Use of ‘they’ as inclusive

[BolloxtoGender]

www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/11/american-psychological-association-now-requires-researchers-use-non-binary-people/

What’s the counter narrative to this?
What circular logic is this? So how does anyone know if a person identifies as ‘non-binary’, and are they saying everyone should be a ‘they’ as you don’t want to assume that a trans identifying man is a ‘she’? Or something.

I don't know, but as a grammar pedant it makes me cringe, and as a Latin teacher it makes conjugation really difficult if we persist in disposing of all pronouns except the third person plural.

Specifically, the APA suggests using “they” when “a generic person’s … gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context” or “when referring to a specific, known person who uses ‘they’ as their pronoun.”

I don't really see that as particularly controversial or objectionable . The use of 'they' for a generic person of unknown sex (let alone 'gender') has been in common and literary usage for centuries.

The few non-binary people I know are pretty up front about wanting to be referred to as "they" and / or people in the group refer to them as they for example, "what drink does Sam want?" "They want a beer". So in my experience it has been pretty clear, although I admit it took my poor old brain a while to get used to saying it every time.

I think it is good practice to use "they" if you don't know the gender of a person generally (including gender binary people), as otherwise you could get it wrong. As an example, imagine if you had no idea of the gender of a plus one guest for a dinner party, but were talking as if they were a woman "Joan's friend will be here soon - she will need to take her coat upstairs, I wonder what drink she'll have?" and then Joan's friend arrives and is a (cis for example) man. Everyone would be confused.

My take on the article is that the writer is saying the added disadvantage of this in academic writing is that if the gender (male, female, non-binary or otherwise) of a person is irrelevant to the particular research / journal piece, then mentioning it could be detrimental to people being able to read the work in an unbiased way. For example, if a paper was about say "age people want to have children", if a quote was "I want to have children later in life as I want to have a better career and be able to provide more financial security for them", some people may view this differently depending on whether the interviewee was male or female (for example dismissing it as "old fashioned" if a man said it, or "deluded" if a woman said it), which may detract from the science of what the writer was trying to say. That "they" would also cover a male bodied person who identified as gender fluid (or whatever) would be a bonus, but is not I think the main intention. Excuse any typos / poor spelling btw!

It drives me insane. The options for singular are he, she or it. They is plural. So unless you identify as being multiple people you need to choose one of the singular options.

Pretending one doesn’t know someone’s sex in an in-person situation is never going to catch on, nor would it be desirable to do so (poor safeguarding practice).

If you don’t know anything about the person being discussed (as is the case for one’s future imaginary children) then ‘they’ has always been appropriate, especially as with your example there is the potential of plural imaginary children...

But now you see the problem, being so non-specific with language means that you were referring to an undescribed potential parent and I assumed you meant the unknown future child. Confusion all round. Changes in communication should surely make things easier to understand, not harder?

Unconscious bias is definitely a thing, hence many women publishing under pseudonyms or initials and surname only - this is why lots of feminists outright refuse to our put she/her in our sodding email footers - not because we want to obscure our sex, but because this genderist nonsense is making a bigger deal out if it than it needs to be.

Can I ask why you went for the examples of ‘old fashioned’ for men and ‘deluded’ for women? Seems an odd choice, I would’ve gone with ‘sensible’ for both.

The options for singular are he, she or it. They is plural.

This simply isn't true. The use of 'they' as an unspecified sex singular is not some newfangled usage. Using 'they' for someone whose sex is clear to you may make you roll your eyes, but can't really be faulted on grammatical grounds when it's perfectly acceptable as the generic third person singular. (What alternatives are there? S/he is awkward and unreadable, using he as the default has rightly become unacceptable)

www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/they

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they

and then Joan's friend arrives and is a (cis for example) man. Everyone would be confused.

No need to say cis. Just man is fine.

I think for many people, myself included, the issue is grammatical rather than anything else. It just feels wrong to use a plural. But the only other option would be 'it', which obviously isn't right either. I think they'll need to come up with a new singular word!

@DuMondeB Yes, I would agree that both are sensible too. Sadly we live in a world where some people are more bigoted than us :)

It was your example, QS88!

As a feminist I've always preferred 'they' when gender isn't known. I grew up with 'he' as the default which I found really intrusive in its implications. So I've always loved 'they' as an indefinite pronoun. But I do find it hard to read when it's clear who is being referred to. I went to a show recently where a man (very obviously male) was prancing about very well in tights so I looked him up to see where he'd trained and got confused that the bio said 'they', thinking it was referring to some dance troupe he'd been in. Then realised it gender-neutrally referred to him. But tbh, I genuinely don't mind it and will quickly get used to it. Infinitely preferable to the hideous s/he that was around in 1980s but can't be read aloud.

I read this article about Sam Smith a couple of days ago and the pronouns issue makes it really jarring

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7668841/Sam-Smith-looks-chic-blazer-wide-legged-trousers-NRJ-Music-Awards-Cannes.html

On their feet they wore a pair of chunky black heeled shoes, further adding to Sam's funky look.

They clearly had to say Sam's funky look, otherwise it would have said

On their feet they wore a pair of chunky black heeled shoes, further adding to their funky look.

which suggests it was the shoes which had a funky look

I'm not going to use 'they'. It's ridiculous.

I reckon there are less clunky ways of commenting on Sam's shoes, writers aren't all necessarily trying not to make the use of 'they' sound ridiculous.

😬

Does anyone have a problem with the first part of the APA suggestions using “they” when “a generic person’s … gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context” ?

I reckoned it was the DM writer having a GC dig.

The options for singular are he, she or it. They is plural. So unless you identify as being multiple people you need to choose one of the singular options.

Absolutely agree!

cis for example)

I'm loving the way cis is being slipped in any chance it gets, despite it not being allowed on here. Just say bloody man ffs, people will know what you mean.

As i always say in these threads. They is not always a plural.

It has a common singular use when dealing with people of uknown gender
Say you found a phone belonging to an uknown person
"Oh no, they have left their phone!"

I get people have other issues with the use of they but it seems to always involve lots of people saying its a plural when ithas lots of recognised singular use

Not sure why people are saying that they wouldn't be used as singular above.

Seriously if you found an item belonging to uknown person you'd say: "it has left its phone?"

Unknown rather than ukown (phone is playing up!)

It’s all so draining and controlling at the same time.

On their feet they wore a pair of chunky black heeled shoes, further adding to Sam's funky look.

That is just a hideous mangling of the English language. It's horrifically badly written in order to wedge in the woke pronouns. It's not the pronouns themselves that make this sentence so awful. It's the appalling syntax trying to wrangle in as many gender neutral pronouns as possible.

Why not say: Sam wore chunky, black-heeled shoes, adding to the funky look? (I mean where else would shoes be worn than feet ffs?)

Using they for an unkown person is one thing, using it about a nemed person another.

To take the case of Sam Smith to me Sam Smith is the former British number one tennis player. I am both old and a tennis fan. If you talk about Sam Smith and use 'they' I will not realise you are talking about the bloke who sings. I will assume you are talking about the woman who plays tennis. If you use 'he' I'll know who you are referring to. Use of 'they' has restricted understanding in this case.