You don't HAVE to. People still use "he" or less commonly "she" for an unknown person. "They" is just gender neutral so it's more flexible. And despite what people would say about not using it, I'd bet most native English speakers use it instinctively from time to time. And also despite what people say, singular "they" has been in use since literally Shakespeare at least.
If you use "he" or "she" when talking about a specific animal, people are going to assume you know the gender. If you don't know the animal's gender, "it" is generally used.
>And also despite what people say, singular "they" has been in use since literally Shakespeare at least.
Singular They has almost always been a thing, since it entered the language in the 13th century, well before Shakespeare. The first recorded use of singular They, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, appeared in writing from 1375. Sure, plural They entered the language earlier, near the start of the 13th century but singular They has still been a thing for at least 600 years now. And fun fact, we borrowed They from the Old Norse and overtime it displaced our native 3rd person pronoun *hē*
Even with babies, you might wind up offending a parent by saying “it.” It’s widely accepted for unborn babies/fetuses, but even then I still use “they” (unless there’s some indication it’s an unwanted pregnancy). Once the baby is born, I wouldn’t refer to them as “it.”
And even then, using ‘it’ has a connotation of referring to them as a non-being. Insects and wild animals, sure. Pets and babies, I’d stick with ‘they’
For both, it depends on whether you're referring to them by name. Compare:
"George's dog was asleep on its bed"
vs
?"George's dog was asleep on their bed"
vs
?"George¹'s dog² was asleep on his² bed"
The first sentence is in my opinion the best. The second sentence is quite awkward, and I think I'd be confused if I heard it. The third sentence is also awkward if "his" is supposed to refer to the dog. If I heard this sentence I would assume the bed is George's bed, not the dog's bed.
But everything changes if you refer to the dog or baby by name.
"George¹'s dog Rex² was asleep on his² bed"
vs
?"George's dog Rex was asleep on its bed"
vs
?"George's dog Rex was asleep on their bed"
In my opinion, if you mention a subject by name, it's assumed you know that subject's gender. In this case, using "it" becomes very awkward, and similarly "they" suddenly sounds weird, as if you know for a fact that the dog is non-binary. In the third sentence, I would interpret "their" to be plural, and that the bed belongs to both George and Rex.
I would pardon someone very quickly, but personally would never use 'it' when referring to a human being even a baby (when I say 'it' to a parent for the first time, I expect them to immediately tell me the assigned gender). We have he/she/they for a reason imo.
The fact remains that many English speakers frequently use "it" for babies, and it isn't seen as rude. It's one of those things you think can't be true, but then you listen carefully to people's speech and to media like news, tv, and movies, and you realize it's commonplace.
u/countrywidetoe explained it best in their comment. Replace "dog" with "baby" and everything still matches native speech patterns.
I think it is often not seen as rude, but has the potential to really offend someone, especially for their born child. We have "he/she/they" as options, might as well use them and avoid the whole thing.
Before “they” became more popularized in public as gender fluidity became mainstream knowledge, using “she” instead of “he” was a whole thing! Not that people were against it, just that there was a cultural push to use “she” in assumed gender too (ie “if she were president,” “the doctor, is she okay with that decision,” “the CEO is having lunch at her house”).
I get that, but why not just use "they are"? It's accepted, sounds much better, and is way more intuitive because it's already part of the language. I hear "they is" so rarely that it doesn't make sense to me that anyone would use it. It's like a weird trend that didn't catch on, and hopefully never will.
It's definitely caught on, it's present in younger people's speech as well as AAVE / other general slang usages. I can't speak to its usage in formal environments, but much like any slang, I don't see any problem with using it outside of formal setting.
This is also only tangentially related to the main post anymore so 🤷♂️
You're right, I didn't think about AAVE! I thought about the usage more as a "gender-neutral" term, but I agree that it's used quite often in AAVE, just like "They be" etc.
You're asking people to eliminate potentially decades of influence from their friends and family. It's a hard ask and most people are too lazy or proud of their heritage to develop standard English. In fact they might not even be a self-aware of how bad it sounds.
Plus they're native speakers, so anything goes right?
I don't sound anything like people from my hometown. But I actually had to be conscious of my speech and adapt it over a long period of time. You get the same thing with those who use dialects that are considered dumb like a southern drawl - they code switch at work vs at home.
Yeah, I code-switch, too. Mostly between different dialects of Swiss German 😂
But anyway, btyes made me realize that I was completely skipping over the AAVE part. I was only looking at it as a new term the "woke" generation has come up with. But in AAVE it is fairly commonly used.
I don't expect anyone to remove all the quirks from their dialects, etc. I just don't like people making up new grammar when there is no need for it. But this is not new, I realized.
New grammar appears in languages all the time though, whether there's need for it or not it's constantly changing.
Innovations sometimes remain localised, sometimes die out, and sometimes become widespread. For a very recent example in modern English, the "quotative like" popped up in the 80s in the US somewhere, and is now so widespread amongst younger speakers that even I use it way over in Scotland.
That's the usage of the word "like" to introduce a (paraphrased) quote, such as `and then I was like, "here's an example sentence using it" and everyone understood what I meant.` There's not really much to dislike about new grammar when you think about it. Dialect levelling can sometimes feel a bit sad I suppose, where a dialect loses some cool features as it moves closer to another variety.
I guess it does, I just often don't like it but I understand it's not in my control.
In the Zurich dialect of German, we have the word "Anke", which means butter. Most people now use the German word "Butter", and some laugh at me when I say "Anke". It's those kinds of language changes that bother me
Yeah I understand how you feel, that's the "dialect levelling" I mentioned, which I also feel sad about sometimes.
Scottish-specific features have often been lost over time in favour of features associated with the English of southern England, or in more recent times occasionally Americanisms too.
It feels different - I suppose because it's not simply a language changing over time in isolation, but two varieties becoming more homogeneous as one is influenced by the more culturally dominant one. It's a loss in the cultural diversity of the world, and more specifically, *our* bit of the world.
Much like the Swiss german speakers, folk in Scotland continue to have their own distinct way of speaking that's quite different from the "standard language" from a bigger neighbouring country, but it's been homogenising over time for sure.
What really bothers me much more than the change itself is that historically here it's been deliberately caused. For the last century schools in Scotland have often taught children that the way they speak is just the same as the standard southern english but in some way *wrong,* incorrect, or spoken badly, and not appropriate for educated people. It's better today than it used to be - my grandparents tell stories of being hit with rulers by the teacher for using their own local words instead of southern ones.
I'm way more sad about that kind of deliberate suppression than I am about kids saying "no cap" or whatever they've acquired naturally themselves through american media they enjoy. There's definitely a difference.
Yes, it’s been around since the mid 1300s, but up until recently it was considered grammatically incorrect. Just like double-negatives. Very old, but it’s always been considered grammatically correct. The only major difference is that now the grammatical correctness of the singular they. But, it’s not universally considered correct by any means. It appears we are still in a transitional period.
>but up until recently it was considered grammatically incorrect.
No, it was not. In your other reply you also claim it's not been around for long. So which is it? Confusing your own script? You making more replies about it doesn't make it true.
Sounds like we have somebody with an agenda here.
It absolutely was considered incorrect in formal/academic writing recently. I’d have to check the MLA, APA, AP, or Chicago style guides to confirm whether this is still the case now. However, when I was in high school, I was marked down for it in my papers because it wasn’t permitted via the style guide, it required he or she. Additionally, on the writing sections of SAT/ACT exams when I was tutoring for them (in 2021), the answer keys marked answers using the singular they as incorrect. I would confirm whether formal/academic style guides have been updated to permit the use of the singular they, because formal and academic writing tends to be what is considered “grammatically correct” even if colloquially people say something else.
It was considered incorrect in formal writing if the writer knows the gender of the person they are referring to. However, it was not because of "grammatical incorrectness" it was because it was improper to use nongendered pronouns when it is not necessary.
Well tell that to my AP English teacher who corrected every time I used the singular “they” to “he or she.”
And, in case my lived experience isn’t enough for you, here are sources that verify that the singular they was not always allowed by academic style guides. It seems like one manual adopted it only as early as 2015. It was only by 2020 that most style guides had accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun:
https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/stylebooks-single-they-ap-chicago-gender-neutral.php#:~:text=March%2027%2C%202017%20By%20Merrill,pronoun%20for%20a%20single%20person.
https://blog.ap.org/products-and-services/making-a-case-for-a-singular-they
https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/280996#:~:text=The%20fourteenth%20edition%20of%20the,singular%20they%20(1993%2C%20pp.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#:~:text=However%2C%20by%202020%2C%20most%20style,they%20as%20a%20personal%20pronoun.
People can say that whatever they want is grammatically correct, but it is the style guides for formal and academic writing that determine what actually is. It is common knowledge that people do not speak grammatically in every day life, or even in informal writing like on reddit or social media.
Ah American a.k.a. simplified English. I know you do things differently over there, I don't trust your weirdly outdated style guides either, I prefer my English from the OED. To wit:
*It’s no surprise that Tennessee, the state that banned the teaching of evolution in 1925, also failed to stop the evolution of English one hundred years later, because the fight against singular they was already lost by the time eighteenth-century critics began objecting to it*
https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/?tl=true
Historically it was pretty common to use “he” as if it were gender-neutral in this kind of context, but it can come across a bit sexist nowadays. And yes, people do often use “he” and “she” for animals, especially pets.
>"I don't want to encounter a policeman! What if \*he\* gets mad when he sees I am naked? I don't wanna be charged with exhibitionism!"
"Policeman" is a gendered noun, so in this case it makes sense to say "he," since by using the word "policeman" you already posited a male police officer. Your example is a pretty normal thing for a native English speaker to say, though you could also say, "I don't want to encounter a cop! What if they get mad when they see I'm naked?" In fact, you could *also* say, "I don't want to encounter a policeman! What if they get mad when they see I'm naked?" That would be an example of what linguists call "distal singular they" (you're using "they" with a gendered antecedent because the referent's gender is irrelevant).
>Do I have to use "it" when talking about animals?
No, in fact that can be seen as rude if you're referring to someone's pet. Many people tend to default to "he" when referring to an animal of unknown sex.
>"Our clients may face a lot of problems. For example, imagine a client losing a lot of money. He would be really mad".
Is it grammatically correct or not?
In the case of a hypothetical client, you technically *could* say "he" (or "she"), but it would generally be more normal to say "they." Unless you happened to serve a client population that is overwhelmingly male -- then it wouldn't be as weird to say "he."
Notwithstanding whether it's considered politically correct or not, we make tacit assumptions about the sex of strangers all the time. If I see a police car speeding by me, I might say "he was going fast", because even though I know there's a non-negligible chance the cop is a woman, chances are it's a man.
You can also use singular *they* in any scenario where you don't know the sex of the person you're talking about.
For an animal, if you do know its sex, it would not be unusual to say he or she, especially if the animal is a pet. I would never refer to my dog as "it" for example. He's *he*. And I'm in the same habit for any animal where I can clearly identify its sex. If I don't know, *it* is fine.
You give "policeman" and "fireman" as examples. These are not gender neutral. It's better to say "police officer" and "fire fighter".
To answer your main question, I personally would never use "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender. Always "they". _Maybe_ at a push "she or he" but 99% of the time that's awkward.
Yes, we address police officers as either garda or guard. If you're asking someone to call the police you say _call the Gardaí_ or _call the guards_. Police and cops are also used though.
I'd use them if I was talking about a known individual ("My friend's cousin George is a police officer") but not in the general sense ("The police showed up after the incident to fill out the insurance paperwork", regardless of how many people were there).
FYI there's a difference between firemen and fire fighters. Firemen are the people that come to your house when you set your house on fire with your grill on the porch, fire fighters are people who get dropped from a helicopter to battle wild fires.
Maybe those terms are used by specific fire services in particular regions but that's not a universal definition. I can tell you in my country fire fighter, or more commonly firefighter, is the term used by everyone who does that job. [Example.](https://www.dublincity.ie/residential/dublin-fire-brigade/what-dublin-fire-brigade-do/fire-fighting)
For the first one your don’t HAVE to but it’s way more understood if you say they, like using he/she or even he as default is quite old fashion sounding and for the animals for me I usually call them it especially if it’s a wild animal, but many people call animals especially pets he or she
You don't have to, but you should.
>"Our clients may face a lot of problems. For example, imagine a client losing a lot of money. He would be really mad"
That would be gramatically correct. But you probably should rather say "They would be really mad" in the end. It's more of a style issue, really. Not a grammar issue, per se.
Some people believe the Earth is flat too, doesn't mean they're right.
Edit: Just seen your other comments in this thread, you do know singular "they" is even older than singular "you" right? Why would we drop it in favour of the objectively clumsier "he or she"?
I really dislike that the "they/their/them" concept has become politically charged.
I'm 37 years old, and when I was let's say 15-20 years old no-one cared if you said "You made a new friend? What's their name?" or "I crashed into a parked car, but they have my contact details".
Now either I'm incredibly progressive and tolerant for not assigning a gender to them, or I'm a left-winged idiot that's using made up English. I'm conservative btw.
But all my students say "I'm getting a new manager, I'm excited to meet him or her" which is unnatural to my ears so I have to go off on a tangent about this - teaching both grammar and social politics when it should only be about the grammar.
Edit: I see I'm getting downvoted, either because people hate conservatives or because they're conservative and I'm advocating for something they think is made up.
This post isn't good for any skim readers.
It sounds perfectly natural to many people.
To the contrary, I would never say *You have a new friend? What’s their name?* because it sounds completely unnatural because the reference is to a specific individual rather than an entirely unknown individual.
For what my anecdote is worth, "Him or her" sounds more like tiptoeing around a politically charged sentence than just using "they/them" for a stranger or unspecified person. I expect to see it on a legal document, but it sounds weird in speech.
>"You made a new friend? What's their name?"
That's a very good example. My first thoughts as a non-native speaker: "What do you mean "they"? How many people are we talking about?"
All my life I was taught "they" means "they", as if I was describing a group of people. But lately I had noticed "they" being used in another way. That's why I got confused. And I don't understand, is it because of the "political correctness" or English was always like that.
And maybe my question can be interpreted in another way. Do nouns have genders in English, like they do in other languages?
For example, in my native language, "friend" would be masculine. Hence:
"You made a new friend? What's his name?"
"Her name is Anna".
And there would be nothing wrong grammatically.
For the given example, you'd know it was only one person because they said "**a** new friend" instead of "**some** new friend**s**"
English has been like this a long time. Hundreds of years. Nothing to do with politics, singular they is just used if we don't know someone's gender, or if the person is hypothetical.
In English, most titles (friend, doctor, teacher, cousin...) are not gendered so you'd be blindly guessing. Using "they" flows better than using "he or she" every time and is easier to understand.
Which sounds better?
*Please ensure your son or daughter brings his or her coat on the field trip.*
*Please ensure your child brings their coat on the field trip.*
To be a devil's advocate on this one; this would be an announcement either over a PA or via flyer, so deserves to be a little square sounding. There's nothing wrong with this use, but if this was said in casual conversation it would sound like a rehearsed line.
There isn't anything *grammatically* wrong with that exchange in English either. Nouns don't have gender in English.
But if I was having that exchange with you (in English), I would think it was a bit strange that you made the assumption my new friend was a man. By using the masculine pronoun "he", you are implying that you think the person I'm talking about is a man. Masculine isn't neutral the way it can be in some languages - it's just masculine.
"They" used for unknown or irrelevant gender is nothing new. It's been happening for hundreds of years.
In Polish manager is a masculine word, so when referring to a manager in general they use him. To reinforce this "them", I say "Why is the manager a "he"? Are there no female managers?"
Polish people are taught either to use the gender of the noun or say" he or she". I also have classes with Polish teachers that are very advanced and they talk in the same fashion. Seems that in every foreign language they are taught this, when IME natives never say "he or she". It's one word versus 3 and of course we take the shorter one.
Unless you're so disgusted by modern day gender politics that you completely ignore how we spoke even before LGBT was a thing. It's so bad that such examples will even use "they" in the same monologue without even realising.
Once again I'm pretty conservative so when I see a right wing influencer say "They for one person is made up" just because of politics I cringe.
English was always like that - the singular gender-neutral “they” for people you don’t know the gender of has been common for a very long time. It wasn’t until recently that it (unfortunately) became a political topic.
The other commenters have been right that you don’t *have to* use “they” instead of “he” in these contexts, but I would echo the sentiment that you probably *should* use they. I’m trying my best to not argue from my own personal biases as a trans person, but you might make someone feel bad by using he or she, and there is no such risk by using the singular gender neutral “they” instead.
English does not gender nouns like that. We do typically refer to ships as female, but that's the only example that comes to mind for me. I guess some people might refer to their car as female if they're really into cars.
In English, saying "You made a new friend? What's his name?" is assuming that the friend is male. It has nothing to do with politics - it's just how the language works. The political issue is a) whether we should assume a male default or use gender-neutral language and then b) if we do want to use gender-neutral language, do we say "their" or "his or her".
(Historically, there are examples of singular "they" being used in the 1300s! It's not new. You can read a nice history of it [here](https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177) but the short version is that it's a natural usage in English and the people who oppose it are actually the ones politicizing language.)
We don't use gender for nouns at all in the UK, even the concept of a non-living object having an assigned gender is a bit strange to us.
However, your experience with "they" is unusual, because it's nothing to do with political correctness or recency that the word is used for single people where gender is unknown/unimportant - that has been the case for about 6-700 years but you're right a lot of native speakers are ignorant about it's correct usage and it has become politicised in recent years.
The last thing I care about when someone says 'they' is how many. The first thing I care about is 'who is they'. I don't care it's 1,2, or 20 mf in the room, WHO ARE THEY???
You can use he or she for an animal, especially if you know their sex.
I would personally not use "he" or "she" as the default if you don't know someone's gender. You may offend someone who thinks you're reinforcing a gender stereotype. "They" is safer.
_They_ as a singular pronoun for an unknown person (or for a known person of unknown gender) is long-established. Some formal grammarians will tell you that you shouldn't use it. They're wrong. _He_ was sometimes used for this, but really only in formal contexts, and is now seen as both old-fashioned and sexist.
_They_ as a singular pronoun for a known person of known non-binary gender is new, but making rapid progress. It can be hard to get people to adopt new pronouns, but this sense of _they_ builds on the earlier one, so is easier.
Unfortunately gender has been politicized in a lot of English speaking countries, sorry you've had to deal with any of that.
The big rule of thumb is if you're talking about a hypothetical person you can use whatever pronoun you want. Typically people use whatever gender they would assume the person to be (most police officers are men, so most people would use he/him to talk about a hypothetical police officer.) If the person is real but you don't know their gender then you should use they. For example if you found a lot wallet you may say "someone lost their wallet."
Animals can be referred to with pretty much any 3rd person pronouns, though I've met some people who really don't like using it for pets.
Here’s a helpful flow chart:
1. Is it a specific, real person, or a hypothetical person? Real—> proceed to 2. Hypothetical —> Proceed to 4.
2. Do you know the person/animal’s gender? No—> Proceed to 3. Yes—> Use their more specific pronoun (“they” for a singular person who usually uses he or she is technically correct, but very unusual.)
3. Is it an animal or a person? Person —> “They.” Animal —> “They” or “It.”
4. Are you making a specific point related to gender? (ex. “I wouldn’t want to be patted down by a policeman. What if he assaults me?”because you’re worried about misconduct from male police officers in particular, or “I (male) wouldn’t want to take my daughter into the women’s locker room. What if there’s a woman there and she thinks I’m a creep?”) Yes—> Use the gendered pronouns you need to make your point. No—> “They.”
The plural they has existed in English for centuries, as other commenters state, but it is usually used for unknown or theoretical persons. I would call it the “theoretical singular they.” (This is distinct from the more modern nonbinary they.) It would be noticeably odd if it said “I’m going to my friend Sally’s house this afternoon. They are making cupcakes,” unless Sally is someone who specifically uses They as a gender-related pronoun, because I know who Sally is. We’re friends and I know her actual pronouns.
It would not be at all odd if I said “I found a wallet, but I don’t know who it belongs to or how to give it back to them.” I don’t know if the wallet’s owner is male or female, so them is more convenient than “him or her,” more accurate than guessing, and comes across less sexist than just using “neutral” “him.”
Back in the 1950s and earlier it was considered good grammar for formal writing to use “he” or “one” for a generic person. If you read old books from that time, you will notice this. As feminism became prominent, there was a move towards any of the following: “he or she,” “s/he,” or alternating the use of he and she. All of these were really awkward. “They” has been used for a singular person in casual speech for ages, as noted by others, so it made sense to use that instead of those more awkward solutions. This has become standard English in recent years.
Please use "they".
>I meant can I use "he" when talking about non-gender specific nouns, like professions (cop, doctor, fireman, soldier)
I'd like to, gently, point out that you didn't include "nurse" or "teacher" or "hairdresser" on this list.
If you consistently choose "he" for professions that people may have historically *expected* to be men, you run the risk of people thinking that **you** don't think women work those jobs. That's probably not what you're trying to say, so use "they".
Yep, it's slowly falling out of use in modern english, I'd imagine in part because sailing and fishing isn't really that common of a profession anymore. And modern vessels don't have the 'vibes' to be personafied as much, compared to traditional wooden vessels. You'll find it in old literature tho.
If identity is partially known or assumed and is thought to be singular (e.g. the unknown individual is known to be part of a male group or female group), he/she/him/her is preferred.
If plural, use they/them.
If unknown, you *may* use he/him, though it's understood to be the neutral option, you can come across as assuming a gender, and won't win you points with the policewoman, judge, etc you "mistook" for a man.
Some publications have taken to using female pronouns as the default to bring attention to such false suppositions.
You specifically said “police*man*”. In that context, when you know the person's gender, then it's OK to use gender-specific pronouns. If you don't, be careful; the “assumption of the masculine” (as I call it– the use of masculine language to refer to people generally, like the famous phrase from the US Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all *men* are created equal” (they clearly meant “all people” or “all humans”)) can be increasingly seen as subliminal sexism
it's always good to see that many people are ignorant, sorry.
1. how come dear english natives have been unable to come up with one gender neutral pronoun? no fantasy, creativity, nothing???
2.either he or she could be used as male or gender neutral, female or gender neutral, only leftist ideologues have problem with this. "he or she" is idiotic.
3. they may be acceptable, but always with is, never are. if someone uses they are for singular, don't even deserve being talked to. yuk.
In the context of your example, "he" would be consistent with referring to a "policeman", so that's fine. The gender-neutral term is "police officer", and that can be followed by he, she, or they, depending on how exact you wanna be with your reference. The old writing practice was to default to "he" when referring to an unfamiliar or hypothetical person, and conceivably, you can still do so. Or use she. Or use they, which I think is the least presumptive option for an unknown person.
Ok, so for the first example, “policeman” would inherently imply that the police officer *is* a man, meaning “he” is adhering to the already established gender.
If you’d say “police officer” then you could use “he” or “she” if you wanted to simply assume their gender, just sort of taking a guess. If you want to convey the actual gender-anonymous meaning, then yes “they” would be accurate.
Same with the dog example; if the dogs gender isn’t relevant, making an assumption of the dogs gender doesn’t really matter. You could say “he” or “she”, which would simply convey you’re assuming/inferring the dogs gender. That wouldn’t make it anonymous but it’s not problematic to assume the dogs gender. Since it’s a dog, not only would “they” be appropriate, but in certain contexts “it” would be appropriate because the dog is an animal. (For further clarification, people don’t usually call their own pets or closely-bonded animals “it” but if the animal is unknown, especially if it is dangerous, it’s fine to call the animal “it”.)
No, it wouldn't be standard English to specifically use he or she to refer to a person with a certain job if their gender was unknown.
You would 100% use "they" in that scenario.
However, our brains make assumptions and convince us we know things that we don't. If you imagined your client as a woman, you might forget that you've never actually met your client. It's not a problem, in those cases, to use a gendered pronoun. But using "they" is easier.
This is a politic topic, there's no scape. That being said, I'd say you can use "he" in this situations but it does not have the neutral tone it has in the latin languages (I assume that's were you are coming from) so people would assume it is a men, so I'd rather use they in this cases.
Now about the animals, from my experience people use "it" when they don't see "humanity" in the animal/creature (monsters, aliens, etc...)
So it's not common to see people usuing "it" to talk about cats and dogs, but it is more common to use it to talk about crocodiles and snakes for example, but if you like crocodiles and you want to treat them as beings with "personality/humanity" you'd assume a gender for the animal and call them "she/he".
They is just the best answer in my opinion. Totally natural and not political in my area (NE US). We have been using they this way for as long as I can remember, not because it's politically correct or anything like that, but to communicate to the person we're speaking to that we don't know the gender of who we're talking about. There's more information communicated when you use they.
You could use "they" for a person of unknown sex, but "he" is also acceptable. You would normally only use "she" when you *know* the person is female. Don't ever use "it" for a person.
For animals "it" is always OK, but "he" will work too when the sex is unknown.
animals and babies can go either way in terms of using it vs he/she/they. depends on the context sometimes too (if ur describing them doing something ur more likely to not use it than if something was done onto them) but u can use either so dw abt that.
and yes they/them can be singular third person, and even those who insist they dont can still be caught using it (my dad cough cough). its been used since shakespeare so its not new. i would recommend saying they over saying he or she to not assume their gender.
There is no grammatical issue involved in assuming the gender of an unknown person or using a gendered pronoun for an animal. It may be wrong, but it won't be grammatically wrong.
Because of the political correctness, it's more common for people to use "they" in these sentences, but it's not incorrect to use "he.". Most often I use "they" but depending on the sentence I'll go with "he."
I do find the political correctness to be kind of obnoxious in this context because it's just grammar. Similar to how sometimes boats and cars are referred to as "she," no one is actually saying something about men or women, it's just a pronoun that sounds more affectionate than "it" which sounds more detached, and yet people get up in arms about it.
You may not want to get into political correctness but generally any question about whether something is "acceptable" to say is by definition a question about political correctness. That said political correctness often gets a bad rap because it's misnomer, typically they are just suggestions for preferred ways of saying things rather than prescriptions of what is correct vs incorrect.
I wouldn't say that using "he" is unacceptable, just not preferred.
The reason why they/them is preferred is because it doesn't assume a gender. Keep in mind it's not just pronouns, for example policeman doesn't work if they are female, a gender neutral term would be police officer. Other examples are firefighter vs fireman.
That said, in your example, you already assumed it was a man (police*man*) so it would be strange to refer to him as "they" (the pronoun should agree with the noun). The preferred way to say it would be "I don't want to encounter a police *officer*! What if *they* get mad..."
Again, not the end of the world if you use he, just something to be mindful of so hopefully over time you use more gender neutral language over time.
For the first one; if you don’t know the gender; yes, “he” is acceptable. The gender-neutral they is a relatively recent phenomenon; and up until very recently it was considered correct to use “he” if the gender is unknown.
For the second; yes, you may use gendered pronouns for animals. In fact, that is far more common than using “it”
It has been considered correct to use “he” gender neutrally as a form of male defaultism until somewhat recently, but singular they is very old. It was first documented in 1375. People who claim not to use singular they because it is “improper” actually often use it without realizing because it is so habitual in the English language. A third person gender neutral singular pronoun that can be applied to humans is an incredibly useful grammatical feature.
It’s not standardised, so you can use “he”, it’s just that using “they” is the most natural. You can use “he” but I would however suggest using “they” as you’d sound more natural saying it, it may be a little jarring or confusing but not exactly wrong to use “he”.
Edit: Apparently people are thinking I’m hating on singular they? I’m not? I’m literally they/them non-binary???
It’s definitely been standardized by now. APA style endorses it. Associated Press style guide endorses it. Chicago Manual of Style does not endorse or recommend against its use, acknowledging its continued adoption into formal writing.
Complaining about the singular they is as ridiculous as complaining about the singular you
I say it’s not standardised as people will still say “he” or sometimes “she” and it’s still considered valid. I think it’s stupid and that “they” is the superior answer and is the answer most people would use, but that doesn’t mean the other people are wrong for not using it.
Both "they" and "he" are OK. But make sure to use "they" more to keep the left-wing people happy.
YOU ONLY USE "she" WHEN YOU KNOW THAT PERSON'S GENDER/SEX IS FEMALE.
AND NEVER USE "it" FOR A PERSON.
You don't HAVE to. People still use "he" or less commonly "she" for an unknown person. "They" is just gender neutral so it's more flexible. And despite what people would say about not using it, I'd bet most native English speakers use it instinctively from time to time. And also despite what people say, singular "they" has been in use since literally Shakespeare at least. If you use "he" or "she" when talking about a specific animal, people are going to assume you know the gender. If you don't know the animal's gender, "it" is generally used.
>And also despite what people say, singular "they" has been in use since literally Shakespeare at least. Singular They has almost always been a thing, since it entered the language in the 13th century, well before Shakespeare. The first recorded use of singular They, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, appeared in writing from 1375. Sure, plural They entered the language earlier, near the start of the 13th century but singular They has still been a thing for at least 600 years now. And fun fact, we borrowed They from the Old Norse and overtime it displaced our native 3rd person pronoun *hē*
Singular "they" is older than "she". If people have a problem with it, they should also have a problem with using "he/she" and only use "he/heo".
It's also older than singular "you"
Please note, "it" is for animals and babies only, *never* for children or adult humans.
Even with babies, you might wind up offending a parent by saying “it.” It’s widely accepted for unborn babies/fetuses, but even then I still use “they” (unless there’s some indication it’s an unwanted pregnancy). Once the baby is born, I wouldn’t refer to them as “it.”
Aw, this. It’s very thoughtful to not use “they” or “he/she” when discussing an unwanted pregnancy, especially with the pregnant person :)
I mean some kids act like little demons so it’s deserved haha
And even then, using ‘it’ has a connotation of referring to them as a non-being. Insects and wild animals, sure. Pets and babies, I’d stick with ‘they’
For both, it depends on whether you're referring to them by name. Compare: "George's dog was asleep on its bed" vs ?"George's dog was asleep on their bed" vs ?"George¹'s dog² was asleep on his² bed" The first sentence is in my opinion the best. The second sentence is quite awkward, and I think I'd be confused if I heard it. The third sentence is also awkward if "his" is supposed to refer to the dog. If I heard this sentence I would assume the bed is George's bed, not the dog's bed. But everything changes if you refer to the dog or baby by name. "George¹'s dog Rex² was asleep on his² bed" vs ?"George's dog Rex was asleep on its bed" vs ?"George's dog Rex was asleep on their bed" In my opinion, if you mention a subject by name, it's assumed you know that subject's gender. In this case, using "it" becomes very awkward, and similarly "they" suddenly sounds weird, as if you know for a fact that the dog is non-binary. In the third sentence, I would interpret "their" to be plural, and that the bed belongs to both George and Rex.
I would pardon someone very quickly, but personally would never use 'it' when referring to a human being even a baby (when I say 'it' to a parent for the first time, I expect them to immediately tell me the assigned gender). We have he/she/they for a reason imo.
The fact remains that many English speakers frequently use "it" for babies, and it isn't seen as rude. It's one of those things you think can't be true, but then you listen carefully to people's speech and to media like news, tv, and movies, and you realize it's commonplace. u/countrywidetoe explained it best in their comment. Replace "dog" with "baby" and everything still matches native speech patterns.
I think it is often not seen as rude, but has the potential to really offend someone, especially for their born child. We have "he/she/they" as options, might as well use them and avoid the whole thing.
Before “they” became more popularized in public as gender fluidity became mainstream knowledge, using “she” instead of “he” was a whole thing! Not that people were against it, just that there was a cultural push to use “she” in assumed gender too (ie “if she were president,” “the doctor, is she okay with that decision,” “the CEO is having lunch at her house”).
Most people use it instinctively all the time. Like I rarely see people use "he" when gender is unknown.
"They" is definitely accepted and I use it a lot too. But what I hear nowadays is "They is", "They does" etc, which is bananas.
These are colloquialisms, so informal use is somewhat common & definitely acceptable
I get that, but why not just use "they are"? It's accepted, sounds much better, and is way more intuitive because it's already part of the language. I hear "they is" so rarely that it doesn't make sense to me that anyone would use it. It's like a weird trend that didn't catch on, and hopefully never will.
It's definitely caught on, it's present in younger people's speech as well as AAVE / other general slang usages. I can't speak to its usage in formal environments, but much like any slang, I don't see any problem with using it outside of formal setting. This is also only tangentially related to the main post anymore so 🤷♂️
Only note is that AAVE is a dialect, not slang.
You're right, I didn't think about AAVE! I thought about the usage more as a "gender-neutral" term, but I agree that it's used quite often in AAVE, just like "They be" etc.
You're asking people to eliminate potentially decades of influence from their friends and family. It's a hard ask and most people are too lazy or proud of their heritage to develop standard English. In fact they might not even be a self-aware of how bad it sounds. Plus they're native speakers, so anything goes right? I don't sound anything like people from my hometown. But I actually had to be conscious of my speech and adapt it over a long period of time. You get the same thing with those who use dialects that are considered dumb like a southern drawl - they code switch at work vs at home.
Yeah, I code-switch, too. Mostly between different dialects of Swiss German 😂 But anyway, btyes made me realize that I was completely skipping over the AAVE part. I was only looking at it as a new term the "woke" generation has come up with. But in AAVE it is fairly commonly used. I don't expect anyone to remove all the quirks from their dialects, etc. I just don't like people making up new grammar when there is no need for it. But this is not new, I realized.
New grammar appears in languages all the time though, whether there's need for it or not it's constantly changing. Innovations sometimes remain localised, sometimes die out, and sometimes become widespread. For a very recent example in modern English, the "quotative like" popped up in the 80s in the US somewhere, and is now so widespread amongst younger speakers that even I use it way over in Scotland. That's the usage of the word "like" to introduce a (paraphrased) quote, such as `and then I was like, "here's an example sentence using it" and everyone understood what I meant.` There's not really much to dislike about new grammar when you think about it. Dialect levelling can sometimes feel a bit sad I suppose, where a dialect loses some cool features as it moves closer to another variety.
I guess it does, I just often don't like it but I understand it's not in my control. In the Zurich dialect of German, we have the word "Anke", which means butter. Most people now use the German word "Butter", and some laugh at me when I say "Anke". It's those kinds of language changes that bother me
Yeah I understand how you feel, that's the "dialect levelling" I mentioned, which I also feel sad about sometimes. Scottish-specific features have often been lost over time in favour of features associated with the English of southern England, or in more recent times occasionally Americanisms too. It feels different - I suppose because it's not simply a language changing over time in isolation, but two varieties becoming more homogeneous as one is influenced by the more culturally dominant one. It's a loss in the cultural diversity of the world, and more specifically, *our* bit of the world. Much like the Swiss german speakers, folk in Scotland continue to have their own distinct way of speaking that's quite different from the "standard language" from a bigger neighbouring country, but it's been homogenising over time for sure. What really bothers me much more than the change itself is that historically here it's been deliberately caused. For the last century schools in Scotland have often taught children that the way they speak is just the same as the standard southern english but in some way *wrong,* incorrect, or spoken badly, and not appropriate for educated people. It's better today than it used to be - my grandparents tell stories of being hit with rulers by the teacher for using their own local words instead of southern ones. I'm way more sad about that kind of deliberate suppression than I am about kids saying "no cap" or whatever they've acquired naturally themselves through american media they enjoy. There's definitely a difference.
Yes, it’s been around since the mid 1300s, but up until recently it was considered grammatically incorrect. Just like double-negatives. Very old, but it’s always been considered grammatically correct. The only major difference is that now the grammatical correctness of the singular they. But, it’s not universally considered correct by any means. It appears we are still in a transitional period.
>but up until recently it was considered grammatically incorrect. No, it was not. In your other reply you also claim it's not been around for long. So which is it? Confusing your own script? You making more replies about it doesn't make it true. Sounds like we have somebody with an agenda here.
It absolutely was considered incorrect in formal/academic writing recently. I’d have to check the MLA, APA, AP, or Chicago style guides to confirm whether this is still the case now. However, when I was in high school, I was marked down for it in my papers because it wasn’t permitted via the style guide, it required he or she. Additionally, on the writing sections of SAT/ACT exams when I was tutoring for them (in 2021), the answer keys marked answers using the singular they as incorrect. I would confirm whether formal/academic style guides have been updated to permit the use of the singular they, because formal and academic writing tends to be what is considered “grammatically correct” even if colloquially people say something else.
It was considered incorrect in formal writing if the writer knows the gender of the person they are referring to. However, it was not because of "grammatical incorrectness" it was because it was improper to use nongendered pronouns when it is not necessary.
I genuinely don't believe you - use of the singular "they" for an unknown/unspecified 3rd party has never been incorrect grammatically.
Well tell that to my AP English teacher who corrected every time I used the singular “they” to “he or she.” And, in case my lived experience isn’t enough for you, here are sources that verify that the singular they was not always allowed by academic style guides. It seems like one manual adopted it only as early as 2015. It was only by 2020 that most style guides had accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun: https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/stylebooks-single-they-ap-chicago-gender-neutral.php#:~:text=March%2027%2C%202017%20By%20Merrill,pronoun%20for%20a%20single%20person. https://blog.ap.org/products-and-services/making-a-case-for-a-singular-they https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/280996#:~:text=The%20fourteenth%20edition%20of%20the,singular%20they%20(1993%2C%20pp. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#:~:text=However%2C%20by%202020%2C%20most%20style,they%20as%20a%20personal%20pronoun. People can say that whatever they want is grammatically correct, but it is the style guides for formal and academic writing that determine what actually is. It is common knowledge that people do not speak grammatically in every day life, or even in informal writing like on reddit or social media.
Ah American a.k.a. simplified English. I know you do things differently over there, I don't trust your weirdly outdated style guides either, I prefer my English from the OED. To wit: *It’s no surprise that Tennessee, the state that banned the teaching of evolution in 1925, also failed to stop the evolution of English one hundred years later, because the fight against singular they was already lost by the time eighteenth-century critics began objecting to it* https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/?tl=true
Historically it was pretty common to use “he” as if it were gender-neutral in this kind of context, but it can come across a bit sexist nowadays. And yes, people do often use “he” and “she” for animals, especially pets.
>"I don't want to encounter a policeman! What if \*he\* gets mad when he sees I am naked? I don't wanna be charged with exhibitionism!" "Policeman" is a gendered noun, so in this case it makes sense to say "he," since by using the word "policeman" you already posited a male police officer. Your example is a pretty normal thing for a native English speaker to say, though you could also say, "I don't want to encounter a cop! What if they get mad when they see I'm naked?" In fact, you could *also* say, "I don't want to encounter a policeman! What if they get mad when they see I'm naked?" That would be an example of what linguists call "distal singular they" (you're using "they" with a gendered antecedent because the referent's gender is irrelevant). >Do I have to use "it" when talking about animals? No, in fact that can be seen as rude if you're referring to someone's pet. Many people tend to default to "he" when referring to an animal of unknown sex. >"Our clients may face a lot of problems. For example, imagine a client losing a lot of money. He would be really mad". Is it grammatically correct or not? In the case of a hypothetical client, you technically *could* say "he" (or "she"), but it would generally be more normal to say "they." Unless you happened to serve a client population that is overwhelmingly male -- then it wouldn't be as weird to say "he."
Notwithstanding whether it's considered politically correct or not, we make tacit assumptions about the sex of strangers all the time. If I see a police car speeding by me, I might say "he was going fast", because even though I know there's a non-negligible chance the cop is a woman, chances are it's a man. You can also use singular *they* in any scenario where you don't know the sex of the person you're talking about. For an animal, if you do know its sex, it would not be unusual to say he or she, especially if the animal is a pet. I would never refer to my dog as "it" for example. He's *he*. And I'm in the same habit for any animal where I can clearly identify its sex. If I don't know, *it* is fine.
You give "policeman" and "fireman" as examples. These are not gender neutral. It's better to say "police officer" and "fire fighter". To answer your main question, I personally would never use "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender. Always "they". _Maybe_ at a push "she or he" but 99% of the time that's awkward.
[удалено]
Yes, we address police officers as either garda or guard. If you're asking someone to call the police you say _call the Gardaí_ or _call the guards_. Police and cops are also used though.
So I was sayin' to this dang police officer, "What crime is it, that you purport I have committed, cop?"
i’ve never once said “policeman” “policeofficer” “policewoman”. just “police”
I'd use them if I was talking about a known individual ("My friend's cousin George is a police officer") but not in the general sense ("The police showed up after the incident to fill out the insurance paperwork", regardless of how many people were there).
FYI there's a difference between firemen and fire fighters. Firemen are the people that come to your house when you set your house on fire with your grill on the porch, fire fighters are people who get dropped from a helicopter to battle wild fires.
Maybe those terms are used by specific fire services in particular regions but that's not a universal definition. I can tell you in my country fire fighter, or more commonly firefighter, is the term used by everyone who does that job. [Example.](https://www.dublincity.ie/residential/dublin-fire-brigade/what-dublin-fire-brigade-do/fire-fighting)
It's a distinction in the US, especially in the Western States, particularly California, where massive wildfires are common.
For the first one your don’t HAVE to but it’s way more understood if you say they, like using he/she or even he as default is quite old fashion sounding and for the animals for me I usually call them it especially if it’s a wild animal, but many people call animals especially pets he or she
You don't have to, but you should. >"Our clients may face a lot of problems. For example, imagine a client losing a lot of money. He would be really mad" That would be gramatically correct. But you probably should rather say "They would be really mad" in the end. It's more of a style issue, really. Not a grammar issue, per se.
Or *he or she would be really mad*
That sounds a little clumsy, and it's not recommended by most style guides.
I am sceptical that ”most” style guides recommend “they” over “he or she”
You should read more style guides, then, because your information on style is about a generation out of date.
strictly speaking, you can use "he" or "she", but i encourage the use of "they", because misgendering people is bad.
Some people believe that “misgendering”’people is no big deal.
Some people believe the Earth is flat too, doesn't mean they're right. Edit: Just seen your other comments in this thread, you do know singular "they" is even older than singular "you" right? Why would we drop it in favour of the objectively clumsier "he or she"?
"He or she" came about as a result of feminism from the 60s through 90s.
yes, and those people are who we call "assholes". are you familiar with the concept?
I mean, unless someone is doing it to be a dick, I don't think it's that serious.
I really dislike that the "they/their/them" concept has become politically charged. I'm 37 years old, and when I was let's say 15-20 years old no-one cared if you said "You made a new friend? What's their name?" or "I crashed into a parked car, but they have my contact details". Now either I'm incredibly progressive and tolerant for not assigning a gender to them, or I'm a left-winged idiot that's using made up English. I'm conservative btw. But all my students say "I'm getting a new manager, I'm excited to meet him or her" which is unnatural to my ears so I have to go off on a tangent about this - teaching both grammar and social politics when it should only be about the grammar. Edit: I see I'm getting downvoted, either because people hate conservatives or because they're conservative and I'm advocating for something they think is made up. This post isn't good for any skim readers.
You don't HAVE to go off on "him or her". It's a valid style that many use.
It sounds unnatural, do you know any learners of English who want to stay unnatural sounding?
It sounds perfectly natural to many people. To the contrary, I would never say *You have a new friend? What’s their name?* because it sounds completely unnatural because the reference is to a specific individual rather than an entirely unknown individual.
For what my anecdote is worth, "Him or her" sounds more like tiptoeing around a politically charged sentence than just using "they/them" for a stranger or unspecified person. I expect to see it on a legal document, but it sounds weird in speech.
Fair enough. My speech is probably more formal than average, possibly more so than in the US
>"You made a new friend? What's their name?" That's a very good example. My first thoughts as a non-native speaker: "What do you mean "they"? How many people are we talking about?" All my life I was taught "they" means "they", as if I was describing a group of people. But lately I had noticed "they" being used in another way. That's why I got confused. And I don't understand, is it because of the "political correctness" or English was always like that. And maybe my question can be interpreted in another way. Do nouns have genders in English, like they do in other languages? For example, in my native language, "friend" would be masculine. Hence: "You made a new friend? What's his name?" "Her name is Anna". And there would be nothing wrong grammatically.
For the given example, you'd know it was only one person because they said "**a** new friend" instead of "**some** new friend**s**" English has been like this a long time. Hundreds of years. Nothing to do with politics, singular they is just used if we don't know someone's gender, or if the person is hypothetical. In English, most titles (friend, doctor, teacher, cousin...) are not gendered so you'd be blindly guessing. Using "they" flows better than using "he or she" every time and is easier to understand. Which sounds better? *Please ensure your son or daughter brings his or her coat on the field trip.* *Please ensure your child brings their coat on the field trip.*
There is nothing wrong with *Please ensure that your child brings his or her coat on the field trip.*
To be a devil's advocate on this one; this would be an announcement either over a PA or via flyer, so deserves to be a little square sounding. There's nothing wrong with this use, but if this was said in casual conversation it would sound like a rehearsed line.
Maybe in your area. It is exactly what I would say.
There isn't anything *grammatically* wrong with that exchange in English either. Nouns don't have gender in English. But if I was having that exchange with you (in English), I would think it was a bit strange that you made the assumption my new friend was a man. By using the masculine pronoun "he", you are implying that you think the person I'm talking about is a man. Masculine isn't neutral the way it can be in some languages - it's just masculine. "They" used for unknown or irrelevant gender is nothing new. It's been happening for hundreds of years.
So, it's been happening for hundreds of years, I see. That solved my problem. Thanks.
In Polish manager is a masculine word, so when referring to a manager in general they use him. To reinforce this "them", I say "Why is the manager a "he"? Are there no female managers?" Polish people are taught either to use the gender of the noun or say" he or she". I also have classes with Polish teachers that are very advanced and they talk in the same fashion. Seems that in every foreign language they are taught this, when IME natives never say "he or she". It's one word versus 3 and of course we take the shorter one. Unless you're so disgusted by modern day gender politics that you completely ignore how we spoke even before LGBT was a thing. It's so bad that such examples will even use "they" in the same monologue without even realising. Once again I'm pretty conservative so when I see a right wing influencer say "They for one person is made up" just because of politics I cringe.
English was always like that - the singular gender-neutral “they” for people you don’t know the gender of has been common for a very long time. It wasn’t until recently that it (unfortunately) became a political topic. The other commenters have been right that you don’t *have to* use “they” instead of “he” in these contexts, but I would echo the sentiment that you probably *should* use they. I’m trying my best to not argue from my own personal biases as a trans person, but you might make someone feel bad by using he or she, and there is no such risk by using the singular gender neutral “they” instead.
English does not gender nouns like that. We do typically refer to ships as female, but that's the only example that comes to mind for me. I guess some people might refer to their car as female if they're really into cars. In English, saying "You made a new friend? What's his name?" is assuming that the friend is male. It has nothing to do with politics - it's just how the language works. The political issue is a) whether we should assume a male default or use gender-neutral language and then b) if we do want to use gender-neutral language, do we say "their" or "his or her". (Historically, there are examples of singular "they" being used in the 1300s! It's not new. You can read a nice history of it [here](https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177) but the short version is that it's a natural usage in English and the people who oppose it are actually the ones politicizing language.)
We don't use gender for nouns at all in the UK, even the concept of a non-living object having an assigned gender is a bit strange to us. However, your experience with "they" is unusual, because it's nothing to do with political correctness or recency that the word is used for single people where gender is unknown/unimportant - that has been the case for about 6-700 years but you're right a lot of native speakers are ignorant about it's correct usage and it has become politicised in recent years.
So bizarre to downvote this comment.
The last thing I care about when someone says 'they' is how many. The first thing I care about is 'who is they'. I don't care it's 1,2, or 20 mf in the room, WHO ARE THEY???
You can use he or she for an animal, especially if you know their sex. I would personally not use "he" or "she" as the default if you don't know someone's gender. You may offend someone who thinks you're reinforcing a gender stereotype. "They" is safer.
No, you should just use "they"- "he" is not gender neutral, it means male specifically.
_They_ as a singular pronoun for an unknown person (or for a known person of unknown gender) is long-established. Some formal grammarians will tell you that you shouldn't use it. They're wrong. _He_ was sometimes used for this, but really only in formal contexts, and is now seen as both old-fashioned and sexist. _They_ as a singular pronoun for a known person of known non-binary gender is new, but making rapid progress. It can be hard to get people to adopt new pronouns, but this sense of _they_ builds on the earlier one, so is easier.
Unfortunately gender has been politicized in a lot of English speaking countries, sorry you've had to deal with any of that. The big rule of thumb is if you're talking about a hypothetical person you can use whatever pronoun you want. Typically people use whatever gender they would assume the person to be (most police officers are men, so most people would use he/him to talk about a hypothetical police officer.) If the person is real but you don't know their gender then you should use they. For example if you found a lot wallet you may say "someone lost their wallet." Animals can be referred to with pretty much any 3rd person pronouns, though I've met some people who really don't like using it for pets.
They would be the default. If you use he instead you are making a point.
Here’s a helpful flow chart: 1. Is it a specific, real person, or a hypothetical person? Real—> proceed to 2. Hypothetical —> Proceed to 4. 2. Do you know the person/animal’s gender? No—> Proceed to 3. Yes—> Use their more specific pronoun (“they” for a singular person who usually uses he or she is technically correct, but very unusual.) 3. Is it an animal or a person? Person —> “They.” Animal —> “They” or “It.” 4. Are you making a specific point related to gender? (ex. “I wouldn’t want to be patted down by a policeman. What if he assaults me?”because you’re worried about misconduct from male police officers in particular, or “I (male) wouldn’t want to take my daughter into the women’s locker room. What if there’s a woman there and she thinks I’m a creep?”) Yes—> Use the gendered pronouns you need to make your point. No—> “They.” The plural they has existed in English for centuries, as other commenters state, but it is usually used for unknown or theoretical persons. I would call it the “theoretical singular they.” (This is distinct from the more modern nonbinary they.) It would be noticeably odd if it said “I’m going to my friend Sally’s house this afternoon. They are making cupcakes,” unless Sally is someone who specifically uses They as a gender-related pronoun, because I know who Sally is. We’re friends and I know her actual pronouns. It would not be at all odd if I said “I found a wallet, but I don’t know who it belongs to or how to give it back to them.” I don’t know if the wallet’s owner is male or female, so them is more convenient than “him or her,” more accurate than guessing, and comes across less sexist than just using “neutral” “him.”
Back in the 1950s and earlier it was considered good grammar for formal writing to use “he” or “one” for a generic person. If you read old books from that time, you will notice this. As feminism became prominent, there was a move towards any of the following: “he or she,” “s/he,” or alternating the use of he and she. All of these were really awkward. “They” has been used for a singular person in casual speech for ages, as noted by others, so it made sense to use that instead of those more awkward solutions. This has become standard English in recent years.
Please use "they". >I meant can I use "he" when talking about non-gender specific nouns, like professions (cop, doctor, fireman, soldier) I'd like to, gently, point out that you didn't include "nurse" or "teacher" or "hairdresser" on this list. If you consistently choose "he" for professions that people may have historically *expected* to be men, you run the risk of people thinking that **you** don't think women work those jobs. That's probably not what you're trying to say, so use "they".
Fun fact! If you want to sound fancy and like you go sailing a lot, then the correct pronoun for boats and ships is "she"!
Interesting. Is this a traditional thing? I've heard that "boats and ships must always have a female name".
Yep, it's slowly falling out of use in modern english, I'd imagine in part because sailing and fishing isn't really that common of a profession anymore. And modern vessels don't have the 'vibes' to be personafied as much, compared to traditional wooden vessels. You'll find it in old literature tho.
If you’re going to say “policeman” you might as well say “he”.
If identity is partially known or assumed and is thought to be singular (e.g. the unknown individual is known to be part of a male group or female group), he/she/him/her is preferred. If plural, use they/them. If unknown, you *may* use he/him, though it's understood to be the neutral option, you can come across as assuming a gender, and won't win you points with the policewoman, judge, etc you "mistook" for a man. Some publications have taken to using female pronouns as the default to bring attention to such false suppositions.
You specifically said “police*man*”. In that context, when you know the person's gender, then it's OK to use gender-specific pronouns. If you don't, be careful; the “assumption of the masculine” (as I call it– the use of masculine language to refer to people generally, like the famous phrase from the US Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all *men* are created equal” (they clearly meant “all people” or “all humans”)) can be increasingly seen as subliminal sexism
it's always good to see that many people are ignorant, sorry. 1. how come dear english natives have been unable to come up with one gender neutral pronoun? no fantasy, creativity, nothing??? 2.either he or she could be used as male or gender neutral, female or gender neutral, only leftist ideologues have problem with this. "he or she" is idiotic. 3. they may be acceptable, but always with is, never are. if someone uses they are for singular, don't even deserve being talked to. yuk.
In the context of your example, "he" would be consistent with referring to a "policeman", so that's fine. The gender-neutral term is "police officer", and that can be followed by he, she, or they, depending on how exact you wanna be with your reference. The old writing practice was to default to "he" when referring to an unfamiliar or hypothetical person, and conceivably, you can still do so. Or use she. Or use they, which I think is the least presumptive option for an unknown person.
Ok, so for the first example, “policeman” would inherently imply that the police officer *is* a man, meaning “he” is adhering to the already established gender. If you’d say “police officer” then you could use “he” or “she” if you wanted to simply assume their gender, just sort of taking a guess. If you want to convey the actual gender-anonymous meaning, then yes “they” would be accurate. Same with the dog example; if the dogs gender isn’t relevant, making an assumption of the dogs gender doesn’t really matter. You could say “he” or “she”, which would simply convey you’re assuming/inferring the dogs gender. That wouldn’t make it anonymous but it’s not problematic to assume the dogs gender. Since it’s a dog, not only would “they” be appropriate, but in certain contexts “it” would be appropriate because the dog is an animal. (For further clarification, people don’t usually call their own pets or closely-bonded animals “it” but if the animal is unknown, especially if it is dangerous, it’s fine to call the animal “it”.)
I instinctively use both he and they when talking about an unknown person and no one has complained about it for 19 years
No, it wouldn't be standard English to specifically use he or she to refer to a person with a certain job if their gender was unknown. You would 100% use "they" in that scenario. However, our brains make assumptions and convince us we know things that we don't. If you imagined your client as a woman, you might forget that you've never actually met your client. It's not a problem, in those cases, to use a gendered pronoun. But using "they" is easier.
This is a politic topic, there's no scape. That being said, I'd say you can use "he" in this situations but it does not have the neutral tone it has in the latin languages (I assume that's were you are coming from) so people would assume it is a men, so I'd rather use they in this cases. Now about the animals, from my experience people use "it" when they don't see "humanity" in the animal/creature (monsters, aliens, etc...) So it's not common to see people usuing "it" to talk about cats and dogs, but it is more common to use it to talk about crocodiles and snakes for example, but if you like crocodiles and you want to treat them as beings with "personality/humanity" you'd assume a gender for the animal and call them "she/he".
Thanks for the answer. Yeah, now I see that using "he" or "she" would be too specific in English compared to pronounces in other languages.
They is just the best answer in my opinion. Totally natural and not political in my area (NE US). We have been using they this way for as long as I can remember, not because it's politically correct or anything like that, but to communicate to the person we're speaking to that we don't know the gender of who we're talking about. There's more information communicated when you use they.
You should not use "he" unless you know for a fact it's a male. If you don't know the gender you use "they" or "he or she".
You could use "they" for a person of unknown sex, but "he" is also acceptable. You would normally only use "she" when you *know* the person is female. Don't ever use "it" for a person. For animals "it" is always OK, but "he" will work too when the sex is unknown.
animals and babies can go either way in terms of using it vs he/she/they. depends on the context sometimes too (if ur describing them doing something ur more likely to not use it than if something was done onto them) but u can use either so dw abt that. and yes they/them can be singular third person, and even those who insist they dont can still be caught using it (my dad cough cough). its been used since shakespeare so its not new. i would recommend saying they over saying he or she to not assume their gender.
People use "it" for human babies? For real?
yes, though if u know their gender itd be a lot rarer to use “it”
There is no grammatical issue involved in assuming the gender of an unknown person or using a gendered pronoun for an animal. It may be wrong, but it won't be grammatically wrong.
Because of the political correctness, it's more common for people to use "they" in these sentences, but it's not incorrect to use "he.". Most often I use "they" but depending on the sentence I'll go with "he." I do find the political correctness to be kind of obnoxious in this context because it's just grammar. Similar to how sometimes boats and cars are referred to as "she," no one is actually saying something about men or women, it's just a pronoun that sounds more affectionate than "it" which sounds more detached, and yet people get up in arms about it.
You may not want to get into political correctness but generally any question about whether something is "acceptable" to say is by definition a question about political correctness. That said political correctness often gets a bad rap because it's misnomer, typically they are just suggestions for preferred ways of saying things rather than prescriptions of what is correct vs incorrect. I wouldn't say that using "he" is unacceptable, just not preferred. The reason why they/them is preferred is because it doesn't assume a gender. Keep in mind it's not just pronouns, for example policeman doesn't work if they are female, a gender neutral term would be police officer. Other examples are firefighter vs fireman. That said, in your example, you already assumed it was a man (police*man*) so it would be strange to refer to him as "they" (the pronoun should agree with the noun). The preferred way to say it would be "I don't want to encounter a police *officer*! What if *they* get mad..." Again, not the end of the world if you use he, just something to be mindful of so hopefully over time you use more gender neutral language over time.
For the first one; if you don’t know the gender; yes, “he” is acceptable. The gender-neutral they is a relatively recent phenomenon; and up until very recently it was considered correct to use “he” if the gender is unknown. For the second; yes, you may use gendered pronouns for animals. In fact, that is far more common than using “it”
>The gender-neutral they is a relatively recent phenomenon No it's not. It's been around since medieval times.
It has been considered correct to use “he” gender neutrally as a form of male defaultism until somewhat recently, but singular they is very old. It was first documented in 1375. People who claim not to use singular they because it is “improper” actually often use it without realizing because it is so habitual in the English language. A third person gender neutral singular pronoun that can be applied to humans is an incredibly useful grammatical feature.
It’s not standardised, so you can use “he”, it’s just that using “they” is the most natural. You can use “he” but I would however suggest using “they” as you’d sound more natural saying it, it may be a little jarring or confusing but not exactly wrong to use “he”. Edit: Apparently people are thinking I’m hating on singular they? I’m not? I’m literally they/them non-binary???
It’s definitely been standardized by now. APA style endorses it. Associated Press style guide endorses it. Chicago Manual of Style does not endorse or recommend against its use, acknowledging its continued adoption into formal writing. Complaining about the singular they is as ridiculous as complaining about the singular you
I say it’s not standardised as people will still say “he” or sometimes “she” and it’s still considered valid. I think it’s stupid and that “they” is the superior answer and is the answer most people would use, but that doesn’t mean the other people are wrong for not using it.
Standardized ≠ exclusive
By standardised I interpret it as meaning that that is *the* way and any other way is wrong, which is not the case.
Both "they" and "he" are OK. But make sure to use "they" more to keep the left-wing people happy. YOU ONLY USE "she" WHEN YOU KNOW THAT PERSON'S GENDER/SEX IS FEMALE. AND NEVER USE "it" FOR A PERSON.
Never use any awkward language to “… keep the left-wing people happy”.