> I don't understand how you reconcile your argument with the fact that many people insist that using terms like, say, "patriarchy" to describe all that is wrong with the world - or "toxic masculinity" to describe the supposedly harmful effects on men of behaving according to their social stereotypes, but "internalized misogyny" to describe the supposedly harmful effects for women doing the same - is not evidence of bias against men.
I don't know how you ascribe some particular uses of language that are outside the mainstream with my descriptive note that language has moved towards mostly using gender-neutral terms. I'm not blaming a lot on patriarchy; so it's not really fair to point out that a small minority of people who share my viewpoint that neutral language is preferable do.
> Historically, singular "they" was used to describe an indefinite, hypothetical or otherwise vaguely described person (e.g. the perpetrator of a crime before being identified) - not a definite person whose gender was simply unknown (e.g. someone unseen, known by a gender-neutral name). Further, its use is quite restricted - it doesn't admit all the inflections and noun-verb agreements that "he" and "she" do.
You're right that most of this historical usage of singular they isn't the personal singular they, but you still find plenty of it-- e.g. the King James Bible has quite a bit (perhaps influenced by translating from languages that tend to use equivalent devices).
"vnto thy gates, euen that man, or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die."
> It seems to me that you propose entirely unnecessary constraints.
I think that if I talk about the "mailman" it could be misleading. Ditto for singular "he/his" for indeterminate gender. It seems more useful to use gender-neutral terms-- no need to edit it based on the actual gender that shows up.
The inclusiveness isn't even the primary reason why I feel this way. However, I have heard people say that they thought that it wasn't societally permissible for them to do something based on the way the nouns and pronouns used in sentences; avoiding that seems desirable, too.
>I don't know how you ascribe some particular uses of language that are outside the mainstream with my descriptive note that language has moved towards mostly using gender-neutral terms.
I disagree that the standard use of established feminist terminology is "outside the mainstream". Anyway, the point is that they are obviously not gender-neutral terms. It is a blatant double standard to suppose that the term "chairman" disparages women by its construction (despite no such original intent), but that the term "patriarchy" doesn't disparage men by its construction (when it was specifically constructed to describe a construct, by academics who had free choice).
> e.g. the King James Bible has quite a bit
No, that's precisely "an indefinite, hypothetical or otherwise vaguely described person (e.g. the perpetrator of a crime before being identified)". Other examples I could find myself were not any more compelling.
> However, I have heard people say that they thought that it wasn't societally permissible for them to do something based on the way the nouns and pronouns used in sentences
Within the last quarter-century or so? Despite the readily available evidence of other people of the same gender doing that thing?
Using "chairman" to describe a position implies that it's occupied by a man. And the writing may need to be revised for someone who is female who doesn't want to be referred to as a chairman or mailman.
Using "patriarchy" to describe a specific male-headed familial structure is for the purpose of criticism is descriptive, just like "matriarchy" is. Of course, it can be misused, like in the cases you pillory.
> No, that's precisely "an indefinite, hypothetical or otherwise vaguely described person (e.g. the perpetrator of a crime before being identified)".
I thought you were drawing a different distinction; it's definitely the personal singular they. That exact type of usage is when I use "they" to refer to a person of indeterminate gender, e.g. someone to be hired.
> Within the last quarter-century or so? Despite the readily available evidence of other people of the same gender doing that thing?
Much less within the last quarter-century... in part because all of the style guides about this stuff changed about 40 years ago, when I was a small child.
> Using "chairman" to describe a position implies that it's occupied by a man.
No, obviously not. A "chairman" can just as well be a woman. What it does imply is just that _historically_, chairmen were mostly men. You might object to the word because its etymology reveals a past where men occupied these roles, but it is not true at all that the word today implies anything about the sex of the person.
> That exact type of usage is when I use "they" to refer to a person of indeterminate gender, e.g. someone to be hired.
Yes, if you are giving instructions to the guard at the front, telling him (sic) to "let them in", that is the traditional, organic usage. Which is distinct from the politicised usage where you either know that the candidate is a woman but still say "them", or its a person that considers herself "non-binary" and insists that you use gender neutral language. Those two situations are different from the traditional usage.
> know that the candidate is a woman but still say "them"
Actually, the he or she agreeing with "them/their" later in a sentence is old and widely accepted. So a fair deal of this usage is a linguistic oddity.
> or its a person that considers herself "non-binary" and insists that you use gender neutral language.
The preferred personal pronoun thing is different. It has its own discussion and justification.
I am purely talking about "they/them" to refer to people of unknown gender, instead of "he" or "he/she"-- the singular, personal "they".
It went from occasional use in the 1300s-1600s to "wrong" in the 1800s. Now it's emerging as a best practice. Even though style guides that otherwise moved to gender neutral language in the 80's rejected it, it grew organically for quite awhile before starting to become accepted.
I don't know how you ascribe some particular uses of language that are outside the mainstream with my descriptive note that language has moved towards mostly using gender-neutral terms. I'm not blaming a lot on patriarchy; so it's not really fair to point out that a small minority of people who share my viewpoint that neutral language is preferable do.
> Historically, singular "they" was used to describe an indefinite, hypothetical or otherwise vaguely described person (e.g. the perpetrator of a crime before being identified) - not a definite person whose gender was simply unknown (e.g. someone unseen, known by a gender-neutral name). Further, its use is quite restricted - it doesn't admit all the inflections and noun-verb agreements that "he" and "she" do.
You're right that most of this historical usage of singular they isn't the personal singular they, but you still find plenty of it-- e.g. the King James Bible has quite a bit (perhaps influenced by translating from languages that tend to use equivalent devices).
"vnto thy gates, euen that man, or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die."
> It seems to me that you propose entirely unnecessary constraints.
I think that if I talk about the "mailman" it could be misleading. Ditto for singular "he/his" for indeterminate gender. It seems more useful to use gender-neutral terms-- no need to edit it based on the actual gender that shows up.
The inclusiveness isn't even the primary reason why I feel this way. However, I have heard people say that they thought that it wasn't societally permissible for them to do something based on the way the nouns and pronouns used in sentences; avoiding that seems desirable, too.