Some argue we need one for socially progressive reasons. Others simply want one to perfect their writing. But so far more than a hundred attempts have failed<\/p>\n
Gary Nunn
\nFriday 30 January 2015 09.00 GMT<\/p>\n
Language, like life, feels easier to deal with if we arrange it into binaries: Wrong\/right; Gay\/straight; Labour\/Conservative. Terms lurking between the two poles are often unfairly maligned. We\u2019re often wary of anything that is neither one nor the other: Justifiable homicide; Bisexual; The Liberal Democrats.<\/p>\n
The same goes for him\/her. We seem far more comfortable when people are either men or women. The reality is different. There are people who self\u00ad-define as neither, as gender-non\u00adbinary. To those who see gender as a construct, this makes perfect sense. But the English language fails to reflect it.<\/p>\n
A universal gender\u00ad-neutral pronoun \u2013 something to capture everything between he and she \u2013 would resolve this, and other issues. For non-\u00adatheist progressives, it would give them a gender-neutral God. It could describe androgynous robots. A third\u00ad person pronoun would also help us hacks with our word counts and copy neatness; writing his\/hers every time (for those of us who on principle refuse to default to \u2018his\u2019) feels untidy and inelegant.<\/p>\n
For those now considering commenting to suggest that there\u2019s a perfectly fine existing neutral pronoun \u2013 \u201cthey\u201d \u2013 remember that pronouns must match both gender and number. So in the case of single individuals, it\u2019s grammatically inaccurate.<\/p>\n
And for those complaining this is a \u201cPC gone mad\u201d linguistic ambush by the modern trans lobby, this fascinating blog by Dennis Baron charts more than 100 (failed) attempts over 150 years to coin a gender\u00ad-neutral singular pronoun. The elusive term \u2013 still not agreed upon \u2013 has been labelled the \u2018hermaphrodite pronoun\u2019, the \u2018bi\u00adpersonal pronoun\u2019 and the \u2018unisex pronoun.\u2019<\/p>\n
So what should it be? Baron\u2019s blog walks you through all the failed attempts \u2013 starting with the mid\u00ad 19th century\u2019s ne, nis, nim, and citing sci-\u00adfi\u2019s contributions of neologism: co; xie; per; en. As early as 1878, Napoleon Bonaparte Brown argued that the need for a new pronoun was \u201cso desperate, urgent, imperative that … it should long since have grown on our speech\u201d.<\/p>\n
Advertisement<\/p>\n
In 1884, thon, hi, le, hiser and ip were variously suggested. Thon \u2013 a blend of that and one \u2013 was coined by Philadelphia lawyer Charles C Converse and Baron demonstrates how it was the closest thing to a successful attempt at entering the vernacular; it was accepted by two major dictionaries and even adopted by some writers. But it was grammatical pedantry, not feminism, that motivated Converse. He wanted a \u201cbeautiful symmetry\u201d in English and to avoid \u201chideous solecisms\u201d.<\/p>\n
The second closest thing to enter the vernacular was named after American mathematician Michael Spivak; initially e, es, em (e wrote; es eyes are blue) later ey, eir, em (ey wrote; I like em). Other sources attribute these pronouns (formed by dropping the th from they, their and them) to a competition run by the Chicago Association of Business Communicators, won by a Christine M Elverson in 1975. The Spivak pronouns are used today by some in the genderqueer and gaming communities.<\/p>\n
Further proposals \u2013 hes, hem, ir, ons, e, ith , lim, ler, lers \u2013 sprang up, often suggested by newspapers. Readers suggested portmanteaus: hiser; himer; hasher; shis; shim; heer; hie. Humanist lexicon suggested hu, which can occasionally sound like the Kiwi accent (hu wrote; I like hum). Jayce\u2019s system, meanwhile, suggested jee, jem (jee wrote; I like jem). You can find these, and many more, listed at A Chronology of a Word that Failed.<\/p>\n
Why has a need for such a short and simple word been so unsuccessful? One opponent of the \u201cbastard word form\u201d portmanteaus, wrote in the New York Commercial Advertiser in 1884 in response to the idea of thon: \u201cAll attempts in this direction have failed, partly because it is always exceedingly difficult to introduce new forms into a language, unless they spring up naturally and, as it were, spontaneously.\u201d<\/p>\n
Grammar pedantry aside, what would be the social impact of this addition to the language? The feminist argument is as obvious as it is compelling. And in the case of gender-non\u00adbinary people, how do they get around the problem? Minding your language is important here. Shim and shemale are pejorative portmanteaus, sometimes lazily applied to trans people.<\/p>\n
The transgender campaigning group Press for Change told me: \u201cWhen transitioning [in the UK], people have to apply to the Gender Recognition Panel for recognition of their acquired gender. There\u2019s no option for neutral or non-\u00adheteronormative gender.\u201d Last April, the Australian case of Norrie sparked discussion on the issue. In a landmark high court case, Norrie, 52, from Sydney, won the right for gender-non\u00adspecific Australians to be something other than male or female on their birth certificate. Norrie has expressed a preference for the Germanic hir for her\/his, and zie for he\/she.<\/p>\n
I contacted the All About Trans project, who connected me with some British people who, like Norrie, identify as gender-non\u00adbinary. Nathan Gale from Scotland says having a widely recognised third pronoun would be very useful. Gale currently uses \u201cthey\u201d, and reiterates the advice from the Trans Media Watch style guide: \u201cSimply referring to people in the way they refer to themselves is usually the best way to accurately report their identity.\u201d<\/p>\n
I note, however, no universal gender-blind pronoun is recommended. If we all use different third pronouns, they\u2019ll become fourth, fifth, 200th pronouns, and clarity will be lost. I believe Trans Media Watch should stop fence\u00ad-sitting and pick one, then promote it. Gale says: \u201cI think journalists can be scared of using language that people are unfamiliar with, like non\u00adbinary for example but, people won\u2019t become familiar with them if they\u2019re never used in the mainstream media.\u201d<\/p>\n
Guardian writer Jane Fae wrote about a gender-non\u00adbinary friend\u2019s choice of language: \u201cThey don\u2019t identify as male or female, prefer Mx (pronounced \u201cMix\u201d) as title of choice, and feel positively excluded by forms that demand they pick from a limited list of gender\u00ad specific titles.\u201d<\/p>\n
CN Lester, 30, also opts for \u201cthey\u201d to describe their non\u00adbinary identity. They seem impatient at the slow \u00adrate of linguistic change: \u201cPeople who transgress gender norms, and gendered language, are hardly a new phenomenon. How we refer to ourselves, and how society refers to us, is constantly changing this is just one more small shift of many.\u201d They add: \u201cUsing trans\u00adfriendly language doesn\u2019t have to be hard, although it might take a bit of getting used to it can be pretty exciting, to see how flexible, accommodating and inventive our language can be.\u201d<\/p>\n
I agree \u2013 it\u2019s exciting how our language can reflect social progressiveness (such as the adoption of the honorific Ms). Whether you\u2019re a grammatical purist, a feminist or a social progressive, the reasons for a uniform, unisex third pronoun are compelling. But what should it be?
\nGary Nunn is a regular contributor to Mind your language. His posts appear on the last Friday of every month. @GaryNunn1<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Some argue we need one for socially progressive reasons. Others simply want one to perfect their writing. But so far more than a hundred attempts have failed<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":893,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,65,57,56],"tags":[131,139,42,160],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1053"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1053\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jesusromerotrillo.es\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}