Talk:Singular they

It

G'day everyone, I have a question `bout this topic:

Why is singular-they used for gender-neutral, even though there's pronoun <It>?

I'm sorry for my English language skills, but it ain't my mother tounge. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.56.161.96 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In English, the pronoun "it" is used for inanimate objects and animals. So when used to refer to people, that means the speaker/writer considers them inhuman or even less than human. Woodroar (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

93.56.161.96 -- if it makes you feel any better, Samuel Taylor Coleridge also thought that "it" should be the English-language pronoun of unspecified human gender, but that usage has not prevailed among speakers of English... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"It" could be used to refer to a person, just as much as "they." The only reason "it" is used for objects is because English considers objects to have no gender (not true in some other languages). However, the important distinction is that people associate "it" with objects, and that makes them uncomfortable. In languages more directly derived from Latin, many objects and descriptors (but not all) carry gender labels, as is the case in Latin itself (i.e. the male "agricola" - farmer, the female "villa" - house). It's more an issue of personal perturbation rather than grammatical inaccuracy. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Page size

In the light of recent edit warring, here's a talk section for you to detail your concerns about the article quality, User:MelonIsYes.

I should say that if Melon - or any other user for that matter - does engage in fruitful discussion, reverting the addition of cleanup templates before a consensus is reached is frowned upon. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, it's up to the user adding the tags to make a case here. But for the record, the article is not WP:TOOBIG, but actually right at the recommended size of 100 K bytes. I strongly advise User:MelonIsYes not to text add the tag without explaining in detail here what needs to be removed. BilCat (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What a strange comment to make. I literally said exactly that. You should really wait until the user does make his case because I did not. CapnZapp (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And what a strange response, because we did not say the same thing. I clearly asked the user in my revert edit summary to make their case here if "they" (typical use of "singular they" marked) re-added the tag, and "they" have not. (I also added the "Deleted" response at Wikipedia:Cleanup.) BilCat (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

? I noticed the edit war and provided the user with a place where to take their grievances. You misunderstood, and assumed I made their case for them. Case closed. CapnZapp (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Far less than 100k from my estimation. WP:TOOBIG says to get the "Prose" length from XTools. XTools shows 33,068 characters, which is just over 33k. That's under "Length alone does not justify division". Woodroar (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

To nitpick, 33,068 is just under 33k. (33 kilobytes is 33792 bytes and, no, "kibibytes" is never going to catch on) Cheers mate CapnZapp (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion it doesn't matter that the article is not too long according to it's size in bytes, the article is just bloated, and if somebody wanted to read through the entire article, they would surely skip over many parts that should be and can be removed/changed.
MelonIsYes (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, that is too vague. If you want to tag specific areas you believe are bloated, that would be more helpful, assuming everything isn't tagged. Or.you could list specific sections here that you believe are bloated, and get a consensus to remove them first, so other editors can comment on whether or not they believe those sections are bloated. BilCat (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

For Particular sections, I think mainly the 'Acceptability and prescriptive guidance' section is not easy to read. There are also some unecessary examples of usage such as examples in the 'Older usage' subsection, and unecessary quotes such as the long quote in the 'Prescription of generic he' subsection. Generally, some quotes and examples can be removed, and some sections could be reworded to be easier to understsnd
MelonIsYes (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. You can probably tag that section with a {{copy edit}} with an explanation, or a similar tag. I think that would be more effective. Alternatively, you could edit it yourself if you believe you could do a good job, or had the time. BilCat (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done similar things to country articles before so I should be able to shorten it, as for the in-depth grammatical things, I might not be the person to do something like that, though I can try.
MelonIsYes (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think my only concern with removing any content is that it appears to be well sourced, and our "job" is to summarize what reliable sources say. But if we're pulling too much from any specific sources, like long quotes, then it's probably a reasonable change to make. Woodroar (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright I think I have shortened it well up until the 'Acceptability and prescriptive guidance' section, everything after that is not something I can 100% understand but I can tell it still could use shortening. If someone with more experience in grammar thinks they could do it, i'd appreciate it.
MelonIsYes (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

acceptability 2

Again I ask what prevents us from rewriting the acceptability sections to use past tense, see #Acceptability. CapnZapp (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the sources would agree that it's time. The Washington Post, for example, continues recommending it when appropriate and also highlighted other similar language changes. Woodroar (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Page organization

I find the order and flow of sections to be poor. For example, Contemporary usage concerns itself with gender-neutral usage. But then there's subheaders that... doesn't deepen this subject, but completely disregards it and instead discusses other contemporary issues! A reader would have expected the "main" (first) section on Contemporary usage to discuss it in general, with subheaders drilling down into specialized subjects.

I think this is the result of the intensive patching done continuously on the article. Any original editoral voice and continuity is pretty much destroyed at this point. This article is getting closer and closer to earning a {{copyedit}} or even a {{rewrite}} tag. CapnZapp (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it's too varied in it's writing, sometimes it's easy to read but sometimes you can't understand it without knowing a good deal about grammar, and each sections don't have much coherency with eachother. Definitely fixable though.
MelonIsYes (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The quick fix would be to put a (sub)header over the top of that (un-sub-headered) Contemporary usage content, so that it's clear that it's talking about one facet of contemporary use, and the following subheaders are talking about other facets. In the longer term, copyediting for internal consistency and clarity is the better fix, yes. -sche (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Detailed citation for a Psychology manual or handbook?

Hi Everyone,

I'm having trouble finding text from a Psychology manual or handbook that provides explicit guidance on the use of "they" or "them" when a person has an identity disorder. Searching the web I've found many references claiming American Psychological Association, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association or some other professional organization or manual endorses the use of "they" or "them", but claims don't provide a proper citation with relevant text and context. The claim usually just points to the APA website or a book on Amazon.

The reason I bring it up is, I read the guidance from a psychology handbook back in 2020. Unfortunately, I don't recall the handbook name and I don't have a reference to it now (I should have bookmarked it). The handbook was clear that it was OK for a practitioner {can|may|should} use "they" or "them" when treating someone with an identity disorder during a therapy session. But the handbook did not state anything else, like it was OK to call someone with an identity disorder "they" or "them" by non-practitioners, or outside of treatment, or outside a therapy session.

And if you look closely at the section Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association in the article, it says to use "they" or "them" when the gender is unknown or irrelevant. Is it the case that gender is unknown or irrelevant when a person is suffering an identity disorder? Naively, I would think gender is _very_ relevant when a person is suffering an identity disorder.

I think the article would benefit from the detailed scrutiny provided by context and proper textual citations.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If the text talked about "identity disorders", it's quite possibly out of date. As outlined at identity disorder, the term "identity disorder" was changed to "identity problem" in the DSM-IV in 1994 and "identity problem" was later removed outright in the DSM-5 in 2013. Woodroar (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Woodroar. The manual was talking about the people who want to be called "they" or "them" for their gender.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

History of use for a known definite person but where the gender is considered irrelevant?

I'd be very interested to see more detail included throughout the article on the use for a known definite person where gender is considered irrelevant to the conversation. I know for a fact this predates 2009 as I specifically remember a book being read to me when I was a child in the early 2000s which contained a specifically called out case of a character using singular "they" to hide the gender of their friend, and at the time it was read to me it didn't seem at all odd that they would speak like this. I feel like this creates a natural bridge between the historic use of it for referring non-specifically to a single person, and the modern use of it for specific known non-binary people, and if anyone knows something about this subject I think it would be a valuable addition to the article (including in the Usage section and the introduction). --69.191.176.31 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC) (User:Muzer not logged in)