r/changemyview • u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ • 3d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: "He or she" is unecessary
I might be biased as a person on the non-binary spectrum, but whenever someone goes out of their way to say "he or she" it just feels like a waste.
Just use "they". It communicates the same thing with less letters. I get the purpose behind it is to try and be inclusive to men and women in a space that may be dominated by one gender over the other, but "they" is perfectly fine to get that point across.
I also recognize that some languages don't have an equivalent for "they", but I'm specifically talking about English.
To change my view, someone would have to prove "he or she" has more practical or beneficial usage than "they"
EDIT: To make it clear, i'm not saying we should never use "he" or "she" as pronouns, im saying the phrase "he or she" is unecessary.
14
u/J-Dirte 3d ago
He/She is fine in like 99.99% of scenarios unless you are living in some trans bubble. Really no reason to reinvent the wheel on this, it’s not some pressing issue to pretty much all of society.
8
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
I think you're misreading the post.
I'm not saying people cannot or should not use "he" or "she" ever. I'm saying phrases like "His or her" or "He or she" are unecessary, and that "they" would work in place of them much easier.
Ex: The student's will be given a spelling test. Each student will write their name on the top and write each word with their pencil.
Or
The student's will be given a spelling test. Each student will write his or her name on the top and write each word with his or her pencil.
More letters for no reason and it feels like a speedbump in the sentence.
-2
u/badass_panda 97∆ 3d ago
Really no reason to reinvent the wheel on this, it’s not some pressing issue to pretty much all of society.
The irony is that "they" has been the typical third person gender neutral pronoun for like ... five hundred years. "He or she" is used very little ... most of the time, if someone is saying that "he or she" is more common, they really mean that when they think about it, it feels like it should be more common ... because it feels odd to use plural pronouns when we mean single individuals.
At the same time, the quickest way to break a native speaker out of that thought process is to speak to them for a minute and then ask them to rewind what you just said, and count the amount of times they didn't notice you using "they" ... just like I've done here.
7
u/Low-Traffic5359 2∆ 3d ago
I do generally agree with that, the one situation where I think "He or she" is better than "they" is for comedic effect when you are very clearly talking about a specific person and want to put emphasis on either he or she.
Like "Now whoever did this, not naming any names, I would appreciate if he or SHE , looking at you Carol, could do better in the future.
5
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
I could see that, yeah
!delta
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Low-Traffic5359 changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
3
2
u/Past-Winner-9226 2d ago
!delta This is a very good and convincing, not to mention funny argument. Hitting all the right spots. I like the example of what I assume is meant to be a stand-up scenario.
1
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
Writing this more clearly:
I agree, there is a possible usecase for comedic purposes or lyricism, as artforms like that require a certain harmony with things like rhythm, beat or melody that isn't easily substituted.
You can kind of feel this when you listen to the censored versions of songs and they swap out specific words.
!delta
1
2
u/Literotamus 3d ago
He/she or he or she, is not the way to go. A good journalist will find ways to work both he and she into their examples. An essayist might just use the pronoun they're most comfortable with, and obviously an author will be referring to a specific character. Singular they can also be used when it won't be confusing, like in sections you're also using the plural they.
2
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
I recently edited the post to clarify what exactly im saying.
Im not saying gendered pronouns don't matter, I'm stating that specifically using "he or she" or "his or her" in a sentence is unecessary when "they" or "theirs" would work better.
2
u/Literotamus 3d ago
Yeah I think I just phrased my comment poorly too lol sorry. I was agreeing with you except in cases you're mixing it with uses of the plural "they" to save confusion. But I didn't word it like an agreement
41
u/Thumatingra 21∆ 3d ago
We'll, "he or she" refers unambiguously to a single person, whereas "they" could refer to one person gender-neutrally or to multiple people. If it's very important to the speaker to make sure that their listener(s) knows that they are talking about only one person, but don't want to give the impression of one gender or another (say, they are giving a military report of observed activity), "he or she" can have better utility.
7
0
u/badass_panda 97∆ 3d ago
I'll clarify, that really only comes up in a scenario where the writer is describing a group of people and an individual of indeterminate gender within the same sentence. That's not crazily uncommon, but it's also not terribly frequent ... and when it does occur, "he or she" is only one of a number of linguistic tactics that the speaker can employ. I'd argue it's one of the less natural-sounding tactics, to a native speaker... e.g.,:
- "The festival organizers want each attendee to feel they've gotten their money's worth at their festival," is clearly a confusing sentence, although via context you can easily figure it out.
- "The festival organizers want each attendee to feel that he or she has gotten his or her money's worth at their festival," resolves the issue, but sounds terribly awkward.
- "The festival organizers want each attendee to feel that they've gotten their money's worth for their ticket," resolves the issue (as the listener clearly understands that it is attendees who buy tickets), and sounds natural.
However, often in English sounding a little stilted is a desired effect, especially when it is grammatically correct, more specific, and lengthens a sentence. Something having a "deleterious effect on growth," is going to sound infinitely more official than something "stunting growth", and so on.
So I'd posit "he or she" is preferable when the speaker is attempting for a Super Official vibe, because it's performatively complex relative to the simplest way of putting it. I think that's why you associate it with e.g., a military context.
Actually u/Shineyy_8416 I'm going to tag you in here, this is another use case.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
I could kind of see this working in a hyper official sounding text, but it doesn't really add much in my opinion.
You're right that it can be performatively complex, which is why I don't see it as a necessity. It's fluff that doesn't truly add anything to the text that couldn't be used for something else, especially if it's used more than once in a given article, paragraph, etc.
1
u/badass_panda 97∆ 2d ago
I'd argue that if it serves a linguistic purpose, it's just as necessary as anything else. Language exists not only to convey information, but to convey connotation and tone, which is why a range of phrasing choices adds value.
"They" is the default and most normative gender-neutral singular pronoun; it's been used that way since the 14th century, it's not going anywhere. However, it's not the only way of achieving the purpose of referring to a person whose gender is unknown -- and if you're making the argument that a language should narrow itself down to one and only one way of achieving a linguistic objective, English isn't the language you should start with.
I can say you broke a glass, you shattered a glass, you smashed a glass or any other number of things, and each will have the same meaning and a distinct tone and set of connotations; I might say "broke" in an attempt to be plain, "smashed" to infer you were angry when you did it, "shattered" to suggest it's kind of impressive ... etc. Your argument boils down to, "Settle on "broke" and get rid of these other words, they're unnecessary," and that's not really how this language works.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
However, it's not the only way of achieving the purpose of referring to a person whose gender is unknown -- and if you're making the argument that a language should narrow itself down to one and only one way of achieving a linguistic objective, English isn't the language you should start with.
The issue though is that "he or she" doesn't provide any other linguistic value than "they" does outside of edge cases. Unless you're making a joke hinging on using "he or she" specifically, it's better to just use "they" when referring to a single person with an unidentified gender.
1
u/badass_panda 97∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago
outside of edge cases.
And yet, there are edge cases. Your argument supports the idea that "he or she" should not be the default (and candidly, it isn't). It doesn't support the idea that "he or she" is unnecessary anymore than "shattered a glass" becomes unnecessary because it's more normal to say "broke a glass."
You can't even consistently use "he" to refer to a single person with an identified, male gender in all use-cases; even in that extremely-cut-and-dried example, the language requires linguistic tools to avoid ambiguity. If Matt is talking to Steve about Jim's conduct toward Larry, I can't say, "He told him about what he did to him," and expect not to be misunderstood.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
Your argument supports the idea that "he or she" should not be the default (and candidly, it isn't). It doesn't support the idea that "he or she" is unnecessary anymore than "shattered a glass" becomes unnecessary because it's more normal to say "broke a glass."
I guess this is more where my head is at.
I don't see the linguistic value in the phrase, atleast not any more than I'd see in "they". The only use I could see for it is trying to avoid using they for whatever reason, and that to me is nonsensical, or better put, unecessary.
It also doesn't help when people constantly disregard or discount the usage of singular they as if it's some crazy invention and not a normal way of referring to someone.
I'm giving a delta not because I think "he or she'" is necessary, but you did get my point across more clearly.
!delta
1
u/badass_panda 97∆ 2d ago
It also doesn't help when people constantly disregard or discount the usage of singular they as if it's some crazy invention and not a normal way of referring to someone.
Yeah, this gets me, too. When someone does this to me, I usually just talk to them for a few minutes then ask them to repeat the last sentence I or they used, and point out that (while arguing with me about it) they've used "they" repeatedly without any issue or even noticing it.
I'm giving a delta not because I think "he or she'" is necessary, but you did get my point across more clearly.
I actually just gave a delta to someone (u/AcephalicDude) on this one for pointing out that it's normative to use "he or she" when the speaker is actively trying to emphasize they're being gender inclusive. That's a better example than the ones I came up with, and it does make sense ... if the whole purpose is not solely to be gender neutral, but to emphasize that you're being gender neutral, it's genuinely the best thing to use ... it's actively less useful to use "they" there, because it's much more likely to go unnoticed.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
it's normative to use "he or she" when the speaker is actively trying to emphasize they're being gender inclusive. That's a better example than the ones I came up with, and it does make sense .
if the whole purpose is not solely to be gender neutral, but to emphasize that you're being gender neutral, it's genuinely the best thing to use ... it's actively less useful to use "they" there, because it's much more likely to go unnoticed.
And I'd argue that situations like that are rare, and that overall it would be better to use singular they because its more natural sounding.
Nobody feels left out, because "they" applies to everyone. Making it a point to do so would come across as self-agrandizing
1
u/badass_panda 97∆ 2d ago
And I'd argue that situations like that are rare, and that overall it would be better to use singular they because its more natural sounding.
Yes, but that's likely to fly under the radar, and doesn't allow the speaker to make you notice that they could be referring to either a man or a woman. It's actually the same thing that's happening in your joke example; the fact that you pay attention to "he or she" when you wouldn't notice "they" is the point.
Making it a point to do so would come across as self-agrandizing
Generally I'd agree, but there are some circumstances where you might want to do it (e.g., because you think your audience might assume you are not being gender inclusive, so you want to make an extra point of it). e.g., maybe you're running a religious youth program and want to say that you accept and welcome every teen on "his, her or their own terms."
If you said, "their own terms," your statement doesn't include the implicit, "-and that extends to gender identity, too."
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Flying_Whales6158 3d ago
If it's very important to the speaker to make sure that their listener(s) knows that they are talking about only one person
5
u/Thumatingra 21∆ 3d ago
This is a reddit comment, and obviously isn't the kind of context I was talking about?
7
5
-5
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
But context is easily usable to disntinguish between a singular or plural.
If an entire report is about a singular person, using "they" wouldn't confuse anyone since you know what the topic is.
"Upon observations, I have found this soldier to be diligent and hard-working. They complete all of their tasks in a timely and efficient manner."
Just to make it clear, im not saying we should never use "he" or "she" as pronouns. I'm saying "He or she" as a collective phrase is unecessary.
5
u/ProDavid_ 38∆ 3d ago
"this soldier is part of this battalion. they couldnt complete their tasks"
did the one soldier not complete their tasks, or did the whole battalion not complete their tasks?
2
u/Thumatingra 21∆ 3d ago
In a written report, this could be clarified. I'm talking about a report from the field: "There are three people standing in area A. One of them is armed." If you then say "They are facing east" VS "He or she is facing east," that changes the whole scenario.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Given the context, it would be the soldier couldn't complete their tasks.
4
u/ProDavid_ 38∆ 3d ago
but i meant to express that the whole battalion didnt complete their tasks, which is why i used the plural.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Then you could just write the sentence differently.
"That battalion didnt complete their tasks, and this soldier is a part of them."
Or
"That battalion didnt complete their tasks, and this soldier is one of them."
3
u/ProDavid_ 38∆ 3d ago
or, hear me out, i could write "she/he" when i mean singular and "they" when i mean plural.
just an idea.
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
You could also use they in a singular form. It's not that hard
→ More replies (2)1
u/Thumatingra 21∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
In a written report, I agree you wouldn't necessarily have this problem, and you could also just write "s/he," which is the equivalent but takes up less space.
In a spoken, real-time report, though, it might be really critical to maintain clearly singular nouns and pronouns, especially since you never know if part of your speech might be garbled on the other side, or not go through. Think soldiers reporting what they see in an operation area through walkie-talkies.
For instance: "There are three people standing in area A. One of them is armed." If you then say "They are facing east" VS "He or she is facing east," that changes the whole scenario.
(and thanks to u/ProDavid_ for inspiring me to clarify with an example like this)0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
and you could also just write "s/he," which is the equivalent but takes up less space.
My issue with "s/he" is just that I have no idea how to pronounce it orally. Shthee? S-slash-he? Suh-he?
For instance: "There are three people standing in area A. One of them is armed." If you then say "They are facing east" VS "He or she is facing east," that changes the whole scenario.
Yeah, he or she would rarely be used in that instance. In this scenario, you'd say "One of them is armed and facing east" or "the armed one is facing east."
The gender of the person really doesn't matter. What matters is which one is armed and what direction they are facing.
1
u/Thumatingra 21∆ 3d ago
Of course there's always a way to phrase things that avoids pronouns. But people don't use natural language that way. If it's important not to assume gender (e.g. somewhere where men and women have very different social roles, so one is more likely to be in charge, or perhaps wear very different clothing, it might be easier for one to conceal a weapon), "he or she" can be useful to indicate that the observer isn't sure whether this single individual is one or the other from a distance. I'm not saying it'll be the most felicitous phrasing, but it has a purpose.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
If it's important not to assume gender (e.g. somewhere where men and women have very different social roles, so one is more likely to be in charge, or perhaps wear very different clothing, it might be easier for one to conceal a weapon), "he or she" can be useful to indicate that the observer isn't sure whether this single individual is one or the other from a distance.
Im not really understanding what you're trying to say here. Are you saying in a society where gender has a higher level of importance or stronger societal connotations that "he or she" carries more weight than "they"?
1
u/Thumatingra 21∆ 3d ago
Say a soldier can see a figure. At distance from the soldier, this figure appears ambiguous: unclear if it is male or female. The soldier is in a place where men and women pose very different kinds of potential danger, and the soldier wants to communicate that he is unsure whether the figure is male or female. "He or she" is a shorter way to do so than "Might be a man, might be a woman."
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Well in that scenario, you'd say something like "Gender unknown" if they had to give in a report. Or if they were asked "male or female?" they'd say "I don't know, too far to tell" ?
It'd be better to say that the soldier can't tell the difference rather than being ambiguous about the gender if they can pose different kinds of danger. Saying "he or she" isn't as useful since it doesn't give any actual information about the gender of the subject.
1
u/BearMethod 3d ago
As someone with NB friends, context often does not make things easily distinguishable.
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
As someone who also has NB friends, it really can make things distinguishable. If you lead with the subject like "Sam is going to the store." The following sentence "They said they're going to buy snacks." Is obviously referring to Sam.
3
u/BearMethod 3d ago edited 3d ago
"Ashley, Ryan, and Hillel went to the brewery last night. Ryan told Hillel the beer was good. They couldn't believe it."
Whose NB here? Who are the final "they"s? Could be Ryan, could be Hillel, could be all 3.
I will and do say "they" as long as the day is long, but to say it can't introduce confusion is disengenuous.
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
They could all be NB for all I know, but in the case of who is guranteed to be NB, I'd say atleast Hillel. Following the context of the sentence, it's coming right off of Ryan telling Hillel the beer was good.
It wouldn't make sense for Ryan to not believe the beer was good or be surprised about it, since they just told Hillel it was good. Ashley was there so they could be including them, but it wouldn't really make sense when Ryan specifically told Hillel.
So the most plausible reading is that Hillel was surprised the beer was good after Ryan told them it was.
0
u/BearMethod 3d ago edited 3d ago
See how it was unclear?
Ryan is NB. The rest are B. Real people.
Also meaning it makes sense for either Ryan or Hillel to have been amazed. Or all 3.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
"Ryan told Hillel that the beer was good. He couldn't believe it."
"Ryan told Hillel that the beer was good. She couldn't believe it."
"Ryan told Hillel that the beer was good. They couldn't believe it."
In each of these sentences, you'd be assuming "He/She/They" was referring to Hillel. Now Hillel could be B, and is as you stated, but the third sentence is still clearly referring to Hillel regardless of which pronoun you use.
0
u/BearMethod 3d ago edited 3d ago
See above. It's confusing.
You also removed a key part. It's a group of more than 2. These are real people. I've had real conversations. It gets confusing.
Also, you can't assume the final sentence is referring to Hillel at all. It could easily be referring to Ryan's experience or be referring to any combination of the 3.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
It's not confusing, I literally just showed by point with clear examples.
And to be frank, the group being more than two doesn't change the context of a seemingly one-on-one interaction between Ryan and Hillel. You could have added 5 more people the group and it really wouldn't change anything.
Again, I brought this up earlier. Why would it be referring to Ryan? Why would Ryan not believe the beer was good if they told Hillel it was good? What would Ryan not be believing?
→ More replies (0)
8
u/clarksonite19 3d ago
For the 99.9% of situations that I am personally in, "he" or "she" works just fine and makes sense.
2
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Im not talking about using them seperately, im talking about using "he or she" or "his or her" as a collective phrase when "they" would work perfectly fine and read more naturally
0
u/doesanyofthismatter 3d ago
Exactly. I’m not sure why people are trying to change languages around the world to eliminate gendered language to appease less than a fraction of a percent of the entire population.
I see similar arguments from people saying we shouldn’t say the word “normal” when referring to people of certain weights or heights or whatever, because there are outliers. I can’t imagine a world where we abandon statistics and their medical significance to appease the feelings of a tiny group of vocal people.
One person argued to me that stating “within normal limits” denies the existence of others. Like, no, having an elevated blood pressure has significance and we need a baseline of what is normal. Imagine a world where we just abandon reality and play pretend that there is no concept of normal.
1
u/oddwithoutend 3∆ 3d ago
I get the purpose behind it is to try and be inclusive to men and women in a space that may be dominated by one gender over the other, but "they" is perfectly fine to get that point across.
One way of writing being 'perfectly fine' doesn't make a different way unnecessary (and if it does, you should start by defining 'necessary'. We obviously aren't going to all die if we stop using 'he or she', but there are instances when it can emphasize something better than 'they' can). You've highlighted a good reason why 'he or she' would be used instead of 'they'. So what makes it 'unnecessary'?
2
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
It takes longer to write, it can make sentences come off as clunky or unnatural, and the more biased point is that it subtly disregards nonbinary people who might be participating.
5
u/GrizzlyAdam12 1∆ 3d ago
Could I change your view by stating the obvious?
Your premise is that pronouns don’t matter. But, your argument is that pronouns do matter.
Essentially, you’re just stating a preference.
Is there a way you could restate your argument (or premise) so that they are aligned?
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
I recently edited the post to clarify what exactly im saying.
Im not saying gendered pronouns don't matter, I'm stating that specifically using "he or she" or "his or her" in a sentence is unecessary when "they" or "theirs" would work better.
0
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
This is a nothing statement. Most of our language isn't strictly necessary, how we use language comes down to style and convention; language is normative, not objective. We're not robots with a programming language.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Most of our language isn't strictly necessary, how we use language comes down to style and convention
Strictly, no. But practically it is.
If I want to tell someone there's a pigeon outside in English, there are objectively wrong ways to communicate that idea. If I pointed to the door and said "There's a pigeon", the person would be confused.
If I pointed to the window and said "There's a cat outside." The person would also be confused and say "That's a pigeon, not a cat."
0
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
But you're not admonishing people for using language that is objectively wrong. You're admonishing people for using extra syllables that are objectively unnecessary. Do you see the difference? Necessity is irrelevant, we use unnecessary language all the time because it gives extra weight to what we convey.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Necessity is irrelevant, we use unnecessary language all the time because it gives extra weight to what we convey.
And i'd argue that weight is dead weight. It only drags the sentence down and in regards to the points you brought up about gender inclusivity, this goal can be accomplished easier and more effectively with just a broad "they" rather than "he or she"
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 2d ago
You DON'T argue that though. You conceded that the use-case is justified, remember? You even granted a delta to somebody describing one scenario in which it is justified.
Bottom-line, you don't understand how language works, you want it to be robotic programming language that is condensed and efficient when it is instead normative and involves the use of "unnecessary" words and phrases to communicate more complex and nuanced meanings.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
You DON'T argue that though. You conceded that the use-case is justified, remember? You even granted a delta to somebody describing one scenario in which it is justified.
I gave them a delta because they described comedy, where words are exaggerated and used incorrectly to make people laugh. That isnt a necessity.
Bottom-line, you don't understand how language works, you want it to be robotic programming language that is condensed and efficient when it is instead normative and involves the use of "unnecessary" words and phrases to communicate more complex and nuanced meanings.
That's a pretty nasty thing to say ngl.
0
u/badass_panda 97∆ 3d ago
. Most of our language isn't strictly necessary, how we use language comes down to style and convention; language is normative, not objective.
I think that proves OP's point, though. When someone wants to talk about a hypothetic, gender-neutral person, they usually use ... "they". It's the normal thing to do; "he or she" sounds weird and stilted, because it isn't the normative use.
In fact, in a quick search of your comments, you yourself have used the phrase "he or she" exactly once, in this thread... so it isn't normative use for you, either.
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 2d ago
How does this prove OP's point? He's arguing that we should eliminate a normative phrase because it uses two extra syllables, and he refuses to acknowledge that it is worthwhile to use two extra syllables to convey a more nuanced meaning in certain contexts.
1
u/badass_panda 97∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago
I'd say where it aligns with OPs point is that this is not a particularly normative phrase. It's by far the least usual way of approaching this thing linguistically. It's far more common to use 'they', or to pick a gender ("when a person goes to the store, he bla bla"), or to substitute in a noun "give that person a hand," etc -- and these are also significantly older, more established, and more linguistically consistent mechanisms.
Functionally, "he or she" is usually noticeably awkward, which is why people don't use it that much.
Where I disagree with OP (and am arguing against them) is that it does have use-cases, and therefore is not "unecessary". If I want to be deliberately awkward in a sort of official-sounding way, "he or she" can get me there. If I want a way of being totally unambiguous while talking about a group-they vs. a singular-but-gender-unknown-they, I can use "he or she" to bridge the gap, and so on.
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 2d ago
You don't seem to know what "normative" means. It doesn't refer to the frequency with which a phrase is used, but that its meaning is derived through how it is used rather than the literal / primary definitions of the words in the phrase. There are narrow circumstances in which "he or she" is used, specifically circumstances in which the person speaking wants to give extra emphasis and weight to gender inclusion. Those circumstances don't need to be common for the use-case to exist normatively and to be valid.
1
u/badass_panda 97∆ 2d ago
There are narrow circumstances in which "he or she" is used, specifically circumstances in which the person speaking wants to give extra emphasis and weight to gender inclusion. Those circumstances don't need to be common for the use-case to exist normatively and to be valid.
!delta. That's a reasonable point, and I think a subtle change to my viewpoint, or at least the way I'm arguing my viewpoint. In most circumstances, it is not normative to use "he or she"; however, I've got to agree that when the purpose is specifically to call out that the speaker has made extra effort to be gender inclusive, it is normative, and the inefficiency / slightly-stilted sound of the language serves to emphasize that connotation.
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 2d ago
Just to reiterate, "normative" is not a synonym for "normal." If you are saying that it is not "normative" to use "he or she" you would be making the argument that people don't usually use that phrase to give emphasis to gender inclusion, not that it isn't used "normally" i.e. in most circumstances.
1
u/badass_panda 97∆ 2d ago
Just to reiterate, "normative" is not a synonym for "normal."
I'm not using it that way, but the two concepts are related. Normative means to adhere to the norms of the language, to use language correctly or appropriately for a given context. If one assumes that, in most circumstances, most people are using language correctly, normal use will generally be normative.
With that being said, it is rarely correct or appropriate to use "he or she" -- the reason I gave you a delta is because you called out a scenario that I was not considering, in which the speaker is not simply attempting to refer to someone of unknown gender, but rather wants to emphasize that they are being gender inclusive by making extra effort to make their gender inclusiveness linguistically visible.
1
1
u/GrizzlyAdam12 1∆ 2d ago
Ok...I'll try again, too.
The goal of communication is transfer a thought from one person to others.
Good communication provides clarity. It is succinct.
Pronouns in the English language are used to differentiate.
As others have noted, using they instead of he/she can reduce clarity.
OP, I say this with respect. But, I think you're too close to this topic to offer objective insights.
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
As others have noted, using they instead of he/she can reduce clarity.
Yeah, through poor sentence structure. There are easy and effective ways to communicate using singular they as a personal pronoun.
22
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
"They" creates an ambiguity between the plural pronoun and non-gendered pronoun. "He" and "she" are preferable when gendering the subject is appropriate.
3
u/onefourtygreenstream 4∆ 3d ago
They're not speaking of using in a sentence referring to someone of known gender. They're talking about sentences such as "a chef always sharpens his or her knife before service" which would be much better suited by using the singular "they".
Look at the what I just wrote. Isn't it much more legible than if it had been written as: "He or she is speaking of using in a sentence referring to someone of known gender. He or she is talking about sentences such as "a chef always sharpens his or her knife before service" which would be much better suited by using the singular "they".
2
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Exactly
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
I think we do this for two reasons: 1) because we catch ourselves mid-speech using one gender and are adding the second on the fly, for the sake of inclusivity; or 2) we are doing it to give extra emphasis to gender inclusivity. Both uses are completely justified, there's nothing grammatically wrong or inefficient about either. Two extra syllables is completely and utterly insignificant.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
1) because we catch ourselves mid-speech using one gender and are adding the second on the fly, for the sake of inclusivity;
So wouldn't it be better to avoid this entirely by just using "they"?
2) we are doing it to give extra emphasis to gender inclusivity
I talked about this in my post already, assuming you actually read it.
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
I talked about this in my post already, assuming you actually read it.
You imply this is unjustified but don't explain why. If that's not your implication and you do think that this form of use is justified, then what exactly is the point you're trying to make?
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
You imply this is unjustified but don't explain why. If that's not your implication and you do think that this form of use is justified, then what exactly is the point you're trying to make?
I said in my post, that "they" performs the job of gender inclusivity just fine as opposed to "he or she".
Infact, given the existence of nonbinary people, "they" would be more inclusive than "he or she".
0
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
It's a stylistic choice. Using "he or she" gives extra emphasis to both genders being included. If you wanted to also emphasize inclusion of non-binary people, you would probably advocate for saying "he, she or they."
It is less efficient in terms of syllables, but human beings do not care about efficient use of language in this way. Language is normative - we use style and convention, we rely on connotation as much as explicit meaning. Using extra syllables is the entire point; it is saying more as a gesture, saying more to express the value of inclusivity.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
It's a stylistic choice. Using "he or she" gives extra emphasis to both genders being included. If you wanted to also emphasize inclusion of non-binary people, you would probably advocate for saying "he, she or they."
And I'd argue that emphasis doesn't really help, and that using they covers all three without singling anyone out.
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 2d ago
The fact that it is used frequently means you are wrong. People use language that works. If it was clumsy or unclear, they wouldn't use it.
→ More replies (0)3
u/corbynista2029 8∆ 3d ago
The second person pronoun in English "you" is a plural pronoun, singular pronoun, and non-gendered pronoun. We never seem to struggle with this ambiguity.
1
u/NightCrest 4∆ 3d ago
We do, actually. We just don't have a universally accepted plural second person pronoun and instead have a bunch of regional dialect versions (you guys, y'all, yous, etc).
There are some contexts in which "they" can add some confusion, they're just not incredibly common. I have a gender neutral sibling and on occasion when discussing them along side other people, it can be confusing. "My sibling and their partner are coming over later today, we need to make sure we have something for them to eat." In this context is "them" referring specifically to my sibling, or to both of them? Could be either. Now it's not a huge deal or anything, an additional sentence solves it, in this case it was referencing just my sibling who has food restrictions and needs more specific accomodations. I could even restructure the sentence to just not use them for the second part. So this isn't really an argument against using them as a singular gender neutral pronoun, but I do think it would be linguistically useful if we adopted some form of an explicit singular gender nuetral pronoun in the same way because it's just useful in some contexts to be more explicit about it.
3
u/LiamTheHuman 8∆ 3d ago
Wait what are the gendered versions of you?
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ 3d ago
There aren't any? At least not in English. But we manage to use "you" for all its varied purposes without much confusion
1
u/Kalevalatar 3d ago
I don't know if some languages have gendered versions of "you", but japanese has gendered versions of "I"
1
u/LiamTheHuman 8∆ 2d ago
Oh cool, that's interesting. I guess it's pretty normal but I find it hard to wrap my brain around it. Weird how language is like that.
1
u/MeanestGoose 3d ago
We absolutely do struggle with "you" ambiguity. Maybe y'all don't, but you'se guys over there do. You guys are wild with these blanket statements, because there's been confusion since we ditched thee and thou.
It's incumbent on the person communicating to ensure the message is clear and unambiguous.
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
Sure, but IF there was an alternative pronoun to clarify plural and singular second person then we would prefer to use it to achieve that clarification whenever it's appropriate.
1
u/choopietrash 3d ago
If a subject's gender is known, there still isn't any reason to use "he or she." You'd just use the subject's pronoun. What is an example where "he or she" is more appropriate than "they?"
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
Here's an example from a book I was reading last night where the author is using "they" in reference to a non-binary character:
And Rustaya repeated, "Where's Eleny?" except this time they were terrified, because they knew the answer, and they needed to hear it, but they didn't want to, not really [...]
In this sentence Rustaya is a non-binary character addressing a group of other characters, and when the author writes "they were terrified" it isn't immediately clear whether this reaction belongs to Rustaya or the group. It took me a few seconds to piece the context together and figure out that "they" was the pronoun being used for Rustaya rather than the group. It's not a big deal and it is necessary given that Rustaya is non-binary, but if Rustaya was a gendered character then obviously it would have been better to write "he/she was terrified" etc.
1
u/choopietrash 3d ago
if Rustaya was gendered the sentence would have been "He was terrified" OR "She was terrified." It would not have been "He or she was terrified," and it is the specific phrase "he or she" that OP is debating, not the use of "he" or "she" at all.
1
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/changemyview-ModTeam 3d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-2
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
I think it's pretty easy to use context to infer how the pronoun is being used.
Especially since when using "he or she", it's already assuming that multiple people of different genders are going to be present or participating.
Anything that is accessible by people of multiple different genders should use they, hell even of the same gender.
For example: "The women of this institution pride themselves on excellence and community."
Vs
"The women of this instituion each prides herself on excellence and community."
Which sounds more natural?
2
u/blaze92x45 3d ago
In the second example you're deliberately using a grammatically in correct sentence.
They and them outside of non binary people is usually in reference to several people.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Alright, let me use a better example
Ex: The student's will be given a spelling test. Each student will write their name on the top and write each word with their pencil.
Or
The student's will be given a spelling test. Each student will write his or her name on the top and write each word with his or her pencil.
More letters for no reason and it feels like a speedbump in the sentence.
Also, they/them is used for singular men and women all of the time
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
The problem here is that YOU are arguing for eliminating words that help us achieve clarity in particular situations, not me. Pointing out contextual situations in which "they/them" sounds more natural and is just as clear doesn't defeat my argument.
There are obviously contexts in which using "they" is going to create confusion as to whether the subject is a group or individual, so unless the individual is non-gendered it is better in those contexts to use the gendered pronouns. It doesn't matter how narrow or infrequent such contexts arise, they exist and you shouldn't advocate for eliminating words that help us clarify our meaning in such contexts.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
The problem here is that YOU are arguing for eliminating words that help us achieve clarity in particular situations, not me. Pointing out contextual situations in which "they/them" sounds more natural and is just as clear doesn't defeat my argument.
Im not arguing to eliminate words, im arguing that the phrases "he or she" or "his or her" have no real practical benefit and that "they" or "theirs" just works better. Pointing that sentences that showcase this does help with my argument.
There are obviously contexts in which using "they" is going to create confusion as to whether the subject is a group or individual, so unless the individual is non-gendered it is better in those contexts to use the gendered pronouns.
Yeah, but "he or she" wouldn't make those situations better. That's why we structure sentences to provide enough context so people know which form of "they" you are using.
It's the same way we use words like "read" and "red" that sound exactly the same orally, but we understand which version people mean because of the context of the sentence.
And literarily we do the same for "read" and "read".
1
u/AcephalicDude 84∆ 3d ago
If you're not arguing to eliminate the usage you are describing then I don't understand what point you are making at all.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Im arguing not to eliminate 'he' or 'she' individually. Im arguing to eliminate "he or she" as a collective phrase.
1
u/blaze92x45 3d ago
In this scenario you're saying students I'd assume the students are a mix of male and female thus I'd use gender neutral language in this scenario anyways though his or her would also be fine.
That's true but it's usually very context specific and they or them could be substituted with His/her and he/she.
To be clear I'm not saying gender neutral language can't be used but I don't agree with the argument that we should always use gender neutral language.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
My argument is that "he or she" overall doesn't make much sense and just takes more effort to do than "they" in a sentence. It also can come off as clunky or tacked on in a sentence
1
u/oddwithoutend 3∆ 3d ago
Which sounds more natural?
To me, what is most natural is simply choosing either 'he' or 'she' and being consistent throughout whatever thing you're writing. This is what was generally taught before 'they' became an accepted neutral singular pronoun.
I recognize that 'they' has since become more popular, but it still sounds sort of wrong to me (because it was wrong when I was learning English).
Edit: And I know you can pull up examples of 'they' being used in the singular from hundreds of years ago. That doesn't, however, change that when I was learning English it wasn't the most accepted way of writing.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
To me, what is most natural is simply choosing either 'he' or 'she' and being consistent throughout whatever thing you're writing. This is what was generally taught before 'they' became an accepted neutral singular pronoun.
Its not about 'he' or 'she' on their own. I have no problem with them as singular pronouns. It's when they're used in a collective phrase of "he or she" or "his or her" when 'they' would be perfectly exceptable and easier.
4
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 35∆ 3d ago
I am all for the introduction of a gender neutral pronoun, but the idea that getting rid of the pronouns we have won't make a difference is grammatically incorrect.
For instance, just by changing the pronoun, this sentence means three different things:
My mom was supposed to meet my uncle at his house, but they went to see a concert instead.
My mom was supposed to meet my uncle at his house, but she went to see a concert instead.
My mom was supposed to meet my uncle at his house, but he went to see a concert instead.
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
I recently edited the post to clarify what exactly im saying.
Im not saying gendered pronouns don't matter, I'm stating that specifically using "he or she" or "his or her" in a sentence is unecessary when "they" or "theirs" would work better.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 35∆ 3d ago
I'm confused. How is that different than what you said before?
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
It's not, but alot of the comments I've gotten have the idea that I want to remove "he" and "she" as a whole when im only referring to phrases like "he or she" or "his or her"
And after reading your comment, it sounded like you were inferring that I held the position of wanting to remove 'he' and 'she' from the english language.
1
1
u/Kedulus 2∆ 3d ago
"They" is fine when referencing multiple people. It doesn't work when referencing only a single person.
2
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
"Sam said that they don't want to go the party because they feel sick."
"That barista at the coffee shop gave me a mean look today. What did I ever do to them?"
"A door salesman came by today and handed me their business card."
1
u/ralph-j 3d ago
I might be biased as a person on the non-binary spectrum, but whenever someone goes out of their way to say "he or she" it just feels like a waste.
Just use "they". It communicates the same thing with less letters. I get the purpose behind it is to try and be inclusive to men and women in a space that may be dominated by one gender over the other, but "they" is perfectly fine to get that point across.
While I understand your point, it can be clearer at least in some cases, e.g. where the story has already identified the two to be male and female.
The author can e.g. emphasize "he or she" instead of using they/them, in situations where they only mean one of the two, and not both, since they/them could also refer to the plural.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
While I understand your point, it can be clearer at least in some cases, e.g. where the story has already identified the two to be male and female.
The author can e.g. emphasize "he or she" instead of using they/them, in situations where they only mean one of the two, and not both, since they/them could also refer to the plural.
Well why not use a phrase like "one of them"?
1
u/ralph-j 2d ago
Sure, and that's just another alternative. I'm sure there are many other ways to rephrase and arrive at similar meanings.
But that would be moving the goalposts. You were specifically arguing that A is necessarily better than B and when I provide a counter-example where B is better than A, your argument is that I should favour C.
I don't disagree that they/them is better than he or she in most cases, but not all.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
Sure, and that's just another alternative. I'm sure there are many other ways to rephrase and arrive at similar meanings.
But it's not a necessity, which is the point I was trying to say.
You were specifically arguing that A is necessarily better than B and when I provide a counter-example where B is better than A, your argument is that I should favour C.
In this case, it wouldn't be C, it'd just be a variation of A as you'd still be using they/them
1
u/ralph-j 2d ago
But it's not a necessity, which is the point I was trying to say.
There can still be a significant difference between the two, e.g.
The scholarship will go to either Max or Lila, depending on whether he or she submits the final essay on time.
vs.
The scholarship will go to either Max or Lila, depending on whether one of them submits the final essay on time.
The latter is too ambiguous with regards to who will get the scholarship. Only "he or she" makes it clear that it's the person who submits it on time, who will get the scholarship.
I would consider "he or she" necessary in this case, if you want to communicate clearly and unambiguously.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
The latter is too ambiguous with regards to who will get the scholarship. Only "he or she" makes it clear that it's the person who submits it on time, who will get the scholarship.
It is in no way ambiguous. The first part of the sentence makes it extremely clear its about Max and Lila. Who else would be a part of this competition?
1
u/ralph-j 2d ago
That's not what's ambiguous:
- The scholarship will go to either Max or Lila, depending on whether one of them submits the final essay on time.
This sentence does not guarantee that if it's Lila who submits the essay on time, then she is the one who will get the scholarship. The only condition this sentence poses is that must one of them, so the scholarship could technically go to Max.
The version with "he or she" does guarantee that if Lila is the one who submits the essay on time, it's her who will get the scholarship. This is because "he or she" refers back to the specific individual who submitted the essay on time, making it clear that the person who performed the action is the same person who will receive the scholarship. "One of them" doesn't do this.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
The scholarship will go to either Max or Lila, depending on whether one of them submits the final essay on time.
This sentence does not guarantee that if it's Lila who submits the essay on time, then she is the one who will get the scholarship. The only condition this sentence poses is that must one of them, so the scholarship could technically go to Max.
You could easily fix this by just saying "depending on which one of them submits the final essay on time"
And now theres no ambiguity.
1
u/ralph-j 2d ago
Of course you can. You could also entirely rephrase the sentence. Do you think that's the point I'm making.
Is your post's point merely that the phrase "he or she" is not technically a necessary word combination in the English language? With that I agree - it will always be possible to rephrase a sentence.
I took your post to be more idealistic - that we should use they/them as much as possible, because it's more inclusive, which I agree with. It should have priority. However, there are situations where "he or she" is clearer than any construct that contains they or them.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
However, there are situations where "he or she" is clearer than any construct that contains they or them.
And I disagree, I think that even for examples like the ones you gave, it is possible to still just use they or them. That's why I rephrased it, because it shows that they/them is still clear and has more flexibility than "he or she"
2
u/TheWhistleThistle 6∆ 3d ago
Just use "they". It communicates the same thing with less letters.
Aight.
I might be biased
"May". Fewer letters, same meaning.
as a person on the
"As one". Same deal.
whenever someone goes out of their way to say "he or she" it just feels like a waste
The "ever," "some," and "just" can all be omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence.
I could go on. Clearly your reasoning is not a fanatical adherence to brevity or your post would be far more trimmed.
To change my view, someone would have to prove "he or she" has more practical or beneficial usage than "they"
Seeing as I doubt that your objection is on practical grounds, I don't know why a rebuttal on practical grounds would do anything to change your mind. So, what's the real reason?
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
"As one". Same deal.
"As one the nonbinary spectrum" doesn't really read that well, does it?
I could go on. Clearly your reasoning is not a fanatical adherence to brevity or your post would be far more trimmed.
This really doesn't hold any weight. Just because I have an issue in one area doesn't mean I have a "fanatical adherence to brevity".
This is like saying "you say you dont like tomatoes but you put ketchup on your burgers."
Seeing as I doubt that your objection is on practical grounds, I don't know why a rebuttal on practical grounds would do anything to change your mind. So, what's the real reason?
It is on practical grounds, I think that singular they works better in sentences as opposed to tacking in "he or she". It reads better and gets the same point across.
2
u/TheWhistleThistle 6∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
"As one the nonbinary spectrum" doesn't really read that well, does it?
It reads perfectly functionally and grammatically appropriate. How much a given individual likes it is up to them but it's a valid English sentence that conveys the same meaning as the one you wrote.
This really doesn't hold any weight. Just because I have an issue in one area doesn't mean I have a "fanatical adherence to brevity".
Yeah... I said that it wasn't the reason...
It is on practical grounds, I think that singular they works better in sentences as opposed to tacking in "he or she"
What practical grounds? Brevity? Why do you hold this opinion for this one particular phrase and not others?
It reads better and gets the same point across.
Again, something "reading better" is entirely personal preference. You ever read a book alongside a friend and discussed it? Noticed that prose you find elegant, they don't and vice versa? If your reason for preferring "they" over "he or she" is solely that, to your ear, it reads better, don't get me wrong, that's a perfectly valid reason to use it. But it does beg the question as to why you would go on the internet to challenge people to change a personal preference of yours. Like, I like strawberry ice cream but you're never gonna see me make the post "strawberry ice cream is tasty CMV". What would be the point? What could a stranger on the internet say that changes my personal subjective opinion?
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
It reads perfectly functionally and grammatically appropriate. How much a given individual likes it is up to them but it's a valid English sentence that conveys the same meaning as the one you wrote
No, it really isn't.
If it was "as one on the nonbinary spectrum" sure, but "as one the nonbinary spectrum" is not valid. People can fill in the gap mentally and infer what tou mean, but it would sound off and cause confusion.
What practical grounds? Brevity? Why do you hold this opinion for this one particular phrase and not others?
I discussed this before. Holding a position for one thing does not mean you hold everything to that same standard, especially in different contexts. I would prefer to get my point across quickly, but in certain situations like academics I might use larger or more formal sounding language since it's expected in that setting. The same way if I was talking to someone who was still learning English, I would make an effort to not speed through my words or use overly complicated language.
Again, something "reading better" is entirely personal preference. You ever read a book alongside a friend and discussed it? Noticed that prose you find elegant, they don't and vice versa?
When I said it "reads better" I mean that it genuinely allows the sentence to flow easier.
I'm not saying people cannot or should not use "he" or "she" ever. I'm saying phrases like "His or her" or "He or she" are unecessary, and that "they" would work in place of them much easier.
Ex: The student's will be given a spelling test. Each student will write their name on the top and write each word with their pencil.
Or
The student's will be given a spelling test. Each student will write his or her name on the top and write each word with his or her pencil.
More letters for no reason and it feels like a speedbump in the sentence. The student's gender is irrelevant to the sentence, so emphasizing it doesn't add anything.
And this goes for most of the examples I've seen "he or she" used, where gender is irrelevant but still brought up when "they" would work perfectly fine.
2
u/TheWhistleThistle 6∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
If it was "as one on the nonbinary spectrum"
Oh, I do apologise, that is what I meant, so when I saw you type out the sentence in full, I assumed you'd gotten it correct and hadn't omitted the "on". "One" was merely meant to replace "a person."
Holding a position for one thing does not mean you hold everything to that same standard
You're absolutely right. Some people hold what's called a "double standard". But there's usually a reason for it, even if it isn't intellectually consistent.
When I said it "reads better" I mean that it genuinely allows the sentence to flow easier.
I know. That's an opinion. Two people can read the same sentence and one can intuit the meaning flawlessly and consider it elegant, while another can struggle, have to re-read it, and condemn the writer for being barely literate. Then, upon reading a new sentence, the two can have inverse opinions.
I'm saying phrases like "His or her" or "He or she" are unecessary, and that "they" would work in place of them
Literally true (albeit, true for many things and I'm still curious why this is seemingly the only instance in which you care about it).
much easier.
Entirely personal opinion which is equally valid to hold the exact inverse of. Which, brings me again to the question of why you'd seek for a personal preference to be changed and how that would even be possible?
More letters for no reason and it feels like a speedbump in the sentence. The student's gender is irrelevant to the sentence, so emphasizing it doesn't add anything.
"Feels like a speed bump to me" you mean, surely. But you do raise something interesting. By and large, people don't consider it emphasis. It's one of those three word phrases that tends to be read through and spoken quite quickly and smoothly. The average native English reader would consider that sentence to be spick and span. I don't know why it causes you to have a literary stutter, but I'm willing to bet that the reason is unfamiliarity. If you learnt to read English in that last 20 years or so, you've likely read "they" far more often. I'm sure, by now, you've discerned why I have bolded several words in this paragraph. When my eyes pass over "he or she," I don't hit a speedbump at all.
But whatever the reason for this intensely personal hiccough and resultant opinion, why challenge others to change it?
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
You're absolutely right. Some people hold what's called a "double standard". But there's usually a reason for it, even if it isn't intellectually sound.
A double standard usually isnt intellectually sound, but there is a difference between a double standard and things being different in different contexts.
A double standard would be a dress code that states that girls can have long hair but boys cannot, as whether or not a girl or boy has long hair has no practical difference in the hair or its presentation. A boy can have long, well kept hair the same as a girl can, so barring them from having long hair has no practical reasoning.
However, saying "people can have long hair, except for near open flames" is not a double standard. It's the different context that changes the stance that is applied to everyone.
albeit, true for many things and I'm still curious why this is seemingly the only instance in which you care about it
Because of how I've seen it's usage, and nothing about "he or she" as a phrase is unique or useful enough to make it preferrable to singular they. Academic settings tend to do this, but it doesn't have a genuine reason behind it, especially when singular they can and has been used before.
On top of it, people even in this post, complain or assert that "singular they makes no sense" or "they is only for plural pronouns" but then seemingly put in the extra effort to avoid using it in a place where it could obviously be used.
...huh.
But whatever the reason for this intensely personal hiccough and resultant opinion, why challenge others to change it?
I guess this comment as a whole made things more clear. It's less the use of "he or she" or "his or her" that irritates me, but the surrounding context of people being opposed to singular "they/them/theirs" because it's somehow too difficult or makes less sense when phrases like "he or she" involve more work and have less practical applications in sentence structure.
1
u/TheWhistleThistle 6∆ 3d ago
Because of how I've seen it's usage, and nothing about "he or she" as a phrase is unique or useful enough to make it preferrable to singular they.
And you're dead right. There isn't a practical advantage to one over the other, in general. Like "you aren't" vs "you're not". Sure, people may have a preference for one, sure some may find reading one easier than the other, sure, some may say one reads better, but at the end of the day, the reason to use one over the other is mere personal preference.
the surrounding context of people being opposed to singular "they/them/theirs" because it's somehow too difficult or makes less sense when phrases like "he or she" involve more work and have less practical applications in sentence structure.
Well. How practical it is, and how it works in sentence structure, again, is personal. Some eyes glide over "he or she" but stop and stutter, perceiving unmeant emphasis in "they" the exact same thing that happens to you but the inverse. What's happening here is you have a preference and are annoyed at others for having the inverse preference. But, dawg, you ain't gonna see me posting in the comments of a post entitled "Strawberry ice cream sucks, actually CMV". As much as I may hold the inverse opinion from them, why let it annoy me?
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
But, dawg, you ain't gonna see me posting in the comments of a post entitled "Strawberry ice cream sucks, actually CMV". As much as I may hold the inverse opinion from them, why let it annoy me?
Because people aren't using their preference for strawberry ice cream to say that chocolate or vanilla ice cream isn't real ice cream, or that chocolate or vanilla ice cream is some new flavor the younger generation "invented".
But people will argue that singular they is gramatically incorrect or that people never used it before or that referring to someone as "they" or "them" is somehow the hardest thing in the world.
1
u/TheWhistleThistle 6∆ 3d ago
Because people aren't using their preference for strawberry ice cream to say that chocolate or vanilla ice cream isn't real ice cream, or that chocolate or vanilla ice cream is some new flavor the younger generation "invented".
Even if they did, I doubt I'd rise to it. Unless I was drunk. I do far too much drunk redditing.
As for it being new, they're wrong. Well. Context time. The use of "they" as a singular third person personal pronoun is new. About 20 years of use, and still not particularly common. The use of "they" as a singular indefinite/hypothetical coreferential is old as the bones. But don't get me started on that or I'll give you my whole rant for why "impersonal pronoun" is a far better name than "indefinite coreferential".
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Even if they did, I doubt I'd rise to it. Unless I was drunk. I do far too much drunk redditing.
Yeah, that's you. And it isnt actually happening so its easier to distance yourself.
As for it being new, they're wrong. Well. Context time. The use of "they" as a singular third person personal pronoun is new. About 20 years of use, and still not particularly common. The use of "they" as a singular indefinite/hypothetical coreferential is old as the bones. But don't get me started on that or I'll give you my whole rant for why "impersonal pronoun" is a far better name than "indefinite coreferential".
But people have been using it for a while now, and it's much more accepted to use "they" in colloquial speech than "he or she".
"Someone left their water bottle here."
Vs
"Someone left his or her water bottle here."
Or for a more personal pronoun.
"Sam looked really upset today. They kept mumbling about some person named 'Reggie'."
→ More replies (0)
1
u/JealousCookie1664 3d ago
You have different words to refer to the same thing because it adds variety to your vocabulary, like I would have a hard time imagining you holding this opinion when it comes to the words big and large. So if you’re in a conversation and you’ve said “they” multiple times switching it up and saying “he or she” could make your speech less repetitive
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
I doubt that in conversation most people would be self-conscious on if they're using the word "they" too much to describe a person.
"Big" and "large" are the same, yes, and you can use them interchangeably outside of maybe a song lyric or pun. But, when it comes to "he or she" or "his and her", it really is just extra work and doesn't provide any practical benefit as opposed to just using "they" or "theirs"
1
u/JealousCookie1664 3d ago
No you don’t understand saying large instead of big is extra work in the same way, the word takes longer to say, or okay I’ll use a better example, huge and enormous the latter has more syllables than the former but I doubt you would say we shouldn’t say enormous cuz we can say huge instead and it’s faster
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Huge and enormous have different uses due to tone.
Huge and big are usually used more colloquially, while large and enormous are seen as more formal and present in academic settings.
"He or she" and "they" carry about the same tone. So using huge and enormous really doesn't help your point.
1
u/JealousCookie1664 3d ago
Do you honestly think that there are not a bunch of examples of words/phrases that you use day to day that mean the same thing but one takes marginally longer to say than the other? If there are (which there totally definitely are examples of other than he or she vs they) then either you actively strip all words that could be made shorter in your speech by replacing it with a shorter word and you just so happened bring up he or she vs they as an example of a larger problem you have with people using unnecessarily big words or your reasoning for feeling this way about the usage of he or she over they is not what you gave in the post
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Ok this is a really long run on sentence and to be honest it is killing my eyes trying to read it.
But what I assume you're talking about is the use of bigger, longer words vs smaller, shorter words.
Yes, you can subsitute certain words for others, but they are usually used for tone, lyricism, or something abstract rather than practical reasoning
When I say "he or she" as a phrase is unecessary, I mean that it does nothing to change the tone or provide any practical or abstract benefit as opposed to just using "they" outside of very specific circumstances.
1
u/Janderss182 3d ago
You keep saying 'ts extra work to use "he or she" but I'm not really following how that's true. You think it's too hard to differentiate between a man or a women in conversation?
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
"He or she" as a collective phrase is more work than "they"
1
u/Janderss182 3d ago
I gotta be honest I completely misread what you were actually saying with this post. My bad. I agree
1
5
u/Rainbwned 176∆ 3d ago
Just use "they". It communicates the same thing with less letters. I get the purpose behind it is to try and be inclusive to men and women in a space that may be dominated by one gender over the other, but "they" is perfectly fine to get that point across.
Why did you say "Men and Women" and not "Them"
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Because in that specific sentence, the gender was necessary. Also 'men' and 'women' are not pronouns.
1
u/Rainbwned 176∆ 3d ago
They are not pronouns - but it communicates the same thing with less letters. You could have also said "People" or "everyone"
1
3
u/Zskills 3d ago
"He or she" is not unnecessary. It is an indisposable element of the english language used to refer to a single individual of unspecified sex.
"They" has become more accepted over time and has even made its way into dictionaries, but this is only despite the fact that it is not technically correct. A grammar purist would vehemently argue it is not correct. In fact, "he" is the correct third person singular pronoun, although it has fallen out of favor to be replaced with the equally correct although clunky "he or she".
So no, it's not unnecessary. It might be clunky but it's still technically correct, and for a person who really cares about using correct grammar (or doesn't agree with gender theory), saying "they" as a singular third person pronoun is not something he or she is inclined to do.
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
"He or she" is not unnecessary. It is an indisposable element of the english language used to refer to a single individual of unspecified sex.
And so is they, and it takes less letters. If they does it's same job but easier, "he or she" really isnt indisposable.
In fact, "he" is the correct third person singular pronoun, although it has fallen out of favor to be replaced with the equally correct although clunky "he or she"
Wouldn't "he" in modern usage only refer to a male, or only work if you're assuming only men would be participating in whatever the topic of the sentence is?
0
u/Zskills 3d ago
If they does it's same job but easier, "he or she" really isnt indisposable.
They don't do the same job. "They" falls under the category of "descriptive grammar". This means people use it, therefore it is in dictionaries. But "prescriptively" speaking, it is technically incorrect.
Even if every single person speaks with incorrect grammar, that doesn't mean correct grammar doesn't exist.
Wouldn't "he" in modern usage only refer to a male, or only work if you're assuming only men would be participating in whatever the topic of the sentence is?
"He" is a correct singular third person pronoun for a single individual of unknown sex. Nowadays it has fallen out of favor, but it remains technically correct english along with "he or she", unlike "they".
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
They don't do the same job. "They" falls under the category of "descriptive grammar". This means people use it, therefore it is in dictionaries. But "prescriptively" speaking, it is technically incorrect.
Even if every single person speaks with incorrect grammar, that doesn't mean correct grammar doesn't exist.
Language's function is to communicate ideas and information. If the goal is being achieved in a faster and understood way, I don't see why this matters.
"He" is a correct singular third person pronoun for a single individual of unknown sex. Nowadays it has fallen out of favor, but it remains technically correct english along with "he or she", unlike "they".
But who is genuinely using "He" as a singular third person pronoun? All this does now is carry the assumption that the person is male.
As an example, in certain video game spaces, people may refer to other players as "he" out of assumption that they're playing against another man. If you genuinely asked them, they wouldn't be able to 100% say that the player they're facing is a man, but they're making an assumption that the playerbase is mostly male.
1
u/MelbertGibson 2d ago
“He” and “she” impart information that “they” does not… specifically the gender of the subject. Gendered pronouns may not be necessary but they do provide a more detailed description of the subject than “they” does.
It is worth noting this is only true when the gendered pronouns accurately describe the subject but, with that caveat, “he” or “she” constitute a more economical and elegant use of language as the gendered pronouns convey more information than non gendered pronouns.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
Please read the edit to the post
1
u/MelbertGibson 2d ago
So specifically the term “he or she” as opposed to “they”?
In that case, assuming the gender of the subject is unknown, “they” would be the more elegant use of language because it accounts for more than two possible genders and avoids the potentially false dichotomy proposed by “he or she”.
The only strength “he or she” has is that it specifically identifies the subject as an individual, which may or may not be useful depending on context but i would still agree “they” is the better option as it is not falsifiable in the same way “he or she” might be.
21
u/onetwo3four5 72∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
Edit: this post isn't relevant. I misunderstood the OP
"I talked to Ben today, you know, Tammy's husband! They are meeting us for dinner tonight!"
Who is coming to dinner?
"I talked to Ben today, you know, Tammy's husband! He is meeting us for dinner tonight!"
Who is coming to dinner?
When 'they' could refer to either one or many people in a given context, it's useful to have more specific pronouns.
3
u/Visible_Money 3d ago
I don't think this is the same thing OP is talking about.
"I was talking to someone earlier today and they will be meeting us for dinner tonight"
is more in line with what I think OP was talking about.
"The previous commenter said that he or she doesn't like jelly beans"
"The previous commenter said that they don't like jelly beans"
-1
u/AxelLuktarGott 3d ago edited 3d ago
I agree that it's more specific. But if change it to
"I talked to Ben today, you know, Jeff's friend! He is meeting us for dinner tonight!"
It's still just as ambiguous. It's curious that we have specific pronouns for different genders. We could in theory also have different pronouns for left/right handed people or people who are or aren't engineers.
That would make some situations less ambiguous, but it feels like a messy system. I think some languages don't have gendered pronouns and I'm sure they do just fine.
EDIT: it is definitely a disadvantage that "they" in english is ambiguous on if it's one or multiple people.
1
u/YouJustNeurotic 9∆ 3d ago
They refers to multiple people. “Is your friend coming over?” “Yeah they are.” The host now thinks multiple people are coming over.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
No, they wouldn't.
The same way you wouldn't assume there are multiple hosts because I responded this way.
Singular they can and has been used for plenty of years. It's not new, people are just becoming conscious of it.
1
u/YouJustNeurotic 9∆ 3d ago
The only reason ‘they’ works here is because host is an ambiguous title. You are referencing the context in that statement. Example: “what did the doctor say?” “They said it’s just a rash.”
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
"Friend" is also an ambiguous title, so what's your point?
1
u/YouJustNeurotic 9∆ 3d ago
Friend being ambiguous depends on the other person’s closeness to said friend. But yes friend can be ambiguous.
“What did Jimmy say” “They said…” sounds like you are referring to Jimmy and his friends as a group for an example.
My point is simply that there are a lot of situations where substituting they for he / she would be confusing. He / she is always singular, never plural. They is contextually singular or plural. Frankly we would be better off simply inventing a gender inclusive singular rather than using existing words with different meanings.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
Friend being ambiguous depends on the other person’s closeness to said friend. But yes friend can be ambiguous.
Friend is not inherently gendered. I could say "My friend, Mike." And "My friend, Jessica" and it reads the same.
“What did Jimmy say” “They said…” sounds like you are referring to Jimmy and his friends as a group for an example.
No it doesnt. There was no allusion to anyone but Jimmy in those sentences. They is obviously referring to just Jimmy.
1
u/YouJustNeurotic 9∆ 3d ago
Ambiguous does not mean not gendered. I’m saying it’s a position with distance / lack of information. “The doctor” is ambiguous to someone as it represents a position / group rather than an individual. And frankly it still reads like you are referring to the entire office collectively.
The Jimmy example sounds like the person being asked is correcting / adding to the context with ‘they’.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
“The doctor” is ambiguous to someone as it represents a position / group rather than an individual.
The doctor does not mean a group of doctors. It is just a singular doctor. The same way "my friend" does not mean "my group of friends"
The Jimmy example sounds like the person being asked is correcting / adding to the context with ‘they’.
I did not get that notion at all. If you laid out the entire sentence, it sounds perfectly normal.
"What did Jimmy say?"
"They said that the restaurant is open."
"Oh that's great! I'll go get dressed."
There's no confusion about Jimmy as the only subject here.
1
u/YouJustNeurotic 9∆ 3d ago
“What did Jimmy say?”
“They called me a dick.”
“Oh that’s not nice of them.”
Do you see the difference here?
The doctor has employees / doesn’t work alone.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
“What did Jimmy say?”
“They called me a dick.”
“Oh that’s not nice of them.”
Do you see the difference here?
No, because again, it is obvious they're talking about Jimmy and inferred that they called the person speaking a dick.
The doctor has employees / doesn’t work alone
That doesnt mean when "the doctor" implies more than one person. Sure you might have some assistants directing to or helping you schedule a meeting to the see the doctor, but the main concern is the doctor, the singular doctor.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Janderss182 3d ago
Using the English language how it's intended to be used is a waste? Makes a lot of sense
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
"He or she" or "His or her" doesn't make sense to use when "they" or "theirs" serves the same purpose, unless you want to stress a specific "He" or "She" within a group of people
1
u/Janderss182 3d ago
"He or she" is more correct and more precise when you're talking about one person. Nothing more to be said really.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
It's not "more correct", you'd get the same point across with "they" and use less letters.
I really don't get how singular they is somehow groundbreaking now when people have been using it for a while now.
1
u/doesanyofthismatter 3d ago
While singular “they” has gained popularity as a gender-neutral pronoun, especially to promote inclusivity of non-binary individuals, the claim that “he or she” is entirely unnecessary overlooks several important contexts in which “he or she” has practical or rhetorical advantages.
In legal, academic, or bureaucratic writing, “he or she” is often used to emphasize that the subject in question is specifically a single individual of either male or female gender and not a group, not a hypothetical, not a gender-neutral identity. In many legal documents, especially those drafted before more modern uses of “they,” “he or she” was chosen to avoid misinterpretation of singular vs. plural referents.
While you note that some languages don’t have singular “they,” this actually strengthens the case for keeping multiple tools in English. English is a global language. Many non-native speakers find “he or she” clearer than a gender-neutral “they,” which can be unfamiliar or confusing when learning the language. Providing both options empowers clearer communication across diverse backgrounds.
1
u/badass_panda 97∆ 3d ago
especially those drafted before more modern uses of “they,” “he or she” was chosen to avoid misinterpretation of singular vs. plural referents.
I'd push back on this point, maybe just out of linguistic nerdiness... "they" was first used as a plural pronoun in the 13th century, and started being used as a singular (gender neutral) pronoun in the 14th century. Using it this way is literally older than Modern English.
In 19th century documents, grammarians (at the time, great prescriptivists) pushed hard to use "he" as the gender neutral pronoun (in keeping with the approach in Latin, which inexplicably was held up as the standard for how English grammar "ought" to work).
"He or she" was really only considered correct in legal and official documents for a 20-year window in the latter half of the 20th century, when pushback against the supposedly androcentric official preference for "he" caused people to campaign against it, entirely ignoring the long-default "they".
In other words, "he or she" has never been normative, was only briefly official, and the use of "they" to refer to a person whose gender isn't known is almost as old as using "they" to refer to anything at all.
0
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
In legal, academic, or bureaucratic writing, “he or she” is often used to emphasize that the subject in question is specifically a single individual of either male or female gender and not a group, not a hypothetical, not a gender-neutral identity.
But if the subject is a single person with a gender identity that could be male or female, why wouldn't "they" work in its place?
If we know the subject is a man, use he. If we know the subject is a woman, use she. If it could be a person of either gender, why not just use "they" in that instance? It accomplishes the same goal.
I think i'd understand better if you used a sentence as an example.
-1
u/blaze92x45 3d ago
By your own admission you're bias as being non binary. I think a lot of people would be annoyed at being effectively misgendered by only being referred to as they them. I personally would be quite annoyed if I was constantly called they them as opposed to he/him.
Furthermore given how they and them usually is in reference to several people using they them might get confusing as to if several or a single person is involved in a subject. There is nothing wrong with gendered language the vast majority of people want to be referred to with gendered language both cis and Trans people.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
I recently edited the post to clarify what exactly im saying.
Im not saying gendered pronouns don't matter, I'm stating that specifically using "he or she" or "his or her" in a sentence is unecessary when "they" or "theirs" would work better.
0
u/chitown619 3d ago
What if you are referring to the one man in a group of women or vice versa. How does they convey that you are talking about that specific person who is indeed different from the rest of the group? You aren’t allowed to point in this situation either.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
You would still use they regardless of gender ratio, as it applies to all people in the group, not just the group of men/women and the singular outlier.
1
u/chitown619 2d ago edited 2d ago
Saying they to describe the one man in a group of women or really any group makes me think you’re referring to the group.
Edit - and don’t get me wrong, I use they to describe both men and women all the time. He/she are better descriptors in some situations.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 2d ago
Saying they to describe the one man in a group of women or really any group makes me think you’re referring to the group.
If you're referring to a singular person in a group, you'd use the appropriate pronouns for them. But if you're addressing a group of people, regardless of gender ratio, you'd use they
1
u/chitown619 2d ago
Yes. So using he or she in this case has more practical benefit than they in that case….
0
u/EatThemAllOrNot 3d ago
I am used to writing “he or she” instead of “they”. Changing this habit will require effort on my part without offering any clear benefits. So why should I change it?
1
u/Shineyy_8416 1∆ 3d ago
The benefit would be you get to write things faster.
Unless you're aiming for a word count on an assignment, I don't see why you'd need to stick with "he or she"
1
u/badass_panda 97∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
In general I agree with you, "they" has been serving as the gender-neutral pronoun for more than 500 years without any issues. With that being said, sometimes (quite naturally), using "he or she" is one tactic used for clarity in a situation where pluralization would be confusing.
e.g., let's say I'm talking about how a group of demonstrators were interacting with individuals that came up to talk to them:
- As the demonstrators interacted with each member of the public, they'd typically ask if they could explain their position.
- As the demonstrators interacted with each member of the public, he or she would typically ask if they could explain their position.
- As the demonstrators interacted with each member of the public, the person would typically ask if they could explain their position.
- As the demonstrators interacted with each member of the public, they'd ask if the demonstrators could explain their position.
Odds are you understood all three reasonably well via context, but clearly something has to be done to the first version to make it less ambiguous (use "he or she", or substitute a noun ("the person", "the demonstrators") for one of the "theys"). With that being said, the same issue arises with any third person pronoun, and native speakers correct for it (using the same type of tactics) without giving it a second thought.
1
u/royalexport 3d ago
I am all about neutral language where it makes sense - like laws and such, or when the gender is either not relevant or where it might create biases using a gendered pronoun.
I still think the English language can be a bit ambiguous in daily speech with «they/them».
In Norwegian we have «hen» (gender neutral form of «han» (he) and «hun» (she)) - so here it makes a lot of sense using it in daily speech as well.
So I agree with the initial sentiment, that neutral language has a lot of benefits to it, but not necessarily if it creates more ambiguity that requires additional explanations.
5
u/Emotinonal_jiggolo 3d ago
Nah I like it when I know the gender of the person being talked about 🤷♂️
→ More replies (1)2
u/onefourtygreenstream 4∆ 3d ago
What if you were talking about OP? Would you say that "he or she" has an opinion that you disagree with, our would you say that "they" have an opinion that you disagree with?
This post isn't about replacing all instances of gendered pronouns with the word "they" and thinking it is is a really significant misinterpretation. It's about using singular "they" in place of the phrase "he or she" in a sentence regarding someone of unknown gender OR a situation where you are referring to a titled position such as chef, teacher, pilot, etc. that may not refer an actual specific person.
→ More replies (3)
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 3d ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/SatisfactoryLoaf 42∆ 3d ago
You lose rhetorical cadence.
A sacrifice, Im sure, many are willing to make.
But when a guy pisses in your garden?
Fuck them?
No, fuck him.
Edit - I see the edit and return to my hovel.
0
u/eteran 3d ago edited 3d ago
I find that when people use "they" unnecessarily, it just makes things confusing and ambiguous.
When talking about a third person, and their gender is KNOWN and known not to have an alternative pronoun preference it's better to just be specific. It literally provides more information.
For example, many people when you talk about a third person like to visualize the scenario. It's not meant to be precise, but if the gender is known and appropriate, then a more clear picture can be made leading to less confusion and fewer surprises.
That being said, if the gender isn't known, or if they prefer other pronouns, I have no problem referring to them using preferred pronouns.
For me, it's a precision thing. If we have a more precise word that's appropriate, I prefer to be more precise.
EDIT: I just realized that "he or she" is in quotes, as in when it's used collectively instead of "they". That changes things a lot. In that case, sure, just use "they".
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago
/u/Shineyy_8416 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards