[nyctom]

Perhaps.

But there ARE those of us who find the unspoken assumptions about that "genderless" he to be patronizing and offensive.

And not all of us who feel that way are women.

[Terese Coe]

Robert

It's pleasant to know you found what I had to say stimulating, or perhaps the word was "interesting."

You say I was writing about a woman. I take it you were referring to this sentence in particular, written some time back:

"It's characteristic of Rhina that she can express the love of her/his own work a poet needs to survive as a poet in this world, and express it for all poets."

I was speaking of the "love of his/her own work a poet needs to survive as a poet in this world." This was what Rhina expressed for all poets, in my estimation. I'm afraid your interpretation of the grammatical defects in the sentence is misguided in this instance. The word "poet," so far as I know, is considered neither male nor female (perhaps I should say rather androgynously male and female?); certainly it is not plural.

Terese

[Roger Slater]

Chris, that's the link I was looking for. Thanks for posting it. It's well worth reading for anyone interested in the subject, but I'll mention some of the salient points here:

Starting in the late 1300's, the "singular their" was used with great frequency and was not considered bad grammar. In the 16th Century, when grammar came to be more systematically studied (though often by aridly applying Latin rules to English and assuming that English had to behave the way Latin behaved), it became a bit less common but still showed up in the writing of many writers, including Shakespeare. Still, it appears that no grammarian spoke out against the "singular their" until 1795, and this continued in the 19th Century as well. The basis for attacking the "singular their" was always a matter of "logic" as the grammarian understood it and was, apparently, not a reflection of the way people (uneducated and educated alike) actually spoke.

The article also quotes Coleridge, who was troubled by the "singular their" but was also troubled by using the masculine form to refer to women. His solution never caught on. He advocated the use of "it" as the logical solution.

Just as Coleridge was troubled by the use of "he" to mean "he or she," and his objection was not based in feminism, other grammarians in the pre-feminist days were troubled by it as well. Otto Jespersen in 1894 spoke of the "disparaging implication" to women of being subsumed in the masculine form.

As the article details, Jane Austen used the "singular their" at least 75 times in her novels, and I presume that Mr. Mezey would not accuse her of "illiterate stupidity." Other authors, including the Bard, have used the "singular their" as well.

Since the "singular their" predates all serious feminist movements in history, it is simply inaccurate to attribute the current use of the "singular their" to PC concerns or to the women's movement of the 1960s-1970s. In fact, anyone who makes such an argument may well be combining two unrelated pet peeves (the grammatical issue and the feminist movement) into one illogical argument. Calling people who disagree either "illiterate" or "stupid" cannot substitute for scholarship.

Personally, I'm not against movements that set about trying to influence usage based on the desire not to give offense to women or other oppressed groups. Why shouldn't the language keep up with our values? But this is a red herring, since the "singular their" has a long history even among writers who had no feminist leanings.

Jim, you make a good point about legal-speak. But the original point still stands. Yes, lawyers try to write in a way that banishes ambiguity from what they write, even at the cost of grammatical felicity. But the point here is that there was a perceived ambiguity that the lawyers were concerned with. Where did that ambiguity come from if it was so clear that "he" meant "he or she"? And why did the medical society bar women simply because the by-laws used masculine pronouns?

I agree that there's no logical, a priori reason why "he" cannot mean "he or she," but the fact is that there have always been writers and grammarians and other native speakers who have been troubled by the usage, and the "singular their" was not considered a barbarism until about 100 years before Mr. Mezey wentto school and learned grammar for the first time. The link that Chris gives shows that Austen, Goldsmith, Thackery, Fielding, Johnson, Lewis Carroll, and many other writers used the "singular they" before the grammatical logicians decided it didn't make sense and opens people up to the charge of being illiterate or stupid.

[Carol Taylor]

Tom, a Spanish friend of mine recently went to renew his passport and was amazed to see that the form had been changed. The check box for varón (male) now distinguishes between varón masculino and varón feminino. Why don't I think that the purpose of such a change is consideration for the sensibilities of the applicant?

Carol

[Roger Slater]

Carol, that's funny, but it illustrates a somewhat different point. Nobody would claim that "varón" standing by itself could refer to women. In fact, "varonil" means "manly" or "masculine" and so the gender-specificity of "varón" seems clear. And while "varón masculino" may seem a bit redundant, a male child is often referred to as an "hijo varón" even when it's clear that "hijo" means "son" and is not being used in a gender-neutral manner. Also, I don't think anyone would call a female child an "hija varón."

It seems that the Spanish form was so antiquated that it simply did not anticipate that a woman would ever be filling out the form...although the solution they came up with is, I'll admit, somewhat laughable. It reminds me of the English club that wanted to invite then Prime Minister Thatcher to speak, but it had a rule against women. They solved the problem by voting her an "honorary man," which, oddly enough, seemed to satisfy all concerned.


[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited July 15, 2002).]

[Carol Taylor]

Roger, it was a new form, and it still had a check box for mujer. The distinction was in regards to sexual orientation, not gender, a gross invasion of privacy in my opinion.

Carol

[nyctom]

I think from now on I will just play more backgammon. The next time someone wants to slag off on anything I will just hit that little x on the upper right corner and say, "WhatEVer...it ain't my problem."

[Roger Slater]

Carol, that's weird! Did it also have a box for "mujer masculina"?

[Carol Taylor]

I didn't think to ask him about that at the time, but I'm betting it didn't.

I've developed a strong resistance to forms that invade our privacy for "statistical" purposes. Obviously race, age, height, gender, and national origin are pertinent for ID purposes, just as a photo is. Hair and eye color used to be identifying characteristics until they became so easy to change. But income bracket, occupation, marital status, religion, and what a person does in the bedroom shouldn't be required fields. When you ask, "Why do you need to know that?" the answer is, "Oh, we just use that information for statistical purposes, it's kept entirely confidential."

Carol
proponent of the genderless pronoun

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Roger--

Thanks for the long provenance on the use of "their." I find it both illuminating and useful.

My reason for favoring the use of "their" for the singular ambiguous third person is the same reason I favor using "alright" as one word (though this sends folk weaned on Strunk and White into apoplexy as well): Clarity.

"Their" is definitely ambiguous as to sex, whereas "his" is ambiguously ambiguous. Write the sentence:

The teacher said, "Each student should bring his paper to the front of the class."

The implication is that this might be an all boys school. Certainly it's not an all girls school, as would be indicated by "her," or a coed class, as would be clearly indicated by "their."

Same way, read the sentence:

We were all right on our way home.

Does that mean "We were okay on our way home" or "We were collectively directly on our way home"? If you allow the construction "alright" as a synonym for "okay," your meaning will be clear, at least in the first sense.

Besides which, the construction follows the same logic as "altogether" and similar words.

Kevin