Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time to revisit "he or she"?

[edit]

From the archives, I think the last time the suitability of "he or she" was discussed was in 2018, when it really wasn't discussed. The inquiry received one response, stating that there was no agreement to substitute singular "they". But that appears to have years after the previous discussion in 2013. That was a long time ago. Pronoun practice has evolved substantially since then, so I think it's time to revisit the issue.

Proposition #1: Singular they is acceptable where "he or she", or simply "he" understood tacitly to include the "she" case, has been traditional.

Proposition #2: Singular they is preferred because "he or she", by virtue of its explicit inclusion of people who are "she", makes all the more blatant its exclusion of people who are referred to as "they". Our example: "Each politician is responsible for his or her constituency." If we prescribe "his or her" in rejection of the stance that "his" alone suffices to cover both "he" people and "she" people, then is the stance that "his or her" should be understood to cover "they" people as well any more acceptable? Yet even I don't want to prescribe "... responsible for his or her or their constituency", and I bet no one else does either. So let's go with "... responsible for their constituency." Largoplazo (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion - You should make this into an RFC. It would broaden the input. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support #1 as long as it isn't confusing. Georgia guy (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoctor, are you always okay with singular they?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgia guy: I'm never okay with "he or she". When there are cases where "they" is not appropriate, "he or she" is even less appropriate. If "he or she" and "they" are the only possibilities, it's always "they". Please feel free to provide examples where you feel that the only good option is "he or she". Paradoctor (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:HiLo48, if you don't tell me otherwise I'll assume that you support generic he should always be used. Georgia guy (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with "he or she" (or"she or he", although that seems clumsy). "He/She" is fine too. Please don't try to put me in any category that puts women in any lesser position. I care a lot about that, and a lot about grammar. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:HiLo48, I didn't know whether the "it" pronoun in your first sentence referred to the singular they option or the he or she option. Georgia guy (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's what comes from people reformatting my post and sticking others in between mine and the one I was responding to. I'm not going to try to fix it. Ask questions if you need clarification. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: The question was explicitly directed at me, not you. Paradoctor (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One person's "appalling grammar" is another person's "ordinary language evolution". Hence, English "you", a plural pronoun, replaced "thou" as the singular; German "they" expanded to cover formal "you", both singular and plural; Portuguese (at least in Brazil) typically uses "the people is" rather than "we"; French often uses the indefinite third person "on", with the third person singular verb, to mean "we"; and so on and so forth. Grammar changes. Fact of life. No point being appalled by it. Largoplazo (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know people think they are being helpful, but rather than editing others' posts (NEVER a good idea), it might be wise to simply ask questions of editors where you aren't sure what they mean. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to, I'll undo my last edit. Or do it yourself, no problem here. Paradoctor (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"He or she" is gender-neutral language, but people do commonly use singular they to be more inclusive, meaning inclusive of non-binary people. I don't think we should state that "he or she" should never be used, especially since MOS:GNL doesn't state that. We are on the talk page of an essay, while MOS:GNL is a guideline and has actual authority. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"He or she" is not gender-neutral. It excludes, among others, third gender and agender people.
"we should state that "he or she" should never be used" I'd appreciate an example of what you consider gender-neutral use of the phrase. Paradoctor (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Reliable sources categorize "he or she" as gender-neutral language. You can call that outdated, but it's the case. As for "an example of what [I] consider gender-neutral use of the phrase"? Using it for a group that does not include non-binary or third gender people is an example. Also, "agender" falls under "non-binary." And some definitions consider "third gender" to fall under it as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"a group that does not include" By "example", I meant a concrete example from one of our articles, or which could reasonably be part of one. So far, this is entirely speculative.
WP:RS does not mention gender at all, or did I miss it?!?
"call that outdated" It is not outdated, it is simply false. I do acknowledge WP:WIP, obviously.
"falls under "non-binary."" The point is that binary language is not gender-neutral. "He or she" is binary language, and as such is to be avoided, unless one of the listed exceptions applies. Paradoctor (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that you "meant a concrete example from one of our articles, or which could reasonably be part of one." That's simple. Examples on Wikipedia could be articles that are only about men and women (and/or boys and girls), such as sex differences in intelligence. An addition for the article could call for one to use "he or she" or "s/he." In what case would singular they need to be used in that case or at all in the article? How would using it be best for that article? If one wants to argue that some of these people may identify as non-binary or as a third gender regardless of their sex, it's still the fact that the sources don't relay that. The sources only focus on girls/women and boys/men.
You stated, "WP:RS does not mention gender at all, or did I miss it?!?" What????
You stated, "It is not outdated, it is simply false. I do acknowledge I do acknowledge WP:WIP, obviously." Do you also acknowledge that we go by what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight here at Wikipedia? This 2012 "Cambridge Academic English C1 Advanced Teacher's Book: An Integrated Skills Course for EAP" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 26, states, "We now try to avoid the use of he in general statements by using they, she or he, he or she, you or by repeating the noun. [...] While he or she is often preferred over they in formal English, they is becoming increasingly common." Also speaking on gender-neutral language, this 2013 "Oxford A-Z of English Usage" source, from OUP Oxford, states, "The alternatives to they, their, etc. are the rather cumbersome he or she, his or hers, etc. Invented forms such as s/he have not become established in general use." This 2015 "The Psychology of Language: An Integrated Approach" source, from SAGE Publications, notes that he/she, s/he, he or she are used as gender-neutral language, but are clunky. Also speaking on gender-neutral language, this 2015 "Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices" source, from Routledge, page 258, states, "Some applications of nonsexist language have replaced the word mankind with humankind while changing he to s/he or he/she." So, yes, like I stated, "WP:Reliable sources categorize 'he or she' as gender-neutral language." You can consider it false that "he or she" is gender-neutral language, but reliable sources disagree. If "he or she" were not considered gender-neutral language, it would not be mentioned as gender-neutral language in the Gender-neutral language article and in this or this section at the Singular they article. And I mentioned "outdated" because with the rise of non-binary gender identities, many no longer consider "he or she" to be gender-neutral language.
You stated, "'He or she' is binary language, and as such is to be avoided, unless one of the listed exceptions applies." You might want to argue that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and try to get it implemented at MOS:GNL. Because adding it to this essay will not see it enforced. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]
"could be articles" That is, again, speculation. Please give a concrete example of sentence in which "he or she" is preferable over they, that does or could occur in a Wikipedia article. Sex differences in intelligence does not use "he or she" or singular "they".
"What????" I misread your WP:Reliable sources categorize "he or she" as gender-neutral language. as meaning our policy does this. Moving on.
The various style guides you referred to are irrelevant here. Style, as opposed to content, is not fixed by WP:RS, by definition. We have our own style guide for that. "He or she" does not exhaust the genders, and therefore violates MOS:GNL.
Which sources say that "he or she" includes the various non-binary gender identities? Paradoctor (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going on about? You stated "meant a concrete example from one of our articles, or which could reasonably be part of one." Notice that you stated "could"? Giving the Sex differences in intelligence article as an example is no more speculation than MOS:GNL stating, "This does not apply to [...] wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges)." The Sex differences in intelligence article is a two-gender context. I do not need to go and add "he or she" wording to that article to prove my point.
You stated, "The various style guides you referred to are irrelevant here. Style, as opposed to content, is not fixed by WP:RS, by definition." No, they are not irrelevant here. They aren't because they count as reliable sources, and I was making it clear by pointing to them and to other reliable sources that WP:Reliable sources categorize "he or she" as gender-neutral language.
You stated, "'He or she' does not exhaust the genders, and therefore violates MOS:GNL." Okay, then. I'll note this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for more opinions. If it violates MOS:GNL, you should have no trouble getting support to add text to MOS:GNL about it violating MOS:GNL.
You stated, "Which sources say that 'he or she' includes the various non-binary gender identities?" Not an argument I made. Not something I need to cite. You challenged "he or she" being gender-neutral language. Reliable sources disagree with you. So, again, you can consider it false that "he or she" is gender-neutral language, but we go by what reliable sources state at Wikipedia.
I'm not debating you any further on this. To repeat, "I don't think we should state that 'he or she' should never be used, especially since MOS:GNL doesn't state that. We are on the talk page of an essay, while MOS:GNL is a guideline and has actual authority." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support singular they for Wikipedia space (i.e. policies and guidelines) only. In the main namespace, we should try to avoid all-gender "he", "he or she", as well as singular "they", and instead strive to rewrite the passage in another way. In my view, singular they is grammatical but incompatible with an encyclopedic register. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support singular they for all sentences where is not confusing as to who is being referred to. In sentences where it would be confusing then the sentence should be reworded and/or another term used for clarity. Generic "he", "he/she" and similar constructions are not inclusive (and the latter are also clunky) and so should never be used outside direct quotes. We are writing a contemporary reference work and so should be using contemporary language to do so, and in contemporary language singular they is perfectly at home in formal writing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He or she is fine in any context (as Flyer22 pointed out) in which non-binary effectively isn't applicable, though it won't generally be necessary, but a product of half-assed writing. Singular they, despite a lot of people not liking it, has been a part of English for several centuries, is not going away, appears in other not-informal publications these days, and has a lot of utility, as long as it is used properly (with a clear, singular referent, and without any chance of reader confusion that it's indicating a plural). When in doubt/difficulty, just rewrite to avoid. Don't use he/she, s/he, or other sloppy bastardizations; write in real English one way or another. On the above extended debate material, I find myself in what I think is complete agreement with Flyer22. Transgender/non-binary activists are free to do whatever they like out in the world to try to get general usages in the English language to change, but until they do change, WP will not be using non-standard English, even if we'll use a fairly loose definition of what that means (e.g., permissive of singular they when it's used well).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support singular they. I can't say much that hasn't been said better by other people in this discussion, but I would like to point out that Merriam-Webster officially endorsed singular they as a gender-neutral and nonbinary pronoun and added the senses to its definition last year. Bowler the Carmine (they/them | talk | contribs) 15:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to commit obscene grammatical errors in order to pander to the severely mentally ill. This is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradasack (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pradasack: When you perpetuate the vulgar replacement a while back of the second person singular pronoun "thou" with the plural pronoun "you" as the 21st century social media crowd does, are you committing an obscene grammatical error to pander to the severely mentally ill, or are you accepting that language and society both change? Largoplazo (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dubious of the proposition that "he" has been replaced by gender-neutral language in English. That is true of academic writing, but not everyday speech. To be sure, "he" now is obtrusive for some people, but "he or she" and "she" are equally obtrusive for others, or perhaps noticed by everybody even if approvingly by some. "They" is often best, as used in everyday speech, but that depends on context,and it usually makes writing slightly less clear. Also, "they is" is never appropriate. --editeur24 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate he or she?

[edit]

I'm proposing this for a simple reason: it's discriminatory towards anyone who falls outside this social construct that we call the gender binary. I'm strongly opposed to this being still acceptable and/or commonly used.

As such, should "he or she" be no longer considered gender-neutral? I'm trying to re-establish a consensus concerning this. This is especially applicable outside of article-space (e.g. userboxes, user talk page templates, etc.). The same would apply to other terms that reinforce the gender binary (he/she, s/he), outside of quotes. Templates such as {{They are}} provide a stand-in owing to how they is and other similar grammar errors is a primary concern when it comes to deprecating these discriminatory terms. This would be unapplicable to quotes, of course; no need for [sic]. Casspedia (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There seems to be a consensus that the phrase "he or she" along with "he/she" and "he/s" should be avoided because it is awkward and interferes with easy reading. However it is not a binary term as it means any of 'he', 'she' and 'he and she'. So at the least it is a ternary term. My feeling is that anyone whose is offended by "he or she" is someone who is looking for an excuse to be offended. Nevertheless the consensus seems to be that it should be replaced by singular 'they' (however horrific that sounds to many of us) or by rewriting to avoid a singular pronoun. There are times when "he or she" is appropriate so I would oppose formally deprecating it.OrewaTel (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this. We can see discussion on this above. You should not be edit warring this in, nor using "respect shouldn't be debated" as a shield, as it calls one's own position the only one of respect, which is pure opinion and disrespectful to others. There is plenty of debate within the trans community on minutiae of language, so there isn't necessarily an 'official trans view'. The example given in the text is that of politicians, so let's go with that; if some political position has never been held by a non-binary person (transgender people as a whole make up less than 1% of the population) then it doesn't make sense to mandate the possibly confusing and sometimes disfavored singular they. Personally, if it was me writing, I would probably use it, but I'm not going to dictate to others. Crossroads -talk- 03:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crossroads: I'm having trouble understanding your position. The essay says Cases where all referents are of one gender are an exception to the guidance to avoid generic "he"/"she" (with existing consensus), so surely it's an easy corollary that cases where no referent is non-binary is an exception to potential future guidance to avoid "he or she". Additionally, opposition to edit warring is not a reason to support any position when the matter turns to discussion. So what is your actual position on the questions, "Is 'he or she' exclusionary to non-binary people? If so, does that matter?" — Bilorv (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems like a gotcha question, frankly. I already gave my reasoning in favor of the phrase's not being deprecation-worthy. Crossroads -talk- 02:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I've explained how your reasoning doesn't apply to the actual situation in discussion, so far as I can try to apply it to it. It's not supposed to be a "gotcha question": it's literally that I don't know how you would answer the question, and however you answer I'd let that speak for itself. — Bilorv (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • In case it wasn't clear, my answer is that circumstances complicate each case because there may be no nonbinary individuals within what is being described to exclude, so a blanket categorization doesn't work. If this bit was added to the essay, I don't think many editors would typically accept the reasoning you used in your reply to allow "he or she" in certain circumstances as an extension of just, say, "he" being allowed in cases of known gender; people would see "he or she" being called discriminatory and be against it no matter what. Crossroads -talk- 21:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for clarifying. Can you say explicitly, for the benefit of the closing admin, that you would be in opposition of the term when used to refer to generic people ("when a person crosses the road, he or she must look both ways") but only if a clarification was added parallel to the "Cases where all referents are of one gender", with the heading "Cases where all referents have binary gender identities" (as a reason to allow "he or she")? Or am I still not understanding your position? — Bilorv (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:MOS lists this essay as “an essay with suggestions and sample usage” and says to use gender-neutral language. In my opinion He or she (or any of the variations) is inherently not gender-neutral by excluding any non-binary gender. There is also an argument to be made that it isn't gender-neutral even to women, by listing them as an afterthought (though I'm not entirely sure of my stance on this one). Unbeatable101 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do you think we should open an WP:RFC on this? Unbeatable101 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: we're an encyclopedia, not a creative writing course. You don't get to write articles how you would normally speak. You use language that is formal and devoid of alienating or ambiguous connotations. "He or she" doesn't mean what you think it means to everyone who reads it—i.e. does not mean "any person"—and it's never less clunky than singular they, or (even better!) spending 15 seconds to work out how to rephrase the sentence. It's not a matter of opposing a fictitious person who is unreasonably taking grievous offense to the phrase "he or she", but the simple matter that the phrase does not correctly convey what the writer intends. — Bilorv (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As others have stated, "he or she" is not gender-neutral because it excludes people who go by neither of those pronouns. Funcrunch (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this does pass, it would probably make more sense to just delete the bullet point than to add a comment about it being discriminatory. This is because in context, it's part of a list of things one can do to avoid the generic masculine; it doesn't make sense to have an entry that basically says 'one can do X, oh but one actually can't do X because Y'. Crossroads -talk- 02:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as "he or she" only includes people who go by he/him or she/her pronouns. GreenComputer (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "he or she" does not include all people. And this only effects cases where it is supposed to be gender neutral, so it leaves room open to use "he or she" if the gendered meaning is needed. Some2Guy (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the removal of a perfectly fine construction. English isn't great, but I don't think that the "they" workaround is any better than the grammatically correct "he or she". Also, especially in the cases of referring to one of a group of people who are all regular males and females, "he or she" does not exclude anybody. (For example: "[Some female] and [some male] are competing in [something]. The winner will get a prize, and his or her name will be inscribed on [something].") Also, for the record, in casual writing I tend to prefer alternating between generic she and generic he — but, of course, Wikipedia should not use casual tone. Tol | talk | contribs 22:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My rationale is in my comment in the main thread above this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continue to use He or She - as they're the pronouns of the two genders of humans. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, continue to hold that there are exactly five races, there are exactly seven continents, the solar system includes exactly nine planets, Jupiter has exactly 12 moons, Mercury's day is the same length as its year, Mercurochrome is the best home wound disinfectant, etc., etc., just because these were the facts as I learned them as a child and I am closed to any newer understanding of the way things work in the universe. Largoplazo (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Largoplazo, Pluto hasn't been a planet for 15 years. Georgia guy (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Georgia guy: Yes. Indeed, if I hadn't been aware of that, my comment about the planets would have made no sense. My childhood ended considerably more than 15 years ago. Largoplazo (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I happen to like "they" as an indefinite, never having liked repeatedly writing "he or she". (I don't mean to imply that I don't accept "they" for definite people as well, but that's off-topic.) I realize the question wasn't specifically about "they" but about "he or she", so returning to the subject: Now, in our age when we recognize that biology and psychobiology are more complex than our previous understanding allowed, "he or she" has become tone-deaf. Largoplazo (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "He or she" has always seemed really clunky to me, and honestly there is no reason to use language that may exclude people when it's perfectly easy to use language that wouldn't. Not to mention that people use singular they all the time and it's only confusing in very rare occasions. If it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enought for Wikipedia. CupOfTea696 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the deprecation or proscription of "he or she" as it is commonly used as a singular substitute for "they", especially in the nominative where they is awkward/ambiguous as opposed to the accusative them (or their) that are commonly singular. Support User:Crossroads' proposal to simply delete the current bullet point in question; "he or she" should not be endorsed either. —  AjaxSmack  16:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...person suffix

[edit]

Although the suffix …man is gender neutral, modern usage demands that we coin new words ending …person. But I ask people to be cautious about adopting fad speech*. There are two particular issues.

  1. Several professions have gender neutral terms that should be used, for example Actor[1] and Waiter. Note that Actress and Waitress are not only gender specific but are also sexist. Consequentially there is no need to use 'Act-person' or 'Wait-person'.
  2. The normal plural of 'person' is 'people'[2]. The word 'persons' is only used for a particular circumstance. So just as we used to say, "The Chairmen had a meeting." we now should say, "The Chairpeople had a meeting." The sentence "The Chairpersons had a meeting." should only be used if 'persons' is appropriate and I cannot, off hand, think of an example when it is.
* Please note, using good non-binary terms is NOT fad speech but inappropriate insertion of the word 'person' solely to prove the writer is politically correct is most definitely fad speech.

OrewaTel (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Story". The Actor's Guild. Equity, The Actor's Guild. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
  2. ^ Mirriam-Webster. "People vs Persons". Usage Notes. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
Hmmmm....from the first site you linked to:
The fact that you are responding to the needs of us, the actors, is what makes TAG such a unique and effective provider. Clare Cameron, Actress (emphasis added by me)
Does not seem to support the claim that 'actress' is 'sexist'. I do acknowledge that she says 'we, the actors', but that is in reference to collective whole: saying "actors and actresses" is clunky. This idea that's been buzzing around WP for the last couple months seems to be nonexistent everywhere else but here. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding your point number 2 - I think the opposite would actually be correct: chairpersons, not chairpeople. The difference between 'persons' and 'people' in modern usage is somewhat difficult to precisely define; persons could be thought of as a countable noun in technical or formal writings (e.g., No more than 15 persons shall occupy this space..) while 'people' is used more as an uncountable mass noun to refer to the collective as a whole (We the People of the United States.., The People of the State of California do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them).
That said, we shouldnt be making up new words. wherever the chips fall where they will in the outside world is what we should go by. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"modern usage demands that we coin new words ending …person" – usage in the real world is sometimes and rather selectively resulting in coinage of new -person words, but many are not in fact catching on, and it is never, ever Wikipedia's job to coin and use neologisms in our articles. PS: Yes, it's chairpersons not chairpeople. Those who who chair boards of directors are persons; they do not form a people, which is a cultural identity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, can you name some -person words that are not catching on?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To what end? If they're not catching on, they won't be familiar. WP:NOTFORUM. If you like to track and discuss this sort of thing for your own entertainment, consider joining the American Dialect Society's mailing list, or some other venue where such discussions are pertinent. Just to forestall a bunch of third-party example mongering, the two most obvious would be *fireperson and *policeperson which barely exist in any sources worth quoting, with firefighter and police officer being the vastly more frequent gender-neutral terms, by many orders of magnitude [1]. If one really wanted to track adoption rate of -person conversions, the simplest way would be to use a rhyming dictionary to identify every English word ending in -man, remove false positives like human, then check all major dictionaries and Google NGrams for appearance of -person replacements.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"People" has been the ordinary plural of "persons" since [exaggerating] forever, without the connotation of a cultural identity. "Over ten thousand people attended the rally." "Who cares what other people think?" "Persons" generally appears in the context of an action that involves them as individuals rather than as a group: "All persons entering this area will be searched", that is, each person, possibly entering one at a time, one will be individually searched.
On the other hand, when it comes to these -man/-woman words, -persons seems the norm. Definitely chairpersons over chairpeople in Google-catalogued book usage, going by the Google ngram for the two: [2]. But, yes, returning to cultural (or ethnic or species) identity: merman/mermaid/merpeople, not merpersons. Largoplazo (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People is a common plural of person when used as a stand-alone word ("Lots of people got sick from super-speader events"), especially in informal material, but not in combining form. Otherwise, we would have chairpeople common and chairpersons rare, but the opposite is the case. Chairpersons is orders of magnitude more common that chairpeople, and spokespersons is almost twice as frequent as spokespeople [3]. Without any further discussion needed, this disproves the OP's bold but incorrect usage claim about -people vs. -persons (specifically with regard to chair-, even), so we should close this thread as resolved rather than have it wander further into the WP:NOTFORUM fields.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-neutral terms versus minorities

[edit]

I'm not an active Wikipedia editor, but I wanted to pipe in how surprised I am to see this section of the article:

Do not use gender-neutral speech when it gives undue emphasis to tiny minorities. If writing about nuns, it is appropriate to use feminine language, even though there may be a nun who is also transgender. Similarly, when writing about male pregnancy, it is appropriate to use masculine language, even though most pregnancies occur in females. Use the language that is most suitable for that specific context.

If the language is more accurate, shouldn't it be used instead of inaccurate language? If the reader may be confused, there can be further explanation or a link to another article on the topic.

I was surprised because this guideline is in direct opposition to most other guidelines I see - for example, the switch to the term "chestfeeding" being preferred to "breastfeeding" because (as this essay mentions) non-women can be pregnant and/or produce milk.

I could be wrong but I am not used to "stop including minorities" being a standard to follow. There may be some instances when gender is appropriate but this situation sounds more similar to a group of colleagues, mostly women and one man, whose boss exclusively refers to them as "ladies." The man may get annoyed quickly.

Donteatacowman (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Chestfeeding" is not preferred to breastfeeding, on Wikipedia or in the vast majority of reliable sources. In fact, men also have breasts, they just aren't enlarged and lack mammary glands. We do not use neologisms that have not become widely accepted; see WP:NOTADVOCACY. More generally, people recognize that everything has exceptions. At Human body, for example, we state that "The human body has four limbs (two arms and two legs)", even though some people had birth defects or are amputees. It would be undue emphasis to the point of being severely misleading to state "The human body may have zero, one, or two arms, and zero, one, or two legs". We use the terminology found in the reliable sources. Crossroads -talk- 05:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, some people are born with extra limbs, via parasitic twinning. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to warn people against going overboard

[edit]

So, I saw the following sentence in Late December 2022 North American winter storm:

In Kentucky, three people died; two died as a result of car accidents, while the other died due to exposure, as they were homeless.

So this is confusing. It basically says that all three were homeless. I'm not sure why being homeless would cause a car accident, but that's what it says. Maybe they live in their car. Maybe they were run over. Maybe they were homeless by coincidence unrelated to the crashes and the writer just decided to throw it in. Don't know. Anyway, reading the source, it appears that that the accident victims weren't' homeless, and it describes the sex of the homeless guy, so I changed it to:

In Kentucky, three people died; two died as a result of car accidents, while the other died due to exposure, as he was homeless.

Yeah I know singular they has been used since the time of King Arthur or whatever -- sometimes. That's no reason to throw a ball of confusion at the hapless reader.

The thing is, I kind of get the vibe that the language in the former is not strongly proscribed. I didn't see anyway. It ought to be.I'm thinking that a sentence like this be added at the appropriate place: 

* or gender, or gender identity, or whatever goes there. If you want to add a clause to the effect of "and if the person's** sex is one of the two traditional sexes (male or female) and the person is not non-binary" or something, I suppose. A footnote might be better to keep the rule straightforward.

**You could use "their" instead of "the person's" as there's no confusion likely in context -- which is true in many, probably most, contexts. I wouldn't tho.

Of course you could (and will) put in a thing about a person's known or deduced preference should override, and fine. Herostratus (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first example is just slip-shod writing.

In Kentucky, three people died; two died as a result of car accidents, while the other died due to exposure, as they were homeless.

That is simply using 'they' because the rules say so. Any competent writer would see the inherent ambiguity and re-write. It may be that the pronouns 'he' or 'she' are proscribed - possibly the gender is unknown. But it is so easy to draft a sentence without a pronoun.

In Kentucky, three people died; two died as a result of car accidents, while the other, being homeless, died owing to exposure.

Rather than tying ourselves in knots while dancing on the head of a philological pin, we can solve most problems by a simple rule, "Read what you have typed before publishing." OrewaTel (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you see a piece of bad writing that doesn't use singular they, it's just bad writing. But when you see a piece of bad writing that uses singular they, why is it the essay on singular they that is the problem? As OrewaTel says, the sentence is easily rewritten without a pronoun. Singular they or not, rephrasing to avoid ambiguity is already normal and encouraged. — Bilorv (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your solution that avoids the pronoun works, and, as you observed, one shouldn't confuse the ambiguity and the use of singular "they" with each other. I just want to point out that in addition one even rewrite away the ambiguity without removing singular "they". The sentence

In Kentucky, three people died; two died as a result of car accidents, while the other died due to exposure, as they were homeless.

is exactly as ambiguous as

In Kentucky, five people died; two died as a result of car accidents, while the other three died due to exposure, as they were homeless.

There's no need to find the ambiguity any more dismaying in the case where the second subset of the total consists of one person than in the case where it consists of more than one person. In both cases, we might expect pragmatics to sort it out: readers will generally work out the meaning based on their knowledge that exposure can be a consequence of homelessness but that car accidents aren't.
Still, rather than leaving it to the reader to sort out, it certainly is better to avoid the ambiguity. But there's no reason why the fix for the single-person second subset has to be different from a fix for the multi-person second subset. Neither needs to involve elimination of the pronoun. The following rewrites work for the case of the multi-person subset:

In Kentucky, five people died; two as a result of car accidents, while the other three, as they were homeless, due to exposure.

In Kentucky, five people died. Two died as a result of car accidents; the other three died due to exposure, as they were homeless.

These work just as well for the single-person case:

In Kentucky, three people died; two as a result of car accidents, while the other [or "the third"], as they were homeless, due to exposure.

In Kentucky, three people died. Two died as a result of car accidents; the other [or "the third"] died due to exposure, as they were homeless.

Largoplazo (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to rewrite it to avoid pronouns anyway, because the OP shows that the source refers to the third individual as "he". Writing "they" for a specific person with a known gender is completely unnecessary and bad writing, as is trying to avoid using a pronoun. Advice to this effect could be added, and even if not such things can be rewritten in article space at any time when it is spotted. Crossroads -talk- 00:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a drafting rewrite and a subsequent copy edit rewrite. When I write an article, I preview my writing and consider polishing it. I may go through several preview/edit cycles. When I consider another editor's writing different rules apply. Often I don't like the wording or the style but to change it would be Wiki-fiddling. So it is with this example. If I had written it then (I hope) I would have removed the ambiguity without using the singular 'They' (which I detest). But if someone else had written an unambiguous clear statement using a singular 'they' then so be it. It would be wrong for me to impose my prejudices.
The problem with the example was that it was sloppy writing not that it used a singular 'they'. We may suspect that the sloppy writing was caused because the author originally wrote it unambiguously with a natural 'he' or 'she' but then felt compelled to use 'they' and did not notice the resultant ambiguity. This suspicion is the only justification for that example being here.
Please note that, having stated that I preview and polish all my writings, Muphrey's Law demands that my text must contains several spelling and grammatical errors. No doubt there is also a banal ambiguity. Alas! Being a scribbler is a humbling experience. OrewaTel (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think most of you are wrong. I don't think its just random sloppy writing, no. It's not sloppy writing in the manner of saying "He was raised by his father, a farmer, carpenter, and bricklayer" than "He was raised by his father who was a farmer, carpenter, and bricklayer". This is different, I think. I think that the writer went out of his way to use "they", probably for some or all of the following reasons:

1) It's woke to avoid mentioning the sex of people if at all possible, in order to avoid implying that that is important, which is oldthink. And who doesn't want to be woke? Besides I don't want to write differently than my peer group.
2) Accidentally misgendering a person, or not knowing and using their preferred pronoun, or making some other error regarding gender pronouns will get you a proper scolding possibly, while misusing singular "they" won't, and who wants a scolding. Better safe than sorry, so best to have a rigidly followed personal practice of only using "they".
3) Singular "they" is just proper grammar. We don't say "thee" and "thou" anymore, and nowadays it's plain error to say "he" and "she". Besides being inherently offensive.
4) And the Wikipedia rules have a lot to say about being super careful about gender pronouns, while there's no strong plain advice of when not to use singular "they".

Thus it's my belief that the editor went out of her way to be sure to use a potentially confusing word. Sure, the editor should have cared enough, and taken the extra time, to think "well, I've worked in 'they', now let me make sure it's not confusing". The editor should have gone thru several review-and-polish cycles. We also should all have rainbow ponies. People are busy.

It seems like some of you above are somewhat sympathetic to points 1 and 2 and are fine with point 4. (Point 3 probably not, but I think some people think that.)

I'm not. Our first remit is to serve and inform the reader, which includes not confusing the reader. I think we have to actively work against editors who are coming in with this mindset. Remember, a lot of our editors are fairly young white bourgeois male college people who live in cities. So of course they are. Thus I again consul the addition of text to the effect of

When the sex of an an individual is clearly established and known, the gender-specific singular pronoun should be used in preference to the pronoun "they".

Which I can't see as being harmful. (You could add other clauses or change the wording, whatever works best.)

Who opposes this? Speak up. Tell us why this would be a net negative. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the text. For one thing it confuses sex and gender. But fundamentally I think you are reading way too much into a complete non-incident, and human behaviour like poor-quality writing can't be legislated away. — Bilorv (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Feels like unnecessary WP:Instruction creep. Assuming "gender" is meant instead of "sex", this advice is obvious, and in the rare cases where it isn't followed, that's probably an accident. The four "reasons" above for using they in this context look like a straw man to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language&oldid=1241332190"