Pronouns she/they - what does that mean?

@moderate ’suggesting it's no bad thing if they're gradually adopted to replace irrelevant (at best) and harmful (at worst) gendered pronouns.’

In what way is correctly identifying someone’s sex by a gendered pronoun harmful?

I'm not responding on behalf of @moderate , but I would quibble with the example, deliciously baffling though it is. If the story were about Martin and Bob, not Brenda, we would be able to replace every singular they/them/their with he/him/his, and it would remain almost as confusing. In practice we don't write like that: we use names a lot more. Sure, if we're telling a story about a male and a female protagonist, then we have the luxury of being able to refer to them via gendered pronouns, but not all stories are like that.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's a need to remove gendered pronouns from a language. Gender-neutral pronouns are not ideal either, and I imagine speakers of Finnish, Turkish, etc., have to cope with little frustrations and misunderstandings from time to time.

I understand your position, but I will reiterate mine: I'm not suggesting they're "shoehorned into the language in place of perfectly good gendered pronouns", I'm suggesting it's no bad thing if they're gradually adopted to replace irrelevant (at best) and harmful (at worst) gendered pronouns.

I do the same @NasturtiumsAreUnderrated .

For years I've used ‘s/he’ and ‘him or her’ when I'm talking or writing about a hypothetical person who could be female or male (style guides often require this). The ‘him or her’ is so clumsy that when repeated use would be required I usually rewrite so I can use plural pronouns.

Lately, however, in informal contexts where I have a choice I've sometimes opted just to use female pronouns, making it clear at the outset that what I'm saying covers both sexes, if that isn't blindingly obvious from the context. No complaints or misunderstandings so far. I spent long enough putting up with male as the default pronoun and with being told that ‘male pronouns have been used throughout where reference to both sexes is intended’. That irritated but didn't confuse me, so I assume that a female default will be similarly comprehensible.

I agree that using default male pronouns when the sex isn't known , as in the past, isn't acceptable. "They" is fine in that regard.

I still think it's confusing to use it for a known person. It also feels forced and unnatural. Maybe if everyone stopped using he or she and started using they, the language would adapt accordingly. But that's unlikely to ever happen. Male and female will still exist.

I’m not sure who you think thinks this is a “gotcha”. I was just pointing out to somebody that using ungendered pronouns is not at all analogous to arbitrarily changing word order.
Using “they” sounds confusing to those who are unused to it. Languages change, and this change is for the better IMO.
I was taught by my mother that if I did not know the sex of a the referent of a personal pronoun, I should use “he” or “him”, no doubt based on some archaic Latinate principle, like the one that forbids splitting infinitives.
I prefer “Could the owner of the car parked across the entrance please move their vehicle” to “Could the owner of the car parked across the entrance please move his vehicle” but to my mother the former sounded wrong. To me it sounds fine, and to my children a singular “their” sounds fine used in situations that sound wrong to me.
Sure, it doesn’t carry as much information… but if we had different pronouns for “young referent” vs “old referent” and somebody suggested ditching those, then people would think “but that will introduce confusion”.
And the upside of ditching sexed pronouns should be obvious to most gender-critical people.

Actually, that's a good point - I can imagine the chance to scold anyone who doesn't use the ever changing pronouns 'correctly' must be a big draw for people who want to control those around them/make them dance to a tune. It's incredibly narcissistic.

And using it to punish those not in an inner circle must be an even bigger draw for them - it's very queen bee/mean girls.

Means she is speshul. Very speshul. So stop thinking about your work and start thinking of ways to please, appease and affirm her. Mere courtesy will not be sufficient here nor will unthinking comradely pleasantness. She is speshul. Long conversations about speshulness are good. Ensure you monitor her every mood and check in with her regularly. Everyone else in the office needs to do this too. Do not attempt to tell her how you feel and do not mistake this for an exchange of equals. You are not speshul.

One of my sons female lecturers was a she/they.
In her case it was she/her some of the time and they/them some of the time. No set ratio....
I imagine she could use it to punish people she didn't like and let it slide for her friends and admirers.

We already know exactly how ungendered pronouns would work grammatically in English, because we already use them when the sex of the referent is unknown.

Ok.

But do you see the outcome of just you mentioning that she is doing this as a political stance? That is what I’m referring to.

It sparked a discussion about your friend being female and language usage. And it didn’t resolve the sexism at all. I am not convinced the reason works as your friend explained.

On the other hand it is an example of how these language demands work. Ie it did centre a person demanding language changes to suit them in a discussion about that language. Of course, this is what many people have pointed out is the outcome, intended or not. That any demand to change language ends up with attention being directed at that request and towards that person.

Even a request has this disruptive effect.

If she/they is really about not wanting to be seen as female because of nor wanting to have to conform the societal expectations and stereotypes of being female, why not use she/him/they. ie use whatever pronoun you want with me, just treat me as a person and not what expect me to be from a gendered pronoun

Or you don’t include any pronouns at all. I don’t put any on my CV. Do you? They can read my name and make any assumption they want.

I wasn't talking just about CVs but any time in life where it is indicated that you are ok being called she or her.

Yes, and also the sense for effective rhythm and sound; one can see it in your sentence about the dog.

“But one could also say that saying you are a "she" will be read as you are a "cis" woman, who has a feminine gender identity. That may not be the intent, but it will be the impact.”

Or you don’t include any pronouns at all. I don’t put any on my CV. Do you? They can read my name and make any assumption they want.

“There is no solution really. People will draw their attention to you being female whatever you do and possibly even make further assumptions due to how you state it.”

Exactly.

Word order is awesome, the way we use it without even thinking about it, and everyone will know immediately if it's wrong: I have a brown small old bushy-tailed dog.

A language tends to work as a organic whole, so taking one element (e.g. whether pronouns are gendered or not) in isolation and arguing that if one language doesn't do it, another language doesn't need to do it either, is a dubious undertaking without a thorough knowledge of both languages concerned.

An example: if you want to explain a situation involving Jane, Susan, cake and giving, in English, you do it with word order and a preposition: "Jane gave the cake to Susan".
You can't reverse Jane and cake without changing the meaning - "the cake gave Jane to Susan"(!).
Even moving "to Susan" feels a bit off - "to Susan Jane gave the cake" because although the meaning is still clear, word order is so strong in English that we are sensitive to word-order oddities. (It might sound ok if we were narrating how Jane gave various different things to different people, with the emphasis on who got what; in isolation it sounds awkwardly phrased.)

In Latin it would be a different matter, because Latin nouns have case endings. Jane (the subject doing the verb) would be in the nominative, the cake (object of the action) would be accusative, and Susan (recipient) would have a dative case ending. So wherever you put them in the sentence, their grammatical function travels with them and meaning isn't lost, and word order can be used purely for emphasis.
Along comes Innovatus Optimisticus and says "Hey, guys, some languages don't have case endings, we don't need this shit!"
Sure, they don't, but if they ditch them, it's not "just" a matter of ditching case endings. It has implications for how Latin handles word order and emphasis, and possibly other things too that I haven't thought of (it's a long time since I did any Latin).
Similarly with pronouns and gender, I suspect.

@Ereshkigalangcleg ...some people wear different coloured bracelets so their unfortunate friends and colleagues know in which “gender” they should be addressed in at that time
This is a testament to our atomised society.

I was going to ask if this was a wind up, but I realised that I have no difficulty believing that such bubbles exist - that there are small corners of UK society where this manipulative weirdness actually happens and is considered normal -
and so instead I found myself thinking bleakly of all the other bubbles where disturbing, damaging practices proceed unremarked , unhindered and largely unseen.

At some point it becomes difficult for outsiders to challenge what's happening in these bubbles and for insiders to opt out.

That may well be true unless there are no other ways of discerning sex from the CV.

But one could also say that saying you are a "she" will be read as you are a "cis" woman, who has a feminine gender identity. That may not be the intent, but it will be the impact.

There is no solution really. People will draw their attention to you being female whatever you do and possibly even make further assumptions due to how you state it.

It does, some people wear different coloured bracelets so their unfortunate friends and colleagues know in which “gender” they should be addressed in at that time.

Laugh emoji, where art thou!