Category: the editorial page

  • ‘they’ is not a drop-in replacement for ‘he’ and ‘she’, but we could use one

    Singular usage of ‘they’ is well-established in English, going back centuries. Depending on your exposure to it, you may yourself use it regularly, as I happily do. It’s great having a single word that can refer to individuals whose gender is unclear or unspecified.

    However, gender-neutral ‘they’ and its friends ‘them’, ‘their’, and ‘theirs’, do not and likely cannot have the same function as he/him/his/his and she/her/her/hers without major reworking of the language.

    That’s because ‘they’ is also, prominently, the third person plural pronoun. That function is arguably more important syntactically than its usage as a gender-neutral or gender-ambiguous singular pronoun.

    The collision of the desire for ‘they’ to be singular, and the possibility for it to be plural, leads to ambiguities that don’t exist for ‘he’, ‘she’, et al.

    To illustrate the problem, I asked ChatGPT to tell a story about trans woman Sylvia and daughter, Olivia, going on a walk to the grocery store. My prompt indicated use of ‘she/her/etc’ pronouns for Sylvia. I then replaced all uses of ‘she’ that referred to Sylvia with ‘they’, all uses of ‘her’ that referred to Sylvia with ‘them’, etc. See what you think:

    Sylvia and Olivia stepped out of their house on a bright, sunny day. Sylvia had a small list of groceries that they needed to get from the store, and they thought it would be nice to take Olivia along for some fresh air and exercise.

    As they walked towards the store, Olivia chattered away about her day at school and the latest books she had been reading. Sylvia listened attentively, enjoying the sound of their daughter’s voice and the warmth of the sun on their face.

    When they arrived at the store, Sylvia gave Olivia the list and asked her to help them find the items they needed. Olivia eagerly took the list and led her mother through the aisles, pointing out items as they went along.

    As they walked back home, Sylvia felt a sense of contentment wash over them. It was moments like these, they thought, that made all the hard work of being a mother worth it. They felt grateful for the time spent with their daughter and for the simple pleasure of going on a walk together.

    Simply substituting ‘they’/’them’ is not enough; the possibility of plural ‘they’ alone means ambiguities arise from straightforward replacements.

    For example, the first ‘she’ that I replaced with ‘they’ (“groceries that they needed”) could now refer either gender-neutrally to Sylvia, or plurally to Sylvia and Olivia.

    This ambiguity wouldn’t arise if, alternately, we replaced ‘she’ with ‘he’, though of course if there were a son present, for example, a need to disambiguate the male referents would come along with it.

    But the plural sense of ‘they’ in particular strongly constrains singular usage of the pronoun. For ‘he’ and ‘she’, there is no such ambiguity and so they are much more flexible.

    Languages are evolved systems much more than they are products of engineering. It’s easy to think you’ve considered every possible effect of a change when really you haven’t. I would prefer usage of alternative third-person singular pronouns such as ‘zie’ for those whose experience of their own gender doesn’t align with the prevailing categories. Those who adopt ‘they’/’them’ should be aware of the pronoun’s limitations for singular usage. If it’s still adopted, it should be used with care to avoid confusing hearers and readers in contexts where a plural meaning is live in the sentence.

    Of course, real people don’t just replace ‘she’ with ‘they’ without adjusting; additional wording would likely come with the change to clarify who’s meant by it. At least, one would hope, though I’ve seen a few examples of glib replacement with no seeming awareness of how confusing the language was becoming.

    To the degree that it takes added wording and circumlocutions to convey the same meaning as ‘he’ and ‘she’, ‘they’ is a lesser pronoun for singular usage. It simply hasn’t benefited from centuries of language change yet. For that reason, we should adopt a new non-gendered third person singular pronoun instead, working with the language we have, instead of fighting it.

  • Young Tsarnaev

    Photo: FBI
    Photo: FBI

    There’s your bomber.

    You’re looking at the face of the kid the Boston paramilitary police were hunting for. By the time they found him hiding in a boat, his brother had been killed in a firefight. Children of one of imperialism’s most brutal conflicts, five thousand miles from their parents, drifting in a place not quite home, it’s easy to imagine how they went astray. How do kids like that not go astray?

    A joke from the young man’s social network page:

    В школе задают загадку..
    Едет автомобиль. В нем сидят – дагестанец, чеченец и ингуш.
    Вопрос – кто ведет машину ?
    Мага отвечает: – Полиция.

    Translation:

    At school they pose this riddle:
    A Dagestani, a Chechen, and an Ingush are riding in a car together.
    Question: who’s driving the car?
    Magus (?) answers: the police.

    Just a silly political joke for a central Asian audience. Not long after, the Chechen who posted it found himself being driven to the hospital under arrest.

    Our country has had its fair share of crazies and murderers in the news in recent years. For some reason, this most recent (alleged) bomber has evoked a more sympathetic response from me than usual. Sure, the guy could be genuinely evil. But my guess is that more likely he is genuinely confused.

    Pray for the kid. Good or bad, he’s going to need it.

  • Ideologue-y

    Do you ever feel that the previous generation just sees you as another potential acolyte to be indoctrinated and enlisted to fight the next big ideological war? In several situations I have felt like that. These were in linguistics, in economics, and—of course—in politics.

    In linguistics the philosophical divide basically shakes out as the rationalist, pro-Chomsky forces vs. empiricist, post-Chomsky linguists. The core classes in the BYU linguistics program teach Chomsky, plain and simple. But, in the senior seminar class we learned about the First and Second Linguistics Wars. These were bitter ideological struggles that tore the discipline in half twice in as many decades. It was Chomsky vs. the World, and Chomsky won… sort of. He won rhetorical victory at the cost of turning linguistics into a no-man’s land. When we in the linguistics major learned that the minimalist grammars, the autosegmental theory, all of it that we had learned and had confidence in, were essentially the victors writing the history books, the attack plan of true believers in the reigning theory-as-doctrine to scorch earth in the battlefield of undergraduate minds, we lost faith in it. It was disillusioning. And so did the more reasonable part of the field of linguistics: people turned to other things, like corpus linguistics or statistical modeling.

    Economics is in a lot of ways more empirically grounded than at least Chomskyan linguistics. Yet it, too, suffers from the distortions of ideology. Reading about the current economic crisis, I see one group blame excessive regulation, and another group blame insufficient regulation. Same discipline. Same data. Opposite stories. Was Keynes a hero, or a villain? An awful lot of name-calling goes on on some econ blogs. I’d like to see less ad hominem and more thoughtful analysis.

    And, of course, politics. The ideological problems afflicting economics are but one front in a multifarious war that’s been raging for generations. I’m really tired of trying to figure out what position to take on a given issue, only to realize that the two sides (how come things always get reduced to two sides? why not three, or a hundred?) have been totally co-opted by the belligerents. So, if I think any policy protecting the environment is a good idea, I’m a sinister agent of the Left? If I think government should balance its budget, I’m a Republican hack? No. I’m just this guy who got thrown into this complex and wonderful world where everyone wants him to join their side, everyone wants to be right, but nobody really seems to care about discovering what’s really going on. With so much spin, it’s easy to get dizzy.

    I know I get sucked into taking sides in ideological disputes all the time. My opposition to the bailout is a good example. But there’s a better way.

    So what can we do to keep from oppressing the next generation with our own ideological obsessions? Well, if you ever find yourself defending or attacking an idea or plan or program, stop. Attack and defense are for fighting wars. Discovery and explanation are for truth-seekers. Seek truth.