Gender neutral third person pronoun

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think this would qualify as a "tu quoque logical fallacy.

And unashamedly so. But your position had already been demolished by correct arguments. What is the name of the fallacy that says "No matter how bad my argument is, the fact that you used a fallacious argument gives it a luster it would not otherwise have."

 

[vanesch]

I use 'it'.

In Germanic languages with a neutral gender, a neutral pronoun is never used to refer to persons, unless you really want to formulate an insult, because the neutral gender usually refers to objects, and to diminutives. In fact there is even something strange about it, because the German and the Dutch for "girl" is "das Maedchen", or "het meisje", both neutral. However, the pronoun that refers to it is feminine: sie or ze. You never refer to a person as "es/das" or "het", unless you really want to formulate an insult.

In French, if you want to be gender-neutral, you can use "la personne", and then the pronoun that goes with it is necessarily feminine: "elle", while it is understood that it can be a male or female person, and it doesn't even pose a problem if you know the gender. I think in English, "the person" is referred to by he or she according to a gender choice, no ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think in English, "the person" is referred to by he or she according to a gender choice, no ?

Very often when 'choice' is a part of the determination people have a tendency to use 'it' to refer to said person.

 

[DaveC426913]

Today, we adopt a language that has been carefully constructed to avoid offensive slight, completely void of sexism, racism, etc.

Tomorrow, the language changes senses, meanings, idioms, words to accommodate the underlying prejudices/attitudes -- and so becoming the same base language we spoke before.

Do whatever you want to make a perfect language. But without a change in attitudes, people will just revert/mutate their language to accommodate their unchanged attitudes. You've got to look at the underlying issues and change those problems before the surface issue (our language) can reflect a healthier, more respectful language.

Sexism in our language has nothing to do with the words. Our language is perfectly equipped to suit those who want to avoid offending others. It's not the language that's the problem. Change the language, the sexism remains. And those people will find new ways to express it.

We're not trying to force language use, we are identifying that we have a need for a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun and we don't currently have one.

 

[rewebster]

We're not trying to force language use, we are identifying that we have a need for a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun and we don't currently have one.

That is a problem for those that see it as a problem for them.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is a problem for those that see it as a problem for them.

I think that goes without saying. It doesn't require unanimous buy-in.

 

[OAQfirst]

We're not trying to force language use, we are identifying that we have a need for a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun and we don't currently have one.

I sorry, I don't see where you get "force" out of my post. I did use some exaggeration but only for illustration.

 

[DaveC426913]

I sorry, I don't see where you get "force" out of my post. I did use some exaggeration but only for illustration.

"Today, we adopt a language that has been carefully constructed to avoid offensive slight, completely void of sexism, racism, etc. Tomorrow, the language changes senses, meanings, idioms, words to accommodate the underlying prejudices/attitudes -- and so becoming the same base language we spoke before. Do whatever you want to make a perfect language."

This passage led me to believe that you were suggesting that we thought (erroneously) that a change in language would bring about a change in behaviour, while you were argung that the change in behaviour had to come first.

I was pointing out that our behaviour has changed, thus bringing about the need for a new word.

 

[OAQfirst]

Ah, okay. My perspective does differ, though. I don't see the change in behavior as you say. At least not enough to bring about a change in the majority of our population.

But still, there is no "force" intended. Offer a new word to fill the gap, but I doubt sufficient willingness in the majority to accept it. Which is why I was pointing to attitude first. Pursue a change there, and the majority should be more willing to accept that change in language.

 

[Dale]

English has a perfectly good third-person singular neuter pronoun: "it". Anyone who claims that "it" cannot refer to a person obviously led a sheltered childhood devoid of games like "hide and seek" or "tag". My deepest condolences to you.

(Sorry if this point has already been made)