They/Them

I ran across the best thinking, so far, on using they/them for pronouns came to me through The Brisbane Times' book review newsletter (one that I suggest anyone and everyone should sign up for). 

The pronoun quandary that keeps filling up my inbox:

True, the neutral third-person pronoun can seed doubt at times. It’s a small price to pay for the respect the same measure affords, a degree of personal space, the power of choice. Grammatically, politically, we saw an equivalent shift in the 1980s with the adoption of Ms, a title erasing the imposition of marital status. Despite the resistance the move met, our language survived, became more equal, more considerate.

***

Or duality. Maybe plurality is the best word, an openness to possibilities. Jane Austen latched onto the idea more than 200 years ago, using the singular “they” 87 times across her novels. From Pride and Prejudice (1813), say: “Everybody was pleased to think how much they had always disliked Mr Darcy before they had known anything of the matter.”

Years later, A.A. Milne wrote: “If the English language had been properly organised … there would be a word which meant both ‘he’ and ‘she’, and I could write ‘If John or May comes, heesh will want to play tennis.’”

Except we don’t. Or not yet. Tennis may have rules and rubbers, whereas English has rubbery rules, more conventions than strict baselines. For better or worse, our language has blind spots, gaps, and aeons of complex baggage. Change is always possible, of course, especially if that change is already latent, like they/them, an option to revitalise and imbue across the next generation.

"A small price to pay for respect..."

I would also add to those using they/them, that they also recognize that not everyone having difficulty with the usage is against them. It will need to be taught.

sch 7/7