The Pronoun Problem: With All Due Respect, “They” Are Not One Person
But maybe the model of Ms. can help…?
Pronouns are everywhere. People now have to declare their preferred pronouns on their business cards, their email signatures, and to their friends. We are expected to check in with new acquaintances about pronoun preferences, and then to keep it straight among a sometimes bewildering range of preferences. As I understand it — and I fully admit my privilege in possibly not understanding it (a failure for which I apologize in advance) — respect for these preferences is important for the validation of people’s choices. There is no reason our language should be so driven by gender as it is. Such a language restricts possibilities.
While gender-neutral pronouns are a very good idea, I have to object to the use of plural pronouns to skirt the gender problem. I’ve spent an entire career trying to bring clarity to language, and while the singular use of “they” avoids the gender, it introduces confusion.
“Hi, do you know where Mary is?”
“Yes, they went to the store.”
“Who went with?”
“No one.”
“Huh?”
This simple exchange shows what happens in conversation, but it is even more confusing in writing. Increasingly, I am seeing articles in mainstream media introducing this confusion when talking about people whose pronoun preferences are not even known. Talking about a person, the article suddenly changes to the plural they, apparently to avoid the gendered pronoun, and as a reader I am instantly confused. Who is the author talking about? Did I miss a point in my reading? It is jarring, to say the least.
While the argument can be made that in the first example, Mary wants to use they as a pronoun, the use of the plural pronoun as a general way of talking about an individual to avoid gendered pronouns creates confusion, not clarity, and it honors no one’s specific request. Rather, the language is just getting confusing.
There are places where this pronoun confusion really matters. The meaning of contracts and legal documents, for example, often hinge on the proper use of a single word or phrase, and any confusion introduced by pronouns like this are ripe for litigation about what the agreement actually meant. Similarly, where laws need to be clear in referring to a person, the use of a plural pronoun that actually refers to a singular actor is problematic. Imagine the difficulty of a jury trying to understand what an eyewitness saw as the person keeps referring to both a person and a group as they.
Social movements often explore new lexicons because they pay attention to the unconscious attitudes and understandings that can underly behavior. A similar example to today’s movement away from gender-neutral pronouns was the 1970s introduction of the title Ms. That title replaced Mrs. and Miss, the titles for women that indicated whether the woman was married or not — as if it were anyone else’s damn business. Feminists rejected this married or unmarried designation, and properly so because it suggested that women are a kind of property, and any woman unmarried was somehow available.
In this case, as I understand it (and I am open to learning if my understanding is off), a primary reason for alternative pronouns is that one’s gender identification need not be anyone else’s business either. Gender is understood as a social construct, and therefore can be accepted or rejected as defining oneself. Neutral pronouns undermine the notion that everyone is one gender or the other — one may be not identifying with a gender, living between genders, or transitioning genders. Gender-neutral pronouns free people of the rigid cis classifications. After all, it’s none of your damn business how I identify.
My question for readers is whether or not we can accomplish the same goals in a different way.
In 1983, a mathematician named Michael Spivak came up with alternative, singular, non-gendered pronouns. Spivak’s idea was expanded in 1991 by an online virtual community called LambdaMoo. Here’s what that approach proposed for usage:
E laughs (instead of he or she)
I hugged em (instead of her or him)
eir heart warmed (instead of his or her)
that is eirs (instead of his or hers)
e loves emself (instead of herself or himself)
These pronouns are truly genderless, thereby clearly supporting an individual’s humanity. They don’t lock people into any gender identity, thus enabling people to be clear when they speak or write. In the example of Mary going to the store, the responder would say: “Yes, E went to the store.” Any listener would know that the speaker is only referring to one person, yet there is no gender identity required.
The other key thing is this: Truly genderless pronouns apply to and respect everyone, not just those who ask for it — much in the same way that Ms. garnered respect for all women. As Ms. was adopted across the culture, it lost its sense of feminist insistence, but became an accepted way of addressing a woman formally without making assumptions about her marital status. Women who wore the title as a feminist identifier eventually lost that badge, but the benefit of the loss was society-wide respect for the notion that marital status is no one else’s business.
The same would be true with honestly genderless pronouns. No one would have to claim anything about their pronouns. The same two things fall away. There would no longer be a need to claim a pronoun nor would there be a need to make an assumption. Of course, if anyone selects pronouns as an identifier, that badge would also drop away. Nonetheless, the same great benefit would apply — respect for the notion that gender status really isn’t anyone else’s business.
I’m fairly sure there is something I haven’t thought about here, and some way in which I have been wrong. No disrespect is intended, and if the questions raised are painful, I sincerely apologize. I feel caught between two very important things — a desire to respect each individual’s gender identification and the need for clarity in speaking and writing. I look forward to hearing your feedback.
Recent Poems
A Poem Written Soon After We Arrived Here
My Father at 80
Tending a Brood
Recent Articles
How Cities Can Help People Survive Heat Waves
Looking for robot food?
Who Tweaked Joe Manchin’s Ass?
Can a Homestead Help Survive Climate Change?
Climate Change Phase 2: Persistent Human Effects — Check the Water
Focused on Carbon Footprint? You Might Be Part of the Problem
Please use the button below to share this post with others!
Write On!
Anthony Signorelli