[Misc] Use of pronoun “their” ?

[Perfidious Albion]

Do you understand this piece from BBC News website?


“20-year-old Robin came out as non-binary and changed their name last year.
It’s been an adjustment that Robin’s family have been getting used to, and so we brought Robin and their mum Sarah together to openly discuss Robin's non-binary gender identity, and also their pansexuality.”

I am not discussing any moral matter here , no judgement but simply the use of English. I grasp that this is about a person of uncertain gender, but what is non- binary? Pansexuality?

The use of “their” refers to more than one person, but sentence does not read that way.
It makes no sense............

 

[Bakero]

I'm guessing you missed last week's Sam Smith thread.


https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?375383-Sam-Smith-Non-Binary&highlight=sam+smith

 

[The Optimist]

“Ask the doctor what their opinion is?” A sentence you could use to someone before they visit the doctor if you don’t know whether the doctor is male or female. Also “they” in my previous sentence.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Redefining gender, redefining language - different times.

 

[Acker79]

Just gonna repost this from the sam smith thread...

Following on from some of the complaints about the correct grammar of 'they'...

I saw in the news recently that the US's main dictionary, Merriam-Webster, has added 'They' as a nonbinary pronoun (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/17/merriam-webster-they-nonbinary-pronoun) Made me wonder about the Oxford English Dictionary. The online version is 'Lexico', and this is their definition
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/they

1third person plural Used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.
‘the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted’

1.1People in general.
‘the rest, as they say, is history’

1.2informal People in authority regarded collectively.
‘they cut my water off’​

2third person plural and singular Used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.
‘ask a friend if they could help’​

While googling to find the oxford definition, it turns out there is a whole OED blog on the singular 'they': https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ some of my choice selections from the blog:

Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf.
...
In the eighteenth century, grammarians began warning that singular they was an error because a plural pronoun can’t take a singular antecedent. They clearly forgot that singular you was a plural pronoun that had become singular as well. You functioned as a polite singular for centuries, but in the seventeenth century singular you replaced thou, thee, and thy, except for some dialect use.
...
Singular you has become normal and unremarkable. Also unremarkable are the royal we and, in countries without a monarchy, the editorial we: first-person plurals used regularly as singulars and nobody calling anyone an idiot and a fool. And singular they is well on its way to being normal and unremarkable as well. Toward the end of the twentieth century, language authorities began to approve the form. The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) not only accepts singular they, they also use the form in their definitions. And the New Oxford American Dictionary (Third Edition, 2010), calls singular they ‘generally accepted’ with indefinites, and ‘now common but less widely accepted’ with definite nouns, especially in formal contexts.
...
the Tennessee state legislature passed a law banning the use of taxpayer dollars for gender-neutral pronouns, despite the fact that no one knows how much a pronoun actually costs.
​

 

[SussexSeahawk]

=
The use of “their” refers to more than one person, but sentence does not read that way.
It makes no sense............

Language evolves. 200 years ago there was no word for computer as there was no need to use that word. When a new thing is invented we don't throw it out because we don't have a word for it, we adapt our language.

Clearly in the past people didn't see the need to have gender-neutral pronouns but that doesn't mean we shouldn't introduce a new pronoun that is gender-neutral. 'Their' is a word that is fairly similar in meaning anyway so makes a lot of sense to use that.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Redefining gender, redefining language - different times.

Mmmmm.....same old same old, surely?

As I get older the more I resent change, but that is apparently a survival instinct for aging humans; probably has some tribe value for mitigating against extreme change (grumpy old man syndrome) and having a partial perception is part of the process. I read 'history of western philosophy' by Bertrand Russell many years ago. He commented on this phenomenon, referring to a Roman era where the old folk were complaining about the new ways of the young.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Do you understand this piece from BBC News website?


“20-year-old Robin came out as non-binary and changed their name last year.
It’s been an adjustment that Robin’s family have been getting used to, and so we brought Robin and their mum Sarah together to openly discuss Robin's non-binary gender identity, and also their pansexuality.”

I am not discussing any moral matter here , no judgement but simply the use of English. I grasp that this is about a person of uncertain gender, but what is non- binary? Pansexuality?

The use of “their” refers to more than one person, but sentence does not read that way.
It makes no sense............

Better than "it's" I suppose.

Maybe use the word "hisr?"

 

[Marxo]

I am Legion.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Just being pedantic, isn't "their" a possessive adjective?

And I don't really see the point of all this stuff. I don't object to it, and if it's important to some people fair enough, just as long as they realise that, if I don't use the right pronoun, it is not intentionally to cause offence.....

 

[Knocky's Nose]

I'd like to be known as "whose" please, and I'll be mightily offended if someone calls me "who's"...

I get the world changes, and I get language changes - but this all smells a bit of not only equality but a little self-importance and 'Regarde Moi'.

In fairness, the issues lay with me I suppose. When I roll my eyes at all this it's me who's the old guard not understanding the new way of thinking. Comes to us all...

 

[Bodian]

Language evolves. 200 years ago there was no word for computer as there was no need to use that word. When a new thing is invented we don't throw it out because we don't have a word for it, we adapt our language.

Clearly in the past people didn't see the need to have gender-neutral pronouns but that doesn't mean we shouldn't introduce a new pronoun that is gender-neutral. 'Their' is a word that is fairly similar in meaning anyway so makes a lot of sense to use that.

Apparently 'computer' existed as a word in use as far back as 1613 (first written usage according to the OED) referring to a person who carried out calculations or computations!

 

[GT49er]

They or their specifically refer to two or more people - they are essentially plural by definition.

We already have perfectly viable words for all genders (or lack of genders) in the language already, which adequately cover all eventualities

Nothing wrong with he, she and it (or his, her's and its for the possessive).

 

[Acker79]

They or their specifically refer to two or more people.

Except it doesn't. I've already quoted the OED definition earlier in the thread (where there's also a blog that shows an example of it being used as a singular from the 1300s). Others have given plenty of examples in both this and the Sam Smith thread where They and Their are singular, for instances where the gender is not known, or being deliberately concealed.

 

[daveinplzen]

Most young people I know use text speech. TBH I feel if you can understand what's being said all is ok

 

[portlock seagull]

Narcissism reaching new levels.

 

[Bakero]

They or their specifically refer to two or more people - they are essentially plural by definition.

We already have perfectly viable words for all genders (or lack of genders) in the language already, which adequately cover all eventualities

Nothing wrong with he, she and it (or his, her's and its for the possessive).

They/their/theirs/them have been used as gender neutral 3rd person pronouns for years.

There's a lot wrong with 'her's'.

 

[Dave the OAP]

How about using “ it” if the gender is not defined....after all people do that with babies

So is “it”a girl or a boy...people have been doing that for years

 

[portlock seagull]

How about using “ it” if the gender is not defined....after all people do that with babies

So is “it”a girl or a boy...people have been doing that for years

Too logical. And not nearly narcissistic enough. Nope. The entire language must pander to the rights of the individual. Where have you been?!!

 

[Eeyore]

Just being pedantic, isn't "their" a possessive adjective?

And I don't really see the point of all this stuff. I don't object to it, and if it's important to some people fair enough, just as long as they realise that, if I don't use the right pronoun, it is not intentionally to cause offence.....

Not always possessive.

'I don't know their whereabouts'

'I don't know their time of arrival'