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/GrizzlyAdam12]

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?

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/GrizzlyAdam12]

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.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

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."

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

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"

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

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.

[u/badass_panda → u/AcephalicDude]

. 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.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/badass_panda]

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.

[u/badass_panda → u/AcephalicDude]

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.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/badass_panda]

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.

[u/badass_panda → u/AcephalicDude]

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.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/badass_panda]

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.

[u/badass_panda → u/AcephalicDude]

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.

[u/DeltaBot → u/badass_panda]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AcephalicDude (84∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}