Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtbob | Hacker News Reader

> the neutral pronoun is equally correct from an English language perspective

The neutral pronoun in English is 'it,' and using it to refer to a human being is always wrong.

The use of singular they is in a few contexts correct, but in many more contexts incorrect. The use of 'he-or-she' is inelegant and incorrect, and the use of generic she is less incorrect than silly.

Seriously, this is remarkably silly. 'Girl' in German is a neutral word, but no-one would say that German girls think of themselves as genderless. 'He' in English is normally the correct word to use generically; no-one sane would say that English-speakers think everyone is male.

(for that matter, the English word 'man' actually is genderless: the English word for a male human being is 'were,' as in werewolf — it's cognate to Latin 'vir')

View on HN

Yes, I meant "indefinite", not neutral.

You're incorrect about the use of singular they, though: it's both correct in many contexts and widespread. See: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/they

"USAGE ALERT

Long before the use of generic 'he' was condemned as sexist, the pronouns 'they', 'their', and 'them' were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to singular indefinite pronouns or singular nouns of general personal reference (which are often not felt to be exclusively singular): If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back soon. A parent should read to their child.Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its related case forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English [...]"

"There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me As if I were their well-acquainted friend" - Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors

If it's good enough for Shakespeare it's good enough for me.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-neu... for some examples of times avoiding singular they makes the sentence sound silly or ungrammatical.

"The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As he shaves or blow-dries his hair or pulls on his panty-hose, he is easing himself by small stages into the demands of the day."

"... everyone will be able to decide for himself whether or not to have an abortion."

The English word for male human certainly isn't 'were'. It might have been some time in the long past, by in sure less than 5% of people know that now.

Language evolves (yes, I know that's a cheesy thing to say). I think many people do assume "he" is referring to a male -- there certainly seems to be a growing group week want to remove it's use in non-gendered context.

> The neutral pronoun in English is 'it,' and using it to refer to a human being is always wrong.

Absolutely not. It's perfectly valid to use "it" to designate an unborn baby, for example. Another example: "The person, who asked to remain anonymous, said they would press charges".

"it" and "they" have long been valid use cases of pronouns in the English languages and all its flavors (British, American, ...).

"Singular they" is just as valid English as "singular you".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com