Over at Mudede’s exegesis on kissing, carnivorous chicken complains:
Uh, the bad kisser reveals “his” or “her” soul, not “their” soul. Jessus Christ on a crutch, Charles, this error is throughout the essay. Have you not heard of pronoun agreement?
Below the jump, the copy department explains itself and provides some alternate edits of Mudede’s prose. You decide.
The Stranger‘s style guide is based on The Chicago Manual of Style, which has this to say about the gender-neutral singular pronoun dilemma:
5.222 Gender bias. Consider the issues of gender-neutral language. On the one hand, it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun (he in reference to no one in particular). On the other hand, it is unacceptable to a great many readers (often different readers) either to resort to nontraditional gimmicks to avoid the generic masculine (by using he/she or s/he, for example) or to use they as a kind of singular pronoun. Either way, credibility is lost with some readers.
Chicago suggests a number of alternatives (see here), but neither forbids nor encourages use of they as a singular pronoun. So the copy team at The Stranger usually recasts a sentence (often by making the subject plural) or allows the sparing use of they.
Let’s look at a couple of sentences in Mudede’s article.
The monkey with the finger in its eye makes no sudden moves.
The monkeys were easy, since a monkey is an it (rarely are animals addressed with gendered pronouns). But pesky people have genders. So this
When a highly social animal opens their lips during a kiss, they are signaling a feeling of trust that is within them. And if the other welcomes this opening with an opening of their own—this signals their trust for your trust.
could have been styled thusly:
When highly social animals open their lips during a kiss, they are signaling a feeling of trust that is within them. And if the others welcome this opening with openings of their own—this signals their trust for your trust.
Nope, sounds like an orgy. The singularity is necessary for the reader to imagine only one kiss, the ideal kiss.
What about that concluding graf? What if it read like this?
A bad kisser is either (1) a person who actually eats you or (2) a person who does it all wrong. The second type of bad kisser puts too much of his or her teeth into the moment, or his or her tongue behaves like a panicked lizard, or his or her mouth can never strike that wonderful balance between rough and soothing. A bad kisser often means the deal is over. We disengage because we see him or her as socially inferior—he or she removes the magic from the risk. The bad kisser reveals his or her soul: He or she is a bad person. A good kisser is always a good person. A kiss that lasts for five minutes burns 10 calories.
That made me dizzy. Perhaps like this?
Bad kissers are either (1) people who actually eat you or (2) people who do it all wrong. The second type of bad kissers put too much of their teeth into the moment, or their tongues behave like panicked lizards, or their mouths can never strike that wonderful balance between rough and soothing. Bad kissers often mean the deal is over. We disengage because we see them as socially inferior—they remove the magic from the risk. Bad kissers reveal their souls: They are bad people. Good kissers are always good people. A kiss that lasts for five minutes burns 10 calories.
Nope. The image of hordes of bad kissers with lizard tongues leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Indeed, the way we chose to cast these words is the only way to contain both the meaning and the beauty of the text. Singularity is part of the pleasure of theoretical writing, Mudede’s in particular. Change they to he/she, and the brain jerks around like a roller coaster; change the subjects to plurals, and this philosophy becomes sociology.
I thought the fight over using they as a singular, gender neutral pronoun was over a while ago? Bout the same time people stopped trying to come with new ones like ze.
It makes sense, it works, and it is in wide use. That meets the requirements to make a change to grammar.
I much prefer “they” to “he/she” for the reasons you give.
Why would you use “he/she” instead of the obvious and correct “he or she”? Using slashes instead of words isn’t English at all.
Using “they” is nasty.
“The second type of bad kissers put” is wrong for a reason you didn’t mention: the subject of the verb isn’t “kissers” but “type”. Puts, not put. Still horrible, but there you go.
“here” link is busted.
They and their beats he/she and the barfy s/he easily.
“They” as a singular pronoun has been used for centuries. So “thpbpbpb” on the incorrectly overly prescriptive ninnies.
Has Fnarf ever had the answer? “He or she” is as stilted and pedantic as it is “correct”.
Thoughts:
1. By using the Chicago Manual of Style, rather than Strunk and White, as God intended, you are exhibiting your Chicago bias (hmm, why would that be? Hmmm…)
2. “When a highly social animal opens their lips during a kiss, they are signaling a feeling of trust that is within them.”
Again with the animals…if you’re using the word animal, why couldn’t the sentence read, “When a highly social animal opens its lips during a kiss, it is signaling a feeling of trust that is within it.”
3. Bad kissers are not bad people, but they should still be avoided. Case in point: In the 8th grade, I was spending a typical Friday night playing spin the bottle, and it landed pointing at this boy named Gardiner, who was tall and dark, as well as handsome. His kiss, however, was like driving through a car wash with the window open.
Canuck, my coworkers demand to know why I’m cracking up so hard. Thank you!
“Indeed, the way we chose to cast these words is the only way to contain both the meaning and the beauty of the text.”
You are assuming that the beauty of the text is unaffected by the improper grammar. I would argue that the quotes above are not beautiful because they are poorly executed.
gus…de nada, pookie.
This “carnivorous chicken” person is a douche and thus this post is completely unnecessary.
Where would the world be without copy editors? God bless ’em, every one of ’em.
I’ve been subjected to enough of Mudede’s thoughts on family and social norms to know that his article on kissing isn’t worth a sideways glance.
Why is slog pimping it so hard? This is the second “go read it” post today.
I bet Mudede is a lousy kisser. In fact, you’d probably have to initiate because he’d be too busy pontificating on Marx, Zizek and Lacan to make out with someone. Unless his whole ploy is to bang easy bookstore girls with his cursory knowledge of everything.
Rad! I’m a douche! And I though name calling on the internet was so 2009!
I prefer to pick a gendered noun, usually “he” (to reinforce the patriarchy) but sometimes “she” if I’m feeling pretty.
In this case, use of the plural pronoun reveals the writer’s soul. He is a bad person.
You misspelled “Jesus.”
Man, I agree with Fnarf most of the time, but he’s way off base on this one…
@7, in formal writing, it pays to do it the right way. “He or she” is perfectly normal-sounding in writing. If you want to say “they” in casual speech, have at it. You can get away with a lot in speech that is simply wrong in a formal piece of writing, like when I call you a plugged enema nozzle.
Thank God The Stranger has the editors it does rather than carniverous chicken! Somehow I just don’t think he/she would make a good editor…
@20, nope.
Carnivorous chicken is a douche, Fnarf is as wrong on this as he is about cupcakes, and I agree with Charles about bad kissers.
English is a living language; while there may be norms particular to a time, there is no such thing as *the* correct grammar or punctuation.
And as a writing tutor, I must take exception to Fnarf’s assertion:
“”He or she” is perfectly normal-sounding in writing. If you want to say “they” in casual speech, have at it. You can get away with a lot in speech that is simply wrong in a formal piece of writing, like when I call you a plugged enema nozzle. “
Actually, one of the best ways to see how your piece reads and if it has flow is to read it out loud, even if it’s a piece that you don’t anticipate will ever be read out loud again. When we hear our writing, certain patterns or errors that were unnoticed before become quite stark.
Yep, certain types of speech or writing allow for different styles which may be more formal or informal. While I expect a certain level of professionalism and standard grammar from a newspaper article, I would hardly call it “a formal piece of writing.” Formal to me is a published book, a peer-reviewed academic paper, etc – your opinion may vary.
I use “they” unapologetically. It’s quite handy when referring to a person of unknown gender, and in fact, many genderqueer-identified people prefer it as well. Yay for living languages, and all their messy (r)evolutions!
@24, no, a newspaper article absolutely is every bit as much a formal piece of writing as a book — more so, in many cases, depending on what kind of book it is.
Hey, Fnarf! You have an opinion! Opinions are fun and awesome things to have. I am glad that you like your opinion so much that you are comfortable stating it as fact.
I applaud the Stranger’s use of “they” and cannot wait until it becomes acceptable in formal writing. I wrestle with these constructions daily, and it is such a waste of time, especially when “they” or “their” conveys the meaning perfectly well.
And books still often default to the masculine pronoun. Let pluralizing become the norm and the gender problem is solved.
Funny, I would think Americans would be the first ones to embrace this, pragmatic as they are. It’s concise, it’s fair, and most people are already doing it. What’s the problem?
Obviously my last question is aimed at the pedants among this otherwise reasonable crowd.
Oh come ON, copy department. Y’all are obviously lame here.
Try this, okay?
“A bad kisser is either (1) a person who actually eats you or (2) a person who does it all wrong. The second type of bad kisser puts too much tooth into the moment; the tongue might behave like a panicked lizard, or the mouth cannot strike that wonderful balance between rough and soothing. A bad kisser often means the deal is over. We disengage from bad kissers because we see them as socially inferior—they remove the magic from the risk. The bad kisser reveals the soul: the soul of a bad person. A good kisser is always a good person. A kiss that lasts for five minutes burns 10 calories.”
That took me literally thirty seconds, and avoids all of the stated problems. It even, to my eye, still reads like Mudede.
If you don’t like my fix, various other similar fixes are possible. Put some effort into it! Changing one word for another is NOT editing. Reworking sentence structure a little bit is.
@29, you didn’t really come up with a better option, though.
Your reworking of the key sentence here is:
The bad kisser reveals the soul: the soul of a bad person.
The Slog-published version was:
The bad kisser reveals their soul: They are a bad person.
These have been mentioned, too:
The bad kisser reveals his or her soul: He or she is a bad person.
Bad kissers reveal their souls: They are bad people.
I know that you only spent “literally thirty seconds” on this and that “various other similar fixes are possible,” and blah blah blah… but, if you want to change any minds here, let’s see some reworking here that actually avoids this perceived problem with using “their” as a singular possessive pronoun of unspecified gender.
@26, an opinion that is not worth stating as fact is not worth stating as all.
The singular “they” has been in use as long as English has been a language. An 18th century pedant decided she didn’t like it, and 19th century pedants used her grammar book in schools.
The fad is over. It’s back now. If you don’t like it, you’d better throw out your Shakespeare and Chaucer.
When someone states an obvious opinion as fact, they’re usually just demonstrating how limited their cognitive capability is.
Speciesism! Why is a monkey an it, yet an ape (human) requires a gender? The intent is to make grammar about election. Pity you can’t do that with logic.
This is just a great job all around. You should all give yourselves a big round of applause.
I agree with Charles and the copy department.
What we are evaluating is more than the words. Charles created both images and feelings in his writing, and his use of “they” allowed me, the winner, the reader, to choose the gender in the scenes. I flowed between a woman, a man, different people and their kissing.
The metre of the writing is just as important as the grammar.
And, oh why, do people keep failing to read what Mudede has written? There is a difference between reading and simply reviewing for criticism. Why he shares his writing at all, I do not know. I hope that he is at least amused by all this blather.
I always default to ‘she’. It pleases me.
The grammar prescriptivist reveals his or her or its soul. He or she or it is always a boring asshole.
The singular they has been in use since the time of Chaucer. It actually PREDATES the generic he. It is the only plausible solution to the gender neutral pronoun problem – the only one that doesn’t sound unnatural and/or clunky. People need to accept it already!