Anyone else irritated by the use of "she" for the generic pronoun?

[Garga]

Perhaps my issue is this.

 

Some women complain that the generic "he" pronoun makes them feel excluded. Their response is to use "she" for the generic in every case. So in protesting the language's exclusion of half of the population, they exclude half of the population. Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?

 

Alternating "he" and "she" seems fair-minded. Using "s/he" seems fair minded. However, exclusively using "she" as the generic pronoun seems like something else altogether.

Yes, that would rub me the wrong way. I would like a 3rd gender-neutral pronoun or to alternate between he and she.

[Farrar]

Perhaps my issue is this.

 

Some women complain that the generic "he" pronoun makes them feel excluded. Their response is to use "she" for the generic in every case. So in protesting the language's exclusion of half of the population, they exclude half of the population. Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?

 

Alternating "he" and "she" seems fair-minded. Using "s/he" seems fair minded. However, exclusively using "she" as the generic pronoun seems like something else altogether.

 

I can appreciate that.  However, some writers purposefully employ she as the universal pronoun simply to counteract our expectation that it always be "he" - sort of an overall balancing of the scales thing.  You can say two wrongs don't make a right, but I can at least understand that motivation.  And I don't think it should bother anyone *more* than it bothers her to read "he" as the universal pronoun, at least outside of an older text.

 

Also, unless it's a full book, I think we often don't see the full picture, right?  If I was writing something short, I might only need one or two universal pronouns and there might not be a chance to alternate.  You know, like in this post. ;)

[Ravin]

One would think "s/he" could work for transgenders.

 

No. First, it's unpronounceable. A truly serviceable pronoun should work in spoken as well as written form. Second, generally transgender people who prefer one of the standard gendered pronouns do so because they identify as neither male nor female, not because they are both, as s/he implies. S/he also has connotations of "he-she" or "shemale" and other such confabulations which, like using "it" for a person, are heavily derogatory.

 

Also, transgender for some reason is not generally used as a noun, it is appropriately used as an adjective. (This despite the fact that "gender" is a noun, and it would be more grammatically correct to say "transgendered" as an adjective, but that's a grammar battle which seems to have been lost at this point. There have been debates about it in the transgender community, which the grammarians lost.) Even if used as a noun, it is an abstract noun which names a quality or state of being, not an appropriate noun to use in direct reference to persons. Thus, you may say "transgender people" but not "transgenders" to be correct both politically and according to prevailing grammatical usage. It's somewhat like the semantic difference between someone saying "He is gay." vs. "He's a gay." The former refers to an aspect of the person's identity; the latter turns a state of being into a predicate nominative, thus objectifying the person with derogatory connotations.

 

Anyone who really loves language and grammar should dig into the deeper meanings and implications of supposed rules, not just call them rules because "that's how I was taught, therefore that is what is proper."

[Julie Smith]

I brought this subject up with Eldest during grammar today. 

 

Is anyone pushing for a word or set of words to be a gender neutral version of she / he, him / her?

[Ravin]

I agree with Dialectica.

 

English overall is not a heavily gendered language to begin with. Singular "they" works nicely, and will not break the language's structure.

[WishboneDawn]

Perhaps my issue is this.

 

Some women complain that the generic "he" pronoun makes them feel excluded. Their response is to use "she" for the generic in every case. So in protesting the language's exclusion of half of the population, they exclude half of the population. Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?

 

Alternating "he" and "she" seems fair-minded. Using "s/he" seems fair minded. However, exclusively using "she" as the generic pronoun seems like something else altogether.

Got it! And yes, I think I would find that annoying too.

[redsquirrel]

Perhaps my issue is this.

 

Some women complain that the generic "he" pronoun makes them feel excluded. Their response is to use "she" for the generic in every case. So in protesting the language's exclusion of half of the population, they exclude half of the population. Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?

 

Alternating "he" and "she" seems fair-minded. Using "s/he" seems fair minded. However, exclusively using "she" as the generic pronoun seems like something else altogether.

 

I guess it depends on how you see the exclusion happening. Is it in comparison to what the individual writer writes or is it in comparison to what is written in the language as a whole?

 

If you are looking at it in terms of the language as a whole, my puny little use of 'she' has a long way to go before it starts making a dent.

 

[fdrinca]

You know what? It does kind of bother me. I remember thinking at a very young age (5th grade?) that using "she" in my health textbook didn't make me feel any more like I could be a doctor. 

 

BUT: I've grown up with all of the "girl power" you-can-be-anything mentality that comes with a childhood of the 80s and 90s. Plus - perhaps because I'm from a family of girls, perhaps because I tend to be more domineering naturally, perhaps because Mercury was in retrograde last Tuesday - I've never felt as if my gender has prevented me from anything I've aspired to.

 

I find it awkward to read when an author changes back and forth from "he" to "she" repeatedly. My brain tracks two different people rather than a generic everyman. The plural "they" makes me think someone's make a proofreading error. (I particularly cringe when I see Facebook tell me that Diana XYZ has changed THEIR Facebook picture.)

[stripe]

 (I particularly cringe when I see Facebook tell me that Diana XYZ has changed THEIR Facebook picture.)

It's better than saying "Diana changed his picture," though, isn't it?

 

I received a letter last week from AT&T in response to my complaint with the FCC that reads that (my name) "states that they are receiving unwanted calls from people identifying themselves as AT&T" (emphasis mine). Believe me, I prefer this to the several items I've received in the past year addressed to Mr. ----. 

[Word Nerd]

No. First, it's unpronounceable. A truly serviceable pronoun should work in spoken as well as written form. Second, generally transgender people who prefer one of the standard gendered pronouns do so because they identify as neither male nor female, not because they are both, as s/he implies. 

 

FWIW, I disagree that it implies both. To me, s/he implies either. It's a short way of saying she or he. You aren't talking about two people--you're talking about one.

[stripe]

FWIW, I disagree that it implies both. To me, s/he implies either. It's a short way of saying she or he.

I agree with you.

 

I think the issue with people who reject the entire notion of male/female is a completely different one, that is not being addressed by those who are comfortable with the idea of males and females but don't want the generic to be male. I don't feel any compulsion myself to concoct a pronoun that rejects the gender paradigm. I don't think every issue has to be somehow transformed into a "trans rights" issue, which seems to be the current fashion, and men-who've-become-women (even when what that "becoming" means is not always clear, when it often includes continuing possession a male organ and the lack of any female organ, whether organic or procured) have become the ultimate women, who are now the elected spokespeople for what the female experience is. It seems to me like men trying to take control of what being female even is. But I digress. To sum up: I like being referred to as "she." I am not genderless. 

[Catherine]

I agree with you on the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. Silly and unnecessary. However, there is nothing wrong with alternating he and she, nor nothing particularly classical about sticking with "he" as the only pronoun. It's nothing but old-fashioned convention. Women aren't simply men who are missing a penis.

In fact it is biologically correct to say that men are women who are missing an X chromosome...

[Butter]

When I see s/he I've always pronounced it in my head as kind of like suh-he (two syllables).

[mamaraby]

I think the issue with people who reject the entire notion of male/female is a completely different one, that is not being addressed by those who are comfortable with the idea of males and females but don't want the generic to be male. I don't feel any compulsion myself to concoct a pronoun that rejects the gender paradigm. I don't think every issue has to be somehow transformed into a "trans rights" issue, which seems to be the current fashion, and men-who've-become-women (even when what that "becoming" means is not always clear, when it often includes continuing possession a male organ and the lack of any female organ, whether organic or procured) have become the ultimate women, who are now the elected spokespeople for what the female experience is. It seems to me like men trying to take control of what being female even is. But I digress. To sum up: I like being referred to as "she." I am not genderless.

I have to say, I find this rather insensitive and offensive. It's not an issue of electing someone as spokesperson, current fashion, nor becoming the ultimate of anything. It's not about being genderless. It's about being *inclusive* and not assuming something of another person.

 

i.e. Rather than assuming that a certain person is x gender based upon how I perceive them (generally speaking as a result of rather arbitrary factors or culturally conditioned norms), I can choose a gender neutral way of referring to a person until I know otherwise. That way I can treat a fellow human being with respect.

[Ravin]

I agree with you.

 

I think the issue with people who reject the entire notion of male/female is a completely different one, that is not being addressed by those who are comfortable with the idea of males and females but don't want the generic to be male. I don't feel any compulsion myself to concoct a pronoun that rejects the gender paradigm. I don't think every issue has to be somehow transformed into a "trans rights" issue, which seems to be the current fashion, and men-who've-become-women (even when what that "becoming" means is not always clear, when it often includes continuing possession a male organ and the lack of any female organ, whether organic or procured) have become the ultimate women, who are now the elected spokespeople for what the female experience is. It seems to me like men trying to take control of what being female even is.

Ah, yes, the radical feminist transphobic argument.

 

The point was not expecting any particular individual with a clear binary gender identity to be referred to with a neutral pronoun. Rather, we started with a debate over whether male should be the singular default pronoun for a non-specified person.

 

Doing this renders roughly half the population invisible by sublimating their identities into that of the other half.

 

A neutral pronoun avoids this problem. It is also convenient for that small percentage of the population with identities outside the binary to identify themselves.

 

As for s/he, I agree it can imply either/or. This still leaves nonbinary-gendered people out.

 

A neutral singular personal pronoun leaves no one out, thus does not de-humanize anyone. Including everyone is better than including almost everyone, which is better than including only half of everyone.

 

As for what any of this has to do with being classically minded, I suppose it depends on whether you think the classical approach is about rigorous thinking, including critical thought and room for recognition of cultural change and its implications, or that it means holding on to outmoded norms of sexism, classism, and racism in an atavistic effort to cling to some glorified notion of what Western Civilization is or was.

[stripe]

Ah, yes, the radical feminist transphobic argument.

Ah, the lazy girl's ad hominem! Thanks for playing. No one has called me a radical feminist in decades, so that was good for a chuckle. Or at least a snort.

 

Next.

 

I have to say, I find this rather insensitive and offensive. It's not an issue of electing someone as spokesperson, current fashion, nor becoming the ultimate of anything. It's not about being genderless. It's about being *inclusive* and not assuming something of another person.

 

i.e. Rather than assuming that a certain person is x gender based upon how I perceive them (generally speaking as a result of rather arbitrary factors or culturally conditioned norms), I can choose a gender neutral way of referring to a person until I know otherwise. That way I can treat a fellow human being with respect.

 

Well, as far as the pronoun issue is concerned, as I said, "I think the issue with people who reject the entire notion of male/female is a completely different one, that is not being addressed by those who are comfortable with the idea of males and females but don't want the generic to be male." I stand by my statement that issues of whether one rejects the idea of a male/female scenario, or whatever, is different from thinking "he" is a generic. It may include some of the same people, but it is not, actually, the same. 

 

I, myself, do not want to be genderless. I am not speaking about other people's desires to be genderless, or a third gender. I am just cheering for the use of the female pronoun. I guess that's controversial since I've been criticized by the "everyone's a he" crowd and the "every issue is about understanding transgender issues" crowd.

 

And, yes, I do not want a former man telling me how to be a woman. I have seen this in the "male-to-female trans" community, which includes people who have a penis but identify themselves as more authentically female than I am. I find that rather insensitive and offensive, and typical of the way that boorish men behave. I am well aware of how shrill the trans community gets at anyone who doesn't give their views primacy. No one else is allowed to have any different view whatsoever, or one is being "transphobic." I get it. I already got slapped with that label, above, which didn't surprise me one bit.

 

Let's not assume anything about anyone else. Because I really enjoy when people kindly assume I don't speak any English or that I couldn't possibly understand anything other than hand gestures or very simple sentences. I think it's very respectful of my intellect and personhood. Very kind that they are making sure I understand everything. So nice.

[mammajen]

I always found it annoying growing up to read "he" everywhere. I admit, it did make me feel left out because I felt that whatever was being said didn't apply to me, as a girl. I am a feminist, have been most of my life. In school, I did use "she," as a representative pronoun, mostly because I wanted people to know what it felt like to be excluded in that way. By the time I was in grad school, I opted for alternating he and she in order to be fair. I clearly remember thinking, when I visited my first woman doctor (a neurologist), that I didn't know women could be doctors. I grew up wanting to be a doctor, because women could. Anyway, I don't want my daughter thinking she must grow up to be a certain thing, if her true heart's desire is to be something else. So, at the very least, we alternate. But we might just use "she," too. ;)

[IsabelC]

I agree that gender blind pronouns are a great idea. After all, 99% of the time it is not relevant whether somebody is female or male (or doesn't identify as either, for that matter). However, living languages tend to evolve as they are used. They tend to be resistant to systematic attempts at change. Hence if I go around saying ze or writing hir all the time, most people are going to respond "Huh?". I like to sometimes get people - especially my kids - thinking, by saying something in an unexpected way. I'll refer to a hypothetical truck driver as she even though I know that we have very few woman truck drivers around here, because it triggers a nice conversation around the gendering of occupations. But I don't want to spend half the day discussing pronouns with random strangers because I use unfamiliar words.

[mamaraby]

Let's not assume anything about anyone else. Because I really enjoy when people kindly assume I don't speak any English or that I couldn't possibly understand anything other than hand gestures or very simple sentences. I think it's very respectful of my intellect and personhood. Very kind that they are making sure I understand everything. So nice.

Simply put, those people are not me. Perhpas you might want to take up your list of greivances with them?

 

For all the talk of ad hominem attacks....Perhaps you can explain how this last bit I've quoted has even the slightest bit to do with what I've said.

[Free]

 

And, yes, I do not want a former man telling me how to be a woman.

 

Stripe, I usually really enjoy your posts about inclusivity. But your own words above make your transsexism and transphobia evident.

 

 

[IsabelC]

I use "they" often, but I most frequently rephrase so I can have a plural subject. There are plenty of moldy oldies who used the singular they. (I've posted this before -- examples from Jane Austen.)

 

I grew up around people who used "she" deliberately as a "gender neutral" pronoun and put a high priority on detecting and avoiding sexist language so it just makes me amused to see others do this. I definitely find using "he" as gender neutral to be stupid.

 

My husband's first language includes a gender neutral pronoun, and as a result, my kids find English sorely lacking. They use "they" deliberately to mean someone they don't know. It is, I think, an improvement over their previous choice of "it." My son finds it outrageous and offensive to use "he" as a gender neutral pronoun. My daughter seems to think it is so obvious that boys are not the default that it need not be discussed.

 

I am not a "classical person." I am a classy person. And a woman, at that.

 

Could the patient who is here for his abortion, please return to the registration desk?

 

I love that page about Austen et. al. Interesting stuff.

 

 

I think in TWTM Jessie Wise says she uses he because she was taught that was the correct form.

 

TWTM also points to the importance of such things as logic and critical thinking. Appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy, while questioning the status quo is a key part of critical thought.

[Ravin]

Stripe:

 

First, I did not make an ad hominem attack. I did not call you a radical feminist. Your argument against trans-inclusion is one that I have heard before exclusively from self-identified radical feminists. It is based on an assumption that trans women claim their female identities do so at the expense of the female identities of all other women. They don't.

 

It also has nothing to do with the debate of whether to use exclusively male, alternately female, or gender neutral pronouns, and whether favoring classical education means advocating for default-male pronouns.

 

You clearly advocate for use of female pronouns.

 

You also assume I am female and slap me with a label implying I am not only female, but also immature. Both are incorrect.

[IsabelC]

In fact it is biologically correct to say that men are women who are missing an X chromosome...

 

True. But people with trisomy 21 also have a chromosomal difference, however we don't employ a special set of pronouns.

[Ravin]

True. But people with trisomy 21 also have a chromosomal difference, however we don't employ a special set of pronouns.

No. It is correct to say women with Turner Syndrome are women lacking an X chromosome.

 

 

Also some men have 2, with an XXY genotype.

 

I could go on...

[IsabelC]

Right. But should those particular people have their own pronouns?

 

What I was trying to say, was that I don't actually see the need for gender specific pronouns. If you are talking about a teacher, most of the time it doesn't matter whether that is a female teacher. If you are mentioning a teacher who takes lactation breaks, people can guess that is unlikely to be a male teacher, so again you don't need the she. Which brings me to the question: what is the purpose of gendered pronouns in the first place? Is there any good reason not to dump them if one could do so with a wave of the magic wand?

 

 

And this:

 

It is based on an assumption that trans women claim their female identities do so at the expense of the female identities of all other women. They don't. 
It also has nothing to do with the debate of whether to use exclusively male, alternately female, or gender neutral pronouns, and whether favoring classical education means advocating for default-male pronouns.

 

Yeah, probably off topic for this thread, but a great topic for a whole other thread.

 

[Mrs Twain]

I was telling a certain male person I know about this conversation.  He found it entertaining but also noted that he has more than a little aversion to the sole use of "she" as the generic pronoun.  Now I am sure some people reading this would be inclined to judge him for disliking the "she" generic, but remember that many of you ladies said you have the same aversion to the sole use of the "he" pronoun.  He also said he would be less likely to read something by an author who only used the "she" generic.

 

Perhaps those of you who are authors should consider this.   Using the "she" pronoun exclusively may be causing you to lose a substantial amount of your readership.  If your goal is to influence as many people as possible with your ideas, then perhaps you should do at least what some have suggested here, namely alternate he/she, use s/he, or make all of your generic sentences plural so you can use "they" without anxiety.

 

 

[MistiDelaney]

I am old enough that using "one" sounds perfectly fine to me.  Where that doesn't work, I prefer to rewrite so that I can use the plural "they".  In  theory, I have no objection to the singular "they", but I find it very hard to use it myself.  That said, I am also content with other folks using "he or she" or alternating gendered pronouns.

 

I have friends who use "hir" and "ze", and I understand and respect that they need non-gendered pronouns, but I think it's going to take me some time to get comfortable using them myself. 

 

Not happy at all about the modern use of the "generic" male pronoun, though.  I'm old and traditional, but that *that* old!  :p

 

Conceivably, one could argue that we should allow our language to evolve in such a way that includes everyone, as that is compassionate and friendly.

 

I grew up using "one" as the gender neutral pronoun, but I do sometimes feel like my grandmother when I use it (not in the sentence above).

 

 

My preference would be to use "one" as the generic pronoun and leave "he" and "she" for talking about specific people.  I'd like to be able to use "it" to refer to people who don't identify as male or female if it were possible to do so in a non-offensive way (like how people sometimes refer to a baby as "it").

 

[redsquirrel]

I was telling a certain male person I know about this conversation.  He found it entertaining but also noted that he has more than a little aversion to the sole use of "she" as the generic pronoun.  Now I am sure some people reading this would be inclined to judge him for disliking the "she" generic, but remember that many of you ladies said you have the same aversion to the sole use of the "he" pronoun.  He also said he would be less likely to read something by an author who only used the "she" generic.

 

Perhaps those of you who are authors should consider this.   Using the "she" pronoun exclusively may be causing you to lose a substantial amount of your readership.  If your goal is to influence as many people as possible with your ideas, then perhaps you should do at least what some have suggested here, namely alternate he/she, use s/he, or make all of your generic sentences plural so you can use "they" without anxiety.

Hear that, women? The gig is up. Some woman spoke to a MAN and he said he doesn't like it. So, everyone stop what you are doing right now. Just stop your whining and complaining and thinking about stuff and go back to writing HE at all times. Heck, with all the time saved by only typing 2 letter for 'he' instead of three for 'she' you could learn to knit sock for your man. And don't make that face, you would be so pretty if you just smiled more. 

 

 

So because some guy you talked to says it bothers him everyone should do things his way? I should worry that 'some guy' won't read my...what? Posts here? Exactly what "readership" am I losing?

 

And he doesn't have to worry about losing my readership? Why? because he is a serious "classical person" and doesn't think about silly things like "women's lib"? And so considerate of you to mention that he finds people's concerns 'entertaining'. I mean, girls are so cute with their stamping their feet and getting all flustered about women stuff. It's adorable, ain't it guys? Yep, girls are so cute.

 

It is not only 'ladies' who who have an aversion to the sole usage for the male pronoun. Have you not considered that there are many men who go out of their way in their writing to make it feel applicable to as wide an audience as possible? I'd like to think that some of them came to this decision on their own and not all of them are writing with their other arm twisted behind their back by some feminazi political correctness lackey.

 

If little things like using a female pronoun instead of a male pronoun in gender neutral settings bother you that much maybe you should limit yourself to published material from the 18th century?

[Mrs Twain]

I didn't say everyone should use "he" all the time.

 

I think if you write such things as educational philosophy books or anything else which you want a wide audience to read, you ought to consider what your goal is. Is it promoting the use of feminine pronouns or some other ideas that you would like to get across?

 

My suspicion is that various authors might have a wider readership if their wording would be more inclusive rather than exclusive.

[Mrs Twain]

You don't find this thread entertaining?

[Paige]

I think if you write such things as educational philosophy books or anything else which you want a wide audience to read, you ought to consider what your goal is. Is it promoting the use of feminine pronouns or some other ideas that you would like to get across?

 

My suspicion is that various authors might have a wider readership if their wording would be more inclusive rather than exclusive.

I have never noticed a book or any other non-feminist oriented writing use female pronouns exclusively in passages long enough to allow for more than one pronoun. It is to be expected, or should at least not be surprising, in women's studies materials. Does this come up often enough to be a real problem, often enough that men would feel excluded and slighted, and often enough that people are actually losing significant numbers of sales or readers? Maybe I'm unobservant and have never noticed, but I don't see this as a new and growing trend.

 

I do find this thread entertaining, however.

[Mrs Twain]

Redsqirrel sounded to be somewhat offended that my male friend found this thread to be entertaining, so that is why I asked. (Sorrry--I was too lazy try to quote using this electronic device.)

[Mrs Twain]

I have never noticed a book or any other non-feminist oriented writing use female pronouns exclusively in passages long enough to allow for more than one pronoun. It is to be expected, or should at least not be surprising, in women's studies materials. Does this come up often enough to be a real problem, often enough that men would feel excluded and slighted, and often enough that people are actually losing significant numbers of sales or readers? Maybe I'm unobservant and have never noticed, but I don't see this as a new and growing trend.

 

I do find this thread entertaining, however.

There are at least a couple of homeschool authors who (from my reading) either exclusively or mostly use the "she" generic which I think may cause them to lose readers.

[Denise in Florida]

One would think "s/he" could work for transgenders.

 

No. No, the mocking 'heshe' with the rolling eyes has been used as an insult too often. Usually following by a smirking "it".

 

I am sure a word will develop to meet the need, I don't mind "xie".  

 

I remember the 70's and the mocking of gender neutral designations for employment, such as "stewardess" vs. "flight attendant". It all looks silly now.  

 

English adapts, it adapts quickly, that is one of the things it is known for.  :001_smile:

[Denise in Florida]

There are at least a couple of homeschool authors who (from my reading) either exclusively or mostly use the "she" generic which I think may cause them to lose readers.

 

 

If that is the standard by which someone decides which authors are worth reading then will probably end up only reading a small self-selected group. Sounds limiting to me. 

 

I guess I have never found it to be that big a deal. Of course, that is just my opinion.

[redsquirrel]

Redsqirrel sounded to be somewhat offended that my male friend found this thread to be entertaining, so that is why I asked. (Sorrry--I was too lazy try to quote using this electronic device.)

 

I am not offended. I am entertained by the fact that you felt the need to run to some man and get his opinion and then come back and tell us what it is and use this anonymous man as a stand in for all human kind for your reasoning that others should change their actions. 

 

 

So I am entertained and a little perplexed that you do not see the humor to be found in what you did. As for your friend, I am not offended, just bored by proxy mansplaining.

[Denise in Florida]

So we should be forced to change our entire language because some miniscule percentage of people militantly refuse to identify themselves as either male or female?

 

I don't really think force is involved, nor is the entire language. While the issue of gendered pronouns is not a problem for me it is a problem for others.

 

I appreciate respect and kindness concerning my differences (even if I represent a miniscule percentage of people)  therefore I try to offer them when dealing with other people's differences and preferences. It really isn't that big a burden. 

[IsabelC]

proxy mansplaining  :hurray:

 

I love the way I keep learning new words / expressions on here :D

 

 

This is a great thread. It's fascinating to find out how how people view the interplay between society, culture and language. Even if if disagree, I enjoy reading everyone's opinions, and I think that if we can designate certain attributes as 'classical', one of those would surely be the willingness to examine and analyse everyday things from different perspectives. 

[bolt.]

As a theological person (of the Christian persuasion) I am very interested in the gendered nature of English pronouns.

 

English pronouns make it very difficult to speak about the Christian God without implying 'his' male-ness. The long term habit of emphasing 'He' with a capital letter makes the implied assertion quite emphatic.

 

I hardly ever know what to do in order to be Biblically accurate, because in both Biblical languages the pronouns are gendered in a different way from English. Biblical Greek and Hebrew run on this dichotomy: (Unspecified, mixed or masculine) // (exclusively or entirely feminine). The feminine is rarely used unless the female gender is both known and consudered logically significant or relevant. Therefore, the unspecified-but-unfeminine singular pronoun for God is a problem in translation and conversation.

 

I've tried "they" but it implies plurality: which is theologically true (in trinitarian doctrine) but sounds polytheistic and very strange in most settings.

 

I've tried "one" but it sounds too confusing: as if it could refer to anybody else in the setting. (Ie: 'Praise God for one's mighty works.')

 

I've tried using the names of God as the proper noun, and the word 'God' as the pronoun. It works sometimes, but gets awkward especially with possessives and reflexives.

 

I haven tried s/he because God is "unspecified" as far as being gender-irrelevant (not in terms of being one or the other -- but we aren't sure).

 

Anyhow, the way we speak influences the ways we are capable of thinking. Does anyone else have and ideas for discussing God without implying gender 5000x more often than the 'father' imagery is actually employed?

 

I'm definitely of the opinion that we need another pronoun!

[Mrs Twain]

As a theological person (of the Christian persuasion) I am very interested in the gendered nature of English pronouns.

 

English pronouns make it very difficult to speak about the Christian God without implying 'his' male-ness. The long term habit of emphasing 'He' with a capital letter makes the implied assertion quite emphatic.

 

I hardly ever know what to do in order to be Biblically accurate, because in both Biblical languages the pronouns are gendered in a different way from English. Biblical Greek and Hebrew run on this dichotomy: (Unspecified, mixed or masculine) // (exclusively or entirely feminine). The feminine is rarely used unless the female gender is both known and consudered logically significant or relevant. Therefore, the unspecified-but-unfeminine singular pronoun for God is a problem in translation and conversation.

 

I've tried "they" but it implies plurality: which is theologically true (in trinitarian doctrine) but sounds polytheistic and very strange in most settings.

 

I've tried "one" but it sounds too confusing: as if it could refer to anybody else in the setting. (Ie: 'Praise God for one's mighty works.')

 

I've tried using the names of God as the proper noun, and the word 'God' as the pronoun. It works sometimes, but gets awkward especially with possessives and reflexives.

 

I haven tried s/he because God is "unspecified" as far as being gender-irrelevant (not in terms of being one or the other -- but we aren't sure).

 

Anyhow, the way we speak influences the ways we are capable of thinking. Does anyone else have and ideas for discussing God without implying gender 5000x more often than the 'father' imagery is actually employed?

 

I'm definitely of the opinion that we need another pronoun!

Thank you for this very interesting post.

 

Did you know that there are nearly 2,000 languages that don't have any of the Bible, not even portions, translated yet? Maybe you could work on one of those until the English generic pronoun mess works itself out. That is the only idea I can think of.

[IsabelC]

Hmmm, God is tricky. (I suppose It would sound disrespectful, even capitalized? I thought of IT for double capitalizing = double respect, but that looked like Tale of Two Castles or possibly I.T. so it wouldn't work.) I don't imagine ze/hir would be readily accepted.

 

You an always take the avoidance route and stick with constructions like 'Praise God from whom all blessings flow'. 

The Bible is, after all, a very old work, so maybe it can't be comprehensively modernized without losing important stuff? I know lots of people are sticklers for the KJV for no other reason than it sounds so much nicer. Maybe it needs to retain the He and let individual churches or individual Christians decide to what extent He is übermasculine, feminine-inclusive or outside of gender entirely?

[Mergath]

There are at least a couple of homeschool authors who (from my reading) either exclusively or mostly use the "she" generic which I think may cause them to lose readers.

 

Probably because the vast majority of us actually doing the homeschooling are women and the author knows her audience.

 

Oops.  I guess I'm not a "classical person."

[Kathryn]

As a theological person (of the Christian persuasion) I am very interested in the gendered nature of English pronouns.

 

English pronouns make it very difficult to speak about the Christian God without implying 'his' male-ness. The long term habit of emphasing 'He' with a capital letter makes the implied assertion quite emphatic.

 

I hardly ever know what to do in order to be Biblically accurate, because in both Biblical languages the pronouns are gendered in a different way from English. Biblical Greek and Hebrew run on this dichotomy: (Unspecified, mixed or masculine) // (exclusively or entirely feminine). The feminine is rarely used unless the female gender is both known and consudered logically significant or relevant. Therefore, the unspecified-but-unfeminine singular pronoun for God is a problem in translation and conversation.

 

I've tried "they" but it implies plurality: which is theologically true (in trinitarian doctrine) but sounds polytheistic and very strange in most settings.

 

I've tried "one" but it sounds too confusing: as if it could refer to anybody else in the setting. (Ie: 'Praise God for one's mighty works.')

 

I've tried using the names of God as the proper noun, and the word 'God' as the pronoun. It works sometimes, but gets awkward especially with possessives and reflexives.

 

I haven tried s/he because God is "unspecified" as far as being gender-irrelevant (not in terms of being one or the other -- but we aren't sure).

 

Anyhow, the way we speak influences the ways we are capable of thinking. Does anyone else have and ideas for discussing God without implying gender 5000x more often than the 'father' imagery is actually employed?

 

I'm definitely of the opinion that we need another pronoun!

But both Hebrew and Greek used male grammar constructions to refer to God.

[Haiku]

I would like to have gender-neutral pronouns, but hir and ze don't really do it for me. They sound like her and sie (German for she) and, thus, to me, seem distinctly feminine. Another possibility is co, used by some intentional community somewhere, and that just seems kitschy. I prefer they. It's a word we already use, doesn't sound contrived or similar to a gendered word, and has, contrary to the assertions of some classical people here, been used in the third-person singular for hundreds of years.

 

I know one genderqueer person. This person simply goes with whatever pronoun the people around them use, because they are aware that different people perceive their gender differently. I use they and them when describing this person.

[bolt.]

But both Hebrew and Greek used male grammar constructions to refer to God.

But they do not imply maleness. They imply "anything that is not female" and refer to many genderless objects, animals or persons of unknown gender, and all mixed groups -- which is different than the implications of the male grammar constructions of English.

[Kathryn]

But they do not imply maleness. They imply "anything that is not female" and refer to many genderless objects, animals or persons of unknown gender, and all mixed groups -- which is different than the implications of the male grammar constructions of English.

 

I don't know about Hebrew, but Greek has neuter.

[Catherine]

Hear that, women? The gig is up. Some woman spoke to a MAN and he said he doesn't like it. So, everyone stop what you are doing right now. Just stop your whining and complaining and thinking about stuff and go back to writing HE at all times. Heck, with all the time saved by only typing 2 letter for 'he' instead of three for 'she' you could learn to knit sock for your man. And don't make that face, you would be so pretty if you just smiled more. 

 

 

So because some guy you talked to says it bothers him everyone should do things his way? I should worry that 'some guy' won't read my...what? Posts here? Exactly what "readership" am I losing?

 

And he doesn't have to worry about losing my readership? Why? because he is a serious "classical person" and doesn't think about silly things like "women's lib"? And so considerate of you to mention that he finds people's concerns 'entertaining'. I mean, girls are so cute with their stamping their feet and getting all flustered about women stuff. It's adorable, ain't it guys? Yep, girls are so cute.

 

It is not only 'ladies' who who have an aversion to the sole usage for the male pronoun. Have you not considered that there are many men who go out of their way in their writing to make it feel applicable to as wide an audience as possible? I'd like to think that some of them came to this decision on their own and not all of them are writing with their other arm twisted behind their back by some feminazi political correctness lackey.

 

If little things like using a female pronoun instead of a male pronoun in gender neutral settings bother you that much maybe you should limit yourself to published material from the 18th century?

LOLOL!! I can't stop laughing. Thank you so much for saying this.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I trust Grammarphobia.

[bolt.]

I don't know about Hebrew, but Greek has neuter.

Yep, it's never used for people either specifically or as a generic / gender neutral pronoun, but it is one of the three grammar "genders" used for common nouns.

 

The neuter is used for some people-nouns (ie child) but the gender of people-nouns does not relate to their actual gender. (ie disciple is a "feminine" noun grammatically, but does not imply that all of Jesus' disciples were female.) <- I think I'm remembering correctly, but I've been known to err.

[IsabelC]

I would like to have gender-neutral pronouns, but hir and ze don't really do it for me. They sound like her and sie (German for she) and, thus, to me, seem distinctly feminine. Another possibility is co, used by some intentional community somewhere, and that just seems kitschy. I prefer they. It's a word we already use, doesn't sound contrived or similar to a gendered word, and has, contrary to the assertions of some classical people here, been used in the third-person singular for hundreds of years.

 

I know one genderqueer person. This person simply goes with whatever pronoun the people around them use, because they are aware that different people perceive their gender differently. I use they and them when describing this person.

 

I thought hir was pronounced more like here as it's meant to sound halfway between his and her?

 

I agree that they seems less awkward to use though.

 

I don't think I have every met anyone who uses co, not even online.