Use of "they" or he/she when referring to an individual

[gardening momma]

I need help deciding whether to use "they" or "he/she" or an alternative I haven't thought of: I am making a flyer that in one paragraph says "Your child has completed...[snip]...and is now eligible to buy..." and the next paragraph will say either "They are also eligible to begin..." or "He/she is also eligible to begin..."

 

I think "they" is technically incorrect, as it seems to refer to more than one person. Dh and I both think "he/she" is cumbersome.

 

What do I use? I don't want to have a blank to put the child's name in--I need this to be a one size fits all paper. Each child will receive one, even if there are multiple children in a family getting one.

[Aubrey]

I need help deciding whether to use "they" or "he/she" or an alternative I haven't thought of: I am making a flyer that in one paragraph says "Your child has completed...[snip]...and is now eligible to buy..." and the next paragraph will say either "They are also eligible to begin..." or "He/she is also eligible to begin..."

 

I think "they" is technically incorrect, as it seems to refer to more than one person. Dh and I both think "he/she" is cumbersome.

 

What do I use? I don't want to have a blank to put the child's name in--I need this to be a one size fits all paper. Each child will receive one, even if there are multiple children in a family getting one.

 

1. He/she is technically correct, accd to most sources.

 

2. It was cited here a year or more ago that Austen used "they" to refer to individuals, so I have officially moved my flag over to that camp: that either is acceptable.

 

3. The only people who will correct you, however, will be those in the he/she camp.

 

4. Rephrase:

 

Your child has completed SPACE CADET TRAINING and is now eligible to buy THE FIRST CHILD-LED TRIP TO MARS.... CHILDREN are also eligible to begin DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION....

 

On an unrelated note, my sis dated a highschool English teacher once who said he'd mark off on a student's paper if the student wrote "he/she" instead of simply "he." He didn't care that either was correct; the former bugged him. While I tend to prefer simply "he" also, that man bugged ME. :lol:

[Melinda in VT]

I'm with Aubrey. Our writing guidelines are work are to avoid both using "they" as a singular pronoun and using "he/she." We're supposed to rewrite.

[Orthodox6]

Best English usage is "he".

 

Next best, and acceptable to everybody except "Instructor Grumpy" is

"he or she".

 

Third in line -- and my personal candidate for inclusion in the next revised editions of grammar textbooks -- is "s/he".

 

"They" . . . nevah !

[joannqn]

I use "he" as other languages do for unknown gender individuals.

[Ellie]

It is incorrect. That some people use it, even people whom we generally admire, does not make it correct.:glare:

 

"He/she" is awkward, but I can see its usage under *very* limited conditions. I prefer to rewrite something than to have to write awkwardly, KWIM?

 

Couldn't you just say, "Your child is also eligible to begin..."?

[Ester Maria]

"They" cannot cut it for formal writing - it is technically incorrect, though many (most) of us use it in informal writing and talk.

 

Personally, I would go with "he/she" or "s/he" there.

[stripe]

How about starting the next paragraph with 'your child...' instead of a pronoun?

[In The Great White North]

I vote for rewriting to eliminate the need for a pronoun.

 

I never even heard the "he or she" til college, when lots of similar usages changed with the admission of women.

 

"S/he" is common usage in Europe (ie. Schwimmer/Innen) but not something I have ever seen here.

 

"They" is simply incorrect, albeit often used.

 

Every grammar I have ever seen, from before 1970, said "he" was to be used to refer to an individual of indeterminate sex.

[Teachin'Mine]

Another vote for re-working the sentence. Here on the forum I often use they as I'm not concerned with grammar rules, but on a flier, I'd go with something safer and he/she is awkward.

[Julie Smith]

You think that question is difficult. Try this one on for size.

 

When talking about a friend who use to be a he, but is now a she. When talking about things that happened when the person was a he, do you refer to that person as a he, or a she since that person is now currently a she? What about how you refer to that person during that time of transition between he and she. (or she and he)?

 

That is one thing the Ms. Manners book my Mom has that isn't addressed.

[stripe]

The other problem with saying "the child who is eligible....he...." is that it suggests that only males are eligible.

 

"He" as gender neutral is just....past its prime, if it ever had one. Reword and reword until it works. Pluralize if required ("Eligible children will be able to choose between beet salad with dandelion greens and tuna sashimi for lunch. Those who choose tuna sashimi should bring their own hand-whittled chopsticks.")

[Matryoshka]

Here's the thing. English lacks an indeterminate 3rd person pronoun. Or maybe it doesn't. Austen used "they"; I think Shakespeare did too. As someone else pointed out, it's what we use colloquially.

 

Apparently some uptight grammarians in the 19th century got their panties in a knot and said, "but that's a plural! we forbid its use in that context!" When it became clear that it was limited and sexist in the 1970s, still no one dared argue with the dead grammarians and so we ended up with s/he or he or she.

 

Now, pronouns change in language all the time. It is not fixed in some kind of stone. It was only 500 years ago that the Spanish immigrated to the new world and the entire second person pronouns have been turned on their heads. It used to be:

 

2nd person singular, tu (don't have a keyboard with accents today, so pretend they're where they're supposed to be).

2nd person plural, vosotros

 

Then they came up with the honorific: Vuestra Merced (your mercy), which was shortened to Usted and then rather grammatically incorrectly according to its origin, Ustedes.

 

Now in most of Latin America, it's

 

2nd person singular tu, 2nd person plural Ustedes.

 

Except in Argentina and a few other places where it's

 

2nd person singular vos, 2nd person plural Ustedes.

 

No one has suggested that these people are nuts for calling everyone "your mercies" and that they have to do it the way it was done before. Usage changes, the rules change.

 

German has one pronoun (sie) that means different things in context.

sie can mean she, sie can mean they, and capitialize it to Sie and it's you formal, singular or plural. sie can also mean "it" if it's referring to a feminine inanimate noun.

 

Even in English, we've mixed things up. Used to be, thou was the correct 2nd person singular, and you was reserved for plural or formal use. Should we mayhap all go back to using thou?

 

He alone is sexist. S/he is stupid. Having to rephrase perfectly understandable prose to kowtow to this silliness is, well, silly. They was used for centuries before the uptight sexist grammarians put the kibosh on it. Boo to them and yay for they as a singular indeterminate pronoun.

Edited July 30, 2011 by matroyshka

[gardening momma]

Couldn't you just say, "Your child is also eligible to begin..."?

[smack palm on forehead] Yes! Duh! (to me, not you) That works.

 

I liked Aubrey's example with the Space Cadet Training--close, so close! :lol:

[gardening momma]

("Eligible children will be able to choose between beet salad with dandelion greens and tuna sashimi for lunch. Those who choose tuna sashimi should bring their own hand-whittled chopsticks.")

Ok, I'm switching to this one. Sorry, Aubrey. :D

[Laurie4b]

Here's the thing. English lacks an indeterminate 3rd person pronoun. Or maybe it doesn't. Austen used "they"; I think Shakespeare did too. As someone else pointed out, it's what we use colloquially.

 

Apparently some uptight grammarians in the 19th century got their panties in a knot and said, "but that's a plural! we forbid its use in that context!" When it became clear that it was limited and sexist in the 1970s, still no one dared argue with the dead grammarians and so we ended up with s/he or he or she.

 

Now, pronouns change in language all the time. It is not fixed in some kind of stone. It was only 500 years ago that the Spanish immigrated to the new world and the entire second person pronouns have been turned on their heads. It used to be:

 

2nd person singular, tu (don't have a keyboard with accents today, so pretend they're where they're supposed to be).

2nd person plural, vosotros

 

Then they came up with the honorific: Vuestra Merced (your mercy), which was shortened to Usted and then rather grammatically incorrectly according to its origin, Ustedes.

 

Now in most of Latin America, it's

 

2nd person singular tu, 2nd person plural Ustedes.

 

Except in Argentina and a few other places where it's

 

2nd person singular vos, 2nd person plural Ustedes.

 

No one has suggested that these people are nuts for calling everyone "your mercies" and that they have to do it the way it was done before. Usage changes, the rules change.

 

German has one pronoun (sie) that means different things in context.

sie can mean she, sie can mean they, and capitialize it to Sie and it's you formal, singular or plural. sie can also mean "it" if it's referring to a feminine inanimate noun.

 

Even in English, we've mixed things up. Used to be, thou was the correct 2nd person singular, and you was reserved for plural or formal use. Should we mayhap all go back to using thou?

 

He alone is sexist. S/he is stupid. Having to rephrase perfectly understandable prose to kowtow to this silliness is, well, silly. They was used for centuries before the uptight sexist grammarians put the kibosh on it. Boo to them and yay for they as a singular indeterminate pronoun.

 

Excellent post.

[Laurie4b]

I agree with those who suggest rewording to get around it. I believe it is also acceptable to alternate the use of he with she in a document.

 

Your child ____. He ____. When your child...., she____.

 

The problem is of course that we lack a neutral noun and enough people have decided that to use only "he" colors our language in favor of males. I keep wishing we could just make up a new set of pronouns and go with those. I'll bet in a hundred years, though, that "they" will be considered absolutely proper usage in those types of sentences. That's the way we speak. It will win.

[LaxMom]

You think that question is difficult. Try this one on for size.

 

When talking about a friend who use to be a he, but is now a she. When talking about things that happened when the person was a he, do you refer to that person as a he, or a she since that person is now currently a she? What about how you refer to that person during that time of transition between he and she. (or she and he)?

 

That is one thing the Ms. Manners book my Mom has that isn't addressed.

 

I would think you would use "she" across the board, with the implication being that your friend has always been "she" and has just had a physical error corrected through surgery.

 

I think Miss Mamners would say it is rude to insist on calling someone by a former name, regardless of the reason for change.

Edited July 30, 2011 by MyCrazyHouse

[Paige]

When I was taking composition, we were instructed to either us he or she or to use he sometimes and then she sometimes throughout the paper. Using "they" was awful. We would get lots of points taken off for that and the prof. did not like people to always use he. It is considered too gender biased. If you don't like he or she, you can always rewrite it so that you have a plural subject. In your example, I would either make it a plural subject in the first place or use he or she. I used he or she so much in college that it no longer seems awkward to me.

[KungFuPanda]

Skip he/she and go with "it."

 

What could possibly go wrong :lol::lol::lol:

[Carpe]

I would think you would use "she" across the board, with the implication being that your friend has always been "she" and has just had a physical error corrected through surgery.

 

I think Miss Mamners would say it is rude to insist on calling someone by a former name, regardless of the reason for change.

 

I agree except in a sexual situation. If your now-female friend was sexually active as a male, and the topic comes up, she should be referred to as he to not incorrectly brand the other woman as a lesbian/bisexual. Yeah... BTDT. Starting to get a headache just remembering that conversation.

[Carpe]

Here's the thing. English lacks an indeterminate 3rd person pronoun. Or maybe it doesn't. Austen used "they"; I think Shakespeare did too. As someone else pointed out, it's what we use colloquially.

 

Apparently some uptight grammarians in the 19th century got their panties in a knot and said, "but that's a plural! we forbid its use in that context!" When it became clear that it was limited and sexist in the 1970s, still no one dared argue with the dead grammarians and so we ended up with s/he or he or she.

 

Now, pronouns change in language all the time. It is not fixed in some kind of stone. It was only 500 years ago that the Spanish immigrated to the new world and the entire second person pronouns have been turned on their heads. It used to be:

 

2nd person singular, tu (don't have a keyboard with accents today, so pretend they're where they're supposed to be).

2nd person plural, vosotros

 

Then they came up with the honorific: Vuestra Merced (your mercy), which was shortened to Usted and then rather grammatically incorrectly according to its origin, Ustedes.

 

Now in most of Latin America, it's

 

2nd person singular tu, 2nd person plural Ustedes.

 

Except in Argentina and a few other places where it's

 

2nd person singular vos, 2nd person plural Ustedes.

 

No one has suggested that these people are nuts for calling everyone "your mercies" and that they have to do it the way it was done before. Usage changes, the rules change.

 

German has one pronoun (sie) that means different things in context.

sie can mean she, sie can mean they, and capitialize it to Sie and it's you formal, singular or plural. sie can also mean "it" if it's referring to a feminine inanimate noun.

 

Even in English, we've mixed things up. Used to be, thou was the correct 2nd person singular, and you was reserved for plural or formal use. Should we mayhap all go back to using thou?

 

He alone is sexist. S/he is stupid. Having to rephrase perfectly understandable prose to kowtow to this silliness is, well, silly. They was used for centuries before the uptight sexist grammarians put the kibosh on it. Boo to them and yay for they as a singular indeterminate pronoun.

 

I agree. Long live they!

[Lucy the Valiant]

American English is definitely trending toward the acceptance of "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun, but it's certainly not there yet.

 

Incidentally, this is a commonly tested question the SAT.

[Spy Car]

He alone is sexist. S/he is stupid. Having to rephrase perfectly understandable prose to kowtow to this silliness is, well, silly. They was used for centuries before the uptight sexist grammarians put the kibosh on it. Boo to them and yay for they as a singular indeterminate pronoun.

 

:iagree:

 

I tend to be very traditionalist with usage, not that that necessarily precludes "they" as a third person singular indeterminate pronoun, given its historical precedence.

 

But "he" is sexist. I don't like it when authors "switch off" and use "she" half the time either. S/he is ugly. He or she is "correct" but burdensome.

 

I will not fight against the evolution of American English in this case. I would most likely reword the flyer.

 

Bill

[KidsHappen]

Here's the thing. English lacks an indeterminate 3rd person pronoun. Or maybe it doesn't. Austen used "they"; I think Shakespeare did too. As someone else pointed out, it's what we use colloquially.

 

Apparently some uptight grammarians in the 19th century got their panties in a knot and said, "but that's a plural! we forbid its use in that context!" When it became clear that it was limited and sexist in the 1970s, still no one dared argue with the dead grammarians and so we ended up with s/he or he or she.

 

Now, pronouns change in language all the time. It is not fixed in some kind of stone. It was only 500 years ago that the Spanish immigrated to the new world and the entire second person pronouns have been turned on their heads. It used to be:

 

2nd person singular, tu (don't have a keyboard with accents today, so pretend they're where they're supposed to be).

2nd person plural, vosotros

 

Then they came up with the honorific: Vuestra Merced (your mercy), which was shortened to Usted and then rather grammatically incorrectly according to its origin, Ustedes.

 

Now in most of Latin America, it's

 

2nd person singular tu, 2nd person plural Ustedes.

 

Except in Argentina and a few other places where it's

 

2nd person singular vos, 2nd person plural Ustedes.

 

No one has suggested that these people are nuts for calling everyone "your mercies" and that they have to do it the way it was done before. Usage changes, the rules change.

 

German has one pronoun (sie) that means different things in context.

sie can mean she, sie can mean they, and capitialize it to Sie and it's you formal, singular or plural. sie can also mean "it" if it's referring to a feminine inanimate noun.

 

Even in English, we've mixed things up. Used to be, thou was the correct 2nd person singular, and you was reserved for plural or formal use. Should we mayhap all go back to using thou?

 

He alone is sexist. S/he is stupid. Having to rephrase perfectly understandable prose to kowtow to this silliness is, well, silly. They was used for centuries before the uptight sexist grammarians put the kibosh on it. Boo to them and yay for they as a singular indeterminate pronoun.

 

:iagree:

[Tohru]

I would think you would use "she" across the board, with the implication being that your friend has always been "she" and has just had a physical error corrected through surgery.

 

I think Miss Mamners would say it is rude to insist on calling someone by a former name, regardless of the reason for change.

 

:iagree:

 

 

OP:

And I'd use "they" because what if they have more than one child that would like to sign up? You'd then have to deal with child/ren which looks just as terrible as s/he and he/she.

[Catherine]

AGREE! Thank you for this excellent post.

[gardening momma]

:iagree:

 

 

OP:

And I'd use "they" because what if they have more than one child that would like to sign up? You'd then have to deal with child/ren which looks just as terrible as s/he and he/she.

In this case, it's not about signing up for something, they're already in it. They're just advancing, and that's an individual thing. So each child gets one of these papers to take home as they become eligible.