Gender-Unspecific Versus Ungendered Pronouns

[LemonBlossom]

Or why I prefer "it" to the singular "they" for myself.

It seems to me that discussions of the use of singular "they" as a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun always focus on whether or not it's grammatical. However, at least for me, this misses the point. Whether it's grammatically acceptable (I think it is, but I don't want to argue that here) or not, the way people primarily use it is not consistent with the pronoun I want used for me.

Consider the example sentences that come to mind of times when people use it:
"Someone left their coat on this chair."
"A good teacher should know how to encourage their students."
"Their name is Sam Smith."

In the first case, it's being used for a specific person, but one whose identity, and so gender, is unknown.
In the second case, it's being used for a generic entity that could describe many different people, who presumably have different genders.
In the third case, it's being used for a specific person whose identity is known, but whose gender isn't. However, this doesn't indicate that the speaker expects anything other than that they have a standard, binary, gender.

In other words, the singular "they" is a gender-unspecific pronoun. It--or your preferred alternative to it--solves the very real problem of how to refer to a person whose gender isn't known, or to a generic entity that might describe various people of different genders.

However, this also means that it isn't an appropriate pronoun for me. My gender isn't unknown--at least not to me, or to someone I'm telling what pronoun to use for me--and it's not changing. It's explicitly neuter, so "it" is a better pronoun for me. Even if people want to object that "it" is explicitly inanimate and that the singular "they" is ungrammatical, though, it seems to me that we do need two separate pronouns for these things.

[Jaye]

My views are pretty similar, apart from my preffered ungendered pronoun being ze. And I don't object to it being used, there's a few people on WiG who use it for themselves.

To me people calling me ze, is just the same as me calling binaries she or he, or even just like remembering their name! But I don't mind people using gender-unspecific pronouns about me that much, particularly as many people don't know my chosen pronoun which is a forth case that could be added to your list.

But I'd much rather "they" became more common as a generic pronoun for everyone, than people remembered my individual pronouns. And I mean like using "they" for strangers/aquaintances who you haven't asked what their preferred pronoun is.

[Ryles]

I don't really think "it" implies a known gender so much as either a lack of or inability to have a gender or an unknown sex or gender. Examples:

"Is it a boy or a girl?"
"Who is it?"
"Look at that squirrel- isn't it cute?
"That tree is in an annoying place, I almost hit it every time I back out"
"Can you take a look at my computer? It's been acting up

The first three are a case of unknown sex. The first question makes it blatantly obvious that the person expects a binary sex. In the second one, most people expect that whoever "it" is is either a male or a female- but you know neither the gender nor identity until the question is answered. The third is, again, unknown sex- we expect the squirrel to have either a penis or uterus and not both, neither or some other combination of sex organs, but refer to the squirrel as 'it' as we're unable to tell which from the distance. Most people don't refer to their pets as 'it', but base their pronouns on the animal's sex.

The last 2 are an example of genderless or not capable of having a gender. Now, yes, technically you could decide to consider your tree or computer or other inanimate object to be male or female (ex. ships are often female)- but most people do not think of trees or computers of having a gender.


I think it'd be better to just say "There are no acceptable english pronouns for us".

[LemonBlossom]

You have a point about "it" sometimes being used for unknown gender, too. I'd not considered expressions like "Who is it?" It seems strange to me that "it" is allowed for unknown gender, but only in very specific expressions, like that. (And in standard responses to them--saying "It's a boy!" of a newborn seems more normal than "He's a boy!", and one can reply to "Who is it?" with "It's [name]." rather than "I'm name.". I'm not really sure what to make of these, though they seem specific enough that I'm not really convinced that they mean that "it" is normally used for cases of unknown gender.

Animals are a sort of weird case; I think a lot of people are sort of inconsistent on which animals they use gendered versus ungendered pronouns for.

I don't really see a need to distinguish between "not having a gender" and "not being able to have a gender". It's true that no cars have genders, while some people do--but while I'm a person, I couldn't have a gender and be a me. So I'm not clear on why I should need a different pronoun than something that doesn't have a gender but that is of a sort of thing that couldn't. Introducing new pronouns to be more specific might be nice, but I'm not convinced it's likely to be successful, especially since everyone seems to have a different one or ones they're campaigning for. I don't mind people using their choice of genderless pronoun for me, but so long as there's no consensus as to what genderless pronoun we ought to be campaigning for, I don't feel comfortable trying to insist on asking people to use one for me.

[Ryles]

I don't mind people using their choice of genderless pronoun for me, but so long as there's no consensus as to what genderless pronoun we ought to be campaigning for, I don't feel comfortable trying to insist on asking people to use one for me.

What are we supposed to do for people who aren't genderless or gender neutral, though? We're basically setting up a system where we need 3-50 pronouns for other genders/genderless people, rather than just one that can cover everyone. Or is that the idea?

[LemonBlossom]

I don't mind people using their choice of genderless pronoun for me, but so long as there's no consensus as to what genderless pronoun we ought to be campaigning for, I don't feel comfortable trying to insist on asking people to use one for me.

What are we supposed to do for people who aren't genderless or gender neutral, though? We're basically setting up a system where we need 3-50 pronouns for other genders/genderless people, rather than just one that can cover everyone. Or is that the idea?

One for everyone sounds like an optimal system, to be fair. I don't know how to get one, though. Not that I know of any realistic way to have fifty pronouns either. The real answer is that we're just going to have to keep putting up with the vast majority of people using binary pronouns for everyone, since they don't know or care or believe that anyone non-binary exists.

[scrapetape]

I actually talked about this with my mom like maybe a week or so ago... I really don't mind being called "it" as long as it's not being done with the intent to be a dick about it. Infact I think I like "it."
"They, them, their" etc are all okay too, but a little more awkward.
I guess calling someone "it" kind of makes them sound like some sort of genderless extraterrestrial or something, but I already feel like one anyway, so maybe that's why I like it lol.

Other than "it" and "they" I'll sometimes try to get my mom to use other ways of avoiding "he/she"... for example, when shopping for a computer we were asked if it would be used for gaming. Instead of saying something like "yeah, she/he loves to play games!" she responds with "oh yeah, this one loves gaming on the computer" while motioning to me. -shrugs- It works for those kinds of little situations.

[dkas2929]

scrapetape,
I'm not crazy about the "it" thing it sounds like your talking about a thing rather than a person whatever there gender
try "they"

[MonochromeShine]

I hate they for the simple reason that it gets confusing when you have to talk about a group of people and person of unspecified gender in the same sentence or paragraph.

"They left their coats at their place"

They could mean a group of people who all left coats at the place they live. Or it could mean a person of unspecified gender left their coats at the place they live. Or it could mean that a person of unspecified gender left coats at Tom and Kit's house. Or that a person of unspecified gender left a group of people's coats at the place where the person of unspecified gender lives. Or... AGH. It just gets too complicated. Try a paragraph:

A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for their froggery, when they heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards them from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made them think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. They fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above them on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. They were indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully theirs, but under the circumstances they were not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" they cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, they carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"

As compared to a paragraph using it, which loses the distinction between the person being talked about and animals, as well as being repetitive due to the limited forms:

A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for its froggery, when it heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards it from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made it think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. It fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above it on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. It was indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully its, but under the circumstances it was not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" it cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, it carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"

And then you could use a GNP of your choice. This paragraph has 'ey'

A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for eir froggery, when ey heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards em from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made em think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. Ey fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above em on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. Ey was indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully eirs, but under the circumstances ey was not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" ey cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, ey carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"

It reads the most fluidly, without confusion as to what the pronoun antecedents are. That's why I prefer things like the Spivak pronouns to 'it' or 'they'

(paragraphs stolen from here, apologies for how long they are)

[notentirely]

Well, just to state my world, to no offense to anyone, just to mark my particular brand of queerness, I don't oppose to my cisgender pronoun "he". For me it is just a matter of grammar and not gender, and I am just fine with it. But then it possibly has to do with me being OK with my physical sex (although it seems arbitrary to me), and being OK with my almost-cis presenting. For me, my gender rests deep in my soul and neither pronouns, nor body nor clothes can get to it. I am my brain, and everything else is just tools which I happen to have and operate

But I have respect for you guys for whom pronouns do matter, and I try to listen...