[zahlman]

>Someone with some kind of reason-- whether it's being funny, selling a product, or wanting to say things in a way that doesn't offend someone else-- coins them, and then depending upon the overall zeitgeist they become heavily used or fall into disfavor.

Sure. The point is that reasonable people can believe that the zeitgeist is absurd, or that the use of terms doesn't actually reflect popular opinion (perhaps you've heard terms like "preference falsification" or "filter bubble").

> The use of gender neutral language as a favored practice has been largely settled in English style guides everywhere since I was a small child, and I am old. To a pretty big portion of the population, "chairman" sounds dated.

I don't understand how you reconcile your argument with the fact that many people insist that using terms like, say, "patriarchy" to describe all that is wrong with the world - or "toxic masculinity" to describe the supposedly harmful effects on men of behaving according to their social stereotypes, but "internalized misogyny" to describe the supposedly harmful effects for women doing the same - is not evidence of bias against men.

> Once upon a time the singular "they" was widely accepted and used... now people want to tell us using "they" to describe a person of undetermined gender...

There is a rhetorical sleight of hand here. Historically, singular "they" was used to describe an indefinite, hypothetical or otherwise vaguely described person (e.g. the perpetrator of a crime before being identified) - not a definite person whose gender was simply unknown (e.g. someone unseen, known by a gender-neutral name). Further, its use is quite restricted - it doesn't admit all the inflections and noun-verb agreements that "he" and "she" do.

> and it's better for it to not contain excessive constraints or connotations that are unhelpful.

It seems to me that you propose entirely unnecessary constraints.

[mlyle]

> I don't understand how you reconcile your argument with the fact that many people insist that using terms like, say, "patriarchy" to describe all that is wrong with the world - or "toxic masculinity" to describe the supposedly harmful effects on men of behaving according to their social stereotypes, but "internalized misogyny" to describe the supposedly harmful effects for women doing the same - is not evidence of bias against men.

I don't know how you ascribe some particular uses of language that are outside the mainstream with my descriptive note that language has moved towards mostly using gender-neutral terms. I'm not blaming a lot on patriarchy; so it's not really fair to point out that a small minority of people who share my viewpoint that neutral language is preferable do.

> Historically, singular "they" was used to describe an indefinite, hypothetical or otherwise vaguely described person (e.g. the perpetrator of a crime before being identified) - not a definite person whose gender was simply unknown (e.g. someone unseen, known by a gender-neutral name). Further, its use is quite restricted - it doesn't admit all the inflections and noun-verb agreements that "he" and "she" do.

You're right that most of this historical usage of singular they isn't the personal singular they, but you still find plenty of it-- e.g. the King James Bible has quite a bit (perhaps influenced by translating from languages that tend to use equivalent devices).

"vnto thy gates, euen that man, or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die."

> It seems to me that you propose entirely unnecessary constraints.

I think that if I talk about the "mailman" it could be misleading. Ditto for singular "he/his" for indeterminate gender. It seems more useful to use gender-neutral terms-- no need to edit it based on the actual gender that shows up.

The inclusiveness isn't even the primary reason why I feel this way. However, I have heard people say that they thought that it wasn't societally permissible for them to do something based on the way the nouns and pronouns used in sentences; avoiding that seems desirable, too.

[zahlman]

>I don't know how you ascribe some particular uses of language that are outside the mainstream with my descriptive note that language has moved towards mostly using gender-neutral terms.

I disagree that the standard use of established feminist terminology is "outside the mainstream". Anyway, the point is that they are obviously not gender-neutral terms. It is a blatant double standard to suppose that the term "chairman" disparages women by its construction (despite no such original intent), but that the term "patriarchy" doesn't disparage men by its construction (when it was specifically constructed to describe a construct, by academics who had free choice).

> e.g. the King James Bible has quite a bit

No, that's precisely "an indefinite, hypothetical or otherwise vaguely described person (e.g. the perpetrator of a crime before being identified)". Other examples I could find myself were not any more compelling.

> However, I have heard people say that they thought that it wasn't societally permissible for them to do something based on the way the nouns and pronouns used in sentences

Within the last quarter-century or so? Despite the readily available evidence of other people of the same gender doing that thing?

[mlyle]

Using "chairman" to describe a position implies that it's occupied by a man. And the writing may need to be revised for someone who is female who doesn't want to be referred to as a chairman or mailman.

Using "patriarchy" to describe a specific male-headed familial structure is for the purpose of criticism is descriptive, just like "matriarchy" is. Of course, it can be misused, like in the cases you pillory.

> No, that's precisely "an indefinite, hypothetical or otherwise vaguely described person (e.g. the perpetrator of a crime before being identified)".

I thought you were drawing a different distinction; it's definitely the personal singular they. That exact type of usage is when I use "they" to refer to a person of indeterminate gender, e.g. someone to be hired.

> Within the last quarter-century or so? Despite the readily available evidence of other people of the same gender doing that thing?

Much less within the last quarter-century... in part because all of the style guides about this stuff changed about 40 years ago, when I was a small child.

[Grustaf]

> Using "chairman" to describe a position implies that it's occupied by a man.

No, obviously not. A "chairman" can just as well be a woman. What it does imply is just that _historically_, chairmen were mostly men. You might object to the word because its etymology reveals a past where men occupied these roles, but it is not true at all that the word today implies anything about the sex of the person.

> That exact type of usage is when I use "they" to refer to a person of indeterminate gender, e.g. someone to be hired.

Yes, if you are giving instructions to the guard at the front, telling him (sic) to "let them in", that is the traditional, organic usage. Which is distinct from the politicised usage where you either know that the candidate is a woman but still say "them", or its a person that considers herself "non-binary" and insists that you use gender neutral language. Those two situations are different from the traditional usage.

[mlyle]

> know that the candidate is a woman but still say "them"

Actually, the he or she agreeing with "them/their" later in a sentence is old and widely accepted. So a fair deal of this usage is a linguistic oddity.

> or its a person that considers herself "non-binary" and insists that you use gender neutral language.

The preferred personal pronoun thing is different. It has its own discussion and justification.

I am purely talking about "they/them" to refer to people of unknown gender, instead of "he" or "he/she"-- the singular, personal "they".

It went from occasional use in the 1300s-1600s to "wrong" in the 1800s. Now it's emerging as a best practice. Even though style guides that otherwise moved to gender neutral language in the 80's rejected it, it grew organically for quite awhile before starting to become accepted.

[Grustaf]

>Further, its use is quite restricted - it doesn't admit all the inflections and noun-verb agreements that "he" and "she" do.

I agree with all your arguments, but just want to point out that this is not actually true. "Indefinite they" does inflect just fine. "Who attacked you, did you see them? No, but they dropped their gun." etc.

[ralferoo]

Through most of my life, I have routinely used "they" when describing events to other people, even when I know the gender of the person concerned, because it's either not relevant to what I'm saying or I want to deliberately withhold that information.

For example, if someone mis-dialled and called our phone, the conversation after would always be something like "Who was that on the phone?" "Oh nobody, they got the wrong number."

When I was at university, whenever I talked to my mum on the phone about any of my friends, male or female, I'd pretty much always use "they" unless I'd already mentioned their name, because if I ever made the mistake of mentioning a female friend, it'd turn into an hour long interrogation.

[zahlman]

I avoid needlessly gendering others by just not using third-person pronouns. (To forestall the objections I always hear at this point: no, in my experience, it's much easier than people keep trying to tell me it is. I have also had people suggest to me that I can't possibly be doing it with any kind of consistency; I have tried auditing myself and found that my self-perception was indeed accurate.)

[mlyle]

Writing referring to a person repeatedly without using a third-person pronoun is often wordy and obfuscatory. Accepting "they/their" is a far lesser sin.

(Of course, having the tools in your toolbox that one would use to avoid pronouns sometimes lets you increase clarity; it's not a bad skill to have).