Do nurses in mental institutions also have to obey patients' demands? Is there any request Ms. Boylan would refuse to accommodate?
36
In my time in college, professors either called me Mr. , just , or . I had nothing to say about it. If I had piped up and asked the teacher to call me one name or another, I'm pretty sure Teach would have said, 'You're not special, , and get off your high horse!'
As far as being called what you want to be called, that's a negotiation you have with your peers. The world of polite society doesn't complicate the functional use of pronouns with subjectivity. If you want to be called he, dress like a male, a she, female, if something uncommon, wear a name tag ... just don't expect anyone to bother with your peculiarity.
37
What about people who identify as their spirit animal? What about people who identify as their favorite fantasy character from movies, video games or comic books? What about people who identify as their favorite style of emotional imbalance, such as depression, rage or aggression.
The English language may have "a long history of adapting to cultural change." But why do we need to adapt to this cultural change in the first place? Will the august NYTimes publish a reader comment which says flat out that some people's self-appointed preciousness is simply rubbish?
50
Talk about a first world problem. These children need to get over themselves.
63
We definitely need a gender neutral pronoun. They is already in widespread use as a singular around here. But I object to "cis". It does not reflect my identity as a woman and it feels hurtful, almost as if it were designed to make me feel excluded from my own identity.
19
This is grossly unscientific and culturally absurd
50
"the absence of a gender nonspecific singular pronoun in English really does present a problem"
Of course there is a gender nonspecific singular pronoun in English: it.
43
The Times is often "behind the times..."
Witness their refusal to refer to Janet Yellen as "chair," as she had indicated she preferred and as most media referred to her.
5
I'm all for people loving whom they want, dressing and self-presenting as they want, and even choosing what name and pronoun they want to be addressed by... as long as it's in the existing English language. Trump is about to start a nuclear war, and I don't have time to learn everyone's made up preferred word to be addressed by. If someone wants to go by "they," then "they" are welcome to do so, and I'm happy to address them as such.
But I'm not going to learn a bunch of made up words to coddle fragile egos. it's not disrespectful to not want to memorize what's essentially a very specific and very random fact about someone. If those people will all commit to memorizing my hometown, favorite NFL team, Sweetgreen order, and views on cilantro, then I'll commit to learning their made up word. The purpose of language is communication not self-fulfillment, and this type of behavior reeks of attention seeking behavior that quite contrary to the author's assertion puts the focus very much on "the mysteries of their underpants."
42
What's wrong with "it" as in "he, she, it"? It's certainly gender neutral, and in common usage. As a pronoun, "it" is plastic enough to refer to people, animals, & objects. Nothing esoteric, just plain & simple "it".
26
Are white people colonizing the Spanish language by using Latinx rather than the grammatically correct forms of the word?
15
This makes no grammatical sense.
English has a non-gender pronoun: "it."
24
I should have known the comment section for a marginally good piece about gender and pronouns would be Garbage TERF Central, why did I test my assumption
4
Of all the ridiculous nonsense plaguing higher education this comes very close to taking the brass ring.
44
Anybody remember this cartoon classic?
"You Must Pay Ze Rent!"
"I Can't Pay Ze Rent..."
"You Must Pay Ze Rent!"
"I Can't Pay Ze Rent..."
"You Must Pay Ze Rent!"
"I Can't Pay Ze Rent..."
"I'LL Pay the Rent!"
"My Hero!!!"
This is what you are setting up your non-wealthy students for, Ms. Finney. Some have trust funds to indulge themselves with in The Real World. Most don't. If Obamacare falls, a lot of this "necessary" hormone therapy will be cut off... Nevermind students turned job applicants who cannot compete in accepted English with the majority of others...
(Remember, it was the strong studly White Guy who had to step up to help the poor damsel in distress pay "ze rent". Snidely Whiplash and Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties, but Dudley volunteered, and was not an American taxpayer...)
12
It's tremendously important to take people's word about themselves. Even a certain president should not be diagnosed until he seeks this himself. But, in writing stories, fiction or non, you can't go all gender neutral. Every news outlet or publisher would need two style-books, one for modern times, one for historical times. Besides, eventually real equality will mean words that suggest femaleness aren't pejoratives. If a receptionist can say, "Some lady called", and this no longer implies a world about the caller, missing from "Some man called", then the he/she won't matter.
8
I don't think weze going to change how we refer to males and females (he and she) to accommodate less than 1% of the population. Well, maybe at Barnard, but not in the rest of America.
24
Advancements in language are characterized typically by more articulate and more informative communication. "Ze" and "hir" and "xem" are going in the opposite direction -- willful ignorance to suit a political agenda.
23
Of course language evolves. And the growing demand for gender neutral singular pronouns cannot be denied. But since there are several competing candidates (my own favorite is "per," coined by Marge Piercy in her novel "Woman on the Edge of Time"), I can't support the appropriation of an existing word that means something else. The singular they not only sounds and looks bad, it creates a new problem- making it difficult in many contexts to distinguish whether the speaker is referring to a person or a group. However, If a person with multiple personalities asks to be referred to as they, might it be single personality chauvinism to demur?
10
Too much energy being spent -- too much anguish being experienced -- too many mental gymnastics being undertaken -- for a subject so trifling.
20
I'm confused. When I'm addressing you don't I always say "YOU" - whether you're ze, xe or allofthem?
19
I realize Dr. is specifically addressing pronoun-use in expression of gender identity. And I value her position that words reflect hope for social justice. And certainly each individual has the right to linguistic self-expression. Yet, there is also something to be said for shared word-meaning. Some meaning can evolve through word-usage. Some can be confounded.
Thoughts in the ongoing dialogue on language:
Truth depends on the capacity of a society to infer shared meaning in its use of words. When that meaning is in doubt (as evidenced in Trump's "fake news" or Conway's "alternative facts"), something of our commonly shared perceptions of reality begins to erode.
Should we all say, "Like, y'know"—because our students speak this way? When TV journalists use "sort of," I wonder if a reported event actually happened ... or if it "sort of" happened. Words have meaning. Language should enable and enhance that meaning for society as a whole—not confuse it. Newsman Sander Vanocur was the hound of heaven in this regard.
By the way, Dr. Boylan ended her article with questionable pronoun choice. "The Lord helps those that help ... ." Persons are distinguished from things: "that" refers to things; "who" refers to persons. If this usage becomes prevalent (increasingly the case), then something in the back of our minds begins to equate persons with things. [See: NY TIMES Op-Ed by Frank Bruni. What Happened to Who? (April 9, 2017; SR-3.)]
10
I miss "thou" (which solves the singular-plural problem with "you") and wish it was in common use again.
Y'all doesn't cut it north of the 42nd parallel.
10
It's a silly fad, triggered by the adolescent desire to be seen as something unique and original in the history of the species, and abetted by airhead academics whose fear of being labeled offensive is greater than their fear of being exposed as lacking common sense. Even in the most celebrated case of gender transitioning, Katelyn Jenner, two genders were plenty. She was he and he is now she. How hard is that?
18
I agree that we should adopt a gender neutral pronoun.
But three pronouns (four if you count they) is enough.
5
When these students exit college and enter the real world, I’m happy to be the first to exert accommodation. I’d simply suggest they think in marketing terms for their preferred pronouns because they are literally rebranding themselves.
And a brand’s entire identity—its personality, recognition and differentiation—rests with its name. Their brand name should be easily understood and, ideally, resonate with people. After all, the goal is to educate people and change their behavior (i.e., vocabulary), which is a tall order.
Otherwise, their preferred pronoun may never catch on.
Most of the pronouns noted here have potential. “They,” however, offers confusion, not clarity. “They” essentially is already taken historically and universally to mean more than one person, not one more identity.
Using “they” to mean one person causes confusions and disrupts conversation. It requires more verbiage for understanding – at the cost of disrupting and muddying conversation.
“Ms.,” for example, works because it already seems familiar. It’s simple. It’s clear. And look how long it took to catch on.
I hope these students continue to use their colleges as laboratories to find the right pronouns that will capture and communicate their identities. Changing our language is like a slow freight train that may eventually reach its (not their) destination, but it can easily be derailed if carelessly driven.
5
Languages have specific defects and deficits. English has an equivalent to the French "on" and German "man", but this equivalent is not used much in American English because it sounds affected. So we are forced to use clumsy alternatives such as "people," "they," or '"you". Other languages are cursed by gender; ours by spelling.
All men are created equal and have both x and y chromosomes. This ambiguity is a defect in our language, which should imho be solved by giving "men" to everybody and recognizing that Jefferson undoubtedly meant that all males were created equal but failed to understand the inner logic of his thought which we now hear correctly as all people of whatever sex.
At some point, "guys" became non-gender-specific in many contexts. Maybe other words need to change so as to reflect an age where sex-stereotyping is on the way out and should no longer be embedded in our language.
4
These kids can pound sand. You're a he, she or it. I have no problem referring to you as 'it' if you can't decide on he or she.
29
The American Dialect Society voted "she" Word of the Millennium in 2000.
Why?
Because in languages across the world, pronouns rarely change other than by regular language-wide sound shifts, but "she" was apparently a 12th cent. borrowing from the Vikings who occupied the Danelaw in northern England in the late 1st millennium. Astounding! A borrowed pronoun!
(For a brief, mildly scholarly discussion, see: https://www.americandialect.org/1999_words_of_the_year_word_of_the_1990s...
Betting on long-term stability in pronoun systems, I have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes a new gender-neutral pronoun can be introduced into English, given the vast preponderance of cisgender heterosexuals in our language, and indeed in our species. Bridge price discounts available to any who believe such a pronoun will be used, other than jocularly or worse, by cisgender heteros outside the presence of those requesting it. It is somewhat less absurd to hope "they/them/their" might increasingly spread to singular uses, but frankly...
Language doesn't change attitudes, attitudes change language. To help your students, Ms. Boylan, don't pretend they can choose pronouns. They'll just be disappointed when they leave campus for adulthood. Steel them instead to change attitudes directly, by opening closed minds and making friends, then allies, of those who previously were neither.
10
This is all fine, but I'm going to stick with "him" and "her". If people born male want to identify as female, I'm willing to go along with it and call them "her". And vice versa. If people want to claim they're of no gender at all, I'll call them "him" or "her" depending on which gender they strike me as being. I just can't go along with a concept that delusional, my apologies. Likewise if someone claimed they identified as a squirrel and insisted on being called "squirrelly", I would just go ahead and call them "nuts".
24
English does adapt to cultural change, meaning the cultural changes and the language reflects that change. Attempts to change the language to facilitate change in the culture comes from the same impulse that drives the conqueror to outlaw the language of the conquered. As happened with the American Indian and with the English colonization of Ireland. Scratch an academic liberal and find a conquistador.
However well-intentioned, the demand to use non-binary language, is a demand to endorse that which is not true. This is strange coming from an Ivy League professor, whose good heart gets the better of his brain. That biology is some kind of social or cultural construct that can be changed at will contradicts science. That the subjective “truth” of the individual is in some way equal to or even superior to scientific fact is tantamount to saying the moon is made of green cheese and expecting “the culture” to go along with you on that. Certainly gender roles are cultural constructs, but not gender itself.
11
Bad analogies and bad logic. Names have always been individualized; pronouns never. And especially when the preferred pronouns are not standardized, Boylan's pc arguments make no sense.
15
As a nonbinary college student, I have met about 2 professors who have this sort of respect for students' gender identities. When I tell someone I use nonbinary pronouns it almost always makes me less of a human in their eyes. This is the issue with not respecting pronouns- it reinforces dehumanizing ideas about the gender binary, making people like me feel unworthy of respect. In a classroom setting this can be pretty distracting.
7
Seems harmless to me. I recall being addressed in ways that caused me to be quite irate. If I asked not to be addressed in such a way it usually ended violently, such were the times. I'm glad that now, at least in some places, such disagreements can be settled peacefully.
5
The first step is agreement about what these gender-neutral pronouns will be. Instead of asking what a person's preferred pronouns are, and opening the door for an unlimited assortment that we need to try to remember, lets limit ourselves to three choices: the traditional he and she and a universally accepted gender-neutral third option. I'd be perfectly happy to learn and apply ONE new pronoun. A gender-neutral pronoun would be a great addition to the English language. Trying to learn a particular pronoun for everyone I meet - not so much.
14
I don't mind the language changing however I won't be bothered with remembering pronouns specifc to certain individuals. It's just a way for people to try to hold us hostage.
13
Whatever we think of this, we should also recognize that the majority of people in the US find this debate
- highly objectionable
- deeply coastal
- completely insane
take your pick
43
I find it all of the above, mostly because it should not be up for debate, yours or mine.
Additionally, as someone who identifies as a Londoner, you should perhaps be less confident about the depth of your knowledge regarding the US debate on this topic. Kind regards.
You forgot the fourth option: All of the above.
16
So make a policy of kicking out the women who discover they are actually men, then. Isn't it odd that Barnard allows them to stay?
7
Perhaps Barnard recognizes that in fact they are still women.
5
Let's start by acknowledging the real pain that transgender people feel and the bullying that terrorizes so many of them. The question, however, is how to address that pain.
We have to recognize that what Prof. Boylan is pushing is not just "evolving" language. It is an anthropology, a theory of humanity. The theory is not self-evidently true, and needs to be tested very carefully before applied.
It is a theory that fundamental categories of humanity--categories that indeed allow humans to propagate--are nothing more than invented "constructs," and that the individual thus has the power not only to opt out, but to demand that all others agree to the opt out. It is a theory that claims no physical reality to sex and gender, and that such things should thus conform to what an individual wants.
Unfortunately this anthropology is not recognized for what it is, and is not being tested in any careful way, largely out of (very understandable) solicitude for those suffering and fear of political correctness. I understand that solicitude, but I am not (yet) convinced that it is "love" or "respect" to indulge that theory, or to so elevate individual will.
I wonder if it is not crueler in the long term to inculcate the lesson that individual belief is so supreme, and that others must automatically fall into line out of "respect" for one's wishes. And I'm not yet convinced that the "construct" theory even reflects reality. We must be more cautious than this.
17
As a woman and retired professor of English, I am dismayed by so many of the angry and mocking reader responses here.
Language is alive and is always changing, and, despite sometimes fierce resistance, we speakers have made room for all kinds of biological and cultural and legal challenges and additions. Our ever-developing language enables us to include everyone.
These changes call on me to become educated, to understand new ways of thinking and being, just as my generation called on that of my parents and grandparents to recognize me.
The only barrier to enlarging our understanding and becoming educated is what it has always been—fear, resentment, and prejudice.
10
How about one non-binary pronoun - that's enough for the culture to deal with as a whole. There is great diversity even within the straight community, but we don't all invent a personal pronoun.
10
This is why america is behind nations such as japan, china and india when it comes to education. Instead of teachers focusing on teaching kids history, math, coding, physics, they're taking their time to conform to all this political correctness and stupidity and inventing words that nobody needs. Nobody assigned these people any gender, their gender was observed at birth, and it is what it is, no matter how much these people want to identify as something else.
21
Thanks for the great piece, Jennifer Finney Boylan. I wonder if you respect my (opposite) position as much I respect yours?
Andrew Saldino . wordpress
Essay begins . . .
In order to challenge the gender stereotyping embedded in our language, the request to refer to individuals with they, them, their pronouns is gaining in popularity. I honor the issue but reject this solution. While there is strong precedent for using they, them, their pronouns in some uses, there is no precedent in standard written English for the sentence, “They is wearing a nice outfit today,” or, again referring to an individual, “They are wearing a nice outfit today.” Such constructions are an affront to the basic subject-verb agreement that provides the very structure of the English language’s capacity to communicate effectively. Using they, them, their pronouns as requested requires that we choose between “they is” and “they are” for referring to an individual, and this is not a choice that works well in English. However, It is crystal clear to me that English needs a new construction to address the very real problems of gender determinism in our language. I propose adopting ze and zir pronouns in place of the singular he/she/they (ze), his/him/her/them (zir), and plan to propose a trial of this idea in our small high school community.
I work at a lovely school, full of compassionate, thoughtful teachers and bright, engaged students.....
https://andrewsaldino.wordpress.com/2017/12/28/essays/
3
All of this is another way students here in the west are wasting their time while in the rest of the world, students are actually learning in class.
Not politically correct balderdash, but learning to build things, know about the physical world and know useful and meaningful things.
Here, we just waste youth on hyper individualistic drivel. Makes my liberal self want to dissociate from the culture war claptrap within most of political kind.
Utterly disgusting!
28
Why not bring back the Biblical and old English pronouns, "ye" and "thou". "Ye" certainly sounds better than "ze". At least people would know what you were saying.
9
I appreciate your suggestion that we consider reviving words from an earlier time but thee (or ye) and thou won't work as gender-neutral pronouns because they already have a meaning. Thou = you. Thy = your. Ye, as in "hear ye" could replace "y'all" but not he or she.
4
And as uncomfortable as it is to struggle with our conditioned responses to what we see based on what we think and believe, it is healthy to rise about our comfort zone, our automated automatic response to the world and get present - as in more in the tangible world and less in our heads, our filters - and figure out what is actually happening, when we form our responses to others.
And also, that can be hard. From what I have learned about the way our brain operates, it isn't as integrated as we believe. We behave different when calm or sensitive, present, creating and/or uniting. We have different states, different stages.
And there is a part of our brain where abstract thinking, values, executive function, emotional regulation, organizational skills and forethought are born, and it isn't even capable of being fully formed until we are around 25.
And some of us do not have a neural network that is developed enough to reach it. And apparently, since it's kind of new, it's a part of our brain that can be exhausting to use. Some statistic somewhere suggests the average amount of time we use it is 30% of the time.
And when we are thrown/sensitive/stressed - it's really not fired up and functioning.
So I am in awe of Boylan, to be able to stand in front of a crowd and be conscious enough and develop her memory - in the brain and the outer resources she uses to have a mind - to remember to call people by their pronoun of choice. I'll follow this lead - appreciate the repetition.
5
I consider myself to be reasonable, but I can't stand these made up pronouns or the unkind comments I get when I don't use them. While I will do my best to use them with those that ask me to, (because that is the polite and kind thing to do) I ask that I am forgiven when I forget to use them - not corrected like some child who has not yet mastered his native tongue. When not specifically asked, why must I feel forced to use language that I am not comfortable with? While things that I do not like may be good (hot-pepper calamari) to you, they are bad to me. Forcing me to do something I am uncomfortable with seems somehow worse than accepting that we are in a transitional period where well-intentioned people make mistakes or different language choices.
28
I'm happy to call people by the pronouns of their choice, but it occurs to me that I don't usually refer to my students by third person pronouns in their presence in the first place. I'm likely to say "you" or "[insert name here]." I definitely like "they" as a third person singular.
10
Not all languages use gender specific pronouns. In Indonesian, the pronoun "dia" covers all bases. To my ear it is also sounds more lovely than most of the fixes mentioned here. It is very common to borrow words from other languages, let's look past our own cultural confines and find something that works for all. It's really not that hard or radical to do so.
6
Very interesting. Thank you Tom. Since English is a language which has always borrowed and incorporated words from other languages, perhaps looking outside is a good solution.
Dia is a lovely word. It means day in Spanish and god in Gaelic.
2
In other news, the Republicans continue to control the White House and both Houses of Congress because the left prefers to invest its energy in these matters while our democracy is literally dying before our very eyes.
63
Come on, now, Brad,
You can walk and chew gum.
It’s a silly proposition that the emerging trans culture is responsible for the fall of our democracy: no articles I’ve read have traced deficits, wars, throwing people off healthcare, removing civil rights, marginalizing minorities, kicking people out of our country and preventing others from coming in— can be traced to these issues. I’ll bet you can’t come up with any either— that is, ones that are fact-based, logical, and reasonable.
Good god, man, get a hold on yourself!
3
Reading some of these snarky comments saddens me while illustrating the complete ignorance of the writers. Come in direct contact with the issue thanks to a family member who has come out as non-binary has forced me to try and understand the human factors at work here as well as unwittingly expanding my bandwidth. Using the personal pronoun "they" seemed quite awkward in the least, however before long I not only trained myself to accept this usage but doing so made me feel closer to this person.
Possessing a gender identity that strays from what is considered "normal" (what really is?) must be a crushingly isolating thing to bear; they must confront the world alone in fear, depression or worse while also unraveling conflicting feelings and sensations that the rest of us could only contemplate. Anything we can do to help them feel accepted, loved and understood- especially such an inconsequential thing as a shift in pronoun usage, at least- shows that we care enough to try and see them as whom they feel they are.
In doing
7
It is highly illogical to call oneself a non-binary, which in and of itself admits to the existence of the binary, e.g., binary and non-binary. Duh.
And the reality is that Nature made humans a dimorphic species, male and female. Why would confused young whose thinking is addled, confused and contrary to reality be given credibility for their delusions. The so-called nonbinary one may think it has no sex, but any doctor or anyone looking at the person's cells under a microscope could tell exactly what sex the person is. That is reality.
But I guess if eyelid piercings and facial tattoos and other attention-getting indicia of specialness are not enough, little narcissists can get attention by labeling themselves nonbinary.
10
I read through the first 20 or so comments and since no one mentioned how other languages actually work, I'll mention one: Persian has no gender in its pronouns. In the third-person singular, instead of he, she, or it, they say "ū," (sounds like the "u" in "flute). And it has been so for at least 1000 years, from the time of Rumi and Hafez to today. Many languages work similarly, not for reasons of modern gender issues, but just because the languages developed in that way. Pronouns have changed in English before; how many people today can now accurately understand, much less use, thou, thee, thy, thine, etc? Maybe another general change will emerge out of the current pronoun stew.
6
This is a humane, wise, and funny take on an important issue. Using new or different pronouns takes some getting used to, but it's worth it for the reasons that Jennifer Finney Boylan gives. But let's not have any criticism of Rhode Island-style calamari!
6
Walter, I will agree that this is humane, wise and funny.
But I'm sorry -- the pronouns used by people who refuse to identify with either human gender is simply not "an important issue." It is a deeply silly, pretentious, egotistical, narcissistic and frivolous issue at a time when we should all be focusing on far more serious topics.
Those who are more concerned with their pronouns -- and enforcing the use of them -- need to get their heads out of their own navels and start looking at the rest of the world. Getting that man out of the White House is more important than any hurt feelings over not having your "preferred" pronouns "respected."
Him, her, hir or whatever you call yourself, nuclear war with North Korea, economic war with China and a reinstatement of the Cold War, but this time with Western Europe, will not be good for you.
5
But that’s O.K., too. The Lord helps those that helps xemselves.
-------------------------
Cute.
Sometimes, such people don't know how to really help themselves, and they do their bodies, careers, and our shared language an awful lot of damage in ze process... (Thanks for the Pepe LePew chuckle today, though.)
9
The lord helps those “that” help themselves? Talk about grating...
11
Hey 'You,' nice piece.
2
As a professional writer of a certain age, I despise the use of "they" to represent a singular person and will continue to despise it to my ever-closer grave.
Long ago, I learned to avoid the he/she choice by making the subject plural, thereby dispensing with such language when I wanted smoother sentences. Here's how it works.
1. CORRECT "If a customer wants to return a product, he/she should etc."
2. HIDEOUS "If a customer wants to return a product, they should etc." (Retch)
3. CORRECT "If customers want to return products, they should etc." Yay!
This is what Boylan should teach if she replaces love with integrity. After all, her students must return to the real world where she will not be the one who judges their language.
2. "If customer want to return products, they should etc."
18
How about "Customers who want to return products should ..."
3
Joshua Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
2
This is an alternative universe; xe? xim? Do I need to carry around a style guide when I talk to people? This is very reminiscent of Pat on SNL where people would try to find out what gender Pat was, and Pat always had a way to answer that didn't give it up.
At a certain point, we'll need our own camps and our own tents to get away from all this nuttiness. This stuff terrifies me.
24
Come on. Nature made humans a dimorphic species, XY males and XX females. (The 1 in 30,000 with XXY or XYY are Disorders of Sexual Development do not negate the dimorphic humanity.) Sex cannot be changed by surgery, wardrobe, makeup, or hormones, as every cell of the body contains the truth of one's sex, XX or XY.
Women get no choice about being born female or the oppression of their sex. But now XY males with male genitalia tell us that they are female and demand that we confirm their delusions, that we must label real women as "cis-women" and that sex is determined by how a confused person feels, regardless of chromosomes and morphology. This is nonsense.
Before it was a male political movement, transsexuality was considered a delusional mental illness. If someone thinks he is Jesus Christ or that she is a dolphin, we get that these folks are delusional. Yet we are asked to believe that a bearded man with a penis is a "she" because he says so.
The transsexual males are now demanding access to women's shelters, gyms, spas, prisons, athletics. Data shows many transsexuals are sex criminals and these males sex criminals are now demanding to be put in women's prisons were they will have access to more victims.
When a white person claims to be black, they are castigated. Why are men who claim to be women applauded and worshipped and allowed to erase and negate real women? This is more misogyny where men get to define what is a woman.
What is a woman?
35
Earthling: Would that things were so simple.
Biological identity is not psychic identity.
For psychological reasons, not all currently understood, some are afflicted with a mismatch between their "observed at birth" identity and their later developed psychic sexual identity.
They, and you, may feel feelings of confusion about this, but their psychic identity is not, is not, delusion.
3
So glad I took Freshman English at Barnard College five decades ago rather than today. The transgender neutral fluid pronoun nonsense has gone off the rails. What on earth happened to higher education -- the inmates have taken over the asylum.
51
They're called consumers now and what the customer wants...
6
Shakespeare used the singular "they" in Hamlet.
The Bard gets to make up English words. Everyone else, less so.
7
Gold star for you! You use the pronouns your students ask you to use!
So what's the point?
Is it:
1. I decide to use any nonsensical made-up pronouns a handful of my students want, so therefore I"m a virtuous person?
2. I decide to use these nonsensical pronouns, so therefore everyone should?
3. I use the invented pronouns my students want, so therefore there should be a law in place regulating that?
Seriously, what is the point? I'm fine with your decision, but I'm not fine with any of the conclusions--no it doesn't make you virtuous, no everyone shouldn't because you do it, and definitely NO there shouldn't be a law.
But on a bigger level,what happens if I decide I don't want to use that word? Let's say I want people to call me "Blex" because that is the pronoun i give myself. Do I have a right to demand its usage from everyone? If so, why? Does everyone human get to demand everyone use a made-up word when it refers to their own sense of self? I don't think so. They can ask, and i can decide whether I want to or not.
If I don't want to, that's my choice. At worst I"m rude. I'm not non-virtuous though, and I don't want to be viciously attacked.
And if I do want to, that doesn't make me virtuous in the slightest. It just makes me willing to use requested pronouns. It has nothing to do with how I treat people at all.
32
The use of the pronoun Ms. is expedient for the speaker or writer. Before Ms. became popular, a writer had to choose between Miss (an unmarried female) or Mrs. (a married female). Ms. solved the problem. Ms. helped the writer enormously. It wasn’t used to make a woman feel good.
The pronouns referred to in this article put a great burden on the speaker or writer. I see no reason for anyone to accept such a burden.
19
I think this is most excellent.
In future, can the Grey Lady please address me as James I of England - The Wisest Fool In Christendom.
I always thought that was the coolest title in history.
P.S. I will refuse all invoices addressed to 'Steve'
18
While applauding the search for the appropriate pronoun to fit gender preference, I do mourn the loss of information when one pronoun fits every grammatical situation. Not all, but most pronouns in the declension chart have forms that express their role in a sentence as subject, object or owner. (Writers, including contributors to the Times, rarely make mistakes here, although there appears to be a frightening creep toward ignoring the information embedded in “who” vs. “whom.”) I’d love to see a push for fleshing out the new additions to the declension. Objective form of “ze,” anyone?
2
I have a friend who gives different names to the Starbucks people to put on his coffee. He often says "Horatio", and sometimes "Ishmael", though his real name, which he occasionally prefers, is a more prosaic Steve.
Whenever they are forced to call out: Grande latte for Horatio!! or "Tall Americano for Ishmael!!" they look at him as if he were some kind of nut.
They are not wrong.
21
One friend uses his Hebrew name because his English name is so common that there could be some confusion.
1
How much classroom time will be wasted as you figure out which pronoun to attach to each student each time a question is asked or a response is desired? Barnard is a small institution, so maybe no big deal. But in a lecture hall of 100? What a joke.
35
More PC nonsense.
22
I am excited that so many young people are challenging gender norms. However, I find the endless litany of new pronouns exhausting and, frankly, far more information that I care about or can track. Do you feel more femme than butch? Awesome, I don't care and it isn't my business. The fact that it has become the norm in some circles to include your pronouns in email signatures and introductions is a sign of how clumsy and unworkable this new system is, especially since, in most of the cases I've come across, the people who are identifying as "non-binary" are basically men or women who are choosing to live in a way that doesn't align with standard gender roles. Which is great! You don't need a new pronoun to do that! Finally, it is essentially trying to bypass sexism by inventing new gender categories. Wouldn't it be better to just open up what "she" and "he" can be? Wouldn't it ultimately be more helpful to all people to open up gender roles rather than just create new categories, especially since to date there is very little agreement on what those categories are? Doesn't creating new genders just further solidify the gender roles assigned to men and women?
23
If my friend asked me to refer to them with one of the new pronouns I would of course comply and agree. Wonderful. However, if someone that I don't know tries to correct me in the everyday world, hmm. For example, if I were to say excuse me Sir or Madam, and I were to be corrected after I was already calling a man madam and a woman Sir, I would have to wonder if I was expected to play along with it just a bit too much. I think it would make me uncomfortable and need to withdraw from the situation, but say that I am working at a hotel. I am the desk clerk. A trans man dressed completely as a female comes in, am I really expected to refer to that person as she, and then they or zir in top of that? Does society really expect that out of the service industry now?
7
Jennifer,
I'm transgender, always have been and will be as you know, was transitioning male to female, and stopped.
What you live, and what you describe, is a full bore fantasy writ upon the Ivy walls of a cossetted educational institution. Elsewhere, meaning the entire planet, what we are, what you are, is to not exist. You will walk it alone until the final breath you draw and no matter what matter may say, they do not support us in any way. We might as well be sideshows in a carnival for all the true inclusion to be had. Liberals are no better than conservatives, they just know to be political and quiet about their exclusion and revulsion.
8
English needs a gender-neutral pronoun, case closed. It has nothing to do with gender identity, it is needed because the grammatically correct "he or she" or "he/she" is simply awkward.
2
English has a gender neutral pronoun: "it."
5
I respect everyone's human rights fully as much as Jennifer Finney Boylan does, but I suspect that Ms (sorry if I have chosen the incorrect honorific) Boylan is discussing what is on the grand scale of human affairs, a very first world problem. In the majority of the world having enough for oneself and one's children to eat, having a safe place to sleep and having a means to guarantee the necessities of life outprioritises concerns over what pronouns professors to refer to one.
25
I can see that someone may not want their (that’s deliberate) gender identified. You may not want to use Ms or Mr in a letter for example. We will see what happens. Language always evolves.
1
On the general topic of pronouns, how do you (any of you) feel about the second person singular and plural being the same word? I find it very awkward to be in a meeting and address the entire room as "you", often going to self-conscious extremes to use a muttered "yuh" or even "yall", while avoiding making eye-contact with anyone who might otherwise think I was addressing .. er, them. It's not as charged as the third-person singular, but does anyone (there!) have any idea why did English lost the second-person plural?
Now it is pronouns. What's next? Looks like this gender thing is changing faster than technology. Anyway, what does Ms (or Mx?) Boylan advice about issues that require bodily privacy (shared saunas, shared pools, space for full-body-massage therapy, and also the person giving the massage or the person bathing & dressing an immobile patient, dormitory sharing, bathrooms, etc.. These are just from the top of my head). Does she (xe? ze? please apologize!) demand that they be shared based on the "gender" one "identifies" with? Or based on the biological sex (which is the logical thing to do)? Or better, reach a mid point - construct separate dorms, hospital rooms, restrooms etc, etc for each of the new gender category as and when they come out of the mill? The third "solution" would be acceptable if there is an exclusive category for "cis-women" - it would be inclusive of poor, old-fashioned, confused folks like me.
9
The difference between "Mr. President", or "Your Holiness" and third person pro-nouns is that there is a distinct reason that society has recognized as to why we are referring to that person the way we are. That reason is not a feeling, it is a recognizable trait, ie being president, or being a the pope. If I declared I wanted to be referred to as, "Your Holiness" simply because I "feel" like the Pope, I would rightfully be ignored and seen as an attention seeker. Yet someone has an unrecognizable feeling about their gender and it suddenly becomes a civil rights offense to not recognize their individualistic self expression. If we recognize these pronouns, why not recognize the right to identify as a different species?
6
Vomitous political correctness. And universities charge through the nose for the privilege of exposure to this nonsense.
25
I am hoping that when addressing students directly, you are using the tried-and-true second person. "You."
I am all for honoring people's pronoun preferences. However, I do have a couple of suggestions:
a) Hand out cards if your pronoun preferences are not standard. Help people to adapt. Don't be arrogant and judgmental about it.
b) For the love of goddess, PLEASE include the possessive pronoun as well as the possessive adjective: he / him / his / his; she / her / her / hers; ze / zim / zir / zis or zir or WHAT? The formation of the possessive pronoun doesn't automatically follow from the nominative, objective, and possessive adjective.
It will be excellent for Scrabble!
21
As much as I'm a fan of mysterious underpants, and any further mystery within, I can't cotton to they as a singular. I have a friend who so identifies and it makes any story I tell about them confusing to anyone hearing it, every time. I end up just using their name each time instead, and that defeats the purpose of the pronoun no? I'm sure I'm not in charge of this, but I think that getting people to learn a new word would be much easier than changing this one that way.
3
I can't help but wonder what these students who use these special pronouns will do once they're out of college (or indeed, even away from college for the summer). Do they really expect the non-academic world to use these pronouns? How will these students adapt? This seems to me yet another instance of coddling college students, providing them with their safe spaces, and leaving them ill-prepared for the real world. Maybe someday "xe" will become part of the vernacular, just like "Ms." is now. But it hasn't happened yet. I think the only reason academics can take up these causes that bear little relation to the outside world is because they're ensconced in and protected by the academic world.
One more point: I find this idea of gender being a social construction to have a strange element of prudery in it. Sure, their are societal pressures that make us conform to what is masculine and feminine, but as a man, I know my masculinity is derived in great part from having a man's body, and that's important to me (and I'm sure the vast majority of men out there would agree with me). In the midst of this debate, let's please not lose sight of biological realities and the role they will always play in human behavior. To ignore this, and claim that it's all a product of socialization, would, I think, be a serious mistake.
25
Beyond the fairly small number of people that are non cis-something, the use of sex based pronouns also feeds into the current societal need to characterize people as male or female, which really is only important in dating and then only as dating profile of likes, dislikes, preferences, personalities, politics, etc that would make someone a candidate to date.
Do you have to refer to a female colleague as she and is that done as some kind of notional respect or some unwritten code ... dateable, less competent, junior, paid less, don't need to listen to her ... etc. Let's say I send an email .. why do you need to know if I am male or female before you read this (I will say my husband's company has pictures, which adds even more fuel to this particular fire, why do I need to know if you are young or old or attractive or unattractive or obviously white, black, brown, asian, etc). Use of his/hers etc also leads into awkwardness, like if a woman writes a report, does she refer to herself as she all the time, like that somehow is relevant or use some awkward "the engineer".
It may be time to have a sex-neutral pronoun beyond just political correctness, unless that political correctness or the backlash against it really is based on some male/female traits you just can't let go.
I still think Ms is more than enough information for a formal address, marital status is just not relevant again outside the dating world. it never really caught on .. but maybe we just got less formal.
1
The problem with "they" is that it forces others to change their own word usage- and therefore feels more like a statement than a choice. The other words are different because they are are not generally in use in a different context.
Imagine if my personal pronoun were "Sesquipedalian-anticonstitutionnellement" That would be a little inconvenient, don't you think?
While people have the right to identify and be referred to however they wish, they should consider usage and flow.
Otherwise: "While people have the right to identify and referred to however he wish, she should consider usage and flow"
3
As a high school teacher, I've had several transgender students who've altered their identities during their tenure. I must say, I admire those who can keep up with the proper pronouns, as I've found it difficult to achieve ready adherence to my students' gender choices - not because of any political or personal animus, rather, I just can't reflexively recall the permutation.
This means that, on occasion, I'll call a student 'she' by mistake when I know that student has chosen to be 'he'. After having been mocked and excoriated by other class members for this trespass, I immediately apologize and correct the pronoun. Too late, I fear, as evidently I've revealed, not merely a 60-year old brain, but a deep seated prejudice.
Thus, my request for tolerance. I'm more than happy to use any pronoun proffered - just know that sometimes I'll forget and need forgiveness.
33
May I suggest an alternative? Eliminate the individual third-person pronoun entirely, in favor of using the person's name. "What would Susan like for lunch?" "I wonder where Fred is this morning?" In my own life, I no longer refer to God as a she or a he. When referring to God in the third person, I use the word God. When directing a communication to God, I use "You." Lightning has not struck me yet.
4
All interesting pronouns that will confuse my brain for some time. After thinking
about them all I prefer per as suggested by Sara. Seems to cover all bases!
1
I think for me the problem is that the nouveau-pronouned seem to me to be a. elevating their importance and b. commanding more of my attention than I have or wish to give. Especially when they monkey with the second-person pronoun which, in English, doesn't give a hoot about what yir are.
14
As a 69 year old grandmother who believes a little bit of language sensitivity and creativity is a small price to pay to show respect to another human being, I say thank you, Dr. Boylan!
5
Excellent column. As a bilingual English/Spanish speaker, it makes me crazy when English-speaking men insist "he" is "neutral" and Spanish-speaking men insist on the use of the MALE plural "ellos" for a group that consists of only one male and multiple women, claiming that it's all fine. Nonsense! As with so many things, a change in perspective would help. Those males who want to keep the status quo would likely feel differently if "she" had up to now been the "neutral" and the feminine pronoun "ellas" was the expected plural pronoun to use for a group consisting of all men and one woman.
5
I have met many transgender people in my community. My problem in referring to them by their identified gender pronoun, opposite to their birth pronoun, is that that is not who I am seeing.
When I see a born-female who had a double mastectomy and dresses like a man, I do not see a man. I see a woman who dresses mannishly. To me, her voice, her eye contact, her bone structure – they all say "she." To refer to this person as "he" is disorienting and clashes with my perceptions that govern my normal speech. I would feel like I have to watch myself in a way that I normally do not have to do.
I support the rights of transgender individuals to jobs, housing, and respect. In return, I want them to respect my right to the level of comfort in speaking my language that I have come to expect over the course of a lifetime. In my opinion, they are the ones who have to own the problem, not me.
On the subject, a gender is not "assigned" at birth. A sex is observed. Every single human being knows that. "Gender assignment" sounds arbitrary and authoritarian. What political baloney.
52
Your problem is assuming physical associations prove gender. The concept of "passing" being necessary is highly problematic. They are going through enough, the minimal effort it will take u to speak correctly is ur responsibility
4
At first sibilance, Jennifer’s acceptance of “ze” and other personal pronouns, as well as her tolerance for the singular “they”, seem to be merely an admirable nod of the head to inclusiveness. But it’s not just that.
The primary force binding a people is a common language. It’s one of the big reasons an immense experiment like the United States turned out to be so successful while its absence has so complicated European attempts at economic and social union – to the extent that English isn’t their common language, as well. One of the key things we emphasize in the rearing and socialization of our youth is respect for that common language, so that they may be recognized as members of a national community, regardless of where they are within it and outside it, and regardless of physical and other uniqueness any individual may have; and so that they may be understood clearly within that community by all other members, irrespective of who they are, the principles and values they hold, or their physical appearance.
When you selectively introduce alterations to that language, you degrade its binding effect on community.
This is an unwise attempt by an infinitesimally small cohort within our greater community to proclaim itself distinct from that greater community, when the efforts of its members should center on precisely the opposite. Gender and other sexual identity are characteristics of being that should be expressed on battlegrounds other than our common language.
12
I’m missing what’s wrong with “one”?
5
What if I answered "I don't care"?
16
The Lady helps those who help xemselves.
O.K. How about: The Lx helps those that helps xemselves...
3
In Dutch “ze” is “she”.
9
The last sentence in the article attributed to what the Lord says...that is not in the Bible. :)
2
People who claim they are grammar snobs should do some research. Singular they has a long history.
8
Henceforth I will be addressed as "Your Royal Highness."
15
Keep up the assault on cultural norms, lefties. This article is Exhibit A in the reason why the country is redder than ever, at every level. The transgendered are 1/1000 of 1% of the population. Yet they want us to change! This isn't the tail wagging the dog. It's the flea wagging the elephant.
32
“It” works.
It’s stupid.
It’s uncaring.
It’s tedious.
It’s obnoxious.
It’s attractive.
It’s friendly.
It’s gender neutral.
It’s species neutral.
It’s ridiculous. Really.
19
I am not a "conservative " but this is idiotic.
A friend's daughter was with their family in a restaurant and when they tried ordering for " they" the server was so confused it would be funny if not so stupid.
I don't care if you're male, female, or trans whatever...unless you have no genitalia at all, pick one. If you're a woman in a man's body I have no problem calling you she.
Don't we have enough insanity to deal with these days?
Sorry, but c'mon.
32
The New York Times may have "finally adopted" the honorific "Ms." in 1986, but over 30 years later it still stubbornly refuses to employ the term correctly. In its wedding announcements section, only women who keep their unmarried surnames are referred to as "Ms.;" women who take their husbands' names are still referred to as "Mrs." Why do you cling to this archaic -- and plainly incorrect -- usage, New York Times?
5
So then we have to deal with the squirrelly phonetics of spoken English. What do you do with the “x” in “xem”? Plenty of people are going to say “exem”! What about the “i” in “hir”? Many English language learners already struggle mightily getting that “ur” sound out for “her” ... And in hindsight, “Ms” should probably have been written “Mz”.
4
I am very, very inclusive. I have a gay son and a gay brother. I am all for inclusion.
I have not yet adopted the "ze". I suspect I will.
But for now, I don't even know how to pronounce "hir" and if I do this stuff, it engenders the kind of talk I don't always want to have with others. For I can't help but seeing--that FOR NOW--prejucice against transgender folks is, along with prejudice towards folks with weight problems--a frontier not yet properly tackled.
You could say I could go on a one-woman educational campaign with my "ze"s. However, I do plenty of social lecturing already. I have to pick my battles. This one--for now--seems unnecessarily in your face with some of the people I know who are still trying to figure out how i have the nerve to let my young teen gay son date.
So. I hear you Jennifer. In fact, your book was the first education I ever got on this topic. I read it year ago. I am all for this. I just have to figure out how to do it. When to do it. And with whom.
Signed,
Your Lame Friend--who aims to do better.
4
When you meet someone and ask for their personal pronouns, you can ask how they pronounce them and you may request examples of usage. There. What’s so difficult about that? No battles to fight. The 11-Year-olds I teach on Sunday School have no problem with this, and a high school student instructed me further with examples of pronouns for friends of hers.
2
@David: you’re right!
While I support the rights trans-gender people, I too find the grammar and syntax associated with trans-gender people confusing. I suppose it's mostly generational. However, it seems to me that trans-gender people would be better served if they stuck to traditional gender labels pronouns. Many who support their rights find the pronouns and labels and trans-*** confusing.
The better option might be to adopt a WYSIWYG stance. If one chooses to change gender and appear to others as a woman then she should refer to herself as a woman and use the pronoun she. If one chooses to change gender and appear to others as a man, then he should refer to himself as a man and use the pronoun he. In some places, for examplemedical records, there ought be a specific label to indicate that the patient is trans-gender because that information is vital to protect the persons. Unless the trans label is needed to protect the person, whether the person is trans-gender ought to be a private matter.
7
A pronoun is a simple word that stands for nouns with something in common. If everyone insists on a different pronoun, the very purpose of pronouns is lost.
14
The three examples the author begins with: one is a personal name and two are official titles. Anyone is free to change their own name to whatever they wish, as Sean Combs continues to prove, and titles have only fleeting association with their occupants (no one is born an "assistant manager." In all cases, the "norms" surrounding these usages are consensual, and that's the point. Respect has very little to do with it. Yes, younger generations change language all the time, just as they change fashion and dance. No one is seriously complaining about the delightful inventions found in Urban Dictionary. The gender issue is a qualitative leap away from *that* discussion.
Gender pronouns relate to social categories that are deeply embedded in all of human history, which is why you see the same "binaries" all over the world. Gender may not perfectly relate to sex, but it does relate to our very real history of social/labor roles, like them or not, and those roles are attached to the nature of socio-economic production writ large. The intriguing and troubling aspect of this debate is the way it points to the changing nature of socio-economic production. It makes perfect sense that a generation raised in digital environments would eventually conclude that identity itself is digital; something to be invented and discarded as the mood strikes. This is a fantasy of all life as virtual and plastic, with machines doing all our work for us. Is that really what we want?
3
You get an email or read an article about 3 people, 2 men and 1 woman. You get information of some kind for the woman, but how do you differentiate between the two men. Why do you need to differentiate to not be part of a digital environment?
The new generation has moved on and as they grab the reins of political power, which seems obvious that they must, we will shed the meaningless cultural drivel, which includes a lot of baggage and non-equality for all but white men who speak English without an accent and can dress well, and move on to a culture where we can value (or even judge) people based on who they are and what they do rather than what we think they should do based on a society that hasn't existed for decades, even centuries. The myth of the stay-at-home mom, it only existed for fairly well to do women in a time of post-war, pre-global competition (we had conveniently bombed many competitors into third-world countries) prosperity.
Women are investing tens of thousands of dollars in education to enter the workplace as skilled employees. Even blue collar jobs seldom need burly men (and many burly men are now chubby men due to a culture that doesn't exercise). Families rely on two-incomes to weather unemployment and to have enough money and benefits to compensate for low wages and gig economy jobs that are the rule rather than the exception (and to fund retirement in a post-pension world).
Being a "she" and talking about "her" really doesn't buy many women much
I absolutely agree that, out of respect, you should call someone whatever they (sic?) want to be called. And I’ve slowly come around to using “they” (without the sic) as a singular pronoun, especially when speaking. But the author doesn’t address the downsides to this recent lingual development. The university students I teach commonly use “they” to refer not just to an individual of unknown or non-traditional gender but also to any individual, even when that person’s gender has been clearly established, perhaps because they see “they” as the preferable, gender-neutral alternative to “he” and “she" in all instances. And eroding the difference between the singular and the plural in this way creates ambiguity and confusion in their writing, where one cannot reliably distinguish between an individual and a group of people, all of whom are addressed now by the same pronoun. This new lack of precision (some might call it sloppiness) when referring to people seems a bit ironic, given that “they” has been enlisted into service as a singular pronoun precisely because “he” and “she” aren’t precise enough tools to represent everyone’s gender. So before I wholeheartedly endorse "they" as a singular pronoun, I need know that there's really no other better option.
3
Of all the things young people in College, with whom I spent nearly every day for fifty years, choose to be exercised about this one is way down the list of bothersome. What does it matter if we call someone xe if xe asks that of us? It is, as Professor Boylan (see how easily I circumvented the use of a descriptive pronoun there?) suggests is a very small part of an attempt to afford them respect and even a modicum of dignity, and then to ask the same in return.
7
This effort by a tiny percentage of English speakers to change their language may perhaps be successful in a tiny number of places, primarily places of enormous privilege like Barnard College. The day your students graduate, they will still have to deal with a reality where people are either he or she.
However, it's laughable to even think about a similar effort happening with Romance language such as French or Spanish. Imagine the horror for non-gendered people of having to speak a language where every noun has a gender and adjectives are gender matched to the nouns they accompany.
16
I identify as European Monarchy and would prefer the pronoun Royal Majesty/Royal Majesty/Royal Majesties.
22
It's more likely you identify as a privileged straight white man who never has fought discrimination given your dismissive, rude comment.
2
Good Evening Darcey,
I agree that you should have the right to dismiss my declaration of preferred gender description. I should also have the right to describe myself as such, as should anyone else who feels similarly to me.
I also agree that you should not be required to describe me in the way I prefer. However, realize doing so intentionally may make you boorish, while doing so unintentionally has no negative impact upon my feelings.
I am also saddened that knowing nothing about me, you choose to describe not just my gender but my ethnicity as well in ways that I would not. :(
3
Darcy, the only dismissive, rude comment I see here is yours. Not only that, it's rather bigoted.
4
I'm concerned with how they will feel when they transition to the job force and none of this will be considered. Very few meetings in corporate America will start with " what pronoun do you prefer?". It's another mark of individuality by a few having to be adopted by the many.
18
A grammar snob, I had found the singular THEY challenging until I realized that we had transitioned to the singular YOU/YOUR/YOURS centuries ago (the singular versions are THEE/THOU/THINE) with few adverse consequences. English has survived and thrived, even though we conjugate verbs in the plural when addressing a singular. It IS more confusing and less precise -- if you are talking to one person about a group that they're in and you want to refer to the individual and the group separately, you have to make that explicit (for example, if I'm going to visit my friend's family and I want to do something individually with my friend, it would be grammatically acceptable to say "You and I can go to the bar when I visit you," but it would be clearer to say "You and I can go to the bar when I visit you and your family.") So, I'm in favor of just referring to everyone with THEY/THEM/THEIR/THEIRS, because it's important to them, and it's utterly impossible for me to remember all the other pronouns!!
6
I'm a bit disappointed that Ms. Boylan, one of my favorite writers, did not address the main problem for me with "asking for pronouns." It is, simply, memory. I don't even mean that I have a lousy memory (which I do!), but that a hundred transgender people could have 20 variations on pronoun. Yes, I agree binary categories are a bit stifling -- and untrue. A third category would make sense, if we could ease the world gently, over time, into agreeing to it. But an infinite number of individual arrangements that society is supposed to recall and somehow integrate into grammar automatically? Until we're augmented by AI interfaces, I just don't think we're up to it. It seems ridiculous to expect it, and I don't mean ridiculous in intention, as many seem to argue, but in execution.
23
Some of us can remember when "Ms" was sneered at: non one would ever use it, some said. I'm an educator, and I don't have any problem calling people what they want to be called, whatever their gender or orientation. But that's about names: Jim, or Jake, or Izzy, or Skye. Whatever. But if the transgender community wants a new pronoun, then, make it new (like Ms.). Language belongs to all of us: a plural term, such as "they," cannot be commandeered by any group, and expect other people to follow that change and abide by it. ' They' means something. It's like saying that 'blue' suddenly doesn't mean 'blue,' it means elephant. I'm a little confused by the controversy, as most of my transgender students want to be referred to by the gender with which they now identify, as 'she' or 'he.' I do think the emphasis on gender is exhausting, when so many things about people (how they think, for example) are more interesting. And I--for one--have asked my students not to refer to me as 'cis-gender.' That's not my term for myself, and I ask for the same respect: I get to choose my own name.
19
"I call people by the names — and yes, pronouns — they have chosen, because to do so, in the end, is to simply treat my fellow human beings with love."
Can't argue with that, but that's the problem with this essay. It ignores the politics of naming, which, I would argue, is the point of inventing new pronouns. "Ms." empowers women, it's not just a personal choice. The same goal of empowerment should be the reason a transgender person chooses to use a new pronoun. Reducing the decision to personal whim demeans it.
7
It seems to me that rather than continuing to invent new pronouns that satisfy each and every individual, we could simply do away with them altogether. So instead of saying: (Pronoun) wore a yellow shirt, one would say: Mary wore a yellow shirt. It is, and will be, awkward until the usage becomes commonplace and habitual. But it eliminates the need to keep everyone's personal preferences straight. After all, were I to sit in on one of the authors classes and be asked to participate in the discussion, I wouldn't have the foggiest notion of whom to refer to as he, she, ze, or it.
4
I think this policy of asking and respecting identity is wise, but I also think the right response from a parent or close family member when a child or teen tells you something about sexual orientation or gender identity is "That is nice, what do you want for dinner?"
In other words, don't make it a huge deal. The mistake I see parents and teachers make, particularly with young teens, is to either flip out and get mad (thus chasing their kid into the closet and shaming them) or to be so supportive the child feels smothered. Think of this announcement as being akin to your child saying they want to major in english when they get to college. Assume it is true at this time. Assume also that it might change. Don't get attached to your child as an english major, but support their interest.
The fact is I see lots of young kids who make a grand announcement about gender or sexual orientation, then their gender or sexual orientation shifts as they get older and learn more about themselves. This is less true of college students I suspect, but changes do occur well into one's 20s. Believe what they say at the time. But don't get so attached you think it will never change. Give your kids support, but also space to grow and change.
8
It's not the singular "they" that many people find grating. "They" feels like an acceptable and manageable extension of the language to describe gender-nonconforming individuals. What's grating is the long and self-indulgent list of alternative pronouns that serve no functional purpose in daily use except to edify the subject they describe. People who are questioning their gender or sexuality of course deserve our respect and our understanding; but do they deserve the right to rewrite the customs of language that, for a vast majority of the population, are completely adequate as-is?
21
Michael? I don't like that name. Henceforth, I will call you Edith. I respect and understand you, just not enough to bother to call you anything other than what I choose.
3
From the linguistics point of view, I suspect, usage will win out. The vernacular will only tolerate serious confusion so long. Right now the trio of "they, them, their" is well ahead of any top down alternatives for the singular neuter. Any attempt to impose prescriptive rules, usually results in over-correction and hurt feelings. Just be patient or ask your class, if you are teaching.
7
Hah...I usually forget peoples names within a few minutes of being introduced. Its just the way my brain works(though it can do some other things just fine.)
(this ought to work out just fine for me!)
4
Well, at least I have some context for all the e-mails I've been seeing over the past few months, where, in the signature block area, the following notation often appears:
"Preferred pronouns: she / her / hers"
"Preferred pronouns: he / him / his"
I suppose I've always thought that "it" did a serviceable, if imperfect, job as a gender-neutral pronoun.
Having said all that, though, I'm willing to suggest a deal to those who who prefer alternate terms: As long as you can properly use and distinguish "I / me / myself", I'll be happy to refer to you by whatever pronoun you wish. It would be worth it, if just to reduce the incidence of such abysmal constructions as:
Myself and Sally went to the mall. (double error in this one!)
or
Joe invited myself to the party.
Ugh!
5
Though I thought the use of the singular "they" and other pronouns unobjectionable, in my teaching I make it a point NOT to ask students for their preferred pronouns. Nor do I ask for their political preferences, nor their religious affiliation, nor whom they date– that is THEIR business, and if they wish to share it with me, and the entire class, that is THEIR choice. Whereas, forcing some student to publicly reveal something so personal, when in their early 20s they may well be uncertain as to what their orientation is, or is becoming, I think very unwise, and, potentially, brutally cruel.
As the author put it, why would I demand that the next word out of the student's mouth, "reveal the mysteries of their underpants..."?
17
Here's what I don't understand: If a biological male wishes to identify as female, shouldn't that mean this person now accepts to be identified with the pronoun SHE? And vice versa for a female wishing to be male? Why all this made-up convoluted language? And if the reply is "well, because they consider themselves neither male nor female", that's wishful thinking and science denial. You are one or you are the other, biologically. if you want to switch to the other because you "feel" that this is who you are in your soul, then fine, whatever, I'll switch from he to she or she to he. But that's still all we have, scientifically, factually speaking (except for hermaphrodites, who are not the issue here). There is he, or there is she. Period. And this has nothing to do with "Ms" which does not deny gender and therefore does not deny biology.
27
The soft-headedness of many of these pronouns is apparent when you attempt to actually pronounce them. If you want to create a new pronoun, it's not enough to shove an "x" in place of a phoneme you now find offensively precise. "Xemselves"? Pronounced "zemselves" like a bad German accent? Or perhaps "(click)-emselves" like the Xhosha? Similarly, misspelling "her" as "hir" has not created a new pronoun in any meaningful way. The subtlest ear could not differentiate between the pronunciation of "her" and "hir" in any accent of English with which I am familiar.
Singular they is fine--it's older than modern English--albeit clunky. Tying ourselves in knots to attempt to be demonstratively sensitive to a tiny fraction of a percent of the population (the truly gender-nonbinary and the fraction of transgender persons who prefer not to use the gendered pronoun of their gender identity) is an utter waste of mental energy. It's pure social peacocking.
35
Characters in the 1976 Marge Piercy time-travel novel “Woman on the Edge of Time” use “per” as a nongendered singular pronoun (a backformation of “person”). I was impressed by this idea as a teen back in the ’70s and remain intrigued by it even now, and wonder why Piercy’s idea never gained any traction. To me, “per,” in its familiarity, seems far more palatable and easy to understand than “xir” or “e” or similar.
31
As a professional editor and the keeper of my company's style guide, I am becoming exhausted by this recent "controversy" over pronoun usage, and, frankly, less and less sympathetic to the complaints of the transgender community.
The absence of a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun (other than "it") has been a longstanding problem in the English language. I wish we had one, but what will it be ("ze"? "xe"? "e"? "xem"?), and who decides? It's not like there is some High Committee on English Usage who rules on such matters.
The singular "they" is not the answer, and not just because it grates on grammar snobs. Grammar provides structure to language, and thus facilitates communication; using a plural pronoun when a singular meaning is intended can not only breed confusion, it can also create syntactical problems with regard to agreement between subjects and verbs, pronouns and antecedents, and so on.
Sometimes our language is imprecise, and sometimes one's choice of words offends certain sensibilities. I am firmly of the belief that there is little value in deliberately or unwittingly hurting a reader's feelings through the use of a certain term or phrase, but I also think it's incumbent on PC-minded readers to understand that most writers are editors share this point of view, and are working in good faith to engage with rather than alienate their audience. But we are not going to restructure whole swaths of the language to suit your particular tastes.
122
"it can also create syntactical problems with regard to agreement between subjects and verbs, pronouns and antecedents, and so on."
-------
One solution is to write about groups (plural) rather than individuals (singular) when possible. Instead of: "A student can decide how he (or she or "he or she") wants to be addressed," say "Students can decide how they want to be addressed."
Problem solved!
3
"The absence of a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun (other than "it") has been a longstanding problem in the English language."
How could this ever have been a problem? Even a woman who had a complete hysterectomy is still a woman and is referred to as she and a man who has been castrated is still a man and is referred to as he. What are the circumstances for a long-standing problem?
5
I think the argument against singular "they" is refuted by the reality of "you", another plural pronoun that made its way into singular usage, displacing "thee".
Yes, it can be ambiguous, and sometimes we fall back on workarounds like "you guys" or "you all". But it works well enough and it is what the language organically ended up with.
23
There should also be a new word for a partner other than "wife", "husband", or "spouse" since so many people cohabitate without being married. The term "significant other" is rather cumbersome in conversation. And terms like partner or mate are not definitive enough.
3
I wonder if this conversation would be so urgent - and at the moment it is - if men, women and transexuals were respected equally. There should be no shame in being identified in any way, including in many ways beyond gender. But I have to part with Jennifer Finney Boylan on one matter: a singular "they" still drives me crackers. Over time, as the public's acceptance of many changes have taken place in our language and grammar do, that may change. In the meantime, I'll continue to try to employ sentence constructions that are, by current standards, correct, but try also to avoid those that call attention to persnicketiness.
23
Much as I don't care for the use of "they" as a singular pronoun, I consider it something like a bridge. Until we figure out the right language for offering to every human being the respect that is due, then we have to have something.
Ah, perhaps Anglophones should be grateful we weren’t raised speaking French ... a language that identifies every Thing in the world (book, tree, street, library, table, sky) as either masculine or feminine.
It’s “le table,” right? So a table is sort of boyish.
7
Deborah: Actually, it's "la table" -- feminine.
3
French also has a gender neutral, third person singular pronoun: "on".
1
Ah, of course, how could one have missed the femininity of the genre of furniture known as "tables."
1
How about we call people by their names?....
8
I had to read this twice, not because it was difficult to understand, but because it seems to be a solution to a non-existent problem. Z, zer, zem, zip may be the dumbest idea that has entered the English language in recent years. Call people by their names or "you". When speaking of John who is becoming Jane, call him/her whatever name he/she is using.
Unnecessary and time wasting activity.
24
Cisgender: the 99.9995% who are not transgender (Friedman, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/richard-a-friedman-how.... Why is it that such an overwhelming majority must be labelled with an unnecessary, unwieldy, and totally redundant neologism which simply means normal, typical, standard, conventional? People are worried about their jobs, the economy, North Korea, a lunatic in the White House, and a Republican congress turning the clock back a hundred years, yet progressives are obsessed with
butchering the English language and making themselves live with the constant psychological stress of forcing ones otherwise intelligent self to indulge in PC doublethink. All in order to think they are being polite to 5 out of every 100,000 people.
And now we need to keep track of this week's bizarre new pronouns for the unfortunate but tiny minority? Is it really hard to understand why so much of the country turned its back on progressives, and voted for Trump just to stick it in the their eye?
And yes, thirty years later Ms. still sounds like a lazy drawl.
50
Thank you!
2
Oh I don’t know.....
....to be kind, perhaps. Because it costs nothing and makes another feel seen, respected and validated.
Because I’d rather prioritize a person over an idiom. Because the transgender suicide rate is still shockingly high.
First it was “colored” (as in the NAACP), then “negro” (as in the “United Negro College Fund,” then “black,” and now the seven syllables of “African-American.” At each change, people who perceived themselves as more “woke” felt morally superior to the not-so-woke. Those who were a minute behind the times and trying to use what they thought were respectful terms of description felt the condescension and underlying hostility. Meanwhile, the real bigots sail along merrily using the “N” word as always.
Here we go again!
As a (mostly) gay male, I wish truly that the denizens of gender studies would stop obsessing about pronouns. Let people believe what they want to, and address people as they will. They will anyway!
Instead, focus on the real problem, which is the law. Put all of that moral energy into stopping Mike Pence from preventing people whose orientation or internal feelings of masculinity or femininity are not the usual from eating at a lunch counter just because its owners are religious fundamentalists. Do something about the 29 states where I can be married on Sunday, and then fired on Monday and evicted on Tuesday for what I did on Sunday.
Xi/xer? Fine, whatever! Please leave they/them alone because it has an important and precise meaning. But all that REALLY doesn’t matter next to having the same (not less, not more) legal rights to get through life as has everyone else. Most reasonable people, which is most people, can buy into that.
31
Professor Boylan ably highlights why gendered pronouns place an English user in danger of offending. By using gendered pronouns, language users do announce our presumptions about "the mysteries of their underpants." Why? To what good end?
But she lost me by suggesting the English language needs to embrace a multitude of new pronouns and we must inquire about a person's desired pronoun. What if I have no interest in solving the mysteries of your underpants?
If English is to evolve to avoid language users giving offense by announcing their presumptions regarding the mysteries of underpants, far simpler and less problematic to cut back to a single, non-gendered pronoun.
9
I have no difficulty with folks using whatever description they choose to identify themselves but please do not expect me to come to an introduction knowing their choice. Maybe we should all wear name tags all the time displaying our chosen "pronoun".
10
How does one pronounce these absurd so-called titles?
16
Since I'll never use them, I have no need to learn how to pronounce them.
3
I'll never use them either--as I made fairly clear--but am curious all the same. I used to use your argument when complaining about algebra, but had to attend the classes all the same.
Is any language other than American English having to endure this foolishness? I don't think so.
Seriously, what´s the point of adopting/using cisgender?
18
The rights movement for trans people has achieved blindingly quick success compared with just about any similar civil rights movement in memory. My own opinion is that it’s part of the post-millennial dodge that encourages us all to abandon any notion that might have been inherited from previous generations.
The term ‘cisgender’ takes a page from the current ‘whiteness’ obsession to attempt to include everyone in the conversation. The pendulum will eventually swing toward common sense once again but when and how far in that direction will remain to be seen.
11
I love this piece. However, as a transgender collegiate educator, and educator of transgender students, I have actually stopped asking my students their pronouns. Rather, I let them know they have the option of telling me or their peers at that time or others. The reason: I began my academic career in the closet, and when asked about my pronouns there was what I wanted to say and what I was capable of saying. Often I felt like I was lying when I said "he," because I was not ready to say "she" – not yet.
Since my experience, I've read of similar experiences by other transgender people in classrooms and work environments. Classrooms, though, I think are especially at issue here. For it is in those college years, where so many transgender students finally begin to understand who they are and need to be, that I think this likely arises the most.
As I said, I loved this piece; it rings authentic and compassionate. I simply wanted to offer up a different school of thought in the use of submission of pronouns. There is no perfect answer.
48
I like your response. I name such an idea near the end of my essay, "Sorry, but I won't refer to you as they." After reading your comment, I realize that I should have made it a stronger point.
https://andrewsaldino.wordpress.com/2017/12/28/essays/
And I love your comment.
Why wouldn't all people being referred to individually by a single, (i.e., non-gendered) pronoun be a perfect answer?
If there's one thing the LGBTQ rights movement has demonstrated to me, it's that outside my own romantic life, I have no legitimate interest in the gender or sexuality of anyone else, and no one has a legitimate interest in my gender or sexuality.
I know a high school teacher who was born male, has identified as male his entire life, and is heterosexual. Yet, because he sees absolutely zero significance to his gender in his professional capacity, he informed his students and colleagues that he will henceforth be known as Mx. (rather than Mr.) and would like others to be refer to him as the non-gendered "they." High school students, uniformly, have shrugged their shoulders and acceded to his request even though there are zero physical social cues to suggest gender non-conformity.
I hate how it sounds, but I must admit that the admission of the personal pronoun ze is reminiscent of the admission of zero as a number, one of the most influential and beneficial revolutions in the history of mathematics.
2
Are you saying that ze is equivalent to zero? Or, mathematically, ze = zero? Or, rhetorically, ze is a zero?
In 2016, the Times reported that by a new estimate the percentage of the population identifying as trans was 0.6%.
When the remaining 99% sees liberals focusing their attention on issues like this that generally don't affect them -- and that frankly are a world away from real acts of discrimination or injustice -- we should not be surprised that Hilary lost.
38
The only peer-reviewed scientific studies showed the incidence of transsexualism to be much less, 1 in 30,000 males and 1 in 150,000 females.
If the rate of transsexualism is rising, we should look to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment, chemicals which are now giving us hermaphroditic fish, female lions for the fist time in history developing manes, and the disruption of reproductive cycles in wildlife. These same endocrine-disrupting chemicals have given us a generation of confused millennials who think sex is determined by what they think instead of by chromosomes, who deny that Nature created humans as a dimorphic species, and who think there are 161 genders.
Industrial civilization is poisoning the world and the bodies of children resulting in confused adults.
12
My own personal dog in the fight is that I raised a child who both has serious mental illness and endocrine disorder that requires hormonal therapy and regular monitoring - diabetes, and who came to identify for a while as transgender.
It became harder and harder to get a diabetes appointment within a three-month window, even in the case of emergency. However, his endos were quite happy to offer him additional hormone therapy when he declared that he thought he was trans, without consulting his MHP's, without consulting us on what were the interactions with his diabetes.
Kids were seeing the endo's for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, clogging up the system and making it harder for my kid to access literal (not figurative) life-saving treatment. Trans kids don't need endocrinology, they need support through the wringer of puberty experienced within patriarchal capitalism.
I now use the pronoun 'he' because after years of compromising and using 'they' (as I could not see a she) and allowing him to dress and groom as he wished (as long as it was modest and clean) while at the same time teaching him about the biological and social realities of femaleness, he came to understand that he could be whomever he wanted and but did not have to reject his wonderfully made, male body, and he came to understand the strictures of patriarchal gender roles that made him initially desire to do so.
He declared his new pronoun after several years and feels a weight lifted.
1
++ sigh ++ My students are lucky if I remember their names. And privacy policies forbid I should inquire into their personal lives. Those who are comfortable working with me may choose to disclose particulars. Those who don't just have to suffer with traditional grammar - like the author, I am (still) struggling with "they."
8
I write as a teacher of English writing, and as a female instructor who made no fuss when a Korean of hers consistently addressed her as "Sir." I was also evidently the first in my university department to encounter the question of honorifics for students who wanted neither "Mr." nor "Ms." (The student and I settled for "Mx.," a front-runner online at the time.) Yes, I use my students' last names. They pretty much like it. I asked about pronouns when the same student asked me later for a letter of recommendation: "Oh, 'he' is fine." He dind't elaborate, and I didn't ask. Anyway: I am perfectly flexible in person. But I will NOT use the "singluar they." Too many of my students pepper their papers with "they" and "you" because they're not thinking about what they're saying at all; not only are their sentences deeply confusing, but also an INTENTIONAL "singular they" would be impossible to recognize. Don't want to make a singular pronoun choice? PLURALIZE THE ANTECEDENT. Or restructure the sentence. Use personal pronouns to refer to students only in personal situations. Everywhere else, WORDS MEAN. (Imagine a mathematician complacently accepting "two minus one equal two."
10
'Too many of my students pepper their papers with "they" and "you" because they're not thinking about what they're saying at all'
I guess Ms Austen really used the pepper-pot:
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html
I liked this, with all the ugliness and distressing things going on, It’s good to read about the desire to show respect and kindness to others. Also admirable to remember each individuals preference.
3
When used properly the English language can be very precise. Why would anyone want to reduce that precision? Is it really beneficial for a society when confusion in communication reigns?
12
Kudos to Ms. Boylan for her consideration and good judgment. But it should be a matter of personal choice and courtesy, rather than a legislated or criminalized speech code. One person's sensibilities should not trump (no pun intended) under penalty of law another's grammatical preference.
3
3 brief notes;
1) With respect, I do not believe Prof Boylan when they write "I'll call my students 'they' or 'ze' or 'e'". Prof Boylan is sincere, but I predict they will "call" their students by the gender neutral pronoun "you". The neologized pronouns are all 3rd person singular, and we never use such pronouns when addressing each other. This simple truth is often forgotten by both sides in this debate about pronouns.
2) I would have more sympathy for those who advocate the use of gender neutral pronouns if they did not have recourse to legal coercion. Yes, language "evolves" (Professor Boylan's word), but it evolves incrementally, from below. The pronoun changes are being imposed abruptly, from above, by force of law. This sets a terrible precedent that might come back to haunt the Left. Does anyone remember George Orwell?
3) Compelled speech is enforced by laws that speak of the "right to gender expression." "Right to expression" should (logically should) refer to speakers' rights, but these new laws are actually abput auditors' rights--the right to force their vocabulary into other people's mouths. Such legislation cuts both ways. A conservative would have every right (legal right) to object to being designated "cisgender," the term which Prof Boylan wields so aggressively.
73
"The pronoun changes are being imposed abruptly, from above, by force of law."
Really?
Where is this happening? Has it actually happened to you? Or are you just making it up like all those people in Alabama who thing they are in imminent danger of finding themselves living under Sharia.
A Barnard professor announces that she respects her students choice of pronouns and New York Times readers respond as if they were under foreign military occupation. Methinks perhaps some people have some unresolved anxieties around their own experiences of gender expectations and are a little over eager to stuff all of this back into a box.
There is nothing "aggressive" about describing someone as "cisgendered." The term is descriptively precise. Sometimes you discover you are in a category you didn't know existed. I didn't know I was "cis" until someone explained to me why I was. Initially I resented it as an unnecessary neologism. But I came around, because in fact it is a real category, and in fact I belong to it, and because saying "you can call yourself trans, but I'm just regular" made me sound like a jerk.
3
I have no problem calling a person, regardless of that person’s biological gender, by she, he, or they. But I would feel ridiculous using a made-up pronoun.
However, there are people who have no problem asking me to feel deeply uncomfortable in service of their need to feel seen or validated.
And why would a person want to be called “ze,” for example? Is it because they don’t identify with a gender? If so, no problem, the neutral “they” would recognize these feelings.
But if “they” isn’t enough, and someone insists on dictating the pronouns others use, even if these pronouns make others feel ridiculous, then this isn’t about mutual respect, it’s about control.
Also, these artificial pronouns won’t follow the path of “Ms.” We are used to changing a person’s honorific—it happens when people become doctors and it used to happen when a woman got married. We see titles as part of a person’s unique name. That’s far different than changing foundational unit of speech like a pronoun.
15
I did this at Berkeley when I taught anthropology (archaeology) there 1990-2011. My archaeology and geology students then were not as interested in pseudonyms, but some where, and some psych and sociology students did. Seemed fine to me, but then I named my daughter Eroica after Beethoven's 3rd symphony, and she turned out to be heroic in her own right. A name does have power.
1
I believe that "they" is the neutral pronoun the language has already chosen. My undergrads use it so often to replace singular "he or she", "his or hers" that I have given up asking them to adhere to the clunky replacement of the old default "he/ his" which ignored the existence of women. " Ask somebody to loan you their textbook" is more efficient than " Ask somebody to loan you his or her textbook" although "somebody" is singular.
Linguists will tell you that normative grammar can try to enforce rules, but language will evolve on its own as people decide collectively what works. It seems unlikely that artificial pronouns like "xe" will be used widely, but "they" or "y'all" are already in wide use. It's the rising generation who will decide all this, as always.
6
Shakespeare used the singular "they" as did the inestimable Jane Austen.
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html
Seems to me this country has many problems far more urgent and serious than constructing a complicated and counter-intuitive new language! I've lost count of the number of combinations and permutations of what used to be "he" and "she", and it's hard enough to learn new names, let along which personal pronouns apply to a given individual.
I would suggest a simpler and more radical approach to human interactions: treat everyone with respect and dignity.
14
I have taught for many years, and I always try to be as inclusive as I can. In practice, the relatively new ritual of asking students about their pronouns is more about signaling the teacher's position on issues of gender, than about English grammar or inclusion. I have never, ever had to use a third-person pronoun while teaching: in case that I need to refer to a student in the third person (as in "as so-and-so just said...") I always try to use the student's preferred name. If the class is too large and I can't remember it, I just say "your classmate" or "your colleague." I try to signal my compassion and support to gender non-coforming students in other ways (class content and discussion, for instance) - forcing them to blurt out a truth encapsulated in a pronoun on the first day of classes might not be something that everyone is prepared to do.
16
As i understand it, Mx. (or Prof. if we are using honorifics) Boylan's quandary only occurs with second person pronouns. First person pronouns, I; we; my; and mine, do not denote any orientation. Neither does the second person pronouns you and yours. The professor's issue is with third person pronouns.
Standard English has a simple solution. There are neutral pronouns, it; they; its and their, which meet the challenge. There is no need for convoluted words which the majority will not know how to apply.
I don't know at what grade level English grammar ceases to be taught today, if it is still formally taught at all. I am a product of the 50s and 60s. My formal study of grammar ceased when I left junior high school. The first third of my first semester freshman English course (ironically at Columbia) touched on grammar. The rest was reading and composition. It is difficult to unlearn the rules you were taught 50 years ago.
4
Thank you for this, Ms/Mz. Boylan. As an old white guy who was brought up during an era when little league coaches called us ladies if we didn't perform like "men," I have always understood my maleness to be a privilege. So ingrained was my prejudice that when a daughter was considering Stanford U., I blurted out that maybe she could marry the next tech billionaire, it having not crossed my mind until after it came out that she could be the next tech billionaire. Thankfully, she's actually going to do something useful—she went to Barnard.
Then, a few years later, after a literally suicidal first year in college, my son came to his mother and me and let us know what the problem was: gender dysphoria.
My son is in the process of transitioning to my daughter, and it's a difficult process for me, but it is a far more difficult process for the kid. I say, "the kid" because, after 19 years of calling the kid him and he, I am having a hard time with the pronoun thing because it really pushes at my prejudices. At core, the kid is the same as they've always been: vigorously smart, naive, infuriating, thoughtful. All the things that I've ever adored about them are still there.
I don't get it, in the same way I don't get a lot of things, like those who want everything to be binary. But what is really important to me is first to love my kid. I'd rather have a live trans daughter than a dead son. And that, frankly, was the only thing binary in all of this.
355
Should also have noted that I am an editor and writer and that precision in language is as important to me as breakfast.
3
Thank you for writing this. It was so moving.
Thanks for sharing. I am in tears. It's hard enough remembering to use the new pronouns with my daughter's new partner, let alone if it was to remember how to use new pronouns with your own child, whose initial pronoun is deep deep in your head.
1
As far as I'm concerned, the Lord, if He exists, helps those who understand "they" and "data" are plural, and must and shall be plural forever — and who steadfastly respect traditional English by not being browbeaten into submission, and error, by the pronoun trolls that infest today's college campuses.
23
I don't agree with the made up pronouns, but there really is a singular "they" in the English language. Usually used when you are talking about someone, but are unsure of their gender. Even if it's just one person. Not unsure as in you don't know what gender they pretend they are today, but as in you don't know if it was a guy or girl because you didn't see them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
Are you, perhaps, a Quaker who still uses "thee" and "thou"? The LORD did her best to try to keep the English-speaking people from using the plural "you" for individual people, but it did not work. People think nothing of it any more, and that's how it will be with "they" in a few years. I still have trouble referring to someone I know as "they", because I was trained to say "one", or "he" even for a person whose gender I did not know. It is very common now (even for me) to say, "suppose a person comes into a store, and they ask for ...." Many East Asian and Southeast Asian languages do not even have a gendered third person singular pronoun. English does not have a non-gendered one (except for "it", which we do not want to use for people). It would be helpful to have one.
So you have never asked someone, referring to another person, "What did they say to you?"
2
This is a pathetic justification for pandering to students who now pay upwards of 60k per year to go to Barnard and get pretty much whatever they want. It’s a good thing Professor Boylan has agreed to use zir, se and whatever else students demand because really in today’s left wing atmosphere she does not have a choice.
36
Ms. Boylan writes SO articularly (if this isn't a word, it should be), I’m sure I would enjoy her column on just going to the grocery store should she write one.
However, I do wish people were secure enough in their identities, gender, sex, or otherwise, that they wouldn’t care what other people called them, whether by accident or with hostile intent. (Says this 64 year old MtF.)
12
There is no need to coin "articularly" when "articulately" is available to anyone with a modicum of articulacy.
1
First I'll start with a bit of etiquette for you. Since Sonny Bono is dead a widow would never be called Mrs. Sony Bono. She would be Mrs. Cher Bono, indicating that she's a widow. You used a terrible example.
This is 3 columns about a non-issue for 99% of the population. I agree with others, if I refer to you as he or she and that's just too offensive for your delicate sensitivities, just politely let me know your preference. As a physician. I'm often called Mr. I don't get all bent out of shape. If it's not within a medical setting, I just let it go. Does it really matter if my Uber driver knows what my correct title is? The same way these delicate flowers need to just let it go sometimes and be polite when someone gets it wrong. This idea that what someone else calls you hits you deeply is absurd. Try knowing yourself and then remember that manners are the glue that hold society together.
97
Additionally, if one is going to criticize an English Prof's writing, one might want to check their own grammar and punctuation.
1
If you only care about people like yourself, most issues are "non-issues" for 99% of the population. The Holocaust, for example, was a "non-issue" in this ugly sense for 99% of humanity. But if you care about other people and don't want them to suffer unnecessary assaults on their dignity, you might try looking at the world from their perspective before calling them "delicate flowers" or other dismissive names. Trans people are much more likely to be murdered than members of almost any other group, and language practices that demean them or make them invisible make it harder to do anything about this or the many other quite real bad things that happen to them. Concern for the treatment of other people should not depend on the size of the groups those people belong to.
2
'Oh, wait, that’s easy. Call them “Cher,” “Your Holiness” and “Mr. President.”
Because those are the names by which they are known'.
Your Holiness, and Mr. President might look like names to many people, but in their heart they want to be called titles.
23
The article seems silly. But I like ze since it would cut down on “he or she” or the ungainly s/he. English does evolve like it or not.
2
Biological sex exists. I am a woman and have always been treated as such, specifically as second class, because of my biology. The earlier feminists and those feminists today called radical (meaning "the root") do not believe gender is biologically determined. Nobody has a ladybrain. Gender is a social construct that has been used to demean and oppress women for centuries. Furthermore, I am not a "ciswoman." I am a woman - full stop. Instead of creating more gender roles and giving them ridiculous names wouldn't it be better to eradicate the false notions of gender altogether? Look, if it makes someone feel special to be called some strange pronoun - fine - I'll do it out of courtesy, but I reject the dogma behind it and for Pete's sake don't call me 'cis.' I know I'm a woman not because of some internal feeling or sense but because my body is female. I am an adult human female with XX chromosones and no amount of identifying, hormones or surgery will change that. Nor will "identifying" as something other than a woman protect her the the horrors the world has subjected her to, such as rape, FGM, seconds class status and myriad other forms of abuse and subjugation. We need women's spaces and women's programs for a real reason. These things should not be available to biological men who have some kind of inner sense they are women. Get real.
71
"More simply, though, I’ll call my students they, or “xir,” or “e” (the pronoun coined by the mathematician Michael Spivak) simply because calling people by the names they prefer is a matter of respect."
No, you won't. You'll call your students "you". These made-up pronouns are third-person pronouns. And third-person pronouns are used for someone spoken about, not someone spoken to. The demand that people use made-up pronouns is an attempt to decide what language others can use about you.
And that's just not on. People have no right to demand that others use the words they want. If they did, I'm sure Donald Trump wouldn't be satisfied with others' merely calling him "Mr. President" (which, by the way, is a title, not a name. As is "Your Holiness".) And I'm sure people who aren't Trump wouldn't be satisfied calling Trump by the names they use for him when he's not around.
"(Even calling them “preferred” pronouns does a disservice, because people aren’t choosing their identities out of fussiness or caprice; they are doing so, usually, as part of a hard-fought search for truth.)"
If a millennial snowflake isn't called "xir" and isn't around to hear it, does it cause offense? A question for the philosophers.
51
Hall Health Center, the clinic on the University of Washington main campus, has buttons available for people to wear that say (in my case) "pronouns: she/her." There are a variety of pronoun combinations (including ze and hir as examples) and people are more than welcome to pick out a button (to keep) that has the pronouns to be used when they are addressed.
This seems to reduce confusion (no guessing needed) and solves a problem: what do you want to be called? The buttons can be used anywhere too.
2
You must now call my left ear 'Thomas'.
If you don't, it means you don't respect me.
94
Thank you Paul for your hilarious post.
Your empathy is monumental!
Not.
Might be easier to call people by their names.
23
Oh, brother!
(Oh, dear, am I allowed to say that? Or is that sexist? Should I change it to "oh, sister"? But then, oh, my, that's not fair either. I'm leaving out god knows how many people. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!)
65
This is all very well-meaning, but something so complicated is unlikely to catch on quickly. I propose a much simpler solution that meets everyone's needs:
Call people by their first names, and then use "they/their" as the pronoun to refer to them. This solves all the issues, neatly and uncontroversially.
Most of these problems derive from the totally arbitrary notion that it's somehow more "respectful" to call someone "Mr. Obama" than "Barack", or "Ms. Clinton" than "Hillary". But why? It's utter nonsense. Calling a person by their given (or chosen) name is surely more respectful. In fact, the use of surnames is often a means of false respect - professors calling students "Mr X" or judges calling criminals "Ms. Y" does not really imply respect, it's just habit.
I worked in a large multinational where this could potentially have been a major point of conflict and confusion. Instead, they made a very clear policy: everyone calls everyone else by their name. When you define your email, you choose the name you want to be called (e.g. Barack or Barry or Bar) and people see that in your mail and they know what to call you.
Exceptions were allowed of course, and e.g. Japanese people would often be referred to as Yokimoto-san rather than by their first name, but most people found this a very good solution that simultaneously minimised needless barriers.
3
Y'all is a useful term -- though perhaps not everyone's preferred term -- in this context. It's not gendered and can be used to address a group or an individual. "Y'all's dog ate your homework?" "Y'all need to study for tomorrow's test." "Y'all come back to your desks now, the shooters been killed and your final is tomorrow."
18
I prefer 'youse'.
I like you guys or yous guys more =P
@Terence in Oakland
Sorry to burst your theory but technically, that is to say grammatically, speaking “y’all”—like “data”—is plural.
How I do love that pun!
Seriously, the word y’all is a contraction of “you all” which everyone used to seem to know. Nowadays the word y’all, like the pronoun they, is being co-opted for singular usage in regular conversations. Such is the evolution of the English language.
No problem with ze or hir, but they already has a meaning. It's pure selfishness to take that away from everyone who uses the language when those other perfectly good alternatives are available.
4
The article starts off with a badly thought out example. President and Pope are official titles of positions, used to identity the position, not the individual. It has nothing to do with individual preference. One still uses the names to identify the individual.
As for Cher, it confuses two issues, the old etiquette of women being known by their husbands names, and celebrities' stage names. That has nothing to do with "respect" for individual choices of names. Lots of times celebrities get "named" by the public, politicians are given nicknames they may or may not like, etc.
Second, what name one uses when addressing a person is one thing, what one uses when referring to them when they are not present is another entirely.
That said, I have no problem with the use of they as a neutral singular pronoun to refer to someone without specifying their gender. It was once used that way until English was codified to make the masculine the unmarked and female the marked.
I do however have an issue with being constantly asked which pronoun I prefer. It has the negative effect of making gender front and center of everyone's identity, whether it is or not. I am female but don't consider that the most relevant aspect of my identity, and resent being constantly reminded of it as if it were, whether through sexist remarks, or this pronoun business. What about respect for MY feelings about that?
34
Allowing individuals to create custom pronouns for themselves is akin to giving each of them a second name. Jimmy wants to be called "ze", Susie wants "zu," Tommy (formerly Tammy) wants to be "zah". What pronoun do we use with Billy/ie, remind me again? One's mind could split thinking about the possibilities.
People don't have an automatic right to rewrite the language for their pleasure. What if Tommy decided that what we consider his "car" was suddendly a "zatz"? Does he have the right to demand we all say things like "How's your zatz running these days?" What if Susie decided that her identity was Athena, and demanded we worship her?
The most recent Reform Jewish prayerbook considers God to be gender-neutral, so it has been careful to eliminate references to "Lord," "King," etc., and to replace all "he's," "him's" and "his's" with recast sentences which eliminate the need for a pronoun at all. Sometimes this is achieved by repeating the word "God" or switching to second person, or using a synonym ("the Almighty"). Anyone who wants to accommodate a gender-confused or gender-denying individual can recast sentences to avoid using pronouns.
But these individuals are fighting an uphill (cliff-climbing, I'd say) battle to expect people to start using custom-made pronouns for them.
"The Lord helps those that helps xemselves." Ironic!
36
Putting aside the gender politics, the idea of re-writing language to suit what is going on in your own head is fundamentally wrong on several levels.
First, it is semiotically absurd to create a new word that no one understands. If my pronoun is "xyeme," the sentence, "Xyeme wants to drop the class." is incomprehensible to anyone but me -- and if it were addressed to me, you'd use the second person . . .
Second, it's linguistically unnecessary, even if you want to call people "by the names by which they are known." You don't need to invent special pronouns for that. There is already a perfectly good linguistic tool to hand. It's called a "name." If someone doesn't want to be referred to by the normal third-person pronouns, then don't. Just use their names instead. e.g. "Mark called today. Mark wants to drop the class. Mark says Mark has a schedule conflict." A bit repetitious, maybe, but a lot better than essentially creating special names for people that are only used in the third person.
Finally and most philosophically, not everything in life is a vehicle for self-expression. Some things are just functional. The explosion in social media has created the bizarre expectation that everyone must fully express themselves as unique individuals 24/7. But a math class, for example, is a place to learn math, and it is neither insulting nor disrespectful if we decline to turn it into a forum for personal biography.
402
Maybe try thinking of it this way. Assuming for the moment that you are male, wouldn't you find it uncomfortable if other people referred to you as "she"? This is about common courtesy. If someone requests that you refer to them a certain way--and it's really not entirely unreasonable--then you can either resort to your alternative of only using the person's first name in lieu of any personal pronouns, or you can try to remember the person's preference and try to respect it. This may seem like a trivial matter to a cisgender person, but that's centering your own experience and identity without really listening to others' different experiences and identities. And claiming that "re-writing language to suit what is going on in your head is fundamentally wrong on several levels" is a little over the top, isn't it? I think a more accurate representation might be that you disprefer it, rather than it being objectively wrong.
1
Hi Anon99b. I agree and disagree. Not every occasion is a vehicle for self expression. But we already adjust for that: One style if in personal conversation, a different one if being chased by bears (with math class somewhere in between :). Sometimes linguistically unnecessary constructions are beautiful and useful (as Churchill knew). And sometimes private, obscure, or new lingo serves to express nuance difficult to express otherwise (like in mathematics). If what you say communicates well (both semantically and socially) with your listener, that's all that matters. The new constructions Ms. Boylan presents in the article are merely more tools for those jobs. In the social situation of a math class, I suspect most students would not take offense at more standard pronouns (especially as a first approximation). Any subsequent adjustment just falls under the umbrella of "How do I teach students who, as people, are each a little different?"
1
I once referred to a young transgender person I know like this...
"Well this lovely person feels otherwise and out of respect to very well articulated ideas, this is what we are going to...."
I avoided the pronouns. I just felt unequipped. Embarrassed, not even sure how to pronounce words I have never heard spoken outloud.
Sigh.
1
Why not just use their names? And individuals referring to themselves as "they?" Wouldn't it be "I" or "me?"
5
No. We (as in the royal) prefer they / them.
Let's take this to the logical limit: everyone should invent their own language and be morally outraged when others don't speak it.
121
I'm reminded of Brian Regan's "Stupid in School" piece when imagining how we'll sound if this trend continues. Or then again, perhaps the grammarians of the future will come up with 1,001 genders a la Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's "Time Traveler's Handbook of 1,001 Tense Formations." Not to belittle these people's identity issues but the logical conclusion of this is pretty funny. Sure, sure, Chaucer's English is barely recognizable as such, but please! don't just marvel at how immersed in English evolution your classroom is. It's incumbent upon you to also TEACH your students there are three singular pronouns in English; anything else someone wants you to call them is a noun. Out of respect, still call them what they want....just make sure they're aware it ain't a pronoun if it ain't "he," "she," or "it," 'sall I'm sayin'.
8
while what you say is correct, there is another singular pronoun. They. It was never intended to be used to refer to trans, it's meant for when you don't know what the gender of the person is. As is whoever parked in the yellow, THEY better move their car. Singular they is a thing.
2
"There I’ll be, in the seminar room, kicking off spring term at Barnard by asking my students for their names, hometowns and personal pronouns."
Every instructor has his or her preferred teaching methods. I prefer to "kick off" my classes by handing out a syllabus and bibliography (although it is available on-line and the students should have seen it, I, and apparently they too, are happy with the old-fashioned paper way as back-up), briefly describing course requirements, which they also can read on-line, and the only reason I will call out names is to make sure that my computer generated list matches those who are sitting in the room. Sometimes there are glitches. Then I, we, get to work.
The personal issues and lives of my students are not my concern and thankfully as I do not teach in English I do not have pronoun issues. I follow the rules of grammar as dictated by norm and academy as do the students and my colleagues. No drama. If I relate to a student by name in a seminar, I will usually use full name. No drama there either.
What a boring op-ed that would make: teacher, lecture, students.
The drama should not and is not in the form; I would hope that it is in the class.
48
Grammar is an institution; language is evolution. Discourse is decentralized and deepens our relationship to one another. Definitions restrict and ultimately suffocate our experience. Binary gender descriptions is more a cultural anachronism. Let students embrace the meanings they believe in. History will thank you.
2
An elegant solution to the awkwardness of singular "they" might have been usage similar to the royal "we," plural form with singular import. But then, perhaps the loftiness and potential minefield of seeming supercilious were appropriate brakes on that notion - gender circumstances are fraught with enough sensitivity as it is...
Strange that someone would refer to their own self as "they." Wouldn't a person speak of their own self in the first person, rather than in the third person? Of course, as the last sentence illustrates, matters become more complicated when referring to another person in the third person, which introduces demands in English on gender identification. Other than using a proper noun, that is, one's own name, people would not ordinarily use the third person to refer to one's own self. I can refer to myself using the gender-free first person pronoun in English. Why would I refer to myself as "they"? Most misleading, wouldn't it be?
2
People don’t refer to themselves as “they.” What she’s saying is that some of her students ask that OTHERS use gender-neutral pronouns (“they”, “ze,” whatever) when referring to them. So Susie would simply say “I think...” in class discussion but a response might be: “Susie makes a good point, but they should also consider...”
1
As a scientific journal editor, I have become comfortable with the use of "they" for the singular, for the reasons given in this essay. But why do people insist on using "that" when they should say "who"? Is there any similar rationale for this? Not that I know of. Both are one syllable, and "that" is even one letter longer.
4
Because people are objects, too?
Yes, just what the classroom needs, more focus on the ultra special sensitive unique uniqueness of ME... or is it ZE. Please advise.
And while we're at it, who's to say Joan of Arc was female, or Michelangelo male?
The new religion, worthy of Lewis Carroll or Mark Twain.
27
In the 19th Century, sociologists coined the term "anomie" - normlessness. Without commonly agreed upon norms, customs, conventions there is no society. I embrace respect, AND we still need a society. We need swimlanes, guidelines and even rules. A person in a leadership position needs to be very careful when sending the message that you can do anything you want. You cannot in a civil society. It's as simple as that.
14
Just a spontaneous idea with no intention of any disrespect: I recognize that the pronouns "he" or "she" are entirely insufficient to cover everyone's gender identity but would it be a solution to - instead of filling the gap between "he" and "she" with new pronouns such as "ze", "hir" or "xem" - to simply extend the meaning of "he" and "she"?
Maybe "he" can become a collective term not just for "cis" males but for a whole range of people that fall along the spectrum - and the same for "she". Otherwise one could simply refer to everyone as "they" and therefore taking gender entirely out of pronouns for everyone?
1
I have to wonder if this is not an example of the excessive individualism of our culture. Customized pronouns, to make one FEEL recognized and esteemed? Am I not, at some point, the one responsible for how I feel? Cmon, man, woman Ze, Cis or whatever!
21
There is perhaps a middle ground between pronouns being a completely subjective choice of the person for whose name it stands, and the rigidity of the binary third person singular in The English of the twentieth century. The enormous multiplicity of choices defeats the very distinction between ‘pronouns’ and proper nouns. I am good with the singular ‘they’, much prefer ’ze, zer, zim’, not so much ‘xe, etc.’ or ‘e,etc.’. But not a dozen or more personalized choices of third person singulars. I try to avoid constructions where I would have to use the third person singular pronouns altogether, not always successfully.
2
I'm all in favor of calling people whatever they like, but if we're going to be making up new words, is it too much to ask that they be pronounceable and audibly distinct? The subtle difference in sound between she, xe, and zhe seems particularly problematic.
While we are fixing the language, I'd like to request a non-gendered singular third person human pronoun? And not to be greedy, but maybe a second person plural as well?
Because y'all know how hard it is to write something s/he can understand with today's pronouns!
2
It's interesting that interest in inventing and using new pronouns seems to be most heavily concentrated among college freshmen (freshxyn?), those with the least emotional maturity and knowledge of history, philosophy, science, etc. How about we go to introductory German class and demand that various parts of the language be changed?
15
"They" used in the singular is not an invented construction in English. We already use it all the time. "Everyone has their own preferences" is something that wouldn't strike even the most un-woke among us as odd. Yes, yes, I know, it's not grammatically correct. But English grammar is evolving, like it always has.
That said, pronouns like "ze," "xim" and the like are totally artificial, and unlikely to be adopted.
9
I'm a language freak, but I've come around almost gratefully to the singular "they", "them", and "their". Sentences like "Everybody brought his lunch" bothered me even while I ached to maintain agreement of number.
Still, I'd be surprised to hear anyone "refer to himself or herself as 'they'". Are people actually avoiding "I" now? If so, what's the problem with it? Or do you mean individuals are asking to be referred to as "they" by others?
I'm not being deliberately obtuse. The American language has already changed so much before my eyes, or under my feet or whatever, that nothing seems impossible. For example, I remember when any group of women or girls would have been nonplussed to hear a waiter address them as "you guys".
3
Pronouns have never really been about what's in your underpants. And gender has only been harshly binary in modernist, or highly institutionalized settings. And yes, call people as they want to be called. Makes sense. And that will include their subtle uses of gendered and non-gendered terms, as they will want to be known specifically for who they are, not some generic gendered or non-gendered lump of flesh. So the issue matters, but less so than the respect for all the specifics of the persons (cultural self-creations and others' projections, not isolated individuals) that we are dealing with. It's a fascinating world.
2
Our young people are always way ahead of us when it comes to culture change. They're more open minded and less set in their ways. Be respectful when someone tells you how they want to be addressed. Be apologetic when you forget. It doesn't matter if you agree with their decision, your job is to be respectful.
93
Respectfully: it's also the job of professors to teach.
6
Respect means anything only if it is earned.
As it is, I will always respect the English language far more than any of my, otherwise much-beloved, students.
1
It's true that young people are always ahead of us (?) when it comes to cultural change. But of course cultural change may be positive or negative, make the world better or worse. It's also true that young people often think Joan of Arc is Noah's wife and embarrass us in international testing exams. That is, new is not necessarily better, it is just different. And if you look to young, uneducated, inexperienced people to guide you, good luck!
1
I promised myself when I was younger that
when I grew older I would never say "those
darn young people"or words to that effect.
but reading this column puts me right on the
edge of breaking my word.he is he ,she his she and that applies whatever gender with which you identify.
all these invented pronouns are simply affectations and expressions of one's own
self importance.our language should be
as straightforward as possible.one's dignity
is manifested in how one comports oneself,
not in a series of strange pronouns.
12
While you're respecting your student's preferences, please warn them they will be graduating into a world that will have little time for such indulgences. Emphatically.
48
Genderqueer individual here. First, let's be clear: these conversations aren't about one pronoun in the English language, they are about what pronouns are and what they do. That's a big deal, and we should all get to take part in that conversation. When we imply that grammar sticklers are "prejudiced" it is bullying. It's not any more OK to bully cis people and queer grammar sticklers than anyone else. We can and should have reasoned, public conversations about which pronouns work best in most situations, and we should come to agreement about some functional, standard gender-neutral pronouns, rather than demanding that non-queer individuals memorize whatever so-and-so's teenager wants this week. We should also stop calling it microaggression when someone forgets a custom pronoun. There are excellent, count-specific alternatives to "they." "Person" was used by Margie Piercy in Woman on the Edge of Time in 1976. It's also not correct that "they" works just find as a singular pronoun in most situations. Finally, those of us who have multiple friends that use "they" have all run into cases where we have to specify by using phrases like "they plural" or "they singular" when discussing logistics. For example, it is actually necessary to know how many people "they" is when I'm going to pick them up from the airport. If we fully adopt "they/them/theirs" for single persons we will have to modify the pronoun to account for this. It's already begun to happen in queer speech.
16
The precedents you are using for your arguments generally applied to materially large segments of the population. For example Ms. This made making the investment into using the new terms more or less reasonable.
Transgenders make up less than 0.39% of the US population. Apologies if I don’t fall over myself completely changing my vocabulary. So while “it” is a touch on the demeaning side, I’ll use “that person” or “this person”, even “y’all”. These new somewhat bizarre alternatives are simply forms of glamor. Sorry. Won’t do that.
11
If the new rule is that each of us gets to dictate how others use the language in all respects when addressing us, at least when using the third person, I hereby put the world on notice that I reject the use of pronouns altogether. Call me by my name! Anything else will cause grievous offense. Thee has been warned.
5
"Mrs. Sonny Bono"
I first realized that I was a feminist when I was a child starting to read anything I could put my little hands on. I have vivid memories of reading a local weekly with its photos of local fundraisers. All of the women were identified by their husbands first names, with their name in parentheses - Mrs. Sonny (Cher) Bono. It was as if their whole identify prior to marriage - their first and last name - were erased once they said "I do".
I vowed never to let myself be defined by marriage. That is not to say that I do not believe in marriage - I just see it as a joining of equals rather than an absorption of one person into the other. I did not change my name. I also refused an engagement ring, seeing that diamond as indicative of the absorption path.
4
Since none of you here know me (presumably), and since my logonym is not gender specific, then I prefer that you use the traditional English pronouns for that situation when you refer to me, namely "he" and "him". After all "he" does not necessarily mean a male, but may also refer to a person of unknown or unspecified gender.
I believe that usage has been current at least as long as the grammatically clumsy singular "they," and it certainly appeals to me more than those silly contrived alternatives . Why don't we stick with what we've got, instead of trying to solve a nonexistent problem?
141
Second-wave feminists initiated the move away from "he" because referring to people of unknown gender as "he" infers that all persons of import are male.
5
If that's what you prefer, then that's fine. It is polite for others to use the pronouns that appeal to you, and no one wants to take that away from you. But clearly there are others who don't feel as you do, and the polite thing to do in their case is also to use the pronouns that they prefer. Honestly, it's not that hard.
2
If so many people think it's a problem, then it is a problem. To use 'he' as the default mirrors a society where men are the default in everything. I first came across the default 'she' in a book by Rorty, and I've used it since.
3
Yes, addressing people using the terms they prefer is a matter of respect. No reason to disagree with that. But asking students, at the beginning of a class, to state the pronouns by which they would like to be addressed places each and every student on the spot in a most uncomfortable way. In effect, Prof. Boylan is asking students to publicly reveal a personal gender identity that may be in flux and that may change during the semester. Not all students have settled these issues for themselves, and I wonder why an instructor has the right to demand a public (and frankly political) statement from each student. As a teacher myself, I wonder why it is necessary to even use the gender-specific third person in class. In my own conversations with students, the first and second persons, which are not gender-specific, work just fine. Why force this self-defining issue on every student when one knows it will make many of them uncomfortable in ways that have nothing to do with the academic goals of a course?
48
It makes more sense to me to have everybody use "they" as the singular pronoun for everybody. We do it for the second-person pronoun "you." Pronouns belong not only to those to whom they refer but also to those who use them when referring to others. It's problematic to ask about this particular aspect of everybody's identity in group introductions, much as it is to be asked to disclose this information. Asking everybody their name is one thing--keeping track of a half-dozen various pronoun preferences is something else. We are all they.
6
But are they all we?
1
I agree partially with you. I agree that one should not force everyone into the very narrow pronouns of "he" and "she", that there should be a gender-neutral pronoun available for anybody wishing to use it and it is then a matter of respect that they should also be addressed with the pronoun they chose.
However, I do see an issue with people choosing from a wide range of recently invented pronouns such as "xir", "e" and so on. Language is meant to be universally understood and used to communicate - that use vanishes if people introduce new words for their personal use (even if it is for perfectly valid reasons) and then expect others to adapt it (and take offense if people struggle with adapting it).
21
This is my issue - there is no agreement on which pronouns to use, and people imbue them with a lot of meaning. I mostly hear they, but I've heard a whole host of them, including ones that the person had made up. At that point it feels less like they don't feel like either a man or woman but that they want their uniqueness to be recognized by the world, which I don't have time for. On top of that, as others have noted, many of the pronouns are difficult to pronounce/have unusual spellings ("zh" or "xe") and/or sound similar to gendered pronouns.
1
It is worth noting that France and Germany -- two cultures that have been highly skeptical toward linguistic change -- are in general more socially progressive than the United States, which is infatuated with language policing and yet is barreling toward extreme-right governance. What does that tell us about the efficacy of social engineering through language?
9
Back in the proto-feminist 70's, we were also looking for gender neutral pronouns, and for a while, feminist writers were using "tse" for s/he and ""tir" for his/her--the latter seemed particularly approrpriate as it was close to "their".
Never really seemed to catch on, though, beyond a few academic circles.
6
“[C]alling people by the names they prefer is a matter of respect.” This is an excellent premise and should be honored across the board. Thus, why is it that some are allowed to create and demand the use of labels for other groups of which they are not a member? The creation of the wholly unnecessary term “cis” comes to mind as it was coined by those who don’t identify with the sex defined by their DNA for others who do, and the use of the term continues despite the latter group’s displeasure with being slapped with a label not of their own making. I am sick of politically correct hypocrisy.
166
Right. I am pretty open minded and not uncomfortable with gender or orientation variety. That said, I draw the line at calling myself "cis." I don't know where the word came from, but for me it's a stretch too far. Others can call themselves whatever they like (they, it, hir - whatever) and I'll respect that. Don't throw your new label on me.
158
While taking chemistry classes at University I became aware of the terms cis and trans as it relates to chemical bonding. Can I prefer to be called a man rather than a cis?
19
This is untrue. The prefix "cis" (and for that matter, "trans") were not coined by the transgender community, but have in fact been in common use in the chemical sciences for quite some time. "Cis" and "trans", which are used to describe molecular orientation, mean "same" and "opposite" respectively, and thus their application to gender is not only a direct analogue, but also quite factual: a "cis"gender person is one who identifies with the "same" sex they were assigned at birth, and a "trans"gender person is one who identifies with the "opposite" sex (later expanded to encompass anyone who does not identify with their assigned sex).
Secondly, a term to describe those who identify with their assigned sex is absolutely necessary on societal and linguistic grounds, to prevent the automatic assignation of everyone who is not-trans the label of "normal". Allowing this to happen means trans persons then acquire the association of abnormality simply by being a minority next to "normal" people – something that has, historically, been exceedingly damaging, but which is easily avoided by using the readily available previously mentioned terms.
And finally, all prior points aside, throughout history it has always been the majority group who defined the terms by which the minorities should be known. If the balance is being shifted here, I say it is high time cisgender people step aside and let their complementary minority take the wheel for once.
76
Can the love go the other way too? Can you forgive me if I don’t know or can’t remember? Can you suggest gently what you’d like if I don’t ask? Can you assume that not every attempt at communication is meant to demean? I’m exhausted keeping up with all this structure between strangers.
294
I feel for you - I received 2 severe tongue lashings last year because I wasn't conforming and immediately accepting of "they". I strongly feel everyone needs respect and acceptance but I don't agree we all need new special pronouns. Besides if equal is what people want why single yourself out and demand a special pronoun. That's not equal especially when it's forced on others. I understand that people have been oppressed and discriminated against but there is such a thing as left leaning dogmatism. Lastly if you interact with that slice of the population frequently it is much easier to start conforming to that kind of change. Most people don't so it isn't easy when you've been speaking a certain way for 50+ years.
10
Boylan's students are not strangers to her: at least, after day one, they should not be. I'll be doing icebreaker exercises today with classes--it is the first day of the spring semester--for the purpose of creating a community out of strangers.
I have not had a student request "they" or "ze" as their preferred pronoun, yet, though I have had transgender students who let me know about themselves before class began. Their pronouns are like their names: some students prefer an anglicized version of their Asian or African first name: some don't. James likes Jim,or Jimmy,or J. T. Names matter, and calling a person what she wants to be called is often the first time we get to show that we respect her.
So sure, its kind to forgive someone who calls me "Julie." But if I tell her my name is "Julia," it is respectful to try to remember that. And it is not tiresome of me to want to be called by my name.
76
Yes. Several times a week, I will say the wrong word for an everyday object, call someone by the wrong name, or have difficulty recalling someone's first or last name. I've flipped my daughter's names, called my son by my husband's name (and vice versa), and addressed people I've known for over a decade with the wrong name. Some recognition that not everyone who struggles with names is disrespectful or uncaring would be appreciated.
3
Jennifer Boylan makes me laugh while I'm thinking. I think I can absorb the singular "they" now without going crackers.
21
English already has a non-sexually specific singular pronoun; it. Why not use it instead of they? Yes, English is evolving, but they is still plural.
85
It? Really? For one thing, for those of us of a certain age, it conjures up a small hairy creature who was a cousin in a particularly peculiar family (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Not using chosen pronouns seems a bit like insisting on mispronouncing someone's name just because they didn't arrive on the Mayflower.
1
Because "it" is dehumanizing. Nay, worse than that. "It" removes sentience. I wouldn't even call a dog or cat "it" because the word implies an inanimate object. "It" is for something like a rock. Something which we doubt possesses consciousness.
1
It is generally opposed (as demeaning) by trans persons because "it" implies that the referent is not human. Trans persons want access to human rights and human recognition, which is not something we give to a chair when we refer to "it."
1
Gender is binary. Why are we debating facts with feelings? Should pi = 3.12 because it's just easier to deal with mentally?
88
There is much more to gender identity than X and Y chromosomes. Turns out gender is and has never been binary after all.
4
This is exactly wrong. We only treat gender as a binary because binaries are easier to deal with. Treating gender as a continuum, with lots of waypoints at which one may place labels, is much more difficult mentally, but it's also a much truer description of the way the world actually works.
4
My favorite mnemonic for pi:
How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics
There was a Mrs. Sonny Bono at the time of Sonny Bono's death who was NOT Cher. I know she was elected to his seat in Congress and served a term or two. I don't know if she has remarried.
41
"I’ll call my students they, or “xir,” or “e”...simply because calling people by the names they prefer is a matter of respect."
In what classroom situation do you "call" your students third-person pronouns? If someone changes their name to "xir," then "xir" is not a pronoun, it's a proper noun.
59
Excellent point. The need for third-person pronouns is limited to non-existent when you take the time to learn each student's name.
That's respect.
3
I wondered about that too.
2
You don't teach, do you? "Mohammed is going to lead the PR Memo group. Please tell him what your topic choices are." "Maria, would you let Tiffany look at your bibliography? They are still confused about how annotations work, and yours are excellent. I think you can help them."
3
Do you know why the trans community tends to use the word “folks” more often than “people?” I noticed this a while back in articles but didn’t know what the connotation of “folks” is about. Do you?
10
Perhaps "folks" has been borrowed from the black community many of whose members I have often to heard use the term to refer to themselves as distinct from the "majority". That another vulnerable minority group might want to borrow the obviously non-confrontational term is perfectly understandable.
Folks is a cringeworthy Bushism that should have stayed in the bowels of 9/11 history: "we're gonna get those folks who knocked down these buildings!"
Instead, Americans adopted it into the language and now it's the most enduring legacy of the Bush era. Thanks, America. Heaps.
1
My understanding and assessment are that "folks" is warmer and inclusive, whereas "people" can seem more distanced and objectifying (as in "you people" made famous by Ross Perot, among others). Context is everything of course, because as I write this I note that interestingly "peeps" as in "my peeps" is more akin to "folks" in emotional import than "people" - perhaps it's the informality of slang and colloqualisms that relaxes.
I think the origin of "folk" usage for transfolk evolved or transferred (!) from "queerfolk," which itself seems to have derived from the relatively modern cultural adaptation of "an old Welsh phrase: 'There's nowt so queer as folk'... basically taken to mean 'There is nothing as strange as people' refined further to 'it takes all sorts'." (Urban dictionary)
Going further, some transfolk/non-gendered folk object to being considered "transitional" as zey assert and affirm zey are simply being who zey already are.
This exploration can be quite a delicate dance of experiencing and respecting changes and transparency in social mores, and respecting freedom - I have found transfolk generally very sympathetic and forgiving of unintentional pronoun slips (and appropriately unforgiving of crude and violent intentional misgendering) in navigating cultural imprinting and conditioning. It's a classic social etiquette circumstance calling for cultural respect and genuine - not patronizing - tolerance, in all directions. Vive les differences!
2
I'm with you on pronouns. But the opening chord of "A Hard Day's Night" was sublime from the first time anyone heard it.
40
Right!
1
Ok, I'll try. Although between looking for my keys and trying to remember why I walked into this room, I don't have too many spare synapses firing these days.
140
Perfect!
There are two sexes in the biological world, male and female (with very limited hermaphroditic exceptions). What we need is a far broader sense of what is acceptable to be, dress, copulate, and act within the human species in general and those sexes in particular, not a slew of new pronouns to make people feel oh-so-super-special. None of us is.
226
how can you have what you suggest without respecting the person's identity?
1
New pronouns do not come into existence to make people feel special, they are created to provide space and acceptance for people that have historically been highly marginalized (and please note that many other cultures have labels or pronouns to refer to non-binary members of society). And by the way, I don't believe Ms. Boylan ever mentioned biological sex in this article. What exists on a spectrum is gender, which is different from sex but still somewhat biologically/neurologically determined (there are some cool new studies on this!) and which can cause severe social and/or physical distress when it disagrees with one's sex.
48
Well stated.
2
Certainly, it is right to to try to make people feel comfortable if there is no harm to others. It seems like the easiest approach is to refer to all students by their names, though that will lead to stilted conversations at times. I'm interested to know the author's perspective on whether the right to self-identify ever ends. She mentioned Barnard's admission practices. If an outwardly-male (e.g., muscular, facial hair) attests that she identifies as female and has no intention of wearing dresses, having gender reassignment surgery, etc., will the school openly accept her? Will the school label as bigoted a female student who doesn't want to share a dorm room with that other student? What if a female patient states that she prefers a female doctor for her OB/GYN needs and the presented doctor likewise is muscular with a beard? Is that patient bigoted if she expresses discomfort with that situation?
102
i suggest you please stop consuming Fox News and other so-called conservative sources on this subject since your concerns seem to be on the fringe, if at all real. if you really want to know the college policies I imagine that information is available.
2
I love this article because throughout my life I have thought pronouns too narrow. In the far away 1980’s, I was a ski instructor, and to help me address the lack of inclusive group pronouns, I adopted/stole “y’all” from one of my southern customers. I lifted the term because we are all. I am thrilled to see others searching to treat everyone with the respect they deserve.
21
What's wrong with the good old New York "All-a-youse"?
4
As I understand it, Samuel Johnson wrote his famous dictionary with the goal of preserving the language--in its current form. He was aware that language is a living thing and he was trying to keep it contained.
Every language changes, adapting to new information and ways of seeing the world. For those who are struggling with "cisgender" "they" (singular) and "ze," might I suggest taking a crack at Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, written in perfectly ordinary (Middle) English.
Funnily enough, I have much less difficulty with the awkwardness of changing pronouns than I have with the wide adoption of the word "normalcy." For younger people and language historians, the word was, and theoretically still is, "normality," but let a president of the United States get a hold of the language...in this case it was President Harding that coined the term, to put it nicely.
6
You lost me in paragraph seven when you referred to grammar snobs. Yes, there are grammar rules that do little to aid the understanding of spoken or written language, but without grammar rules language doesn't work. Legal questions have arisen in Washington State because legislators were sloppy in their punctuation. Tom Stoppard's play The Invention of Love slyly shows the ways homophobic English translators misused pronouns to obscure the treatment of love and sexuality in Greek and Roman literature. A scene in Margaret Edson's play Wit points out that the placement of a comma in Dunne's work is crucial to its meaning. Neither art nor communication can survive without structure.
160
Bravo! I'm not a grammar snob, I'm a grammar guardian. The English language is so widely used in part because it is so beautifully structured and has rules that generally make sense unlike, e.g., French in which the puzzling double negative is troubling example. The popular misuse of case in pronouns, especially in compound subjects ("Her and me went to the store."), still makes me cringe....and even erudite persons like Rachel Maddow stunningly get "me" and "I" wrong on occasion. As Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded in "The Wonderful One-hoss Shay", "Logic is logic. That's all I say."
12
Agreed. Remember the problems brought about by comma placement in the Second Amendment.
19
Surely that would be "Donne" not "Dunne"? I'm done!
1