6

There have been attempts to use other contemporary English pronouns to stand-in as a true gender-neutral pronoun, given that English is lacking a commonly-accepted one for adult humans (non-humans and even babies can be referred to as 'it'). Examples of this include 'he/she', 'one', and the singular 'they'.

However, these can be confused with the contemporary pronouns which have been used as stand-ins, and they can at times be awkward to use. Other pronouns exist which can avoid this problem, such as 'thon', which seems to have historically picked up the most momentum, and was in the dictionary as recently as 1964!

Which are the most commonly used gender-neutral pronouns in English around the world today, to be used when referring back to an adult human, that aren't the same as other contemporary pronouns?

tchrist
  • 134,759
Jez
  • 12,705
  • possible duplicate of Gender neutral pronoun – MrHen Jun 05 '11 at 12:22
  • This is not a dupe. That question is talking about a very specific choice between two pronouns. – Jez Jun 05 '11 at 16:22
  • @Jez: I disagree. But even if it isn't a dupe, than it should be closed for other reasons. If you are curious about thon, ask a question about thon. – MrHen Jun 05 '11 at 17:30
  • 3
    'thon' was an example. This question is clearly about gender-neutral pronouns in general. – Jez Jun 05 '11 at 18:35
  • This question seems OK, since is about actual usage, not of the type "what words could you make up for x?". I am assuming that at least some people use these words, if only jokingly—or this question would be too localized. For now, I will vote to reopen if it should get closed. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jun 06 '11 at 00:53
  • @Jez: The question linked is about gender neutral pronouns in general; the answers there would be the same answers to this question. – MrHen Jun 06 '11 at 02:38
  • @MrHen No. I disagree. It asks which one the person asking should use (including the standard he/she, it, singular they, etc. hacks) whereas mine asks which of the non-hacks are most popular. They are different questions. – Jez Jun 06 '11 at 08:19
  • @Jez: The question you think you are asking is not the question in the title/body. Really, a few simple edits could fix this entire problem. – MrHen Jun 06 '11 at 12:58
  • 1
    Question edited to be more unique. – Jez Jun 06 '11 at 14:32
  • @Jez: Good job! Voted to reopen and downvote removed. – MrHen Jun 06 '11 at 15:56

2 Answers2

13

There are no such pronouns in common use in any major dialect of English, though that's not for lack of trying. Since at least the 1850s, various linguistic do-gooders have proposed more than 80 potential gender-neutral pronouns, none of which ever gained traction. A sampling:

thon, thons; ne, nis, nim; hi, hes, hem; e, es, em; ir, iro, im; ip, ips; he'er, him'er, his'er, his'er's; te, tes, tir; shis, shims, shim, shimself; zie , zees, zim, zeeself; per, pers

All of these have the significant drawback of being ridiculous, which is probably the reason singular they is the only option that's come close to mainstream acceptance. Until the prescriptivists accept singular they, we're stuck with rewriting to eliminate the gender-specific pronoun.

phenry
  • 18,259
  • 3
    Voted you down because of your random subjective assertion that these proposals are 'ridiculous'. I think several of them would work just fine. – Jez Jun 05 '11 at 15:12
  • 2
    @Jez: The subjective assertion is a problem with how you asked the question. – MrHen Jun 05 '11 at 17:32
  • Elaborate. I don't see how the asking of the question is a problem (seriously.) – Jez Jun 05 '11 at 19:39
  • 1
    @Jez: Sadly your question is to subjective, and also the 'ridiculous' part of the answer (despite the fact that I agree with the entire sentiment of the answer). Substitute 'ridiculous' with the slightly more objective 'difficult to recognize as English'. – Mitch Jun 05 '11 at 19:43
  • 2
    How is the question too subjective? I'm asking which pronouns are common in English today; this is looking for a purely factual answer. – Jez Jun 05 '11 at 19:52
  • @phenry I'll accept this as the answer if you change the 'being ridiculous' to something like 'seeming somewhat unusual to a native English speaker'. – Jez Jun 05 '11 at 20:49
  • 5
    +1 "Somewhat unusual" would be misleading to beginner ESL students, who might actually use one of these words. Many people, including me, will at least chuckle if decorum permits; this would seem to warrant "ridiculous"—though perhaps jocular would provide a friendlier perspective. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jun 06 '11 at 00:50
  • @Cerberus Still, it would be nice if one of them became widely used! English could do with such a word. – Jez Jun 06 '11 at 08:17
  • @Jez: Well... perhaps so! You're right that the pronouns we have now appear to be problematic to a substantial group; but it's just not the kind of linguistic change I'd personally want to lead. (By the way, I think the traditional pronouns may continue to serve us as well as they always have, if feminists decide that changing language isn't really necessary or effective in changing society...) – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jun 06 '11 at 15:06
  • @Cerberus They don't serve well for referring to people of uncertain gender, like that South African person recently in the news because they weren't sure if thon was a woman. :-) – Jez Jun 06 '11 at 15:35
  • @Jez: Heh, I missed that, but I will admit that there are some situations in which he/she won't do. But then we have the ugly a/the/this person as a last resort. In cases like we ask each student to deliver his key to the dean's office, traditional English has no problem with his to refer to both men and women. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jun 06 '11 at 16:55
  • @Cerberus Nope, but I just prefer thons. ;-) It sounds right, like it could be a Germanic word (not something wacky like zee). I can get used to saying it very easily. And it would make English more awesome if it didn't have this shortcoming. – Jez Jun 06 '11 at 17:03
  • @Jez: While you're at it, why don't you also make up a word that would work in all Indo-European languages? I don't think any of them have such a word! (English just seems to be the only language where this is felt to be a problem. In Dutch, the masculine/neuter pronouns are used with any unknown gender, though the occasional complaint may be heard now and then.) – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jun 06 '11 at 17:22
  • @Cerberus Surely different words would be appropriate for different Indo-European languages. Thon may sound nice to an English speaker's ear, but I doubt it would to a Spanish or Italian speaker's. Likewise, zee sounds like it'd fit in much more nicely with Dutch or German to me. – Jez Jun 06 '11 at 19:47
5

Ze and hir have been around for some time, although they haven't gained much traction in the cis community. There're more listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_solutions

Loquacity
  • 1,988
  • Thanks for pointing out "ze" and "hir". I've often seen "ze" and "hir" used to refer to a particular person who's genderqueer/non-binary. Are these pronouns also used to refer to some generic/hypothetical person whose gender could be anything? – jlstrecker Apr 03 '14 at 16:00