He, She, S/He, He or She, They, Ze

[Camikaze]

I always thought that when referencing a position in which no gender was specified, it is appropriate to use male pronouns (he, his, himself) until a specific gender was assigned.

The same way the word 'man' is also an all encompassing term for all human beings.

Fifty years ago, perhaps.

 

[aronnax]

Fifty years ago, perhaps.

The same way 'woman' is outdated and we all spell it as 'womyn' now?

 

[Camikaze]

The same way 'woman' is outdated and we all spell it as 'womyn' now?

No, I just can't imagine anyone under the age of 70 using 'he' in preference to 'they' as a rule. I dare say it's because of feminism, but I can't be entirely certain what the reason is. It's almost like someone saying 'thou', though. It's not 'appropriate' simply because you'd be taken aback and do a bit of a WTH stare if someone said it to you (perhaps).

 

[aronnax]

No, I just can't imagine anyone under the age of 70 using 'he' in preference to 'they' as a rule. I dare say it's because of feminism, but I can't be entirely certain what the reason is. It's almost like someone saying 'thou', though. It's not 'appropriate' simply because you'd be taken aback and do a bit of a WTH stare if someone said it to you (perhaps).

"I pity the new science teacher, whoever he is. He has to take Class 4A."

"The winner of this contest will be crowned championed! He will also be awarded a gold medal and a small cash prize."

"Why isn't the pizza here yet? I'm definitely not paying him his tip."

How is that inappropriate?

 

[azzaman333]

I would probably use they.

 

[Arwon]

Singular they. Easy.

"I pity the new science teacher, whoever he is. He has to take Class 4A."

"The winner of this contest will be crowned championed! He will also be awarded a gold medal and a small cash prize."

"Why isn't the pizza here yet? I'm definitely not paying him his tip."

How is that inappropriate?

Generic "he" for an unknown person has never been the only pronoun used for singular generic third person in English.

Sure, it's favoured by old fashioned prescriptivist grammars but it's kind of inescapably associated with fairly sexist assumptions and just sounds wrong nowadays because you're identifying an unknown person as male. THe science teacher, the winner, and the delivery person could all be female.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

Grammar can take a hike, I've always used "they", or "he" if "they" sounds weird and as long as the person I am communicating with understands what I mean I consider it a storming success. Which is more that can be said for "Ze"

 

[Camikaze]

"I pity the new science teacher, whoever he is. He has to take Class 4A."

"The winner of this contest will be crowned championed! He will also be awarded a gold medal and a small cash prize."

"Why isn't the pizza here yet? I'm definitely not paying him his tip."

How is that inappropriate?

Again, I was meaning 'inappropriate' more in the sense of 'antiquated' than 'misogynistic' (in the middle example you give, particularly so). It's simply not in common usage, here at least. I don't consciously choose 'they' over 'he', because it's entirely natural to my speaking, as the latter just isn't something you hear everyday, here at least.

BTW, in the examples you give, the impression of a neutral subject is not conveyed. In each of those cases you are conveying a male subject (I would assume you have knowledge that the new science teacher is a male, that the competition is a men's competition, and that the pizza delivery dude is a dude). This is the assumption I'd make in all examples where 'he' is used, because otherwise 'they' would've been used.

 

[aronnax]

Singular they. Easy.



Generic "he" for an unknown person has never been the only pronoun used for singular generic third person in English.

Sure, it's favoured by old fashioned prescriptivist grammars but it's kind of inescapably associated with fairly sexist assumptions and just sounds wrong nowadays because you're identifying an unknown person as male. THe science teacher, the winner, and the delivery person could all be female.

I have never been chided by anyone when I used 'he' as an impersonal 3rd person pronoun in informal languages.

Given the context that the gender is unknown, the usage of he has no 'gender' meaning to it, functioning as a merely an impersonal pronoun. To object to the usage of 'he' as that (which itself is grammatical derived from middle English)* on the grounds of it being archaic or sexist makes as much sense as changing the aforementioned woman to womyn.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He

Again, I was meaning 'inappropriate' more in the sense of 'antiquated' than 'misogynistic' (in the middle example you give, particularly so). It's simply not in common usage, here at least. I don't consciously choose 'they' over 'he', because it's entirely natural to my speaking, as the latter just isn't something you hear everyday, here at least.

BTW, in the examples you give, the impression of a neutral subject is not conveyed. In each of those cases you are conveying a male subject (I would assume you have knowledge that the new science teacher is a male, that the competition is a men's competition, and that the pizza delivery dude is a dude). This is the assumption I'd make in all examples where 'he' is used, because otherwise 'they' would've been used.

Not that I conciously choose the word 'he' over 'they' or 'it'. I don't put the use of 'he' over 'they', unless grammar comes to play.
In the case of it indicating it is a male, like I said, if you are a placed in a context where you do not know the gender, it is correct too. All those sentences can take place if the two or more people in the conversation understand that no gender is selected.

Take the contest scenario. A referee is explaining to a pitch of both men and women the prizes of the contest. Both men and women will then consider the 'he' here to be just an impersonal third person pronoun, rather than the referee predicting a man as the winner.

 

[Camikaze]

Sure, it's grammatically correct, but as said, is well out of date, and would probably raise eyebrows nowadays (in the same way that saying any antiquated phrase raises eyebrows).

Also, looking at the contest example, Person A (the referee) says 'he'. Person B (a player in the game who knows who else is competing) will be able to infer that this is meant to be gender neutral. But Person C (a bystander who does not know the gender of the players) will not infer that, especially if Person C is also unaware as to whether or not Person A is aware of the gender of the players. More so, whilst Person B would understand what Person A is saying, they'd think it a bit odd and the thought that Person A was being presumptuous as to who the winner will be would cross their mind.

In the above paragraph, I'd only write, 'whilst Person B would understand what Person A is saying, he'd think it a bit odd', if I was assuming that Person B is a male, and from this sentence, the conclusion that Person B is a male would be rightly drawn.

 

[aronnax]

Sure, it's grammatically correct, but as said, is well out of date, and would probably raise eyebrows nowadays (in the same way that saying any antiquated phrase raises eyebrows).

Also, looking at the contest example, Person A (the referee) says 'he'. Person B (a player in the game who knows who else is competing) will be able to infer that this is meant to be gender neutral. But Person C (a bystander who does not know the gender of the players) will not infer that, especially if Person C is also unaware as to whether or not Person A is aware of the gender of the players. More so, whilst Person B would understand what Person A is saying, they'd think it a bit odd and the thought that Person A was being presumptuous as to who the winner will be would cross their mind.

In the above paragraph, I'd only write, 'whilst Person B would understand what Person A is saying, he'd think it a bit odd', if I was assuming that Person B is a male, and from this sentence, the conclusion that Person B is a male would be rightly drawn.

Now I think we are just getting bogged down in the details to what extent is the context understandable. In any case, your reservations for using 'he' mainly stems from the fact that you don't hear it being used anymore, whereas my use for using 'he' probably comes from the fact that no one I know gets chided for that.

If I were to make an intelligent guess, it might be because the Chinese words for he, she and it （他 她 它） are all pronounced in the same way (ta) and when expressing an impersonal pronoun such as 'they' （他们）, the Chinese 'he' is used regardless of gender referenced. Perhaps that transferred over when English is used which is coincidentally both grammatically correct and (deriving from Middle English) uses the correct word.

 

[NovaKart]

I often hear people use he in general conversation. If you're talking about a deliveryman or a taxi driver they're more often men so it's common to use he. In other situations women might be offended.

 

[Camikaze]

In any case, your reservations for using 'he' mainly stems from the fact that you don't hear it being used anymore,

Yep, that's exactly it.

I often hear people use he in general conversation. If you're talking about a deliveryman or a taxi driver they're more often men so it's common to use he. In other situations women might be offended.

That's not neutral, though, because a male person, rather than a neutral person, is implied, and is intended to be implied.

 

[BvBPL]

I, for one, regular see he (and she) used as pronouns for singular third parties of indeterminate gender. Maybe Australia is more progressive about the use of the third person plural pronoun as a stand-in for the singular than the US.

I often hear people use he in general conversation. If you're talking about a deliveryman or a taxi driver they're more often men so it's common to use he.

I think there’s a difference between the use of the pronouns when writing (or typing) then when speaking. Different folkways apply to the two forms of communication.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

I, for one, regular see he (and she) used as pronouns for singular third parties of indeterminate gender. Maybe Australia is more progressive about the use of the third person plural pronoun as a stand-in for the singular than the US.

I have know some conservative Americans who seem to use he as point of principle. They will cite Strunk & White, etc., but it's really a dog-whistle signal for 'I am a social conservative'.

And in academic work from the 70s and 80s, using she for unknown persons was a similar dog-whistle for 'I am a feminist'. Whereas now there seems to be a standard of alternation between he and she.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I like the idea of Ze and think it should be added to the language. However, I usually use "he" when they sounds odd, like the salutation in a business letter.

I find someone constantly using "she" a little irritating. Although it's true, some people construe using he as socially offensive to women.

 

[Scratch]

I like the singular they.

 

[Linkman226]

I prefer the Spivak pronouns- observant readers will notice I've used it here on the forums before.

 

[NiRv4n4]

He, because I am a misogynist haha.

In all seriousness, I find myself using "they" often in quick, informal speech, if I don't care to elaborate on the person's sex. In writing, I use he if any confusion could arise by using they (which, might I add, is quite often), and find writing "s/he" and "he or she" to be unnecessarily cumbersome, and "she" to be a prime (albeit quite inconsequential) example of reverse discrimination.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I see no reason to change the way our language works with words like "Ze"