-
The Latest Threads page has been rebuilt and is back for good! We have also fixed the site issues that were causing poor performance for some users.
I think randomly using "she" is better than using "he/she"
- Thread starter NineConsonants
- Start date
With all due respect, this sounds like you're projecting. You're used to working and checking words to see if they fit the style you were trained for. Most people don't do that. You can argue that we all have a implicit understanding of grammar, and that's true, but the implicit understanding many of us have is one where "they" can and should be used in a singular neutral context.
It is quite easier in Germany. You just use "Innen" or "In", with an upper-case "i" after a normal gender-neutral or masculine word if you want to imply gender-neutrality at a whole. (like BürgerIn (neutral) Bürger (masculin) Bürgerin (feminin with lower-case "i"), SchülerIn, etc.) But that's just for descriptions, etc.
If you want to talk about a person or to a person, you would use formal speek, who is gender-neutral.
If you want to talk about a person or to a person, you would use formal speek, who is gender-neutral.
Use they.
It's a neutral term. Some will associate it with a she, some with a he and some with a hypothetical person that could be either.
It's not your job to try and reprogram people or counter their influences in that regard.
You're overthinking it to the point where you're taking it to another undesirable extreme.
It's a neutral term. Some will associate it with a she, some with a he and some with a hypothetical person that could be either.
It's not your job to try and reprogram people or counter their influences in that regard.
You're overthinking it to the point where you're taking it to another undesirable extreme.
While reading articles and sites about parenthood online, you'll find most alternate between calling your hypothetical baby "he" or "she". I.e. "she will start to crawl", "he needs positive reinforcement", etc instead of a more abstract "they". Sounds like what OP is advocating for.
Unfortunately it seems that 99% of those same articles/blogs assume the parent reading is "mommy".
Unfortunately it seems that 99% of those same articles/blogs assume the parent reading is "mommy".
OP
OP
It’s not about reprogramming people. And I don’t really see it as overthinking. It is a very true statement that most people have a man as the abstraction of humanity. Is it really overthinking it to go “hey, I’ll make this about a woman instead of just saying he”. The same logic can also extend to non-binary representation.
The singular they works fine. Wikipedia has a nice article on it. I don't think "okay okay, the person could be a woman but we know we're really thinking of a guy in this hypothetical" makes any sense applied to a gender-neutral pronoun. It also predates the prescription of 'he' by 400+ years, for anyone who thinks it's wrong.
When you work with language long enough, the rules begin to not really be rules anymore. It all comes do to preference, and I rarely work exclusively in a particular style. Also, language changes, and what was once frowned upon becomes commonplace. So I do agree that using "they" as a singular neutral pronoun could very well become the norm in the future (it is definitely the front runner for lack of better options).
That said, my distaste for "they" as a singular pronoun has nothing to do with training in a particular style (though I admit years of experience certainly contribute to making it sound bad to my ears). If I wasn't able to be flexible with styles, I wouldn't be very good at my job. The thing is, (most) writing is not undertaken for the sake of the author, it is the audience that must be considered first, and--as a copy editor, not the original author--the client second. Like it or not, though "they" may be more politically preferable, it is--at the current time--grammatically incorrect. As I said, this could very well change in time, but as of now, when I have to choose between being grammatically or (marginally more) politically correct, my job tends to require the former. As I said, this definitely depends on the client and the audience, and in some cases I have indeed used "they," (though this is exceedingly rare). To be honest, I have found very few situations where I wasn't able to rewrite and avoid the problem altogether.
That said, my distaste for "they" as a singular pronoun has nothing to do with training in a particular style (though I admit years of experience certainly contribute to making it sound bad to my ears). If I wasn't able to be flexible with styles, I wouldn't be very good at my job. The thing is, (most) writing is not undertaken for the sake of the author, it is the audience that must be considered first, and--as a copy editor, not the original author--the client second. Like it or not, though "they" may be more politically preferable, it is--at the current time--grammatically incorrect. As I said, this could very well change in time, but as of now, when I have to choose between being grammatically or (marginally more) politically correct, my job tends to require the former. As I said, this definitely depends on the client and the audience, and in some cases I have indeed used "they," (though this is exceedingly rare). To be honest, I have found very few situations where I wasn't able to rewrite and avoid the problem altogether.
We talk about hypothetical scenarios all the time, but the majority of the time it's with you, I and we.
But if someone (there we go) is making a point using a made up person, giving that person a gender for reasons completely irrelevant to the hypothetical, but in order to bring balance to the genders we assign to made up people... well I think that's quite unhelpful at a point where you want to be understood above all else. If your background aim is to correct people it also means you're making assumptions about the person you are taking to.
I think you have an idea but practically speaking it's useless, it's not something you would use frequently (to the first point) and it's not going to be helpful when you do, if being understood is what you were after.
So I've just explained my opinion to you but it's not the style in which I interact with people normally on a day to day, maybe at your work or generally in your life you have many opportunities to talk about a hypothetical she.
But if someone (there we go) is making a point using a made up person, giving that person a gender for reasons completely irrelevant to the hypothetical, but in order to bring balance to the genders we assign to made up people... well I think that's quite unhelpful at a point where you want to be understood above all else. If your background aim is to correct people it also means you're making assumptions about the person you are taking to.
I think you have an idea but practically speaking it's useless, it's not something you would use frequently (to the first point) and it's not going to be helpful when you do, if being understood is what you were after.
So I've just explained my opinion to you but it's not the style in which I interact with people normally on a day to day, maybe at your work or generally in your life you have many opportunities to talk about a hypothetical she.
OP
OP
Your argument that this situation is rare is simply untrue. I mean, I don't know how else to say anything other than you're simply wrong. Talking about a hypothetical person in the third person is not a rare occurrence. And I really really really do not see how using a random gender is going to make me unclear and hard to understand.
I'm a tech writer, and I agree. The problem with "they" is that using it as a gender-neutral pronoun is gramatically incorrect, so it doesn't work in formal or professional settings. "He/she" is clunky, and while writing to avoid pronouns altogether sometimes works, dancing around it can also result in clunky writing. Having said that, since "they" is becoming common in everyday use, formal English may soon evolve to accept that form of the word.
Style guides tend to address the issue by saying "just be consistent with which pronoun you use", which makes sense to me. But I also agree with OP in that if you're writing an example, you're totally free to write a hypothetical female character instead of a male one, just to break up the habit of assuming everyone is male. Writing examples that sometimes use male or female characters isn't unusual in instructional writing. Going "Jane decided to do this" in one example and then saying "John decided to do this" in a later, unrelated example is fine, and not confusing to the reader.
Shit, really? Huh.
Style guides tend to address the issue by saying "just be consistent with which pronoun you use", which makes sense to me. But I also agree with OP in that if you're writing an example, you're totally free to write a hypothetical female character instead of a male one, just to break up the habit of assuming everyone is male. Writing examples that sometimes use male or female characters isn't unusual in instructional writing. Going "Jane decided to do this" in one example and then saying "John decided to do this" in a later, unrelated example is fine, and not confusing to the reader.
Shit, really? Huh.
This is the most dumbest thing that I have ever read. S/he is fine, They is fine, them is fine or any other gender neutral term is fine...except for It, that's offensive for obvious reasons.
Trying to default a person as a woman, when they might not be is even more offensive. I am male and I would prefer to be referred to as either the male pronouns or the gender neutral one. Furthermore in your faux attempt to be progressive you fail to realise that it could be offensive to trans people.
“They” is actually not great, because you lose whether you are talking about one person or multiple people. I think the important thing is to pick one and be consistent, in which case “she” is fine. And definitely don’t use “it”.
Most style guides recommend rewording your sentence if you feel the need to use the singular they. Clarity is most important.
Most style guides recommend rewording your sentence if you feel the need to use the singular they. Clarity is most important.
OP
OP
You’re saying it’s the dumbest thing you’ve ever read when you clearly do not understand what it says. I’m talking about putting a gender to a hypothetical person when talking about a scenario or a made up person in a story. How exactly does one misgender a hypothetical person? And I don’t see how transgender fits into this. The hypothetical person being labeled a woman could either be cisgender or transgender but still be labeled a woman if that is supposed to be their identifying gender. If you meant non-binary, then you could extend this to sometimes labeling the person as non-binary.
For something this ingrained in our collective psyche the solution is simply better and equal representation of all genders in all facets of life. Eventually, more and more people will not default to picturing any singular gender when presented with the pronoun "they" in a hypothetical, which in most cases is a man.
That process can include instances of killing any possiblity of the hypothetical person being defaulted into a "he" by explicitly stating they are a "she".
So in a sense I think you are actually right about this.
That process can include instances of killing any possiblity of the hypothetical person being defaulted into a "he" by explicitly stating they are a "she".
So in a sense I think you are actually right about this.
There's nothing objectively wrong with singular they, and they idea that it should be avoided is pretty, and it never really took hold in the English language at any point in time. So even the small c conservative argument doesn't hold water here.
You're choosing to follow a style guide that prohibit them, I personally think we should change those style guides since there's no good reason to prohibit them and a bunch of good ones to allow them, but it's not usually up to the tech writer.
You're choosing to follow a style guide that prohibit them, I personally think we should change those style guides since there's no good reason to prohibit them and a bunch of good ones to allow them, but it's not usually up to the tech writer.
I think the point is to get to the where it's not distracting, and at least in my limited experience, it doesn't have to be.
I took this course where the professor did it, and it was kinda weird for 10 minutes, but then you get used to it. I actually got to appreciate it and it made me think about the way we frame our stories.
I think listening to it for hours of that messed with my brain in a good way.
I took this course where the professor did it, and it was kinda weird for 10 minutes, but then you get used to it. I actually got to appreciate it and it made me think about the way we frame our stories.
I think listening to it for hours of that messed with my brain in a good way.
