0

I understand pronouns and their antecedents must agree (a singular pronoun must have a singular antecedent, and a plural pronoun must have a plural antecedent). However, I can not find an elegant writing option for singular pronouns, such as someone or everyone, without sounding gender biased.

Example:

"Everyone evacuated the city because he didn't want to expose himself to the deadly virus."

The above example may be correct but will sound gender biased to modern educated readers. If readers find the writing gender biased, they will be distracted from the content of the writing; thus, the writing will be rendered ineffective.

So modern tastes dictate the following:

"Everyone evacuated the city because he/she didn't want to expose himself/herself to the deadly virus."

The second example solves the gender bias problem but introduces the problem of clunky and graceless writing. The messiness of he/she, his/her, and himself/herself distracts readers (myself included). This gender unbiased writing is equally as ineffective as gender biased writing.

Is there an elegant solution that would allow pronouns and antecedents to agree without introducing gender bias or clunky writing?

Mac Hail
  • 21
  • 5
    The short answer is the singular they. That's the most elegant solution the language has come up with. If there were a better one, we'd be using it. But singular they has taken the crown. – Dan Bron Jul 20 '17 at 17:31
  • Adding to @DanBron, If your construction allows you to switch to plural, you have solved all problems. Then, "People evacuated the city because they didn't want to expose themselves to the deadly virus." Another variation: "Everyone evacuated the city to avoid the deadly virus." – Yosef Baskin Jul 20 '17 at 19:04
  • "If readers find the writing gender biased, they will be distracted from the content of the writing; thus, the writing will be rendered ineffective." Lol, okay then. – Aleksandr Hovhannisyan Jul 20 '17 at 19:10
  • Adding to the "they" comments above, I would say that the switch to "they" has already happened and that documents or articles using "he", "himself" generically already appear dated and likely will look almost as strange as "thee" and "thou" 50 years out. People will understand them in context, but there will be a corollary suggestion that the associated thoughts belong to a prior era and thus weaken the other rational arguments presented by association. – Tom22 Jul 20 '17 at 19:16
  • @Tom22 "the associated thoughts belong to a prior era and thus weaken the other rational arguments presented by association" And I suppose writing with a female gender bias, as I often see liberal professors and authors at my university do, will somehow convey a more modern and progressive attitude that will validate one's writing by presenting it as a "rebellion" against the traditional use of "he"? Gender has nothing to do with good writing and good argumentation. Use whatever pronouns you want, but don't think they have any weight on the substance of your argument. – Aleksandr Hovhannisyan Jul 20 '17 at 19:17
  • @DanBron Very helpful! I was under the impression, falsely informed by professors, that "they" used as a singular pronoun was incorrect. Thanks for the introduction to singular "they" – Mac Hail Jul 20 '17 at 19:33
  • 1
    @AleksandrH Conveying ideas is probably more about rhetoric than grammar in my opinion. Chewing that argument over is beyond this forum, but it's an old subject, going back to ancient Greece. We've both put in our input for the benefit of the OP to consider. – Tom22 Jul 20 '17 at 19:39

2 Answers2

-1

Yes, there is an elegant solution (multiple, actually), but it's worth emphasizing that gender-biased writing is not a problem in the first place. If your writing lacks substance, no amount of gender neutrality will correct it.

Solution:

Everyone evacuated the city to avoid exposure to the deadly virus.

Edit: just saw that Yosef had actually posted something similar in the comments, so I'll offer a few alternatives

The city was evacuated to minimalize casualties from the deadly virus.

People fled the city to escape the deadly virus.

Authorities evacuated the city to minimize exposure to the deadly virus.

You get the point.

Community
  • 1
Aleksandr Hovhannisyan
  • 2,485
-3

it is the neuter pronoun of third person, corresponding to the masculine he and feminine she, and having the same plural (they, their or theirs, them)

Alex Sarmiento
  • 128
  • 1
    You can't use it with people; it's dehumanizing. It's worse to call someone an it than to assign the wrong gender. This is not a solution. – Dan Bron Jul 20 '17 at 18:57
  • @DanBron Of course that I can use that pronoun with people. dehumanizing? no. Genderless? yes. "it" is the neuter pronoun. – Alex Sarmiento Jul 20 '17 at 19:13
  • Oh look, @AlexSarmiento responded to me. It's so misguided that it's almost charming. – Dan Bron Jul 20 '17 at 19:14
  • @DanBron Please respond with relevant and well reasoned comments. Sarcastic comments are not that kind of comment. – Alex Sarmiento Jul 20 '17 at 19:22
  • 2
    Okay, so I suppose I will not be crucified if I attend, say, an LGBT pride event, point to a transgender person, and say "Hey, do you know it? I like the dress it has on." I second @DanBron here. It is objectively far worse. – Aleksandr Hovhannisyan Jul 20 '17 at 19:28
  • 2
    @AleksandrH You don't even need a LGBT parade. Just try that at the office or your next family function. No one likes to be referred to as it. The word isn't used for people. – Dan Bron Jul 20 '17 at 19:30
  • @DanBron Touche – Aleksandr Hovhannisyan Jul 20 '17 at 19:32
  • Well @DanBron it's used for people in the womb. This could stem from days gone by when the gender of the person was unknown. – Arm the good guys in America Jul 20 '17 at 19:44
  • @AleksandrH Well, If you don't want to use that pronoun because you subjectively fear some people then that's your problem. That's irrelevant to the objective definition of a neuter pronoun of third person. Nothing in that definition says anything about "dehumanization". The difference between "she", "he" and "it" is that the latter is genderless. Nothing less, nothing more. Nothing to do with "dehumanizing". I use "it" when the gender is either irrelevant or unknown. No problem so far. I am well and alive. – Alex Sarmiento Jul 20 '17 at 20:13
  • @AlexSarmiento It's not about a subjective fear of people. It's about respect. You don't call a person "it" because a person is not an inanimate item. Hence, dehumanization. I personally find it ironic that some of the same people who denounce "objectification" in turn objectify people by using these silly pronouns. "Wow, I wish I could date it. Where does it live? Do I have a shot at getting its number?" – Aleksandr Hovhannisyan Jul 20 '17 at 23:48
  • @AleksandrH Pronouns have nothing to do with "respect". We re not talking about adjectives or nouns. There's no such a definition of "it" that would make it exclusive to refer "inanimate items". Again, there's nothing dehumanizing about a genderless pronoun of third person, just like there's nothing "humanizing" about using a gender specific pronouns like "she" to refer inanimate objects such a boat. So, full stop. – Alex Sarmiento Jul 21 '17 at 00:35
  • @AlexSarmiento Liberals argue that misgendering is disrespectful...and then say pronouns have nothing to do with respect. Hokey dokey then. So you mean to tell me that it's perfectly normal to say things along the lines of "Do you know it?", "How old is it?", "Where was it born?", and "Where does it live?"...about people? Can't imagine how absolutely deluded one must be to believe this is okay. – Aleksandr Hovhannisyan Jul 21 '17 at 01:14