave the rest of uses alone.
85
Josh, thank you for communicating in what traditionally is called a rant (impassioned, angry)--or am I misinterpreting the scorn in your use of "the little preciouses (points for invention, but I do get your meaning, I think).
The drift away from the logic of argument aside, your point about communication and the definition you offer falls short on an important juncture: communication can not be put into a box, segmented; its central social purpose is to communicate the values and meanings of common discourse, to build community and commonality. Blocking off vocabulary ("in the privacy of their dormitories") does the opposite!
Two more points: communication evolves, changes, brings new words and meanings into the fold! No doubt you had to learn several new words in the last decade, and new meanings; why should it be different when it comes to the dignity of self-definition for those who formerly had no place or acceptance and this denial influenced their self image?
Lastly, words help us learn, expand our thinking, see new ideas, understand struggles, express the human will. Reacting against that is thoughtless and doesn't get at the criticism that lies behind your critique--surely pronouns didn't arouse this much ire!
In South Carolina, slaves introduced a new language. Rather than keep it to themselves, they shared it and whites adapted and spoke it as well. It became a source of pride, a bond that was a balm for "we" people (speaking in Gullah now!), a balm, Josh.
The drift away from the logic of argument aside, your point about communication and the definition you offer falls short on an important juncture: communication can not be put into a box, segmented; its central social purpose is to communicate the values and meanings of common discourse, to build community and commonality. Blocking off vocabulary ("in the privacy of their dormitories") does the opposite!
Two more points: communication evolves, changes, brings new words and meanings into the fold! No doubt you had to learn several new words in the last decade, and new meanings; why should it be different when it comes to the dignity of self-definition for those who formerly had no place or acceptance and this denial influenced their self image?
Lastly, words help us learn, expand our thinking, see new ideas, understand struggles, express the human will. Reacting against that is thoughtless and doesn't get at the criticism that lies behind your critique--surely pronouns didn't arouse this much ire!
In South Carolina, slaves introduced a new language. Rather than keep it to themselves, they shared it and whites adapted and spoke it as well. It became a source of pride, a bond that was a balm for "we" people (speaking in Gullah now!), a balm, Josh.
15
The original purpose of most 'gender ' ronpins apears to have had more to do with social sratus than sex.
Sit,Lord,The Rev., Dame Prince (ss), etc. had NOTHING to do with one's hormones and genitalia, which were, after all, fixed until the second half of the 20th century ce.
Mr. was a fairly recent term for non-slave/indentured or oherwise servant. The difference btween Miss and Mrs. represented a lowest-status free woman as what society would now regard as 'property of father ' v 'property of husband '
It really is time for the Times to join most US newspapers, dropping courtesy titles for at the least, citizens of a nation that is, by Constitution, forbidden from awarding courtesy titles
.For the few bestowed by usage 'Dr' for physicians, identification on first reference is sufficient.
But in most casses the use is as absurd for US residents as lawyers who style themselves with the suffix Esq. in a nation where they will never be named a knight entitled to the refix Sir
Use names first names or, in casas of Sr.s and Jrs. 'The eldet " or " younger Smith or whatever.
It also willsave sace in a shrinking news hole and time for a shrinking editorial staff already troubled by getting the right status title for women who don't have medical degrees, asking 50% of their subjects 'is that Mrs., Ms., or Miss?
Sit,Lord,The Rev., Dame Prince (ss), etc. had NOTHING to do with one's hormones and genitalia, which were, after all, fixed until the second half of the 20th century ce.
Mr. was a fairly recent term for non-slave/indentured or oherwise servant. The difference btween Miss and Mrs. represented a lowest-status free woman as what society would now regard as 'property of father ' v 'property of husband '
It really is time for the Times to join most US newspapers, dropping courtesy titles for at the least, citizens of a nation that is, by Constitution, forbidden from awarding courtesy titles
.For the few bestowed by usage 'Dr' for physicians, identification on first reference is sufficient.
But in most casses the use is as absurd for US residents as lawyers who style themselves with the suffix Esq. in a nation where they will never be named a knight entitled to the refix Sir
Use names first names or, in casas of Sr.s and Jrs. 'The eldet " or " younger Smith or whatever.
It also willsave sace in a shrinking news hole and time for a shrinking editorial staff already troubled by getting the right status title for women who don't have medical degrees, asking 50% of their subjects 'is that Mrs., Ms., or Miss?
The purpose of language is to communicate. Using the correct pronoun-- in this case "they"-- is a mark of precision and respect. This is not about being "precious." To say you are "all in favor of gender rights" in this case means the opposite. You wish to remain in your familiar world, unbothered by struggles you don't really support.
4
If you want to identify yourself as a chicken pot pie, you are free to do so. This is America, after all.
Just don't expect everyone else to play your little games. A bit of friendly advice from Trumpland, your new home.