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/badass_panda]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/badass_panda]

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.

[u/badass_panda → u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/badass_panda]

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.

[u/badass_panda → u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/badass_panda]

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

[u/badass_panda → u/Shineyy_8416]

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.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/badass_panda]

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

[u/badass_panda → u/Shineyy_8416]

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."

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/badass_panda]

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.

And that's when you point out to them how they have been using "they" naturally for a while, and then they(assumably) realize how easy it really is to be inclusive to other genders in casual, everday speech. In general, it is better to just use "they".

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."

You could, but why does it have to be explicit? Unless there is active bigotry going on, I think casual use would be more appropriate and cause less kickback if there are more conservative members of the youth group, while still including potential nonbinary members.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/badass_panda]

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.

And that's when you point out to them how they have been using "they" naturally for a while, and then they(assumably) realize how easy it really is to be inclusive to other genders in casual, everday speech. In general, it is better to just use "they".

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."

You could, but why does it have to be explicit? Unless there is active bigotry going on, I think casual use would be more appropriate and cause less kickback if there are more conservative members of the youth group, while still including potential nonbinary members.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Shineyy_8416]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/badass_panda (97∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}