So let’s pull the blankets off our “politically correct pronouns” and examine the naked truth. For both clarity and validity, I will present this “truth” – as I will argue for it – aided by “truth’s” two often-absent handmaidens, explanation and support.
Simply (and ignorantly) asserting that screwing up language is valid and even necessary . . . because “Words Matter, don’t you know?” isn’t going to cut it around here. Don’t settle for the bumper sticker; hold out for critical thinking. Consider the following chain of reasoning:
Language begets “human” judgment – five steps
1) As human beings, we, alone (among animal species), make up a great deal of the world we know (some say all of it) out of “language.” We “constitute” our worlds from this material. It’s our best trick, as humans!
I’m calling language “the fabric of humanity.” Feel free to use it, but don’t forget to cite your source! We humans, says my own beacon of rhetorical insight, Kenneth Burke (more on him elsewhere, I promise!), are the “word-using (and misusing) animal.” Language sets us apart.
In contrast, can your pet communicate to you the need to get let outside? Of course. That does not require symbolic language, just a “signal,” like scratching at the door. Signals are immediate indications of the status quo – the way things are – at least to the one signaling. Any dog can “say,” Bark, bark, bark – get out of my yard.”
Don’t confuse signals with the basis of language: symbols – not immediate signals, but atemporal (timeless) markers of “meaning.” Your pet can signal “I’m hungry,” but Muffy can’t inquire, “What’s for dinner tomorrow”? That would require language – a system of symbols that can do more than just signaling the here-and-now.
2) Language, therefore, constitutes a great deal of our world and also provides us with a means of “approving” (or not) of anything/everything that matters to us. Muffy, the dog, can signal “get out of my territory,” but the canine lacks any means whatsoever to say (or even think) “Hate to tell you, Fifi, but your new collar really makes your neck look fat.”
Without language, I might notice that you, in my immediate presence, appear somewhat large, but I couldn’t (thus wouldn’t) think of you as “fat.” That judgment requires language. Likewise, relatively small becomes “petite,” if I like you – or “anorexic,” if I don’t. Your pet does not judge someone at the door as “overweight,” but it might take note of large. So do coyotes notice size – take note, pet owners. They don’t judge anyone as “skinny,” but they might salivate at small!
3) Thanks to language, I can, indeed, judge you, such that even your physical (real and present) attributes, such as your size, will get converted, in my head, into words, like fat or skinny. No wonder we love our pets. They lack what it takes to “judge” anything, including us.
4) “Armed” with language, we humans go around judging (or at least assessing) just about everything that we find meaningful. And, since language gives us our very basis for making judgments, it (along with visual data, one’s “looks”) stands among our chief bases for judging each other. Consciously or not (depending on the persons involved and their situation) we judge each other’s use of language.
5) Similarly, we (some of us more than others) do judge people by their use of language (not just their waistlines). Sometimes “size matters,” but language (what makes us human) always does!
Not “the rules” (yet) – just “a rule” (that applies here)
For a moment of comic relief, allow me to define the “bad speller”: it’s someone who has misspelled a word that you (think you) know how to spell. The bad news? The words you might misspell seem correct to you, too, just like the person you may have just judged as a “bad speller.” Not too many of us have won the spelling bee. Ahem. Be careful about “correcting” people. You might be the one who’s got it wrong.
Here, in this blog post – where I am making a larger point through a small example – I am going to, for now, reduce that whole pronoun “mess” to one rule, which I present not as the end-all, merely as a worthy start.
Then, old-school as I may seem, I will stretch myself a little and offer a socially-aware and updated (and, to trained ears and eye, likely inoffensive) derivation of this rule – a way to show social grace without degrading this thing that makes us human: our language.
Says the grammar rule: NEVER refer to ONE person as “THEY”
Remember, dear reader-student, “words matter.” I know that pretending that gender doesn’t exists seems, to certain segments of society, somehow enlightened, but others will judge you as simply sadly/badly seeking approval. To quote Nike in the negative, “Just don’t do it.”
I know, this constraint will “cancel” one of your favorite means of “signaling” (like a barking dog) your “virtue.” Bark, bark, bark: “Look how virtuous I am. I just referred to one person as “they.” Aren’t I awesome. I’m so up to date! Gender? What gender? There’s no such thing – same with biological sex. It’s all a myth. Right. And “affordability” is likewise a “hoax.”
Don’t get me wrong, I respect people’s freedom to not believe in “gender” – traditional or in any other form. You may believe in “boys and girls” or not – that’s not my main issue. Please, just believe that words really do matter, so don’t screw them up by calling one person a “they.”
And here’s the good news (for the now-offended): it may require “excellence in language,” (not just barking like a dog), but you can –without risking sounding like a “dumb animal” – portray that very social sensitivity (if you so desire) with courtesy and grace. Personally, I was raised to treasure both.
Allow me to show the way and also to propose – right here and now – an updating of the grammar rule, such that our above-capitalized (in “the grammar rule”) word, NEVER, turns into the more-reasonable “usually avoid.” Language – among the best artists — allows for flexibility, but it need not descend into stupidity.
The easiest way to fix it (works in many cases)
First, here’s how to show a gracious accommodation for the deeply personal sensitivities of others, while following the rules of grammar. In a great many (not all) cases, you can simply make the pronoun’s “antecedent” (the thing the pronoun refers to) PLURAL, which then makes the use of the plural pronouns (they/them/their) appropriate.
Old School says, “To each, his own.” Please note that “each” means each one, hence singular.
My second-wave feminist grandmother (in there with the likes of Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, but, unlike them, an English/speech teacher of renown) defended that “traditional” usage, when I pressed her about it, circa 1980.
She said “I know damn well that ‘to each his own’ means me (as a woman), too. It’s clean, elegant, and correct. I am not about to obfuscate the real fairness issues – like equal pay and opportunity — by ‘bastardizing’ our language.” That, to Gram, was a cop-out – too easy, and too cheesy.
I cherish a big box of press clippings (regarding both my grandma and grandpa) handed down to me by my beloved (now departed) Aunt Angie. Both grandparents were well publicized stars of language, frequently in the newspaper. And my news-making grandma loved portraying a politically-incorrect (at the time, for women) sassiness and sometimes even bawdiness. “You can keep your male singular pronoun – who the hell cares? Just give me equal opportunity, and pay me fairly!”
Gram also coached a winning high school debate team (sometimes on TV, in those days!) and not only directed the annual high school plays and musicals, but also “fabricated” many of the costumes on her very busy sewing machine. I saw it, many times with my own eyes, as the humming machine “hemmed and hawed” and the costumes came out, one after another. Gram could do it all — in heels, backwards, as they say.
Anyway. by the ’70s and ’80s, the popular aphorism had become: To each, his or her own.
Gram would say, “Oh, that’s fine, but it’s hardly as elegant – not clean and clear, but in bounds. I would not say it that way, but I don’t mind if others feel the need to. It’s clumsier but still correct.”
Let’s move to the present (2020s). Nowadays, we have a new way to say it (very popular, in some places, it’s even required), a way that is politically (but not grammatically) correct:
To each, their own.
Obviously, we just removed the gender implicit in our singular pronouns, his and her. But now our antecedent and pronoun no longer “agree” in “number” (i.e., singular or plural). We have (needlessly, as I will show) hosed up our pronouns in the name of political correctness. Please avoid that, dear one.
You can have it both ways
Despite her firebrand persona, my grandmother strove to portray and model graciousness to others. That’s old school, too. But she loved language and would rail against “bastardizing” our language in the name of political correctness.
So, channeling her, I use this example to demonstrate the simple, broadly applicable, and grammatically-correct fix suggested above: “pluralize the antecedent,” to de-gender the subsequent pronoun, as some would appreciate, which also serves to keep the antecedent and pronoun in “agreement.”
Simply, “To all, their own.”
It loses some elegance and refinement, but it satisfies both grammatical form and a current emotional need of many people. In this way, it’s both correct and “gender sensitive.”
Another way to kill both birds with one stone (sorry ornithologists)
That’s just one example. Other cases require more ingenuity, but, dear reader-student, please note that you will not be able to produce for me an example I cannot “de-gender” (to satisfy present social convention) while staying grammatically correct (to satisfy those up the grammar food chain, who, otherwise, can and do judge you and me. And, no, it’s not “you and I” in this “case” (a pun!). I’ll explain why, when we get to that lesson.
Another type of pronoun use becomes de-gendered by simply switching out of the possessive case: not “his car,” not “her car,” certainly not “their car” (when only one person owns it), but just “the car.” It often does the trick and sounds fine.
For example, not “As she pulled up, all alone in the driver’s seat, her car’s brakes were squeaking, rather, “As she pulled up, all alone in the driver’s seat, the car’s brakes were squeaking.” Get it?
If that sounds funny/funky, at least it beats sounding ignorant or desperate for approval, as in the not-uncommon phrasing (somewhere between laughable and sad), “As they pulled up, all alone in the driver’s seat, their brakes were squeaking. Get it? Please do. That’s just dumb. Avoid coming off that way. It’s unnecessary (for most of us!).
Two steps for presenting (not obscuring) your intelligence
The above techniques can fix many cases of genderized pronouns, when such, for whatever reason, are not desired. Other cases need other fixes. It’s not that hard. I can do it every time. That is, like you, I can show sensitivity without “bastardizing” the English language. But, in order to do it, you’ll need to (1) know that you can and should and (2) make the effort.
That said, please allow me to present my proposed updating of the rules of “pronoun agreement.” My update acknowledges that language will always evolve and “the rules” will never stop changing. I’m fine with that.
Time for a new rule for our new times (yes, language evolves!)
Allow me to propose the “rule change” I find reasonable and also indicative of how regular people, even reasonably educated (maybe you!), actually speak, even when consciously striving for grammatical correctness, the way a writing student of mine would do, turning in a paper for a grade. In other words, it’s an “error” that’s not only quite common, but it also makes some sense.
Thusly, I present the “Dr. Zizzi grammatical update” on pronoun “agreement” (in “number,” with its antecedent):
My new rule for pronoun “agreement”
So here’s my proposed “new rule.”: When the gender of one single person is unknown, it’s okay to refer to “them” in the plural, as I’ve just shown. Here’s our example, revised per my new rule:
“I see that someone has let their dog run off its leash, and they therefore risk losing their beloved pooch, which will be sad for them.”
Very few people these days would even know/notice that such pronoun use mixes the singular with the plural. I can let the new rule stretch that far, since the “error” is so commonplace — a force that does, in time, cause the grammar rules to change, as they keep up with the “preponderance of practice” (just made it up!).
To solidify my point, probably only one person let the dog (see, non-gendered since non-possessive — just demonstrating!) off its leash, but I think the plual pronoun their works just fine, since such usage is ultra common.
Yes, this breaks the traditional rule, but grammar rules do evolve, and I’d rather they evolve with some rationale behind them – not just a throwing-up of the hands (or a throwing-up at all) of “screw the rules – I need to signal my virtue, and you can’t stop me.”
What’s not ultra-common, just increasingly trendy — and I’m trying to stop that! — is knowing damn well the gender of the singular antecedent (like a suspect who was arrested) but referring to that person as they. That’s just stupid and makes the writer/speaker look and sound exactly that way — to those of us who know, and, yes, we’re inclined to judge.
Here is the rule again, this time a bit more more technically stated:
When the gender of the antecedent (remember, it’s the person, place, or thing the pronoun refers to) is unknown – even if known to be just one person — it’s aceptable (though not required) to use plural pronouns.
(Ouch – there, I said it again! Well, we have to stay current.)
My rationale for proposing a new grammar rule? As a grader of tens of thousands of college papers, I can tell you that lmost everyone already makes this “mistake.” I’m not proffering a “bastardization” of language; I’m just acknowledging the need for increased gender-sensitivity in today’s “talk” and also the way most people talk, anyway, not really knowing the rules (as you would learn, if my student). Remember, in my writing class, I “cover” pronouns, not for reasons political, but grammatical.
Journalists, this means you, too – especially you!
Now I will inflame things a little more, by directly criticizing our current “new rule” – acknowledged by many, including modern journalists (both print and broadcast) – which allows for (in some cases, it mandates!) the use of “they,” even when we do know the biological sex (if not the socially or personally construed “gender”) of the single person referred to (the pronoun’s antecedent).
Newspaper writer or TV newsreader (notice no gender), every time you go out of your way to signal your virtue (or maybe keep your editor happy) and say something stupid like “the suspect ran out of the store and into their car,” I notice and pity you but then laugh – almost every time – as you, later in the story, do reveal the suspect’s gender. It’s almost always inescapable, at some point. Journalist, to me, that’s the punchline of your sappy joke — played on yourself.
Ms. or Mr. Journalist, you’re supposed to be beholden to the truth. I know. I got “the A” in Journalism and have edited many a section and/or the whole publication. You’re supposed to tell the truth. Pretending that gender (like sex) does not exist constitutes lying — grammatical lying. Knock it off.
You can do it. Alas, Gram has passed on. Someone’s got to do the heavy lifting around here. I’m stepping up.
And don’t forget: “Words matter.”