WATE.com:UT Knoxville encourages students to use gender-neutral pronouns

[Bang]

i don't care.

I can't wait for the day that all i have to do is powder my nose and wait for my woman to get home from work.

 

Anyway, that probably sounded pretty bad.

Sorry,, i think my sympathy period must be coming on.

 

~Person

[PokerPacker]

As you say my real motivation here is a matter of grammatical taste. I would rather read "a person is an ends in herself" than "a person is an ends in themselves." I really have no problem with the construction "a person is an ends in himself."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/they

3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she):

Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Usage note

Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference. See also he1.

[Corcaigh]

I would rather read "a person is an ends in herself" than "a person is an ends in themselves." 

 

Isn't this discrimination against people with multiple personalities. Isn't it appropriate for a schizophrenic to demand to be referred to as "them" or "all y'all"?

[mcsluggo]

Well, I specifically said it doesn't bother me. I don't see anyone else who got their panties wadded up...

 

.....

 

agreed, we are all friendly here... i don;t see ANYBODY in this discussion with veins pulsing in their foreheads

 

i was talking about the broader discussion... you know.. out in the real world, where the mean an scary people live.  Like in the comment sections at the bottom of this article (I presume, since there is no way in hell i am heading down there!)

[sacase]

Good point. "Sir" and "ma'am" is another problem . . .

No its not. You are just creating a problem. This is starting to get ridiculous.

[Destino]

If s0crates wants use her, good for him (or hir).  I think it sounds interesting.  Hell, he can refer to himself as a wizened old woman, just to see how it sounds coming out of his philosophy filled head, if that suits him.  Who cares?  What's being discussed here is the control of language, and thus thought.  We're discussing the use of “ze, hir, hirs, and xe, xem, xyr" not him or her.  You'd have to be naive to think that the goal in changing language is simply being polite.  It's to change thought, it always is, no matter which political side chooses to use this tactic. 

 

Should you not want to use this language, well then you're intolerant of certain groups.  That's exactly what implied here:

 

 

“We should not assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems,” Donna Braquet, the director of the University of Tennessee’s Pride Center said. “Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth.”

 

If you can't bring yourself to use those words because you're an asshole that hates transgendered people and those that choose not to identify with a gender binary, which is also a thing, then you must start conversations like this:

 

 

Braquet said if students and faculty cannot use ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask. “’Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask,”

Doing otherwise would mark you as an intolerant jerk clinging to old timey hate filled ways and silly beliefs in regards to gender.  That's the way this game is played.  This battle is over how gender should be treated, how we should think about gender, is what this language change is about.  A national debate on this would be met with laughter so what do you do when your idea can't win there?  Colleges, because college students are all champions in search of a safe cause to feed their self righteousness. 

 

I feel like I've seen this movie before.  I'm betting that soon enough this bit of simple polite behavior will start to be taught in K-12.  We'll all pretend it's not politics when it happens.

 

This is the political strategy of progress.  It's like the astroturf movements pretending to be grass roots when really they were thought up and funded by paid professionals.  Instead of winning the debate we tell young people too ignorant (because of age) to realize what's happening pretty stories that makes them feel good.  Convincing them that they are better than their parents because they accept these things that their parents might not.  Leaving out that these idea were created by politically minded groups and that this "education" is also political strategy being implemented.  Then when those kids start to get older we say "Look, the next generation agrees with us!  It's because they are more open minded."   

 

That, to me, seems more like brain washing than superior ideas winning out.  It is certainly effective, even brilliant, but it's also incredibly manipulative and dishonest.  I'm probably an idealist and naive for saying this but I think that ideas should be proven superior and democratically moved forward by growing support. 

 

That's how I see it anyway and I'm likely entirely wrong about all of it.  So it's on you if you choose to believe any of this ****. 

[s0crates]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/they

3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she):

Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Usage note

Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference. See also he1.

As I said, it's a matter of taste, and the use of the singular "they" has increased, but it sounds bad to me.

Writers typically take one of four approaches here:

1. Use "he" in the gender neutral singular.

2. Use "he or she."

3. Use "they."

4. Use "she."

I tend to prefer option four, although each option has its pros and cons. Of the four, I like the singular "they" the least, although there is no denying it is a thing.

[Passepartout]

Sounds like a different kind of language. BTW, I live in East TN! For the Record.

[MEANDWARF]

I'm 4'6, but I want people to call me "Giant" Dwarf!

Not the football giant that is!

[thebluefood]

I'm a supporter of using more gender neutral language (in our liturgy in The Episcopal Church, we're even moving away from referring to God as "He") because we have people who don't necessarily identify as male or female. Gender's no longer a binary matter and I'm trying to respect that (I often say I abide my the "Muhammad Ali Rule," but more about that later), but I really don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it does acknowledge the more nuanced gender spectrum, but on the other, it seems like an excuse for people to get upset at others for not "checking their privilege" and not remembering a whole list of new pronouns.

[Zguy28]

I'm a supporter of using more gender neutral language (in our liturgy in The Episcopal Church, we're even moving away from referring to God as "He") because we have people who don't necessarily identify as male or female. Gender's no longer a binary matter and I'm trying to respect that (I often say I abide my the "Muhammad Ali Rule," but more about that later), but I really don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it does acknowledge the more nuanced gender spectrum, but on the other, it seems like an excuse for people to get upset at others for not "checking their privilege" and not remembering a whole list of new pronouns.

Its what happens when individual feelings and emotions become more important than truth and reality.

[Riggo#44]

(is "you" still ok?)

Yes. But when dealing with these hyper-sensitive PC types, I usually precede it with "****"

[elkabong82]

They've allowed all that alcohol to go from their butts directly to their brains

[TheGreatBuzz]

So for the school in question, what will they put on their bathroom doors?

[bcl05]

I recently wrote a couple of chapters for a medical textbook.  I was instructed to use all masculine pronouns in the evenly-numbered chapters and all feminine pronouns in the oddly-numbered chapters.   

 

Seemed reasonable enough to me.  

[Kilmer17]

I recently wrote a couple of chapters for a medical textbook. I was instructed to use all masculine pronouns in the evenly-numbered chapters and all feminine pronouns in the oddly-numbered chapters.

Seemed reasonable enough to me.

So the overall theme is that women are odd? That's sexist!

[Larry]

So the overall theme is that women are odd? That's sexist!

And binary!

[PokerPacker]

I recently wrote a couple of chapters for a medical textbook.  I was instructed to use all masculine pronouns in the evenly-numbered chapters and all feminine pronouns in the oddly-numbered chapters.   

 

Seemed reasonable enough to me.

In chapter five, you learn all about her penis.

[dfitzo53]

Same here.

Did you know the Germans have a word for a general person that is gender neutral? That word is "Man".

Poker, this is a completely meaningless argument.  Even though English eventually evolved out of German (with a big helping hand from other languages like French that's often underplayed) you really can't compare the grammar of two different languages like that.

 

Das Mensch can mean either man or person, so it's not really gender neutral, it's a similar word to the English man in that respect.  Yes, German also has Der Mann to refer to men, but this is the problem with language in general - it's way more imprecise than most people would like to admit.  German also uses Das Maedchen to refer to young girls, which is "neuter" grammatically, but nobody would argue that German society believes that young girls are gender-neutral anymore than they would that tables and spoons are inherently male or doors and machines are inherently female.

 

German also has the word die Person, which is much closer to being truly gender-neutral.  It's feminine grammatically, so go figure.

 

[/pedantic post]

[elkabong82]

One thing I know for sure is that when adults try to pass on lingo to teens and twenty-somethings, those kids immediately use it every time all the time because they think it's so rad.

[PokerPacker]

Poker, this is a completely meaningless argument.  Even though English eventually evolved out of German (with a big helping hand from other languages like French that's often underplayed) you really can't compare the grammar of two different languages like that.

 

Das Mensch can mean either man or person, so it's not really gender neutral, it's a similar word to the English man in that respect.  Yes, German also has Der Mann to refer to men, but this is the problem with language in general - it's way more imprecise than most people would like to admit.  German also uses Das Maedchen to refer to young girls, which is "neuter" grammatically, but nobody would argue that German society believes that young girls are gender-neutral anymore than they would that tables and spoons are inherently male or doors and machines are inherently female.

 

German also has the word die Person, which is much closer to being truly gender-neutral.  It's feminine grammatically, so go figure.

 

[/pedantic post]

I was referring to neither "Mensch" nor "Mann", but "Man". The closest English equivalent used today would be "one", as in "If one were to translate the word German word, 'Man', to English, one would come up with 'one'."

The argument is showing there the use of "man" in English in gender-neutral circumstances could trace back etymologically to the German word of the exact same spelling.

[Xameil]

In chapter five, you learn all about her penis.

You studying up on ladyboys again?

[dfitzo53]

I was referring to neither "Mensch" nor "Mann", but "Man". The closest English equivalent used today would be "one", as in "If one were to translate the word German word, 'Man', to English, one would come up with 'one'."

The argument is showing there the use of "man" in English in gender-neutral circumstances could trace back etymologically to the German word of the exact same spelling.

Ah, I get what you're saying.  I'm still not 100% sure I buy its relevance to man vs. human in English, but I see where you're going.

[nonniey]

I doubt this catches on, but I do see an ongoing effort to use more gender neutral language. In many ways this is all well and good. For example we now say "flight attendant" instead of "stewardess" and "server" instead of "waitress."

The trouble comes with singular pronouns and possessives which are gender specific (eg "he," she," "his," hers," etc). Different people have different ideas as to how (or if) we should address this. The creation of new pronouns is one such idea, but I don't see that taking hold as readily as gender neutral job titles like "congressperson."

It seems to me there is a sort of linguistic need here though. I see a lot of young people using "them" and "their" in singular constructions. So they'll often say, for example, "to each their own" instead of "to each his own," which to me is a grammatical horror, but I see why they do it, they're trying to avoid gender specific language. My bet is that this trend of using plural pronouns and possessives in the singular is most likely to catch on.

My own preference is to use feminine constructions in the singular, so I'd say "to each her own." We've defaulted to the masculine for hundreds of years, so just switch it up, using "she," "her," and "hers" in ambiguous cases. So I'll say things like "treat every person always as an ends in herself" (although I'm not sure how Kant would feel about that).

Another option is just to convert sentences to the plural, something like "to them their own." It doesn't involve inventing new words, and manages to remain gender neutral and grammatically correct.

Ah reference your first paragraph - no we don't, you may, but the vast majority of us don't. We sill use waitress. As for the rest of your post, nah.

Looks like you would fit right in with the faculty.

[nonniey]

Same here.

Did you know the Germans have a word for a general person that is gender neutral? That word is "Man".

I guess that could solve some of the sniveling. Just say your using the German rule.