The new Brookings PFLAG chapter will be hosting a meeting Thursday at 6:30 p.m. at the Brookings Public Library to discuss transgender terminology and pronouns. According to a PFLAG flyer, SDSU Gender and Sexuality Alliance member* Cory Murphy will explain “cisgender”, “non-binary”, “agender”, and other terms and “discuss ways to be inclusive and accepting of transgender people in everyday life.”
Augustana English and journalism major Shi Almont discussed transgender pronouns in that Sioux Falls paper Monday to note the growing professional acceptance of “they” as a pronoun for an individual who does not identify as male or female:
Inclusivity is a significant facet of this issue. Some publications, like the Washington Post, have accepted the singular “they” as a gender-neutral pronoun. The AP Stylebook says to use a person’s name in place of a pronoun if they identify as neither male nor female and to only use they/them/their if it is essential [Shi Almont, “Reporting Across the Gender Spectrum,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2017.11.20].
Using “they” to refer to one person is an error as surely as when Pat Powers manufactures a plural headline to overtag one person’s opinion. “They,” “them”, and “their” refer to multiple human beings. To assign plurality to one person confuses listeners. Consider:
- “They want** to come with us to the park.” They? There’s only room for one more person in the car; we’ll need another driver so they can all fit.
- “We’re having them over for dinner.” Them? Multiple guests? That means I need to put the leaf in the table and order a second pizza, right?
- “In the disagreement between Jean and Pat over custody of their child, the judge ruled the child is theirs.”
We can make language more just without making it less clear. Almont recognizes alternatives that I consider superior—new pronouns:
While the acceptance of the gender-neutral “they” is a step in a right direction, there are other pronouns individuals use to express their gender identities, including non-binary terms such as ze and hir, that publications will not use, despite their growing usage in society, which is absurd considering that the English language has accommodated nonsensical words like “selfie,” “twerking,” and “amazeballs.” And avoiding pronouns altogether, as The AP Stylebook suggests, further singles out gender nonconforming people.
…If a journalist thinks it necessary to briefly define ze or hir for those unfamiliar with newly coined gender-neutral terms, so be it; it would be better to spare a few words for the education of audiences, as well as the accurate and thoughtful representation of the people in their story. It’s that simple [Almont, 2017.11.20].
Maybe Thursday’s program in Brookings will offer good moral reasoning to the contrary, but why shoehorn transgender individuals into a pre-existing grammatical category which creates the harmful metaphor of associating our neighbors who identify as neither male nor female with a grammatical error? We can make new words, including new pronouns, to describe non-binary identities that our culture has resisted while still making clear about whom and about how many of them we are speaking.
I will not assign to a transgender individual a gender that individual rejects. Nor will I assign to any one person plurality. An individual is one person; the language we use to describe that person should reflect that individuality. He and she may not capture an individual’s true nature, but they never does. So ze it is… or e, or whatever other new words we need to describe our new(ly recognized) reality.
*Correction 2017.11.27 05:38 CST: I originally referred to Murphy as a PFLAG “leader”; Murphy serves as treasurer and feels “leader” overstates the role Murphy plays in the organization.
**Question: Do we clarify the situation if we say, “They wants…”?
What’s wrong with referring to “they” as “heshe” or “shehe,” as the case may be. “Heshe” would be a male who identifies as female, and “shehe” would be a female who identifies as male. You could then call someone who is a male but identifies as no gender as “hit” and a female who identifies as no gender as “sh*t.”
This is a great topic. As more identify as different forms of words there should be additional penalties added for the act of using improper forms of address. A commission formed of identity experts should be elected through democratic efforts (free of the biased racists, misogynists, white elite) to better mettle in the existence of any refusing to properly address the terms selected as correct through a program of “education” in specially designed areas remote from the enlightened. We can call those areas “Civilization Centers” where scientifically eco-friendly developed tools such as solar powered panels would generate persuasive pulses of truth convincers to be applied amply to facilitate learning.
Ok, it’s not a great topic. This is stupid. We live on a big ball in space and in this vast universe, filled will millions of life forms, all broken in to one of two sexes, it had to eventually happen: Some have gone off the deep end and it is those that can’t look down into their pants and figure out what they are.
Or look into your heart, because sometimes it isn’t a question of what’s hanging or not hanging below the belt. And, there really aren’t just two sexes. If you learn enough biology, you will find out that binary sex is not the only way to reproduce.
In someone’s protected, wingnut shelter of living, he has never heard of hermaphrodites. If he has, he probably blames Obama and HRC for allowing it to happen.
Language is all about identification; the entire purpose is to give communal understanding to abstractions (thoughts). English has more words than any other language allowing for greater precision. We constantly add words to denote new concepts. (Google is now a verb.) We do not need to be limited by imprecise, current terminology to identify the new: language did not determine seasons to be binary, and denote only summer or winter. Having so many words also makes creating new words difficult as so many combinations of letters are taken or are close to other words that have negative denotations (as Donald’s word play shows).
At the same time, there are rules. Singular and plural matter.
On this issue, the problem is different if we are talking about a sexless determination of abstraction (a student should always bring his or her book to class), or a direct reference to a specific individual that identifies as neither “he/him” or “she/her.”
The difficult part is always getting new language to stick.
As recorded in the tenth chapter of Mark, Jesus Christ taught that “from the beginning of creation God made [humans] male and female.”
Rebellion against young-earth creationism strikes me as thinly veiled rebellion against Christ, and so does rebellion against binary gender.
Kurt, so should we stone them now, or do we have to wait until after Sunday to do the Lord’s work?
OldSarg, I think you are on to something when you write, “Some have gone off the deep end and it is those that can’t look down into their pants and figure out what they are.”
I think that part of the non-binary gender discussion is fueled by a belief that one’s plumbing does not define what a person is — in a larger sense. Too often stereotypes and cultural expectations have been assigned based ONLY on having an innie or an outie.
You are going to refuse to use someone’s preferred pronoun because you are hanging on to an ideal that grammar rules should remain static? That battle was already lost with ‘you’ (both singular and plural). You would really risk offending someone rather than referring to them as they prefer? What is the upside? The descriptivists at Merriam-Webster see the writing on the wall. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
grudznick thinks Mr. H got all your goats on this one.
Rebuking young-earth creationism IS responsible Christianity. To think that God never made hermaphrodites in nature, and thus also within humanity (made in His image), is just plain ignorant.
Cory, great post! How we talk and think really does matter. Our legal system needs to catch up with society, and our most isolated and left behind citizens need to get more in touch with the greater population. I think posts like this help bridge the gap – intentional or not – and I like it.
Sex is what you see when you look down your pants. That is biology.
Gender is a social construct which defines the roles and rules for the sexes. It is society that determined that pink is for girls or that boys who want to play with dolls is a bad thing. Biology has nothing to do with either of those.
Gender runs on a spectrum, at each end is male and female. Every person falls somewhere on that spectrum–regardless of what their biological sex is. Where they fall on this spectrum and what their biological sex is are not mutually exclusive.
“They” is a grammatically incorrect shortcut that many people already use in speaking and writing to take the place of “he or she”. Using “they” as a third pronoun actually makes sense to me on this basis. If people want to start debating grammar and writing rules, they do change. Take the Oxford comma, for example.
I’ve always found the slashed form inartful. Donald’s combo suggestion points toward the false binary that transgender activists are trying to break away from, the idea that male and female are still the defining categories.
O is absolutely right to point out OldSarg’s limited thinking that parts are all that matter. As we’ve discussed here before, sometimes mind doesn’t agree with matter. At least OldSarg is useful in, as usual, pointing out the narrowmindedness that we’re trying to address.
It’s interesting that the only people who must struggle with this word choice are the people around the gender-nonconforming individuals, not the gender-nonconforming individuals themselves. When referring to themselves, transgender people can always use I/me/my/mine and we/us/our/ours. The first person doesn’t have gender. Neither, interestingly, does the second person. We don’t bump into this problem when we talk to each other, only when we talk about other people.
Yes, denature, I am going to refuse and advocate for better, clearer language, which will serve everyone’s interests better. That’s the upside. The fact that people take offense at being told they are pursuing a substandard solution does not change the fact that their solution is substandard. I offer a better language option that offers more clarity and better expresses the socially just distinction the speakers pursue.
I also resist the loss of singular and plural distinction in English. I welcome “y’all” to restore a distinction that makes language clearer.
Cory, when you made the decision to redefine words you entered a world of chaos. Boys are girls are its are irs are whatever is no different than referring to dogs as cats, birds as lizards, wood as water and whatever one would like. It makes no sense. A man cannot be a woman even if they believe in the very own heart they are a woman. They can take hormones, cut off their body parts and dress however but when you look at their DNA they are still a man. Beyond that you are literally trying to kill these people with a mental condition by encouraging these acts. The suicide rate among transgendered is still north of 40% and you cannot change that by supporting their irrational decision to act like they are a different sex than they are. You can keep calling me a racist for arguing the point just as most of your minion call me a racist for asking what color islam is but once again, the foolish act of reining words, encouraging mental instability, and generally trying to figure out how to convince a civil society that amoral acts are moral is borderline insane on its own. Look at the world you have created around yourself: It’s ok to kill unborn humans because you say they are not human but its not good to kill terrorist because they don’t understand our culture. You support the government collecting more taxes but you argue against paying more taxes because you lose your mortgage deduction. You argue for the 1% to pay your way but they don’t even have enough money to pay everyone else’s way. It is not rational and no matter how many times you trash others who think rationally it doesn’t change the truth. A man cannot be a woman because they “feel” like a woman inside, you can’t tax more than the money that exists, killing unborn humans is still killing, terrorist will kill you and Mike from Iowa is an idiot. Those are called “facts”. Sorry, no redefinition of words change any of that. They are “facts”. You can’t argue with “facts”. “Facts” are real and do not change.
Old Sarge has an interesting point to ponder with the DNA statement.
Try to pay attention, OldSarg.
I’m not redefining words in this post, I’m actually opposing the redefinition of they. I’m saying that co-opting a plural pronoun to signify singular individuals creates confusion that outweighs any social justice or psychological benefit. I’m saying that using alternative words rather than redefining existing words more accurately describes the world and the individual’s perception and provides better social justice and psychological benefit.
[Every time OldSarg enters a conversation, his words justify the same response: OldSarg, you aren’t adding to the conversation. You aren’t paying attention to what’s actually being said. In this case, you just hear “transgender” and spout off your tired old talking points and insults. Then you stray off like drunk uncle into taxes, abortion, terrorism, and your desire to call others idiots, which are completely irrelevant to our understanding of this language issue. Such language shows you aren’t interesting in having a conversation; rather, you just want to throw punches to show what a tough guy you are. Get over yourself. Address the topics presented or keep quiet.]
It’s okay Cory. The Social Justice movement is over. Koch Brothers are buying Time Inc and your thinking will change with the education they provide to the masses.
You can bet that until he is impeached, trump will now be the man of the year at Time. His mug will be plastered on the front page like a Pug at Westminster Kennel Club. Woof woof and and then Thune/Rounds will be there to plastic bag his droppings. Here it is for next year https://www.google.de/search?q=pug+face+at+westminster+kennel+club&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=EkrsEnG5bbfjVM%253A%252Cq0eJeMlogxVpQM%252C_&usg=__suJ-ewhYXO_fh2YsL2WdRWXdon0%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZg7351d3XAhWi44MKHbDtAvwQ9QEILDAC#imgrc=EkrsEnG5bbfjVM:
Mr. jerry, your well though out discussions have convinced me.
Consider grudznick convinced, without looking at your blue links that probably go to one of those scary Lar places. You don’t need to put a blue link out to convince me. I’m on board.
Taking a look at DNA does not clarify things as much as OldSarg seems to think. See this article from the journal Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
My father-in-law shared this from his own experience: “Anyone who thinks gender is set in stone with no gray areas at birth should spend some time working in a children’s hospital. The number of opposite-sex surgical procedures needed for some babies is eye-opening. … We had to upgrade medical records and billing systems to allow ‘unknown’ as a valid gender.”
Ms. Heidi, that is a very good article that you linked to. Thanks for that. “” In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.”” This really makes more sense than anything.
Oldsarg was thinking of the wrong DNA acronym when he was trying to muddy the waters. He should have been thinking Does Not Adhere, which in this subject matter, would be correct.
Great article, Heidi. Very informative! I’m afraid it will be too much for OldSarg to bear. His spectrum of thought is limited to black and white, male or female, with no gray and certainly no rainbow of colors in the palette of his mind.
Cory, I have to agree with the other comments that basically take issue with your approach as the grammar police on this subject. If people (this could be one or more or none, as the case may be!) prefer to be referred to as “they,” who are we to make a big fuss about it? As you allude to in your blog post, “they” was already well on its way to being a versatile gender-neutral pronoun in common parlance. In sum, that ship has already sailed.
Furthermore, if the use of “they” makes it easier for people to be accepting of transgender people in everyday life, then it is well worth sacrificing the small amount of numerical accuracy which you lament. New, more numerically accurate words may eventually rise to the fore and be preferred. That is the natural course of language development. In the mean time, let’s ease the transition and not lament the use of words that are already in common use and convey broad understanding of their meaning.
Who are we to make a big fuss? We are the fellow users of the language, who may lay claim to a right to clarity in communication.
I do not agree that the ship has sailed. There is some sloppy use of “they” when we are talking about an unknown individual—”Someone broke the window; they left their footprints in the garden”—but when we discuss a known individual, we know better than to use the singular and need to find a clearer alternative to avoid the non-trivial confusion created by the three examples I listed above.
The examples I give offer more than a “small amount of numerical accuracy.” I disagree with your weighing of harms and benefits. The court needs a way to make clear which individual has custody of a child, something the proposed “they” blurring cannot do. Alternatives exist that provide better progress toward “acceptance” while avoiding number confusion and the unpleasant metaphor of associating transgender individuals with confusion and error, and (bonus!) using new words that more accurately portray the reality of gender rather than just labeling transgender individuals with another existing pronoun that doesn’t capture who they (all of them, in their diverse plurality) are.
But this is what we teachers do all the time: we challenge common errors and direct students toward more accurate and effective use of language.
So, Darin thinks I’m correct. . . “That is the natural course of language development. In the mean time, let’s ease the transition and not lament the use of words that are already in common use and convey broad understanding of their meaning.”~ Darin
This “movement” is not the difference between being a man and a woman rather it is the definition of the words. You all could have said it so much easier: “A pee pee is still a pee pee no matter how much you feel it is not but if we call it something else we will change it.”
Cory, this subject is interesting to me because you are normally not so formalistic. Your mind normally adapts to new information and circumstances. In this case, your love for grammatical rules has trumped your reason and logic. You gloss over the fact that “they” is not an exact term even if properly used. Great, your adherence to form will narrow down the possible number of people “they” refers to from infinity to one less than infinity. That is not exactly the literary equivalent of E=MC2.
In your example of the court granting child custody, obviously the court will use the name of the party receiving custody. That is the most exact and accurate way to convey the information of who has received custody.
The meaning of words is never Frozen. Follow Queen Elsa’s advice and “Let it go.”
OldSucker-what do you call Hermaphrodites?
noun
1. a person or animal having both male and female sex organs or other sexual characteristics, either abnormally or (in the case of some organisms) as the natural condition. synonyms: androgyne, intersex, epicene, bisexual, gynandromorph
True, I do feel more formalistic on this issue. But I feel logic and reason still ground my position. I offer you a logical argument for why “they” is a greater error, practically and symbolically, and why new pronouns better represent reality.
You point to the logical course for the court: rather than using confusing language, use names. That shows the weakness of the “they” approach for everyone. We should seek clarity as surely as the courts and any other user of language. The fact that the use of “they” creates confusion points toward the conclusion that perhaps third-person pronouns in general are oppressive structures and that, instead of shoehorning everybody into the existing structure, we need to tear down the entire edifice and create language that better reflects reality. Must pronouns reflect gender at all? If gender is a flawed binary concept, let’s boil pronouns down to simple third person stand-ins, “it” and “they”, with no distinction between thing-hood and personhood, let alone man/woman/other. We’ve already erased gender distinction from the third-person plural; is that not a grammatical/historical precedent for referring to every individual not involved in the conversation as “it”?
I am 100% in agreement with Cory that being pedantic is a good thing, and changing a plural pronoun to a singular pronoun is a lazy and unnecessary thing to do. People already using “they” as singular isn’t a good reason to pretend it is correct. Just as many people probably use it incorrectly as a singular pronoun referring to people who “conform” to the role of male or female than for people who live outside those categories, so it isn’t even something that transgender people should have some sentimental connection with.
I wish it wasn’t so, but I think I agree with about 75% of what OldSarg is saying. I think a lot of things are built into our DNA, and one of them is our sex. I think it is likely that many people feel different than their DNA suggests they should feel, so I believe there are “men” who don’t feel like “men” and there are “women” who don’t feel like “women.” I encourage every single person to think and act however they want to think and act, so long as they don’t harm anybody else. So, if you want to do things that others of the same biological sex would normally not do, great – more power to you. However, I think non-gendered pronouns don’t exist in popular culture because, for the most part, people don’t care that much about the struggles of others unless that struggle impacts them. Why do you think there aren’t special pronouns for people with multiple personalities? Because nobody cares. Why do you think there aren’t special pronouns for hermaphrodites who were born with two sets of genitals but identify with only one gender? Because nobody cares. Why do native Alaskan people have so many words for snow? Because that’s what they care about. Language is a tool that is modified and adapted constantly to address the things that are important to the public at large. These pronouns will develop and become commonly used when people decide to care about this issue. 2017 isn’t that year, however. The fact that “selfie” and “twerking” and “amazeballs” have all become commonly used words and non-gender pronouns haven’t should tell you something about how much the average person cares about incorrectly pronouning another person.
I like this quote from Cory, “The fact that people take offense at being told they are pursuing a substandard solution does not change the fact that their solution is substandard.” I think this thought process can apply to a lot of the stuff people cry about these days. Just because you are offended that the entire human race uses two gender pronouns doesn’t mean anybody else cares enough to adapt their behavior to correspond to your internal sense of self. People asking for accommodation to avoid being offended is so sad to me – get some thicker skin folks; life isn’t kind to most of the rest of us either. Yes, even people who are comfortable with the sex they were born with offend each other all the time, intentionally, so get used to it. If somebody struggles this much with what pronoun a stranger uses, he, she, or it is really going to have a hard time with everything else.
On a side note, I do support the creation of new pronouns. There are actual, useful reasons for doing so to fill the gaps in our current options. Below is a link to an article written by a very smart man who has been saying this for years – and not because somebody’s feelings might be hurt, but because there are practical implications.
https://works.bepress.com/charles_thatcher/6/
“Pedantic” is generally used negatively and suggests the solution Ryan and I support is inferior. Far from it: I advocate new pronouns over “they” not out of excessive and unwarranted adherence to old rules but out of a timeless desire for clarity in language, for effective use of words.
I use pedantic as a word without emotion in it. Precision, clarity, and certainty are my goals. I used it only as it applies to the issue of bastardizing the meaning of the word “they.” I am open to finding new words to articulate new things; I don’t mean I am pedantic to the point of suggesting that language should never change.
Just making sure—dictionaries general recognize negative meaning in “pedantic”. Thus, under common usage, I have to push back against a sentence like “being pedantic is a good thing.”