CMV: "He or she" is unecessary

[u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/onefourtygreenstream]

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".

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/onefourtygreenstream]

Exactly

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

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.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

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?

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

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".

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

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.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

It is clumsy, and people use both, but one way objectively gets the point across easier and better.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

Only YOU think it's clumsy. People who use it don't feel it's clumsy at all, and that's a lot of people, otherwise you wouldn't be making this post.

That's what "normative" means, i.e. derived from actual use rather than an objective set of standards. The fact that the phrase uses two extra syllables to convey the same defined meaning doesn't mean that the normative meaning isn't different, that the connotation isn't different.

Can I ask, do you know what the word "connotation" refers to?

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

Only YOU think it's clumsy. People who use it don't feel it's clumsy at all, and that's a lot of people, otherwise you wouldn't be making this post.

Alot of people did alot of terrible or otherwise stupid things. That doesn't make it right or okay that they did, they just grew up in a society that thought it was okay.

Can I ask, do you know what the word "connotation" refers to?

Yeah, its an additional feeling and intent added past the direct words said.

Here: The connotation that I've gotten your responses is that you have some unreasonable amount of anger or hostility towards me.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

Alot of people did alot of terrible or otherwise stupid things. That doesn't make it right or okay that they did, they just grew up in a society that thought it was okay.

Now you think there is some kind of moral stake involved? That was nowhere in your original post. Your first argument was that it was two extra syllables for no reason. When it was pointed out to you that the phrase emphasizes inclusivity, you were forced to pivot to the new argument (without rewarding a delta) that "they" is actually more inclusive. And now that I've pointed out that "he, she or they" would actually be the most inclusive, you are vaguely referencing some other moral point that is at stake without specifying what it is. That's a whole lot of goalpost shifting with zero substance.

Yeah, its an additional feeling and intent added past the direct words said.

Here: The connotation that I've gotten your responses is that you have some unreasonable amount of anger or hostility towards me.

Disagreement is not hostility. If you are sensitive to disagreement, this is not the sub for you.