Talk:Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Spivak

I'm having a little trouble accepting the Spivak referenced in the article. They way Spivak is referenced, it makes it seem like it is an accepted part of the language. I could imaging a non-English speaker from, for example, China reading this article and thinking that the Spivak is actually part of the language.

I'd like to see the Spivak moved to the article on Nomic, where it is used. It's an online shorthand and a game language, like leet-speak. At most there should be a link to Spivak in this article, under invented languages. Sorry if this sounds snarky, but the Spivak detracts greatly from the article. Markspace 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Gojira)

"soul" as gender-neutral pronoun?

In books on early American history, I often see the term "souls" used, where I would expect "men and women" to be used in 1990 era writing. For example,

For example, "... the Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower in 1620 ... Today there are tens-of-millions of individuals descended from these brave souls." http://mayflower.org/

Although I know little about linguistics, I was bold and added "soul" to the list in the main article. (And removed " a man " -- yes, it is commonly used as a pronoun, but I doubt someone who is trying to avoid a gender-specific pronoun would pick "a man" instead).

--DavidCary 02:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No, "soul" and "man" are nouns, not pronouns. — Paul G 11:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not epicene?

Just curious as to the redirect from "epicene pronoun", as I thought that term was considered more technically correct. I wasn't able to find mention of it on the talk page. Was there ever a reason given for the redirect? -Kasreyn 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting with bated breath for a response. Kasreyn 08:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Might it be because most people know "gender-neutral pronoun", even if "epicene pronoun" is more technically correct? — Paul G 11:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European language

I don't know if the PIE section belongs. The modern descendants of the words noted are generally not gender-specific either (except for *swe, where in German and Dutch sich/zich means "oneself", and the related word sein/zijn today means "his"). The information about reconstructed PIE is so scarce, that it's impossible to tell how they referred to "him" and "her". 惑乱 分からん 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The article as a whole

..is pretty poor. Hardly anything has any references, and the survey of languages is a) uneven and b) mostly uninformative, as the majority of the entries say essentially 'Language (group) X does not distinguish genders in its pronouns'.

Likely due to the usual reason one gets in these situations: a gender POV which is generally inconsistent with that of the general populace ergo requiring much verbiage in attempts to convince said populace of the validity of that POV.

I have some ideas about how to restructure it, which I will think about if I have time. --ColinFine 09:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Far from scholarly

The articles makes claims by word choice instead of by material support or logic. For example, the word reform implies without proving that there is something morally wrong with language not gender-neutral, a sort of reasoning by innuendo.

For another example of poor scholarhood, look at one phrase in the introduction:

Since the 1960's many people have felt this forced distinction in English and other languages to be unsatisfactory ... .

Many people? Who? References, please? Only since the 1960s and never before? Why say the phrase "English and other languages" instead of just "languages?" Unsatisfactory to whom and why? The arguments are weak and poorly outlined. Forced is a loaded word implying unfair power. One is only forced to the degree that one wishes to communicate in the chosen language. Your keyboard is forcing you to use only the keys on it. Perhaps this forced action should be resisted.

In regards to English, I am satisfied with the convention of using one non-gender-neutral pronoun or the other when the gender is uncertain, so long as we can agree on which one to use. Consider that for an awfully long time, the agreement to use the masculine worked! This notion that we should now use a generic feminine because she happens to contain he in it is silly! (Should we now call ourselves huwoman instead of human?) Readers will simply believe that the person or people referenced were indeed all female. With the masculine as a convention, they should make no such assumption, which is the point of the entire exercise. If yes is the answer to "Does the reader understand that there could be gender-uncertainty or mixed gender in this case?" then the job is done. He may not like it but that, frankly, is immaterial.

The example about blacks and whites is a wholly inappropriate analogy, as there is no language convention, agreement, or standard by which one uses white to refer to both. Don't be swayed by baldly fallacious logic!

This is not a human rights or unfair discrimination issue. It's just an artifact of language and the article needs rewriting or heavy editing to reflect that.

I am personally flexible enough to use newly invented gender-neutral pronouns, but that's not going to happen any time soon on a large enough scale for anyone to understand me if I start doing so.

Yes, as a grammar-lover I dislike using they to mean he or she. It is grammatically incorrect. But by the dictates of the unwashed masses, that's what's come and it is here to stay. Ya gotta love language. --Erik Eckhardt 09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's tempting to debate the merits of various approaches to language to you, but I'll try to stay focused on the article itself.

Per your request, I have added references for people who have disliked the "forced distinction", and corrected the date to "at least" the 19th century. I've also removed "english and other languages" and the word "forced". As for the "why" of those creations: I think that is discussed at gender-neutral language, which is linked in that paragraph.

I think reform is a reasonably commonly used word when discussing artificial/proposed changes to language. See language reform. There could be a better term, though. Suggestions? Martin 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Found this interesting quote

here:

" Like most efforts at language reform, these well-intended suggestions have been largely ignored by the general English-speaking public, and the project to supplement the English pronoun system has proved to be an ongoing exercise in futility. Pronouns are one of the most basic components of a language, and most speakers appear to have little interest in adopting invented ones. This may be because in most situations people can get by using the plural pronoun they or using other constructions that combine existing pronouns, such as he/she or he or she."

-The American Heritage Book of English Usage.

Worth including? Kasreyn 08:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks worthwhile to me. I've added it. Martin 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"she" as generic

Please read this slowly and carefully:

A book made in the distant past will very likely tell you that the word "he" is a legal generic pronoun. However, according to what sounds natural to me, "she" makes more sense than "he", because "she" already contains "he" in its letters. How about other forms of the pronoun?? As for other forms, neither word already contains the letters of the other word in it, so the best solution is simply to use the forms of "she", unless you want to create new words, which can be hard to get accepted. This gives us the following pronouns:

• First Person Singular (I, me, my, mine)
• First Person Plural (we, us, our, ours)
• Second Person (you, your, yours)
• Third Person Singular Masculine (he, him, his)
• Third Person Singular Feminine/Generic (she, her, hers)
• Third Person Singular Neuter (it, its)
• Third Person Plural (they, them, their, theirs)

Examples:

• CORRECT: Each BOY in this class raised HIS hand to indicate HE needed a question.
• INCORRECT: Each STUDENT in this class raised HIS hand to indicate HE needed a question. (Unless, of course, all the students are boys.)
• CORRECT: Each STUDENT in this class raised HER hand to indicate SHE needed a question.

How often do people ask questions about what word to use as a generic pronoun?? Please identify to yourself which word, "he" or "she" sounds more logical to you for whatever reason. Please make sure it is a reason based entirely on what YOU say, not on what other people tell you.

This seems to be offtopic to me. What bearing will this have on the article? We aim to report on what the current status of using gender neutral pronouns are, not advocating or asking for change. Dysprosia 23:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia sadly is not the place for advocacy of different generic pronouns. Martin tried once, but sie learnt soon enough.

Where is a better place on the Internet for such a thing??

I would recommend usenet for general debate: alt.usage.english. However, do lurk before you leap. Martin 00:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I got to http://alt.usage.english and it appears that no such URL exists on the Internet.

You need to go to news://alt.usage.english. You'll need a usenet reader, such as many email client. You probably already have one. Martin 00:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

'She' is no better than 'he', it presents the same problem. It is interesting that old books would use 'she' as a generic pronoun when talking about tasks that were presumed to be 'female' tasks, like cooking, sewing cleaning, etc. 'He' was used in tasks that were, at the time, presumed to be male.--RLent 16:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Indeed, at my work we sometimes use the generic male to refer to dictators (eg, doctors) and the generic female to refer to transcriptionists (eg, medical secretaries). It's useful in an Alice and Bob kind of way, though I do cringe at the implicit assumptions. Plus, when discussing dance I often refer to a generic leader as "he", and a generic follower as "she", even though I can follow and I know women who can lead. So this isn't even a thing just of the past. Martin 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe I have one idea

One can pretty easily find a gender neutral pronoun that's quite accepted--one simply needs to see it for oneself to believe. As long as one's mind is open. --Stancollins 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

French in terms of English?

The section on French explains why singular they isn't "an option" or something in French. This is the English page, but none of the other language subsections treat the question of "why no singular they?". Thus, I'm removing it. Dave 08:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a singular they in French-- "on." It's used roughly like the English "one" but unlike in English, it's used frequently. If we're going to get specific with listing all the other subject pronouns, it needs to be listed along with "il" and "elle" which it corresponds to. Or perhaps a different language should be used as an example. 15:25, 14 May 2007

Hi. I don't think that makes much difference, because the French on is not equivalent to "they". Two differences:

• "On" is always generic; "they" isn't. (English actually uses "you" as a generic pronoun.)
• "On" takes verbs conjugated in the 3rd. person singular, not plural. FilipeS 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Islandic gender-neutral?

Can someone explain to me what Islandic is doing among the languages with gender-neutral pronouns? Little surprisingly for a Germanic language, the entry actually states the opposite, or am I overlooking something? --Ibn Battuta 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a strange case, because it seems that in Icelandic and a few other Germanic languages the neuter article can be used to refer to people. Since it's the neuter, you're not giving away the person's gender... FilipeS 21:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you speak Islandic (or at least know about this phenomenon), you might want to change the article accordingly. All it says right now is that Islandic does differentiate three genders, and that they can be also differentiated in plural. That's not by any means about a gender-neutral pronoun. --Ibn Battuta 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not speak Icelandic, but that's not quite what the article says. It also says that the neuter pronouns, það (singular) and þau (plural) can be used as gender-inclusive. FilipeS 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Possessive of one

The current "Neologisms" table shows ones as the possessive of one, obviously in parallel with the non-use of apostrophes in other possessive pronouns. (Technically, one is not a neologism, having been around at least since Mark Twain, and in not-uncommon use in major modern English dialects.) But I was under the impression that one's is the correct indefinite (formal) possessive pronoun, as if one is more like a noun. This is supported by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which features an example of this use. The American Heritage Book of English Usage shows a similar example. Merriam-Webster Online is somewhat disdainful of the pronoun, not providing any possessive-use example (and confusingly calling it first-person, as if it is only used as a formal substitute for I et al). But no reference I found so far omits the apostrophe. Unless someone can cite opposing evidence, we should probably change ones to one's in the table. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean "possessive pronoun" in contradistinction to the absurdly misnamed "possessive adjective"? There's an example of the former: I am one's. Its orthography is a trivial matter. Is it even possible?

Let's try predicative complements, subjects, verbal objects, and prepositional objects:

• My post became his.
• My post became one's.
• His is worse than my own.
• One's is worse than my own.
• I lost his.
• I lost one's.
• I ran over his.
• I ran over one's.

In my idiolect, none of the stuff with "one's" (or, if anyone prefers, "ones") is possible. Putting aside the whimsy and trivia in the article, the core material seems dodgy. Can anyone point to a reference grammar that lists this? -- Hoary 09:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Xir

"Xir" redirects here, but the word is not mentioned in the article. Probably it should be? // habj 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is 'Thon' a contraction 'The One'?

Is 'thon' a contraction of 'the one'? 'The one feeds the ones self'? > 'Thon feeds thonself'. --Haldrik (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

languages where verbs rather than pronouns indicate gender

Should we mention languages like Hindi, which have gender-neutral pronouns, but are not gender neutral because the verb ending has to agree with the gender? These make the problems that English has seem insignificant [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The same happens in many Slavic languages. But this article is about pronouns. If you wish to give a couple of examples from Hindi, do it in the article Gender-neutrality in languages with grammatical gender. FilipeS (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kiss? KISS? Why not endanger?

Hello dudes and dudettes of Wikipedia! (Wait, I mean 'people' of wikipedia - unless 'dude' itself is gender-neutral? What?)

It has come under my all-seeing gaze that a certain wikipedian (whom I shall refer to as 'Mr. X') has edited back my changing of 'kiss' to 'endanger'.

While perhaps Mr. X has been endangered many a time, possibly inducing a sort of shell-shock whenever he comes across the word, I suspect this not to be the case!

Indeed, I suspect that this Mr. X has committed a HORRENDOUS crime! This is something I would never want to come across, nevermind accuse somebody of, but it is with a heavy heart I accuse Mr. X of...

Lengthism!

It is to this end that I let all people - be they gender neutral or otherwise - decide what verb should go there! No word too obscure, too long, too short, too average will be avoided! --Arkracer 13:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You ask "Why not endanger?"

Here's the edit in question. The edit summary explains: aside from laboriously having three syllables rather than just one, "endanger" increases the risk that horizontal scrolling will be needed to view the table. -- Hoary 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that 'endanger' is a good idea! But his question, nay demand, was that we come up with another, not an insult slash demand for explanation form Hoary. --91.105.6.113 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody who so dislikes kiss is free to come up with a better alternative and to edit accordingly. -- Hoary 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the table originally had "hit". Does anyone here like that one best? FilipeS (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Does singlular they use singular or plural verb forms?

Looking at the "Neologisms" table, it is unclear what verb forms are usually used with singular they. The "Nominative" column uses a verb in the past tense which is the same for singular and plural subjects. The "Reflexive" column uses the subject form too, and it's verb is in the present tense. However, the example for singular they seems wrong to me:

They likes themself/themselves

I am not a linguist, but I'm pretty sure that you'd use "like" rather than "likes". The intro to singular they seems to bear this out:

"Singular" they remains morphologically and syntactically plural (it still takes plural forms of verbs).

I'll be bold and change that one example, but I think the whole "Nominative" column should have its examples changed to be in present tense so that the different verb forms (laugh versus laughs) are clear. I hesitate to do this because I wonder if any other neologisms in the chart use plural verb forms.

BlckKnght (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

split naturally occurring grammar from political considerations

The subject of gender-neutral pronouns embraces two totally different phenomena: pronouns that traditionally do not mark gender and pronouns/periphrastics that have been invented/reassigned in modern times out of political considerations. I'd like to split the article into

Gender-neutral_pronoun_in_genderless_languages (naturally occurring forms)

Gender-neutral_pronoun_in_gender-marked_languages (political)

Gender-neutral_pronoun_in_English (political, with English deserving its own page)

Does anyone object to that?

Thank you, UserAccount001 (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though you raise very valid points, why can't we just include all these considerations as different sections inside a single comprehensive article, rather than splitting the article into three smaller articles? My concern is that there is not enough material for the split articles to stand on their own. In addition a single article provides a more cohesive overview of the issues without having to jump to different articles in order to understand the variations of the concept. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 05:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense! Thank you. I'll section off the article, and we'll see if it looks like an improvement. UserAccount001 (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Except I also already made those 3 other pages (out of the same info), and I don't know how to delete them. UserAccount001 (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just put the tag {{db-auth|Add here any comments you wish to make as the reason for deletion}} at the top of each article. I'll check later to try to help as soon as I can. Take care. Dr.K. logos 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I already did it in all three articles. Dr.K. logos 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

section on generic usage should be relocated to Gender-neutral pronoun

The section on generic usage is excellent and would improve the article "Gender-neutral pronoun". And it doesn't really fit here.

Does anyone object to my moving the section?

UserAccount001 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Klingon

Neither Klingon pronouns nor the Klingon verb prefix system makes a distinction between male and female subjects or objects. The pronoun ghaH represents s/he and chaH they (for language-using beings). Klingon has separate it/they pronouns for the inanimate.

Reference: The Klingon Dictionary, by Marc Okrand c 1987. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.13.59 (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Closed word class"? There's no such thing in English

However, pronouns in English belong to a closed word class, to which no new items can normally be added.

This is simply false, and certainly not NPOV. Some of the pronouns in the table (especially Spivak and sie/hir) are in common use in the transgender and genderqueer community. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, of course there are closed word classes in English, just as there are in any other language. FilipeS (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The decision to have a closed word class is up to the people who use the words. Right now, because the use of epicene pronouns is primarily limited to certain groups (genderqueer, glbt groups and those sensitive to their concerns, for example), and because our current list of English pronouns has not been expanded in a very long time, it might appear that pronouns are a "closed word class." But, as we can see by additions of words such as "defriending" to Webster's dictionary, English is flexible enough that there is always room for more - even to the "closed classes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.39.32 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thon

Should mention that "thon" was actually included in a respectable mainstream ca. 1900 dictionary... AnonMoos (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS

Might be nice if there was a link at the top for those looking for the proper syntax in Wikipedia (MOS link). Still don't know where it is... Morphh ^(talk) 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a new example to use in the article

Norrie May-Welby. First person ever to legally be genderless. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Style: Italics or Quotation marks?

Which should be used?

Italics:

The word refers to the pronouns he, she, and it.

Quotation marks:

The word refers to the pronouns "he", "she", and "it".

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Words_as_words says that both are acceptable.

However, the overuse of quotation marks in the text makes it look cumbersome. Should italics be used consistently instead? XP1 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Good lord, can't less violent examples be used?

Should people read about hitting and bleeding while trying to learn about gender-specific pronouns?

Strongly transitive verbs such as kill, hit, devour, bite or hunt are popular among linguists for use in example sentences for the mere reason that they are more reliably transitive across languages than other verbs designating less violent actions, for example see, which is expressed as is/becomes visible to or something similar in many languages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

the table is dumb

What's the point of that table of neologisms? I've never heard any of those before and it's overwhelmingly unlikely they will ever be used. It just seems too prominently placed for such a stupid and useless set of information. - Stoph 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You state that it's overwhelmingly unlikely they will ever be used. I have cited references where they have been used. What do I win? A lot of it will be to do with what sort of things you spend reading, and who you talk to. These kind of neologisms are very niche (and not uniformly used within those niches).

If you feel the information is stupid and useless, you are reading the wrong article. I find much of the information in Star Trek to be useless, but I'm aware that some people feel it's vitally important to know the exact speed of Warp 9.

Anyway, the point of the table is that it's simpler and easier to update than describing each of the neologisms in long-hand, and allows readers to quickly gather how such words would be used in practice. In many cases, this will allow them to understand and hence reject the idea much more quickly. Martin 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the ones that have no citations be stricken? They are at this point just a bunch of letter soup, and could be on the talk page instead until someone finds supporting documents of their use. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Article needs a good cleanup

The topic is gender-neutral pronoun - but the English language portion reads more like an original research essay on sexism in language. Which, although interesting sociologically, is not of help grammatically for those doing research on language rules. The arguments about The inlcusion of "it" as gender neutral is just wrong. Neutral means of "either" gender. It is neither gender - the exact opposite of gender neutral. The only third person Gender neutral pronouns in English are: One, They, Their (and sometime "he" when used in place of one.) The rest, although compelling is not relevant to the topic. Additionally, many, many sections lack any citation WP:V and appear to be the conclusions of the editor WP:NOR. Therefore, I am tagging this article with a cleanup notice. - Davodd (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"It" is not gender-specific

Why are "it" and "its" listed as being gender-specific near the top of the article when they are not? — Paul G 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed now... 惑乱 分からん 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"It" is a neuter gender pronoun... FilipeS 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "it" is gender-neutral. If I understand well the meaning of "gender-neutral", the idea is that it must be a word which can be used to refer to a male or a female person, without revealing their gender. This cannot be done with "it", not because it specifies a gender, but because in standard English it is never used to refer to people. See also grammatical gender, and gender-specific pronoun. FilipeS 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, "it" can be used to refer to people in a gender-neutral way, but only when they are still babies (A: I saw her newborn baby yesterday, it looked so cute. B: Is it a boy or a girl?) or when referred collectively as a group (I was seeking information about their group and its activities). Uaxuctum 09:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is a rare exception to the rule that "it" means "neither male nor female". FilipeS 10:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if the gender of of a less-than-familiar baby is known, is it appropriate to use any pronoun to describe the baby without implicitly asserting arbitrary political, legal, or social perspectives? For instance, "it" implies non-personhood when in many legal systems beliefs of personhood are defined at or before birth, whereas "he/she" implies social gender vs biological sex as well as personhood according to some. Omniphobe (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"It" can also be used in a gender-neutral way referring to animals: Did you see that cat that just ran across the street? No, I didn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcwell (talk • contribs) 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

man/woman/black/white

Suppose that instead of 'he' and 'she', we had different pronouns for people with different coloured skin. When referring to a black person we'd say 'ne', and when referring to a white person we'd say 'ge'. For example:

'Ge hit nim several times for nir disobedience - for ge did not want gir hard work to be wasted.'

Or, in normal English:

'The white person hit the black person several times for the black person's disobedience - for the white person did not want the white person's hard work to be wasted.'

It's a pretty silly idea, and it's clear to see how racist it could be. Yet we follow exactly the same idea with regards to gender -- our language is very sexist. And think of romance langauges which assign a gender to every rock, tree, and stone! Is this something that should be changed - and if so, how?

You raise an interesting point, and one that isn't getting much public discussion. But the thing that commonly escapes attention is that there is no public support for such changes; they are being pushed by people with an agenda, regardless of whether the change is something that would actually be good for the language or good for society in general. The supporters of such a change simply assume, based on their own preconceived notions, that anything that reduces the raw quantity of what they see as "sexism" in the world, must automatically be a Good Thing. It's just not that simple, but they're moving ahead anyway, pretending to themselves that the lack of public debate is an indication of consent.

Of course the people who are "pushing", as you put it, these pronouns have an agenda. The agenda is fairness and equal representation for certain minorities. There is no conflict between that, and what is good for the language and good for society in general. (And yes, I have a personal stake in this issue, as you can probably see from my name.) David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As an ardent lover of the English language, I can't help but see the drive to androgynify it as a destructive act motivated by childish pique. It seems to display only the ignorance of linguistics among those who push this movement. All languages have built-in biases and detritus from their past, that's what makes them languages! A language isn't just words, it's an intimate relationship between those words and the culture they arose from. It arises from a process very similar to natural selection, and it meets the needs of that culture at any given time. So tell me, once you're done stripping "sexism" from English, will it be time to strip "hierarchism" from Japanese and do away with its various traditional formal modes of address?

I have to say that watching a group of shrilly ignorant volunteer offendees appointing themselves the job of directing the course of a language that serves a far broader group just churns my guts. If you want there to be a perfectly nonoffensive language, then invent one. There are already several; lojban is one. It was designed from the ground up in order to circumvent all the leftovers of ten thousand years of barbarism, and it's as sterile as they come. Hmm, but lojban doesn't seem to be taking off in terms of popularity. I can tell you why - it's because people like their languages the way they are, as a natural extension of their culture, not a set of rules handed down by the most narrow-minded among them.

If you want the language to change, wait a while, and see what happens. Or change the culture, and the language will follow it. Just please, don't try to stuff human expression into a little box. It's the most precious gift we have. -Kasreyn 06:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how changing a pronoun is an assault on the English language. If languages didn't change, we'd all be speaking Indo-European right now. This issue is the result of cultural changes. Because of these cultural changes, 'he' is no longer adequate as a generic pronoun. Languages don't change themselves, changes represent how people are actually using the language.--RLent 15:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"He" is a perfectly good generic pronoun. It is a specific tiny but vocal minority that is confused and wishes it to be otherwise. Perhaps they should emigrate and form their own country/culture/language/etc. and leave the rest of us be!

What strikes me is that heretofore, changes in language have been largely unconscious, evolutionary processes. That is to say, there were not conscious movements to push specific usages of language, it simply was molded over time to reflect the needs of the people using it. That is what I would call natural or organic change in language. What is being attempted today, I would describe as artificial or forced change in language. A very small minority has made a political decision to alter the language of the majority, and are going about it by any and all means necessary, including attacks upon the character of those who refuse to change their usage.

The trouble with conscious, directed change is that I don't think individuals, or even groups, are wise enough to deliberately choose a good future for the language. It mirrors the way we have attempted to sieze control of our environment and consciously direct nature - and will result in an equal litany of failure. There are systems in this world which have too many variables and are too complex to be glibly directed on a momentary whim. Language is one of those systems.

If people honestly feel that English is degrading or offensive to women, I suggest they push to supplant it with a language that lacks its ingrained bias (such as lojban). Alternatively, they can strive to build a society in which the majority will come to the same conclusion on their own. I really don't think that a minority of English speakers has any right to demand specific changes in the language, and to behave in a condescending manner towards those who don't agree. Kasreyn 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I moved the above sermonette here, because it's not encyclopedic. It's an appeal to the reader to agree.

We could revise it by reporting that some people (or many people) believe that this or that is "silly" or "racist" or "sexist". --Ed Poor

"separate pronouns for the genders has no more logical basis than separate pronouns for any other grouping of ovjects of people" -- how about that, ed? -- Tarquin

---

Expressing that idea directly in the article as fact may be NPOV.

Or original research. Amcfreely 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

However, I encourage you to to quote an influential essay expressing that idea:

"A Person Paper on the Purity of Language" by Douglas R. Hofstadter, collected in Metamagical Themas: questing for the essence of mind and pattern. 1985 (reviewed at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/h/hofstdtr.htm ).

Agree. Amcfreely 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

"Of course the people who are "pushing", as you put it, these pronouns have an agenda. The agenda is fairness and equal representation for certain minorities" - women are a minority? Oh, dear ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"singular they" is inevitable, however much we might prefer the alternatives

I have attempted to add a little linguistic perspective to this article, including a statement of the problem in the first paragraph and the observation that speakers of English are simply switching from he-her etc. to they and their. I did not say, what I think, that none of these other solutions will ever happen. This article is fundamentally POV, isn't she?

I also think the treatment of other languages ignores the whole idea of grammatical gender, wherein the gender is attached to articles and modifiers and considerably simplifies sentence structure. Ortolan88 16:35 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to completely delete the section on other languages? I'm not really qualified to say what tortures have been inflicted on them, and no info is better than badly expressed/researched info.

"none have been successful outside of narrow contexts, such as this article"

Well, singular they is widespread. Universal male is widespread (though becoming less so). Recasting to avoid the issue (eg into plural, 2nd person) is widespread. 'he or she' is widespread. All of these are mentioned/linked in the article.

The options in the entry which aren't widespread are 'it', 'one', and 'neologisms and slang'. The first two are occasionally suggested by opponents to (eg) singular they, and are worth mentioning here, I think. The neologism section points out that most of these are "the failed ideas of dead people".

Seems to be a bit of duplication now: how many links to singular they do we need? ;-) -Martin

The none in "none have been successful" is a pronoun (non-gender-specific, as it happens), referring to gender-neutral pronouns, the subject of the article. The "singular they" (second link removed) and "he or she" are not part of the the collection of gender-specific pronouns touted in the bulk of this article. I'll look at the wording though. It may be confusing. I think "it" and "one" are certainly worth mentioning.

'none' is a singular pronoun. I find it amusing that people make this mistake in an article dealing with pronouns.

The article is mutating from one specifically pushing hairy solutions like "sie and hir" into one discussing general approaches in English to making discourse non-sexist, of which the "sie and hir" are a minor part, all due respect to the proponents and the originator of the article. Ortolan88

Ahh: I would consider singular they to be an example of a gender-neutral pronoun. 'he or she' is discussed briefly under the table marked 'dual'. Only one paragraph, though, and it's not NPOV (dang!). -Martin

---

I just restored a rewritten version of the "singular they" paragraph to this article and put it back as the second paragraph. This gives some proportion to this article.

A passing link to the singular they is not enough:

• Most people don't want to offend
• Most people tried out "he or she" and "his or her" and got tired of it quickly
• Some people (me, in 1972) switched over to she and her or simply wrote around it.
• Most people consciously or unconsciously switched to the singular they.
• A tiny tiny minority is fighting it out among themselves over various proposals like sie and hir that will never be part of the language.

I am too polite to say that in the article, but I feel strongly that the solution chosen by average speakers of the language, chosen out of a combination of good manners and wanting to speak and write smoothly, should have a prominent place in this article lest naive readers think the only solution is one of the clumsy, ideology-ridden solutions touted in the rest of the article. Ortolan88

I agree, and anyway the Wikipedia is not in the business of endorsing (or suppressing) any particular idea. If they is being used by a lot of English-speakers as a gender-neutral pronoun, it should get at least a paragraph in this article. --Ed Poor

I'm not convinced. According to the usage note at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=he , very few people in the usage panel suggested the use of 'they'. See also http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=they which comments: "Eighty-two percent find the sentence The typical student in the program takes about six years to complete their course work unacceptable". The figures are summarised in the article itself. If that information is out of date, find me stuff that's more in date.

That's not to say that singular they doesn't deserve more space than sie and hir - it does, and it gets it. However, it's not the solution, and the article shouldn't promote it as such. -Martin

You're right, Martin. In fact, the article should not present any form of usage as the solution. It should just report what people use for pronouns. --Ed Poor

The point, though, is that practically nobody uses the generic pronoun neologisms. Amcfreely 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't promote it. It grates on my ear too. However, my belief is that it is not necessary to promote it because it is happening anyway. And, if I may say so, usage panels and the like are always very conservative and up-tight, and generally are prescriptive rather than descriptive. If I encountered the singular they in an article I was editing, I would take it out and replace it by rewording. Personally, I use her most of the time. That does not change my belief that the singular they is the solution, but I don't say so in the article, except to note that people have done it since the 1500s and are doing it even more today than ever. Ortolan88 19:11 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

I just put the singular they back again! I don't know who is taking out, but it is a mistake. Look, the article cannot be NPOV if it ignores the most common solution to this problem. I know it is ungrammatical. I know that many worthy people are addressing this problem with more formal solutions, but to suppress the common solution is the worst form of political correctness and I will keep putting the singular they back in this article forever. Ortolan88 19:28 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

The articles should not ignore singular they: I totally agree. What I don't agree is that it needs to mention it four times: twice in the introduction, again under 'options', and a fourth time under 'see also'. Doing so gives it preferential treatment above other options, and I've yet to see any evidence that it is so much more common than, say, rewording, that it deserves this extra exposure. There is a middle way between ignoring singular they, and mentioning it four times. -Martin

Four mentions of singular they is preferable treatment and four screensful of politically correct claptrap isn't? Ortolan88

One never knows, do they? I don't see any mention of the popular trend to referring to singular subjects of known gender as "they". Is this also recommended? Ampwright (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

"And, if I may say so, usage panels and the like are always very conservative and up-tight" - that's hysterical, politically-motivated claptrap. No, they are not 'always' those things. Sometimes, some of their members are. And the point is: are you disputing the 82% figure, or are you just slinging mud so as to deflect attention from it? If you think that figure is a lie, come out and say so. If not, address the point instead of resorting to agenda-driven insults. I too, regard that sentence about the student as wholly unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Swedish

In swedish the word "hen" is invented as a gender-neutral pronoun, instead of "hon" (female) and "han" (male), but it's not an officially established word in the swedish language. Should it be mentioned?

Most of the English examples aren't "officially established", either. Just add sources. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yt

"Yt" may deserve a mention as an invented neutral pronoun: Ian McDonald uses it in River of Gods as the pronoun used for people of a third, artificial, "nute" gender. That's of course not the same as a pronoun that does not imply any gender, but I think it's still relevant, especially as a contrast to Xe, etc. -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 10:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is the neuter possessive pronoun marked as nonexistent?

—Whose cage is this?

—This cage is its. Njál 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you often hear such sentences in real life? FilipeS 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No. But I believe they exist, and isn't that the point? We don't say something isn't a word just because it isn't used very often. Njál 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a native speaker, but that use of "its" sounds very contrived to me... FilipeS 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing is awkward, but an utterance like "That's its cage" (or, for a more realistically contextual example: "Where is an engine on a car?" "It's under its hood") is very common. At any rate, "nonexistent" is a pretty heavy word.71.104.3.185 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In the examples you've given, "its" is an adjective, not a pronoun. FilipeS 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that is a pronoun, specifically a possessive pronoun. Bob's is not an adjective, it's just the possessive form of Bob. As per the question at hand, there is no singular, personal, possessive pronoun in English that is not gendered, excluding interrogative pronouns. Its and it are not used as personal pronouns in standard English, and to do so is often highly pejorative. There are alternative and nonstandard sets of gender-varied personal pronouns, but they are not standard (as of yet). The example of "Whose is this?" presupposed that the owner of this is a person, which means there is no gender-neutral response. "This is its," would be incorrect. Cheeser1 21:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that is an adjective. It's qualifying "cage" and hood". FilipeS 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm confusing grammar from different languages, despite having the right idea. Its is a pronoun in its own right, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as I said. The OED is pretty much incontrovertible. Its may be rare in use (as a pronoun), but it's not labeled as archaic, improper, or otherwise nonstandard (as thine or ye might be). I have added the appropriate sentence to the examples, as well as a citation. Cheeser1 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

—Whose cage is this?

— *This cage is its.

This is not a matter of opinion, this is flat out wrong, under all circumstances.

English has no neuter possessive pronoun. You are confusing the neuter possessive determiner 'its'--which does exist--with the neuter possessive pronoun, which (in English) does not. Analogy: 'my' (my book) is to 'mine' (the book is mine) as 'his' is to 'his' as 'its' is to -- what? Nothing. There is no analogy there.

For further information, please refer to English personal pronouns. Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The neuter poss pron (*This cage is its) has had a reference since version 123929080 of 2007-04-18 14:19 pointing to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50122404, but there is no such page and I have removed the reference from the article.

A search for information about a neuter possessive pronoun has not turned up any reliable sources. If someone can substantiate that this pronoun exists in English, please add a reference, otherwise this cell in the table should be blanked out. Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

One/He/'man'

If you want to refer to something in a gender-unspecific way, repeat the original noun. "The person went to the window; the person looked outside." If it's just a hypothetical (unrealized) person, then use 'he'. As in the German 'man' or english 'one'.

This article is ridiculous.

MM962 04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely free to repeat the original noun phrase, MM962. As for your claim that the article is ridiculous, feel free to argue this persuasively here. -- Hoary 04:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive encouragement. =) The article has an undertone of suggesting that there is a movement afoot — a movement to somehow enlighten English with somehow politically correct alternatives to the "old" way of doing things. Actually, I meant to suggest that "he" or "she" are both fine, but I don't understand how English usage and grammar can be so politicized as to invent new words or change the conjugation of verbs. If this article were really about just "gender-neutral pronouns" then it would simply be a list of those self-evidently gender-neutral pronouns. But somehow, describing these words requires a life story about them. That tone betrays the authors' apparent presumption that there is actual need for these pronouns, when no prescription or allowance for these pronouns exists in English — nor does common usage necessarily reflect the general popluation's need for this word, but probably more readily its gross contortion of the English language due to poor education and practice using the language. The article is based on a non-existent problem, with a non-existent solution, brought about by non-existent reasoning. Hence, this article is ridiculous! =) MM962 05:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. You seem to be writing about English. Let's consider what the article says. Here it is (stripped of links, etc.), with my comments:

The gender-specific pronouns are the personal pronouns of the third-person singular: 'he'/'him'/'himself'/'his' (for male persons or possessors), 'she'/'her'/'herself'/'hers' (for female persons or possessors), and 'it'/'itself'/'its' (for neither).

Some people would argue that 'he' and its different forms are sex-neutral. Otherwise, though, this seems unexceptionable.

The third-person plural pronouns 'they', 'them', 'themselves', 'their', and 'theirs' work equally well for either sex and are androgynous.

Seems obviously true to me.

A speaker may not know or may want to avoid specifying a person's gender. Traditionally, when one wishes to refer to a single definite person androgynously with a pronoun in the third person, the masculine pronoun is used.

"Is used" seems an overstatement. I'd say "is an option". Otherwise, though, this seems unexceptionable.

Some people have begun to challenge this tradition, however, usually by resorting to plural pronouns such as 'they', 'them' and 'their' for singular uses. This is called the singular 'they'.

I see no suggestion that this challenge is to be praised or regretted. (I dislike this bit, in that it suggests that singular they is new. It isn't.)

Other common solutions include the generic 'she', 'one', the generic 'you', circumlocutions such as 'he or she', or using 'he' and 'she' in alternate passages, and rewording sentences to avoid pronouns. (See pronoun game.)

This may be contentious if it's taken to imply that there is a problem to which solutions are needed. But to me it's clear that this instead goes back to statement that A speaker may not know or may want to avoid specifying a person's gender. Well, such speakers may see a problem, and if they do then here are they may see as solutions. Again, non-judgemental. -- Hoary 06:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think repeating the noun becomes very tedious in any kind of serious writing. For a lot of signage it's okay to just neglect nouns where it is understood anyone reading is the subject, but for any lengthy piece with multiple characters, it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid pronouns or call everyone 'one.' Would you ever, for example, write the sentence 'Jackie picked up Jackie's books and left.' ? The name is gender neutral, maybe there's a desire from the author not to reveal the gender (or not be ignorant enough to think gender is a dichotomy), but the English language is so steeped in gender politics it makes it difficult to write naturally without gender. It's giving me a headache trying to think how to indicate possession without gender in the 3rd person when you've mentioned the character's name. Not sure it is possible. It's plenty easy to say 'one should pick up one's books' or 'no shirt no shoes no service,' but you have to name the gender when you've mentioned someone's name in a sentence already. Or play some ridiculous game where you give indications in other ways that the books people to Jackie, so when Jackie picks up 'the books' you know Jackie possesses them by virtue of some round-about implication. Maybe you don't think it's a big deal to choose a gender, but then do you have to choose if a character is blonde, has a certain kind of hair, a certain height, a certain job? Do you have to alienate hermaphrodites? It's definitely a tricky problem. ~anon March 8th 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.174.4 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can we get the pronunciation added for the invented pronouns? They are words that many people would not have ever seen, let alone heard, so I think putting the pronunciation in parenthesis would be a good idea.

They might not be known. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns and transgender persons

This section just states what any person—of any viewpoint—would automatically know. It seems to be pure political correctness. In general, transgender individuals prefer to be referred to by the gender pronoun appropriate to the gender with which they identify. Really? People prefer their preferences? How strange. Aboctok (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Some non-English examples, please?

This doesn't appear to be an article about an aspect of grammar. It seems to just be an article about an aspect of English-language grammar, along with some sociological discussion on how some people find grammatical gender offensive. Perhaps this should instead be moved to Gender-specific pronouns in English? Dewrad 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, there are already the articles Gender-neutral language in English, Gender-neutral language in Indo-European languages and Gender-neutral language in non-Indo-European languages. FilipeS 13:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The red links imply that the latter two don't exist. Perhaps a move to Gender-neutral language in English would be better then? Dewrad 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They've been moved to Gender-neutrality in languages with grammatical gender and Gender-neutrality in languages without grammatical gender. FilipeS 14:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is "just" an article about an aspect of English-language grammar, written in the English language, the language that just happens to be the world-wide language today of diplomacy, business and commerce, aviation, and computer-programming. tttecumseh —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Diplomacy, business, commerce, aviation and computer progamming? In France the language of aviation is French. In Europe more people speak German or French than English as first and/or second language - also in the EU-Administration and in diplomatic circles. In China computer programmes are written in Chinese. In the United States Spanish is gaining ground as first and second language by the day. Let alone the rest of the continent. In northern and central Africa the language of diplomacy and business is Arabic or French. In most of the former Eastern Block countries one gets by perfectly with Russian. I hate these anglophones being so damn self-righteous when it comes to their language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.80.23 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean anglophiles, since that term connects with the attitude you are talking about? To presume anglophones in general to be self-righteous seems prejudiced. The statement you criticized is actually very reasonable, when we are talking about international activity. The language of aviation in France might well be French, but when French pilots operate internationally, what language is used? When Europeans or Africans conduct international business, what language do they use most often? When people in former Eastern Bloc countries engage with the non-Russian speaking world, what language is most common? I don't doubt you, that the practice exists, in China, of programming in a local language. But do you seriously suggest that when IT people do international business, programs are often written in Chinese? I find inappropriate anglophilia as backward and as irritating as any other primitive excuse for reason. But let's be realistic—the importance of English as an international language lies in its prevalence across international boundaries, not its alleged importance in a particular place. Aboctok (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Combine two articles?

Is there any reason to keep this article separate from gender-neutral pronoun? Would they not be better dealt with in a single article (with both types of pronoun described together, for each language)? Victor Yus (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Combine two articles?

Is there any reason to keep this article separate from gender-specific pronoun? Would they not be better dealt with in a single article (with both types of pronoun described together, for each language)? Victor Yus (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of listing a bunch of languages? English, a few examples of notable systems, and a summary of the families that have gendered pronouns should be sufficient. Merging is probably worthwhile. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How would you title the merged article? Would simply "Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns" be OK? Victor Yus (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I much like the latest title, "Pronominal gender" - most readers will not readily understand it, and the focus of the article is on the pronouns, rather than on gender. (At least, I think it should be - matters of gender are well covered in other articles; the only real reason I can see for having this article is as a context to discuss the various pronouns that may be used in gender-ambiguous situations.) Victor Yus (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The old title seemed needlessly wordy, but I won't object if you move it back. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back then. Perhaps there could be a more compact title, something like "Gender and pronouns". I think the word "pronouns" should appear explicitly, though. I'm not totally convinced this article should even exist - in general there seem to be rather too many articles on gender specificity/neutrality, and much of the information in them is covered in language-specific articles in any case. Victor Yus (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternatives to universal he

This section either needs to be removed or expanded. It has no citations, seems opinion-based, and doesn't really get any point across. What, exactly, does "singular they, has a long history." mean? Tardusted (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That there are examples of it that date from a long time ago? It's explained in more detail in the singular they article itself. Victor Yus (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

German

In German, the word "man" is used. In other context, a reader might guess that both genders are reflectet in the text. Saemikneu (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The German "man" is not the equivalent of the English "man." That would be "der Mann." German "man" is translated as English's gender-neutral "one," and they're pronounced somewhat differently as well. Obviously they are etymologically related but this doesn't mean that "men" is accepted as a stand-in word for people of all genders. --Quamobrem (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy of Mandarin section

The section on Mandarin says:

However, around the time of the May Fourth Movement, a new written form 她 of the pronoun was created to specifically represent 'she', and 他 is now sometimes restricted to meaning 'he'. This language reform was part of a 'modernization' movement, and copied from European languages. In writing, 他/她 is used to mean 'he'/'she' (respectively), 它 (tā) to mean 'it' (objects), 牠 (tā) to refer to animals and 祂 (tā) to denote gods.

Having asked a native speaker of Mandarin, I believe there are two problems with this passage. (1) I believe it should say " 他 is now always [not 'sometimes'] restricted to meaning 'he'." (2) 它 (tā) is currently used for objects, animals, and gods, not just objects; and 牠 and 祂 are never seen except in writings from around the 1930s.

Could someone familiar with the current state of the written language look at this and correct the article if necessary? 75.183.96.242 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As a native Mandarin speaker I think I have to disagree. I'll change some expressions for clarity's sake.

The modern standard Mandarin pronoun system is not what may be perceived like the English one.

Modern standard English has a human-male "he", a human-female "she", and a nonhuman "it" which can refer to everything (living things like birds/trees, objects like balls, things like history, concepts like liberalism, abstract/null referring like it's raining, etc.) that is not a human (except a baby), which (system/distribution) leaves a blank in the "human-genderneutral" category, hence the problem. However, the case in Chinese is like this:

Originally there was absolutely no distinction in and no issue about pronouns' gender, since ancient Chinese had no such concept at all. The third-person pronoun being preserved later was "他" ta1, referring to anything of the grammatical third-person (aabreviated 3-P below) indiscriminatingly. For simplicity's sake let's just ignore every other pronoun and say that Chinese had only one pronoun "ta1" for the 3-P, which applied, of course, to all cases.

This is the case when Chinese entered recent (after May Fourth Movement) and comtemporary times (now, in speaking)

In recent times, after the May Fourth movement, for the written from, some people invented a "她" and specified that it be used for human-females. So we now have a pronoun 她 for human-females and an original 他 for everythng else. They also invented a "它" and specified that it be used for non-human things, so some other categories are split out. (These two are accepted as standard in mainland China now.) They invented a "牠" as well, referring to, specifically, living things. For gods, out of imitation, people also invented a "祂".

As I know, "牠" and "祂" is now used (standard) in Taiwan and perhaps HK&Macau, not in mainland China, and "它" there only refers to inanimate things. But, as a mainland Chinese, I'd say that people with religion still use "祂" for god and especially for Jesus and his father (I'm not a religion specialist...), though "他" is acceptable as a common case. If you use "上帝他...", then it's OK. If you use "上帝祂...", then I'd assume that you're likely a Catholic or Christan. I've never seen anybody using "它" for a god...since as I know all gods are personified, and we call gods according to their gender. Aphrodite is "她" and Apollo is "他".

So we've seen many categories being split out and having a separate symbol for them. For everything else left, not falling into these categories, "他" is used. There has been never a sentence regulating that "他" be used to refer to "human-males". In fact, in modern Mandarin, no matter where/which, there is no "male pronoun" though a "female pronoun", since "他" is but a residual serving for everything not specified for other pronouns. "他" is better called a 3-P neutral/default pronoun, which by accident can include human-males and is the only option if you want to refer to a human-male.

I can cite more evidences. "她们", the plural form of "她", is only applicable when the people are ALL FEMALE, which is a direct result that "她" is specified to refer to human-females. In Taiwan, people also use "妳" for second-person female and "祢" when one talks to a god (esp. Jesus and his father), imitating the case of "他", but "妳" only applies to this case (when the speaker knows/assumes that s/he is speaking to a female) and "你" is still the default one. In expressions like "管他的"(I don't care), we always use "他". When we find a note on a board but don't know who wrote it (can't infer "their" gender as well) and we comment, we automatically write "他" for every "ta1" we use referring to its author.

This is like America can be used for both a continent and a country in that continent (if we ignore "the US"), or like that US people use "Chinese" to describe all students with Chinese origin in general, even when some are from Singapore, Malaysia or Taiwan.

Rethliopuks (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Any examples of gender specific to third sex pronouns?

I would think that it's possible Thai or Lakota and possibly other cultures would have pronouns for transgendered, specifically ladyboys, in historical use. Also, are there transgendered activists pushing a new gender specific trio of words? All of the pronouns in the Invented section are gender neutral? Alatari (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Gender/Sex in Penultimate Stmt of Lead

With emphasis added to mark the word in question, the second to last sentence in the lead is:

«In some languages, pronouns do not distinguish between genders, so gender equity of pronouns is not relevant.»

Am I correct in assuming that the intended meaning of the word I emphasised in the quote should be "sexes"? If so, then we should correct that; I do understand that people confuse "gender" and "sex" all the time, but I don't think we should perpetuate the confusion at WP. — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

---"Gender" is simply used in linguistic lexicon. "Sex" is not appropriate as words do not have genitalia.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.110.33.31 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Source of original text

Original text (now heavily modified) imported from h2g2. I'm the original author (Researcher number 129960), and I copied only the unedited version, to which I retain a copyright. Martin

---

The introduction is logically confused. In particular, the last paragraph is in the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

---

"Invented pronouns" seems like loaded/POV language, implying that the traditional pronouns are somehow natural. I think we should change the term to something else. Perhaps "modern" or "non-traditional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:FFC0:20:C96A:2FB0:CFA0:F43C (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

he/she

I miss discussion of / forms: "he/she" as distinct from "he or she". My own feeling is that can draw attention to the words rather than to what is being said, or is an inappropriate precision ("legalism"). But I would be interested in other opinions. (I was on the verge of editing out another editor's change of "he" to "he/she" but I decided to seek guidance first. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The section He or she, (s)he, etc. has :

They can be abbreviated in writing as "he/she", "(s)he", "s/he", "him/her", "his/her", "himself/herself", but when spoken have no accepted abbreviation. With the exception of "(s)he" and "s/he", one still has the choice of which pronoun to place first.

Were you looking for a more exhaustive discussion? Off-hand, I can't think of a source that discusses differences between "he or she" and "he/she".

As regards usage on Wikipedia, the following may be of interest:

• Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Pronouns
• WP:S/HE
• WP:SLASH (which, in common with other style guides, recommends avoidance of forms with a "/")

Hope that helps. --Boson (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel that is not just my idiosyncrasy, avoidance of "/". TomS TDotO (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: The MoS and the generic he

A conversation about the Wikipedia Manual of Style's stance on the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ships

This is off the main subject of the article, but it's a custom in English to use 'she' for ships. Russian ships are masculine. That section could be made less culturally biased. Wyvern 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your post made me think of additional examples. For instance, we in Spanish say "el viaje", which is masculine, but in Portuguese it is feminine, "a viagem". Same for the pairs "el dolor/a dor" "el color/a cor", with a special mention: while the noun "alma" is masculine in Spanish only in the singular, while in the plural it is feminine, the same noun is feminine in Portuguese in both singular ("a alma") and plural (as almas) --Fandelasketchup (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)