Karin Ciano, The Daily Record Newswire
Dear English language: We've been friends for a while now, right? And I think we've achieved a level of trust. You know I respect you and appreciate your quirks. I'd never do anything to hurt you; I've always had your back, and always will. So I hope you'll bear with me a moment as I say something that might be hard for you to hear.
It's about the singular "they." I know you've had this on-again, off-again thing for-what is it, five hundred years? Well, I don't know how to say this, but the singular "they" is here to stay. You've played the field, and you're not going to do any better. It's time to make it legal.
What is it about the singular "they" that drives us wild? Lawyers and grammarians love rules, but recognize all rules need not be followed equally. Rules break for good reason, usually in the service of more important rules.
Yet when it comes to pronouns and antecedents, we tolerate no dissent. The rule is that a pronoun (I, you, he, she, it, we, they) must agree with its antecedent (the noun it's standing in for) in person, number, and gender. When I speak of Chief Justice Roberts, I say "he" (third person, singular, masculine). When referring to the justices of the United States Supreme Court, I say "they" (third person, plural, neutral). Yet if I'm talking about the court itself, I say "it" (third person, singular, neutral) - because I mean the institution, not its people (psych!).
Pronoun-antecedent mismatch can be painful to the ear. We've all read documents cut-and-pasted too quickly, which refer to a corporation or a woman as "he." We notice, and assume the drafter is careless.
But a rigidly enforced rule creates its own problems. English, compared to some European languages, is mostly genderless; one need never remember whether a table or a chair is masculine or feminine. The sole exceptions are the third-person-singular pronouns "he," "she," and "it." At some point we decided that "it" was appropriate only for things, not people, so when you enlist a pronoun to stand in for a person, you must make the right gender call.
And that's when things get interesting. What to do if you're writing about a person whose gender is unknown and irrelevant? Back in the day - from the 1500s to the mid-1800s - early adopters of modern English used the singular "they" in this situation. Jane Austen, for example ("[e]very body began to have their vexation") as well as Shakespeare, Henry Fielding, Lewis Carroll, and George Bernard Shaw, among others.
Then in the late 19th century, the singular "they" was banished. Someone (almost surely a guy) decided that hypothetical individuals would be referred to using the masculine singular pronoun, the "universal he." Generations of English-speakers, including me, learned that "he" was the correct choice for persons whose gender was unknown or irrelevant. (I'm not counting "one," the loneliest pronoun, which has always been awkward and unloved.)
And there things stood until the 1970s. As I was first making my acquaintance with the universal "he," scholars were questioning whether it might, just might, be sexist. We now know the answer: Definitely. The universal "he" subtly cues girls and women that "this is not about you; you don't belong here." It also says that the most important thing about us is our gender. I say to heck with that, and good riddance to the universal "he."
Once again, we sought alternatives. By the late 1980s, when I started college, the patriarchy had been thoroughly routed and a profusion of gender-neutral options greeted the aspiring writer: "He or she," "she or he," "he/she," "s/he," "heshe," and others even stranger and less intuitive (such as the universal "she," beloved of my progressive law journal).
Committed feminist though I am, I can't recommend any of these choices, especially not anything with an unpronounceable slash ("/") such as "he/she," which richly deserves its entry in Bryan Garner's Redbook under "Grammatical abominations." The cause of equality is noble, yet it cannot be achieved at the cost of wordiness, repetition, confusion, and distraction-drawing the reader's attention to gender exactly when it ought to be least important.
So what to do?
Rewrite
Experts agree this bullet can usually be dodged. The Chicago Manual of Style (16th), Bryan Garner, and Stephen Wilbers (among others) offer a menu of alternatives. My favorite is usually to run the sentence through the pluralizer: "A writer should avoid distracting their readers" becomes "Writers should avoid distracting their readers." Another good option is to simply drop the possessive pronoun (his, her, their), or substitute an article (a, an, the), as in: "A writer should avoid distracting readers; A writer should avoid distracting the readers."
Choose "he" or "she" with care
I am reliably informed that members of the bench find the singular "they" deeply distracting (and distressing). Some favor an interesting option that I haven't seen discussed in usage guides, which I will share with you here: When speaking of a hypothetical person, identify the party most closely aligned with that hypothetical person, and use the pronoun with the same gender - so, if a plaintiff is male, speak of a hypothetical person in the plaintiff's position as "he." Another option is to alternate "he" and "she," but time-consuming edits will be needed to ensure the text avoids bias and reads well.
Embrace the singular 'they'
It's the people's choice; experts acknowledge it is all-but-universal in everyday speech and informal writing, and several (Steven Pinker, Lenné Espenscheid, Mignon Fogarty) predict it will ultimately migrate into formal writing. I agree. "They" is familiar, simple to use, easy to remember, and no more inconsistent or ambiguous than hundreds of other irregularities in English. (Think about it: if we can accept the idea that "he" includes women, why can't we accept the idea that "they"-like "you"-can be both singular and plural?) The singular "they" is popular because it fills a genuine need better than any of its alternatives.
We are not there yet, so write your briefs with caution. Remember that when a person's gender is known, writers must still use "he" or "she," and that even with a singular antecedent the word "they" takes a plural verb. But when gender is unknown or irrelevant, the singular "they" makes sense. You have undoubtedly noticed the singular "they" flourishes in this (concededly informal) column. As might be expected in a forum for unpopular stances on controversial usage issues, I am going to come out in favor of legalization - I predict the singular "they" will become acceptable in formal writing within the next five years. Anyone who disagrees with me should feel free to pick up their phone and share their thoughts.
Bonus track: Speaking of progress, "he" and "she" have their own limitations when referring to sex and gender. LGBT advocates describe "individuals whose gender corresponds with the legal sex they were assigned at birth," as "cisgender," a term recently used for the first time in a court opinion. See Norsworthy v. Beard, Civ. No. 14-695, 2015 WL 1478264, *11 n.9 (N.D. Cal. March 31, 2015). Will it catch on? Only time will tell.
-----
Karin Ciano is owner of Karin Ciano Law PLLC and director of Twin Cities Custom Counsel PLLC. Contact her at karinciano.com.
Published: Wed, May 06, 2015
