Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Trans History of the Wild West

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#21

Post by ryanmercer »

sverona wrote: post #6
always4getpass wrote: post #2

I always get so confused when 'they' is used for a single person. Is there any alternative? Everything seems to sound silly

It's perfectly standard. You're probably already accustomed to using it for a person whose identity you don't know, unless you walk around saying things like "I hope this person comes back to get his or her umbrella."

Even if you know what gender the person is it's not uncommon to use they

"Well officer, I saw them walk from their car up to the door then they turned and looked around, that's when I saw them pull the ski mask down, draw their gun and enter the bank"

---

Manager: What was the customer doing when you told them to leave?

Clerk: Well I had been trying to help them with their project but they kept stepping into my personal space, then he places his hand on me and that's when I decided they'd crossed a line and needed to leave

---

Most people wouldn't even bat an eye swapping they out for he/she in conversation in person.

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#22

Post by mabbo »

Rumperuu wrote: post #19
always4getpass wrote: post #2

I always get so confused when 'they' is used for a single person. Is there any alternative? Everything seems to sound silly

For my money the best thing that ever happened to English was abandoning grammatical gender/noun classes centuries ago - no more masculine, feminine or neuter, everything is ‘the’ or ‘a’.[0] Based on that, I propose we push for ‘it’ as a sole singular pronoun (and keep ‘they’ for plural, as knowing if someone is referring to one or many is far more useful in almost all contexts than knowing whether they are referring…

The problem with "it" is the word's existing use to refer to non-person objects. One could easily interpret being called "it" as an insult, ie: this thing is not even a human.

I might not even be willing to refer to a dog as "it" in most circumstances.

Honestly though, I'm with you that it's a linguistic gap English needs to fill. Similarly, the second person plural pronoun need to be accepted as "y'all"- and I say that as someone not even from the southern USA.

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#23

Post by iguy »

ChrisSD wrote: post #17
kmm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its use with an unspecified antecedent is centuries old, but usage for specific persons is not. Time will tell whether it'll catch on.

The article I linked to gives 1794 as an example of using singular they to refer to a specific person. And as it also points out, there's nothing particularly unusual about using they in the context of a specific person as well as being a plural. It is commonly accepted that "you" is now both singular and plural.

I can't decode what the 1794 usage was. The article describes it as "singular they", used presumably in reference to one of these three authors, but, well, it would help to see the passage in question.

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#24

Post by ta0987 »

ChrisSD wrote: post #17
kmm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its use with an unspecified antecedent is centuries old, but usage for specific persons is not. Time will tell whether it'll catch on.

The article I linked to gives 1794 as an example of using singular they to refer to a specific person. And as it also points out, there's nothing particularly unusual about using they in the context of a specific person as well as being a plural. It is commonly accepted that "you" is now both singular and plural.

I don't think there's a better choice today than 'they' but that 1794 example doesn't show that this was a natural use back then. It was a conscious and intentional deviation from standard usage just as it is today, as was noted by the contemporary 'mansplaining' commenter and the contemporary response to him.

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#25

Post by Rumperuu »

mabbo wrote: post #22
Rumperuu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For my money the best thing that ever happened to English was abandoning grammatical gender/noun classes centuries ago - no more masculine, feminine or neuter, everything is ‘the’ or ‘a’.[0] Based on that, I propose we push for ‘it’ as a sole singular pronoun (and keep ‘they’ for plural, as knowing if someone is referring to one or many is far more useful in almost all contexts than knowing whether they are referring…

The problem with "it" is the word's existing use to refer to non-person objects. One could easily interpret being called "it" as an insult, ie: this thing is not even a human. I might not even be willing to refer to a dog as "it" in most circumstances. Honestly though, I'm with you that it's a linguistic gap English needs to fill. Similarly, the second person plural pronoun need to be accepted as "y'all"- and I say t…

True, which is why it needs to start with people choosing to be called ‘it’. It's yet to happen, but I'll do my bit if/when I'm ever asked for my preferred pronouns.

Also, as someone currently leaving in a place rich with Scousers I would put forward ‘yous’ as a second-person plural pronoun that rolls off the tongue a bit better (and, I would conjecture, makes more intuitive sense for learners of English).

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#26

Post by iguy »

Dobbs wrote: post #12
golemotron wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, it is a cultural marker. If you run a linguistic use analysis, you see that it is used on the coasts and a few key urban areas in the US and it hasn't made progress toward universality.

Except you know Shakespeare using singular they[0]. Then the fact that I’m willing to bet decent money that random individuals in rural areas also use singular they all the time without realising. It is just when a trans person wants singular they exclusively that it becomes an issue. 1: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.h...

I'm surprised that this misses the distinction made by signalsmith above: the way Shakespeare uses "they" to refer to someone is unremarkable, but what strikes many present-day speakers as an error (even if they fail to explain why) is the use of it to apply to a particular person, especially a named person.

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#27

Post by hnzix »

steve_taylor wrote: post #18
ChrisSD wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering singular they has been in common use for centuries[0], changing it now would be an uphill struggle. People have used words like "ze" but they haven't caught on. [0] https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...

Butchering of the English language is hardly a modern phenomenon.

English is not a dead language and so it evolves. Consider 12th century English: Ealdred arceb hine to cynge gehalgode menn guldon him gyld gislas sealdon syððan heora land bohtan.

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#28

Post by iguy »

ryanmercer wrote: post #21
sverona wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly standard. You're probably already accustomed to using it for a person whose identity you don't know, unless you walk around saying things like "I hope this person comes back to get his or her umbrella."

Even if you know what gender the person is it's not uncommon to use they "Well officer, I saw them walk from their car up to the door then they turned and looked around, that's when I saw them pull the ski mask down, draw their gun and enter the bank" --- Manager: What was the customer doing when you told them to leave? Clerk: Well I had been trying to help them with their project but they kept stepping into my perso…

It would depend on context, if you ask me. The bank robbery was across the street & half a block down? Completely unremarkable to say "they". The clerk is complaining about sexual harassment, hand on thigh? Avoiding "he" implies a careful choice not to say, either to hide an identity, or because the customer was obviously confusingly gender-ambiguous.

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#29

Post by BorRagnarok »

It's so nice to learn that back then, as now, trans people at some point in their live transitioned and then tried to live out their lives as the other gender, and were successful at it. Some only being found out after death or by becoming really ill. Luckily we're more open about it now. Also, now, as back then, most trans people just want to fit in and not be labeled 'other', or 'trans' for that matter.

Re: The Trans History of the Wild West

#30

Post by rcthompson »

always4getpass wrote: post #2

I always get so confused when 'they' is used for a single person. Is there any alternative? Everything seems to sound silly

Yes, it feels grammatically weird, because e.g. you use "is" for he and she but "are" for they. But there's no option that isn't a compromise in some way. The alternative is coming up with an entirely new pronoun and convincing people to use it, and people have tried that as well. It seems that the singular they is much more widely recognized, though.
Post reply on HN