[skipkey]

It could be an age thing. When I was taught grammar 40 plus years ago, for someone of indeterminate sex, “he” was taught as always appropriate, “he or she” was a somewhat clunky alternative that was situationally appropriate where you were stressing the gender neutrality, and “they” was just simply bad grammar which would get you bad marks. I’m honestly not sure when that changed.

[freedomben]

Indeed. I was taught very directly that the singular pronouns were he, she, and it. The plurals were we, you, they. So grammatically if you were referring to a singular person of unknown sex, then you should use "it" .

Obviously using the pronoun "it" at some point became offensive, so is highly not recommended. But, (probably after having drilled into my head repeatedly that "they" is a plural) it seems very incorrect to my ears when "they" is used to describe a singular person. It also unfortunately comes with ambiguity sometimes. I've had misunderstandings where I used they as a singular pronoun to describe someone of unknown gender, and the person I was talking to took it as a reference to a plural, which at best creates confusion, at worst misleads.

Language is an incredibly hard problem, and it certainly doesn't help that as youth, we are drilled with supposedly objective truth regarding language, when in reality it is far less defined and more nebulous than than the teachers would have us believe. The generational gaps can already be tricky to navigate. Having different ideas of objective truth, especially regarding language, certainly does not help.

[commodoreboxer]

"They" as a gender neutral singular pronoun has never been bad grammar, and has been accepted in common use for many hundreds of years.

[LoganDark]

A fun fact I learned just recently is that even Shakespeare used singular "they":

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.h...

(and even singular "themselves"!)

which puts to rest approximately every argument I've ever seen against it.

[gaganyaan]

Because this often ends up with people talking past each other, never until a few years ago did anyone use singular they for a known, specific person. Shakespeare used it for unknown or nonspecific people.

[commodoreboxer]

It was also used in the King James Bible, published in 1611.

[LoganDark]

Interesting. Shakespeare had first used singular 'they' in 1594, so not even that long before.

[jml7c5]

In casual use, yes. In formal writing, the broad switch to acceptance of singular "they" is only about 15 years old. Up until that point it's the sort of thing that would be flagged by an editor, or lose you marks in an English paper.

[commodoreboxer]

I'd be shocked if that were universal over that time, given that even formal language has undergone many changes in attitude. Over hundreds of years, I bet that in many times and places it has not considered it a problem, particularly given its use in the King James Bible.

[account42]

And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

[littlestymaar]

It's been qualified as “bad grammar” by many people over the years though.

[littlestymaar]

“They” is particularly convenient when discussing about people over the internet, because not only we don't have to assume the person's gender, but we don't have to assume if it's an individual or a group either.

And tbh using gender in pronouns is artificially annoying, and it's good to see English has a way out of it, like it got rid of giving genders to common objects like most European languages (“Non, it's La chaise, chair is feminine in French” -_-').

[__float]

Languages hold complexity in different areas, but that doesn't make it artificial. Grammatical gender (and noun classes more generally) may seem redundant, but redundancy in language is quite common. It helps disambiguate, as it turns out speech (especially, but writing too) is a very lossy method of communicating.

(You seem perfectly happy distinguishing between animate/inanimate nouns and choosing "it" or "he/she/they" -- that's a difference not all languages make, but should we get rid of it in English too?)

[arcxi]

1. "it" does not distinguish between animate and inanimate nouns:

The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it. — Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

But he [Jesus] said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid." — John 6:20

2. gender distinction is artificial because it's not based on anything real, rather it's based on whether the "vibes" that a person (or an inanimate object in European languages) that you're referring to gives off are more feminine or more masculine. this "redundancy" creates all sorts of trouble for folks who are not comfortable with the "vibes" society assignes them with a particular gender at a given moment. the problem here is not that the speech is lossy, but that this particular "feature" of language demands that you convey the person's identity when it's almost always irrelevant in a way that's exclusive to gender (thank God nationalism wasn't invented when the language was forming)

[__float]

1. Yes, as with many "rules" in language there are exceptions. I would find it a bit odd to refer to a baby as "it" in (current) English, though I do admit there are some situations where it wouldn't feel as out of place.

In my read of the Bible quote, it's not really referring to a person as "it" in the same way.

2. Grammatical gender has nothing to do with the "vibes" of an inanimate object - it's quite arbitrary, really. The problem you're associating here is much more with gender in humans, but we were talking about the grammatical construct applied to objects (like a chair as the grandparent mentioned).

[LoganDark]

Babies are weird. So are animals.

So, as far as I understand it, gender pronouns are typically for referring to individuals. This means that whether to call a baby, or animal, by gender pronouns or object pronouns varies depending on the expectation.

('gender pronouns' includes singular they/them, which is a 'gender pronoun' in the way that it perhaps, if you will, implies the 'gender' of 'neuter'...)

I guess a generally understood term for this would be "humanization", although as someone who identifies non-human that still sounds somewhat exclusive, but regardless, that is what I generally observe to be the difference.

So, it's possible to refer to a baby or an animal as an object, if, in doing so, you intend not to assign that object any individuality; in other words, if you're referring to it in a non-individualistic way.

e.g. "I needed to change its diaper again today" ("dehumanizing"; I guess shows a lack of empathy, but not everyone necessarily feels empathy for the baby before it is more markedly an individual)

It's also possible to refer to a non-individual (such as an inanimate object) as an individual, which, in doing so, typically implies that the non-individual nonetheless has some sort of individuality or that you're specifically assigning it such.

e.g. referring to ships / other vehicles using 'she'; also, giving everyday objects individuality is a relatively common part of Japanese culture (which is part of why Apple's recent "Crush!" ad upset so many)

Typically, it's respectful to refer to people as individuals because they are. It is "dehumanizing" to suggest otherwise. (seriously, is there a better word for this?)

Some prefer to be referred to as objects instead, though; I know at least one like this. But those will typically specify it in some way, and it's rude not to refer to any one as an individual unless otherwise specified.

[LoganDark]

> not only we don't have to assume the person's gender, but we don't have to assume if it's an individual or a group either.

as someone with DID (formerly called Multiple Personality Disorder) this is actually kind of a nice bonus. (though people still often use he/him pronouns to refer to specifically me, which is fine)