What’s Wrong With It?
The absence of a singular gender neutral third person pronoun in the English language has defied resolution for centuries, according to Dennis Barron. If there is a silver bullet, he’s not telling us. The traditional he is fading out of use for obvious reasons, but how are the alternatives faring? Not particularly well. Substituting or alternating she with he or using combinations such as he or she are stylistically cumbersome. However, the fact that we continue to struggle on with these unwieldy solutions is a testament to our dedication to finding a solution.
The solution that has gained some common currency is to singularize they. This appears to have first emerged in the 14th century and has since been used in literature among the well educated. It is used especially when the antecedent’s gender is not known or is of either gender, such as The victim had money and jewelry taken from them. and It’s hard to move an aging mother or father from their long-term home. The use of they and its forms after singular indefinite pronouns (victim) or singular nouns with general reference to either or both sexes (an aging parent) has gained increasing acceptance. More recently, it is even gaining ground when refering [sic] to a clearly specified, known, or named person to avoid reference to sex or gender, as in My hair stylist had their car repainted. This may be the preference of the speaker or the person referred to, but is unnecessary.
But what’s the problem with it?
It is regarded as an impersonal, neuter pronoun because it usually refers to inanimate (and therefore sexless) objects. As such, it commonly causes offense when used in reference to a person.
Note, I use the word sex to refer to biological sex and gender to refer to psychological identification.
How does language change?
According to Professor Richard Nordquist (English and Rhetoric, University of Georgia), most new words ‘are actually old words in different forms or with fresh functions’. But they are almost entirely lexical words – content words that carry meaning in the real world – not grammar words that hold the language together (Oxford Reference).
The word gay is an example of a content word that has changed in recent times. It was appropriated by homosexuals in the second half of the 20th century, but the history of the word suggests it was an easy transition. According to dictionary.com, in the early 20th century, it meant not only happy, but also loose or promiscuous and was used to refer to women as much as men. Another content word that has changed is mischief. This used to have a very sinister connotation. Now it means ‘conduct or activity that playfully causes petty annoyance’.
According to Bloor & Bloor (1995. The Functional Analysis of English. Arnold, London), pronouns ‘are a closed set of items which cannot easily be added to or diminished, as witness the seeming impossibility of introducing a gender-neutral pronoun for human beings’. Grammar words do not change easily.
One grammar word that has seen a little playful change recently includes so, as in ‘That is so not true’ – popularized by the character Chandler in the TV series Friends. An earlier incarnation of this expression of emphasis in the 18th century went something like I am all astonishment instead of I’m so astonished!
Over the last hundred years (and more so recently), I believe the English language has become somewhat ossified and unchanging. There are two main reasons for this, as I see it. Technology is preserving the way we use it. Think of how auto-type functions ‘correct’ our spelling and grammar. Another reason is its ubiquity. Although its adoption across the world exposes it to many influences, the vast number of users mitigates the widespread uptake of a significant structural innovation. New words come and go, but grammatical changes are very slow.
Nevertheless, the significant shift away from using ‘he’ to refer to both men and women proves that some grammatical change is still possible. But this has been limited to those touched by the culture and politics of gender, most of whom are native speakers of English. In my Masters thesis (MScEd – TESOL, 2004) I investigated non-native speakers’ choice of singular epicene ( meaning of indeterminate sex rather than androgynous) third person pronoun. I used a very small sample, but I found they used ‘he’ far more regularly than native speakers do. I put this down to the time lag in the production of educational materials, mos of which was outdated and not reflecting what native speakers were using.
Centuries ago, English was in great flux. Some of the most important grammatical changes to the language occurred in the 15th and 16th centuries during the Middle English period when it was emerging from 300 years in the shadow of the Norman French conquerors and it was limited to a relatively small number of speakers. The simplification of verb conjugations was a change that has made the language easier to learn than other European languages. As far as spelling is concerned, in the 18th century when literacy was more limited than it is today, spelling was more fluid. The aristocracy would spell words just however they felt like, such was the license they felt endowed with. However, they adhered to some broad rules such as avoiding diacritics. By the way, there is a little known spelling rule in English that is very consequential; generally, only grammar words are spelt with less than three letters. (‘Ox’ and ‘ax’ – without the ‘e’ (axe) – are the rare exceptions.)
Old English, like French, was heavily grammatically gendered and thus commonly used “it/hit” for people, even where they were clearly female or male. “This neuter pronoun … was used for both people and objects (inanimate or abstract)”. The modern pronoun it developed out of this neuter, singular pronoun. During the Middle English period,
English gradually developed a system of natural gender which now holds sway in Modern English.[64] (Wikipedia). At the same time, a new relative pronoun system was developing that eventually split between personal relative who[13] and impersonal relative which. Somehow, somewhere along the line, the singular third person pronoun developed an impersonal designation along with relative which and interrogative what.[15].
(Wikipedia)
Singular ‘they’
The popular use of they as a singular pronoun demonstrates that a grammar word can change. In this case, a plural pronoun extending to the singular. This is no small alteration to the language. This grammatical change is a greater hurdle to the language than extending the semantic meaning of it to include animate objects. Why has this happened? Is it a trade off, because managing social offense is harder than maintaining grammatical integrity? How much social offense is actually involved? This is an important point and I’ll come back to it.
Some argue, ‘After all, if “you”, which is also gender neutral, can serve both for singular and plural, why can’t “they” do the same?’ It can, but at what cost? The singular/plural meaning of they is established by context, not the text or word itself, so it is hardly fit for purpose, which is why some people say yous or y’all to show plural meaning.
Singularizing they can cause confusion. We know who did it; they left finger-prints. Here the use of they creates ambiguity as to the number of people involved – even if it is known that there was only one person. We lose the specificity that the English language is so well equipped for and that has suited as the language of science.
It is preferable if we wish to accurately convey that one individual was involved, or conceal that individual’s identity (with regards to their sex) or where sex is either unknown or extraneous information – We know who did it; it left finger-prints. Note that in this example the person is not present and so no direct offense can be caused.
Other Uses of It
Unlike he and she, it has uses other than referring to people, such as a preparatory subject: It’s nice to talk to you. It‘s probable that we’ll be late. It can be a preparatory object, too: I find it difficult to talk to you. On some occasions, it can be used to refer to either a person or a clause in a sentence, as in If an Australian trains up and fills a job domestically, it will help localize the economy. In this case, it can refer to either the Australian or the entire first clause. It could be argued that this represents a loss of clarity and although that is true in this example, context usually provides clarity. This loss of clarity must be weighed up against the loss of clarity in singularizing they. I contend that the latter creates much more ambiguity.
Consider this example; Everyone who agrees should raise his or her right hand. When pluralised All who agree should raise their right hands demonstrates how the loss of specificity gives the impression some people have more than one right hand! Everyone who agrees should raise its right hand is clearly what we mean, except that it sounds inanimate. That it encompasses both animate and inanimate objects might become convenient when we’re living with robots in our daily lives.
Animate it
It is not restricted exclusively to inanimate objects. It is used to refer to unborn infants and even after birth when the sex is unknown. Animals, too are often assigned it. Species of hominids such as Australopithecus are referred to as it, as in ‘It walked upright and used tools.’
Appropriating it for epicene third person pronoun use is not an original idea. Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1795) proposed using it in a wider sense in all the situations where a gender-neutral pronoun might be desired. (Wikipedia)
The children’s author E. Nesbit consistently defied any qualms and often wrote of mixed groups of children: “Everyone got its legs kicked or its feet trodden on in the scramble to get out of the carriage.”[11]
Here are two videos of someone using our pronouns grammatically correctly:
Everyone can make up it’s own opinion.
DW News 15 January 2025
Is it an American? It is, a great American.
(1:08)
Admittedly, were it to broaden its meaning to embrace adults more generally, it would be something of a milestone in the history of the English language.
One could argue that if they can be used to refer to both animate and inanimate objects, it can adopt the same function. In order for it to be fully appropriated, semantic change is required that is both extension (a word widens its meaning) and amelioration (a word loses an original sense of disapproval) to prevent offense occurring. An example of this is the word mischievous, which has ‘lost its strong sense of “disastrous”, and now means the milder “playfully annoying”.’ (David Crystal, 1987 The Encyclopedia of Langauge, p. 330).
However, the offense it causes seems impervious to amelioration. This is very strange, because by the very nature of referring to a third person most instances are indirect; the person ISN’T THERE.
To this extent, the issue is limited to how we feel about the word it. The problem is almost entirely subjective.
We normally use you when a person is being directly addressed. When indirectly referring to someone we know or know of, we usually use he or she. If we don’t know the sex of the individual, we can use it and provide an explanation. This is more challenging. On the very rare occasions the individual is within earshot and we’re not sure what sex it is, if circumstances allow, we can inquire, but often that’s impractical.
The rise of offense culture among social progressives in the West would seem to create an even greater obstacle. But is there actually an opportunity in this crisis?
Gender pronoun controversy
While some genderqueer people use it as a gender-neutral pronoun,[12] it is generally considered a slur against transgender people[13] and should not be used unless requested by a specific person.
The search for a politically correct pronoun intensified and there is now a seemingly endless list of inventions that have been put forward; zie, sie, ye, ve, tey, e, E, ne, thon, mon, heesh, ho, hesh, et, hir, jhe, na, per, xe, poand co are some of them. None have really caught on.
In 2017, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code was amended and the debate over compelled pronoun use heightened the issue. University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson fuelled a debate about where speech choice lies; with the person being spoken of, or the speaker.. Most people prefer to please and respect others whenever possible. However, what everyone seems to forget is that the third person pronoun is usually used to refer to someone who isn’t present, so no offense can be taken. What seems likely is that the combination of social tension and the increased cognitive load of multiple pronouns required of speakers may simply compound the missing pronoun issue to such an extent that people simply give up and avoid both the topic and the person.
One approach speakers could take is to choose it with a preface that they mean no offense, especially when the individual is present. If offense is nonetheless taken, it challenges the sincerity of the speakers’ preface, which in itself is potentially offensive. However, as I’ve explained, we usually refer to someone in the 3rd person when – and I mean no offense – it’s not present, so it really shouldn’t be fraught with social anxiety. This is where most of the potential for the uptake of it is.
Free free to reference this work when writing on the Internet. You can use this link to indicate your use of it is not intended to cause offense.
Leave a comment