I doubt I'm being particularly bold or controversial here in stating that I like the singular they and find little grammatically with it. It was widely used historically until about the 18th century, and it's a more inclusive framing than the generic "he," "she,' or "he or she"
That said, I do think it's interesting to examine how the topic's framing has changed over time, as it's slowly shifted toward inclusion, and how ceding ground on this somewhat serves as a metaphor for broader trends toward acceptance of gender diversity.
Fairly recently, many style manuals (e.g., the APA, and Chicago Style) have accepted that A: people have always used the singular they in casual language, so yeah, that's acceptable and B: Some people prefer gender-neutral pronouns and they works for those people.
What is interesting, I think, is the APA's treatment in particular in regards to a non-specified gender. In general, most style guides suggest that he or she is better alternative. similar sentiments can be seen in op-eds and the like. While fully supporting the singular they in the special context of a person who prefers it as their own pronouns, these also reject it in the generic sense in favor of "he," "she" or "he or she." No one, it seems, considers, "he, she or they" as a valid option, even though their own positions accept that "they" is often the correct address for specific people. A lot of these changes are quite recent. AFAIK, the Chicago manual of style only acknowledged they's legitimacy at all in 2017.
This is fairly interesting. Most studies I've run with large samples have found at least a few individuals who didn't identify as male or female when asked. Some might alternate or swap pronouns, but some probably like they. If we were to refer to the sample (e.g., describing the specific process every subject went through in an online experiment), using "he or she" would be acceptable, but also wrong even in the logic style guides accept, while "they" would be more inclusive and accurate, but remains unacceptable. The Chicago Manual is a bit better, suggesting that it's not okay, but editors should just let people use it if they really care that much.
This is, I think, pretty clear as a metaphor of how we treat gender identity, even in comparatively accepting spaces. We accept that an individual might not be a he or she.
And yet, it's common to see people who believe it is wrong to assume that a generic individual might not be a he or she. Among those who accept they or Zie or Xe as a valid means of address, many couch this in the language of following, rather than guiding norms if they aren't getting pointlessly upset about how much it pains their ears to see commonly used grammar that disturbs their fragile sensibilities. "It is becoming more acceptable, but isn't yet, so don't do this in formal writing," seems to be a common logic, but one that's at odds with the contradiction intrinsic to allowing it in specific cases, but rejecting it in the abstract.
How well does the metaphor work?
Does they, and its assault on traditional values of subject verb relations offend your delicate sensibilities?
Is this kind of thing so far down the list of priorities in terms of equality or so stereotypically 'first year student in undergrad being performatively woke' that it's not really worth arguing, or a valid point of discussion as a cue for broader questions of representation? Should we engage with these kind of issues that are fairly trivial next to things like healthcare, housing, arrest rates, violence directed at non-cis people (particularly of color), etc?
That said, I do think it's interesting to examine how the topic's framing has changed over time, as it's slowly shifted toward inclusion, and how ceding ground on this somewhat serves as a metaphor for broader trends toward acceptance of gender diversity.
Fairly recently, many style manuals (e.g., the APA, and Chicago Style) have accepted that A: people have always used the singular they in casual language, so yeah, that's acceptable and B: Some people prefer gender-neutral pronouns and they works for those people.
What is interesting, I think, is the APA's treatment in particular in regards to a non-specified gender. In general, most style guides suggest that he or she is better alternative. similar sentiments can be seen in op-eds and the like. While fully supporting the singular they in the special context of a person who prefers it as their own pronouns, these also reject it in the generic sense in favor of "he," "she" or "he or she." No one, it seems, considers, "he, she or they" as a valid option, even though their own positions accept that "they" is often the correct address for specific people. A lot of these changes are quite recent. AFAIK, the Chicago manual of style only acknowledged they's legitimacy at all in 2017.
This is fairly interesting. Most studies I've run with large samples have found at least a few individuals who didn't identify as male or female when asked. Some might alternate or swap pronouns, but some probably like they. If we were to refer to the sample (e.g., describing the specific process every subject went through in an online experiment), using "he or she" would be acceptable, but also wrong even in the logic style guides accept, while "they" would be more inclusive and accurate, but remains unacceptable. The Chicago Manual is a bit better, suggesting that it's not okay, but editors should just let people use it if they really care that much.
This is, I think, pretty clear as a metaphor of how we treat gender identity, even in comparatively accepting spaces. We accept that an individual might not be a he or she.
And yet, it's common to see people who believe it is wrong to assume that a generic individual might not be a he or she. Among those who accept they or Zie or Xe as a valid means of address, many couch this in the language of following, rather than guiding norms if they aren't getting pointlessly upset about how much it pains their ears to see commonly used grammar that disturbs their fragile sensibilities. "It is becoming more acceptable, but isn't yet, so don't do this in formal writing," seems to be a common logic, but one that's at odds with the contradiction intrinsic to allowing it in specific cases, but rejecting it in the abstract.
How well does the metaphor work?
Does they, and its assault on traditional values of subject verb relations offend your delicate sensibilities?
Is this kind of thing so far down the list of priorities in terms of equality or so stereotypically 'first year student in undergrad being performatively woke' that it's not really worth arguing, or a valid point of discussion as a cue for broader questions of representation? Should we engage with these kind of issues that are fairly trivial next to things like healthcare, housing, arrest rates, violence directed at non-cis people (particularly of color), etc?
