possessive determiners

[prolixity]

I have a huge problem with "their" as a possessive determiner, and I wanted to get some of you humanities-types' opinions on it. When I click to see someone's profile, I always see something like the following: prolixity has not set their status.

Why not just use the gender-neutral "his"? I've noticed quite a bit more of this in the public sphere.. what is the contemporary consensus on possessive determiners?

[glasses]

Why not just use the gender-neutral "his"?

Because "his" is not gender neutral?

[prolixity]

Because "his" is not gender neutral?

Lol, but it is! ..Or at least it was until people started viewing the elements of our language literally.

I'm personally partial toward the "universal he" or "thon".

Edited February 25, 2010 by prolixity

[alexis]

On the chronicle forums they use "hu" as a gender-neutral replacement that is also grammatically correct. I personally like that movement, it would be nice if it picked up some steam and could be added to the English language, but most people have clue what it means when you write "hu" and "hu's."

[someDay]

The easiest way to get round this is to set your bloody status. Perhaps to "wonders whether their should be there."?

"His" used as gender-neutral sounds odd to me, I don't think I've ever heard someone using that. "Their" is fine and what I was taught in school.

sD.

Edited February 25, 2010 by someDay

[herself the elf]

I have a huge problem with "their" as a possessive determiner, and I wanted to get some of you humanities-types' opinions on it. When I click to see someone's profile, I always see something like the following: prolixity has not set their status.

Why not just use the gender-neutral "his"? I've noticed quite a bit more of this in the public sphere.. what is the contemporary consensus on possessive determiners?

"Their" bothers me too, but not as much as being called a man by default.

If I were in charge of it, it would say "her/his."

[psycholinguist]

Yeah, this is an old debate in sociolinguistics. The problem is that 'his' is inescapably associated with the male pronoun. There's no getting around the fact that, like it or not, the same combination of phonemes (and letters, in writing) also serves as the male possessive pronoun in English. It's no help that no one wants to be seen as espousing traditional patriarchial views, which can seem the case in many contexts with the 'him'. (Consider something along the lines of 'None of the students in the engineering-department was late handing in his homework'. It sort of looks as if the writer is either unaware of or in denial about the existence of female engineers.)

The weird thing is that 'their' has actually been used as a gender-neutral third-person possessive pronoun for centuries. I think it was even the dominant one in the mid- to late eighteenth century. Then a prescriptivist grammarian (a female one, at that!) began publicly criticising this use of 'their' and proposed very outspokenly that 'his' be used in lieu of it. That was the 'correct' form for centuries, until the feminists protested. (And they do have a point, as mentioned.)

So, yeah, there are no easy answers here about whether 'his' is gender-biased or gender-neutral, but I suggest that anyone uncomfortable with both 'their' and with 'his' simply use (as herself the elf mentions) something such as 'his or her'.

[Roll Right]

"Their" is an unbrella term, as everyone knows. Language is taken quite literally by many people who are not in academia. In fact, without language, we can't have a society that functions (obviously). Through the medium of language we become socialized and continue to build our internal selves. Having said that, you have to assume that a emphasis on masculinity even in something as seemingly mundane as language will have an effect on gender stratification in the larger society.

Also, think about historical causation. Men ruled just about every occupation, so its no wonder masculine generalizations were used as a default. The change to something neutral is a reflection of the changing stratification of gender in at least the developed world.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Roll Right

[jacib]

"Their" is an unbrella term, as everyone knows. Language is taken quite literally by many people who are not in academia. In fact, without language, we can't have a society that functions (obviously). Through the medium of language we become socialized and continue to build our internal selves. Having said that, you have to assume that a emphasis on masculinity even in something as seemingly mundane as language will have an effect on gender stratification in the larger society.

Also, think about historical causation. Men ruled just about every occupation, so its no wonder masculine generalizations were used as a default. The change to something neutral is a reflection of the changing stratification of gender in at least the developed world.

Though "singular they" is widespread in everyday English and has a long history of usage, debate continues about its acceptability. Regarding usage, the Chicago Manual of Style notes:

On the one hand, it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun (

he

in reference to no one in particular). On the other hand, it is unacceptable to a great many readers either to resort to nontraditional gimmicks to avoid the generic masculine (by using

he/she

or

s/he

, for example) or to use

they

as a kind of singular pronoun. Either way, credibility is lost with some readers.

With the 14th edition (1993), the Manual briefly revised their neutral stance to actually recommend "singular use of they and their", noting a "revival" of this usage and citing "its venerable use by such writers as Addison, Austen, Chesterfield, Fielding, Ruskin, Scott, and Shakespeare." However, regret regarding that printing is expressed at their website; and with the current 15th edition (2003), they have returned to their original neutral position.

(taken from the Singular They wikipedia page).

I think it is the easiest, clearest solution in most cases, and while I used to tread lightly with its use, I am now no longer afraid to use it frequently, boldly and without apology. If anyone has a problem with that, they can personal message me (now, do you really want me to say "he can personal message me" or "that person can personal message")

[Pamphilia]

I think it is the easiest, clearest solution in most cases, and while I used to tread lightly with its use, I am now no longer afraid to use it frequently, boldly and without apology.

Well said, Jacib.

"His" has always bothered me, because it is decidedly not gender neutral. It has often and long been used as a determiner for all people, but instead of signifying both masculine and feminine, it amounts to erasure of anything not masculine.

"Their" used to bother me, as well, until I researched it and learned that it has been used (and considered proper usage) for a very long time. When it still bothered me, I often used "his/her" or "s/he." However, this is also not inclusive as it reinforces a problematic gender binary and erases other genders. "Hir" is frequently used, though I'm also not a big fan of it because it just seems to me to be a mushing together of "him" and "her." "Zir" is also sometimes used. Personally, I think I prefer "their" and use it commonly in conversation. For formal writing, however, I generally still stick to singulars and almost always use "her" and "she" as my pronouns. It applies more directly to myself and, I think, makes a certain point.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Pamphilia

[red_crayons]

Yeah, this is an old debate in sociolinguistics. The problem is that 'his' is inescapably associated with the male pronoun. There's no getting around the fact that, like it or not, the same combination of phonemes (and letters, in writing) also serves as the male possessive pronoun in English. It's no help that no one wants to be seen as espousing traditional patriarchial views, which can seem the case in many contexts with the 'him'. (Consider something along the lines of 'None of the students in the engineering-department was late handing in his homework'. It sort of looks as if the writer is either unaware of or in denial about the existence of female engineers.)

The weird thing is that 'their' has actually been used as a gender-neutral third-person possessive pronoun for centuries. I think it was even the dominant one in the mid- to late eighteenth century. Then a prescriptivist grammarian (a female one, at that!) began publicly criticising this use of 'their' and proposed very outspokenly that 'his' be used in lieu of it. That was the 'correct' form for centuries, until the feminists protested. (And they do have a point, as mentioned.)

So, yeah, there are no easy answers here about whether 'his' is gender-biased or gender-neutral, but I suggest that anyone uncomfortable with both 'their' and with 'his' simply use (as herself the elf mentions) something such as 'his or her'.

Yay, linguistics! You said it better than I could have. I hate prescriptivism on this point.

[Roll Right]

Hell its just easy and includes everyone. Good enough for me. I can remember being corrected by teachers for using it so frequently when I was in high school. Now its used so frequently, I'd probably be corrected for not using it.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Roll Right

[JerryLandis]

In school I was taught never to use "their" this way, but to pick either he or she (or use he/she if necessary, but obviously that can get tedious) and be consistent with whichever pronoun I decided to use. "His" could be [technically] gender-neutral, but "hers" and "she" could be used to discuss a hypothetical person of unspecified gender, if the person writing wants to avoid being exclusive of females. Personally, I alternate between the two, although of course never in the middle of a sentence or example.

I suppose I take this for granted because, as a female, I rarely get accused of sexist tendencies. It becomes funny, of course, when I write something anonymously or on the internet, and the person reading has no way of knowing I'm female (or simply assumes that I'm not because my username is Jerry). Take for example a recent conversation (flame-war, to be more accurate) in which I was accused of being insensitive/sexist for calling someone a "he" because I did not know their gender and it turned out to be a "she." Nah mate, actually I was just reverting to the technically gender-neutral term. I don't get worked up when people I've never met get my gender wrong, so I don't see the big deal. But I guess I understand how the issue could be annoying for men who don't want to give the wrong impression!

Man, this is turning out to be a long post. Just wanted to add that my personal pet peeve is when people put apostrophes at the end of a singular word to denote possession. For example, to say belonging to James, people write James' instead of James's. What the hell is a Jame anyway?

[pea-jay]

Until I blocked all MafiaWars updates, I would get annoyed at that application's use of "THEIR" instead of the obviously set gender value that 99.99% of facebook users have correctly set. I mean how hard would it be to code a HIS or HER mafia based on the fb user profile.

As for this forum, statistically speaking more Grad School applicants are female, so I kinda presume those unset gender profiles with gender-neutral ID's would be female. Not that any of this matters on an online forum. I could have set my age back to 24, found an attractive girl's picture and created the user account Vixxxen and most of you would not be the wiser.

[Karli-Marie]

Man, this is turning out to be a long post. Just wanted to add that my personal pet peeve is when people put apostrophes at the end of a singular word to denote possession. For example, to say belonging to James, people write James' instead of James's. What the hell is a Jame anyway?

While both are generally accepted, I tend to agree, but there are exceptions such as James's sweater, or Moses's hat (James' sweater, Moses' hat)

[rising_star]

Until I blocked all MafiaWars updates, I would get annoyed at that application's use of "THEIR" instead of the obviously set gender value that 99.99% of facebook users have correctly set. I mean how hard would it be to code a HIS or HER mafia based on the fb user profile.

I'm going to ignore the linguistic/semantics debate just to say this one thing. Isn't it problematic that facebook only offers two choices? My understanding is that less than 99.99% of the population identifies with one sex or the other... Don't worry, I find it problematic that we only have two options under gender but I'm not sure if bgk is actually able to change that or if it comes with the software.

You can now return to your regularly scheduled linguistic debate. Thanks!

[Pamphilia]

Isn't it problematic that facebook only offers two choices? My understanding is that less than 99.99% of the population identifies with one sex or the other... Don't worry, I find it problematic that we only have two options under gender but I'm not sure if bgk is actually able to change that or if it comes with the software.

Yes, exactly. That's the problem I have with "him/him" or "hir."

[psycholinguist]

Yay, linguistics! You said it better than I could have. I hate prescriptivism on this point.

Heh, thanks! It's really just that I've given it a lot of thought over the years.

Isn't it problematic that facebook only offers two choices? My understanding is that less than 99.99% of the population identifies with one sex or the other... Don't worry, I find it problematic that we only have two options under gender but I'm not sure if bgk is actually able to change that or if it comes with the software.

There is a point there. I know a person who doesn't really identify with either gender, and who therefore really appreciates the fact that Facebook a) allows users not to set a gender, and uses the pronoun 'their' to refer to users who opt not to.

[prolixity]

Heh, thanks! It's really just that I've given it a lot of thought over the years.

There is a point there. I know a person who doesn't really identify with either gender, and who therefore really appreciates the fact that Facebook a) allows users not to set a gender, and uses the pronoun 'their' to refer to users who opt not to.

Um, at the risk of sounding like an unenlightened bumpkin, I've always understood gender to be a naturalized trait, with relatively few exceptions resultant from chromosomal abnormalities. I understand some would like biological gender to be a choice, and I don't fault them for feeling out of place; however, there's really nothing y'alls can do to change up them there chromosomes.

Certainly, one can argue about different methods of defining gender, but the fact remains: biological gender is defined at the genetic level and not through the modification of superficial structures and organs. The dichotomous nature of gender isn't up for debate, though the gender identity definitely is.

But what is Facebook asking? Biological gender or gender identity? Perhaps we should lobby Facebook to provide fields for both?

[Karli-Marie]

Um, at the risk of sounding like an unenlightened bumpkin, I've always understood gender to be a naturalized trait, with relatively few exceptions resultant from chromosomal abnormalities. I understand some would like biological gender to be a choice, and I don't fault them for feeling out of place; however, there's really nothing y'alls can do to change up them there chromosomes.

Certainly, one can argue about different methods of defining gender, but the fact remains: biological gender is defined at the genetic level and not through the modification of superficial structures and organs. The dichotomous nature of gender isn't up for debate, though the gender identity definitely is.

But what is Facebook asking? Biological gender or gender identity? Perhaps we should lobby Facebook to provide fields for both?

I think that you are neglecting to separate "sex" from "gender." Sex refers to the biological categories of male and female which are determined by genetics, reproductive organs, and hormones (though to fit everyone into one of these neat and tidy boxes can also be a dangerous assumption). On the other hand, gender can be looked at more as a spectrum from masculine to feminine traits, behaviors, and roles determined by and generated from social expectations. While people may be biologically male or female, they are capable of displaying or associating with characteristics from any range on the gender spectrum. A person who is female does not necessarily need to be feminine, and likewise a male does not have to be masculine. Those who classify themselves as transgendered associate with a gender identity that does not match their biological sex.

[Pamphilia]

The dichotomous nature of gender [sex] isn't up for debate

As has been pointed out, sex is not the same as gender. But beyond that, the alleged "dichotomous nature" of sex is indeed up for debate, and more so all the time.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Pamphilia

[Roll Right]

Yeah, gender isn't really tied up in gender. Gender is a performative behavior, something we're socialized to exhibit. People can display multiple genders at one time. Sex is obviously a biological trait, which can be changed as well thanks to modern science. Neither are completely dualist.

[UnlikelyGrad]

Maybe we should piss everyone off and start using "its"!

[Multiple Infusions]

I'm no humanities-type, but I believe the Spivak pronouns have a place here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

Now perhaps we can do our part to propagate eir use!

[profound_g]

I'm no humanities-type, but I believe the Spivak pronouns have a place here:

http://en.wikipedia..../Spivak_pronoun

Now perhaps we can do our part to propagate eir use!

LOL. This is the first time I've heard of it so thanks for the laugh. Although I don't suppose that was your intention.

Personally, I think it's another one of those things that bear no real significance that is given WAY too much attention. Particularly annoying are artificial words like 'hu' or 'eir'. Sure, languages change and develop, but forcing things of this type but a specific group based on one ideology or another is not a natural process. While 'his' may have originally been gender neutral, this is not the COMMON meaning today. That's all that matters. That leaves us with a perfectly good 'their' for this very purpose. Just because someone (no matter what their profession is, and how well respected they are in their professional community see how nicely it works?) decides it isn't OK, doesn't mean squat for the general population of the native speakers of that language. This is not a matter of a law of nature that's just been discovered. I'll repeat that again: It means NOTHING.