Talk:Singular they

The sentance {{TQ|In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals emerged for people who do not exclusively identify as male or female}} makes it sound as if the only people to use they/them pronouns are trans and/or non-binary. As people frequently use Wikipedia to find information or correct people do other editors think this should be changed? It also suggests that non-binary identities started in the 21st century, even if we ignore non-binary identities before the term was coined I believe this is inaccurate as the term gained popularity in the 1990's. I'd suggest {{tq2|In the late 20th century, the use of singular they with known individuals started to become more common as a personal pronoun}} EnbyEditor (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

:I like the suggested edit. Perhaps, we could add at the end of the sentence "{{tq|, especially among people who do not exclusively identify as male or female.}}" or something similar to acknowledge that it is primarily used by us queer folks. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

::Sounds good to me. "In the late 20th century" will be unsourced, but it's not more unsourced than the current "In the early 21st century". It would help if someone could find a source that gives a timeline. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

:::The early 21st century is sourced in the article body (not the lede) with a reference to the OED, whose earliest citation for they in this sense is 2009, and American Speech, which reports a citation from 2008. Both the 2009 citation and the 2008 citation frame this use of they as a neologism, and the authors of the American Speech column describe it as "genuinely new", writing in 2016. Earliest citations are not proof of earliest usage, of course, but I'd like to see some evidence for the late 20th century or at least some source suggesting it before putting it in the article. AJD (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

::::I believe [https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they?tl=true this] OED page implies this is the case towards the end there, but I find the wording confusing so I'll try to find a better source tomorrow when I'm not so tired EnbyEditor (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::I disagree; I don't think that article says anything suggesting that the sense of they that we're discussing here was used before the 21st century. AJD (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::[https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/06/gender-neutral-pronouns-arent-new/619092/ This article] suggests otherwise EnbyEditor (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I read the article you link but I can't find any claim or evidence in it that singular-they-for-specific-people began to be used in the late 20th century. Could you provide a quote so I know what you're referring to? AJD (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|By the 1990s, large numbers of people were asking to be referred to directly by them. The writer Kate Bornstein, who used the pronouns ze/hir to describe a character in the 1996 novel Nearly Roadkill, was one of the first to bring the practice into the mainstream.}}

::::::::The article directly states it EnbyEditor (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Also relating to @CapnZapp has consensus really not been reached? One person disagrees with 3 others over something clearly stated in a trusted source EnbyEditor (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::You're misinterpreting what the article says. The excerpt you quote says that gender-neutral pronouns in general were in use in the 1990s, not that the they/them pronoun in particular was. (It says "referred to by them," not "referred to by them.") The article does not support the claim that singular they for specific people was used at all in the 1990s. AJD (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::You're right, I seem to have misread that section, however rereading the article I found a section that shows even earlier usage of they/them pronouns for individuals whose gender is known {{tq|For a time in the 1600s, medical texts even referred to individuals who did not accord with binary gender standards as they/them.}}

::::::::::The poem Guillaume de Palerme is also contains an example of genderless they.

::::::::::I believe if we're not going to refer to the 1990s as the year it emerged or became common (despite the terms Genderqueer and Non-Binary being coined and popularised in the 1980s and 1990d respectively) we should at least change the phrasing of the sentance to remove the prescription of personal they/them pronouns as exclusively non-binary.

::::::::::I also think we should replace male and female with man and woman, as those generally aren't the correct terms to use when describing people's gender identity.

::::::::::I'll tag @Firefangledfeathers as they seem active in the discussion. EnbyEditor (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::I think we could add something to the body based on that line in The Atlantic, and we should also use the source they link to: [https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2018/09/05/the-long-long-history-and-bright-future-genderless-they/LhGIzOTm6PPKMKws8cE2SN/story.html this one in the Boston Globe]. I don't think it really changes the situation about popularization in the 21st century being best for the lead, for now at least.

:::::::::::I don't agree that we're saying that they/them is just for non-binary people. We're saying that's one usage. I don't have a strong opinion about male/female vs. man/woman. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::I forgot I was doing this, [https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/06/gender-neutral-pronouns-arent-new/619092/ here] is a source, I updated the page also EnbyEditor (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

:::I've changed my mind on this, thanks mainly to AJD's explanation. Unless we can find sources on late 20th century uses, we should keep the current language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

::I agree, I think my suggestion removes the idea that primarily queer people use singular they as their pronouns EnbyEditor (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think a good summary of the first recorded usage of a singular they in "William and the Werewolf" would be good as this is already referenced in one of the [https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ external links] and it gives legitimacy to the usage to some people who say it is "ungrammatical". Pomo72 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

:Can this be flagged for deletion? Sorry, I am new to wikipedia and don't know the correct usage. I want this deleted because I realised that it is already talked about. Pomo72 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

::Don't worry about it, It's not a problem. Almost nothing on Wikipedia is actually deleted. This Talk section will just be archived eventually. {{smiley}} Woodroar (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The article currently implies that the use of "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun dates to the 18th century. In fact, this usage goes back to the earliest records we have of English, occuring for example in Beowulf:

{{Text and translation|Nænig heora þohte þæt he þanon scolde eft eardlufan æfre gesecean.|None of them thought that he thence would ever visit his dear home again.}}

Zacwill (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:Where does it imply that? Nardog (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::"The earliest known explicit recommendation by a grammarian to use the generic he rather than they in formal English [occurs in] Ann Fisher's mid-18th century A New Grammar." Zacwill (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::That states that the recommendation of the generic he dates to the 18th century, not the use of it. Nardog (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Right, but can you see how this statement might be misleading without more context? The article tells us that the generic they dates to the 14th century, but it makes no mention of the generic he being used before the 18th century. I've already seen at least one person point to it as evidence that the generic they predates the generic he, when in fact the reverse is true. Zacwill (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I really can't. Recommendation means recommendation, there's no two ways about it. Nardog (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Okay. For the benefit of those who lack your powers of discernment, I've now made it explicit that generic he goes back to Old English. Zacwill (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Isn't everyone who "he" could refer to in that line a man? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::True, but the antecedent of the pronoun (nænig) isn't gendered. In any case, there are many instances in the Old English corpus in which "he" could mean anyone. Zacwill (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you have reliable sources talking about use of the gender-neutral he in Old English? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::See the [https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1054698830 OED,] which gives several examples. Zacwill (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

English is not my native language so I don't want to change the text, but Chicago endorses the usage of the generic singular "they" since 2024 (new version of CMS). See CMS 5.51 Katharina Ahle (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing this out — I just added it. (Took me a couple tries, but I seem to have the citation format working correctly now.) 2601:14D:4D7F:1984:7C5C:F2DF:530E:97ED (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|WP:NOTFORUM and other unfocussed kvetching}}

so it's not really a "singular" they if it uses a plural verb. has any linguist ever objected to the term itself, and proposed an alternative?

conversely, did "they is" ever have any proponents? that would be the actual "singular they".

sounds terrible to my ears, but i cannot speak to the 1600s, etc. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:466:CBD4:FBC1:D5B6 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:the "they" is still plural here -- it is actually a case of the individual being defined as plural to match. "plural singularity" would be a way better term for this. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:6410:68DF:C6BE:7A96 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:How many are you? Nardog (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a question here that has any bearing on the article itself? If not, I suggest we just drop this per WP:NOTFORUM. People are perfectly entitled to their personal opinions on linguistic matters but we don't have to air them out here. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::when the very backbone of the article is incorrect, it is not unreasonable to ask whether there is a source out there with correct info. no native speaker can take this article serious when it repeatedly misuses the very term it seeks to define. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:4D68:7722:C5DC:4EF4 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

the above vandalism notwithstanding, could we at least reword things to correct this glaring inaccuracy? even merriam-webster acknowledges that the so-called "singular they" still functions as a GRAMMATICAL PLURAL.

how about something like "Singular they refers to usage of the third person plural pronoun 'they' as a substitute for the third person singular pronouns 'he' and 'she' in certain circumstances....While it remains a plural grammatically -- and takes a plural verb to match -- by convention it is considered semantically a singular form...."

what's wrong with something like that?

"grammatically" and "semantically", 2 very different things!

article in current form states the usage is *grammatically* singular, which is simply incorrect. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:5561:4DA6:122:4EAA (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, plural in syntax and singular in semantics. That's still singular, as words are polysemous. Nardog (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::finally someone who gets the issue here!

::altho, not quite sure how polysemy is a factor. if it's plural in syntax, it's plural in syntax. how is that "still singular", much less "grammatically" singular? 2601:18A:807C:1C40:9973:9827:5C5C:4A9A (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Semantics is part of the grammar. We say e.g. "Everyone raised their hand", not "Everyone raised their hands" (unless everyone raised both hands). Nardog (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to remind people of WP:NOTFORUM again and also against making vague accusations of vandalism. Further disruption may result in warning templates. Playtime is over. If anybody thinks that the article should be changed then please say what you propose, preferably in a "Change X to to Y" format, and provide Reliable Sources to support the change. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seriously folks, this is not a chat forum! Either make a specific proposal to change the article or move your chit-chat off Wikipedia. There are plenty of other places online where you can discuss whatever you like. You can even do it on your own User Talk pages, provided it doesn't get too out of hand. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)