Come talk about fun and quirky words in the English Language. Posting is open to all members.
Stylebooks finally embrace the single 'they'
Stylebooks finally embrace the single 'they'
They is here. Two major style manuals are now allowing the singular use of "they" in certain circumstances. While this is a victory for common sense, the paths taken are unusual in the evolution of usage. Both manuals, the Associated Press Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style, emphasize that "they" cannot be used with [...]
cjr.org
Speaking of language being fluid...




That's interesting. I've used 'they' in a gender neutral context many times and repeatedly been marked down for poor grammar. Hopefully this gains wider acceptance.
The title of the article is nice, but actually reading it Stylebooks seem far from "embracing" "they". For example:
They only say it's fine to use singular they if you absolutely can't get around it by just saying the person's name over and over or carefully rewording the sentences to remove it.
(emphasis mine)
That's just...obnoxious, to be honest. I understand that singular they can occassionally cause confusion in ambigurous circumstances. But my rule there is to use "they" whenever appropriate first, and only reword / use the person's name in the case of ambiguity, not resisting using "they" at all until my back's in a corner and I can't get away with it without sounding awkward.
Obviously it's better that they do it begrudgingly than not at all, but as someone who goes by singular they it's hard not to feel sour about the avoidance of my pronouns being "always preferable".
At least Chicago's seems to be pretty chill--in the article it seems the rule is just "if they go by 'they' then use it" with some advice on the tricky "themself", going as far as to underline the usage is not really controversial. That's much more positive.
I can totally understand your frustration. Changing the way people use language is a slow process--even moreso in the case of style manuals. Editors fear the singular "they" because they think it will cause confusion (ironically causing unnecessary awkwardness as they get their heads around it).
You called the acceptance begrudging and I think that's exactly the right word for it--but (in my experience) it's the shift itself that's causing consternation. I suspect their advice in this case is similar to advice surrounding anything considered a new usage. Again, def still frustrating.
What I do find encouraging about this is the change is being officially documented. People like the prof I mentioned above feel very confident to say crappy things when they can point to a book and say, "but it's not in the rules." I'm always pleased when we can take away one more lousy, lazy argument.
ETA: I totally agree the way the AP Stylebook worded things, "we do not use" etc, was unnecessarily fusty and judgy-sounding.
I agree that it being officially documented at all is better than nothing, and that sticklers for rules will have one less leg to stand on, which is awesome. But I argue that Stylebook's policy still offers plenty of leverage to insist on awkward and contrived wording in order to avoid just using the darn pronoun (which is why I liked Chicago's straightforward "If that's what they use, then use it, and here are some tips" approach better).
I can't say that I have a rigorous understanding of how style manuals are used and referred to, though, and if the allowance existing at all means people who want to write "they" have more freedom to do so, then that's all the better.
I think what it comes down to is the article title led me to have much more positive expectations for the contents than they actually were, like being told I'd won a free gourmet meal and then being presented with a microwavable tv dinner. Free food is better than no food and it may be reasonably tasty, but it's not what I expected to get so I'm unnecessarily grouchy. :P It is an improvement from before and that is what is most important.
I get it. I agree the CMS approach seems much more open--and, really, more sensible. And "embrace" in that title promised an enthusiasm that didn't bear out in the article!
This is awesome.
There's a prof at a local university here who has decided to die on the hill of not using gender neutral pronouns. (I can only imagine he's terrified he might have to acknowledge a reality other than his own.) I was listening to him in an interview and his main argument was "you can't just change things; that's not how language works."
No, dude, that's exactly how language works--it adapts to need: "and that we also recognize the need for a pronoun..."
For a while I thought s/he might catch on, but I guess even that was too binary.
Can I assume he still uses thee/thou? If not, someone needs to call him on that.
Hee, right? There's also "girl," which began as a gender neutral term for any young person. We've obviously been playing fast and loose with our 13th century vocab. OUTRAGE.
Using they as a gender neutral pronoun can be really hard for me. I am all for the idea, but my brain is slow to change.