Current trends in declaring third-person pronouns

Treading carefully, so as not to step on mines. It's okay to ask, right?

[ronin]

I understand that I need to tread carefully here: what's the situation with third-person nominative and dative pronouns in the USA at present? (I write "in the USA" because I understand it as a cultural trend more of that country than of any single other, right now. I acknowledge that the trend has some uptake in other countries including, not least, the UK.)

I am looking at the sessions for Google I/O tomorrow and I see that each speaker has these two pronouns listed beneath their name.

I have (so many) questions.

- i note that default gender pronouns are listed. That is, a picture of a woman has two female pronouns listed underneath her photo. Which seems redundant. If the woman had two male pronouns listed underneath his photo, that wouldn't seem redundant. Are we moving on from declaring only non-default gender pronouns? Does this mean we're saying there are no longer default gender pronouns? Or are we saying something else?

- why these two pronouns (third person nominative and dative) specifically? I take it we're not including third-person reflexive pronouns? And we're not including third-person possessive pronouns? What about first person pronouns? Or second person pronouns? Are we not listing these either? If not, why not?

- is it cool (at this point) to say: "Really not bothered" and turn things around so that people can call us whatever they like, instead of whatever we like? I ask because, though it would (certainly) have got under my skin if someone had persistently mis-gendered me as a teenager, these days, my preference would be "not bothered" about being mis-gendered, mis-nationalised, or mis-classed.

- on that last note, if listing aspects of identity (such as gender-identity) is important, may we additionally start listing nationality, economic class and whatever else we would like to make explicit?

[buckworks]

If you have any reason to wonder about someone's pronoun preferences, ask, without making a big deal about it. Use gendered pronouns as needed for grammatical grace but keep your focus on the person's experience and expertise.

Sometimes, a writer can sidestep the issue of gender by using plural constructions. If it's done smoothly, few readers would think about it.

Example: "a user who forgets his password can ..." vs "users who forget their passwords can ..."

As for mentioning aspects of a specific person's identity, much would depend on the context. What's relevant to the story? Include info that would help to establish the person's identity and expertise. Other details might be a lot more salient than gender.

If you were writing about a financial matter, for instance, it would make sense to mention that the person you're quoting is a Canadian investment banker with twenty years experience, or a New Jersey lawyer who specializes in bankruptcy. Their gender is not what matters most in this context.

[LifeinAsia]

Don't feel bad- as an American, I am also confused about the whole issue.

I agree about the redundancy of using he/him and she/her. Even worse, I usually see he/him/his and she/her/her. As far as I can figure out, the inclusion of the 2nd (and 3rd) is only for those who use non-binary genders (i.e., neither male nor female) as a way for other people to know the "proper" way to address the person.

is it cool (at this point) to say: "Really not bothered" and turn things around so that people can call us whatever they like

Cool? Yes. Politically correct? Most likely not. Some (definitely NOT me) might label you as being insensitive (to the issue) or even a bigot.

However, using "prefer not to state" instead of a he/him or she/her combo might be more neutral. Especially since "decline to state" or "prefer not to state" has started showing up on most surveys that include a question about gender. Although to be consistent, "prefer not to state/prefer not to state" would be better. Or even "prefer not to state/prefer not to state/prefer not to state" (and if the organizers complain about it being too long, you can refer them to my rant at the end of my response).

may we additionally start listing nationality

Most likely, the pronoun issue is because Google fancies themselves as championing the issue and trying to make a point of being inclusive. Personally, I firmly resist any pressure to declare my "preferred pronouns" (and I think I'll opt for the "prefer not to state" response in the future).

As a side rant, I work on the tech side of higher ed and there is a big trend for schools to allow (even encourage) the use of non-binary genders. On the implementation side, many databases have been setup with gender being a binary field (only allowed values of 0 or 1, with whichever representation for male/female was decided for that particular system). Trying to change those legacy fields and data, not to mention the systems and reports that use the data, is no easy task, especially when you are talking about millions or even hundreds of millions of data points.

[ronin]

While I'm getting my head around it, I can see there's definitely social utility in declaring preferred forms of address upfront.

To draw an analogy, for women, why not include Preferred Honorific?

If she is a Miss, she may well prefer not to be referred to as Mrs.

If she thinks her marital status is none of anyone else's business, she may prefer Ms to both Miss or Mrs.

If she is titled, she may wish to reveal that she is a Lady or a Baroness, before anyone embarrasses themselves.

[jay5r]

As an older gay guy let me chime in for those who find the whole pronoun thing rather odd…

The purpose of stating your pronouns when you don't really need to is so that the people who do want to state them don't feel weird for doing so. If everyone states them, then there's no big deal. But yes, when you're not used to it, the whole thing seems a bit contrived. I personally don't think the whole etiquette around it is completely resolved yet.

It's perfectly fine to say "I prefer masculine pronouns". When asked I say "I don't care the pronouns used for me as long as they're said with respect".

And that really is the bottom line. Misgendering is used as a weapon against trans and non-binary folks. At the end of the day accidental misgendering isn't a big deal. It can be complicated and it goes against habits. No one expects you to get it right every time. But if you're generally respectful and try - that's honestly good enough. [Hint: you may just find it easier to call them their first name rather than use a pronoun.]

I compare the whole thing to my husband's family where everyone has three names - their English name, their Chinese name, and their Chinese nickname. And some of the nicknames sound almost identical. It's horribly confusing. I've been with him for 25 years and I still get the similar sounding names wrong sometimes.

[phranque]

why not include Preferred Honorific?

[cough]prefer not to state[/cough]

[tangor]

Adventures in language ... always happening. Just wonder if this iteration of "style" will take in the long run.

Time will tell.

[Jonesy]

My preferred personal pronoun: "Hey, you!" :-)

[ronin]

Having been taught to use singular they as a child, I was, until a couple of years ago, not at all aware that singular they may be regarded as controversial in some circles.

- Why aren't we taking off?
- Apparently we're waiting on a different pilot.
- Where are they?
- They're not here yet.

So I was surprised to read the other day, that while singular you is entirely uncontroversial and nobody today says:

I go, thou goest (singular), she goeth, we go, you go (plural), they go

singular they is actually recognised to be older (possibly by several centuries) than singular you.

Singular you was still regarded as relatively new in the mid-17th century:

In 1660, George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, wrote a whole book labeling anyone who used singular you an idiot or a fool.

Source: [public.oed.com...]

While:

The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf.

Source: [public.oed.com...]

I would certainly never have guessed that singular they is older than singular you.

[Kendo]

Third person pronouns according to who?

By the English, American or Google AI (Indian) tenet?

[tbear]

I learnt, when learning Spanish, that the third person was used when conversing with those in authority, royalty, doctors, lawyers, etc.....

[tangor]

Third person pronouns according to who?

And therein is the conundrum at hand. Thousands of years of language being challenged in a relatively short period of time ... to what end?

[ronin]

Thousands of years of language being challenged in a relatively short period of time

Language “being challenged” (if you want to frame it like that) isn’t controversial (or, indeed, a conundrum).

Language is organic, so it changes, mutates, evolves all the time, entirely naturally. When it does change, mutate, evolve (as it continues to, every decade) this happens more often than not over a relatively short period of time - because any linguistic development which doesn’t achieve widespread traction quickly runs the risk of never really establishing itself at all.

In any case, if we go with academic orthodoxy (though it’s worth noting that not everyone does), we’re certainly not talking about thousands of years of language.

But, if we do, then English isn’t much older than 1500 years old, maximum. Which means it first established itself as a distinct language in the late fifth century, approximately around the time when, south of the Alps, Romulus Augustus, the last Western Roman Emperor was being deposed. At that point, the stone circle at Stonehenge was already three thousand years old.

The word “hello” is less than 200 years old. As a common greeting, it isn’t even 150 years old. Yet, once we started using telephones, “hello” (and short-form “hi”) fell into common usage really quickly.

… to what end?

Our language serves us; we don’t serve our language.