According to the NYT's own psychiatrist-columnist https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/richard-a-friedman-how-changeable-is-gender.html, the incidence of genuine severe gender dysphoria is .005%, or about one in 20,000. This amounts to about 16,500 people in the US. This number, of course, does not include the current fashion for declaring themselves transgender among confused adolescents and a handful of effeminate gays and masculine lesbians . Thus, the other 330,000,000 of us are supposed to butcher the English language and endure endless confusion to avoid hypothesized discomfort for less that 17,000 people. Tail wagging the dog.
189
@Someone else. But this is a 2015 article. NYT has since gone brutal woke in their opinion section. This 2015 article would never be printed by this paper today.
46
I was at the hospital giving my I.d. Info, and the receptionist, inquiring about my spouse, asked me “if they were here.” Thrown a little off balance, I jokingly responded, that “she’s here. I have only one. She’s right over there.” The receptionist didn’t smile over the little moment of confusion.
I couldn’t imagine myself saying, “They is over there” or “they are over there”, as if I were living in some ambiguous reality. Language’s first duty is to describe reality accurately and clearly, not to obfuscate it. Identity warrior that she was, she penalized me by marking me as late to the appointment—by two minutes!
535
@Richard This. I'm all for a gender neutral pronoun, and I think 'they' is probably going to win, but jeez. We really do need that singular/plural distinction, and 'they' is sometimes confusing. (it's not always, but it sometimes is.)
We already find ourselves needing a way to make a singular/plural distinction for 'you' - thus 'y'all', 'you guys' 'you lot', etc. So I predict that if we default to 'they' for both singular and plural we will find ourselves making up a new word to replace plural 'they' in the not too distant future. It would be more efficient to just find a different form for the singular now, and leave 'they' alone.
it's also a little obnoxious for Ahmood to refer to people who have ingrained linguistic habits as 'snoots.' If he's going to go descriptivist (people have always used 'they' for the singular!) then he really needs to go descriptivist for everyone's usage (some people find the singular 'they' forced and unnatural, and that's fine) not just for his preferred usage while insulting people whose use of language is different from his own.
104
@Warbler: Well, it's an easy way to sidestep criticism by deeming detractors "snooty." I teach English and the "they" thing offends my grammatical sensibilities. More important, though, is that getting rid of the "she" erases women and engages in the fiction that there is nothing unique about being female. That's the far more troubling criticism of his position. Once we're "they," it'll be all men, as evidenced by his writing an article about being called "they" and only citing male experts.
194
@Richard
I think that if you were in the hospital for an appendectomy and the doctor said that yes, we are going to have remove them, it would be time to bolt for the exit.
47
I think that the NYT web development team should take some time, out of what I assume is a busy schedule, to add a “Cultural Luddite and General Curmudgeon Unification Fest 2019” banner to the top of the comment thread.
41
This is idiotic, grammar means a great deal to those of us that respect the English language. It’s used as a plural. I’m female, not cis- female;language doesn’t hamper me stupidity does. Be as fluid as you want, the majority of us are okay with he and she , the minority should not be defining the language.
102
Please refer to me as he, him or Dick. "They" has a specific meaning - two or more people who are not me. If Uber tells me "they" have arrived, I will wonder why there is someone in the car besides the driver.
Language and words have been attacked so vigorously by people who think that grammar doesn't count. Soon enough we won't be able to know who or what we are talking about and the consequences of poor communication will make us worse off.
57
Comrade? How about this: comrade Farhad?
27
Nah. I'm good.
62
The content of the NYT just keeps getting more insufferable. I’m a liberal, but this “progressive” agenda stuff has lost all common sense. We don’t have to invent ways to be offended by everything. I will continue to refer to my wife and daughter with female pronouns, and if that makes me less intellectually superior in they’s opinion, so be it.
126
Mx. Manjoo has an opinion: They want to be referred in the third person plural. Color me befuddled, but at the beginning of their screed they refer to themselves as a suburban "dad", not "parent". So what is it then? I wonder if Mx. Manjoo, when asked whether they have children, answer "I have a child" instead of stating "yes, I have a son", or "yes, I have a daughter".
Also, they should consider changing their first name, as the "ad" termination in "Farhad" signifies that Mx. Manjoo is a man, and we are doing away with gender signifiers, right?
78
OK, so let us in on it. Is there an annual competition at the Times for the most ridiculous column? There has to be, given the sheer number of ridiculous columns. But this one deserves nomination. They have done an extraordinary job.
88
Another example of why I read the NYT - the unintentional humor of its failed social engineering propaganda. This article, however, is not as funny as one several years ago where the Times posited that an "artist's" dive off a high bridge was "performance art" rather than a suicide.
49
I sometimes worry that the NY Times commentariat (they) are so far left, so anti Trump, that they no longer care about logic or common sense. The majority of the comments here, however, restore my faith in their ability to think clearly. There seems to be pretty much common agreement that this is a loony column. Which begs the question -- are there editors on the opinion page? Does anyone read something -- and say, sorry, you should try again?
Or maybe this is a humor piece? Right? I mean it's pretty funny. Maybe a little too subtle for the common person (them folks).
78
Not sure what expertise They Manjoo brings to the table. Is they a linguistics expert? An English scholar? Or just another person whose opinion is worth no more or less than mine? If the latter, what entitles they to they’s platform? I couldn’t buy they’s opinions when they was shilling for the tech industry. They’s opinion on other matters carry even less weight with me. Does they get paid for this? I’m both jealous and sorry that my subscription helps pay for this.
63
The real problem is what Manjoo mentioned - "they" in the singular refers to an unknown person, so to use it for a real person is confusing.
24
No, let's not. It sounds stupid, and it's bad English. All for less than 1% of the population afflicted with gender dysphoria.
52
Sure, I can use "they." But, in return, please stop calling me "cis."
57
French is a gendered language and so is German, but their rude offspring English is not gendered in the Romance/Germanic tradition. And this is very nice because we don't need to attach a sex to every noun.
23
TO NYT- 2,000 plus comments, the vast majority of which are critical to the point of finding the opinion piece absurd. Of course, the paper is free to take whatever position it wants and to publish such opinion pieces as it wants, but at some point you need to "...Do the Math...".
47
Sorry, but gender doesn't stifle me. Call someone by their name if your not sure how to refer to someone, but this PC nonsense is getting old.
50
So, what if I'm discussing two "they"s - do I call them they? Confusing, no? I'm sorry you have problems with your gender, Mr. Manjoo. But, I don't feel compelled to re-word society for your problem.
29
If you are the kind of person who still blows a gasket indignantly wondering how a nation full of bigoted idiots could have committed the egregious moral error of electing Trump, note the way that even an overwhelmingly progressive readership has given this piece next to zero positive feedback. Progressive politics relies too much on a veneer of moral unquestionability, but it associates with too many policies like these that are merely gateway drugs to the gradual breakdown of that veneer. Right-wing pundits easily and rightly exploit these issues, and a left that can't get past them gets no sympathy from me.
56
Pronoun trouble.
14
i want to know what brainiac came up with "they"?
find a new word, peeps.
29
Farhad has stepped up his game to be relevant. May they please do it elsewhere.
27
We should all change our lifetime grammar protocols to adapt to your inability to adapt to having a gendered pronoun that doesn't suit you?
This article is a perfect example of narcissism.
30
Never.
24
Farhad Manjoo has an opinion: They should be referred to as them. Color me befuddled when right at the beginning of their screed they describe themselves as a suburban "dad" not "parent". So what it is, Mx. Manjoo? Also, I suggest that Mx. Manjoo changes their first name, as the ending "ad" in "Farhad" implies that he is a man, and we want to do away with all gender signifiers, right???
21
Easy for you to say...
11
No thanks.
15
I would suggest a new singular word of "pe" for he/she and "per" for his or her. P stands for Person.
4
French has il, elle, and on.
English also has “one.”.
I believe that almost all human beings only have one set of genitalia. Where is the “they?”
10
The singular 'they' with a non-specific or collective singular noun as antecedent has been around since the 14th century. The singluar 'they' with a specific person as antecedent is an post-Orwellian neologism, invented by the LGBT2Qwhatever lobby as their latest exercise in virtue-shaming. The Ministry of Truth would be proud of them.
People can refer to themselves with whatever pronoun they like;threy are not entitled to require other people to follow their lead. It is 'the common language.' Nobody owns it, least of all the prudes.
The precise use of English is one of the few things that protects us from Donald Trump, KellyAnne, and alternative fact. Newspeak and its modern derivatives are a cancer at the heart of the Republic.
Please, NY Times, spare us idiocy such as this piece. As serious journalists you should know better.
24
You call us readers "snoots" and then expect us to consider your ideas? No thanks.
20
This is so ridiculous...
21
“They” is not singular. It’s plural.
17
"They say" (which means some elite individual)
"Everyone was here for the party, but he or she went home" (which nobody says, whatever the "rules" of grammar imply)
Let's do it, Farhad Manjoo.
They're applauding you.
5
This is so absurd. The author doesn’t even realize how ridiculous the whole conversation is.
The Democrats need to get clowns like this “they” to stop with the identity politics or you’re looking at Trump2020.
32
Ah, come on. Let's get over this ridiculous over-sensitivity. As a respecter of all persons--no matter what his, her, their gender, color, sexual orientation, race...blah, blah, blah, don't mess with of the clarity of using gender specific pronouns. Enough already. Obviously the complainers have too much time on their hands (their-plural, possessive, gender non-specific). Lighten up, folks!
16
File under "How Trump Got Elected"
34
This is akin to debating the interior color scheme on the Boeing 737 Max.
17
“A man’s face is [they] autobiography. A woman’s face is [they] work of fiction.”
- Oscar Wilde with substitutions for woke NYT reporters who want to change how we speak
14
I have no problem with a gender-neutral pronoun. But “they” is a plural pronoun. You see? Just writing “they is” is like fingernails scratching down a blackboard. “They are” for one person is just downright confusing.
17
I guess I am a “snoot” as I am bothered by the grammar of a singular “they.” I get that people don’t want to be hemmed in by gender—but I think we can safely say we should not be troubled by designating singular v. plural. (Does anyone object to “I” instead of always using “we”?)
I had not heard of the “ze” option before I read this article. I’d be happy to use it and to be called by it.
That said, I can reluctantly go along with a singular “they” (for all of us) if there is no other gender neutral option. (But you just taught me about “ze”!). I don’t like “they” but I prefer a tolerant society to an intolerant one, even if it offends my grammatical sensibilities.
How about this: if we snoots must go along with “they,” then, as a trade, people acknowledge that “cannot” is one word and, c’mon!, stop using “good” as an adverb, people! And “literally “ does not mean “figuratively” and...and...snoot...snoot
14
"Stifling prison of gender pronouns"?!?
Just stop.
35
You lost me as soon as you said cisgender.
37
So, call me a pedant. Plural is not singular.
19
I find the use of they to be evasive, dishonest.
My friend just graduated. They were summa cum laude.
Oh, who is your friend?
Why do you ask?
Why did you tell me?
I forget, what we’re we talking about?
11
There’s already a well-established gender neutral pronoun in English: “one.” Why resort to the novel and confusing use of “they” for this purpose?
16
Defying logic and reality with tortured grammar is no way to run a railroad. This kind of illogic is what drives otherwise sane people crazy and it does nothing to advance any cause. It just makes the people pushing such changes look moronic.
16
This is exactly the sort of thing that conservatives seize on to make liberals seem out of touch. I don't know why the New York Times feels the need to endorse it.
21
They by definition is plural. I am not going to call an individual "they." Should I say "they is going to the movie tonight" when I am referring to my friend Jane or another friend, Harry?
Is there not a simple solution? Come up with a new term. Remember when "Ms" was introduced....??
How about some suggestions from all the readers.....
4
Those who think this is a big deal, raise your hands....thought so.
7
Marge Piercy, "Woman on the Edge of Time." Per for third person singular and plural.
3
Mr Manjoo, I apologize for the multitude of short-sighted responses to your article. You are ahead of your time. Thanks for your sensitivity and broad-mindedness.
10
"But it was only when I had a son and a daughter of my own..."
Son? Daughter? Why are you gendering your children, Farhad?
35
This article sounds so insincere.
13
As Dorothy Parker used to say, "What fresh hell is this?"
31
So then...Is it "They writes well" in the singular and "They write well" in the pleural?
5
Mr. Manjoo has now (4:00 PM EDST on Thursday) generated over 2,000 (!) comments, most of which are pretty rough on him. HIs heart is in the right place, but I guess I agree with most of the commenters that although we need to have greater tolerance of transgender people they are a relatively small portion of the larger population (yes, we once also thought that of lesbian and gay people, but...), and the punishment of making such a big shift in how we talk and write doesn't fit the crime.
However, there is a related issue here, which is referring to a hypothetical person whose gender is unknown. So there's a problem in saying, "Each morning when a fifth-grade teacher looks out on her class, she sees an increasingly diverse group." Saying "she" reflects the reality that most third-grade teachers ARE women, but it both kind of implies the teacher must be a woman and ignores the fact that some can be and are men. Same problem for nurse, firefighters, or for that matter any occupation.
And his is where "they" saves you. You could say, "Each morning when a fifth-grade teacher looks out on her class, THEY see..." This isn't really great grammar, but if that bothers you there are some ways you could reword this without losing the meeting - e.g., ""Each morning when our fifth-grade teachers looks out on their classes, they see..." So a little different problem, but kind of the same solution.
3
There are two genders. Pick one.
15
Abbott and Costello would have a field day with the use of “they” in their “whose on first” skit. If they on first and they up to bat and they in the dugout then whose on second?
17
I hope I didn't offend that ocean liner when referred to it as she.
12
Yes! And while we're pushing back against the Times stylebook, can we get rid of the use of "Ms." and "Mr." for every mention of a person after the first one? Reading about the policy proposals of "Ms. Warren," "Ms. Harris," "Mr. Sanders," and "Mr. Biden" has the unfortunate effect of unnecessarily bringing gender into every single political discussion. Most other newspapers do this. It's easy: "Farhad Manjoo wrote a great opinion piece today. In their essay, Manjoo argues for the use of nongendered third-person pronouns."
9
Or imagine writing dialogue without using he and she. Let's say you're writing about a romantic interlude between Harry and Sally. Now, as they indulge in swapping sweet nothings across a dinner table in a crowded restaurant, wouldn't it be nice to use, he said, she replied. Sure, you can use Harry said, Sally replied ad nauseum. Or just kind of ignore the need for attribution. But, he and she certainly help ease the attributional burden as readers want to know who is saying what and they want some variety in how that is done.
But imagine if we get to the part where it goes, "I love you," he said. We know it's Harry. But now use, "I love you," they said. Well now we've got a problem. Is it Harry breaking the ice, or Sally. Or is both simultaneously?
Or perhaps the waiter has always had the hots for Sally, or maybe for Harry, and they has decided to take a stab at winning her/him away.
Or -- maybe it's the entire restaurant, joining together to tel Harry and/or Sally of their undying love. Or maybe all the restaurant goers have decided to have whatever she's having. How would you know?
16
Is this really important? Who actually cares about this stuff? We have the country ran by a maniac and his criminally insane enablers. They are trying to take away Obamacare, itself a pathetically feeble olive branch to citizens. The opposition Congress members are being led by two right wing incompetents who could be of any gender, depicted by any pronoun you choose as long as the adjectives describing them are accurate.
Plenty of languages including Turkish that was signaled in several comments have a single gender-free pronoun (singular and plural; o and onlar in Turkish respectively). Ask Turks if that solved anything there about gender inequality!
Publish comments like mine. They add to the discussion.
7
Is this really important? Who actually cares about this stuff? We have the country ran by a maniac and his horrid enablers. They are trying to take away Obamacare, itself a pathetically feeble olive branch to citizens. The opposition Congress members are being led by two right wing incompetents who could be of any gender, depicted by any pronoun you choose as long as the adjectives describing them are accurate.
Plenty of languages including Turkish that was signaled in several comments have a single gender-free pronoun (singular and plural; o and onlar in Turkish respectively). Ask Turks if that solved anything there about gender inequality!
Publish comments like mine. They add to the discussion.
18
Let's not. Seriously.
13
I certainly don't mind learning to use a new set of pronouns for non-binary folks, but "they" is stretching it for me. To take a plural pronoun and make it singular is too much! Also there are too many options -- they/them, ze/hir, ze/zir. I think it's asking a lot for people to adopt such a wide variety of pronouns. Pretty please, let's settle on ONE new set of pronouns and stick with it.
10
I'm all for people being referred to by the pronoun they prefer, but you studiously avoid using the pronoun "they" as a subject, which would require a plural verb, or what most would consider very bad grammar.
I'm not sure I understand why the simply pronoun "it" is not used, unless it is considered rude to de-sex somebody. We use it with babies until we are clear what gender they are, without assuming they lack one. If we extend "it"'s use, we avoid trashing grammar rules, and only play a little loose with accepted use. Is "Juan is almost here. Meet them outside" less awkward than "Juan is almost here. Meet it outside"? The quantity of "Juan" makes it clear that them is singular only because we are having this discussion, otherwise it is breaking some rules. Or if we reverse the sentences: "Meet Juan outside. They are/is almost here" or Meet Juan outside. It is almost here." is one more awkward than the other?
Maybe breaking the rules is the intention, as it clearly calls attention to something some people would rather ignore. We will get used to it in the long run, but we should make a good choice.
There is no lack of languages that allow use of names in place of pronouns, even ones that let you replace "I" with your own name. It is also not ungrammatical to say "Juan is almost here. Meet Juan outside."
1
@ted. Or perhaps “Juan is almost here; be outside and ready for your ride!”
3
As is typical of progressive thinkers since at least the French revolution if not before, you focus entirely on two factors of gender pronouns and norms: (1) their arbitrariness from the perspective of the universe or 'rationality' and (2) the limits they may impose.
However, (1) is true of all social constructs including the one you put forward, and there is nothing particularly or objective about it. But relatedly, you ignore entirely the benefits and the opportunities that can only be developed, experienced, and understood within a gendered society.
The beauty, Majesty, and captivation of cultural products that use gender go back to the beginning of history, and we can intimately share in them only because we too have a gendered world. In much the same way the demise of Christendom for most westerners have denied visceral understanding and appreciation of te products of that religious she to any but the most academic degendering will involve substantial palpable losses.
This is not merely of historical significance but gendered communities in social interaction will create experiences and insights that are inaccessible to the degendered gender normless world. The Converse is also true, in part of course...
But to tie points (1) and (2) together, it would seem to me that any claim to degendering as 'rational' would have to take serious stock of both the costs and benefits. You don't.
2
In a couple places in Ulysses by James Joyce, Molly Bloom speaks of the the "he and she of us" as she recollects her odd marriage with Leopold. And there's much in that richness of difference to appreciate and even savor. It doesn't matter, for example, who's "wearing the pants" as it were. But speaking of our difference as a kind of natural polarity in life seems appropriate and enriching. Yes, we have our stereotypes of extremes of gender. Though more often than not the balance--if its lost--in the living out of individual identity, it's to find oneself framing ambiguity, a middle path or an all but female masculinity or, similarly, an all but male, femininity. Those of us privileged (if that's the right word) to dwell on one pole or the other of the spectrum, there's pleasure to be had in being one's self without ambiguity. The larger question, of course, is how to enjoy and appreciate all the variations that lie between. So here's to "the he and the she of us," and here's to ambiguity and the fascinating shades of life that emerge in the betweens of our arcing humanity.
7
My father was Hungarian, and the language's genderless pronouns remained with him for his whole life. He would mix up he and she all the time, and one had the feeling it had shaped his view of the world. Gender was not mentioned unless it was central to the conversation. Colleagues were colleagues. Teachers were teachers. I completely agree that this neutrality would do us some good, as well.
14
For most of us, "they" is indelibly imprinted into the neurons that provide our language functions as a plural pronoun. This article will not change decades of daily use for the hundreds of millions of people similarly burdened. Reprogramming the English-speaking world to comply with this novel redefining of our everyday vocabulary is very much like forcing a square peg through a round hole. Futile, but an effective means of competing for a sufficient degree of wok at work or online. When it's time to get serious about changing language to accommodate the accelerating gender confusion in our society, invent a new word that works for everybody.
10
i use (me, me, me). People appreciate the narcissistic levity.
17
You (They?) write: “irredeemably obsessed by the particulars of the parts dangling between our fellow humans’ legs.” First, what dangles between a WOMAN’S legs? Second, you (they?) are the one who seems obsessed with cleansing the language. Shall we set up a government ministry, as the Spanish and French have, to regulate what is linguistically acceptable and what is not? Third, elevating to a norm of the language in all linguistic registers a spoken usage that originated centuries ago out of ignorance is absurd. Learn something about languages. And have at least a brief look at an anatomy textbook. Women don’t have dangling modifiers.
22
Language can be brutal. The Latin word for "left" is "sinister " (meaning "evil" in English). The French word for left is "gauche" (meaning "clumsy" in English). The Latin word for right is "dexter" (as in "dexterous" in English). The French word for right is "droit" (as in "adroit" in English). Why are hand-held calculators, iPhones, and scissors, made for right-handed people? If you want to have a language police, let's make language (and devices) fair to left-handed people.
12
Boy, I thought I was a pretty liberal man until these gender and pronoun wars got afoot. When folks like Mr. Mahood directly tell us that we are “intolerant” because we don’t go along with this psychosis, I can then better understand why voters in 2016 picked Donald Trump as president. This kind of political correctness is so gratuitously militant and overbearing that some people really, really wanted the antithesis of PC. Unfortunately they got it in the form of Mr. Trump. If my party keeps it up with this mission creep, get ready for four more horrid years of Trump. You’ve been warned.
48
Many years ago, it struck me that starting a letter to an unknown person at another company or institution with "Dear Sir" was making an assumption that I (as an employed woman) would have found at least a little offensive (why the automatic assumption that the addressee was male?) So I started using "People" as my salutation. It strikes me using "they" is much the same thing - it simply makes no assumptions. If using it about people you know or can see makes you uncomfortable, try by starting to use it for people whose identity you can't know ("I need to email HR again - they haven't gotten back to me about the new hire"). Pretty soon, treating people as just people may get to be the new normal.
6
As a 50 something life long English speaker, I find the "they" pronoun usage for a singular person extremely awkward. Instead, I'd like to see the English singular non-gendered pronoun be "she." She is an inclusive word that includes both English's gendered pronouns (the "he" within the "she"), and also includes the "sh" sound which is neither an "s" or an "h,"which can symbolize the way non cis-gendered people feel when they don't neatly fit into male or female gender categories.
8
I’ll admit using they/them would be very smart when talking about a baby or a dog– I can’t say how many times I’ve said “oh how old is she?” and then the parent says “he’s a boy”. People rarely if ever care that I’ve misgendered their infant because it usually happens all the time, but using they them would certain streamline those conversations.
When referring to an adult who is clearly of one gender, I’m sorry but it’s just ridiculous and frankly it’s all a way of erasing and marginalizing trans people, the vast majority of whom have fought for ages to openly identify as male or female.
10
Halfway through this opinion piece, I asked myself - "Why am I reading this?"
Is this something really so important that we should be reading it and getting worked up about?
I'll bear with the "he" and the "she" for some more time.
25
If the woke scolds suggest I HAVE to call anyone (specific language), I am done discussing anything with you. You do not get to dictate my language as I would never use force to dictate your language. I have the freedom to use my own words not the Orwellian language policing you suggest.
30
The woke scolds think you are intolerant and probably a bigot or a racist. If you disagree with them even on something as absurd as this, they are going to attack you personally to squash debate. Watch out. Differences of opinion are unacceptable in their warped world view. You can not be an individual anymore with your own ideas. You have to conform to their identity politics.
14
I've decided that my preferred pronoun is "sir," because my authoritative masculinity is so central to my identity.
That's fair game, right?
20
Interestingly, I find that most of the people commenting are doing so in regard to trans or non-binary people. The reason I find that interesting is because I read the article, aware of the trans/N.B. issues but I was focused on the times when it would be much more comfortable for me to use "they" in place of he/she (which I often already do in certain circumstances as do most people) without the pedantic guilt that general occurs if I make the substitution in writing rather than speaking. I can be pedantic at times and so "proper" language usage is important to me and yet there are the many instances when speaking or writing "correctly" is inconvenient and cumbersome because the gender isn't known. Anyway, focused on how such a change stood to be beneficial for myself I wasn't feeling the resentment so many are expressing (and that I to have felt in the past when thinking of pronouns as something others were attempting to force me to change). As some have pointed out they are times when using they or them would be inconvenient and confusing - like when you know the gender of the individual and you wish to convey that you are referring to a single person. I think a way to approach this s perhaps to just relax the rules so that it isn't considered poor grammar to use they/their/them for one person. "I REALLY wish the owner of the Mustang wouldn't park their car in front of my house" is an example of usage most of us already employ. So how about both being considered correct?
5
My coworker goes by "they". They are the only "they" on the team, except for all the other groups of people who are also referred to, together, as "they".
It is beyond confusing.
On calls, everyone trips over their language trying to support "them". When someone reverts to "she", someone inevitably jumps in to remind everyone that "they" are "they". Every. single. call.
I read emails and texts more than once to be sure I know what is being said. Sometimes I need to ask for clarification.
I think neutral gender pronouns could be transformative in the workplace, but "they" in practice is tough. It's divisive in ways that it shouldn't be, and creates unnecessary confusion in the most basic conversations.
29
I'm completely with you in supporting non-sexist/genedered ways to refer to people in the third person singular. I am also one of the grouchy grammarians who wonder why this real issue should be solved with a known third person PLURAL substitute? Why not invent a new word that will soon fill this critical space: as we did when many women rebelled against the Miss versus Mrs. designation that often inaccurately pronounced on marital status or age ... the new word Ms solved that obviously patriarchal problem. While we're at it, let's invent a non-gendered alternative to Mr. and Ms. too! Finally, I notice that your article assiduously avoided using 'they' declaratively as in "They is swimming against the grammatical tide." Or are you against the singular form in general? Explain.
13
Mr. Mahood would be willing to tie himself, and the rest of us, in linguistic knots in order to accommodate his rather confused take on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis- the idea that language structure reflects and shapes state of mind (especially these days with regard to gender it seems). I decided to apply Mr. Mahood’s advice, by translating, into his preferred language, a brief email I received just now from my daughter’s Summer camp supervisor: “Since returning from the trip your daughter has resumed their (really her) happy, enjoying camp self (notice that the word self, connotes a singular, not a plural being). Their (really her) counselors spoke with their (her) about their (her again) feelings (whose feelings I ask, my daughter’s or the camp counselors?) and since then they (she) has (have?) been in program as usual.” I realize we all contain multitudes in some existential sense. Yet, I prefer to think of myself as individual and not plural. Just call me he, or don’t address me at all Mr. Mahood. Life is confusing enough as is even absent your preferred linguistic convention.
16
Most people embrace their genders. Even the many tom-boys I have known have all been quite confidently female. (Most also played sports and quite preferred the gender distinctions which allowed them to compete against other females.) Eschewing gender roles does not have to mean eschewing gender.
Oddly, it seems that this article and this proposal are not aimed at transgender people who seem not to want to eliminate gender but to claim a different, yet still quite specific gender. It instead appears aimed at people who ascribe to a gender in everything but name.
This quest to call oneself cisgender and to attack good grammar and the English language strikes me as self-indulgent, arrogant, and faux intellectual. "Look at me and how enlightened I am in not following your silly gender rules!"
36
As long as we're revisiting long-held rules of grammar ("he" and "she" are singular, but "they" is plural) to make a point, I think it's also about time to rehabilitate that most disreputable of grammatical faux pas - the humble "ain't."
At the very least, "I ain't" ought to be as acceptable a contraction of "I am not" as "they aren't" is of "they are not." It's no argument to say that "I'm not" is a sufficient contraction for "I am not." After all, "they" have the option of either "they aren't" or "they're not." "They" can even start a question with a contraction, "Aren't they?"
There is no better way to rectify this imbalance than to let me say "Ain't I?" "Am I not" is priggish and "Aren't I" is as ungrammatical as "they is." (I assume "they is" is still ungrammatical when "they" is singular).
But maybe I'm making too much of this. "Ain't" can bear its own weight regardless of what I or any grammarian may say, given its long, ubiquitous usage.
2
How about "I amn't"?
I amn't hungry yet, thank you.
Used to use it in my twenties, goodness knows why.
1
Ok, so your spouse finds out you had an affair. Do you say, it was just him (or her). Or do you say it was them. I'd opt for the first approach, as the second, well, you're already in trouble, why make it worse?
10
I stopped reading right about 'I think men should wear makeup'. Why should ANYONE wear makeup, unless you're an entertainer?
13
I'm a writer, mentor, editor and a "snoot". As soon as I see "they" used incorrectly in a manuscript, I suspect the writer is a novice. I react the same way to passive sentences, gerund verbs used incorrectly and the now far too common practice of using a fancy word to sound writerly. Wallace was not the finest example of his craft.
7
I REFUSE to be BULLIED into referring to anyone’s gender according to their wishes rather than my perceptions. Since I perceive this issue as a rather feminine area of concern I will be sure to refer to any cis male who takes a stand against being called “they” as “her.”
6
The King James Version of the Bible has lovely language, but some of it was contrived because of disagreement about grammar. At the time of translation, "his" was used as the possessive form of both masculine and neuter words. But "its" was become popular. To avoid controversy, the translator avoided both. So we ended up with "the width of which was 10 cubits and the length of which was 20 cubits"... instead of its width was 10 cubits and its length was 20 cubits. And today we think of that awkwardness as poetic flourish.
The great William Safire pointed out that "he" embraces "he" and "she". That's good enough for me.
2
The actor (gender neutral form) Asia Kate Dillon plays a non-binary character named Taylor Mason on Showtime's series, "Billions," who uses the singular "they." The other characters scrupulously use the correct pronoun when referring to them, which sometimes creates needless confusion when sentence structure makes it difficult to tell, in passing, whether "they" means Taylor's company or Taylor themself (is that right?) or some other group entirely.
Also, using "they" for an individual reminds me (us?) of the "Royal We" -- unnecessarily unspecific and a bit pretentious. Even, dare we say, "snooty." We used to use "he" as an all-purpose singular pronoun ("Each person is entitled to the pronoun he desires"), but defaulting to the male term seems sexist. In writing, I have used "s-he," but I don't know how you (plural) would pronounce it.
The goal of language should be communication and clarity. There's no reason we need to assign gender to pronouns, but we require a singular one that's not gender-specific.
7
I am all for erasing, or blurring, as nearly as we can the expectations we have from people because they are biologically male or female. This process has already begun – simply having the discussion is moving more and more people to at least pay lip service to idea that people should be left to be who they are. I am skeptical, however, of the top down engineering some propose by having a genderless language. The most compelling and obvious reason being that there are many gender neutral languages in the world, but no gender neutral cultures that I know of.
I think it’s more efficient and effective to allow the bounds of he and she to expand naturally, to let people be comfortable being who they are regardless of their sex. To slowly, organically, let the idea of gender disappear in favor of mere sex, without cultural expectation. There are numerous biological realities that make it efficient to retain the descriptors of male and female, but the gender norms can be thrown out the window. And I think that asks more of us, more compassion and more growth, if we can get to a point where we don’t think twice about a dude or a woman who is what we would have at one time called feminine, or a mix of both masculine and feminine. Or just a dude or a woman.
Your mileage may vary, of course, but it’s an idea. In the meantime I will continue to do the best I can to refer to people by their chosen pronoun, although I do find the singular they a bit of a challenge.
4
I don't get how this non descriptive language should help anyone. I get that description in language is always framing, sometimes even discriminating, the descripted one. But without description there will not be any information anymore. I do like to get as much information as possible in as little words as possible from the person I'm talking too.
5
In a nutshell, the crux of the matter is best summarized in the question: do you want your language to be more or less descriptive, or more or less communicative? What does language even do? What do we use it for? The answer is, simply, to facilitate maximal understanding to a maximal proportion of the masses. For that reason alone, much less all the other credible indictments of inorganically hatching neologisms from on high (from within the ivory towers of academia, media, Hollywood, etc); these stilted pronouns will never become part of the vernacular.
8
@Erlend Nikulaussøn
Yep. But this is the US and this is the NYTimes. Analytic thinking is not for us.
Even the writer who actually is intelligent and pretty progressive figured out the formula to keep his job as a pundit: write on irrelevant topics while a maniac is ruining our democracy and his enablers from both parties are serving their masters, the 0.01 percenters like faithful dogs.
4
Select a new pronoun that does not already have a definition. In the television show "Billions," the non-binary character uses the pronoun "they." Therefore all of the other characters, and those who write reviews and recaps about the show, use "they" for this character. This produces a great deal of confusion, at least for me, because it is often not clear whether a character or writer is referring to the non-binary character or to a group of people. I find myself rewinding the show to clarify, and rereading sentences of reviews/recaps to gain clarity. There has to be a better, less confusing, option.
7
I wholeheartedly support this article. In the future, people will look back on these comments as prejudiced and uninformed (because that’s what they are).
The world evolves and language needs to evolve with it. It’s not that hard to understand. The cis gendered people commenting don’t care because they can’t relate and aren’t as forward thinking as the author (who is proof cis gendered people CAN understand).
But you know what? There is more to the world than what effects you. That’s why we need to move forward.
9
@Samantha Richardson
Oh, I care. I will call anyone he, she, or they, as preferred and demanded of me. No problem!
I am not okey, however, with you calling me 'they,' because I do NOT identify as 'they' and you do not get to decide how I should (?) must (?) identify for you to feel satisfied in the world.
11
I'd like a gender neutral singular pronoun. I don't want it to be "they." "They" has a place and usage. I'm all for a new word. In lieu of that, I will hang my head and use "they".
3
We simply need a new word. Referring to you in the third person as “they” makes it sound like you have multiple personalities that require serious meds. They is at least as awkward as “he or she”.
C’mon all you PhDs in the english language! Come up with something creative, efficacious, and sensible, and as utilitarian as our current forms of address.
7
I have never voted for anyone but a Democrat. Articles like this make me want to vote for Trump.
35
How about just inventing new pronouns? Using a plural word to signify one person just grates! I would gladly learn the new pronouns and use them.
9
..Why not just use 'it'.. as in, "It did not write a very convincing opinion piece." -On the other hand, if they find it too treacherous to wade into the use of pronouns.. just let it say nothing.. :)
17
Because it is dehumanizing. It is predominantly used for non alive (don't know the correct vocabulary) objects and as a human you shouldn't be referred the same way as a piece of furniture.
3
It is only dehumanizing because we have defined it that way. If we are changing words and definitions, then redefining IT is just as good as anything else. It's much better than THEY for use with a singular person.
Regardless, I'm sure that this will change about the same time we start exclusively using the metric system on it traffic signs in the US.
11
@Casper This isn't exactly the case. "It" has been in common use for a long time in referring to a baby. Also, lots of languages (like German) actually use the "it" pronoun in referring to a a girl, because the diminutive form of the word for woman automatically renders the word as neither feminine nor masculine.
5
I think you are being disingenuous to suggest that "they" has been used as a singular pronoun in all contexts for a long time. In fact, it is the recent usage of it as a substitute for "he" of "she" in a narrative that creates wide-spread confusion. The law, for example, requires precision. One needs to know whether one is referring to, say one witness or more than one witness. Stating that "they saw the perpetrator and then ran" has always meant that more than one eyewitness exists. Making 'they" a singular alternative to "he" or "she" only confuses most readers. We do in fact need to distinguish singular from plural usages in most instances.
18
Was "they" a committee choice? Who was invited onto the committee? Who wasn't?
It makes it exceedingly hard to support transgender rights (I do) when the most visible issues elevated are twofold - who pays for reassignment surgeries and treatments (me? why?), and appropriation and redefinition of an existing common-usage word.
Elevating this into another Language Police Action put even this left-leftie into a stuporous coma.
29
Western civilization is coming to an end. The liberal West is becoming a joke. Let's keeping adding more silly things and think we are progressing or civilized. The rest of the world is moving on and will reject this silliness.
25
The columnist offers the following sentence as a model: “Did you read Farhad’s latest column — they’ve really gone off the deep end this time!” Yet in that sentence “they” has no clear antecedent and so, inevitably, most people will read “they” as referring to a group and will wonder why the group in question is not specified or will expect the next sentence to specify the group being talked about. The columnist objects to the clumsiness of “he/she” yet is willing to toss clarity out the window.
The singular “they” is fine when the person being referred to is hypothetical or unknown. But indiscriminate, unthinking, and purely knee-jerk usage such as the columnist recommends does nothing but fog up the language. A pronoun is, literally, a word that stands for a noun. If it’s not clear what noun it stands for, we’ve got a problem.
Next step: English teachers getting fired for “insensitivity” when they say that pronouns ought to have clear antecedents and then grade accordingly. Next step, that is, if Farhad has his way.
27
I wonder why they referred to their two offspring using “son” and “daughter”.
Limiting.
28
Like you I am a cisgender man (now living in Dallas). I am fine with Him or They for referencing me... One thing that bothers me here though is people referring to my partner as my wife. She is my partner and I prefer a gender neutral reference to her / them. By contrast, I think it's interesting your NYTimes bio refers to your spouse as your wife. What pronoun does she prefer? Is that relevant to you and your relationship?
5
They have truly crossed into the land of the absurd.
33
We have to change underlying assumptions and ideas, not torture and mangle the English language in a misguided attempt to apply the Whorf hypothesis.
Believe them! They is telling youse the truth!
6
Why can't I just call you "it"? We are all used to using "it" when we refer to dogs or cats or birds, when we don't know what is the sex of the animal. Is there something so special about people that they have to be pluralized?
12
"The singular “they” is inclusive and flexible, and it breaks the stifling prison of gender expectations. Let’s all use it."
When I saw this sub-head, I thought that maybe Farhad's column was satire.
Stifling prison of gender expectations? You must be speaking in jest!
9
Are you more than one person? Then no.
17
If the author is so concerned with "gender expectations" (a valid concern at that), he (sorry, "they") should deal with that particular problem. During my lifetime those expectations have been slowly melting away, and I expect will continue to do so. Besides, most people who use this pronoun for Manjoo will see him in person, conclude that he is male, and will impose any expectations regardless of pronoun.
6
For cases where gender was unknown or unimportant, there was a default to the male singular pronoun until roughly 50 years ago. Was that a good idea then; is it a good idea now? Probably not -- unless the female singular pronoun could simply disappear. It didn't and won't, so we're stuck with a solution that sounds off to many of us (yes, I'm a grammarian in my own way).
I'll adjust to they/them their/theirs as singular firms, but I'm not happy about it. And please, let's not invent a new word that won't get used by most of us. A singular-plural is bad enough.
1
I agree that many aspects of gender are false constructs and need doing away with (boys like sports, girls like dolls, men should have short hair and women long hair, blah blah blah). But if ALL aspects of gender, including biological sex, are harmful and/or false distinctions, does it really mean anything to be cisgender or transgender? As a cisgender person, I feel my biological female sex is also my gender identity, and a transgender woman feels her gender identity is the opposite of her biological sex...but what does that mean for either of us if "female" and "male" gender identities mean....nothing in particular? If we are all "they" and none of us "he" or "she"? And how can one be gender fluid if gender isn't real?
Actually, reading over my own comment and those of others, as well as the original article, it's dawning on me that this is just an "angels on the head of a pin" debate. It's yet another distraction from what should be the two cardinal rules of interacting with others but are hard to live by and not sexy to talk about: 1) Be kind, always and 2) Don't be too sensitive, ever.
16
Growing up in the 90’s, I was encouraged to think of gender as fluid. Girls could be and do anything ( boys were not similarly encouraged, notably). You could push and expand the meaning of the categories you were born into. I think that now these categories are thought to be much more fixed and rigid, but people themselves are encouraged to be fluid. By definition they have to be fixed and rigid or it would not be possible to be trans. This new approach is uncomfortable to me. I like being a she and being married to a he because I don’t think that those pronouns should be limiting. I don’t want to be a they.
7
Your male privilege is showing. Oh, to be so naive and sheltered that you think obfuscating reality through imprecise language can help rid the world of sex discrimination and violence against women. All this does is deny women and girls useful linguistic tools for identifying oppression.
This is the gendered version of "I don't see color."
22
Farhad - From what can be gleaned from your public profile and array of online pictures, you are a genetic male, married to a genetic female, you have a nuclear family with kids, and you dress like a man.
You're not even among the (relatively tiny) group of genetically frustrated transgender individuals who are the only ones who truly have a claim to a general-neutral pronoun, but who as far as I can tell usually fight hard to be called a gender-specific pronouns that are different from the sexual organs they were born with.
You are a man, man. Wear make-up, fine. Shun gender stereotypes, whatever. But don't bastardize the English language by turning a plural word into a singular word because you have some weird preference for ignoring gender distinctions in language (though apparently not in attire).
14
This is proof there is too much time and too much self-absorption in America to make this an issue worth spending more than 1 minute of their time on. His, hers, or theirs. At the risk of sounding like an elderly curmudgeon, I do find the younger generation more interested in their navels than work or the outside world.
20
Traditionally--and more to the point, functionally--speakers of English have reluctantly (or figuratively, in the case of imagined or theoretical persons who could be of either sex) employed the term 'they' to refer to individuals in cases of ambiguity as a sub-optimal descriptor when sex proves otherwise too elusive to determine.
Historically, languages have generally applicable rules and conventions which encompass most of the whole without purporting to cover the whole of anything. What I mean by this is languages are necessarily limited human constructions, but the way they can best facilitate communication is by adopting conventions suitable to the average person. Wholesale Lingual revolutions or evolutions are not, and should not be, driven by infinitesimally small groups of speakers.
I can think of many practical--to say nothing of the cultural perils and pitfalls--disadvantages posed by invoking 'they' on a wholesale basis in order to refer to individual persons. In law enforcement matters, as just one example, imagine trying to identify a suspect of a violent crime to police whilst adamantly refusing to specify the gender of the alleged offender. Imagine how much more difficult it would be for police to identify and apprehend the alleged offender. Imagine all the clinical headaches it creates for surgeons or other physicians when knowing an individual's sex (divorced from whatever subjective terms an individual chooses to use) is pertinent to providing care.
5
Approximately 3 in a thousand have gender dysphoria. I am not counting those who feign gender ambiguity thinking it's cool. They are sort of like those athletes who wear prescription-less glasses thinking it implies they might have read a book or 2. So 997 people minus a few dozen feigning ambiguity. Maybe 950 out of a thousand are comfortable with he and she. So to suit 3 people and a few dozen fakers we should change the language? You are sort of like the teenage girl with orange hair. That's fine, she is a teenager. But you are a grown man, why the nonsense? Gender is significant. It is primal. Masculinity can vary as can femininity. Man can behave in many different ways, as can women. But they are still men and women. Folks with gender dysphoria should be viewed sympathetically. Society is best when it is welcoming to all. But a welcome does not mean we upend the language in a foolish way.
34
This is just silly. Just for fun, let's revise all of the Romance languages since the vocabulary is mostly gender based (In Spanish, most words ending in "o" are masculine and words ending in "a" are feminine). It would make conjugating verbs easier if we didn't have to remember masculine/feminine and singular/plural. In fact, since the Romance languages are based upon Latin, the language on one of the most notorious Western, white, imperialist cultures (the Romans), we may just want to outlaw the Romance languages all together.
So the suggestion is: I'm a man or a woman, or both, or sometimes one and sometimes something else, and since I'm free to change my view on how I "identify," I want to change the English language because it makes me sad and I find it offensive, so all of you out there in the world need to change and accommodate me. Absurd.
11
Biggest problem with "they?"
As you allude to, it is the haters among us (us being humans everywhere) who use it with great frequency to categorize/demarcate their targets.
"They" is used to group the "other," the "different," the "persecuted," the "looked down upon (by the self anointed looking downers)." The history of its use includes a great deal of unpleasantness.
Why tangle up this word which so often is used in hate or attempted diminution or anger, to accomplish what you feel are noble objectives? Certainly there must be, as volumes of NYT commenters have noted, better options.
2
I would vote for Bernie Sanders, if possible.
I am appalled by Trump, the abomination of his nativist rhetoric.
I would allow abortion.
Count me in for a government option on just about everything.
I send money to the ACLU, NPR and the Wilderness Society.
So I qualify as a card carrying liberal, wild eyed radical.
But calling you "they" and worrying about "gender expectations" and gender fluidity is a bridge too far.
This sort of don't hurt my feelings talk is the sort of thing which alienates folks of otherwise tolerant and open minded demeanor.
When I marched against the war in Vietnam "back in the day" I refused to march with people carrying a Vietcong/North Vietnamese flag.
There are simply some people I do not wish to join--this sort of gender correctness is that flag I cannot march with.
23
@Claudia. Don’t donate to ACLU anymore. “Women” are now “people” on both their cervical cancer page and their pro-choice page. ACLU is eliminating the importance of our SEX when it comes to cervical cancer and abortion?
3
Honestly, referring to a singular person as "they" is in my opinion not only pretentious (think the royal "we") but ridiculous.
Hardly inclusive. It immediately separates the person using it as his/her pronoun identifier. I often use "s/he" when I write about a position that could be filled by either a man or a woman, like a police officer or fire fighter. So how about incorporating "shahe" as a pronoun to describe a cisgender individual.
Whether or not one identifies as neither male or female one's DNA is still comprised of both nucleic acid strands, no?
14
No thanks. I decline to abuse a beautiful and perfectly useful language in the name of political correctness. Those who crave genuinely gender neutral pronouns need to accept that English already has them: third person gender neutral singular, "it;" plural, "its." The test of success for movements these days, as with religious fundamentalists of old, seems to be the degree which they can somehow force everyone else to adopt their particular dogmas, rather than make the civil liberties common to all members of society into their own.
12
Actually, the plural form of “it” is “they.” “Its” is the possessive form of “it.”
1
Why not "it" to refer to someone? I don't ask this to sound crass, I really would like to know because I am just learning about all this and I find it not just fascinating, but really confusing to read, never mind speak.
3
In this thread: very angry folks stomping their feet and saying, basically, “No I won’t [enter the 21st century] and you can’t make me!!”
It’s a bit perplexing, to be honest. Why the attachment to gendered pronouns? As for me, call me whatever you want. I get called “sir” and “young man” a couple times a month. I get dirty looks from women daily. Less often from men, who don’t seem to care that I’m not being a proper lady. I am butch, tomboy, whatever you want to call it. I don’t love “it” but maybe we gender weirdos should reclaim it. I carry myself a certain way and I look this way on purpose, but I also know who I am outside of these labels.
4
It's not primarily an attachment to gendered pronouns, but to numerically-accurate pronouns.
And before you, or you all, get unity about our numerically-unclear "you" consider that it, too, has led to sometimes really problematic, even life-threatening problems.
9
@Dally I’m well aware of the problems associated with being called “it.” Please trust me on that. But I find in this conversation it’s mainly men and women — who have never dealt with same level of violence and discrimination that I and my fellow gender-variants have — that are so quick to dismiss “they” as an alternative. So what should we call ourselves if “they” is clearly so abhorrent to you?
3
No one said it’s “so abhorrent.” That’s an overreaction. What you call yourself is up to you; “I” and “me” seem reasonable. And I will call you by your name or use the grammatically correct pronoun. That is up to me.
3
Generic (and specifically singular, as when serving as an anaphor for "everyone") "they" has been around in English for a Very Long Time. And is found in the "best writers" of all periods.
For the ostentatiously "grammar-sensitive", one can often avoid the "he or she" clumsiness by recasting the sentence in the plural.
1
I don’t agree with this article
If you want to be called something else then let me know and I will call you that
But I personally don’t agree with most of this gender neutral stuff.
12
Hello Farhad, Thanks for your interesting and informative column on pronouns and gender. As a person with university connections, I am somewhat familiar with the pronominal questions that you discuss (somewhat because I am retired). Permit me to introduce a comparative sociological dimension into this question. I was always impressed with pronominal use in Turkish (I did years of research in Turkey). The pronouns “on” (he/she/it) and “onlar” (they) have no implied gender designation. So the question of mis-referring to people, or other creatures, of varying gender, does not arise in pronominal use. At the same time, I have to point out that Turkish society and culture ranks fairly high on the scale of patriarchy and machismo (even though contested nowadays in some quarters, among both believers and otherwise). I say this in order to dim any hope (which you did not express) that pronominal usage will help us much in reforming these problems in the United States.
7
Do your own thing, but don't expect the world to change because of that. In what democracy does the minority rule??
12
Thank you!!!
On the other hand, with a different thought, the ability to challenge existing pronominal norms in English might be a reformist advantage that the Turks do not have. What do you think? This brings to mind France, another society and country where patriarchy and machismo abounds, but where they are also fiercely challenged, perhaps even moreso than in the US, in certain registers. In French, as you know, both singular and plural pronouns are gendered (ils, elles). So again, this implies that linguistic ideology might serve itself as a springboard for social and culture reform. In closing, dare I raise the question of “it”, a non-gendered pronoun, understandably avoided because of its dehumanizing implications. Maybe the dehumanizing of “it” usage should also be challenged. Would this be even more radical than adopting “they” usage? Best Wishes. I frequently read your column even though I hate tech!
1
I want to know if all the drilling of Sam and me vs
me and Sam is now obsolete.
I believe I hear me and Sam more often than the original.. and continue, by training, to wince.
No one says I and Sam.... do they?
1
Language matters. See Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.” This is not about sensitivity or compassion; it’s a political power play to undermine, marginalize, and ultimately vilify the Judeo christian belief that men and women are different— that God created them man and woman. Forcing these kind of rhetorical falsehoods on the non-woke masses will backfire. In fact it already has, as the tolerance for the trans community declines, particularly among the young. Most of us are sick of it, and there will be a backlash. Did 2016 teach you nothing?
222
@Beowulf
Correction: God created most people man or woman, but He also created a whole lot of people who are physically and/or mentally between the sexes. In the most obvious cases, the genitalia of newborns have characteristics of both genders; but most cases are not that obvious. God in His wisdom created many varieties of people, and all have the same dignity as those clearly in the he/she categories. You may be "sick of it," but you might as well be "sick of" left-handed people or people with green eyes. God made everybody, including those whose eyes are closed with intolerance.
34
@Beowulf
All Indo-European languages differ between male and female genders, And these languages are older than the "Judeo christian belief". So this distinction has nothing to do with religion.
People in ancient times just noticed that there were two different kinds of gender.
31
@Beowulf What? 'Tolerance' or acceptance of the trans community is increasing, not declining, among the young, who are much more insistent on civil rights for everyone than we old folks have been. Don't make this about anything other than the difficulty of changing how people normally speak English, and the fact that 'they' is plural.
28
When I was pregnant with my third child. We would use "they" when talking about the baby in my belly. We did not know if they were a male or female. People would constantly stop and say "Oh you're having twins?" No, we are using a gender neutral term to describe the child of whom we have not met yet. People did not understand that "they" could be singular as well. Even after finding out that they were going to be a boy, we continued to use they just to throw people off. It became a game of pointing out the uneducated and then we would educating them.
My mother would tell me to stop referring to the baby as they because she would jump to more than one; it made her nervous. No matter how many times I would educate her on the terminology. Or arguing with people that they is both singular and multiple.
1
@Shelby "It became a game of pointing out the uneducated and then we would educating them. " But you said above that most people were confused about the NUMBER of children you were having, not their gender. This doesn't make you woke, it makes you snarky for snarks sake.
7
Why is the NYT obsessed with these topics? This article is nonsense.
Between their radical pro-abortion position and endorsing these absurd 'alternative pronoun' stories, it is clear that either the paper is out of touch with reality or simply publishing these stories to get attention.
Meanwhile, the glaciers are melting, species are going extinct st an alarming rate, and we have a neo-fascist in the White House.
We are doomed.
8
This is the stupidest thing I ever heard of...
19
@edofpotomac2
As my mother used to say (a long time ago): there are things you may think but not say; your comment is one of them (most of us agree with you, but we won't say it, at least not so frankly).
4
To those saying, why should we 99% change to accommodate a few nonconforming people?
In 1910, there were about 3% left-handed people. It was clearly a small (deviant!) minority and stomped out where possible. Today it's more like 10%. Why? Because we stopped telling them that they were wrong at every turn, and we let them do what came naturally to them.
Do you think that using "sir/maam", "guys/girls", or other gender markers -- in virtually every single interaction we havev -- reinforces a gender binary, and keeps people from expressing themselves beyond it? Damn straight it does.
"They" has been used in the singular for 1000 years. Let's stop gendering people at every turn and let them be themselves.
(Left-handedness analogy due to Julia Serano: https://medium.com/@juliaserano/transgender-agendas-social-contagion-peer-pressure-and-prevalence-c3694d11ed24)
4
@Gribley. Yes! Thank you for mentioning Julie Serrano and the historical treatment of lefties! I am left-handed and so is my entire (albeit small) extended family — father, aunt, uncle, both grandparents, and my first cousin. I’m not a scientist, but I would guess that handedness is probably a genetic trait. I had some minor difficulties learning how to write (I still remember the ink and graphite stains on my left wrist and arm and the illegible handwriting I had for years before I figured out how to write neatly and clearly), but nothing serious or even particularly memorable. I had a left-handed parent and attended a “progressive” school in Connecticut in the ‘90s which, despite being deeply puritanical in certain ways, let us lefties be ourselves without comment or correction.
I am optimistic that in another hundred years or so, non-binary or otherwise-gendered folks — or just the men and women who don’t want to be called Sir/Ma’am all the time — will have the same experience with their Otherness that lefties do now. A difference, yes, but not one that needs to be eradicated or feared.
3
@Gribley That is a terrible analogy. No one ever agitated for a handedness-free language. When I see a baseball game, I still see left-handed pitchers and right-handed pItchers. When I watch a hockey game, I still see left-handed shots and right-handed shots. I am a lefty. I have been called things like a wrong-sider all my life. I'm not insulted by it. I take pride in it. I even refer to myself that way. The lesson here is that we did NOT have to butcher the language to erase the stigma.
5
@Whitey Bolger
Thank you, Whitey. I enjoyed this.
1
Why not create an inclusive pronoun? Hijacking the word 'they' to refer to a singular person is confusing and acts as a boundary for well meaning people who would otherwise be accommodating. I fear that attempts to change already accepted words and norms will lead to a pushback that will inhibit progress.
4
I agree with the main point of this piece, but I'm disturbed by the negative characterization of "grammarians." In my experience, most actual grammarians (people who study grammar professionally) are not grammar snoots at all, and are more than happy to observe language changing before their eyes.
6
"Juan is here. Meet them outside"
How many Juans are out there? Am I going to have to choose which Juan I'd like to ride with? I think I'll just go with Jose instead.
13
@Churros
There is only one Juan outside, but the speaker has had one beer too many.
4
Children evaluate their teachers, adults three times their age, as part of the corporate "students as customers" wrecking of our culture. People frightened for their families' security have learned to please and entertain, and keeping everything comfortable for them is essential. A lordly superiority and entitlement to obedience and respect has ensued--with scant evidence of being returned toward the "old people" they too often scorn. Learning to handle a world that is not what they want has been scanted. The idea that they must be happy--now!--is common. And the suggestion that more knowledge of life, and patience, are needed is seen as "insulting", especially coming from older people who should please them or else. To wit, language does not undergo a massive change because you tell people to satisfy you. I will respect you, and expect your respect also. But the reality is that only a few will obey you; that needs to be all right.
4
Not only will i not call you "they", Mr. ( is that politically incorrect, too ? ) Manjoo, I won't refer to you, or anyone else, as CIS.
16
Using “their” or “they” when referring to an individual is bad grammar, plain and simple. But if The Times decides to be PC rather than GC, why not ditch the antiquated titles if Mr. and Ms.? Most of the people it/they write(s) about don’t deserve a courtesy title.
3
I'm generally fine with the singular "they", and have used it long before the current squabbling. Where I do have a problem is when using it creates ambiguity. In your example “Juan is almost here. Meet them outside.” my immediate reaction is to ask who else is in the car. I suppose that, in time I'll get used to it, but I would still much rather know that I won't be sharing the car with another stranger. I consider that to be far more important than making sure that no one is triggered by knowing the truth.
Disagree. Words meanings need to be as clear as possible in our brave new post truth world.
“They” means more than one person, not more than one gender.
11
No, they is not plural. If we want a non-gendered singular term then create one.
2
I do think most people prefer to be called he or she, though obviously some people don't.
3
As a transgender person who uses “they” pronouns, I can’t help but feel that this well-intentioned piece is appropriative of a label that actually means something specific— and NOT generic— for queer and gender-non-conforming people.
The singular “they” arose as a way to reflect non-identification with existing or stereotypical gendered categories (including pronouns). It was, and is, a way for people like me to signal that we don’t exist that these normative frameworks. Sure, a self-professed straight cisgender suburban dad *can* elect gender-neutral pronouns... but doing so, and suggesting that everyone else do to, too, is actually harmful, in much the way it’s harmful to replace “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter.”
This author is failing to own up to the systemic forms of privilege that subtend “their” (gendered) position in the world. This renders the pronoun meaningless and generic, diluting it of the real and politically salient meaning it has for actual LGBTQ people.
7
@A Parent
Funny, I am a gender-nonconforming woman who is perfectly comfortable with my assigned pronouns etc and I find it revolting to see someone citing people like me as a way to condescend to trans people...
2
Funny, my child is quite gender non-conforming yet is perfectly comfortable with and want to be referred to by the pronoun typically assigned to people with the same genitalia and reproductive organs.
One of several reasons for this preference is precisely because doing so rightly challenges the rather rigid stereotypes that both right-wingers and many trans people have adopted and reinforce.
189
I teach college students and warn them against the singular they every semester. It is not because I insist upon affirming our patriarchy through language. Rather, the singular they is hopelessly ambiguous whereas the "he" and "she" are more precise.
Imagine: You are standing outside a bank and someone comes running out with bags of money and alarms blaring. The cops show up on the scene and ask you to describe the robber. For fear of mis-gendering, you say that "they were covered in tattoos and jumped into a parked Chrysler mini-van." Well, congratulations, but your insistence upon "they" has the cops looking for multiple suspects!
Now what if the cops are hip and know about the singular they? The cops ask you: Was it one suspect or more than one? It was one, you respond. So the cop declares over his radio "a single they was last seen headed east on 12th St." But what if this dude prefers "he" or "she"? We're left with "he or she or they were last seen ..." Why is this foreign ambiguity - confusing number - any better than the "he or she" you decry as clunky?
In actuality, most of us have an exceptional track-record identifying the correct gender, implicitly or explicitly, when we encounter people. I've probably done this more than a billion times with a statistically insignificant error rate (and even when I see trans and non-binary folks, I know what's going on).
So their proposal - i.e., the authors - actually introduces confusion. (BTW - was it co-authored?) Great
19
@James Being disrespectful once might be "statistically insignificant" but we don't measure our humanity that way. The slights that keep people awake at night, the most deeply felt, tend to be the ones that are "statistically insignificant" episodes of life (or one would hope).
Your cop hypothetical is actually instructive of the exact opposite point, because, in attempting to give a description of someone one doesn't know (see what I did there?), one is bound to observe without trying to "gender" the person-- "over six feet tall, muscular build, long red hair and beard, carried a sword." No need to invoke gender at all.
Why not try to relax and accept that the world and language are changing? Or keep your AOL account, it's up to you.
2
"I will not be offended if you refer to me by those traditional, uselessly gendered pronouns."
Sure. That's what "they" writes on July 11, 2019.
Let's remember that Jordan Peterson was more than willing to use made up words like "zhe", "zher" or "zhey" to address any gender-amorphous student who asked him to. He became famous for defying the University of Toronto's *mandate* - upon pain of losing his job - that he do so.
So let's check back on July 11, 2024, shall we? We'll discover a follow-up piece to "they's column" announcing that the use of any gendered pronoun is the height of ignorance, if not bigotry, and "they" will relate this to the trend of employers making such madness mandatory to face down "hate."
Corruption of language is the first requirement of tyranny.
13
A very small, very vocal group of people want to rewrite the rules of language for the rest of us. They demand we see the world as they do or they will condescend to us and shame us.
Why do they get to do this when the overwhelming majority of people do specifically identify with one gender? Why is the tail wagging the dog?
28
Lots and lots of money funds this activism. That’s why.
2
@Sparky ". . . is what people said in the 1970s, but now 'Ms.' is a box that can be checked on virtually any form in the English language"
2
Use "they"?
He robbed my father. They robbed my father.
She burned down the house. They burned down the house.
Yeah, that'll fly. And you will be the first to point out what is evil about those new improved statements.
10
"From now on, the language of San Marcos will be ... Swedish!"
9
Interesting. One has liberty use almost whatever language one wants when referring to oneself. One does not, or should not, be allowed to impose one's own language on another, though one may certainly invite the other to adopt said language, repacking the other's right to self-determination and choice born of free will.
Or do my fellow non-right-wingers now believe it's ok for the English to demand that Irish and Welsh and Scottish people do away with speaking their native tongues; that it is good and proper for English-speaking Americans to require all schools be English-only, for Israeli government to cease having all of its way-finding signs printed in both Hebrew and Arabic and often English as well; for white Americans to force Wampanoag, Navajo, or other nations of people to teach and speak only English and punish those who refuse; or for hearing people to deny Deaf folks the ability to use sing language, making them sit on their hands or far worse if try to use what comes naturally to them; etc. etc.?? How utterly illiberal.
3
I love your essays. Thank you!
2
If "They" becomes the preferred pronoun for all of us, I insisted we all refer to ourselves as "We". For example: "We just had surgery" or "We need one ticket to Phoenix". The possessive, of course, will be "our". Example: "Our foot hurts" or "Our spouse likes the Impressionism exhibit". Any confusion from someone else should be met with indignation and haughty accusations of their not being "woke".
17
Let’s use “it.”
I know there are negative connotations to the word. But these would soon drop away with the new usage. Remember the fuss around the name of the iPad? Vanished. Gone. Now we talk about pads with nary a blush or even second thought. We don’t need a new singular, gender neutral pronoun. We already have it. We already have “it.”
3
When I was a little kid the text books taught that children are "he" or "she" and animals are "it". I felt that I couldn't tell babies apart of so when they are infants, so "it" works well enough. No one has corrected me so far.
I agree, we would be better off with more prevalent use of "it".
1
"Be a “him” or “her” or anything else in the sheets, but consider also being a “they” and “them” in the streets."...
Says a man. A clever and well-meaning man, but being referred to as "they" is not going to protect women "in the streets" from being seen as prey - subject to catcalls, harassment and worse.
And while I've got your attention, "they" don't menstruate, ovulate, carry babies through nine months of pregnancy and then labor to bring those babies into the world. "She" does all that. And she is punished in the workplace for it while she is still fighting for reproductive rights and equal pay.
24
@Sarah Mary Daly said it best when she wrote, "Women have had the power of naming stolen from us."
Great comment.
9
"What Let's not. Thank you.
Signed,
98.8 percent of America.
20
The author got one thing right. This will be dismissed as useless virtue signaling.
30
I wonder what William Safire would have to say about all of this?
There are more than 50 categories for gender identity. I am a little confused at times.
I say live and let live but don't be angry if I get it wrong.
7
@M I think if you make a good faith effort, no one is going to be angry. Asking respectfully "how do you prefer to be addressed?" can go a long way.
3
Half of humanity does not have parts that “dangle” between their legs. Your ‘he’ is showing.
20
Sheesh! I'm getting confused with the multipurpose use of "they".
- "They" if you don't want to specify gender in a written piece.
- "They" if you are nonbinary.
- "They" when you have a written piece about a nonbinary person. That one is the most confounding.
- "They" when you really mean they.
4
What about the 99%+ of people who prefer to be addressed as he or she?
Ridiculous. This whole discussion is absurd. Anyone who doesn’t see that will be in for (yet another) big surprises come Nov2020.
18
The division of life into two sexes is over a billion years old and the categories male and female are so fundamental to our understanding of the world we inhabit, our evolution, our social adaptation that it's absurd to dismiss them because a few (possibly well intentioned, often ill-informed) pundits in the last 10 years have decided we must. And to say that those who argue against these pundits are "plainly intolerant people" is lazy and downright odd--you may as well be asking the world to dismiss the concepts of Light and Dark. That would be nearly impossible for people to accept, and, beyond that, would it be warranted? Male and Female exist roughly on that same foundational level, including the gender aspect. It's not all a social construct--biology and hormones, right down at the microscopic, cellular level determine much of what we would call "male" and "female" behavior. And, shockingly, most of my social circle (all liberals) feel the same way.
15
I will gladly refer to other individuals by their indicated pronouns, the same way I would refer to someone who instructs me to use Bill instead of William or Liz instead of Elizabeth. Common curtesy, good manners, and a sign of respect for the other individual.
However, I refuse to "give up" my gender-identifying pronouns for someone's idea of linguistic communism.
I also do not view this idea as helping with inclusivity. Inclusivity to me represents for people to acknowledge my gender (as it is part of my identity and I want it to be acknowledged) and for me to acknowledge their identity in the manner they wish to present it to me.
10
" They" is plural to most everyone. If unsure of the gender of a person, why not "it"?
7
"And why do elite cultural institutions — universities, publishers and media outlets like The Times — still encourage all this gendering? "
OMG. Is this what the NYTimes has come to? ' Gendering' doesn't arise out of linguistics, it arises from biology. Our genes 'gender' us. Binary-ism might be passe, but number (singular vs. plural?) is just a fact. Human communication has incorporated recognition of this fact by arriving at the brilliant idea to use different terms, he, she, they, to denote not only gender but also number.
With all the pain and suffering and deficiencies and oppressions that abound, it amazes me that some people are so fixated on taking offense at being somehow restricted by the use of 'he' or 'she' (or 'he or she') as a gender reference. To the self-important author of this piece, please open your eyes and lift them from your navel to the larger world you are a part of.
17
Gosh you think this is complicated for the English language, how would one adapt a non-gender approach to Spanish?
6
@MP
Actually, it has happened. The final masculine -o is recast as an -e, so the typical plural masculine ending of -os becomes -es (i.e., "elles" instead of "ellos" or "ellas"). Sometimes both masculine and feminine forms of a noun are required for inclusivness ( such as "los lectores y las lectoras leen", for "the readers read"). Considering that nouns that look (but are not) feminine and masculine forms may have a totally different meaning (i.e, "el cazo" and "la caza"), this is nothing but a cumbersome nonsense. Luckily, Spanish does not have any declensions.
2
Henceforth, I would like to be referred to as "Your Supreme Honorable Highness, Goddess of All Things."
Be sure to accommodate me, please.
31
@EB Ok Your Supreme Honorable? Highness. As long as I will not be called your slave.
What a foolish article. Every language needs rules, or people would be unable to communicate; "they" is the 3rd-person plural nominative, and should be used in such cases. If one doesn't like she/he for 3rd-person singular, use "it"; German does, even referring to, eg, a child in the singular neuter ("das Kind", rather than "der" or "die" Kind). Some other languages have this as well. But then, other languages have other oddities (in German, a lamp is feminine but a table is masculine).
Does this guy really have nothing else to write about?
17
It is fortunate Spanish is not your native tongue. Think of how tedious it would be to have to neuter every noun.
11
Mandating the language that should be used. A little Orwellian, don’t you think, NYT? Has The First Amendment slipped your interest?
16
They is being ungrammatical in their preference of a plural pronoun in reference to themself. How many are there of them?
6
Note to self: stop reading Farhad’s columns (this sentiment predates today’s offering).
12
Should we not then do away with "man" and "woman"?
11
That’s the goal.
4
Utter drivel. My pronouns are dem and deese and does. I come from Brooklyn. And who invented cisgendered? Certainly not a cisgendered man.
9
I can’t tell if this whole piece is a joke, a piece of sarcastic self-ridicule. I hope so, otherwise it’s astonishing in its idiocy. No, the whole world is not going to change because a tiny minority is confused about their genders. Sorry.
16
Sometimes "they" sounds perfectly fine--as with many examples in the article and in the comments. But others, the only way I can make it work in my head is to imagine the person in question having multiple personalities. I think it has to do with whether the person referenced is a specific person. "You need to ask someone what they prefer," sounds fine. When referring to Trump, for example, it sounds totally off: "Trump doesn't have multiple personalities. They sadly have only one." I'm not snooty. It just sounds wrong.
4
As a writer, I particularly like the ability to say "they" singularly rather than he or she or s/he. Thanks!
6
I just want 'they' to mean plural. It's too confusing otherwise. There are emergency situations where there's a need to know the difference and no time to be clarifying. Best solution is to invent another gender neutral word like when 'Ms.' was introduced to take marital status out of women's titles and became a choice along with 'Miss' and 'Mrs.' Just brainstorming - she, he, zhe / her, him, zhen. I'm sure someone clever can come up with something, but let's expand the language rather than confuse everyone.
4
VERY important point about the need to know and be crystal clear about numbers in the event of an emergency. Incorrectly indicating that there are more than one person in need of rescue or other help, or even using up precious time explaining "they" is only one person, misappropriates limited lifesaving resources and needlessly places both other needing help and those responding with help at risk -- sometimes grave risk.
5
@MSW If one person is drowning and one is too far away to tell what that person's genitals look like, wouldn't it be "using up precious time" to say "he or she" rather than "they," or worse, say, "she" or "he" and have the paramedics or lifeguard looking for the wrong person?
You refer to your children as 'son' and 'daughter'. Aren't you 'gendering' them by using these nouns?
13
Uh, "they" is plural.
The singular gender-neutral word you are looking for is "it."
8
What a waste of time!
The world is crumbling under dictators “elected” by the people all over and Farhad Manjoo is interested in genericizing (I just created the word) specifics.
Oh, boy (or is it oh, they :-))
9
It's called correct grammar based on rules and syntax. Might I suggest you read The Elements of Style and then rewrite your article.
8
@Patty It's called descriptivism versus prescriptivism, and one can study proper grammar and still be aware of language's evolution.
1
This is complete rubbish. People born with female genitalia will continue to suffer discrimination when they get pregnanet, losing promotion at work, pay, and pensions. They will be harassed by people with male genetalia on the street when they are young and deemed attractive by society. They will be listened to less by society when they offer a strong opinion, if not actually threatened with death and rape threats on twitter. Calling them "they" will not change any of this. Campaigning to stop sexual harassment and discrimination etc of WOMEN will.
18
English (in contrast with other languages I’m familiar with) already suffers from a weird semantic gap involving the lack of a plural second person article that is distinct from the singular form. This leads to the clunky devices “you all”, “you guys”, “y’all” and their ilk, and endless confusion, ambiguity and awkward phrasing of sentences. Even the Times published an article about this issue some years ago, I seem to recall.
So, Farhad, you are aware that you’re advocating for taking this annoying feature of English and making it twice as bad as it already is by eliminating the distinction between plural and singular in yet another set of articles, right? Since you’re as smart as I know you are, you have fully considered the full effects of this change including this issue... haven’t you?
But if you did, why didn’t you mention it in the article? If you want people to take your proposal seriously and are intellectually honest (I’m pretty sure you are), it’s your duty to mention not just the pros but also the cons of your proposal. Please address this in a future column - I’d like to know your take on it. Thanks.
5
No cons are allowed in NYT op-Ed’s!
I keep looking for the counter argument on transgender issues or the counter argument to accusing anyone who disagrees with a POC on the Internet, of being an actual and virulent ‘racist’.
But apparently the wealthy young denizens of the opinion pages, care nothing for counter arguments!
They might force discussion, horrors!
And compromise, Egad!
Not allowed.
1
What a coincidence that this column about they was the same as the Dear Abby column today. Is he secretly Abby?
As a trans person, I’m a big fan of “it” in these cases, along with they. We need to take it back the way the gays took back queer.
3
Unfortunately a lot of folks would eagerly refer to a transgendered person as "it".
2
Its hard not to read this as a parody-piece...
When a 'woke' rhetorician, teacher or tutor tells your boy to use “their” instead of “he” or “she” in his essays because gender is non-binary (or what have you), that’s not mere propaganda: it’s bad science, and even worse grammar.
9
Along with your calls for literal open borders and massive illegal immigration of 150 MILLION more people to our already crowded nation....and now this? I'm being to think you've gone off the deep end, Mr. Manjoo.
For what it is worth: no, I won't call you (a singular person) "they" to protect the special "feelings" of 0.3% of people who are transgender. The other 99.7% of us -- even gays and lesbians -- know we are men or women, because humans are a binary kind of mammal that reproduces sexually -- "male and female, He created them".
11
Farhad Manjoo gives the following example, "“Did you read Farhad’s latest column — they’ve really gone off the deep end this time!”
Is "they" Farhad or the NY Times?
15
Dear Farhad Manjoo - I'm happy to show you the respect of calling you whatever you want to be called. Please show the English language the respect of not mangling plural and singular. Show a little initiative and think up something that doesn't already serve a useful purpose. This is just semantic laziness.
7
Let's show some respect for our language and its grammar. Language is what makes life in society possible, let's not slaughter it in the name of gender equality or something like that. If the author of the article is called Farhad Manjoo, even without looking at his nice bearded face, I know it's a man: Farhad Manjoo = he.
I don't mind using "they" to refer to one or several unknown individuals, as long as the following verb is also in the plural, as in : "they came into my garden at night and stole my beans and tomatoes". It might be one person, or two, or more, or it might be some animal(s), but the sentence respects the language and its grammar.
Whenever possible let's protect our language and save its grammar. It's already bad enough that spelling is slaughtered every day, even in the New York Times' comment section; examples: "vote your conscious"; "hipocracy" (perhaps from a horse-lover - then, of course, it should take two p's). There is also "I could care less" for "I could not care less" -- but that is no longer a spelling mistake, just plain ignorance.
6
Two thoughts: I belong to a synagogue that has a lead rabbi who goes by they and there are also prospective members of the congregation who would like to join our committee and who use they as a pronoun, but I wonder in the second instance if that person would be comfortable knowing conversations that occur within our committee when we say the quote wrong unquote pronoun and then quickly correct ourselves or worse say does anybody know what insert person's name here wants to be called? And my second point: my 96 year-old mother yesterday conducted a conversation with me telling me old stories about her father and so forth, but consistently confused genders to the point that I started wondering if she was okay. Then I remembered Hell she's 96.
1
Call me "they"? If it's all the same to you Farhad, I'd prefer to call you Ishmael.
8
Does anyone else remember the radical feminist coinage "womyn"? Because according to those females, that appelation had lost the word "men" and was finally acceptable. How artificial and clunky. One still uses it to make fun of doctrinaire political correctness of the wannabe #metoo sort. Out here in the ultraconservative part of the country, one will never see "they" and "them" gain currency in daily parlance.
5
It's things like this that get people like Trump re-elected. Men are "he's" and women are "she's" and the small sliver of the population that is nonbinary transgendered can be "They's". Don't push your nongendered pronouns on us - WE WILL RESIST, and sometimes that means voting for right-wing demagogues if needs be.
9
Even if it means voting right-wing demigod despots into office??
Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face!
Attitudes and actions like that that are the bigger problem than a sliver of people bickering about pronouns!
3
Dear me. Time for a grown-up conversation about the meaning of "caring".
3
Grammatically it’s horrible. I can’t, I won’t.
8
As language is used to convey information, it doesn't seem a great improvement to substitute ["they": could be a 'him' | could be a 'her' | could be one 'they' | could be many 'theys'] for words which confirm a bit of knowledge of the subject of which they speak on the part of the speaker/writer. BTW, solve this and you still have the problem of gender-hinting names such as Farhad (or nationality/religion hinting names for that matter). Can I just call you Far?
2
Being in my sixties I find this very confusing. Just got over David Bowie androgyny. Be whoever you want but trying to enforce how to refer to you is a bit much for me.
10
Lincoln once asked, "How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? The answer is four because saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg." Stop telling us what to call ourselves. That's exactly what queer people are complaining about and you want to do it to everyone.
12
Problem with “they” is it can be third person singular or third person plural. It can also make for confusion over which “they” is being referred to.
Example: when the NYT made them use pronouns they told them that they should use gender, but they disagreed with them.
3
Everyone should keep his singular and plural pronouns separate.
3
As a long time reader of the NYT Online and a connoisseur of the comments section, I predict that no other topic will cause more comments nor raise more passion than this article/opinion will. There is no fight like a grammar fight.
13
@sjs
"Grammar is the greatest joy in life, don't you find?"
-- Aunt Josephine (Lemony Snicket)
6
Invent a new pronoun if you wish, but please don't go against the centuries-old usage for which 'they' is a plural pronoun.
Written or spoken works with singular 'they' are confusing and ridiculous. Please stop.
5
The only issue I have with this is the rest of the sentence, which seems to demand assuming that they is plural even if it’s used to refer to an individual. I can say “Mr. Manjoo is a great writer. I really like their style.” Which is fine, but I can’t then say “They is one of the best writers at the Times” even though that would make more sense than “they are one of the best writers at the Times.” How does one solve this?
Anybody else think of The Wild Bunch?
OK, but you wrote, "They've really gone off the deep end this time." Shouldn't that be "They has [or they's] really gone off the deep end this time," since you're (presumably) only one person? It's *they* with a singular verb that makes me feel like an idiot, and as a professor I've been in situations that forced me to use it.
4
"They" is plural, and a person is singular. How about "it"?
1
The sad thing about Mr. Manjoo's column is that he puts himself into a gender box of his own making. He appears to think that if doing woodwork, liking Porsches and taking out the garbage equates with "tepid masculinity."
Guess what, Mr. Manjoo. Many men don't like either woodworking or Porsches and don't take out the garbage and are still masculine and many women engage in woodworking, like Porsches, take out the garbage and are still feminine.
7
Please take this arrant nonsense to some alternate, cisgendered, non-binary universe where people don’t give a whit about grammar or the rules that have held it together for centuries.
3
He is, She is, They is. Come on. How silly. Where did you go to PC school?
6
Sorry but no.
5
I’m not sorry but am also no
6
Wow. Lots of pearl clutching over a proposed way to refer to people in a generalized manner that takes gendering out of the equation. How dare it be suggested that you change your linguistics in an effort to be polite to minorities! I am surprised and disappointed.
2
Come up with a new word rather than demanding people use “they” which is grammatically incorrect. Or how about using a name? I don’t care if people call me Miss, Mrs. or Ms. I know who I am.
In the English language, “they” is plural; not singular.
If you don’t want to be called “he,” we’ll just use your fist name. Okay?
But thank you for for not writing about Trump.
5
"They" is plural and should only refer in the singular to people with multiple personality disorder. Let's have people who want gender neutrality use "Ee". It rhymes with he and she, and they can leave the rest of us alone.
3
Just one problem, good buddy: 'They' is plural. Having a column in the New York Times is not going to change the English language. I don't have an exact count, but I would guess that your column might be read by 1 out of every 100,000 daily English speakers... and a lot of them will disagree with you.
Why not use 'it'?
Dan Kravitz
4
Seriously, man...eh, sorry, they.
The world is burning up and this is what they is worried about.
They up!
1
We do it all the time in speech. Think about how you talk about other cars or buses on the road. 'E for the third person subjective; 'um for the objective; 'ur or 'urs for the possessive.
"Is 'e going to pull over or not? 'ur signal's not on, but I gotta get around 'um."
It's when we get into print that it gets complicated. (I'm an old copyeditor. I *know!*)
Anyone with a young kid knows how obsessed the world is with gender. My child has wonderful blue eyes and blonde hair so people say “she is beautiful”. Turns out he is a boy. But honestly, why are we instantly categorizing this very young person based on his genitalia? He’s just a wonderful little kid. Why carve the world up into he and she, us and them, right from the start? Should be have pronouns based on hair color or any other attribute? My child is just a kid.
The Times needs my voice: Right?
"They" "The Other" The ones with the dangling parts between their legs. (Not trendy)
Is it gender? That could be trendy now: LGBTQXYZ? Abuse? Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil? Race relations? Fad diets? Working out? Avocado smoothies? Fiber? Gluten-free? Save the whales? Cats on Facebook? Babies in $3,000 Italian perambulators built for three while Mommy jogs in Tribeca?
Gold. Gelt. Jelly Doughnut. Money. "It's the money..." ("The Pawnbroker"- Rod Steiger)
2
Pronouns are the death of communication.
Simply repeating the noun satisfies the spirit of Manjoo's requirement: “Did you read Farhad’s latest column — Farhad really went off the deep end this time!”
3
Dear Farhad - what's wrong with "it"? For those obsessive about changing the English language to fit their political sensitivities, I would recommend using the personal pronoun it.
Have you borrowed this idiotic idea from the very avantgarde Swedes whose newspapers and media are now full of the Swedish equivalent to ”they”, or rather an invented new word to cover it?
Their ”hon,henne” (she, her) and ”han, honom” (he, him) is now a simpler but linguistically very gratting ”hen”, which until 2 years ago wasn’t a Swedish word.
I’m afraid that when I see the term ”hen” (or your equivalent ”they”) in an article I stop reading it as I can no longer take it seriously. Meanwhile, let me quake in my boots that the Swedish language police doesn’t take me to court for not accepting their more recent quirks.
1
"They" is too plural sounding to apply to one person.
1
No, Mx. Manjoo (flaky "neutral " salutation intentional), I won't be a party to the further corruption of our language. Using the third person for a first person ain't no English, gnome sane? We're already living in a black-is-white up-is-down truth-isn't-really-truth Orwellian nightmare. I will try not to extend that nightmare by further abusing clarity in communication. Proper grammar and precise verbiage best communicates ideas clearly and understandably, and that includes appropriate salutations.
2
You can call yourself whatever you want and I will refer to you by that pronoun. But I identify as "she/her" and I would like you to respect that identification, as I respect yours. This op/ed is sounds dangerously like the kind of thing I'd expect from an evangelical Christian who's threatened by the existence of trans people - except it veers in the opposite direction. I thought we liberals all agreed that imposing rules on people is wrong. Well then... practice it, Mr/Ms/Person Manjoo.
3
They wrote an interestingly provocative piece for today’s NYT. They had their point to make which stirred the comments section. Who are they to whom I refer ?
1
Mx. Manjoo's piece is a demand for a Sexual Newspeak to make thinking about the sexual dimorphism of our species impossible. Perhaps their next column can advocate for the elimination of sex and gender attributes from dating apps.
4
Mr. Manjoo,
It, or they, are your vocal chords lips, brain, etc., so you can use them as you think best. I'm declining your invitation, however. The singular 'they' sometimes works grammatically without detriment to expression; often it does not. I don't find that usage icky, just irritating.
1
Singular:
she -- he -- ume
her -- him -- umr
Plural:
they
them
2
Or just use their name to address them... and avoid all this extra language flab, of which 'they' is just the tip of the iceberg of pronoun politics.
1
You’ve probably read, in an online article from the Atlantic, that 80 percent of the American people, both liberal and conservative, are freaked out by political correctness. Political correctness drives people away from liberals and our causes, such as saving the earth from global warming. I’m afraid we have to make a choice: do we want to be politically correct and propitiate people’s feelings with things like “correct” pronouns, or do we want to win allies to save the earth? Between preventing hurt feelings and saving the earth, I would think that the choice is pretty clear.
8
@Constance Warner
When feelings are taken for truth and facts have become irrelevant, we are lost.
4
All due respect, this is a step too far.
4
Who are they?
Or is it who is they?
Sorry, can’t do it.
2
Are we going to abandon gender in language too ???? Many languages use masculine and feminine nouns but do “they” have to go too ??
Wow! Who knew there were so many people who cared deeply and passionately about English grammar? Really glad we're spending our time advocating for singular pronouns!
3
"They" is well established as plural, so using it as a singular pronoun is confusing.
When we use “their” or “they” or “them" to mean anyone, the context makes it clear that we are making a generalization, talking either about anyone of a group or an unknown person who could be male or female.
If I say, “Ask anyone and they will tell you where to find the downtown library,” my meaning is to ask “anyone of the group of citizens” that you will encounter. So “they” is actually a collective pronoun referring to multiple citizens within which you can pick any individual from that group to question. There is no confusion about the number of people involved.
Fireman: Is anyone in the building?
Me: Yes, there are! They are trapped on the third floor!
Fireman: (On radio.) We have multiple people trapped on the third floor!
Me: No, no. They are one person! On the third floor!
Here, the use of “they” to refer to one individual has caused confusion. If I had used “he” or “she”, the fireman would immediately know to look for one individual.
During a robbery, as the suspect runs off when the police rush up, if I shout, “He ran that way!” or “She ran that way!” it is more useful for the police to give chase with the understanding that they are running after one suspect who has one apparent gender. If I yell only, “They ran that way!” how are the police to know if they are chasing one or more people and whether they are male or female?
How about a new pronoun that's singular?
i believe the response to the firefighter would have been "yes there is" not "yes there are" and thus the firefighter would have understand via the word "is" that there was one person inside.
1
Also did you get a very good look at the robber? Were they clearly male or female? perhaps you only saw a figure darting out, covered head to toe, face included. What if you say "he" and then the police chase after an unrelated person and completely miss the woman around the corner who actually did the deed? Perhaps more useful than "he" or "she" would be other descriptors: "they ran that way. they are very tall and are wearing a blue pants. they have long hair."
1
@Julia
True, still the current practice of using "they" for binary people is to use a plural verb with "they", but a singular verb with a name, so it is easy to get confused about whether to use singular or plural verbs. I see this kind of construction: "Farhad Manjoo is a writer. They have been published in multiple magazines." But not "Farhad Manjoo is a writer. They has been published in multiple magazines." If "they" is singular, then I want to pair it with "has been". And if Farhad is to go with "they", I feel like "is" should be "are". The discord grates on my ears like fingernails on a chalkboard; I learned English grammar from infancy, so the English system of subject/verb agreement is hardwired. Every time I read "They are", I picture two people!
Ok, what do you do about he said/she said situation? They said/ they said? Please.
2
We are born either male or female. We are not born gender neutral. Being a biological female or male is a good and natural thing. It is not evil, or demeaning to be either a man or woman. There are two sexes and only two sexes. And biologically you are either male or female.
Why in the world do you want to change this? It is a lie. And now the American educational system is lying to our children saying it is okay to claim you are a woman if you are actually a man. You may feel like a woman, but that does not make you a woman biologically if you are male. And visa versa.
It is complete insanity that we are now allowing our education system to brainwash children into believing this nonsense, this lie.
It is unscientific that one can choose their sex or be gender neutral. And sadly, women still get persecuted and raped even if they don't identify with being called a she.
I live in Kenya and everyone here thinks this whole gender identity is ludicrous and laughable. And that Americans have lost their way, and cannot focus on important issues anymore. And are mired in political correct gibberish.
PS - I do realize sex change operations exist, but that is a different story.
6
They really do not understand why Trump was elected.
5
Many comments assert that most people in the world identify with gendered pronouns, and further, that it is impossible to purposely change or dismantle the gendering of pronouns. Linguistically, neither of these assertions is precisely true. The Finnish language, for example, doesn't gender pronouns. In Sweden, children are now educated in the use of a non-gendered pronoun to be used when the gender of a person is not known or when it is not desirable to specify them as either a "she" or "he".
4
My first impulse at the start of this article was to reject it as yet another liberal identity indulgence that feeds into the exact politically correct excess that helped the right gravitate to someone like the current President. But they make an interesting argument in writing today's op-ed. Consider our system of pronoun cases: first-person singular, first-person plural, second-person singular, second-person plural, and third-person plural are ALL non-gendered pronouns. Only the third-person singular is gendered, which makes it more anomalous than not and probably contributes to added difficulty learning the language. Using "they" as a third-person singular follows in the precedent set by "you" for second-person singular and plural and smooths out the linguistic organization of our pronoun cases. Plus you get the social benefit of not hurting people and treating everyone's humanity with equal dignity. Seems like a credible argument for change to me. A little adjustment could go a long way.
1
There are certainly instances in which "he" or "she" is helpful to understand context, and "they" denotes plural so it would be more confusing to use in reference to an individual. What if somebody, perhaps our President, announced that "they are bleeding from between the legs". Most people would assume that several people were injured and are bleeding and might need medical attention. However, that is not what our President would have been announcing.
And this is what we are being asked to do to make a very tiny minority comfortable with their confusion about themselves? All this political correctness and forceful attempt to make everyone conform is going to backfire...big time! This is like a dog biting the hand that tries to pet it.
2
The "they" movement is one of the most ridiculous and self-indulgent social developments I have ever encountered. When the world as we know it is threatened by climate change, nuclear war, mass migration, hunger, disease, inequity, etc. etc. - why are you wasting your and our time with this?
I'm a graying, enhanced blond (but not dumb) who looks and feels 20 years younger than I am, is of German extraction but loves all things Latino, resonates with Buddha and Christ but only believes in nature, is disgusted with my country but loves it too. I insist you change the meaning of "youth" and refer to me as a polychrome multi-ethnic paradoxical youth. If you do not, I will be diminished and insulted.
7
@lifecyle
Wonderful!
While Mr. Manjoo expresses noble sentiments, as a "cisgender, middle-aged, suburban" male, is in no position to dictate gender labels. By suggesting that men get to rename themselves,"they," he is allowing for men guilty of crimes against women like Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, and Donald Trump and for men in power who have surpassed women for centuries to avoid responsibility . "They" did not assault underaged girls: "He," Jeffrey Epstein did. Men cannot get off the hook so easily. It would be nice if some day we were all treated fairly and equally. Sadly, we are not there yet.
3
This is what privilege looks like.
When you truly have no other problems to solve in the world except tackling the pressing issue of pronouns, you've reached max privilege. Maybe make time to move on to less pressing issues, like ending modern day slavery, endless wars and healthcare...if you get to it after fighting the good fight on Pronoun Hill.
6
@Wellington
Exactly. When it's not infuriating out here, it's hilarious.
2
It's interesting to me that there's so much anger in the comments regarding this, and that most of that anger boils down to "I don't get it/I don't like it".
Grow up, the world changes, and making people feel more included in society is worth you being uncomfortable.
4
In Italian one shifts to third person feminine (pronouns and verb tenses) for the polite (or honorific) "you". That applies to famous Italian soccer players too, but this grammatical fact has not done wonders for feminine soccer, so far.
I love these first world problems.
If you are against using gendered words, why do you identify as a "dad" and not a "parent" in the first sentence?
I don't see why it would be so hard to adapt a new singular pronoun like "ze." New words enter our lexicon all the time (just look at how ubiquitous "selfie" has become, for example.) Using "they" in singular form makes otherwise clear sentences confusing and ambiguous.
1
It is this some made up change to make they feel better?
Mr. Manjoo, concerned about how to sensitively and more properly address a fellow being, in a toxic WE-THEY culture which enables, as well as fosters, violating, by voiced and written words and done-deeds by creating, selecting and targeting "the other," caveats US to choose to be more aware. A point of view; which is why it is an Opinion. What would be helpful is an additional column which would expand on his concerns within a series of ongoing realities. Communications and their "languages,"
semantic and others, change over time. For all sorts of reasons. Known, understood, and currently unknown ones. Perhaps even unknowable ones. Meanings are created. Not inherent. Sustainable over time. As well as not.
Today's "they" will give way to...
Perhaps meriting more weight and importance: NO word, no matter its etymological sources, uses, and scholarly underpinnings is ever actually IT! Whatever IT's constrained-more expansive, valenced + -/+ - dimensions. Just as a map inadequately represents, graphically, the actual area of its targeted environmental focus, no word serves to accurately answer.Question. Describe. Explore. Stimulate. Express. Uncover. Cover-UP/ over.
There is a "luxury" in "they"ing semantically which may not exist in visually communicating, transmitting, children starving to death in Yemen; enabled by American bombs.In witnessing, visually, "kidnapped"(aka separated) anonymous [ not s/he nor THEY] migrant children in TX and AZ internment Trauma-Seeding-Sites.
My logical objection is that “they” is the third person plural—the equivalent of first person “we.” It has a specific grammatical use, which gets obfuscated if we start using it for the third person singular.
Why not de-gender “she” and use it for everyone? If the objection is that it sounds “strange” when applied to men, it doesn’t sound any “stranger” than using “they.” And it preserves the singular and plural third person distinctions.
I propose "hish" (pronounced "heesh," nominative) and hi'ur" (dipthong, short i sound, all other cases). Granted, this does put the "he/him" sounds before the "she/her" sounds (seeming to reinforce the patriarchal order) but then you could just point out that the "she/her" sounds are getting the last word in the deal, often seen as a position of power. Say them out loud a few times: the sounds are good, efficient, easy on the tongue: "yes, hish is taking that class too," or "I gave the bagels to hi'ur."
Now there's no confusion of number, or thunderous grammatical faux pas effect ("they is taking that class too" just sounds like some 1940s movie parody of hillbilly speech).
"Hish, hi'ur" - will also appeal to those who lap up invented languages in fantasy fiction and SciFi. Get Game of Thrones audiences on your side and all will be well.
73
@Lise
Assuming you were not tongue in cheek, most americans I know would be incapable of this radical an innovation in the use of such common forms. Exploiting the good-ole
de-gendered 'it' would be far simpler.
3
@Lise thats quite a mouthful. no one wants to work that hard. a better idea is to leave it he and she.
3
@Lise
Swedish pretty successfully introduced hen (amalgamation of hon - she and han - he.
4
You refer to yourself as a "dad" rather than a parent, but then proceed to paint a picture of a world where there is no difference between a mom and a dad.
You say you hope I don't mind if you call me "them" rather than him, and imply that if I do it's because I'm intolerant.
I'm proud to be a "dad" and a "husband" and a "son" and and a "brother" and to have "guy friends." These are gender specific nouns and a part of who I AM. So yes, I mind if you want to take away my identity as a dad and a husband and a brother and a friend of other men.
You imply that genitals are the only difference between males and females. If you don't understand that there are physiological and behavioral (as well as biological) differences between men and woman, then you are ignorant towards scientific reality.
Are you willing to stop referring to your children as your son and your daughter? Do you to tell them not to refer to each other as brother and sister? Will you stop calling Helen your wife? Are you ready to stop saying you are a dad? I am not. A world where sons and daughters and wives and husbands and moms and dads and brothers and sisters don't exist is a sad broken world where individuals are shamed for being who they are.
Yes, I just used "they" when referring to hypothetical individuals. I agree that there is nothing wrong with this to make a sentence less awkward. But you can't deny that it is wrong (in more ways than one) to point to someone and say "they is a great person."
3
A lot of people already use “they” as a singular pronoun? So what? They (and if I'm supposed to call you 'they', what am I supposed to call them?) are the same people who say “lay” when they should be saying “lie” and “gender” when they mean “sex” — sloppy, vague speakers. Since when does it make sense to let the worst practitioners of something make its rules? A strong counter-argument is that it makes English even harder to learn for non-native speakers, and they (do I have to start calling them “they all” for you?) have more than enough problems already.
1
He or she is not a phrase cooked up by grammarians.
And (forgive the use of and to begin a sentence) I object to the disparaging of both grammar and grammarians.
You and everyone else can do what you want, but don’t tell me how to address others or how to express myself otherwise.
3
So the Beatles' song "She's a Woman" becomes "They's a Woman". No thanks.
3
Sentences using the plural noun "they" to describe single individuals is both confusing and dissonant. It makes for incomprehensible communication whether verbal or written.
If people feel that s/he is somehow offensive then let them come up with a new word. Trying to force the rest of us to use plural terms for singular instances is Procrustean to the nth degree. In plainer terms, get real.
2
I hate using the plural pronoun when referring to one person. I can feel the pea on my back through thick layers of matress.
1
We already use "they" to denote singular or plural depending on the context of the sentence. How about just using the person's name when referring to them? (See. "Them" is used as the singular.) It might be repetitious but at least you will know about whom you are speaking.
2
Imagine me growling.
I don’t care what anyone chooses as as his, her or their own, personal pronoun. I don’t question (or even care about, beyond being happy to hear that anyone has found his, her or their true selves) anyone’s new, trans identification as X, Y or Z. But I am a woman. (Cue “Born This Way). My pronouns are she and her — or even Her Highness, if you are so inclined. My femaleness is my full identity. It’s all I have. If you take that away from me you disrespect me.
Women were once mere chattel (in some places they still are owned by men). To me it is a short jumper from “they” to “it.”
I Am Woman (Hear me roar...).
So said she.
2
what about the 30 other pronouns, 'they' want us to learn and be quick to use? -ze,te... madness.
"they" does a very good job at illustrating the insanity of post modernism through an erroneous obsession on power and linguistics. "They" may or may not know about Foucault or Lyotard but simply caught up in an empty yet fashionable ideology of the moment, where gender pronouns are viewed as oppression. The Opinion column truly has taken a downward spiral in recent years, is this the best intellect you can offer readers?
3
"I suspect my call will be dismissed as useless virtue-signaling..."
You would be correct.
6
There is a perfectly suited third person gender neutral singular pronoun in English. It's called "it". What's wrong with "it"? Is it too closely associated as a put-down?
I have my own approach when someone tells me to respect their pronoun safe space:
"Tell Gertrude that Gertrude's doctor appointment is at 3:00pm and Gertrude must arrive for Gertrude's appointment 15 minutes early, otherwise Dr. Zane says Dr. Zane will reschedule Gertrude's appointment at a later time at Dr. Zane's convenience and Gertrude will have to adjust Gertrude's schedule to accommodate Dr. Zane."
I am alarmed how quick and harsh comments are to dismiss this! Singular "they" is not an anomaly of the English language, is not new, and is not actually that hard to understand. also, the word "you" is used as both singular and plural, yet no one is up in arms over that. Just check the context of the rest of the sentence and it'll become easily apparent how many people are being spoken of. I believe it is not grammar but rather socialization that is pushing against this idea -- the grammar itself is just fine, but when one contextualizes a concept within the frame of "new thing don't like it" suddenly their brain refuses to compute. While we're talking about grammar, Miriam Webster supports it sooo... there's that: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
4
I'm a man. M-A-N. MAN. Don't call me they or them. You can rant all you want but biologically, people (except for very small small %) are Male or Female. People are either XX or XY (again with a small % of exceptions).
Please, can the Times get any more ridiculous. First of all, they and them are plural, not singular. That isn't a small point.
But if you can come up with a singular pronoun that works for ambiguous situations -- not because gender is ambiguous but because you don't know the gender of the person, fine. But don't you think from an attribution standpoint using a plural pronoun would not only confuse, but allow people to avoid responsibility.
If I go to see Olga Kern give a recital and I write -- They played beautifully. I would love to have their talent, who am I talking about?
If I am rabidly anti-Trump, don't I want to say -- he's a traitor? Not they are a traitor? Who is they?
If I'm referring to a murderer, and I say they -- wouldn't everyone assume there were multiple people involved?
Your argument is beyond weak. It's intellectually vapid.
3
This is another example of why Trump won.
4
I intend to fully exploit this attention-seeking ploy next time I’m asked for my pronouns. I’m going with T/Him/Their, and by God you better get it right when you use one of them.
We will not forget that fatuous, self-indulgent Emily Post-its like you were the death of the Democratic Party and the dream of health care for all, the rebirth of Trump for another term, and who knows what next ...
I vote for "it".
1
We should refer to people by their names.
1
"But “he” is not what you should call me."
Absurd and absurdist.
2
If sex is determined at birth by genetic science and race is a social construct, why can a person assume a different or varied sex but be forced to identify by a particular race? John can feel like their life is better suited to being called Mary but Rachel Dolezal can’t identify as black?
3
Call me Ishmael.
3
I knew you’d get around to calling me a snoot. Yes, I care about grammar, as I assume you do too, because you’re a writer, and a good one. You surely understand that grammar exists not to be snooty, but to ensure clear communication, which is the entire purpose of language. Yet rather than honestly discussing the very real clarity problems with the singular “they”, you simply insult those who express concern about those problems. Not cool, and not intellectually honest. Muddling singular and plural pronouns doesn’t always lead to confusion, but often it does. That’s probably why newspapers such as the Times discourage the use of the singular “they”: because such usage is confusing and hinders clear communication.
I actually agree with all of your reasoning as to why a neutral pronoun would be preferable in general, society-wide use. I call individuals “they” when that’s their wish. But I continue to dislike it, simply because it’s confusing. I’d much prefer a new pronoun, but probably not “ze”, which sounds silly.
And in examples such as “They’ve really gone off the rails”, shouldn’t it be, “They has really gone off the rails”? You’re using “they” in a singular sense, so use a singular verb. Sure it sounds funny, but it actually helps to clarify your meaning.
Enough already! The south has used the solution for decades. Y’all is singular and all y’all is plural. There is no need to make up or expropriate another word.
2
@SAB
“Y’all” is plural, second-person pronoun. “They” refers to third person, singular or plural. There’s a difference.
2
I beg to differ. In language singular or plural is important, gender is important. It is all about imparting information. The fact that "you" is both singular and plural is because one is talking to the you and the singular or plural is understood - though in the South they say "you all." Yes, numbers make a difference, gender makes a difference. In reading this information is often critical in understanding what is being said.
That being said, I believe some new words need to be invented and put into use. Maybe "tre" for other than male or female persuasion, and "bre" for unknown persuasion. But we must come up with some terms whatever they are.
Remember, language is all about imparting information.
As a 63-year-old gay man who's returned to college for another degree, I look upon the younger generation's discovery of hitherto-unknown gender identities with bemusement.
What Mr. Manjoo fails to recognize is that the universal use of the pronoun "they" would amount to the imposition of a gender norm upon the majority by a minority.
As someone who embraces my male gender identity, I would feel the expectation that I use a gender-neutral pronoun just as acutely and tragically as do members of the gender-neutral/fluid community when they're referred to as "he" or "she."
The best solution to Mr. Manjoo's problem can be found at the end of my departmental advisor's email notes. That's where the department advisor informs readers of her "preferred pronoun." In her case, she prefers to be referred to as "she" and "her."
In short, we should respect individuals' preferred pronouns rather than forcing the gendered majority to relinquish part of their gender identity out of deference to a gender-neutral/fluid minority.
If that practice sounds like too much work, just remember that it's already in use.
4
I'm non-binary and identify with both genders. I like gendered pronouns! Call me he or she; I don't care. The important thing to understand about gender, I've found, is that gender norms are not rules — we don't have to follow them. And we don't need a neutral pronoun to apply this understanding to the way we treat each other. Seen this way, the concept of gender ceases to be like a prison, and becomes more like a playground.
7
@Michael: "gender norms are not rules — we don't have to follow them."
Your comment is the best one on this topic. Even if we identify with a gender, we don't have to follow any norms. We each can define ourselves.
You sound like a fun person, seeing life as a playground! Cheers!
3
Wouldn't simply repeating the person's actual name be a reasonable, less fraught solution. Boring, perhaps, but really not much more so than saying, John . . . he did . . . he didn't . . . he would . . . he wouldn't or Joan . . . she did . . . she didn't . . . and so on.
Gosh, I’m sure that for the billions of people who are just trying to survive day by day, debating the proper use of pronouns is of the utmost importance. Get a grip folks.
5
So why does standard English impose a gender requirement on the third-person singular?
It does not. There is a third-person gender neutral word in English: "it." It is inclusive and flexible and breaks the stifling prison of gender expectations. It is not binary. Why would you not use this word? "They" is a totally unnecessary, but you obviously have something against it
What agenda is served by not calling you it?
3
When the author refers to himself as 'stereotypical', he is obviously being wholly disingenuous.
2
Farhad, you have completely lost the plot! Singular is singular, plural is plural, and that's how it works.
People who feel they are "living in a stifling prison of gender expectations" are going to have to figure out how to cope - or they can go through life being permanently offended.
This campaign to corrupt the English language for a bunch of entitled (and whiny & spoiled) people reminds me of the early "ACT UP" marches, when gay men screamed that they wanted AIDS cured RIGHT NOW - as if that's how research works. Those men totally ignored and dissed all the *women* who sure would have liked a cure for breast cancer - but the men didn't care about dissing those women, b/c men consider themselves more important than women.
Women are FINALLY beginning to matter, and now we should all be "neutered" linguistically? I don't think so!
The English language is not going to overturned by temper-tantrum.
5
There is a simple solution. If you are a male, use the male pronouns, he, his.... If you are female, use the female pronouns, she, her.... That way everybody knows the gender of the writer, if that's important, and you avoid the ugly constructions such as s/he, his or hers....
2
It all works well, until you get to the NYT bio:
Farhad Manjoo became an opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, he wrote the State of the Art column. He is the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.”
I am perfectly happy refer to anyone by their preferred pronouns, once known.
I also know many people who don't wish to erase their gender when referring to them. (I will happily use they when gender is unknown or it is a preference of an individual.) I will also respect their choice.
Erasing differences does not make people equal. It is a whitewash that doesn't respect diversity, it demands conformity. People are different and we should value those, because those differences make us stronger.
They in Mahood's formulation is the "civil unions" of language. It does not bring equality of people of difference, which is what respecting anyone's pronoun choice is, it is trying to make the problem of respecting difference vanish, by vanishing the differences.
One is respect, the other...troubling.
2
Sorry, but "they" is the sloppy, easy way out. Well written sentences can avoid the situation. Use it at your own peril. Readers will either think you are hip or dumb.
1
Oh, let’s just give them a Pulitzer for working so hard on their opinion.
I don’t want to be referred to by a plural, gender neutral pronoun. I don’t want to deny or obscure my sex and gender.
As for “Did you read Farhad’s latest column — they’ve really gone off the deep end this time!” this suggests that the previously known Farhad is now a set of (multiple) Farhads, which is a troubling thought for anyone, or any-thems. And if “they” stands for one person, then it should be “they’s really gone off the deep end.”
2
David Foster Wallace, the tennis and racket club guy? Sorry, but that’s Mr. Snoot to you.
Instead of calling you “they” why don’t we just call you “it.”? Those who relinquish their God-given gender no longer deserve to be considered human. But I will continue to call you “he” until you come to your senses.
2
This is a nonsense piece, if in doubt simply use my friends, associates, neighbors or fellow citizens of the world.
2
I think Manjoo is recalling his heritage which I am sure is dot Indian (instead of feather Indian). In his, and my heritage and culture, when one refers to someone with respect, its translated into "they." So why not give respect to all!
1
Lock me up now. This is getting absurd.
3
I am a grammar gender conformist who feels using they for a singular person is, well, a bit looney. Yet, I want to respect someone who wants to be called a “they.” My solution? Avoid pronouns and use the person’s name when referring to “them.”
‘Call me “they” or “them,” as in: “Did you read Farhad’s latest column — they’ve really gone off the deep end this time!”’
Probably should be reflect singular “they’s“ as in “they’s really gone off the deep end.”
They are kidding, right?
5
“They” is silly and ungrammatical.
My modest proposal would be “shim” or perhaps “herm.”
Discuss.
Trying too hard, again.
3
This seems like another aspect of queer culture being gentrified by allies, along with using "partner" in hetero couples. It's not enlightened to linguistically imply that you might be queer, it's a privilege to be able to duck in and out of the discourse.
1
I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me. Ugh.
The inmates are running the asylum.
4
No; let's not.
2
It's all about priorities, folks.
Choices and consequences.
Let's keep our focus (and news column space) on issues like this . . . and watch as Trump gets re-elected and a true fascist state take hold.
2
Count this they among the "plainly intolerant", hating "they" as they do.
Some theys don't care to be told to murder the language, in the interests of they's peculiar notions and strictures.
If they doesn't like "it", they is obviously anti-inanimate or maybe anti-animal.
This is nuts! The author suffers from the weakest of sensitivities and sensibilities with a need to further parse identities. While thought-provoking, this is just far-left-wing click bait.
What about the men and women through history that referred to airplanes and ships as 'she'. Will they now be deemed misogynists for using that term today without regard to contemporary values?
Rant over, back to enjoying my binary life.
3
Really....I guess I am really out of the loop on this. I thought the article was satirical.....
1
Instead of calling you “they” why don’t we just call you “it.”? Those who relinquish their God-given gender no longer deserve to be considered human. But I will continue to call you “he” until you come to your senses.
Use a dictionary. 'They' is more than one person standing over there.
Grammar wise you do not use 'they' for one individual.
However we can all use 'it'.
'it' means neither male nor female.
Since it already exists in the language, let's go with this word.
1
There a better contender for third-person singular: "E":
It's as simple as "I".
It sounds similar to "he" and "she".
It won't change the sentence structure, as in “Did you read Farhad’s latest column — E's really gone off the deep end this time!”
1
English already has two gender neutral pronouns: “it” for an animal and “one” for a person. Does it sound old and stuffy? Maybe. Too bad.
1
Nope. “They” will forever be plural. If you are not a he or a she...then what is it??
I get offended if I’m referred to as “cisgender” or “binary”. I’m a woman. A female. Period!
To quote Seth Myers “Really?!”
1
They was knocked off their bicycle and died. Or They were? It’s a stupid solution better solved by inventing a new non-gendered singular pronoun. Ms caught on eventually but they isn’t even trying.
And this, dear readers, is why Democrats keep losing elections...
3
Wait a minute, Mr. (or Ms or M?)Manjoo, why aren't YOU modeling your behavior so that your daughter can enjoy boy colors and TV shows? Also, gender is NOT a prison for the mind. Good grief. No wonder the right-wingers call us liberals "snowflakes."
"From their very earliest days, my kids, fed by marketing and entertainment and (surely) their parents’ modeling, seemed to hem themselves into silly gender norms. They gravitated to boy toys and girl toys, boy colors and girl colors, boy TV shows and girl TV shows...Gender is a ubiquitous prison for the mind, reinforced everywhere, by everyone, and only rarely questioned."
Figures this reasoning comes from a man - I mean person, sorry - who thinks men should wear makeup.
1
"They"... really?? this is soooo dumb. first world problem, to the max. pronouns don't define gender. there must be something better to spend our time and energy discussing.
I'll stay in my stifling prison, thanks.
1
No. "They" is not singular. Stop being ridiculous.
2
Breaking English until everybody's confused doesn't actually help anyone.
4
In Turkish, there is no gender, no “he” or “she”. Just the neutral “O”.
1
We do not live in a just or rational universe. You should probably come to terms with that. Maybe a refresher course on evolutionary biology would help? I'm not sure which rational applies when you command the 99.9998% to cater to the whims of the 0.0002%. If you must pander to the ideological fringe its certainly your right. It's my right to advise you that the only thing that evolution rewards over time is pragmatism. You get on with your compromised pronouns bro. Reality ain't gonna go with you.
1
There is a simple solution to the contrived Manjoo pronoun conundrum, which is no conundrum at all. There need not be a 'stifling prison of gender expectations.' Ouch! Such a harsh sentence he/they would impose. The solution: if you are a male, use the male pronouns: he, his, him.... If you are a female, use the female pronouns, she, hers, her.... That way, the reader knows the gender of the writer, if that's important to anybody. If the write is LGBTQ, no problem: the choice is theirs. Males using male pronouns and females using female pronouns would also end linguistic abominations such as s/he or he/she.... End the linguistic squirming. Let's man and woman up.
Gee, the entire French language is gendered into masculine and feminine nouns. Do you have a plan to “fix” French also?
1
Okay. I guess I will. Are you then, an anonymous person in charge? A member of “The Hierarchy Enslaving You?” Possibly, the counter cultural nonsense known as “The Hidden Elite Youth?” As silly as this article is, please, I can’t help but laugh; you still are whatever you are, and that is somebody really struggling for an idea. “They,” as if that will change things. They, actually makes you sound creepier, as in “They Live,” “They’re Coming,” “They’re Here,” or just “They.” Do you really want that? Perhaps if you tried living your life and not worrying about what the rest of the world thinks of you, well; then perhaps “they” could call you anything. In fact, they may call you “anything,” as in anything at all, or whatever. Do you really want that they should do that? By the way. I never covet my neighbor’s PORSCHE! That is, his: Proof Of Rich Spoiled Children Having Everything...
1
Is this really an improvement of what Martin Buber was trying to get at with "I" and "Thou?" Just wondering....
2
No, no, and no.
You got me on "marriage," you got me when you say that a man can be a "wife," but over my dead body will I call a single person a "they," even if that poor soul claims to be suffering from multiple personality disorder.
You think "he or she" is "clunky"? Tough. It's a convention of the '60s, when everyone assumed that "a lawyer" or "a doctor" or "an engineer" was a man. When women entered the workforce, then, by gosh and by golly, we wanted to be included, hence the "he or she." The workaround is obnoxiously simple for anyone with the slightest pretense to American English mastery: make your noun a plural, and, voila! use the plural and non-gender-specific pronoun "they." End of story.
This business about the "baggage" that "he or she" carries is...baloney. I mean it.
Because, here's the deal: there is a perfectly appropriate, gender totally neutral, singular pronoun that is inoffensive and all encompassing, and that pronoun is...wait for it...it.
It is not pejorative. It is flexible. It is fluid. It is everything that you'd want in a gender neutral, friendly, happy, singular pronoun.
And, FYI, the only time The New York Times will use "they" to refer to a single, individual person, is when it is reporting a crime and to specify gender might endanger the victim. I know, because I asked.
There is no known authority on American English that advocates anything but noun-pronoun agreement, though Chicago is waffling on collective nouns. Those wimps!
No. Never.
4
Does not work linguistically. Does not roll of the tongue. "It" is the more logical pronoun as it is a singular. Let's call you "it."
1
Reading the phrase "grammatically icky" in a NYT article provided a moment of bliss in an otherwise ordinary morning. Thanks, Farhad.
2
In fact "they" does create confusion is real usage. Imagine this convo.
"Hey did you Milly's party on Saturday?"
"Yeah, I rolled through. It was brazy, fam."
"For real? Who was there?"
"Jackson, Steph, Barry, Jack, Stacy, oh and yo.. Mikell came through with Amanda and they was so drunk, haha! They totally tried to make out with Janny! But they wasn't having any of it!"
When referring to one individual out of a group the use of "they" is totally unclear and useless.
Let me also add that I don't want to be referred to by a linguistically awkward word that communicates little as a reference point back to me. Why should 2% of the population dictate what all of us are referred to?
If Farhad and others prefer to be "theys" and "thems" that's their business and I'm perfectly willing to respect and use their choice but don't foist your grammatical abominations on the rest of us.
3
If the "they" is singular, Fox should be saying "“Did you read Farhad’s latest column — they has really gone off the deep end this time!” But of course I've never noticed that Fox is careful about grammar or clarity.
So here is the guy, David Forster Wallace, in whose name Manjoo deems the non compliant “snoots”:
“In the early 1990s Wallace became obsessed with the writer Mary Karr. He considered killing her husband,[21] threw a coffee table at her and tried to push her out of a moving car.[22][21] Karr has complained that Wallace's biographer D. T. Max underreported Wallace's abuse of her. Of Max's account of their relationship, she tweeted, "that's about 2% of what happened. tried to buy a gun. kicked me. climbed up the side of my house at night. followed my son age 5 home from school. had to change my number twice, and he still got it. months and months it went on."[23] -Wikipedia
1
No, no, and no.
You got me on "marriage," you got me when you say that a man can be a "wife," but over my dead body will I call a single person a "they," even if that poor soul claims to be suffering from multiple personality disorder.
You think "he or she" is "clunky"? Too bad. It's a convention of the '60s, when everyone assumed that "a lawyer" or "a doctor" or "an engineer" was a man. When women entered the workforce, then, by gosh and by golly, we wanted to be included, hence the "he or she." The workaround is obnoxiously simple for anyone with the slightest pretense to American English mastery: make your noun a plural, and, voila! use the plural and non-gender-specific pronoun "they." End of story.
This business about the "baggage" that "he or she" carries is...baloney. I mean it.
Because, here's the deal: there is a perfectly appropriate, gender totally neutral, singular pronoun that is inoffensive and all encompassing, and that pronoun is...wait for it...it.
It is not pejorative. It is flexible. It is fluid. It is everything that you'd want in a gender neutral, friendly, happy, singular pronoun.
And, FYI, the only time The New York Times will use "they" to refer to a single, individual person, is when it is reporting a crime and to specify gender might endanger the victim. I know, because I asked.
There is no known authority on American English that uses anything but noun-pronoun agreement, though Chicago is waffling on collective nouns. Those wimps!
No. Never.
1
Lets not.
You can call yourself what ever you like but I will continue to use proper English. Very sorry about that.
1
English already has a gender neutral singular pronoun: it.
3
As an older parent of a non-binary millenial, I have practiced for four years and still do not reliably use 'they' instead of the binary option. When others refer to my child as 'they 'I am always momentarily confused. Has another individual been added to the conversation, or are we using the singular they? It seems to me a shame that our gender cannot be understood as occupying a wide range of behaviors and experience. I have always believed that, as a culture, we place too much emphasis on gender. But I don't think removing singular pronouns from the language is the way to fix this cultural problem. We need strong examples of the full range of masculinity and femininity. What we really need to do, as a culture, is to respect each person as a unique individual. Gender and sexual orientation is only a small part of what we, are humans, are. I fear that the host of new gender references only has the effect of separating us from one another.
Frankly I'm offended when referred to as cis-gender. My gender and sexual orientation are not anyone's business but my own. I've also seen non-binary folks make fun, rather meanly, of those of us who relate to our birth sex. Just an example of how declaring these differences leads to not better understanding, but an excuse for a lack of understanding towards others. As for me, don't call me 'they'. I won't know who you're talking about.
7
I grew up in England, where the use of "they" was pretty much standard shorthand for she/he.
4
Instead of contorting the language for a singular 'they', why not consider inventing a new word. Like what happened when it was decided that a woman should not be identified by her marital status. 'Ms.' was invented. Works great.
I would prefer the Ze/Zer option or something along those lines.
6
The reason "they" is inclusive isn't just because it's gender-neutral, but because it's plural. Unfortunately, there is no similar neutrality with singular and plural. It can be one or the other, but not both. On this, the hard laws of mathematics are and forever will be inflexible (and thank God, because flexible laws of mathematics would allow the universe to fly apart into subatomic chaos). Rather than create confusion by forcing a new meaning onto "they" while keeping the old one (imagine the potential for misinterpreted 911 calls, e.g.), why not just come up with a new word that makes it clear to everyone what it means - a person who doesn't wish their gender to be determined by their biology? Creating confusion by artificially grafting a meaning onto a word that was never intended for it just reinforces the false stereotype of transgender as a type of reality-denying cognitive dissonance.
1
I'm liberal but this is even to far out there for me. This line of thinking does nothing to bring people to the progressive side of politics.
6
@Jordan
It confirms every stereotype of progressives. A small group' forcing its agenda on the majority. Sensitivity to the point of being emotionally ill-equipped to handle the rigors of life. Admonishing those who disagree from atop their perch on the moral high ground.
4
On Billions Axe calls Taylor 'they' but lots of times you aren't sure if he is talking about Taylor or Taylor's full team. "They are going to use this against us" is it Taylor or the organization?
If the police are looking for a criminal it helps to eliminate 50% of the possible suspects by specifying gender.
If you are telling me about a time you were walking down the street and felt unsafe when you came upon someone, it makes a big difference to know whether the person you found threatening was man or a woman.
2
Diversity is supposed to add variety and color to society. Ironically, the progressive quest to normalize lifestyles and behaviors that deviate from social norms is making our society sterile and boring. It's sort of the opposite of what makes diversity great.
Let's keep our social norms and our language. They exist for a reason, and they fit the overwhelming majority of people. If you want to be different, great! Your differences are interesting. But don't become the language police, and don't try to hide what makes you unique and special by trying to bleach out of differences.
10
Pay inequity and sexual violence and poverty is not isolated to women, but women experience most of it. So my reaction to a gender-neutral pronoun is, “when we have gender equality, then we will be mature enough for gender neutrality.”
The counter argument seems to really be, “what we call something shapes how we think about it.” But the call isn’t for equity, it’s for a kind of inclusivity that looks like neutrality and, ultimately, reductionism. What follows in my mind is that without gender specific pronouns, the very real imbalance of single-parenthood, poverty, and rape are reduced to a generic group. How do we address violence against women if we are “they” and not “she”? How do we address pay inequity if “their” average wage is actually lifted when mingled with the opposite gender? How do we address poverty and the challenges of childcare that disproportionately affects women if we no longer "she"?
2
"Jon has indicated a willingness to go. Mary has not. I suspect they will go." The only reason I lean towards "ze" is there is no way to tell whether the "they" above refers to Jon and Mary, just Jon, or just Mary. Or am I missing something?
3
When using “they” would cause confusion as to which person is being referenced, I would use the person’s name”
3
@KC in your example, "I expect "they" will go means that you think both of them will go. If you thought only one of them might go you would say "I expect "he" will go, or "I expect "she" will go.
I have a certain degree of discomfort with the push for gender neutral conventions, much as I think the idea of a “race blind” society is wrong headed. We must name the problem, acknowledge the treatment that women have historically endured - being denied property, the right to work and contribute to civil discourse, enduring private violence, and much, much more. We may be moving toward a post-gender society, but that has not been a reality for the vast majority of people labeled “women” on this planet for basically all of recorded history. The fact that this is embedded in our language is indicative of how deep the problem runs. We should certainly question the concept of gender, but correcting gender pronouns to erase the female? Is that a way of acknowledging history or does it perhaps erase a dirty past that we should instead reclaim?
4
@Lauren
Race blindness is a better option for those who don't want to be categorized incorrectly and for those who don't want to offend. It means, of course, one's addressing his/she/their own emotional needs and not demanding something of everyone else. That seems so much healthier and not such a fool's errand.
1
I appreciate the need to be sensitive to some, but come on. I don't want to be refereed to as "they" unless it makes sense grammatically. I also can't stand reading it, it makes it nearly impossible to follow in prose. To be honest, let's drop this idea that we're stifling the vast vast majority of us. It's not language that is defining gender roles, it's how people behave and the their willingness to be exposed to different ideas and individuals.
This issue that doesn't have real meaning to something like 99% of us is being overblown and in some cases potentially causing harm to children who may still be figuring out their identity. As a Gen Xer I much prefer to adopt the attitude of "I don't care what you do, go make yourself happy" than the attitude that we must all conform to make everyone else feel special and perfect all the time.
1335
@Martin As a millennial, if that's relevant, I much prefer to adopt the attitude that I don't care what you do, but I'll start with kindness. Such a small change, with minimal effort, could open so many people up to different ideas about gender. Look, we're already having a conversation.
45
@Martin: I will happily use (or at least try) to use a person's preferred pronouns. And my preferred pronouns are she and her. This idea everyone should go by 'they' is not different and just as extreme as the people refusing to ever use 'they.'
51
@Erica
Do you mean to say that it is "unkind" to not yield to the preferences of everyone?
33
I could adapt to ZE just as I adapted to MS . I like it ,in fact.
I find THEY just confuses me. Perhaps it's because I'm too old for my brain to automatically adapt to THEY being used for both singular and plural. I find I always think it's plural.
5
What dangles dangles. Surgery can change it. But we are not un-gendered and no amount of shifts in pronoun use will make that any less complicated or untrue.
2
There has been a fairly good solution to this one for some time: "s/he." So, when you don't want to use he or she, his or hers, or him or her, how about "s/he" as a subject pronoun, "s/hes" as a possessive pronoun, and "s/hrm" as an object pronoun. Or something like that. But no matter what, keep it singular, i.e., just invent another third person singular set of pronouns.
1
@C.L.S.
That’s fine for written expression, but help with these alternatives be pronounced?
I completely agree with “they” being used as a pronoun. But if you know, for example, I use the pronouns “he/him”, and call me “they”, that is not ok. Not everyone wants to be called they.
2
It's easy to rephrase almost any sentence to drop the pronoun entirely. That can avoid gendering and verb-disagreement, and improve precision of meaning. In the example of Uber/Lyft driver Juan, the computer generated voice should be reprogrammed to say "Your driver, Juan, is close and will meet you outside." I don't recall any English teacher or editor making this point explicit.
1
Although many would say, as many comments to the Farhad Manjoo column state, "there are bigger fish to fry," it's imperative that everyday language, both written and spoken, evolve toward "equality." Without a doubt we as a species must enable culture to strive toward the recognition that every person has "worth & dignity." Thus the largeness or smallness of a minority making a request, with allies such as Farhad Manjoo, is not an important fact to the request nor the need. To evolve language toward gender neutral terminology is simply a request to foster a "principle of relationship." It's a basic need for continued human development. It is therefore a right & just request, and in fact a necessity. I wouldn't doubt that in not too many years, the usage of "they, them, they've, their" will become the dominate form of speech and written language, so much so that a generation or two from now, those in many societies will hear comments like "What?, people used the terms "she, her, he, him? How very old English of them."
1
Many of the comments here are little better than what you'd find over at Fox News. To those folks who resent and deny others' requests to refer to them using "they," I implore you to stop and think for a moment. This isn't about you. It may seem silly and trivial to you, but for many others it is not. Can we put on our empathy hats for a moment? If you don't understand the pronoun thing, could you take a few minutes to research why people feel this way before you give in to baser instincts to express your scorn and disdain? What if someone told you that a sincere part of your identity is invalid or worthless? You would likely be upset and offended. Who is someone else to tell you what you are or are not? Who are you to tell someone that you will refuse to respect their sincere wishes when such little effort is truly required?
This conversation really isn't about chromosomes or biology. If someone sincerely asks you to refer to them in a certain way, it's probably important to them, and even if you can't relate, maybe you could at least try? It's really no skin off your back, but it truly communicates at least some level of basic respect for someone else's wishes.
2
@Arbie
Or they (hah!) can return to reality and stop pushing this nonsense on everyone else.
He or she. Those are the choices. If you are not sure which one applies to you, look between your legs. Problem solved, have a nice day.
2
More basic denial of reality and denial of the scientific method. Science first differentiates in order to categorize in order to facilitate basic learning. Value judgments need not apply. This is right up there with the flat earthers.
5
You’ve identified yet not acknowledged the difference between sex (science) and gender (cultural).
1
@Nick Boettcher
That is because the former is reality and the latter PC nonsense.
1
@Nick Boettcher Science does not "acknowledge" value judgments.
1
You want to talk about me to someone else, use "she." You want my attention, try "hey, you!" And if we're going to use "they," my response in the plural will be:
We are NOT amused.
3
Using the wrong (grammatical) person, or removing persons, is degrading the language. Why reduce the amount of information conveyed? What is needed are gender non-specific pronouns (which "they" actually is, but it is the wrong person). "It" is not the answer - it specifies a non-human - again, using it would reduce information conveyed. I hereby declare the new pronouns to be "ee" (subject) and "eem" (object). These could apply to all sexual identities.
1
Language and grammar are not immutable facts of the universe. We can decide “they” is proper, whether plural or singular, just as we decided all other words and meanings.
1
C'mon, admit it. How many of you gentle readers upon seeing the title of this opinion piece thought, "Shouldn't the title be, Call *Us* 'They'?" That certainly was my first teacherly reaction. Language is continually evolving and common usage inevitably wins. New words are formed and archaic references fade into oblivion. Let it live.
1
Please. Enough. "....singular, gender-neutral 'they'.... I am too old to start mixing singular with plural and all of this other stuff. If we are moving down this path, then make a final leap and just use the word "it." I am not intolerant but I am not about to let decades of grammar usage go down the tubes because of subjective whims about how someone wants to be identified....today.
"They" is plural and should stay that way. If that doesn't work, my fall-back is "herm."
2
Farhad Manjoo wrote: "Call me 'they,' and I’ll call you 'them.' I won’t mind, and I hope you won’t, either."
^ But why should you -- a stereotypical, cisgender, middle-aged man -- get to decide which pronoun to call other people, especially trans people with different preferences?
If someone wishes to be called "ze," call them that. The point is about respecting their gender identity, and not forcing them to conform to whatever naming conventions you -- a cisgender middle-aged man -- have arbitrarily chosen for them.
3
Yes, yes, yes! For the reasons you cite, and: I write a lot for my work, and keep making the case for using "they" instead of the awkward "he or she" or "he/she" or "s/he", with editors who go only by the rules. Have done it for years and will continue to.
2
If my skin is pale but I feel it experience myself as dark-skinned, and especially if I relate to and emulate many aspects of a specific indigenous African or African-American culture, would it be broadly accepted and acceptable for me to refer to myself and expect/demand/codify that all other people refer to me and treat me as a Black person? Race, too, is a social construct, after all.
5
Ahhhh, it's the plurality confusion that gets me, not the gender! (I recall going to look for the rest of my patients, only to find I only had one waiting.) But I've spent a lifetime using my language aptly as I can, and I don't want to be forced to change.
It seems to me that most people can accept an *addition* to their grammar, sooner than an alteration. That's respectful to both parties, isn't it? You (whoever and whatever gender you may be) arrive at what you'd like to be called, but don't expect to change me while doing so.
I'd vote for Thee, as it has a connotation of tenderness and affection, but it doesn't quite seem to work. What about Tho? (Maybe Thoo if there's more than one? (My spell corrector hates this, btw.)
3
I have read through a fair number of the comments, and I am still of the opinion that this is a piece of writing aiming to be humorous and satirical.
3
@Jean April Fool's Day was 3-1/2 months ago ...
2
@Jean
I would like to think so, but this madness seems to be taken seriously by some people.
2
I typically agree with you Farhad, but to be honest this is one of those frivolous complaints my fellow social liberals waste their time on. Changing pronouns isn't going to lead to the eradication of gender norms, a dubious goal in the first place.
To see what I mean, let me point out that I have no idea what you mean when you say that gender neutral pronouns are "necessary" in the transgender community. Come again? I very much support transgendered people and their rights, and the whole point of being transgender is that you believe yourself to be the opposite gender inside than outside. Gender isn't a meaningless concept to transgendered people, nor one that can be reduced to a classification of one's genitalia. If it were, being "female/male on the inside" would be meaningless. Transgendered people don't reject gender norms - they EMBRACE them. Genderless pronouns nay be useful in official contexts in places that refuse to officially recognize ones transitioned gender, but ideally transgenders WANT to be referred to by their gender-appropriate term. This is why a not insignificant proportion of feminists, for all of their virtues, find transgendered people irksome, because they threaten feminism's long-sought, understandable yet misguided ideal of a de-gendered world where gender exists nowhere but between one's legs.
The point is, gender isn't an evil thing, nor is it imaginary. Gender norms and gender-based ideals CAN pose problems, but they are also natural.
1
@Eric
I agree with you up to the point where you talk about feminists. We embrace being female. That's kinda what it's all about. Hence the name.
2
You are completely wrong about this. “The world will be slightly better off if we abandon unnecessary gender signifiers.” Please. Trans people are estimated to be at most 0.6% of population. Yes, they should be called by the pronoun they prefer, but to imply that it would be just devastating to be called “he” when identifying as “she” is ridiculous in the real world. A simple statement of which pronoun one prefers is not such a burden that we need to destroy our language for such a small number of people. Then you say we shouldn’t force our children into gender binary. Again, try the real world. Maybe in a coddled environment these things are just so important. But in life, this is hardly the biggest obstacle one must overcome for a career or any type of success.
This infantilism is insulting. If I call you by the wrong gender, tell me and move on. And yes, I would mind if you called me “them.” I respect the English language.
5
Coin new words if you must, as several feminist authors in the 70s and 80s did, e.g. xe.
Using "they" in the singular will only further confuse our grammatically challenged college students who can barely write a correct sentence in English, which is the only language most of them know.
1
I will gladly start calling people who wish to be reffered to as "they" they, if that is what is they wish. I just would like it if they would come up with some term for themselves and their movement other than left wing or liberal because that is what I am and I did not convert to this new religion. This has nothing to do with tax policy or the environment or civil rights. If you want to make fixing our culture through grammar your number one priority go for it dude but lets make it clear that our world views and our agendas are not the same. They are making us look ridiculous.
3
"Other than plainly intolerant people, there’s only one group that harbors doubts about the singular “they”: grammarians."
I disagree. Case in point: I recently read a book titled Digital Minimalism by Cal Newport, and in one section, out of courtesy, Cal refers to someone as "they" instead of "he/she". The entire section was very tough to follow, and instead of remembering the point Cal was making, the awkwardness of the paragraph is all that I was left with. There certainly are times when "they" can be used in the singular, but it does not always work, and you don't have to be a grammarian to recognize this.
It's interesting to me that someone with such an astounding level of sensitivity and open-mindedness is able to so quickly dismiss everyone with a different point of view as either a pesky grammarian or simply intolerant.
4
Honestly, the struggle for political correctness is wearing us down. Soon we won't be able to have a conversation for fear of offending someone.
3
Just remember, them that's got are them that gets.
It’s the language. Third person singular pronouns are not hate speech and they do not define identity. Let’s not let them be taken hostage in the culture wars.
2
Call me It. It's clean, simple and completes the dehumanisation and impoverishment of the language.
And, Farhad, this isn't the first time you have *told* me what I should do. That's entirely my call.
3
If we really want the English language to have gender neutral pronouns, let's do it the same way "Ms." was introduced: create new, specific pronouns. Ze / zer seems perfect. There's no confusion with existing usage, and once you've heard them once, you understand what they mean.
The only argument Farhad raises is that this will be limited to "gender-nonconforming" people. Well, the same argument could have been used against "Ms.", that it was limited to those awful bra-burning women. But here we, and Ms is common, non-controversial usage. If instead feminists had insisted on appropriated Mr, where would we be?
They is just clumsy, doomed to failure because so many people will just cringe at using a plural noun with a singular verb; just saying they is now both singular and plural will not work. It is simply intelligent.
Also, replacing him and her with it will not work because I’m a person not an object.
In Sweden, they took han and hon (he and she) and created the non-designating hen. This is the model to follow. Create a new word without resonant baggage and you advance the language rather than contorting it.
Actually I hope you will refer to me as he or him. I’m content with my so-called cisgender gender identity, my sense of being male comporting with my original biological equipment. Personally, and I expect this makes me one of your “snoots” about grammar, I find this insistence on being referred to as “they” and “them” as just a tad narcissistic and attention-mongering. I am a gay man, I am progressive in my politics, and I am a professional journalist and author. I love language and words. But I think the politicization of even our pronouns takes things too far. Besides, it’s not only English that has gendered third-person pronouns (in French: elle and il). Like it or not, the world is sexed as male or female (or, rarely, intersexed) and so is language.
Let’s not use it, OK? I recall that once women tired of being tagged by their marital status“Miss,” Mrs.”) we managed to come up with a simple and elegant alternative (“Ms.”) that gave people options without riding roughshod over linguistic norms. Rather than hijack a clearly plural pronoun, let’s make a similar attempt here.
1
Another example of when the bullied become the bullies.
4
II just can't get past the plurality of the word they. In many instances we are wonderfully creative (drug names, names for what never existed before). Why can't we be creative here? After all, all the words are made up. By the way my students already do this. I do NOT correct it.
"...stifling prison of gender expectations." Laughable nonsense. Hyphenating American society apparently isn't enough for the courageous occupants of your sparsely-populated echo chamber. Now you have to coop the English language to benefit the fragile few.
4
In English "they" is plural.
Perhaps this columnist wants to invent a new language. But then no one will understand him.
Language should be stable so that we can listen to the past and speak to the future.
4
Farhad Manjoo makes a convincing and very embracing argument, and that (plus polite but steady hectoring from my 20-something daughter) has brought me around.
However, I worry that we underestimate the potential confusion in making "they" the all-purpose 3rd person singular term.
When we talk about "I," "we," and "you," we already know who we are talking about. We are face-to-face, as it were.
However, the third person is inherently descriptive, providing information to listeners / readers that they can't readily see and don't already know.
I'm all for abandoning our need to distinguish gender in the 3rd person pronoun, but feel like we are headed into trouble by abandoning the singular vs. plural. Am already seeing too many advice-column letters describing the interrelated problems of one person vs. a family where the individual is "they" and the family is "they" and it becomes hopelessly confused. (And let's face it, an awful lot of what we want to tell other people about in this world is the interaction of one person with a group.)
Maybe what we should do is keep "they" for third-person singular, but start using something like "they-all" (in southern style) for third-person plural. It'll naturally shorten to "thall" over time.
There - did I fix it?
1
please,ny times, stop with
these seemingly endless
articles and columns about
transgenders and pronouns
and cis gender and all the
rest of these code words
which mean nothing to the
vast majority of your readers.I have been reading the ny times for
better than fifty years and
I have never seen so much sexual political correctness
in any modern newspaper.
please get back to being
a family paper once again.
12
@Frank
It is really getting tiresome, isn't it?
4
As a particular female of a certain century, I've fought for the right to be a Mrs. or Miss, or Ms. I am not inclined to become a "they." However, I respect your right to use the pronoun in reference to your own identity. Thus, "they" wrote an interesting OpEd for the NYT.
Thank you, F. Manjoo.
2
My family by marriage is a Nigerian, their language is Yoruba, which does not have gendered pronouns. When speaking English, they often mix up pronouns:
“Then he said...”
“Wait, I though you were talking about Liz?”
“Oh, right. She said...”
Doesn’t stop them from being a patriarchal society.
I’m fine with using singular they. It makes gender non-conforming people confortable, it removes reference to gender where it’s irrelevant. But it won’t make people less likely to be sorted into gendered roles. Sorry.
181
@Emma, excellent observation. I wonder if this is even a topic of discussion in a country (Nigeria) that has more pressing problems than we in the United States or Canada.
8
Frankly, as part of the “normal” majority I find this effort to change the language of sexuality to be annoying and will not be calling myself or anyone else I know - cis or they - anytime soon.
6
Gotta love Americans but also have to admit they're downright with their capacity to invent attention seeking fake problems which then allow them to attempt to impose virtue siganalling as a solution...
Nope. Americans do grammar badly enough without intentionally pasting clunky and ambiguous bandages on standard English.
Unless you're an intimate friend of mine, I'm not going to accept that your problem with gender disphoria imposes upon me accomodation of your willful and controlling injunctions on my expression of the language.
5
While we go about replacing “he” or “she” with the non-gendered plurals “they” or “them,” why not extend the project and update any poetry that so thoughtlessly “defaults to the gender binary”? And so, for instance, the lovely opening of Byron’s short lyric is given vibrant new life with, “They walk in beauty, like the night/Of cloudless climes and starry skies;/And all that’s best of dark and bright/Meet in their aspect and their eyes.” Now that’s lyrical poetry!
1
Could you please wait until next year to publish pieces like this. They will guarantee Trump’s re-election.
6
As someone who studies grammar, I have to agree, halfway.
There are (at least) two principle contexts here: one in which we are referring to a generic or hypothetical individual, and one in which we are referring to a particular individual, especially when a gender for that individual has already been signaled.
Compare the following:
(1) When a person goes to an ice cream stand for ice cream, they typically survey the flavors.
(2) *When Sally goes to the ice cream stand, they typically specify a flavor.
In (1), replacing 'they' with 'he or she' is awkward, and unnecessary. Replacing it with a 'he', which used to be somewhat standard, seems to privilege the male gender. And (1) seems to roll off the tongue and feel fine. In sum, there seem to be lots of good reason to aggressively promote using 'them' instead of either of the standard singular pronouns in contexts like (1).
But the aptness of 'them' in (1) crucially depends on the designated individual being generic, unknown, or hypothetical. That's partly why (2) comes off so poorly. It's also why many trans folks want very much NOT to be referred to as 'they' (perceiving it as erasing, rather than respecting their identity).
That's also why Farhad's office hours announcement doesn't work well either: Farhad (I'm hoping!) is not a generic, hypothetical, or unknown person. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
@M Peirce writes: "As someone who studies grammar, I have to agree, halfway.
There are (at least) two principle contexts here: ..."
Umm, "principle" isn't an adjective; it's a noun. I think you meant "principal," meaning "main."
1
"they" also breaks the rules of English grammar. Sorry, not doing it. Find a singular noun and I'm happy to use that.
1
Sure man, I'll call you Purple if you want. Recognize that such a request is quirky and burdensome on most people who will now feel the need to walk on pins and needles when addressing you. But if I ever meet you in person, I will certainly try to respect your wishes.
In general, let's keep the English language in tact. "They" is plural, and it is grammatically incorrect and confusing to use it to refer to an individual using a plural pronoun. And people who use "they" to refer to an individual sound uneducated.
2
I am a snoot. I respect traditional grammar. When the word they no longer represents plurality, how does one know what verb to use? “This is my husband and they is called John” sounds a little strange but so does “This is my husband and they are looking at themselves in the mirror.” Thank God I live in a French-speaking country where every noun is either masculine or feminine and no one cares.
5
When using "they" as a singular pronoun, why not use the singular verb for clarity? "They is" makes it clear that one is talking about a single gender-unidentified person.
1
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't consider my gender "a ubiquitous prison for the mind". But I guess that makes me a "snoot" according to the author and Mr. Wallace. For a guy who's trying paint himself as the compassionate grammarian, he's pretty quick to indulge in name calling. How about seeing the issue from the "snoot" side, minus the name calling?
5
There already is a perfectly good singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun: “it.”
“It” has traditionally been used with animals and objects, but not people.
“They” has traditionally been used only in the plural sense.
Which traditional usage — if either — should give way?
But, you say, it’s disrespectful to lump people with animals and objects! How so, since we already use “they” to refer to animals, objects, AND people?
Language exists for one purpose: to communicate. The more precise and understandable, the better!
2
I use it. It, is short, sweet and obscure. Yes ..it.. is the correct pronoun.
French offers “on” which is singular and gender neutral. We have the equivalent “one” already though one finds it rather stuffy doesn’t one?
1
A thousand bravos for Mr. Manjoo!! Ever since I learned to read in first grade, I have thought about this and wondered why we are so gender-specific with third person singular pronouns. The implication is that a person's gender is the first thing we should identify about them, even if it has nothing to do with what we are saying. I've been using "they" and "them" my whole life when referring to a single person, and nobody has ever gotten confused.
3
I am female. I was born female. I identify as female. If you identify as something other than the gender assigned to you at birth, let me know; whatever works for you works for me. I do, however, have a problem with a singular “they”, because “they” is, by definition, plural. Create and use a singular non gender term, and use it consistently until it becomes common usage - not a problem. But to co-opt a plural for use as a singular is confusing.
What about all the other languages in the world with their varied methods of gender assignment? At a minimum, how will we teach Spanish or French or Russian in school?
Finnish has one pronoun, hän, for he/she, and one pronoun, se, for it. It also has 17 noun cases and an interesting scheme of impersonal passives. Mr. Manjoo can learn Finnish and move to Hämeenlinna. IThat will expand his horizons (their horizons)? My head hurts.
1
We would teach foreign languages the same exact way. One already has to learn about gendered nouns and such when they learn European languages; something we don't have have in English. I studied Czech and whew it was rough but me calling someone "they" wouldn't have made the tiniest difference in the ways I struggled.
That's one way of replenishing rapidly diminishing looney-Left ranks. The problem, Farhad, is with the loons who non-identify--the Law is at odds on what to do with a "blank who robs a bank"--so to speak. Also, the Constitution does not not make provision for a plurality of Presidents--and really, the Democratic field is long past the saturation point for a multiplier to make a difference. It may have occurred to Farhad that all that's left of the Left is identity politics--as in LGBTXYZ. One is at odds how one is to navigate if one negates one's thee's and thou's.
1
What's disturbing about this is that the author, a journalist, isn't just advocating for using "they" in polite conversation to avoid making particular people uncomfortable. He's advocating for using a less precise word, which is inherently confusing and conveys LESS information and purposely obscures facts, in all cases and to reference all people, *including journalistic reporting*. He's proposing a change that would make reporting purposely confusing and would hide or make the identifying details of the person reported on unclear.
NYT standards currently include reporting a person's gender, age, and where they are from, among other identifying details that might be relevant. Is he proposing scrapping all information the public deems relevant to understanding the news, in the name of sensitivity? Perhaps get rid of all other identifying information, such as age, that people prefer to obscure or hide?
If I read a report that there's someone committing crimes or being alleged of wrongdoing, I certainly want to know the basic identifying details of who they are, not just that "they" have been accused of assaulting "them". See how that word is used when not referring to a plural group? It's only ever used when the identity of the referent is UNKNOWN or purposely being hidden. It's really disturbing that a journalist is advocating for their usage in all cases, to what end? Making the audience more confused and less informed. What a goal for journalism.
5
We have two pronouns because there are two genders.
2
I am a liberal in California. I do not vote for republicans. But this is getting to be too much. A few weeks back there was a representative who wrote an Op-Ed about her abortion. She wrote with a gender neutral style. I couldn’t figure out if she had one or two kids and had to reread the whole thing to make sense of it.
This along with the latinx thing is rather irksome. Latinx is an English construct being shoved onto Latinos. The giveaway is in the annunciation... la-teen-x. In Spanish, the x makes a “j” sound... Xavier is annunciated as Javier. Not very woke to tell another language they are wrong with their male-female construct and need to make an English adjustment to the Spanish language to fix it. Talk about cultural imperialism from the “woke” crowd.
Language should be about clarity and clear communication. Using a neutral plural as a substitute for a specific singular does not enhance clarity. It does create confusion.
7
“This is not normal” is the appropriate refrain about Donald Trump.
But it’s applicable in other ways too.
1
I support this idea of they as gender-neutral, because our culture is still so toxic, and stifling in terms of gender roles. As a woman, I feel the deep weight of sexism and misogyny every day. I want the personhood of all to be respected.
1
Um, and what about the French language, where inanimate objects are masculine or feminine? Do you propose a wholesale restructure of French?
1
One of the problems in English is that "they" used to take a plural verb. And how would you distinguish between an individual "they" and a collective "they"? It's awkward. At some point, maybe another pronoun can be found that is more user-friendly than "ze"
1
Does it really matter? The importance of a pronoun seems less significant than a person's character. Can't we just look at people as people and not put everyone into checked boxes?
1
I'm just so damn weary of men who are still trying to control language. If men say it, it must be so. Stop pushing YOUR perspective on me - on all of us. To be "inclusive" and "flexible" you need to tolerate and respect views that are from your own. I am I/me/mine/she/her/hers. Do you want to be "they"? Knock yourself out. Leave me and mine alone. Thank you.
4
Dear Farhad,
You forgot to mention "their," also. I think this possessive plural pronoun was already being used instead of his/her before the nominative he/she was asked to surrender its gender distinction to "they." (Or "they" was asked to surrender its plural-ness).
Now, if we could just do something about "whose" which seems derived from "who" but must be employed for things as well, because the language doesn't allow "which's," much to the chagrin of my ESL students. And "whose" forces us to anthropomorphize things that perhaps don't deserve that distinction, as in "It's a company whose environmental record is appalling."
Other languages seem to do fine with non-gendered pronouns. Though Thai speakers use other gender markers such as "ka" (feminine) and "krap" (masculine) to complete sentences, the pronoun "kow" can refer to men or women, singular or plural. It does not seem to pose any grave problem.
Just to clarify, in Chinese, the spoken word “ta” is pronounced the same for both he and she, but the written character has a gender differentiation.
2
I will always respect the wishes of anyone who asks that I use certain pronouns. I do not plan to erase gendered language from my general use for the benefit of the .01% of folks who are non-binary. Sometimes we forget in this pronoun war that most folks do list their preferred pronouns as she/her or he/him.
5
Farhad: Man, joo really are on the fringes with this opinion. There is no need to adjust our common language to accommodate the relatively few of us who describe themselves as gender fluid. To them, I say keep your fluids to yourselves. Getting rid of gender specific pronouns is like banning the sale of peanuts anywhere because some people are allergic to them.
8
Where I live, we speak German, and there, everything has gender. When the flight attendant announces that "the pilot has turned on the fasten seatbelt signs", he or she needs to inform us of the pilot's gender in German ("der Pilot"/"die Pilotin"). If I tell you I had tea with my neighbor, I need to inform you of the gender (Tee mit meinem Nachbar, Tee mit meiner Nachbarin). My brother, a journalist, suggested that people should stop talking that way, but as many dictators have found, you simply cannot change the way people talk. If I walk into a kindergarten with a picture of a female police officer and tell the children, "Das ist ein Polizist" they would immediately say, "Nein, das ist eine Polizistin". If I were to insist, they would readily point out all the reasons why it actually is a (female) Polizistin instead of a (male) Polizist.
To make things more interesting, objects also have gender. I wonder whether the female German bridge ("die Brücke") would prefer to be a male French bridge ("le pont") or vice-versa. (Bridges over the Rhein are lucky that they can switch gender in the middle.) Studies have even shown that German speakers are more likely to think of bridges as graceful and filigrain - female attributes, while French speakers think of them as strong and sturdy - male attributes.
236
@Sally
I learned a new word - filigrain. Thank you!
11
@Sally
Obviously, the German and French languages are not very woke. Worry not, after a three month stint in a wokeness re-education camp, your views will be corrected.
28
@Sally
Lucky bridges - but poor lions. Why?
A lion - ein Löwe (male) - is a feline predator - eine Raubkatze (female).
So in German Simba, the Lion King, is male and female at the same time this way and his wife Nala is male and female together also.
Hermaphrodites. No doubt about it.
Scandal! Outrage! Indignation!
Anyway. If Nala goes hunting all of these many German speaking Impalas will yell "Vorsicht - ein Löwe!" (Caution - a lion!) "Ein Löwe" is definitely male. Nala a "male"? This must be horribly insulting for the great Lion Queen.
What will she do then? Calling all progressive campus squads for shaming all mean and evil Impalas who have hurt her so much by this gender insult (a) or trying to catch one of those screaming beasts ignoring all irrelevant grammar arbitrarinesses because they simply taste so well (b)?
A wise Lion Queen will choose (b) but will try to find an English speaking Impala - just to avoid endless useless discussions on campusses and in comment sections about solutions of problems by grammatical conventions in different languages that are completely unknown in the wild because neither ordinary lions nor normal Impalas care about.
16
This is absurd. Who are “they” to tell someone else how to talk? Ridiculous. Good luck in 2020 getting the industrial Midwest.
4
This is so ridiculous. It’s beyond absurd. Anyone who doesn’t see that is out of touch and will be shocked (again) come 2020.
5
Police- "All right, what happened?"
Victim- "They attacked me in the park."
Police- "How many of them were there?"
Victim- "One."
Police- "Do you take any medications?"
6
I absolutely hate this. Purely from a grammatical and dissonance position, "singular" they is like nails on a chalkboard. Why not have the foresight/brains/nerve of Ms.Gloria Steinem and promote a whole new pronoun?
4
Please let’s just come up with a new singular gender-less pronoun that is not confusing and grammatically irritating. And since I am an old school woman-identified second wave radical feminist, please allow me to continue using the pronoun she to describe myself.
1
And while we're at it, why not stop referring to roses as red or white or yellow or pink, out of respect for color-blind people.
After all, a rose is a rose is a rose.
Here's one more columnist I won't feel obligated to read anymore ...
4
Most people commenting didn’t read the whole piece and it shows. I started my New York Times subscription with optimism, but the NYT comment section has done a number on me. Fellow reader, do you want to learn and be challenged? Why are you here? To be right—always on all matters? Good grief. On the plus side Elizabeth Warren(Electable Liz) is going to secure the democratic nomination because they got what it takes!
You cite the usage of "they" when referring to a hypothetical person as evidence of the fact that this ridiculous idea is already being put into practice. But there is a huge difference. A "hypothetical" individual would primarily be discussed in a conditional tense, using words like "would," "could," etc., which avoids much of the clumsiness associated with calling a singular person "they."
That's just one point. But in general, this idea is so infuriatingly stupid I don't know where to begin.
1
A rose is a rose by any other name... let’s not pretend otherwise. So please dispense with all these ambiguities in the name of political correctness . If I identify as the queen of England will you refer to me as HRH?
1
Call me, "Majesty."
3
Sorry, HRH Elizabeth has taken that, and if I may paraphrase Victoria We are not amused.
1
Adding pronoun confusion to the gender "fluid"....
3
@David
Right- so the acronym is now presumably
LGBTQGF
2
I resent that Manjoo thinks it is OK to impose his terms -- yes, that's a pun -- on me. I am a she, a her and always will be. And, I'm married to a he, a him, a his, and always will be. I can't fathom being married to a they. And, my husband surely doesn't want to be married to a they -- he's a monogamous type.
As a grammarian, I've thought "they" is repulsive when referencing one person but I'm losing the debate when teams craft or sign off on copy. Furthermore, "they" could be construed as derogatory or a bad joke when referring to an overweight person.
Manjoo appears to be young...may they live long enough for language to evolve naturally as it surely will, and stop pushing the rest of us to say something we don't want to. How would they feel if we forced them to refer to themselves in a manner they disdain? Manjoo call yourself whatever you want but leave me alone. If and when I run into you, I'll say to my husband, there goes a they and respectfully use your name to your face, no pronouns needed.
2
Thanks, but no thanks . . .
3
I will agree to call you "they" if you agree to not call me "cis".
11
Nope. I know that getting attention is a condition of your livelihood, but this kind of rhetorical grandstanding is hard to take.
Yes, English desperately needs a gender-neutral third-person pronoun to refer to people rather than objects. No, it cannot be plural. Using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular antecedent is dumb and sad, despite anyone's best intentions to serve some modern ideal.
Shame on you.
1
Them there's those gender guys/gals agi'n. Throwin' all this new language stuff on us geezers who have barely caught up to the times we live in. Notice: "geezers" is gender neutral. So if you wait patiently you'll be a "them" again.
I prefer “we,” “us.” Inclusive, not “other.”
Keep it up liberals. Trump is planning more destruction over the next five and a half years.
2
“They” is and always has been plural. Why not use the singular non-gender, “it”?
because pronouns are sooo much more important than climate change.
1
If you of gender fluidity would like to have a special term for yourselves that shows you are neither a "he" or a "she", I suggest "It" or "shehee" as a clearer designation. "They" is a plural designation. If you want to be called "They", to me that suggests you think you are more than one person in there. That's a little different from "gender fluidity". That's more "gender duality"; dual personalities living in one body. And that's a different thing altogether.
10
@Presley Acuna
I find "body" works much better than "they". Try it and see how it works.
Banishing Betsy Ross's American flag, banning Kate Smith's rendition of God Bless America, tearing down statues of early American icons for violating contemporary norms, compelling men and women to deny their own biological gender in the name of "inclusion" -- this is all going in a very Orwellian direction very quickly.
13
@Underclaw
If taking down statues of generals who fought to maintain slavery is Orwellian,
well, I'd just say your logic is Orwellian itself.
4
@Nathan
I'd say you need to re-read Orwell. I was referring to folks like Jefferson and Washington … but same applies to Stonewall Jackson. You know who denies and tries to cleanse their own histories? Jacobins and Maoists. Mature democracies should have the courage (and liberty) to safeguard and even disagree about history.
1
A modest proposal. We already have a gender neutral pronoun: it. Why not use this. Singular and plural will never be confused. We’ll have to get used to confusing objects and people but no gender bias.
12
Yes! As an editor by training, I recoil at the use of plural pronouns as singular. Some people may object to using a pronoun normally used to refer to inanimate objects to refer to people, but it seems to me this is the lesser of two evils. And it is no stranger than using gender-specific pronouns to refer to inanimate objects, as one does in French and other Romance languages. Now everyone can be the it-girl (or boy)!
7
@Mark Joffe
That's because traditionally in Romance languages words had genders - masculine, feminine, neutral-, but only people could have "sexes". This non-sexed gender grammar is difficult to understand with the current postmodernist filter.
I find all this a bit ridiculous. Oral and written language has evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years. It changes organically and naturally over these hundreds of years. For a group of oppressed minorities force language change on everyone across all the gendered languages, written and spoken, in a wide variety of cultures and expect it to happen soon is unrealistic and does nothing for their cause. If you want acceptance, go with the carrot, not the stick...
10
I will do my best to call you what you want if I ever meet you, out of respect for you. But I don't support changing the English language to turn a plural word into a uni-sex singular one. Nor do I agree with you that gender is meaningless. Men and women are different, in most cases very different. Social norms play a big role for sure, but mostly it is biology, and biology drove the social norms in the first place. And the overwhelming majority of us value and embrace those differences, both for ourselves and for others.
There are plenty of people out there who march to their own drummer, and that's great. I try hard to be tolerant and accepting. But I don't support making wholesale changes to society and to language in order to make the whole of society march to your drumbeat.
3
This is absurd. What is so horrible about gender-specific pronouns? What is so undesirable about being called he or she?
Am I backward in my thinking if I believe having a penis makes you a he and having a vagina makes you a she?
I see no societal burdens attached to either pronoun.
Being referred to as a he still means you can be whomever you want and the same goes for being referred to as a she. "She" doesn't imply that you wear frilly dresses and only care about Barbie dolls and flowers and diamond jewelry, and "he" doesn't imply that you only like football and action movies and women in the kitchen. Big shock: Men can be feminine and women can be masculine! I'm not a they! No one is! I thought we settled all this with Free to Be You and Me. Boys can play with dolls and cry!
I like the traditional gendered pronouns. We've yet to invent a third sex. That's a fact. Why is that offensive to say?
186
@DJ “Am I backward in my thinking if I believe having a penis makes you a he and having a vagina makes you a she?”
Yes! In fact you are. A lot of science runs against this idea. See this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/sex-biology-binary.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
37
@DJ: I am particularly fond of men who, in insisting on being called 'they', cite two male experts telling me, a woman, how stifling gender expectations are.
79
@Farhad Manjoo wow. Interesting to see a columnist directly calling a reader backwards. It's come to this. Ultimately though it all comes down to freedom for each individual. Some transition to another gender specifically because they identify to the traits associated with that gender and as such they usually want to be called by the specific pronoun identifying them as that gender. Others might prefer a gender neutral pronoun. They have to right to request that they be referred to by their preferred pronouns. However others have the right not to concede this request. Bottom line = freedom
18
In Sanskrit, all third-person pronouns reflect gender, even plural ones. But in Hindi, a language descended from Sanskrit, no third-person pronouns reflect gender. According to Mr. Manjoo's thinking, this historical change in pronominal forms from Sanskrit to Hindi must correspond to an increased cultural openness to gender fluidity or a deemphasis on gender in South Asia. However, actual evidence offers no support for this conclusion.
This whole pronoun issue is based upon simple ignorance of how languages actually work. A person's ignorance of language and offense at innocuous expressions are grounds for neither an apology nor a change in speech habits, but rather gentle instruction.
1
They.
Sure, no problem. Anything else we can do to honor your daily decision-making? I mean, we're just your average, run-of-the-mill fellow citizens, nothing special for us to think about except your comfort. We're here for you, they.
7
I'm a woman, so, yes, I do mind being called "they." Please don't erase me. Thanks.
8
We have the word cisgender in order to distinguish a miniscule segment of the population that is transgender, or at least I think I have that right. So as a result we should make the word "they" singular?
Sounds like it's time to dust off "thee" and "thou."
2
This “they as singular” movement may have to cool its heels until those of us schooled in the “they as plural” movement die off.
3
ARRRRGHHHH. We need more precision of thought and speech in the world, not less!
6
I think I speak for a lot of my fellow Americans: JUST STOP THIS.
8
No.
And I’m about as open and liberal as they come, but no. No.
If you don’t like pronouns then refer to yourself/him/her by name. It reminds me of when “troop” became a common usage for a singular military person.
No.
3
Just curious: what should we do about Romance languages, in which all nouns (and accompanying modifiers) are gendered?
2
Or about a number of other languages that have gendered verbs as well as gendered nouns and adjectives? (Though, thankfully, those languages DO distinguish between one and many in all of the gendered parts of speech.)
2
Dissociating gender from pronouns is a reasonable (perhaps even laudable) goal. But replacing “he or she” with “they” doesn’t come without sacrifice in meaning or ease of communication. “They” already has a well-established meaning, namely a plural form of the third person pronoun. The author presumes that the only tradeoff of using “they” is offending snooty grammarians. But there’s a difference between referring to “the article he wrote” & “the article they wrote”. The latter implies (indeed means) co-authorship between multiple individuals, which has direct implications for citation & intellectual credit for the article, among others.
The goal of language—divorced from its political and social implications—should be mutual understanding & ease of communication. Introducing ambiguities about the number of individuals referred to by a pronoun no doubt detracts from this purpose. De-coupling gender from pronouns must avoid this confusion & own up to its radical implications & motivations.
Using “ze” or some derivative is indeed cumbersome, risks exposing the user’s political motivations, & welcomes accusations of “virtue signaling”. But eliminating thousands of years of gendered pronoun use is radical & should be approached that way. Masking this in a confusing concoction of linguistic double-speak hides the true intentions of the author’s position. If he truly believes in this, then boldly make the case for it & own it by adopting “ze”. Keep “they” for us.
4
Language evolves. Some of that evolution over my 65 years I feel has degraded our language (e.g., made it less precise and thus diminished clarity). I happen to feel “they” as a singular personal pronoun is problematic for reasons others have pointed out. I suspect that ultimately usage will determine what is considered proper.
If you care about our language, I expect you will find this William Safire 1980 column interesting (a bit cumbersome to navigate through the archive from page to page, but worth the effort):
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1980/08/03/117315812.html?action=click&contentCollection=Archives&module=ArticleEndCTA®ion=ArchiveBody&pgtype=article&pageNumber=277
1
How quickly we went from 'people should get to choose their gender specific pronoun', to 'no one should have a gender specific pronoun'.
2
Why do liberals always have to take a good progressive idea and take it to an absurd extreme? Yes we should all promote the idea that we don’t have to conform to traditional gender roles and preferences. Go ahead and teach your kids that girls can Iike football and boys can like Barbie. But this effort to erase the distinction between male and female is ridiculous. As a liberal I am asking, can we please stop becoming a parody of ourselves?
5
Farhad hit the nail on the head when ‘they’ worried that this essay would “be dismissed as useless virtue-signaling.” It is.
2
There is already a gender neutral singular pro-noun in the English language. It is Thon. Marion-Webster printed it first in 1934. It may sound too old worldly but I think this request for the use of a singular non gendered pronoun will have much more success if it being used by the genre public if it dies does not offend already agreed upon grammar uses of They.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/third-person-gender-neutral-pronoun-thon
Using "they" and "them" to refer to a single individual, whether that individual's gender is known or not, is easily avoided by using the individual's name, Manjoo, without title. Not only is it more personal and polite than a plural or "gendered" pronoun, but it respects the individuality of Manjoo and whatever signaling pronoun Manjoo might use as a self-descriptor. The use of non-specific plural pronouns seems only to call attention to the fact that Manjoo doesn't want you to know Manjoo's gender. And saying "they" don't want you to know "their" gender seems to suggest that there is more than one Manjoo who is concerned about Manjoo's gender.
Vive les différence!
2
How about s/he/it?
1
So, one of my gender-neutral friends and a group of several other friends are going to have a picnic. "They" are supposed to bring the food. When they all arrive at the picnic site, they have nothing to eat.
3
When English lost the distinction between singular and plural for the second person (thou, you), we sacrificed something we’ve been trying ever since to restore (youse, you all, y’all, you two, etc.). Making they/them/their both singular and plural will extend this impoverishment of the language. Surely we can come up with an appropriate non-binary singular third-person pronoun without making the plural singular once again!
2
It's absurd. I'm all for inclusivity, but don't mangle the language -- using a plural pronoun as a singular is just confusing and downright stupid, not helpful. Just come up with another pronoun, and I'd be happy to use it.
2
I am not a plainly intolerant person nor am I a grammarian, but I still fail to see what the problem with 'he' and 'she' is. That is just, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy talk. Complete nonsense.
3
I am not gender fluid, gender neutral or confused about my gender. If you refer to me as “they” you make the assumption that I am. So please don’t. And don’t call me “cis.” Thank you.
3
They?? No way, no day.
2
I am bored out of my mind. They, them, who cares ?
1
There’s a reason the movement got called “#MeToo” and not “#TheyToo”.
3
They, when referring to one genderfluid person, should only be used for genderfluid persons with multiple personalities.
2
My understanding is that initial consonants have a tendency to wear away. So, the Latin 'herba' evolved to 'herb' which, in American English is pronounced with a silent h. Cockney is famous for losing the initial h when spoken. It takes time for the written language to catch up. So, it's very likely that 'he' will evolve to 'e'. So why don't we all make an extra effort to also drop the 'sh' in 'she'. Do we really need more that a long e for a third person singular pronoun? And as for the pesky 'him' / 'her'. They're simply not needed. 'e' for third person singular in all cases. That's my vote. Now each reader can make up e own mind. This also gets rid the need to use the politically correct 'each student should do his or her own work'. Easy peasey: 'each student should do e own work'.
Honestly, articles like this are the reason Trump is going to win 4 more years. Please stop the nonsense.
5
The main problem, as I see it, is that the gendered "he" and "she," and the plural "they," is built into the structure of the language in a way that makes ungendering pronouns a rather larger task than simply picking a new word. In small burst of language, the singular, nongendered "they" is functional. In larger, more complex texts, when singular and plural subjects are referred to in a a shifting mix, "they" as a singular pronoun almost always introduces confusion. Even in one of the given examples, "Did you read Farhad’s latest column — they’ve really gone off the deep end this time!" I am left wondering who the "they" refers to. Farhad? The NYT? Columnists? Tech writers? Etc. While it is true that one can write around this ambiguity, it requires a larger adjustment than is often acknowledged. Pick up any book and try the edits for yourself.
2
I would just as soon be referred to as "Sir." thanks.
1
The old grammatical question was "We, the People" vs. "Us, the People". The new question seems to be "We, the People" vs. "They, the People".
It:genderless.
1
In the Philippines they use mamsir for both male and female
see here for a bit of humor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz5Ept4VBBg
They do that.
So silly. Try learning Spanish if you want to understand masculine & feminine.
1
Thee, thou and thine
1
Alas, I am a style book slave.
This is a ridiculous suggestion. Absurd for someone to try to tell others how to speak. Anyone who doesn’t realize this will be in for a shock (again) come 2020.
1
The writer makes good points, but why choose "they," rather than a term that isn't ungrammatical in certain sentences: "They is headed to the store for some milk," for example. Forty years ago, feminists abandoned "Miss" and "Mrs" for "Ms." Perhaps we might find another word that doesn't make us grammar-sticklers wince.
Why not “It”?
The columnist writes: "I would prefer if you left my gender out of it. Call me “they” or “them,” as in: “Did you read Farhad’s latest column — they’ve really gone off the deep end this time!” "
With this example, he undoes his whole argument. Anyone reading this example will have to wonder: "Who is this group of people who have gone off the deep end?" and will expect a clarification in the next sentence or else will wonder why that group is not identified.
The sine qua non of good writing and speaking is clarity, and the language is flexible enough to achieve it no matter what kind of gender obsession this or that person might have. In that example the confusing reference could be easily fixed as follows (among a variety of other ways): "“Did you read Farhad Manjoo's latest column — old Fahrad has really gone off the deep end this time!”
Voila! Total clarity of reference without any need for self-conscious (and confusing) political correctness.
The singular "they" is fine when the person referred to is hypothetical or unknown. But trying to use it as a reflexive, all-purpose fix-all for cis-guilt or gender dysphoria does nothing but fog-up the language.
2
Imagine the following medical case study: Alex goes to see a doctor. 'They' is complaining of pain and bleeding when urinating. Should 'they' be referred to a gynecologist or a urologist ?
1
I'm fine with some engineering of pronouns for social purposed. But "they"? It's plural! Changing a plural into a singular is downright confusing. Isn't English confusing enuf with it's annoying non-phonetic spelling?
1
“It” is the correct gender neutral singular pronoun. Though people may not like being revered to as it, “they” is incorrect and confusing.
“They” and “them” may solve a problem, as Mr. Manjoo says, but it also creates one: how, in many circumstances, is one to understand whether they/them is singular or plural? Maybe people should add an asterisk or other symbol to clear up this ambiguity?
In the previous paragraph, I referred to Manjoo as “Mr.” Since he identified his gender and orientation, that was okay. But in general, must we replace Mr. and Ms. With something more inclusive?
George Orwell, where are you when we need you?
Identify by service number.
1
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the singular they dates back to at least 1375 (https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/).
Those screaming bloody murder about neologisms like this one ruining the language might find this surprising.
91
@polymath: 1375? Oh, sure. Maybe we should just reinstate Old English (as in "Beowulf") wholesale as the NEW standard of English for everyone - wouldn't that be great? ("Get your certification to teach "Old English as a Second Language"?) Or perhaps you'd prefer Middle English ... a Kentish dialect, perhaps? (Yes, I studied all of this stuff in college.)
PS: The "they" issue is not a "neologism" - it's a ridiculous demand. How about if we use "ug" as the pronoun for all those who don't want to be "he" or "she"?
14
@polymath Yes, the singular "they" may date back to 1375. But the language has evolved since then -- and "they" is no longer singular. But the real question that is raised is that it is a scientific lie that one can choose their sex. We are either born male or female. We have no choice. The pronouns are not sexist, those words "he" and "she" are just factual descriptions.
7
@polymath
I'm mildly surprised, but I don't intend to change the way I speak and write English.
4
Taking offense at your slam at “grammarians”. Linguists officially a body overwhelmingly endorsed singular they a few years ago. So, hey, don't blame us!