He/She... or the One?

[Conscentia]

Neither is television. Survival isn't everything.

Entertaining the masses is indeed a necessity. Coming up with new words for things that already exist is not.

The masses survived without television for over 99% of human history.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Entertaining the masses is indeed a necessity. Coming up with new words for things that already exist is not.

The masses survived without television for over 99% of human history.

There are many ways to entertain yourself without TV. Tickets to plays used to cost less then a meal

[Kvatchdom]

Entertaining the masses is indeed a necessity. Coming up with new words for things that already exist is not.

The masses survived without television for over 99% of human history.

Yeah they did. But innovation and creativity are also part of that entertainment. The further we progress in all areas through innovation, the further we will progress as humans.

[Conscentia]

The masses survived without television for over 99% of human history.

Yeah they did. But innovation and creativity are also part of that entertainment. The further we progress in all areas through innovation, the further we will progress as humans.

You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't say 'entertainment'. I didn't say 'innovation'. I didn't say 'creativity'. I specifically said 'television'.
You objected on the grounds that it was unnecessary for survival. I have demonstrated that television is not necessary. Either you must object to television, or concede that your original objection was faulty.

[Kvatchdom]

Yeah they did. But innovation and creativity are also part of that entertainment. The further we progress in all areas through innovation, the further we will progress as humans.

You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't say 'entertainment'. I didn't say 'innovation'. I didn't say 'creativity'. I specifically said 'television'.
You objected on the grounds that it was unnecessary for survival. I have demonstrated that television is not necessary. Either you must object to television, or concede that your original objection was faulty.

The television is a great invention.

"One". Is a word that already exists.

They are not the same.

[Infected Mushroom]

and no has has been advocating for one of that sort

Seriously, your memory span can't last 15 minutes?

it may well prove necessary

that doesn't open the door for you to elaborate on the specifics of the language police to your convenience and then act like this is what is being advocated for

it would be like you saying you support Communism and then me going ''AHA! (insert gulags joke)''

its not good form

[Conscentia]

You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't say 'entertainment'. I didn't say 'innovation'. I didn't say 'creativity'. I specifically said 'television'.
You objected on the grounds that it was unnecessary for survival. I have demonstrated that television is not necessary. Either you must object to television, or concede that your original objection was faulty.

The television is a great invention.
"One". Is a word that already exists.
They are not the same.

Irrelevant. Television is not necessary for survival. Either you must object to television, or concede that your original objection was faulty and come up with some other objection - preferably one that isn't totally stupid.

[The Two Jerseys]

Seriously, your memory span can't last 15 minutes?

that doesn't open the door for you to elaborate on the specifics of the language police to your convenience and then act like this is what is being advocated for

it would be like you saying you support Communism and then me going ''AHA! (insert gulags joke)''

its not good form

Pray tell, what the fuck do you expect the Language POLICE to do, if not arrest people?

[Kvatchdom]

The television is a great invention.
"One". Is a word that already exists.
They are not the same.

Irrelevant. Television is not necessary for survival. Either you must object to television, or concede that your original objection was faulty and come up with some other objection - preferably one that isn't totally stupid.

It is completely relevant. It is in our nature to invent new things and use them. It is not in our nature to make up new words for things that already have words.

[Infected Mushroom]

that doesn't open the door for you to elaborate on the specifics of the language police to your convenience and then act like this is what is being advocated for

it would be like you saying you support Communism and then me going ''AHA! (insert gulags joke)''

its not good form

Pray tell, what the fuck do you expect the Language POLICE to do, if not arrest people?

they would enforce the law, in a way that is reasonable, publicly accountable, fair and equitable

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

It is not in our nature to make up new words for things that already have words.

Actually, it sorta is. We've done so continually for thousands of years.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Pray tell, what the fuck do you expect the Language POLICE to do, if not arrest people?

they would enforce the law, in a way that is reasonable, publicly accountable, fair and equitable

And if spmone breaks the law?

[The Two Jerseys]

Pray tell, what the fuck do you expect the Language POLICE to do, if not arrest people?

they would enforce the law, in a way that is reasonable, publicly accountable, fair and equitable

What laws? There are no language laws.

[Italios]

Pray tell, what the fuck do you expect the Language POLICE to do, if not arrest people?

they would enforce the law, in a way that is reasonable, publicly accountable, fair and equitable

Anyone who deals in enforcing fucking language laws is not going to be fair. The whole idea of grammar police is stupid.

[The Novakian Empire]

they would enforce the law, in a way that is reasonable, publicly accountable, fair and equitable

Anyone who deals in enforcing fucking language laws is not going to be fair. The whole idea of grammar police is stupid.

Agreed.

[Calimera II]

they would enforce the law, in a way that is reasonable, publicly accountable, fair and equitable

Anyone who deals in enforcing fucking language laws is not going to be fair. The whole idea of grammar police is stupid.

Beware of the grammar police. Fines are high these days.

[Infected Mushroom]

they would enforce the law, in a way that is reasonable, publicly accountable, fair and equitable

Anyone who deals in enforcing fucking language laws is not going to be fair. The whole idea of grammar police is stupid.

No, laws can be enforced fairly (with procedural regularity, transparent standards, proportional force etc) and they can be enforced unfairly. Its possible to enforce laws that are unfair fairly or unfairly (likewise, its possible to enforce laws that are fair in a fair or unfair way). Do not conflate your opinion of the fairness of the law with a definitive statement on the fairness (or lack of) of its enforcement.

[Infected Mushroom]

they would enforce the law, in a way that is reasonable, publicly accountable, fair and equitable

What laws? There are no language laws.

And I never said they already existed

[Italios]

Anyone who deals in enforcing fucking language laws is not going to be fair. The whole idea of grammar police is stupid.

No, laws can be enforced fairly (with procedural regularity, transparent standards, proportional force etc) and they can be enforced unfairly. Its possible to enforce laws that are unfair fairly or unfairly (likewise, its possible to enforce laws that are fair in a fair or unfair way). Do not conflate your opinion of the fairness of the law with a definitive statement on the fairness (or lack of) of its enforcement.

Putting restrictions on the way a person can talk is unfair and oppressive.

[Reploid Productions]

NSG is not your blog.

[The Forsworn Knights]

Anyone who objects to the singular they can get the fuck out of my English language.

It says on wikipedia

''The singular they is the use of this pronoun as a gender-neutral singular rather than as a plural pronoun. The correctness of this usage is disputed.''

Which is why I think we need to push back harder. Rather than just playing by their rules and using ''they,'' we should introduce a new pronoun and reinforce it upon the population.

Who is 'They'? Misogynists? Misandrists? Max Barry and his sheep overlords? Obama?
You gotta specify who is forcing me to use certain words in casual conversation.

[San Lumen]

This is not something the government should be mandating and how would you possibly enforce it?

[The Two Jerseys]

What laws? There are no language laws.

And I never said they already existed

So you have no idea what laws they would even enforce, much less how they would enforce those laws, yet you have the nerve to criticize me for speculating on how the Language Police would enforce the laws.

[Tahar Joblis]

The pronouns that we use are important because language shapes the way we conceptualise ourselves and the world around us, and the prevailing societal ethos.

It used to be the case that in all cases of writing when referring to an individual using a pronoun ''He'' would be used without thinking and without pause.

This is mythological. The truth of the matter is that even after the notion of an indeterminate "he" worked it into the style manuals, it was usually replaced by a generic "she" whenever the expected person was more likely to be female; and quite often replaced by the supposedly dreaded generic "they."

Accompanied by a greater density of gendered nouns for professions and occupations, many of which were also sharply gendered, this was a relatively comfortable state of affairs, and so it didn't change.

Moreover, it can be contrasted with the state of affairs in other languages, where each noun has a marked gender shows up in far more ways than English, and may disagree with the gender of the object. For example, "girl," in German, is a neuter noun. "Dog" is male - making it grammatically correct to use "he" to refer to a female dog when talking about it as a dog.

Then came an era of increased sensitivity whereby people started to understand that such a starting point may at times seem presumptuous and discriminatory; after all, self-identified females do form half the population. Indeed, why should it be the case that when a person is writing and the person is anonymous, that the male gender be the assumed default? Hence the introduction of the new ''He/She'' (or ''He or she'') in writing and parlance.

However, the replacement of ''He'' with ''He/She'' even if we assume this general trend has been replaced, introduces other problems. For instance, it reinforces existing gender labels and gender binaries to the exclusion of people who don't identify comfortably on this binary. Perhaps its time to go further and mandate that we replace ''He/She'' with ''One'' (a truly gender-neutral pronoun)? So instead of a sentence looking like

''A person who steals a cookie is a fool. He/She would have broken the law''... it would instead look like this ''A person who steals a cookie is a fool. One would have broken the law.''

Since the use of the word ''One'' in certain sentence constructions seems a bit awkward, perhaps a new pronoun (a truly gender-neutral one not restricted to the He/She binary) ought to be introduced. Suggestions are welcome.

"One" is not a bad word to use, but does tend to be a little archaic. As a noun, it can go pretty much anywhere a pronoun can. One's tolerance for such things often depends on one's distaste for passive voice and indirect phrasing. One might also note that one's grammatical case is ambiguous, so if one uses "one" to refer to one and another, confusion can result.

Two issues to consider and discuss.


1. Is the use of the word ''He'' in writing and parlance when referring to a non-specific person discriminatory and problematic?

2. Is the use of the word He/She in its place SUFFICIENT to get rid of the problematic issues? Or does it create more problems than it solves (for instance reinforcing gender binaries)?

3. Should a new pronoun be introduced?

In my view the use of the word ''He'' as a default pronoun when referring to a non-specific person is problematic; its discriminatory beyond question when at least half of the population does not identify as a He. The word He/She though is an extension of a problem in that it reinforces a restrictive, discriminatory, gender binary to the exclusion of people uncomfortable with this binary. Therefore, I would suggest that a new pronoun needs to be introduced to cover these situations.

Some sources to consider in the discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-sp ... l_pronouns
https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/
https://genderneutralpronoun.wordpress.com
https://apps.carleton.edu/student/orgs/saga/pronouns/

The notion of a novel gender-neutral pronoun has been floated repeatedly. It is well-intentioned but doomed, since only in a narrow range of circumstances would one wish to replace their existing usage of "he" and "she" with, e.g., "xe." The pronoun "it" would be perfectly appropriate in a grammatical sense (and would not be out of place contrasted to other languages) but is felt to be dehumanizing.

"He or she" is inherently awkward, for reasons that go beyond the issue of binary identity.

As others have pointed out, "they" as an indeterminate pronoun has a long history. It's very natural. "One" is more formal (some would say pretentious) but is also useful. The best way to promote inclusion is to promote the use of a naturally ambiguous referent, that can and will actually be used in place of "he or she" for an unidentified gender as well as ambiguous gender.

A common sexist solution is to use "she" all the time for generic pronouns. (This is, in the long run, equally ill-advised.) Another is to alternate usage of "he" and "she" routinely, but that's actually quite difficult. "They" is the best solution.

[Forsher]

Now the unjust thread lock is over, my post!

they would enforce the law, in a way that is reasonable, publicly accountable, fair and equitable

Anyone who deals in enforcing fucking language laws is not going to be fair. The whole idea of grammar police is stupid.

Grammar and language police are different.

If people had a better understanding of grammar, there would be far less ambiguity in our use of language. This is sometimes meaningful (especially with laws, business transactions and maths tests*) in a very clearly definable manner. This hardly needs grammar police.

A language policeforce, on the other hand, would insist on the use of police officer rather than policeman (even though a lot, most?, use policeman regardless of the cop in question's gender) or traffic collision rather than accident or, more to the point, service rather than force. Thus, the language police and the thought police are effectively identical.

*The idiots who wrote one particular test made two questions which could be understood in two different ways due to the ambiguous grammar. With one of the questions, if you were a poor soul who understood it the wrong way you ended up with fewer marks as it made the question easier. With the other, this didn't happen. Best bit is, this is a national exam.