Pronoun Policy

I'm not a member of this community seeing as I've barely used Rust, but...

It's not quite that simple (from Wiki, bolding by me):

In the 14th edition (1993) of The Chicago Manual of Style, the University of Chicago Press explicitly recommended use of 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."[87] From the 15th edition, this was changed. In Chapter 5 of the 16th edition, now written by Bryan A. Garner, the recommendations are: "The singular they. A singular antecedent requires a singular referent pronoun. Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. While this usage is accepted in casual context, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing."[88] and "Gender bias. . . . 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 (often different readers) either to resort to non-traditional gimmicks to avoid the generic masculine (by using he/she of s/he, for example) or to use they as a kind of singular pronoun. Either way, credibility is lost with some readers."[79]

To me that reads more like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

The OED seems to come down on the side of "they" (though I can't find an official document)

it’s the policy of current English Oxford Dictionaries to use plural pronouns and determiners such as they and their in definitions in cases where, formerly, singular forms such as he and his would have been selected.

though

Although also very common, the use of they after a singular noun is still anathema to many people, especially in formal contexts.

IMO it's better to be ungrammatical than potentially offensive, even in formal contexts like the Rust docs. But I'm a descriptivist so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

PS. you would write "The person you mentioned, are they coming to dinner with us tonight?". There's no ambiguity in this case because there's one subject, and it's singular.

4 Likes

This is a gentle reminder to please keep your comments constructive, per the Code of Conduct. It’s cool to disagree, but calling for bans isn’t helping.

If you’d like to follow up, please PM me or another moderator.

4 Likes

One thing to remember is that not everybody is a native english speaker. If it’s possible to avoid the use of pronouns to begin with sentences are much less confusing for such readers.

4 Likes

I’m of the opinion that they & she are both good choices for referring to a person of indeterminate gender, but that only they is a good pronoun for referring to an arbitrary member of a group of people with multiple known genders (e.g. a member of the core team). This leads me to prefer singular they as a universal style guideline so as to be consistent between the two use cases. I’m also of the opinion that avoiding pronouns for unspecified persons is a good choice when it doesn’t contort writing.

2 Likes

As a native speaker of American English, I can say for sure that the following sentence is something that would be very natural and understandable to me. I am certain I have myself uttered something very similar to it on many occasions.

"The person you mentioned, are they coming to dinner with us?"

I of course recognize that not everyone speaks English as their native language, so I welcome non-native speakers to let me know if they would find this sentence construction difficult to understand or confusing.

1 Like

Singular ‘they’ is so prevalent now that to oppose its use as being ungrammatical is to deny the fact that languages evolve over time.

1 Like

Indeed; the English pronoun you also evolved from a plural pronoun to a combined plural/singular one, which is why it also takes “plural” verb forms even when used in the singular (“you are” / “they are”).

“It’s clearly plural. Would you write “The person your mentioned, is they coming to dinner with us tonight?” Of course not.”

FWIW, you wouldn’t write “is they” because “they” is grammatically plural and thus requires a plural verb to agree with. That doesn’t mean it isn’t sometimes semantically singular. There are other instances of this (e.g., Latin tenebrae “darkness” is grammatically plural but semantically singular; people say things like “these scissors are …” in reference to exactly one implement) and instances of the reverse (e.g. “everyone” is grammatically singular but semantically plural). (For another case where homonymous grammatical and semantic concepts come apart, consider that the German formal “Sie” is semantically a second-person singular but grammatically a third-person plural.)

3 Likes

… “pants” is also semantically singular but grammatically plural.

2 Likes

As well as the other, extremely valid, points made elsewhere in this thread, “he or she” does not cover non-binary gender identities and so doesn’t even solve the problem that it was designed to.

I answer as a non-native english speaker. I think I never came across a use of “they” as singular, and I certainly would re-read a sentence using this form, thinking I missed something. Now, this would certainly be true only the first time I see it, later on I would have understood its usage.

I once read a book that was usin “he” and “she” (actually “il” and “elle” in french) alternatively for each example the author gave. I didn’t find it disturbing, actually.

2 Likes

For the record, I am not a native speaker either and I’m not only used to singular they, I find myself subconsciously using it frequently.

1 Like

Just as a small something to add, it’s actually not even a matter of “now.” They has been used as a singular pronoun since the 14th century. The recommendation to use “he” over “they” only started in the mid-18th century.

Anyway, I support consistently using only they to refer to a person of indeterminate gender. I don’t accept the argument at all that using she somehow works to correct longstanding gender bias (as presented in the PR that spawned all of this).

I will accept using she to correct longstanding gender bias so long as we can use he to correct longstanding gender biases in the other direction, for example nurses and wives and damsels in distress. If this seems unreasonable then I’ll gladly accept simply using they whenever gender is indeterminate.

1 Like

@retep998 While that would be OK in theory, I think it’s almost certain to lead to a new debate over every single case. A policy of always using ‘they’ can at least be implemented objectively, and there’s no danger of a particular case being considered discriminatory or biased. Having an easy-to-follow/difficult-to-misinterpret policy is important for everyone.

Generally speaking with regards to pronouns, I prefer they, as the most inclusive option. (And yes, singular they is grammatically correct (even Chaucer and Shakespeare used it!), and has been since at least the 14th century.)

The issue with he/she is threefold.

  1. He/she enforces the gender binary and excludes people who don't fit into either group. Especially when they is such a natural and easy word to use, it doesn't make sense to avoid it.
  2. He/she is just plain awkward to use and read! You're not gonna find many people who actually say he/she in real life.
  3. Have you ever noticed that it's always he/she? It's never she/he, is it? Men always seem to come first for some reason. But she/he has its own problems; I would rather just sidestep the issue of "who comes first" entirely.

Though I don't have particularly strong feelings about this PR (whatever it ends up being, I'm fine with it), I feel that they is best both from an inclusiveness standpoint as well as a consistency standpoint, both within this page and across the book as a whole, which uses they throughout.

This was mentioned in the other thread:

To me, this is misleading. To paraphrase, the argument is:

Because I suggested feminine pronouns, anyone who weighs in in support of neutral pronouns must have a double standard against feminine pronouns vs. masculine, because no one objected to the masculine pronouns but they're objecting to the feminine ones.

But this ignores the fact that this issue wasn't even brought to our attention before this PR. Had I known about this issue, I would support they regardless of whether or not feminine pronouns had been suggested, because neither masculine nor feminine pronouns are maximally inclusive.

3 Likes

If a Rustacean wishes to use a pronoun, one can use "one" as a pronoun":

It is a gender-neutral, indefinite pronoun, meaning roughly "a person".

Using it with the original example in this thread:

"The person you mentioned, are they coming to dinner with us?"

"The person you mentioned, is that one coming to dinner with us?"

Though, in this case, it may be best to reorder the sentence into "Is the person you mentioned coming to dinner with us?"

As a native speaker, I would not consider the use of “one” as a definite pronoun grammatical (except when paired with a previous “one”) - or at least I don’t remember ever having seen it before. “That one” is different but is always used to pick one out of a set of others, unlike in your second example, and in any case using it to refer to a person is very distant.

“They” is much better.

(i’m a fan of Spivak pronouns [original version - e em eir], but i doubt they will ever get even semi-mainstream acceptance)

I love "one" and use it everywhere possible (it's so much better than "you" when writing blog posts); but it doesn't substitute "s/he", "he or she", or "they" in all cases.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.