Can "They" be a person?
The Hobson's choice between a confusing pronoun and sexism.
A subscriber who read my previous post on pronouns laments that young folk these days use they as a singular pronoun. (A person can go wherever they want.)
“A neighbor was trying to tell me about his daughter’s ‘partner’, and I stumbled over his use of a plural pronoun for a single (increasingly less singular) individual. While I’m happy that my friend’s progeny has found a partner, I don’t want to pervert my language. How are you handling all this?”
He asks me to avoid using his name, adding, “We live in awkward times.”
I suppose we do. But then, any person over 60—or any teenager for that matter—has lived in awkward times since time immemorial.
Back to pronouns: I personally avoid the singular they in my writing, preferring to alternate between “he” and “she” like a jittery alternating current; unless, um, they insist on they as a pronoun, in which case I’ll make a decorous exception. Why create enemies?
Besides, Garner’s Modern English Usage points out that the possessive their (“No one thinks their soup is too hot”) has been used for centuries. What’s more, the singular they thrived during the 1200s—though only as an indefinite pronoun: “They” and “their” referred to some theoretical human, not to an identifiable individual.
That changed five or six years ago, when “they” became a universal substitute for a specific person. (“A convict remains a convict even after they win an election.”) Merriam-Webster declared they as the word of the year in 2019, thanks to a massive increase in lookups.
More from the brilliant Bryan Garner:
“By a confluence of natural linguistic evolution and a few social-engineering campaigns, the word has been thrust into prominence in the last few years.”
While the definite “they” creates confusion, vox populi rules. Traditionalists must do their best to tolerate its use if only to get along. On the other hand, the ostentatiously woke should not cancel us fossils when we slip. “Inclusive” language should never exclude.
Besides, is that maddening they the only option? Garner seems to think so. He explains that they came into vogue in part because English lacks a common-gender third-person-singular pronoun.
But there is just such a beast, and it has a singular presence: the pronoun one.
One admittedly sounds stuffy when one uses it. “No one thinks one’s soup is too hot” comes off as rather Victorian. The cacozelic “Sierra hit the road as soon as one’s partner broke up with one” sounds as if Chat GPT translated it from some dialect of Klingon. Nonetheless, one gets used things, doesn’t one? Why not get used to one? It surely qualifies as a third-person-singular pronoun, and even as a definite singular pronoun. (A convict remains a convict even after one wins an election.) What about it, Mr. Garner?
On this, the man is uncharacteristically silent.
While the macho he (“No one has to go if he doesn’t want to”) has passed its sell-by date, one shudders that a solecism like “Nobody has to go if they don’t want to” will become sanctioned after geezers like me shuffle off.
On the other hand, banning they would be as quixotic as, say, reviving the once-sacred second-person singular thou; which was the only proper singular second-person pronoun back in the day. You was exclusively plural, reserved for all-y’all.
Thou’rt welcome, dear reader.
A proud dad was showing me pix of his family. "They are so talented!" he gushed. "They sing, they play piano, they're great at sports..." I was flipping through the pix, and the person in each photo seemed to be the same person. "Are they twins?" I asked. No, they're non-binary, was the answer. "Ah," I uttered. I was still unsure how many kids he had, or if all of the pix were of his one non-binary child. Shouldn't he have said "They is great at sports"? That would've tipped me off. Love the idea of using "one." The primary purpose of language is clear communication. We need to get some buy-in from the non-binary crowd. Unless, of course, they're editors or royalty, or like to think of themselves as such.
I had never thought of "one" for that context. Great solution. It resolves all of my problems with "they," which are purely grammatic as a plural pronoun. I respect a person's request to use a particular pronoun, of course, but it grates on my brain for the mismatched singular verb. "One" in its place would have no such problem.
Ultimately, I'm not the one to whom this matters though. I'm just a language user. Assuming we're all willing to use a preferred pronoun out of politeness to the requesting party, it's the non-binary requestor who would need to embrace this.
To that end: I would suggest the Victorian throwback gives it an air of intrigue too, where "they" sounds generic and implies just part of a crowd, "one" is a unique individual. Plus, "they" often has a negative Big Brother connotation. Who's controlling our lives? They are.