by, for, and about women in science, technology, engineering, & math

You’ll notice that Stemming will refer to users as “he” or “she” if they have indicated their gender, or “they” if they haven’t, or if they don’t like “he” or “she.” Even though using “they,” “their,” or “them” in the singular is incorrect in formal English, I think this is the best approach to gender-neutral pronouns.

People who are sensitive to gender bias in language have kicked around the issue of pronouns since the 1960s. Everyone is familiar with the basic problem: if a writer uses “he” to refer to a generic person, the pronoun suggests a male referent, even when a gender-neutral referent is intended. The effect of the generic “he” is to write women, and those uncomfortable with either gender identity, out of the conversation. Since the 1960s, four different alternatives to the generic “he” have been floated:

1) The generic “she.” The generic “she” poses no grammatical difficulties, so it has become popular in academic writing as a corrective to the generic “he.” As an academic, when I am trying to write something both formal and readable (so that alternatives 2-4 won’t work), I use the generic “she.” The problem with the generic “she” is that it preserves the gendered assumptions behind the generic “he,” even as it reverses them. If the sentence “Every Red Sox fan shook his head in dismay at Papelbon’s dismal performance against the Angels” wrongly implies that the normal Red Sox fan is male, then the sentence “Every one of Hillary Clinton’s supporters shook her head in dismay when Obama won the Democratic primary” wrongly implies that the normal Hillary Clinton supporter is female.

2) Ors, slashes, and parentheses. In formal writing, it’s common to see “he/she,” “he or she,” and “(s)he.” These constructions, while clear and gender-neutral, are awkward and in some cases unpronounceable. If you’re trying to write something with a conversational feel, they aren’t practical. They also preserve the male-female gender binary, which some people feel does not reflect their identity.

3) Neologisms. The mathematician Michael Spivak (the guy who invented TeX) has proposed one of the most popular neologistic solutions to the problem of gendered pronouns. The Spivak pronouns are formed by removing the “th” from “they”-based pronouns: “ey,” “eir,” “em,” “emself,” etc. Similar proposals use “xe,” ze," or “hir.” Neologistic solutions have a certain logical elegance about them: they are both gender-neutral and pronounceable, so they seem to meet every need. They even avoid the male-female binary! The problem with them, most critics say, is that they sound very strange to native speakers - which is true, for reasons I’ll return to in a minute. Since debates about the neologistic solution usually break down along these lines, I think it’s telling that a mathematician remains its strongest advocate. Spivak can cast himself as the champion of logic, and his opponents as hidebound linguistic traditionalists. If only they would cast aside their linguistic prejudices and embrace his new, more efficient coinages! Advocates of the neologistic solution sometimes point out that we accept new coinages into the English language all the time, so they (logically) conclude that any resistance to this particular coinage must be rooted in prejudice.

4) The singular “they.” Using “they,” “them,” “their,” etc., with a singular referent is becoming more popular in formal writing, and some style manuals have even considered approving the practice. By and large, though, the singular “they” is considered incorrect in formal English. Except for that disadvantage, this option holds all the cards: it’s pronounceable, it’s gender neutral (and avoids the male-female binary), and it doesn’t require much adjustment from native speakers, who already use the construction all the time in colloquial English. Although old-school linguistic prescriptivists will continue to resist the singular “they,” almost all native speakers have shown that in practice they are fine with it.

This is where linguistics comes in. The science of linguistics can help us make an intelligent choice between neologisms and the singular “they.”

Empirical investigation has shown that every language has some “open classes” and some “closed classes” of words. The term “class” is linguistics-ese for “part of speech” (approximately). Taking English as our example, some classes, such as nouns and verbs, are open, meaning that they are highly susceptible to new coinages, as the proliferation of technological terms amply shows: blog, podcast, etc. We can make up new nouns and verbs at will, and be easily understood. “The students are doing some sciencing in the lab.” Adjectives and adverbs are also open classes - unmisunderstandably. Other classes, including prepositions, demonstratives, and pronouns, are closed, meaning that adult native speakers will have a really hard time using new coinages. Try coining a preposition and using it without having to stop and think every time! I dare you to adopt the word “overneath.”

Because pronouns are a closed class, it is unreasonable to expect adult native English speakers to accept new ones. Their resistance to doing so, then, should not be attributed to linguistic traditionalism or to sexism, but to something that is, linguists think, hard-wired into the brain as part of humanity’s “universal grammar.” At least that’s the idea behind the dominant Chomskian approach to formal linguistics. Fortunately, “they” is already a member of the closed class of pronouns, and one that native speakers are happy to use as either a singular or a plural.

So, people who favor the neologistic solution should stop accusing their critics of sexism or insensitivity. They should also fall in behind those who favor the singular “they,” if their goal is really to introduce gender-neutral pronouns into widespread English usage. The only remaining barriers to a non-awkward gender-neutral formal English pronoun are the prescriptivist schoolteachers and style guides. We should focus on getting them to accept the singular “they.” If anyone doesn’t agree with this strategy, I invite them to comment!