Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women
Subject: Re: Gender-Specific Pronouns
Message-ID: <19509@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 16:05:31 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.19509
Posted: Mon Jan 14 16:05:31 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 00:15:07 EST
References: <353@cadovax.UUCP> <775@druxo.UUCP>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath net.nlang:2434 net.women:4137

> Of course, *proper* grammar is of much greater importance than the
> deleterious effect of sexist language on half of humanity! :-)
> 
> Is the proper role of grammarians to define what *proper* usage is or to
> record what common usage is?  Probably some of both.  But I, for one, have
> no intention of allowing grammarians to assume almighty powers and dictate
> that I must use language that is damaging to me and my sisters (and
> ultimately to my brothers, too).

Damn right - The language has been unfair to MEN long enough.  We are people
too.  We deserve our own pronouns.  (You must have a large family, I only
have one brother and one sister.)

> Besides, the singular *they* has a lot of precedence is scholarly writing
> as well as common usage by public figures:
> 
>        Shakespeare: Everyone to rest themselves.
> 
>               Shaw: It's enough to drive anyone out of their sense.
> 
>   Scott Fitzgerald: Nobody like a mind quicker than their own.
> 
> Dr. Mary Celderone: Everybody must develop their own standards of
>                     sexual morality.
> 
>    The Phone Store: Give someone a phone of their own.
> 
>  Lord Chesterfield: If a person is born of a gloomy temper...they
> 		    cannot help it.
> 
>      J. F. Kennedy: If that person gets sick...they are in the hospital...
> 
>       Senator Hart: ...the person who goes for food stamps does it
> 		    because they are poor.

I note that, once again, all of these examples are of the use of a plural
pronoun in reference to an original subject which was semantically plural.
In all the above cases, the original subject implied the inclusion or
exclusion of a large class of people - in fact, often the plural pronoun
was used to emphasize that fact.

        "That is the only person to ever set foot on Mars.  They loved it!"

Even if the examples given above sounded natural (which they would for most
people), the preceeding line would confuse you.  This is because the referent
of the plural is semantically singular and was explicitly reenforced as
singular.

The plural pronoun has been used with singular referents in the past, NOT
in order to resolve some sexist bias, but in order to emphasize the inherent
plurality of the words which are syntactically singular but are semantically
plural.

(*8  Why don't we introduce some pronouns which refer specifically (and ONLY)
to men.  This would have several advantages.  For one thing, the existing
masculine pronouns would then be freed up for use as neutral pronouns (ONLY).
The advantage is that all laws, regulations, rules, company charters, etc.
would automatically become gender neutral without rewrite.  The only
disadvantage would be that literature written before the change would seem
increasingly archaic since the neutral pronoun would be consistantly used
in reference to characters who are KNOWN to be male.  This option will not
be taken however because feminists will refuse any solution (no matter how
good or fair it really is) if it appears to 'give' men anything - and this
idea would 'give' men their own pronoun. 8*)