The Pronoun War: A Ceasefire Proposal
The Pronoun War: A Ceasefire Proposal
The war has gone on long enough; it is time to reach an agreement. No one gets everything they want; some territory must be conceded on both sides. I propose that male writers (or speakers) use “he” and female writers (or speakers) use “she”. Each party has their pronoun rights: they get to use whatever pronoun suits them best. No one infringes on these rights by insisting on cross-gender uniformity. Everyone has pronoun autonomy, a safe pronoun space in which to work. There is no pronoun harassment. There is no downside. No one’s pronoun freedom has been taken away from them. There is total pronoun tolerance. Everyone has his (you see!) pronoun truth. Females say “she” and males say “he”—everybody’s happy. The sentences are less cumbersome. There is no agonizing about what to say. It’s simple, intuitive, and equitable. We have pronoun diversity and pronoun uniformity. It’s like gender-specific bathrooms: you use yours and I’ll use mine—no mixing. I am not offended if you seem to be assuming that everyone is a woman, because I know you are being practical not prejudiced. I hope you feel the same way about me. It’s all about pronoun pride: we are each proud of our gender, so we use our pronouns to reflect that pride. Both “he” and “she” are lovely little words and should be kept on in their present roles; now we are according equal power to both (no pronoun power imbalance). Actually, I feel a bit envious of the “she” wielders, because they have a new verbal device to play with—a kind of linguistic revolution. They get to say “she” all the time and thereby give it to the man. They take back their power and pack it into a short sharp word. Not just ships are “she” but people too. It will be fun to write, “Whenever a brain surgeon is tired, she takes a nap”, or “She who laughs last laughs longest”. Not even “she or he” but the brutally succinct “she”. It’s slightly longer than “he” too, as if to indicate higher status. Perhaps the old male chauvinism will be removed by this innovation, or at any rate lessened. For my part, I think the new policy will take the pressure off writers—there will be no risk of accusations of pronoun delinquency, pronoun illiteracy. The anxious writer should be happy—he can rest assured he is offending nobody.
I’ve always tried to avoid it, just use “they/them” as a worst case scenario ( I’m sure at some level both sides seethe at the thought of doing that), but ideally construct sentences/narratives etc in a way that one never has to go anywhere near this minefield. It’s easier when you are writing, but speaking is a rather trickier affair – though both sides fall into the trap.
Anyway spare a thought for those who speak languages that use the infernal madness of gender based nouns. A Polish colleague recently told me that his country was looking into neutralising some of it, because of the sexist connotations per profession for instance.
I wonder whether the more crazed feminists will like my proposal–it could go either way.
But is it ok to use “they/them” as singular pronouns? Consider these examples from Colin’s post: “Each party has their pronoun rights” and “No one’s pronoun freedom has been taken away from them.” In both instances, a singular subject (“Each” and “No one”) is used to refer to plural people — male and female. In these cases, either we incorrectly use “they/them” as singular, as Colin did, or we must use “his or her” and “him or her,” respectively. Or should we, if we are male, use “Each party has his pronoun rights” and “No one’s pronoun freedom has been taken from him”? That wouldn’t seem right, because it would be excluding the opposite sex.
This is why I’ll never make a good philosopher, because I don’t really care whether it’s right or wrong as long as the meaning I intended is conveyed. For me, grammar is a useful tool, not some god to worship or to cower in fear from. Ultimately in the end, the objective is people getting the jist of what I am trying to say. I’m sure that rules me out from a career in law or the Catholic Church. Anyway, this probably makes me an idiot, but I suppose there are far far worse things to be.
However, my grammatical prejudices aside, it really comes down to which group you don’t mind offending- the grammar Police or feminists in this instance? Either way – they’re going to ignore what you’ve said by jumping on how you’ve said it.
I agree that one should place more value on conveying meaning than on correct grammar and usage, and one should not worship or cower in fear from grammar. But those are straw men, because, as you acknowledge, grammar is nevertheless a useful tool. Why is it useful when it does not interfere with meaning? Let’s put aside not offending people and use an example with no feminist or other political implications: the common error of using “hone in on” instead of “home in on.” When I read that, I understand the meaning, but it momentarily distracts me from the meaning (even to the extent of sometimes emailing the writer about the error and usually receiving a thank you in response). As an editor, as well as a (retired) lawyer, I am not satisfied with this defense of correct grammar and usage; they are very important to me apart from the fact that errors in grammar and usage distract me. At the moment, however, I am unable to explain why. Of course, there is my obsessional urge to have everything in its place (I’m an editor and a lawyer, after all), but that doesn’t constitute a reason, but only a cause.
Straw people surely?
Most people are not editors or lawyers ( probably why so many of the rest of us end up in the dock or on the front page). Using they/them is a nice safe way for me to communicate. The way things are these days, I’d much rather have people thinking I was illiterate than sexist (obviously – I’m both, but that’s not the point). Anyway grammar changes over time, we could upbraid someone over some small transgression that 20 years later will be come perfectly acceptable.
When I see “hone in on” I think “What an idiot!” That’s why grammar matters–it’s a mark of intelligence (though this example isn’t exactly grammar but vocabulary).
As an animal rights advocate, I should say “straw sentient being.”
I think that writing “hone in on” is a sign of ignorance, not of lack of intelligence.
Don’t you think it’s pretty stupid to confuse “hone” and “home”, given what those words mean? We hone a skill and there are homing pigeons.
The scolding feminist is the new monster. She is a homicidal nit-picker.
Interesting that you say that , for at the back of my mind I’ve been assuming that said feminist was female when of course they could be either sex technically. Under your new proposal should you not have said ‘he is a homicidal nit picker’ instead?
Indeed so, but I think the women feminists are the worst in the respect cited and I have particular ones in mind.
Finally, a modest proposal that we can get behind.
My first thought was “What about hermaphrodites?” Hmm? You seem to be saying people like Vivian Jenna Wilson and Caitlyn Jenna would have to use a men’s room? I wouldn’t agree. Personally, I find all the hullabaloo about pronouns silly. It’s an issue that has unfortunately been greatly exploited by Republicans. To the detriment of existential issues like what we’re doing to the planet. But I will say this. On a lighter note, your choice of topic brought to mind that old Saturday Night Skit about “Pat.”
No, I’m not saying that: trans people can use the pronoun that corresponds to their new state (ditto bathrooms).
Oh, I’m so sorry. I misunderstood. That’s a relief. To me, it’s just common sense — or in this case, maybe un-common sense. But I’m still confused. You wrote: “No one gets everything they want; some territory must be conceded on both sides.” What would the side (Republicans) that made bathrooms (on Capitol Hill) gender-born specific gain, if anything, by reversing that new policy they implemented? Would it be the elimination of “they/them” usage? (Which confuses me anyway — it sounds like something that should be reserved for Siamese twins.)
I meant that the feminists don’t get to make men say “she” as well as “he”, and the male chauvinists don’t get to impose “he” on women. Men say “he” and women say “she” and nobody gets criticized. No one is the victor.