Must Read Alaska: Alaska Airlines will allow male flight attendants to wear skirts and beards

[Uncle Al]

A good example of changing definitions.

1880's to 1950's=
Gay meant happy, having a good, fun time. A happy get together with friends and family.

1970's to present=
Gay means male to male, or female to female sex relations

What is this world coming too

Uncle Al

[Myopic Bookworm]

I am no expert on this, but I would have thought that if a pronoun were needed in a sentence, the substitution of a different pronoun would not result in a change of grammar.

If I substituted a noun for another noun, e.g. if I referred to a whale as an insect, that would be a semantic error. However, pronouns are function words rather than lexemes, and function word errors usually fall under grammar (rather than semantics) because they have a grammatical function.

To substitute "he" for "she" in indicating the same referent does not change the function, but just uses the change of pronoun to reclassify the referent. When a person of unknown gender, referred to as "they", is subsequently identified in respect of their gender, the replacement of "they" by "he" or "she" similarly does not change the function, but reclassifies the referent. Ergo: to substitute "they" for a singular referent in place of "he" or "she" does not change the function, but reclassifies the referent as being of undetermined gender. This last substitution is unfamiliar, as people are accustomed to making correct assumptions about other people's gender, but logically it is not ungrammatical.

[Stu]

Yes, word meanings change regularly. The word "girl" used to refer to a child of either sex while "boy" implied a male servant. A pastor was a shepherd, and any kind of animal from a spider to a while would have been called a kind of "deer". These, along with verbs, adjectives and adverbs, are all words that carry lexical meaning and that's what makes them what we linguists call an "open class", i.e.they are subject to change, and to new words entering the language. Function words like pronouns, determiners, conjunctions and prepositions, are words that have a grammatical rather than lexical function. The determination as to which are used always rests with the speaker and is based on their grammatical competence, the intended semantic effect, and the pragmatics (context). They are a closed class and as such they tend not to change meaning or see new ones introduced. I explain to my students that lexemes are the bricks of language while function words are the cement.

I think the current obsession with pronouns is ridiculous. My wife spent 12 years working on a construction side and there were instances when she was inadvertently called "he" or "him", usually where she had just signed her name. Did that give her an attack of the vapours when she was "misgendered"? No. She just laughed and put the person right. I have the title "Dr" and I work in a university faculty that is around 75% female, so I have had the same experience. Did it make me "feel unsafe" when I mentioned my brother in an email to a distance student who had never met me and she replied that he was lucky to have such a wonderful sister like me? No. The ONLY people it seems to bother is the minuscule minority who are either trans or who have decided that they are "non-binary". If someone is trans, again it is rarely an issue because most observers will see how they present and decide whether they are a he or a she based on that. Occasionally a mistake will happen because a trans woman has a deep voice and broad shoulders and hasn't made much of an effort with their hair or dress. The converse occasionally happens with trans men; I had one of the latter as a student who always introduced himself with a male first name and that stopped any confusion. Meanwhile, if somebody gets it wrong, just politely point it out - or ignore it altogether - and move on. If you choose to be offended, then that's down to you.

[Stu]

... but reclassifies the referent as being of undetermined gender. This last substitution is unfamiliar, as people are accustomed to making correct assumptions about other people's gender, but logically it is not ungrammatical.

We can debate whether it is ungrammatical or an error of semantics to use a pronoun which is clearly erroneous, e.g. if I said: "The Queen died and he is buried at Windsor" then you could argue either way. But it is still an error.

Language is, as H P Grice famously said, a cooperative act - there is an assumption by both interlocutors that the other party is cooperating in the exchange, that they know you are cooperating and so on. That does not mean that either party has a role in controlling the word choices of the other. What we tend to do is to rely on signifiers if we wish to ensure our interlocutor uses the terms we want. A doctor in a hospital, for example, would generally not want to be confused with a nurse, nor would a nurse wish to be confused for a cleaner, so these occupations adopt either a regulated mode of appearance, or they make some effort so as to avoid confusion. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people who are changing sex or living as a member of the opposite sex to the one they were registered at birth to make sure they present in a way that eliminates confusion, especially if they find being accidentally misgendered so traumatic. To require the remaining 99.6% of people to walk around wearing pronoun badges is absurd.

With regard to "they"; this is a plural pronoun. Once you mess around with it, then you have to contrive the rest of the grammar around it, including related pronouns like (themselves), determiners (their) and even verbs (they wash their hair rather than he washes his hair). We traditionally make such an allowance where a person's sex is unknown, but usually only for very brief interactions, e.g. "A patron can collect their keys from reception". That does not, however, entitle people to dictate to others that they want to be referred to in the plural and we have to fit the rest of our grammar around their preference.

[Jim]

A good example of changing definitions.

1880's to 1950's=
Gay meant happy, having a good, fun time. A happy get together with friends and family.

1970's to present=
Gay means male to male, or female to female sex relations

What is this world coming to:?:

From the 1934 Merriam-Webster Unabridged, 2nd edition.

Gay...
...
5. Given to social pleasures or indulgence, hence loose, licentious, as to lead a gay life.

For those who don't accept the new meaning, they might find the old meaning to work.

[Ray]

Nicely put, Jim.

Al - get over it.

[Uncle Al]

Nicely put, Jim.

Al - get over it.

I don't have anything to "get over".
I posted this as an example of how definitions change.
A # symbol in music means the note is sharp(half step up).
To a non music person, it means 'Hashtag'. In mathematics
it means 'number' ie: #3. I need a #8 socket.
# is a symbolic abbreviation for the word 'number'.

Again, nothing to "get over", just an example of how
the meaning of words, and symbols, change.

Uncle Al

[rivegauche]

I have learned a lot about words here but there is also a lot of stuff I reject. I like to think I am well-educated individual but 'lexemes' are new to me. For now I would insist that 'they' can be used correctly in the singular but I am going to consult a learned friend who is a linguist before reaching a final conclusion.

What has been said about words meaning what the speaker intends them to mean is all very well, but the purpose of using the words is to communicate, and the listener/reader might interpret them very differently - and when this happens it is usually the fault of the speaker/writer, though there are always going to be people who hear what they want to hear irrespective of the clarity of the input, but this life.

I think gender has a lot to do with the sense of self, and that people are entitled to express a wish to be referred to by a pronoun other than the 'usual' one. Equally they must accept that misgendering them is not necessarily an act of hostility - it is just a lapse in concentration.

I occasionally present in public as a woman, with dress, heels, make-up, bust and wig - and using a woman's name - and attempting female body language (with some success). At no point do I identify as a woman - I am ACTING. Even people who know me well in both presentations then refer to me as 'she'. It does not bother me AT ALL - after all if you dress and act like the opposite gender you can't object if people treat you as such. Equally I a relaxed if people use male pronouns - after all I am male. I will shortly be staying in a hotel overnight, and will only ever be in female presentation during the visit, but I have advised the hotel to be relaxed about pronouns - I don't want people around me feeling as though they have to walk on eggshells.

Referring to people by their desired pronouns is courtesy. Insisting on them at all times, no matter what else is going on, is arrogance. Deliberately using a pronoun other than the one preferred by the person to whom it refers is gratuitously offensive, if not downright nasty. People forget/overlook/don't care at times. Live with it - people sometimes have more to occupy their lives than pronoun preferences of others.

[crfriend]

# is a symbolic abbreviation for the word 'number'.

Also "pound" (not Sterling). This is fairly old usage, however I have seen it used and I use it sarcastically to describe M$'s "C#" (they call it C-Sharp) which I call C-Pound.

[Stu]

For now I would insist that 'they' can be used correctly in the singular but I am going to consult a learned friend who is a linguist before reaching a final conclusion.

Your friend's answer will depend upon whether or not they have bought into the gender ideology or not and whether they believe in complete nonsense like "non-binary". Linguists are generally academics, and academics are more often than not ideologically progressive these days - unfortunately.

Referring to people by their desired pronouns is courtesy.

It depends on whether your priority is for your language to reflect reality, or it is to cater for the emotional responses of others. Mine is generally to go with the former but, being a person committed to truth, I will make concessions in narrow circumstances - including a person who is clearly trans but has "met me half way" - i.e. by taking the trouble to exhibit the signifiers (like dress, hair, cosmetics, name etc) that accord with the sex they wish to be regarded. But just demanding of me that certain pronouns are used will result with me either ignoring them or telling them to get lost. It is as unreasonable and as absurd as me insisting that, if you are mentioning me to a third person, you always begin by saying "His Royal Highness, Prince Stu".

[rivegauche]

For now I would insist that 'they' can be used correctly in the singular but I am going to consult a learned friend who is a linguist before reaching a final conclusion.

Your friend's answer will depend upon whether or not they have bought into the gender ideology or not and whether they believe in complete nonsense like "non-binary". Linguists are generally academics, and academics are more often than not ideologically progressive these days - unfortunately.

Referring to people by their desired pronouns is courtesy.

It depends on whether your priority is for your language to reflect reality, or it is to cater for the emotional responses of others. Mine is generally to go with the former but, being a person committed to truth, I will make concessions in narrow circumstances - including a person who is clearly trans but has "met me half way" - i.e. by taking the trouble to exhibit the signifiers (like dress, hair, cosmetics, name etc) that accord with the sex they wish to be regarded. But just demanding of me that certain pronouns are used will result with me either ignoring them or telling them to get lost. It is as unreasonable and as absurd as me insisting that, if you are mentioning me to a third person, you always begin by saying "His Royal Highness, Prince Stu".

For the second time in a month I am responding "Wow" at the intolerance of some people on this site. I fail to comprehend the determination to reject the concept of non-binary. It is their life, with their choices and these choices do you no harm. Fortunately my linguist friend, who is indeed an academic, is a very open-minded individual who is kind to the neurodivergent and the gender-divergent.

Apparently any tolerance to those who choose to dress unconventionally should not be extended to other unconventional choices. I will make my own choice of making this my last response on this site to the two members who elicited my "Wow" responses. What I am intolerant of is intolerance. On this site or anywhere else.

[crfriend]

For the second time in a month I am responding "Wow" at the intolerance of some people on this site. I fail to comprehend the determination to reject the concept of non-binary.

Methinks you're mistaking what's in play here. Linguistics is the scientific study of how languages function, how they are put together, and how they're used "in the wild". It has nothing to do with "sensitivity", sexuality, nor political correctness. It's like trying to compare nuclear physics with sociology -- it just doesn't mesh.

"Preferred pronouns" are most useful when one comes across name-spellings that are somewhat alien just to know what one is dealing with. Other than that, they are grammatical constructs that the observer uses to describe possession of what the observer perceives the sex of the subject being referred to. In that context, the desire of said subject cannot necessarily be known. Thus, blame cannot be assigned to the observer.

PC does not trump science.

There are several "engineered" languages designed by linguists in existence, and which have complete grammars and decent vocabularies. Two I can think of off the top of my head are Elvish, designed by HRR Tolkien (who was a linguist) as part of his Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Klingon, designed by another linguist to solve some problems for the Star Trek movie franchise. To be honest, I'm not sure how pronouns (if they even exist in those) work or whether they're gender-specific (which in English, they are).

[Barleymower]

PC does not trump science.

My daughter has explained it to me and even though I understood, it does not make sense to me.

They , them are plurals

xe/xem, ze/zim, sie/hir ????

[rode_kater]

PC does not trump science.

Linguistics is not a hard science. Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. Proclaiming "they" cannot be used as a singular is meaningless, all that matters is how people use it and whether they are understood.

In any case,"they" is often used as a singular, as demonstrated by the examples on wikipedia which are perfectly grammatical sentences.

"Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Could you please let them know where they can get it?"
"My personal rule is to never trust anyone who says that they had a good time in high school."
"The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."
"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources."

In each of those sentences you can put he/she/his/her instead, but since you don't know the gender of the person, "they" is perfectly appropriate. It continues:

This use of singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error. Its continued use in modern standard English has become more common and formally accepted with the move toward gender-neutral language. Though some early-21st-century style guides described it as colloquial and less appropriate in formal writing, by 2020 most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun.

It never leads to confusing sentence constructions, which is the most important issue for common usage. In Dutch it's tricker because the words for "her" and "they" are the same (ze), so simply reusing the word does lead to confusion. There's also no commonly understood gender neutral pronoun, the words "hun" and "die" are in the running, but do not yet sound as natural as "they" does in English (600 years head start will do that). We also don't have gender neutral forms for sibling or cousin, and in English "nibling" is growing as the gender neutral form of niece/nephew.

Pronouns are like names in that sense: it so often happens that people mispronounce your name, that's not a problem and no need to get upset. However, if after working with a colleague for a year and still mispronouncing a name, that's simply rude.

[moonshadow]

# is a symbolic abbreviation for the word 'number'.

Also "pound" (not Sterling). This is fairly old usage, however I have seen it used and I use it sarcastically to describe M$'s "C#" (they call it C-Sharp) which I call C-Pound.

I still call it a "pound". Old habits I suppose.