Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern usage, "they" is the dominant form. See my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_befo...

Ryan Kaldari

On 12/28/11 4:50 PM, Theo10011 wrote:

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org mailto:rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:

I responded to the inquiry and replaced all the gendered pronouns at
issue with singular they. On a related note, I'm very disappointed to
learn that the Chicago Manual of Style (which provided the basis
for the
original Wikipedia Manual of Style) has stopped recommending the
use of
singular they. As the use of singular they has been steadily
increasing
since the 1960s (Pauwels 2003), it is curious that the Chicago Manual
would be moving backwards. I have to wonder if there was some sort of
political pressure involved. On a positive note, the 2011 edition
of the
New International Version Bible now uses singular they.

And I defended the reverting editor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_la... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_language&action=historysubmit&diff=468184170&oldid=468179760).

It's an interesting topic, but the original editor seems to be taking a political stance, which the reverting editor might not know about. The usage of Generic Antecedents, by definition require the gender to be unknown or irrelevant. The traditional usage has been predominantly masculine.

I am not a native English speaker so I might be wrong on this, but the article is using Generic Antecedents. The approach taken in English language has certain usage hard-wired in the brain. There has been a long standing argument about the political undertone about its usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_antecedents#Political_opinions).

What Kaldari did, while ideal to avoid any conflict or debate, is debatable in the grammatical sense. The usage note in Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/they) and other sources (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=2) dispute usage of "singular" they as a gender neutral singular pronoun rather than a plural pronoun. The usage note mentions "This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference."

I'm sure Dominic can correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

Regards Theo

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern usage, "they" is the dominant form. See my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_befo...

Err.......Ok, this might be a cultural thing......but why are you citing the translator notes for the New international version of the Bible for a grammatical choice?

The translators notes mention, "The gender-neutral pronoun ‟they” (‟them”/‟their”) is by far the most common way that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents". The article also goes on to mention, "instances of what grammarians are increasingly calling the ‟singular they” (‟them” or ‟their”) appear three times more frequently than generic masculine forms."

I agree, it would probably make more sense to refer to style manuals that deal with new texts, and write a Wikipedia article on gender representation in the Bible. The given translation might or might not add to the original, I am no expert, but it sure is an interesting topic to delve into (see e.g. http://www.bible-researcher.com/gender.html)

The wide-spread modern usage is shifting towards "they", again "impelled by the desire to avoid sexist implications of HE", which is exactly what this particular case involved. Grammarians apparently dispute the usage. It might even come down to a stylistic choice in the end.

We have a nice article on singular they, the interesting thing is that even Shakespeare and others before him have used it in its current meaning, so its not a modern invention (regardless of its current Renaissance).

From a prescriptive point of view, one might dispute it, from a

descriptivist point of view it is certainly part of the language. It is up to the English Wikipedia community to decide what its house style will include.

As we are on this topic, it would be interesting to see (again, in a nicely collected Wikipedia article) to how pairs of gendered expressions behave in different languages. Without further proof, I would probably not read too much politics into any usage. For example, we have in English "he or she" but we also use "ladies and gentlemen" and probably there is a balance somewhere in the usage of "men and women" vs. "women and men".[1] In Hungarian we would probably say "nők és férfiak" ('women and men') and "hölgyek és urak" ('ladies and gentlemen'), while fortunately we only have on pronoun for 'he or she': "ő" – so this problem doesn't come up. It is probably different for various languages.

Also, as Theo notes, it would be interesting to cite some good cognitive linguistics study on the effects of pronouns on people. I have read about studies that show that the gender of objects in different languages affects the speakers way of thinking of them (e.g. describing a bridge as masculine or feminine based on its gender in the language), but it would be interesting to see if the order of pronouns has any measurable effect[2].

Anyhow, an interesting practice that might go against gender stereotyping – although probably not in a factual encyclopedia article – is to use simply "she" where one would have to use "he", "he or she" or "they".

Best regards, Bence (also not a native speaker; male)

[1] The balance is in favour of the former, but for example, the UN uses both with equal frequency, while preferring "he or she" over "she or he" 20:1. [2] I am not sure about cognitive connotations, but the strange order of the phrase might be more difficult to read, and possibly cause problems who have difficulties reading, thus having an effect on accessibility of the text. (Probably not an issue in the great scheme of things, but something to consider for Simple Wikipedia if one was to transfer any agreed change in usage)

I think the way grammatical gender and gender inequality relate is an interesting topic, but this debate will get off-topic and technical quite quickly. Nevertheless, I gave it a stab in my inline replies below, along with hopefully a more useful observation.

On 12/28/11 8:08 PM, Theo10011 wrote:

Incidentally, the person credited for popularizing for this male-centric usage, is Anne fisher[1], an 18th-century British schoolmistress, and one of the first woman to write an English grammar book. [...]

This is not entirely relevant (though quite fascinating). There is no single definition of feminism, and its meaning is especially dependent on cultural mores of their time and place. You might call Boudica, Elizabeth I, or Abigail Adams feminists, but that doesn't mean they necessarily even supported most of what we'd call women's rights. I see where you are coming from, but I could just as easily point out that Martin Luther King referred to his own race as "Negro" if I wanted to defend its modern usage.

On 12/28/11 8:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:

Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern usage, "they" is the dominant form. See my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_befo...

This is also not entirely relevant. Manuals of style *prescribe* usages in formal language, rather than describing common usages. Some of the things you can find in the English Wikipedia's manual of style are actually quite uncommon in everyday writing, but still sound policy.

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari
<rkaldari@wikimedia.org <mailto:rkaldari@wikimedia.org>> wrote:

    I responded to the inquiry and replaced all the gendered
    pronouns at
    issue with singular they. On a related note, I'm very
    disappointed to
    learn that the Chicago Manual of Style (which provided the
    basis for the
    original Wikipedia Manual of Style) has stopped recommending
    the use of
    singular they. As the use of singular they has been steadily
    increasing
    since the 1960s (Pauwels 2003), it is curious that the Chicago
    Manual
    would be moving backwards. I have to wonder if there was some
    sort of
    political pressure involved. On a positive note, the 2011
    edition of the
    New International Version Bible now uses singular they.

I don't think it was political in the sense you are imagining. They have a page in their FAQ about the issue: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/Pronouns/Pronouns15.html. Briefly, the singular "they" was only ever endorsed in one edition, after which they changed their mind. Chicago does not disapprove of the singular "they"; rather, they essentially describe the controversy and refrain from taking a strong stance. The reason is pretty obvious: the singular "they" is justifiable for several reasons, but it can't really be justified on modern grammatical grounds---which is problematic since grammar tends to be somewhat important when it comes to formal writing.

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Theo10011 <de10011@gmail.com
<mailto:de10011@gmail.com>> wrote:
And I defended the reverting editor.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_language&action=historysubmit&diff=468184170&oldid=468179760
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_language&action=historysubmit&diff=468184170&oldid=468179760>).

[...]

I'm sure Dominic can correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

Since you asked... I kind of agree more with Theo here. I think the stance which most Wikipedians, including feminists, would agree to would be to adhere to the original author's language---like we do with regional spellings---with respect to singular "they" or "he or she", but to frown upon stylistic changes from one or the other solely due to an editor's preference (and certainly to always frown upon a generic "he").

Let's step back, though. To me, the more important issue here is that a new, possibly female, editor made an innocuous change in good faith and was reverted and branded a vandal. Whatever we think about the grammatical debate, it was not vandalism, and he or she (or they!) are a potential new editor we may have scared away. Our response should not simply be to forget about that and start a discussion about arcane policy, as if that's the solution. For example, I think you may have even given the impression to the new editor that the revert was justified because she didn't use the singular "they" (your "fix"), Ryan(!). Looking at the reverter's talk page history, this seems to be a pattern. We'll do more to make this project a more welcoming place to women and everyone else by addressing such antisocial and unwelcoming behavior than we will by debating between "he or she" or "she and he" and the singular they---both of which, it should be mentioned, are relatively gender neutral when compared to the generic "he" alternative.

Dominic