This is insanity at best. Genders exist, differences exist, accept them and live with it.
And by the way, let's take two languages that use honorifics: french and italian. In those language, the neutral third person does not exist at all. Every being, and every thing is associated to a gender.
Take the "sea": in french is feminine, in italian is masculine, and nobody ever gave a dime about it.
"Sally is working with Brian. They are working on a method to diagnose cancer in lizards."
Am I talking about Sally and Brian or only Sally? Does the context help at all?
"Sally is working with Brian. She is working on a method to diagnose cancer in lizards."
It is now immediately recognized that I am talking about Sally's work. Perhaps Brian is working on a way to detect clogged arteries in lizards and is working on lizard-related research with Sally.
Yes, it's just ambiguous. Also, the post fails to understand the honorific form: honorific it is used only when you're talking to a person directly:
"are they going to leave the house?" is correct only when you're asking it to the subject itself. Otherwise you would just use he/she or a title name (queen, king, lord etc)
If you're looking to replace he/she you should not use an honorific form. You should either use "it", or invent a fourth third person (es, ish, woot, you name it).
Still the problem stays: political correctness traded for ambiguity.
Ambiguity is a problem in communication and is solved by using a singular pronoun. "They" being a plural pronoun provides ambiguity that is not always easily discerned by context, as the author claims.
>Where they could refer to a single person or many people. The listener would resolve based on context.
The listener would have trouble with my example and be unable to resolve based on context.
To respond to the point on recognizing when to use honorifics - various languages around the world conjugate singular third person honorifics to a plural verb, and that's what I was referring to.
I wrote the article and will happily claim it's flawed - it tries to take on an old, deep problem with not too many clear outs. It also tries to focus on a specific problem many institutions around the world have with unnecessary bias invoking writing styles. It tries to provide options that can be used practically, while understanding trade-offs.
To respond to the point on recognizing when to use honorifics - various languages around the world conjugate singular third person honorifics to a plural verb, and that's what I was referring to.
I wrote the article and will happily claim it's flawed - it tries to take on an old, deep problem with not too many clear outs. It also tries to focus on a specific problem many institutions around the world have with unnecessary bias invoking writing styles. It tries to provide options that can be used practically, while understanding trade-offs.
I agree that the write-up is flawed - it tries to take on a deeper problem which someone smarter would probably have solved ages ago, had it been simpler.
The thesis boils down to - we have to understand cases where gender shouldn't matter, and have the tools to be able to write appropriately. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
No. We have gender differences and writing so gives a different perspective on the subject at hand. Why are we trying to be the same when we obviously aren't?
On this point specifically, let's think about what happens in a professional context that actively tries to look past the gender of the subject and focus on the outcomes delivered by the person. Would you agree that gender can add a bias to a lot of cases where it shouldn't exist?
13 comments
[ 7.4 ms ] story [ 51.8 ms ] threadGrammar still matters, dammit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01...
And by the way, let's take two languages that use honorifics: french and italian. In those language, the neutral third person does not exist at all. Every being, and every thing is associated to a gender. Take the "sea": in french is feminine, in italian is masculine, and nobody ever gave a dime about it.
Am I talking about Sally and Brian or only Sally? Does the context help at all?
"Sally is working with Brian. She is working on a method to diagnose cancer in lizards."
It is now immediately recognized that I am talking about Sally's work. Perhaps Brian is working on a way to detect clogged arteries in lizards and is working on lizard-related research with Sally.
"are they going to leave the house?" is correct only when you're asking it to the subject itself. Otherwise you would just use he/she or a title name (queen, king, lord etc)
If you're looking to replace he/she you should not use an honorific form. You should either use "it", or invent a fourth third person (es, ish, woot, you name it).
Still the problem stays: political correctness traded for ambiguity.
>Where they could refer to a single person or many people. The listener would resolve based on context.
The listener would have trouble with my example and be unable to resolve based on context.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01...
To respond to the point on recognizing when to use honorifics - various languages around the world conjugate singular third person honorifics to a plural verb, and that's what I was referring to.
I wrote the article and will happily claim it's flawed - it tries to take on an old, deep problem with not too many clear outs. It also tries to focus on a specific problem many institutions around the world have with unnecessary bias invoking writing styles. It tries to provide options that can be used practically, while understanding trade-offs.
http://www.copyediting.com/epicene-they-gaining-greater-acce...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01...
To respond to the point on recognizing when to use honorifics - various languages around the world conjugate singular third person honorifics to a plural verb, and that's what I was referring to.
I wrote the article and will happily claim it's flawed - it tries to take on an old, deep problem with not too many clear outs. It also tries to focus on a specific problem many institutions around the world have with unnecessary bias invoking writing styles. It tries to provide options that can be used practically, while understanding trade-offs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01...
I agree that the write-up is flawed - it tries to take on a deeper problem which someone smarter would probably have solved ages ago, had it been simpler.
The thesis boils down to - we have to understand cases where gender shouldn't matter, and have the tools to be able to write appropriately. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
No. We have gender differences and writing so gives a different perspective on the subject at hand. Why are we trying to be the same when we obviously aren't?