What exactly is wrong with ‘it’?

[CatherinedeBourgh]

I was brought up bilingual, english and a gendered language. I always loved that english had a gender neutral option, and when my mum was pg we always talked in english about the babies, so we could say it rather than he or she.

As an adult I once referred to a friend’s baby as it and he said it had offended his wife. I thought ‘whatever, she’s a bit wierd’, but on here people seem to go crazy when anyone does it.

There’s also the whole thing with people referring to others as them even it is only one person because they don’t want to disclose the gender.

So hit me with it. What exactly is so awful about ‘it’?

[MrsLCSofLichfield]

People think of 'it' as relating to inanimate objects or animals, not people, hence the upset. I would go with 'they' for a baby of unknown sex.

[StCharlotte]

Well I'm no linguistics expert but I think using "it" to describe an unborn baby seems to have a derogatory tone. It's possibly historic. (I may be talking bollocks!)

[CatherinedeBourgh]

But why? Since when? It is technically correct to use it for babies too, so why the offense? Medical texts often said it meaning the patient in the past, when the gender was not relevant. Is this no longer the case?

[CatherinedeBourgh]

@StCharlotte, ah, that makes sense. One of these words that gets proscribed by how it’s been used, like many racial terms?

[Muddydoor]

It is rude because it suggests that someone is not really a person. We used to also have sh-he but I believe that has been phased out now in favour of the more wierd they.

[LeafBeetle]

But lots of things that are technically correct have a subtler meaning in real life. Eg calling someone "emotional" may be true but has an implication that they are overreacting or being irrational. English native speakers don't usually refer to an unborn baby as it.

[dontgobaconmyheart]

I think those are two quite separate issues really. The issue of those who identify, or do not identify with a gender have every right to decide they wish to be referred to as they/them, because 'she' or 'he' does not actually describe them. I think that's just a case of respecting others decisions as adults, as we should do.

Re: "it" for babies i think that is about personal offence that a baby is a person to them, not an 'it' (which implies that it isn't a proper person). If you already know the sex of the baby I can't see a reason to use "it" but certainly wouldn't take offence if it was due to any language barrier. As you say, there are significant differences in the way language is gendered, knowing that does render it all a bit arbitrary, rules wise.

[StyleAndLasers]

@MrsLCSofLichfield

People think of 'it' as relating to inanimate objects or animals, not people, hence the upset. I would go with 'they' for a baby of unknown sex.

Yes. "It" is not used for people, ever. It implies a lack of sentience. You might use "it" for an animal, but it depends on how you feel about the animal. I would never call our guinea pigs "it" for example I would always say "she", and I wouldn't call someone's pet "it".

[lughnasadh]

It's one of those things native speakers pick up almost unconsciously.

'It' isn't a term you'd use to refer to people, because it makes them sound less than human. You could imagine slave traders using it to make the people they were trading in sound like a commodity.

it denigrates the person you are talking about. Not logical maybe, but the nuance is there, and so entrenched and established that you will sound as though you have an agenda if you use 'it' to refer to a person.

[StyleAndLasers]

Dave Pelzer wrote a book, A Child Called It, about his abusive upbringing - the title of the book is meant to be shocking, as we do not refer to children as "it".

[NotDavidTennant]

Regardless of the technical definition, in practice 'it' is used for things, not people. Using 'it' about a person is seen as dehumanising.

[parietal]

my child gets upset if I call her teddy bear 'it' rather than 'he'. which might seen crazy, but the teddy has to be considered as something alive.

[miltonj]

Of course it's rude - 'it' is an object. Why would you not use she he or they? You wouldn't call an adult 'it' surely.,, why Is a baby different?

[ClarisseMcClellan]

It's a subtle use of language that is maybe hard to see if English isn't your native language but referring to a baby as "it" is a really rude thing to say and would offend most people I think.

Let go of the fact that you think it's correct and believe everyone when they tell you it's really not something you should ever say and you will avoid giving offence in the future

[LeafBeetle]

Thinking about it, I do agree with you OP that it would be good if we could use 'it' for a person of unspecified gender. Rather than having to use he / she which is a pain.

[TheBitchOfTheVicar]

An acquaintance once referred to my (born) baby as 'it'. I was hugely offended. I mean, she was right there! And a sentient being!

When DH refers to our cat as 'it' I feel similarly. For the reasons other people have given

[Babyiskickingmyribs]

It = not a person. It’s incredibly rude to call someone ´it’. For babies in utero it’s not quite so rude because they aren’t born yet so they are kind of almost a person but it still feels quite abstract, especially early on in the pregnancy. I wouldn’t have been offended my someone saying something like ´how much maternity leave will you take when it’s born’ but depending on the speaker’s tone it could come across as a bit cold. I’d apologize to your friend’s wife and explain you didn’t know it’s rude to call a person ´it’.

[BrilliantBetty]

This just reminded me of the saying (telling off?) from childhood

"Who's 'she' the cat's Mother?!"

I can't remember why that was said, possibly older people though it was rude to refer to someone as she rather than their name?? No idea.

I wouldn't mind you calling my foetus 'it' at all. Once born, he / she / name is nicer. Wouldn't be offended though.

[HelpMeh]

@StyleAndLasers

Dave Pelzer wrote a book, A Child Called It, about his abusive upbringing - the title of the book is meant to be shocking, as we do not refer to children as "it".

I came to say this.

It's definitely rude. Why would you ever not refer to a born baby boy or girl as he or she? Unborn babies of unknown sex I would refer to as "the baby".

"It" is reserved for inanimate objects or animals of unknown sex.

[eddiemairswife]

Nothing wrong with calling an unborn baby 'it' if you don't know the sex/gender/ whatever word is in fashion.

[Dilbertian]

I remember being taught specifically that 'it' refers to inanimate objects and to animals, never to people. Nonetheless, you'll find children referred to as 'it' in some older literature (IIRC E Nesbit, and possibly Enid Blyton, would say things like " everyone washed its hands", whereas nowadays you would say "everyone washed their hands" or "everyone washed his or her hands".)

I'm similarly bilingual, dh speaks only English. I referred to our unborn babies as "it", whereas dh referred to them as "them". Which freaked me out, as I would constantly have dreams about twins, even though each time we knew we were having a singleton!

But while I'm happy to refer to my own baby as 'it' until it's born and I discover its sex, I wouldn't do so to someone else's baby - because of what I was taught at school.

[PattyPan]

I agree with you OP and am bilingual too but my other language has three genders and baby, child and even girl are neutral and so it’s perfectly normal to refer to them as it. Probably in English you’d be better off using they.

[CatherinedeBourgh]

Yes, of course I took it on board and now just call everyone ‘they’. It just seems odd to me so I wondered if there was a good reason. It seems not, just one of those things that has come to be because people do it.

[ClarisseMcClellan]

The reason that people do it is that it's the generally accepted rule that you don't refer to a person as it unless you are meaning to be extremely rude

Is your other language German? You saying that there is a “good reason” suggests to me that you're implying that you're right and English speakers are doing it wrong

Maybe that's not what you mean but it's coming across likethat to me

[CatherinedeBourgh]

No, it isn’t, and no of course that’s not what I mean.

By good reason I mean the kind of reason we don’t use the n word to describe people of African origin. Just not something so vague.

The reason I was wondering is because people seem to get actively offended, rather than just ‘that sounds not quite natural’ iyswim, which is what I would expect if it was something which just isn’t the way you usually say things.

In the language of the country I live in now my friends often tell me that some of the ways I say things are odd. Not wrong, but not what a native would do. But they never find it offensive, unless there is some strong cultural reason which they can always explain. So I wondered if there was such an explanation.