I have no problem using whatever pronoun a person wants me use, including “they,” but wouldn’t it be clearer if it remained singular in this context? E.g., They identifies as nonbinary. That would make it clear that the singular is meant and actually makes more sense. Obviously the lack of agreement with the verb sounds ungrammatical, but there are many English words that can be singular if plural in construction. We can all adjust, really we can. It isn’t hard to be kind and decent to people if you want to be.
4
I'm sure Peter Sokolowski is an expert in his field. So I was surprised to see him state:
But Mr. Sokolowski said English speakers already use the singular “they” even when they are not referring to nonbinary people. (As in: “No one has to go if they don’t want to.”)
For 71 years I have consistently heard that that usage is incorrect, because they is always plural. I also recognize that that rule is broken regularly. Is Mr. Sokolowski rewriting the rules of grammar? Could someone clarify what I thought I knew about grammar with what Mr. Sokolowski seems to be asserting???
4
I generally believe society should show the respect of calling people what they want to be called. "Ms." and "African American" are just two examples that work congenially.
I get that Merriam Webster is including this usage, because it has sufficient traction today. But I disapprove of it because it wreaks havoc with established meanings. It also is clumsy and ambiguous. If Mx. ____ ("Mx." is now the approved formal term of address for a dual gender person) and Jane, walk into a room and someone writes. "then they came out," is it Mx. ___, or both of them? And that's the least of the awkward workarounds that this requires.
I'm not a big fan of Jordan Peterson, the controversial Canadian professor, but he had a point when he railed against Canadian legislation that might even criminalize repeated failures to use a person's "preferred" pronouns -- which now include “ze”, “ey”, “hir”, “xe”, “hen”, “ve”, “ne”, “per”, and “thon."
7
Here’s one for next year:
degendrification – n. the process of neutering language to accommodate societal change without regard to sex
4
American "English" is tortured enough through the misuses of everyday ignorance. I pretty much gave up on so-called "descriptivism" when "irregardless" made it into the MW. Ugh.
5
M-W has given a usage not a grammatical preference, correct?
Otherwise to refer to an individual we'd have to know if they were hetrosexual, transsexual, nonbinary, or something else, That is clearly not possible with casual acquaintances, fellow workers or strangers. So a group is creating confusion without a solution. So when clarity is called for it is back to the NYT's Bernstein's 'The Careful Writer'.
3
good to have a comments section on a topic important to a minority, frivolously treated by Webster, and derided by the internet backwater.
the times should consider seriously when and where the internet needs yet another "forum" and what the impact of providing it is.
you may want to consider your headline while at it, They functions perfectly well as a default prior to our in the absence of pronoun clarification, not just for one subset of the population.
3
There is no need to mangle the English language. We already have words that don't specificy gender - "one" and "it."
12
This is totally ridiculous. From earliest years, while learning to talk, it was drilled into us that "they" is strictly a plural pronoun. Never use it to refer to a single person. Same rule governs "them." Now that we say it is sexist to use "he" for a person of unknown gender (changing recently to "he or she") we are going to become royally confused over whether "they" refers to an individual or a crowd. And how does the dictionary advise us in making such a distinction?
Shouldn't a different word have been invented? Language is fluid and changes through generations--- How about "zee" or "lee"?
We need to formulate/invent/develop a word that is not customarily used exclusively as a plural. And, note, I did not use the stupid phrase "come up with." It even pains me to have written it here. Find, invent, develop, confer about, discover, formulate, settle on.
5
@ultimateliberal Addendum: "we are going to become royally confused over whether "they" refers to an individual or a crowd. And how does the dictionary advise us in making such a distinction?"
Contextual clues will not help in the distinction between a singular binary person or a group of men, women, kittens, or puppies when "they/them" is used in a sentence.
3
@ultimateliberal
You may have been taught that, but that's actually completely inaccurate with respect to how people use "they" - people have been using "they" as a singular pronoun for ages, and you certainly would understand a person when _they_ used it this way.
Contextual clues do, in fact, help. And when they don't, people learn to write or speak to clear up ambiguity.
This love of strict rules has nothing to do with linguistics or any real understanding of language. Prescriptivism is merely snobbery; meanwhile, languages without the features you have deemed "necessary" manage to communicate meaning just fine.
1
Maybe we’d all be better off just using everyone’s first or last names and ditch pronouns.
8
Can't every person just be called by a name? All this confusion will just make pronouns passe.
2
From the article: "If using the word 'they' to describe a nonbinary person feels difficult, Mx. Jacobs said, it’s important to remember that it is a sign of respect. 'Choosing not to work on it means you’re O.K. with harming that other person,' they added."
I feel harmed when someone tries to reduce the clarity of communication by collapsing the distinction between singular and plural. If you want to respect me, work on it.
26
@Ruth Language evolves, even if you don't want to.
Noah Webster is rolling over in their grave.
24
I have used they as a singular pronoun my entire life. I think most people have. If the gender of someone is not known, I don't know anyone that says "his or her." Your kid says, "I am mad at my friend." You don't know which friend, you don't really care, you say: "What did they do?" Does anyone say: "What did he or she do?" I doubt it.
Which brings me to the problem here, "they" is not just for non-binary folks, "they" has been a singular gender indeterminate pronoun for hundreds of years. Merriam-Webster says as much in their usage guide... so just add it to the definition already. A blanket definition will cover the common historical usage, and non-binary people.
It reminds me of the neologism "All-Gender Restroom", and the accompanying mish-mash of signs and logos. There already exists the near international use of "WC" to indicate a restroom of indeterminate gender. If we are going to be so wordy, why not the more descriptive "Toilet in a Room?"
This obsession with gender seems like a strange 21st century Victorianism. Trans and non-binary people have existed forever, and mostly so has the language to accommodate them, this needn't be so fraught.
8
There already is a third person singular pronoun:
"it."
Quit messing around with the language. It works just fine.
10
If I can accept Donald Trump in the White House conservative language users can accept singular usage of the pronoun "they." Though I doubt they will do so quietly--Issues like this bring out the worst in a whole subset of Americans. Howls from Fox News about "political correctness"and the LGBTQ "language coup d'etat" should begin any day now. Cue ominous music.
2
English 'they' has been naturally changing to a pronoun with singular/plural ambiguity. The same is true of the possessive adjective 'their.'
One need not justify the change in the standard with a notion of binariness. In the same way that 'you' can be singulor or plural and masculine/feminine, so, too, can 'they.'
We have been moving in this direction for a very long time and there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with the change.
1
If "you" can be both singular or plural, why not "they"? Languages evolve, and the bottom line is that people will speak however they want.
2
How is a "statement about evolving understandings of gender identity" any different from "a reflection of changing times"?
One wonders when the dictionary definition of "me" will be interchangeable with "I".....such the use of "me" to start a sentence as in "Me and him went to the store".....which leads to the further corruption of the language with "him" being interchangeable with "he" which would be on the same level with "Me and her(perhaps "they") being interchangeable with "she" whereas, according to the new definition, "they" could be used in either sense depending on the binary or non-binary situation.
The things done to approve of bad grammar are endless.
4
Also from Merriam Webster online dictionary:
Gender:
1. A subclass within a grammatical class.
2. Either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures.
Woman:
1. An adult female person.
Man:
1. An individual human, especially an adult male human.
1
Since the Anglo-Saxon era, the English language has tended toward simplicity of structure, spelling and vocabulary. For the most part, this tendency has made the language clearer and easier to write and to understand. The one instance which contradicts this clarity is the loss of the second person singular, so speakers have created back-formations like "youse," "y'all" and "you all" to compensate; this distinction is usually unnecessary in written communication. The use of "they" as a third-person singular injects unnecessary vagueness into the written language. English speakers ought to be creative enough to introduce another singular pronoun to refer to a non-binary person, or to do away with the sexual distinctions altogether.
3
I have always wanted to see the word "per" used for this, or any purpose where you either don't know the bio sex of the person or the bio sex is irrelevant to the reason you're referring to the person.
Why?
Because "per" is short for "person". The U.S. Constitution, just like the 1689 English Bill of Rights before it, uses only the term "Person" (and/or "Citizen"). "Man" (or "Woman" for that matter) is not in the document. The 14th Amendment uses "man" but not in the operative language, only in a counting device used for enforcement.
4
This is fine. It's not a law, it's just a retort to the people who claim "well, that's not our language." It's a little bit more our language, now.
Still, what I don't get is this: how often are you in the room when someone refers to you with a third person pronoun? Isn't that usually considered rude?
It seems like this would get exhausting, trying to correct every person you meet, probably multiple times, for the sake of a form of address that is new and frankly, awkward... and as the person being corrected, I find it's easier to forgo pronouns altogether.
We had a temp employee at my workplace one time who was gender nonconforming, and the (very religious) supervisor was well-meaning, but flustered. "What should I call her, or him?" he wondered out loud. I asked what the person's name was. "The temp service said he was Joseph, but then he - or she - said 'hi, I'm JoJo." I said he should call JoJo JoJo. No confusion at all after that, just one more syllable. "JoJo needs to go on break; Tim, could you fill in for JoJo?" Easy enough.
4
Nonbinary people may CHOOSE to not identify as either male or female. But they are one or the other no matter what they CHOOSE. Science doesn't lie, DNA doesn't lie. The sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes. Females typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX). Males typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY). Yes, there are rare exceptions but for the overwhelming majority of people, this is the way it works. I sometimes find it frustrating that the same people who demand that we accept climate science also demand that we reject genetic science. You don't get to pick and choose when it comes to science. If I choose to refer to someone as they it's only out of very reluctant politeness not because I've rejected 125 years of genetic research. We can't and shouldn't be delusional on this issue
20
Fifty years ago, a professor of sociology at the midwestern college I attended claimed the dictionary (Webster) was sexist because there were more definitions for "man" than for "woman." I asked a professor of English if he was right. She said he was wrong.
Webster's new definitions, which strike me as defamations, notwithstanding, I will continue using "they" as a plural, silently gnash my teeth when someone does not, and treat "nonbinary" as a fad that I hope will pass quickly.
4
I wrote a book in 1991 in which I suggested "En" for "entity" as a neuter pronoun. Apparently it did not catch on. "They" is already taken although the dictionaries have not choice but to reflect these developments.
Sorry to the very confused .001 percent of the population. Gender is not a choice.
12
Usually dictionaries wait until something is genuinely in the social lexicon before incorporating it into their dictionary. “They” as used for a singular person is still very much on the sidelines — this smacks of social-engineering on MW’s part.
4
Thankfully, some sanity has been preserved.
These definitions are from Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
Gender:
1. A subclass within a grammatical class.
2. Either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures.
Woman:
1. An adult female person.
Man:
1. An individual human, especially an adult male human.
... stay tuned
With identity politics running amok in the Democratic Party, I highly suggest they not touch any of this (the binary narrative).
Identity politics was one of the reasons Hillary lost.
This binary narrative would be all the more humorous if it weren't so serious.
4
Regarding the so-called confusion of multiple meanings for 'they': It seems to be lost on many that most words in the general vocabulary have more than one meaning, and we all seem to survive. Merriam-Webster strives to describe, not prescribe, current usage. To the extent that 'they' is being used in the singular by large numbers of speakers, their decision is not particularly surprising. Dictionaries that take a more prescriptive view will define 'they' differently. Not all dictionaries are alike.
The people at Merriam-Webster must think that they are back in the 1960s, as many of the criticisms are reminiscent of the controversy over Merriam's decision to include 'ain't' in its 1961 unabridged dictionary. Some people really cling to their beliefs about usage, it seems, and to them certain changes in dictionary definitions seem to pose a threat. I, for one, have never felt particularly threatened by a polysemous word, whether it be in a dictionary or elsewhere, nor even by someone's turn of phrase that I might not use myself.
For those of us who love dictionaries, however, it is nice indeed to see lexicography in the news.
To all those claiming that there is no gender. Sorry but no. Saying that gender is fluid is not the same as saying that there is no gender. Just like people who don't identify as binary should not be forced to identify as male or female, people who identify as male or female should not be forced to not identify as either. Regardless of whether they are cis or trans.
I am a woman (a cis-woman). I love being a woman. You may not realize it, but when you tell cis folks we should pretend our genders away, you are also denying that right to many trans people. I believe one thing I probably have in common with many if not most trans-women is that they too love being women. So please let us be. If you are non-binary, we will afford you the same courtesy.
And while it is tricky when people get misgendered, we have to be realistic and understand that it is not helpful to make language less precise. In fact it can even be dangerous if the lack of precision puts someone in danger or affects their health care. You combat discrimination of the Other by changing people's minds and hearts, by respecting and celebrating their differences, not by changing language to hide what makes them unique.
11
I'm not participating in other people's self image to the degree that I'm supposed to pretend that using "they" isn't incorrect and confusing.
I support transgender rights, but I've seen cis, straight people who are obviously presenting themselves as one gender want to call themselves gender non-binary because they want to be thought of as more unique without doing anything special. This is the kind of obsession with self image that we are ingraining into our culture. The vanity of it all is staggering and uniquely elitist.
17
If the goal is clarification, then this is a failure. The assumption that "he" or "she" is a kind of barrier, then needs help is almost satire.
25
Since one can now just decide one does not "identify" as male or female, and can thereby demand to be called otherwise, I choose to demand the same right.
Thus, from hereon I demand to be addressed by no pronoun at all, but rather, as Mr. Majestic, as it suits my self-identity.
As well, when one refers to me as Mr. Majestic, I also would appreciate just a bit of a genuflection, as it is only right and respectful of my self-identity.
So let's all be respectful of Mr. Majestic.
39
@DKM
Your Majesty, I think that to be truly gender-neutral, you need to call yourself Mx. Majestic.
Is the M of DKM the surname Majestic? I actually knew someone with that name once (although I think she spelled it with a K.)
1
Mr. Majestic (genuflecting as those words leave my keying fingers), I would personally like to referred to as Lord Chancellor. All of my friends are on board with this and have since been referring to me as such, though my wife is not particularly crazy about that idea. But gosh darn it, I feel that this would accurately express and reflect my true identity. Hope that is okay by you, Oh Majestic One!
2
It is a little confusing. I'm not sure that I will ever get used to it.
Using "they" to refer to a non-specified person has been around forever and works well enough, in the absence of a proper gender-neutral singular. But I recently read an account of an abuse case of somebody who is a "they" and it sounded like multiple accusations of abuse from several people, and it took a while to realise that "they" was one person.
28
@Anthony Flack
I think you can manage -- English has pronoun antecedent ambiguity all the time already.
Gender pronouns are not necessary in a world that finds diminishing need to linguistically specify a binary gender distinction. There is no compelling grammatical or social need necessitating language users to signal the gender of a person with the use of a pronoun. A person is a person, and clarity is seldom, if ever, improved by using a gender specific pronoun.
Plural personal pronouns, on the other hand, are necessary because speakers often find need to specify the number of persons to whom the pronoun refers, either one person or an entire group. I have experienced this confusion multiple times of late, needing to re-read a passage to recognize as inccorrect my original misreading because the sentence was referring to a single person even though the plural pronoun “they” was used.
Clearly it would be less confusing to agree to use a completely new singular, personal pronoun. We already have a non-gendered, singular pronoun, “it,” but that pronoun does not serve because it signifies reference to a non-human object or being. A new pronoun would avoid stigmatizing those who don’t recognize themselves in either one of only two gender classes, while preserving the useful clarity of the pronouns that specify number.
14
@Marshall Doris
Well, except that some languages function without this distinction anyway -- Japanese, for example, doesn't indicate number or gender of the subject in its verbs, rarely uses pronouns, and in fact often drops the subject entirely.
Language is very flexible, and most languages find ways to deal with any ambiguities that happen to arise. I don't think there is anything wrong with the solution that people have already devised, in this case.
This will only add to existing confusion. Confusion is compounding in an axis of basic science and the clarity of language.
16
The use of "they" for a group of people of indeterminate gender is pretty sensible. In the monastery, you could safely say "he" after saying "everyone". In the convent, you could say "she" under the same circumstance. But in the theater, you're stuck with "he or she" or "he as inclusive of all" or other such difficulty. "They" takes care of the problem, with one small caveat:
Monastery: Everyone does as he sees fit.
Convent: Everyone does as she sees fit.
Theater: Everyone does as they sees fit. -- Aha! The third person singular is our ONLY conjugation, and it comes to save the day from ambiguity.
The use of "they" for a non-binary person seems to work just fine, since that's a kind of indeterminacy. There's nothing new about using a pronoun to do double duty.
This is his book. Take it to him. (Different pronouns.)
This is her book. Take it to her. ("Her" both times) See? THERE's a pronoun doing double duty. We can use "they" similarly, and have a precedent. (Just conjugate it right.)
So there! JMHO, natch.
7
@Alan "They" can be used just fine for "person unknown", e.g. "Someone dropped their wallet, do you know who they were?".
Doesn't work for someone known:
"Joe came over last night.
What did they want?"
If we need an indeterminate pronoun, create one.
8
@Alan Actually, in the monastery, as in the convent, everyone has to follow the rules. ;-) (They aren't allowed to do as they see fit.)
3
@Alan, "they" can refer to one non-binary person, but it still sounds better with a plural verb. See the NY Times article cited--the verb with "they" is plural.
1
No way. The Dictionary can publish what it wants, but without being pedantic, they is plural and for a group, no matter how disenfranchised they feel, to start fiddling with the basis of a language construct that goes back hundreds and thousands of years, is not only stupid, but also to not be given a moment's notice in ignoring.
Come up with a new word, or borrow one from a foreign language that already has one, but stick to the basics or otherwise face the inevitable ignoring of what you wish to accomplish at best, or outright disdain at worst.
67
If someone cannot understand the migration of word usage, that is their problem. They will have to find a way to make themselves clear, using the words known to them and to their audience.
Such a person can handle it, provided they are a bit flexible in their thinking.
13
@greg
But it is not migration of word usage, per se; it is demanding a separate category for individuals who wish to not be categorized as male qua masculine or female qua feminine. I quite understand the opposition to masculine/feminine as 'norm' for male/female, yet that does not make one "nonbinary"; it simply means one wishes to not conform to what has been standard male/female roles for eons.
And that is quite fine; we do need to break those boundaries, those norms. But one does not do it by demanding to be an "other".
Particularly, when there is an "other" pronoun: it.
One can hardly claim that "it" is dehumanizing, because if one is truly nonbinary, is truly without gender, well, sorry, but one is not human...or rather, one's line of human ends with that individual, because as a "they" one cannot breed.
Now I am sure someone will set me straight and say that biology has nothing to do with how one identifies. Good, but better would be to explain, exactly, how one can have genitalia of any kind...and not be "male" or "female" in the simple biological sense.
And then explain why "he" or "she" is somehow not fitting (to one's genitals).
So, for a word to migrate, it should bring with it clarity and good reason, lest a new definition be added to "they", stating something like "a pronoun used in the early 21st c. denoting individuals who reacted against categorical gendered norms yet refused to give up their actual gender: see "confused".
5
People's sensibilities seem irrelevant here. I can't personally feel comfortable with the singular, known usage of "they". I'm fine with "I don't know who did this, but they will pay!" That's a case of unknown usage. But my brain, fluent in english, is caught off guard every time, in these non-binary cases.
53
@Gershom
People's sensibilities are only irrelevant to the callous and the cold. Besides, what is more important? An individuals feelings about their humanity or you being "caught off guard?"
@Gershom "I don't know who did this, but he will pay."
"I don't know...but he or she will pay."
"I don't know... but someone will pay."
These assume a single person is guilty.
"I don't know...they will pay" refers to a gang, a passel, a family, a PLURAL.
5
People can call themselves anything they wish. It’s nothing to me. What I fear is that this adds to the entrenchment of the lazy “they” as a neutral singular form in everyday speech.
17
This is a terrible development. I read somewhere that one of the Scandinavian languages uses "hem" as a third-person, singular pronoun. It would be far better to adopt hem than to refer to individual persons as "they."
64
@Mary Hooper The word you're thinking of is "hen". It is used fairly often instead of "he/she" in texts in Swedish. It can also be used as a pronoun for nonbinary people.
3
There is no gender.
Get rid of the bad words.
No labels!
3
It is interesting that dictionaries have quickly recognized "they" as a singular pronoun for non-binary people. On the other hand, they are still hesitant about recognizing "they" with indefinite antecedents. Here is an article on I wrote that was published ages ago:
http://jochnowitz.net/Essays/EverybodyLikesPizza.html
1
Please create another word for non-binary folks. Using they/them is needlessly confusing, especially when reading. Take the example of Miss and Mrs expanding to Ms.
42
'they' is plural. If you state 'they like boys', it means more people than one, has a yearning for boys.
'he' is singular. If you state 'he likes boys', it means that man has a yearning for boys.
If you wish to give a non-descriptive noun, we already have one, it's 'it'.
As in talking about a car, 'it' transports people. It's neither a boy car or a girl car. It's non gendered, thus, 'it'.
Can we just use that?
If offended by 'he likes boys', then can we just say 'it likes boys' ? that way it is a non gendered noun to describe a person who has a yearning for boys.
We have grammar already, learn to use it.
71
@AutumnLeaf
"They" is demonstrably singular, and has been used that way for centuries.
The problem with "it" is that it's overwhelmingly used to refer to non-humans.
We have a gender-neutral word for people: it's "they." Learn to use it.
26
@Ryan You had a far different grammar teacher than I did. I cannot think of one singular usage of they in the history of my consciousness over decades.
31
"Someone just posted that they've never heard "they" used as a singular. I'm not quite sure THEY know what they're talking about"
8
I would be happy to use a brand-new made-up word for this situation. I will not -- indeed I cannot -- read through a piece of writing in which the singular and plural are confused. It's all gobbledegook, as several pieces that have appeared here in the NYT have shown.
If you want to make your meaning clear to readers, then use words the way readers understand them.
94
@Stevem Readers do understand "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun. If I said "My landlord is really getting on my nerves," and you asked me "What did they do?" I wouldn't think that you believed I had many landlords who were bothering me.
The purpose of the dictionary is to document words and the ways they are used. This is why "inspo" and "dad joke" were added to the dictionary and why many new words and meanings are added to it every year. People already use "they" to refer to people without specifying gender whether anybody likes it or not. You have the choice to conform to common practice or to resist it, but neither you nor I can control how people will view you for making that decision. If it bothers you that much, refer to people by name only. Problem solved.
8
@Stevem
Exactly correct. Language should be clear and precise, and this usage is neither.
2
Nope! I’m not using “they” as a non-binary reference to gender. Instead, I’m using “ge,” the first two letters of “gender.” Gender might not be binary, but singular and plural are.
42
What a disappointment. A tiny sliver of society with gender dysphoria now gets to tell us what our words mean. Does the Miraim-Webster dictionary include definitions for "pandering" and "spineless"?
112
@Dino Oh no! Imagine a person wouldn't be able to point to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for justification when they want to discount someone's identity. How would they ever get on with their life?
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/13/462906419/everyone-uses-singular-they-whether-they-realize-it-or-not
3
Forgot to mention this in my earlier post. It irks me that the world is bending over backward to please a relatively small population of “theys.” Out of respect for them as humans. But as a woman — a human who was born female and identifies as such, okay? — I have to deal, daily, with the micro aggressions of men I don’t know constantly addressing me by my first name, even when I tell them than I am Ms X. Meanwhile, I notice that my husband is always addressed as Mr. Y.
Women have been putting up with being dismissed, in a million ways, for centuries. Nonbinaries have been a recognized and protected category of humanity for a mere handful of years, and they are already in the dictionary, with instructions for respectful language implied. Special category.
So frustrating, she said.
66
@Passion for Peaches
Are people advocating for the use of "they" and people advocating for better treatment for women vastly different groups of people? I imagine there's quite a bit of overlap. It's not as though people can't seek to address more than one social change at once.
And, to your point that nonbinary people are a relatively small population of people: that only shows how we are not, in fact, bending over backward. If it's such a rare occurrence to interact with someone who prefers their pronouns be "they," why is it too much to ask people to respect that? This is a thoughtful gesture you're likely to never have to display—I fail to see how that's "bending over backward."
9
@Ryan
Why is there so much resistance to inventing a new word, as was accomplished with 'Ms.' ?
Several commenters are stating they are happy to accept a new word to honor this non-binary status. They just don't want to add confusion to the plural meaning of 'they'. Insisting everyone change decades of their structural language use isn't maybe the best way to win over hearts and minds.
You may not be old enough to remember when the US considered changing over to the metric system in the 70s (which of course in the long run would have been much easier for everyday computations) but boy, what a hoopla it created when people felt pressured to change their set ways of calculating, so here we still are with feet, inches, and gallons in our day-day non-scientific lives.
A new word, with an invitation for use, rather than a demand to muddy an existing one, would likely have much quicker acceptance and less resistance. If that is indeed, the goal?
23
@Ryan, no, there isn't. You seem to be conflating people with different goals for some odd reason here. Maybe your own distaste for both? However, if a person wants me to call him or her "them", or "herm", or "therm", I will do my best upon request. But to change the lexicon and lose a grammatical function for that? I think not.
4
Re Oxford dictionary: if they're going to include abusive uses of a word such as "woman", they should label the usages as abusive, the way they label other usages as archaic or obsolete. It would be nice if there were a term stronger than "abusive" that could be applied, to make clear that the entry was descriptive but for it also to be a warning that the use was harmful (something that also could be applied to various racial, etc. epithets).
3
But if the dictionary does this, there might be a non-zero chance that I would be slightly inconvenienced in a hypothetical manner for a fraction of a second as the thought contemplates crossing my mind and rising to the level of consciousness that, as has some support in biological and sociological research, gender could be a spectrum, and I would have to consider contemplating this briefly before blithely dismissing this notion so that I could perpetuate my own outdated gender preconceptions in a callous manner.
Why doesn't Merriam-Webster share MY concern?!
14
When we expand the definition of words to be more inclusive and less offensive or dividing, all that does is drain the words of their effectiveness - their precision and accuracy, their ability to be tools of communication.
While, as a society, we need to be more inclusive and understanding, we also must be careful to avoid erasing our distinctiveness by whitewashing the words we use. If we have new context, then have new words.
Cases in point:
When TV was created, it was called TV even though the EM radiation used to broadcast television was in the same band as radio. We did not broaden the word "radio" to include TV but created the new term.
But look at the word "woman" (or "man") and their corresponding pronouns. Now, we apply them to anyone based on their self-identification, but we lose the corresponding associated information. For instance, I go to a question-answering website and one question I see for straight men is "What are you looking for in a woman?" My answer: "A vagina. Why? Because these days saying that you are woman is no guarantee that you have one." I am not being silly or trite here. By a M2F transgender saying she is a woman (and the media supporting that), we the readers lose the knowledge that we would otherwise have if "woman" was not broadened in its definition. Bottomline: Communication is supposed to transfer knowledge accurately and broadening definitions is weakening that purpose. We should create new words and not mutate existing ones.
43
Finally! Sigh! But what is the third person plural for "they"?
18
@Maita Moto
"Theys," the same as southern for "they are"?
1
@Maita Moto "Theys", clearly.
2
I have heard “they” used to refer to a single person, but never with the implication that the person is non-binary. Is the dictionary just deciding that this would be a good definition, rather than basing the definition on how the word is used?
3
@Chris theys?
1
I'm fine with this. People can choose what they want to be referred to and people should respect that. And modern dictionaries should reflect these additional meanings.
However - policing language use is not the way to go. You cannot practically force people to speak differently when it comes to an essential pronoun. Pronouns are not easily interchangeable like a synonymous verb or an adjective. Forcing change will never work and it will only breed resentment.
36
I wonder how the singular "they" should be conjugated. Should the example given be "No one has to go if they doesn't want to?" It certainly grates on the ear but it clarifies that "they" is singular, and presumably a nonbinary person, which is useful information. Maybe our ears will just have to adjust.
13
@James Stewart. Or not.
9
@James Stewart. Or you can rephrase and avoid the whole thing. “No has to go.” “Attendance is not mandatory.”
5
You know, there are languages in the world that are devoid of gender, which actually have just one 3rd-person-singular pronoun that refers to both males and females.
I understand from a Swedish friend that Swedish is pursuing that option. Would that we could; it would make life a whole lot easier for those of us who were taught English grammar back in the dark ages and reflexively abide by the rule that a pronoun must agree in number and gender with its antecedent.
But in the meantime, dictionaries do have to define words with the meanings they actually have. How else would I find out what "stream" and "meme" mean?
5
@Linda When I began to learn Spanish, I was troubled with referring to cars and plants and inanimate objects as either he or she, him or her and so on.
Just how are the emerging non-binaries coping with that language with even more widespread use of male/female labeling?
2
@Linda. I'm female. Please call me "she." I don't want to be erased. Thanks.
2