Stafford Council ditches female pronouns.

[Defaultname]

At least, I think that's what it means.

Male pronouns in Stafford Borough Council’s constitution are set to be replaced to make the document more inclusive for female and non-binary residents.
References to “he”, “him” and “his” will be replaced with “they, “them” and “their” as part of changes approved at this month’s annual council meeting.

But Councillor Gillian Pardesi, who called for the addition of female pronouns alongside male ones at a previous discussion of the constitution review, raised concerns that not all gendered references had been changed.

Councillor Marnie Phillips put forward the proposal to use non-binary pronouns as members were asked to approve the constitution amendments at the annual meeting.

She said: “With regards to the review of the constitution I do support the changes, however I wish to raise an amendment to the proposal to replace all references to ‘he, him, his’ to ‘he/she, him/her or his/her’.

“As an LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) ally I am conscious that our constitution should be representative of all members of the community and that includes non-binary. To ensure that council members of the future from Stafford Borough’s LGBTQ community are comfortable with the terminology that’s used I would like to propose replacing those references of he/she, him/her and his/her with they, their and them.”
Labour member Councillor Angela Loughran also supported the amendment.

But she added: “I attended the Special Resources Committee meeting to discuss the review of the constitution and I recall Councillor Pardesi proposed amending all references to ‘he, him, his’ to he or she, him or her and his and hers. Some of the members of the Conservative group muttered about political correctness going mad. Officers have more things to do than trawl the constitution to look.

“Tonight however the Conservative group is presenting an amendment to Councillor Pardesi’s initial recommendation. We know the amendment before us tonight would not be here unless members of the Conservative group had agreed to it at a Conservative group meeting.

“I must now congratulate Councillor Phillips for encouraging her more churlish – perhaps Luddite – fellow councillors in the Conservative group to move into the present day and for using Councillor Pardesi’s initial proposal to bring the language in Stafford Borough Council’s constitution to a level which is more representative to all members of the community living in Stafford Borough.

“I hope perhaps in future members of the Conservative group will be a bit more gracious and less dismissive of proposals presented from members of the Labour group and other political parties.” www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/staffordshire/stafford/2021/04/29/male-pronouns-replaced-with-non-binary-terms-in-council-constitution/

Tbh in that type of situation They seems a better option. He/She just sounds a bit clunky (unless word count matters)

Funny Labour using 'Luddite' as an epithet.

"In April 1812 some of the Luddites were gunned down at a mill near Huddersfield. The army were on the offence and began to round up the Luddites, transporting large groups of them to either be hanged or taken to Australia to serve their punishment. The harsh response which resulted in imprisonment, death or being sent across the world was enough to suppress the actions of the group....it was the last fight of its kind before the tragic circumstances of the Industrial Revolution prevailed in the country." www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Luddites/#:~:text=The%20word%20'Luddites'%20refers%20to,matters%20into%20their%20own%20hands.
(Ironically, there's a nice picture of a Luddite man in a dress on that page-unless he was identifying as a woman?
The Rebecca Riots had a lot more male cross-dressing:
"The Rebecca riots took place in the rural parts of west Wales, including Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire, and Carmarthenshire, in 1839-1843. They were a series of protests made by tenant farmers against the payment of tolls (fees) charged to use the roads. Turnpike Trusts, or groups of businessmen, owned most of the main roads. These men fixed the charges and decided how many tollgates (turnpikes) could be built.
During the riots, men disguised as women attacked the tollgates. They called themselves ‘Rebecca and her daughters’. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/rebecca-riots/

I suppose Labour would call them scum, nowadays, for being anti big business...but stunning and brave for wearing a bodice and stays.

@AfternoonToffee

Tbh in that type of situation They seems a better option. He/She just sounds a bit clunky (unless word count matters)

For me, it's the tenor of the thing, not least the GBH-ally and riding the crest of the wave of historical inevitability thing I dislike. Oh, and "educate yourselves, and you can be nice too" suggests this isn't so much the old getting rid of sexist pronouns stuff, but rather 'everyone will soon realise that 'male and female' are meaningless terms'.

@AfternoonToffee

Tbh in that type of situation They seems a better option. He/She just sounds a bit clunky (unless word count matters)

'they' is plural and in many situations you would need to be clear you are referring to singular he/she.

In this case I agree with the action. Singular they is perfectly fine grammatically in a situation where the sex of the antecedent is unknown or irrelevant, is genuinely neutral and avoids the clumsiness of he/she.

Usually I try to write in the plural, which keeps absolutely everybody happy, but that's obviously not always possible and I'd use singular they over he/she.

Default male pronouns are unacceptable and I'm surprised it has taken any official body until 2021 to realise that.

motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/

It's a tricky one. Lots of baby books do one chapter as 'she' and one as 'he', alternating. Obviously this doesn't account for non-binary babies...

'They' is often the best we have to avoid the clunkiness of he/she but care needs to be taken when using it that the meaning is clear and unambiguous.

(I'm assuming the documents referred to are things like 'If you know of an elderly neighbour who needs help please refer them to XYZ'. - rather than 'him') I suppose it could mean that we never refer to named Councillors or staff as he/she just going from their names and assumed sex unless we've explicitly asked their personal pronouns but seems unlikely from the article - it was more about 'chairman' etc?

This has been pretty standard in style guides for some time, btw.

Singular they is perfectly fine grammatically in a situation where the sex of the antecedent is unknown or irrelevant, is genuinely neutral and avoids the clumsiness of he/she.

Yes, but the issue is that is does require the person to be unknown. It's a generic person. Not an actual identified person.

There's an implicit sort of "plural" in that there are many potential people this one could be. The moment you have a defined individual this kind of falls apart, and it jars horribly, at least to me.

Yes, but I doubt the council's constitution or other general policy and procedure documents are referring to specific named people. They are more likely to refer to a job title or similar, e.g. 'the chair'. I also very much doubt that the council is implementing a policy of referring to specific people as 'they' no matter what their sex is and/or how they identify - now that would be bizarre and would undoubtedly be equally unpopular with feminists, trans people and everyone else as well.

I agree that 'they' as a pronoun for a named antecedent is a new phenomenon and grammatically jarring. Singular they as it is normally used is a grammatical feature that dates back to Chaucer.

Yeah, I've always used "they" as long as I can remember. "He/she" or "he or she" always struck me as far too unwieldy. As such, it sounds like a modern woke construction...

Everybody uses it. Even people who say that it doesn't make sense because it's plural use it automatically. If you recorded them speaking for a week I guarantee you'd find examples.

He/she or similar is a semi-reasonable alternative to default he, which pretends 'he' can sometimes be gender neutral rather than explicitly masculine (no, it can't). He/she is the 'old woke' if you like - the push for that usage began much earlier in the 20th century from people who were just pointing out that women existed and might even have jobs and were not included in 'he'. I would take he/she over default he, because I'd take anything over that.

Singular they is a much better option (in my opinion) and was there all along but has been maligned as ungrammatical over the years so it has not been easy to get it accepted in formal contexts. By this stage, I believe it has gained majority acceptance, which is something that I would celebrate.

I think it means this council are ditching default male pronouns in favour of 'they' as a neutral. The only remarkable thing is that it wasn't done last century.

Not assuming that a tenant is a man is good. Assuming that a tenant might well be neither a man nor a woman, less so.
I think that behind this is the 'wave of the future' notion that anyone is/are all sexes or neither, depending on the time of day.

Changing Dear Sir, to Dear Tenant wouldn't seem to justify the reference to being a gender ally, or the dig at organised labour.
The story wasn't terribly clear, but I doubt if this is the end of it.

The proposed use of 'they' is intended "To ensure that council members of the future from Stafford Borough’s LGBTQ community are comfortable with the terminology". Transism and Queer Ideology gets a mention, but feminism doesn't.