I’ve always thought that “ze” is the perfect gender-neutral, third-person singular pronoun, and I’m surprised that it never took off. It sounds vaguely German, so that fits in nicely with the messy history of the English language, and it also doesn’t carry the baggage of the alternatives. Then again, people should be free to describe themselves however they wish.

Well said! I happy to call anyone by the pro-noun they prefer as I don’t want to make people feel bad...but modern day gender theory (or at least the part that gets screamed about on the webs) seems to really want to box in what it means to be man or woman, and instead of expanding what a man or woman is in society is really embracing individualism...

Why are 99% of they-identifying people born women? I feel like there's a new class of... TUGs (They Until Graduation) out there who will be reminding us all to refer to them by their preferred pronoun now but in thirty years will be as straight and female identified as possible.

@3 there was an interesting study that looked at the influence that social media has had in the past several years and how that maybe influencing the sudden influx of the various gender identity issues coming to light. A question that the study brings up is how much of this resent spike in gender questioning comes from a genuine issue and how much is simply social pressure for younger people to be "special". Brown University published the study but then removed it due to various pressure as it didn't play into the strict SJW talking points guidelines.

I think about pronouns a lot as the parent of a toddler. I'm always misgendering them because those little Mussolinis all look alike! Oh, and their names are frequently no help. I actually have started using "they" for the 3 feet high and rising crew.

I think my personal preference would be to do away with gendered pronouns altogether, but I totally get where Katie is coming from.

Oh, and HOW ADORABLE is that picture! OMG. I love it.

So if you reject "they" as a polite term for someone of unknown gender identity, what's the alternative? It's just not practical to have the pronoun chat with every person you have a minor social interaction with, so barring such a term people are going to get misgendered.

I understand what you're saying that people who self-identify as "they" are making a specific statement about their own identity, but is it not possible for the singular "they" to still function as a polite way to refer to someone whose preferred pronoun you don't know AND be a way of making a particular statement if you choose it as your preferred pronoun? Just like the feminists who co-opted "Ms" as a way of saying that their marital status didn't define them, choosing "they" as your preferred pronoun is a way of saying your gender doesn't define you. You lose that if you reject the use of singular "they" as basically the "Ms" of gender and instead say "they" is a identity unto itself.

'They' is an absurdly useful pronoun and I'm glad it's being popularized in all sorts of situations. If I'm telling an anecdote about a friend, I will use 'they' regardless of gender or non-gender because most of the time, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Don't knock 'they', help society to learn to use it intelligently.

The reason why none of the myriad of pronoun replacement suggestions never took off is that, in my experience, languages tend to evolve towards simplicity, which means towards things that are easier (i.e. take less effort to physically say).

This is why grammatical gender has largely dropped out of English. English used to have it, many centuries ago, but now we don't. Other languages that do still have it, like the Romance languages, have simplified in other ways, for example, by getting rid of cases for nouns (mostly, I suspect, because when we speak rapidly we tend to mumble or drop the ends of words).

So any attempt to reintroduce or add grammatical genders is destined to fail. It's way to complex and has no real need for anyone outside of a small minority; that's not a crack against anyone in that minority but a simple statement of fact. If you don't use a grammatical construction on an everyday basis then it tends to drop off. Where complexity in languages does stick around, it's because it's used all the time, which is why the verb "to be" is irregular in tons and tons of languages.

Singular "they" does have another purpose not addressed by this article: it's a very useful term when the antecedent is not clear, and considerably less unwieldy than the alternative "he or she" construction. Moreover, it's another simplification (dropping the grammatical gender of people as well as things). Moreover, there's precedent for the plural pronoun migrating to the singular ("You" initially was the second person plural form; "thou" was the second person singular).

@8, I'm hearing Katie as saying that she gets "they-ed" because people assume her pronouns based on her external appearance. People who would "he" or "she" strangers who conform to gender norms of dress and appearance instead "they" her.

There is nothing about gender non-conforming behavior that erases someone's professed gender identity.

I face this with my children; I have one son who engages in more feminine-identified behavior and dress, and one who doesn't. Both tell me they're boys, but I get questions on whether I am "forcing" the former into a male identity.

Either or both may grow up to be trans, non-binary or queer identified. That is for them to decide when they can fully understand gender and sexuality.

There is no reason for me to question the professed identity of either. The fact that I'm only questioned on the non-conforming one (by adults) reminds me of the playground taunts he gets: "Only girls like dresses and princesses." So I respond in the same way I have told them: dresses and princesses are for whoever likes them.

Thanks for the article and the discussion. As an older male-born who struggled with gender identity for many years before introduced to the nonbinary genderian concept some 10 years ago, I am wholeheartedly in support of “they,” at least as a starting point. I’m sorry some feel “diluted” as a result. I suspect those referring to you as “they” mean no harm and will gladly follow your lead once you clarify the matter.

@ 3 whether kids find it cool and it’s the latest trend to replace piercing and all those girls will grow up to be cis het females doesn’t mean there’s necessarily something wrong with it. When I grew up the standard was making fun of anyone deviating slightly from the norms, being behavioral or appearance, so that’s a huge step forward already.
Your mocking of women for embracing "they" is likely to be a projection of your own issues. It is my experience that women- straight, gay, or” they”- are generally more accepting of gay men and women, trangenders, and all the other alphabet soup as Vennominon, a regular on the SL thread, put it.

There are all kinds of pins and such out there. If you want to be labeled a certain way, stick a she/her pin on your lapel. Easy peasy.

Here we again again.

Is gender a social construct or are people "born this way"?

"introduced to the nonbinary genderian concept "

That sounds terribly socially constructed.

"that maybe influencing the sudden influx of the various gender identity issues coming to light"

Seems to be striking middle and upper middle class white college girls the most. Probably because it's a no-fuss way to get some instant social justice street cred and move yourself up the new pecking order. Suddenly your whiteness gets washed away.

Most of the folks I know who ID as non-binary are gender-conforming cis hetero mommies in Ballard who are trying to show that they're queer allies who are Totally Down With the Kids. Kinda like how every straight person was bisexual in the 90s.

@15 good point, there are just as many gay-identified young men that later go on to live essentially straight lives, i'm just ignoring them because I'm projecting. I'm sure the '85% of they-identified people are women between 18-24' stat this is floating around on twitter presently is just my projection as well. We all know there is no behavioural difference (your view that women are more accepting is obviously just you projecting your internalized hatred towards you male-ness, "doy") between men and women, and observing a difference is heretical. It is known.

It is so much easier to ignore ridiculous humans altogether and order everything online and speak in person only to the cat, who prefers to be called Your Royal Highnessness.

9, that is the sensible alternative.

@21 my cat will only accept being called "You Holy Imperial Extreme Highness and Sincere Mistress of all that Exists and Could Exist"

Your furball is clearly a peasant

The folks who steadfastly discount the plurality confusion for using "they" are insufferable bores whom arrogantly feel they can steer the language aways from its most basic lexicographic constructs.

Jesus. Herzog’s dopey opinion pieces are just magnetic candy for the assholes to Just-So and Strawman about all day.

@18
Socially accepted, and I embrace it regardless of your race/class observations.

Sporty @ 20
If your numbers are right then you only support my point that women are less afraid to be viewed as “they,” “bi,” or “nonbinary” for whatever reasons you and others here may assume.
When it comes to being ridiculed for my looks and behavior, not to mention physically attacked, men are indeed the vast majority. Some of it could very well originate from their own “internalized hatred.”

Funny how obstinate people who don't want to be labeled in any way are when it comes to pronouns. There are real problems in the world. This is not one of them, no matter how much they insist it is.

I'm still confused that "dudes" is apparently gender neutral?? I haven't even moved onto pronouns, yet.

@30

People use "you guys" for everyone. Irritates me when it's a young person speaking to a senior citizen, like someone in their 20s at a store addressing someone and an elderly parent as "you guys" rather than the parent as "sir" or "ma'am."

I am in the 'lets take gender out of language' camp. My own favorite term is "unit Homo sapien" aka UHS. Will be useful until we start splicing human DNA with other species but for now UHS is what I use. Any pushback, and I'll assume you are a shape shifting species trying to pass as human.

i still say ‘y’all’. never had a problem

@27 those numbers don't say anything about "why", they speak to what "is". Can you at least accept that the young women are over-represented in the population of people who identify as 'they'?

@34 Big fan of ya'll as well and D.C. is the furthest south I've ever lived.

Sporty- I don’t know, don’t really care, and not sure why you’re so fixated on this.
Like I wrote in my previous posts here, I’m glad that youngsters today can safely choose a neutral or even queer identity of some sort. Even if there is social pressure to do so, and I assume it does exist is in some case, it is still waaaaay better than the bullying norms I grew up with.

Katie, is your sister an identical or sororal twin?

Not being small-minded and petty will resolve a lot of this. Not being one of those people who have to defend every single, goddamn prerogative. That'd help.

For example, before determining whether she's been gender-erased by someone's ill-advised use of "they", what if Ms. Herzog paused to remind herself that probably wasn't that person's intent and LEFT IT AT THAT? Similarly, any time I hear someone bitching that someone has failed to recognize their gender non-binariness by using the appropriate pronoun, I assume, almost always correctly, that their gender non-binariness is the most interesting thing about them, so that there's really no reason to deepen the acquaintance.

David @ 37
I also believe there are two distinct genders that correspond with one's sexual organs. I also believe there are exceptions and people are allowed to make this distinction for themselves.
If you ignore courtesy and insist on referring to them the way you choose, because you know best and that’s it, then I’m afraid “asshole” is indeed an appropriate word to describe you.

@28- Yeah, ambiguous possessives are an exception. But that’s inter-personal; not intra-personal.

Just feel sorry for the search and rescue teams that keep looking for the other one.

@9 The problem with "it" is that in English the neutral pronoun (it) virtually always refers to an inanimate object, whereas "he" and "she" are always living beings (ships notwithstanding.) Calling someone "it" is dehumanizing, and "it" has definitely been used as a transphobic slur over the years.

@14 She seems to think people are calling her "they" because those people are assuming she identifies as "they." I think it's vastly more likely that those people simply see she's non-gender conforming in appearance and don't want to hazard a guess and so use "they" as a catch-all. For a brief social interaction with a stranger, this seems to me to be about as polite as you can get.

People defaulting to "they", whether or not you think they are queer-coding you wrong, are still attempting to default to what is becoming more of an "all-access" word (although to @28's point, is not new.) The rise of "all-access" solutions are often about creating efficient ways that everyone can be a part of.

So, like, if someone points me to a ramp, that doesn't remove the existence of my stair-climbing legs. It just means this ramp can technically be used by me, even though it could be the most useful for someone else. Or if I come upon a gender-neutral bathroom, seeing a urinal next to a toiler (because sometimes those bathrooms include both) doesn't take my female identity away. It just means it's an all-access solution that can be used by a variety of people.

@43 What about the pronoun "you"? English got rid of the singular "thou" a long time ago (so much for its "most basic lexicographic constructs"). If I'm talking to you when you are part of a group, how do you know if I'm referring to you singularly or collectively with your group? Context is everything and grammar is not nearly as clean as you want it to be.

I'm old enough to have been brought up during a period of social change led to popularity in part by people like my post-hippie school teachers and Mr. Rogers through the postulate: You can be whatever you are or want to be. Just be you. If you are a boy, and you don't like fighting, or competitive sports or generally being an asshole, you're no less a boy. Likewise for girls.

This amounted to an EXPANSION of the gender construct to more than the common preconceptions. The only thing defining your label was your sex (unless you changed that). Your behavior was up to you, and you alone. A male or a female (boy or girl) could be anything they wanted to be.

I'm a CIS male, kinda hetero. But I detest many of the behavioral norms males typically identify with. But I'm still a man, and I like it that way. Call me a "he", just don't call me late for dinner.

Point being, I think the current gender theory actualy undermines non-conformity and individuality when, rather than rejecting the gender stereotypes as irrelevant or confining, it re-enforces these confining stereotypes by suggesting that unless your behavior conforms, or if you don't identify with the narrowest of gender definitions, you must reject your gender altogether and opt for "neutral". I understand it's not a dictate, you can choose to label yourself as you like. But the trend prefering to reject the gender labels altogether, amounts to a narrowing of gender definitions, rather than an expansion.

I can sympathize, though. I grew up in the 70s in a coastal liberal middle-class environment. Most of those who feel the need to reject their gender label for being non-conformists were bullied. They were harrassed. The gender expectations were, for them, oppressive. Did this result in their simply internalizing the tyrrany of the standard gender roles? Is it possible they can't grasp an expanded definition male and female for themselves? Can't they see a non-conforming male or female as merely an interesting he or she?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I'll only be around another 30 or 40 years. We're stepping backward in every aspect of our society, so why not hand over the progress of the 20th century to the barbary of the 21st? By insisting on a third, explicitly "non-conforming" gender identity, we are essentially re-enforcing the strict gender definitions of the past. We're doing the work of our oppressors.

For now, I'm willing to try to wrench my tongue to use a 3rd-person "singular they", but here's a question:

What am I to do with the verb/subject agreement?

Should I say, "What do they think?" (pluralizing the person seems the most natural, even if it relies on context), or must I say "What does they think?" (If "they" is considered singular, then the verb must agree. This is deeply awkward, and sounds to me like how Tarzan or the Hulk would speak).

I think I prefer to use the 3rd-person plural, even if it's referring to one person and not a group. This will mostly happen when the subject isn't present (otherwise, why not just use their name?), so it may be accompanied by either a hesitation, or an eyeroll. I'll still maintain that it is awkward, forced, affected, and delivers less than it promises, since I'm old and entitled to grouse like a teenager. I've been using the English language for over fifty years, so my tongue has developed some stubborn habits.

Now let's see if people are prepared for the inevitable "their" and "they're" jumble. We'll probably have to resort to "thayr".

@49 You use singular verbs. That's yet another reason why the singular "they" isn't anywhere near as confusing as the grammar (and actual) Nazis claim. Even if you are speaking in a context where it could potentially be confusing, you can almost always build a sentence where the verb agreement shows whether "they" is supposed to be plural or singular.

@47: Yes, context is everything except when it's missing.

lf someone says they are Napoleon trapped in the body of a modern day human, society thinks they are insane and the person is given medication and treatment. They are not invited to rule France (or exiled) for being Napoleon.

It's the oppression that Trans-Napoleons, such as myself, face on a daily basis.

Every single day, I try to live my life in accordance with my inner identity as Emperor of the French, King of Italy and Protector of the Rhine Confederations. Every single day, I am derided and mocked. Small children come up to me in the street and yell "You'll never be real emperor!" or "You'll never lead the Grand Armee against the combined armies of Tsar Alexander and Emperor Francis at Austerlitz".

All I want is what other Napoleons have: absolute power over the French Empire and its satellites in Europe, plus a dedicated Corps of Imperial Guards and a palace to live in. But I can't even move into the Palais de Versailles without policemen trying to arrest me.

Think about that. You cis—identified people get to live in your natural homes, but if I try to move into my natural home, I get arrested. I don't even want to think how the Russians would treat me if I went to visit Moscow,

So have a heart, mes amis. Start working for greater social justice for Trans-Napoleons such as myself!

Vive la France, vive l'empereur, vive la vieille garde.

Be excellent to each other. Speak to others, and in public, with the intention of kindness and respect. If you goof up and use the wrong words .. oh well. You're human. At least you were trying to be polite. If someone informs you they'd rather be referred to differently, apologize and refer to them that way going forward.

The English language will survive. It's alive and always evolving. That's a good thing.

There is a literal psychopath in the White House, the Supreme Court is now basically the mafia, the wreckage being wrought all over the lower classes of the country (yeah, even on flyoverland whites, sorry) is staggering in its proportions, and the Republicans control everything.

But sure, let's talk about pronouns.

Yes, I know to discuss address many issues at once, but progressive liberals (i.e., the defenders of the opinions of coastal 20 something gender studies majors) have yet to prove that they can.

One important issue on the use of “they” is what it means in legal terms. When you are asking a jury to read a document that has “they” for one person, you need to accept a learning curve especially for older folks. (I know, I know - they need to get with the program.)

It’s something to consider going forward because you don’t want to lose a court case because people on the jury are confused ( but didn’t want to admit it and may have voted wrongly).

@57 Typo correction: "Yes, I know it's possible to address..." etc.

@41: For example, before determining whether she's been gender-erased by someone's ill-advised use of "they", what if Ms. Herzog paused to remind herself that probably wasn't that person's intent and LEFT IT AT THAT?

While I applaud the effort you are making, you clearly have not been to enough corporate sexual harassement et al training sessions where it is made very clear intent is irrelevant. All that matters is how the recipient interpreted your words.

Awkwardness has been criminalized.

@51. Singular verbs, always? So "Does he know what he's doing?" Becomes "Does they know what they's doing?" - Or would it be "Does they know what they is doing?" Either way sounds pretty stupid. That may change with time/acceptance. But I think the more likely outcome is people will just say, "Do they know what they're doing?" instead. And then there goes your theory that the context will clear up any confusion.

@41 Simple: because advocates of this issue have collectively decided that intent doesn't matter. The "did you just assume their gender" joke that got lambasted on twitter last week didn't come from the sky, it's lampooning actual gender-identity activists.

@CMD I don't know, this is your fucking deal, apparently. GTFO with this "why are you fixated on this" when you're the one creating the conversation.

It's almost cute that a few gender-confused folks and their social justice allies think they'll convince humanity that male and female do not exist.

" If someone informs you they'd rather be referred to differently, apologize and refer to them that way going forward."

There's 7 billion people on the planet.

And only two genders.

Everyone gets their own pronoun?

Grow the fuck up.

No.

Mx Wanna - Only until they gain power; then the whip will crack just as loudly.

At progressive or "Left" meetings here in Olympia, it's common practice to start the meeting by having everyone say their name and pronoun. Has this not caught on in Seattle yet?

"At progressive or "Left" meetings here in Olympia, it's common practice to start the meeting by having everyone say their name and pronoun."

They did this at my kid's pre-school too. Say your name and your favorite fruit. I forgot both after 2 seconds.

Sporty- not sure what you want from me. You keep mentioning statistics based solely on your divine insight, information I never found particularly relevant to this discussion, insisting on me commenting about it, and blaming me for bringing it up again after I already told you I don’t give a fuck and moved on.
Hope you’re well.

@65: It's not true to say there are only two genders. And there's no valid reason not to respect anyone's gender identity. If someone identifies as a gender other than that arbitrarily assigned at birth, it simply doesn't affect you. Respecting everyone's truth is as necessary as calling people by their correct name. It's just part of the basic level of respect and dignity everyone is entitled to be treated with.

"there's no valid reason not to respect anyone's gender identity. "

That's called your "personality". Grow the fuck up.

social justice advocates have confused the struggles during jim crow and the years of humiliation and abuse homosexuals endured at the hands of other to these perceived slights. I am not hearing anyone saying what I think is true here, in that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT ANOTHER PERSON THINKS OF YOU, unless that thinking causes you bodily harm or obstruction from access to opportunities. As a white cis guy, I see elements of this as part of this witchhunt-for-justice phenomenon where it seems thought that we will attain justice by "catching" the bad mostly white males being prejudiced and ignorant. Katie, I am glad the paper has you, it's been an interesting spot during an era of generally forgettable provincial warbling for the cause of selling nightlife and weed ads.

That John McWhorter is open to they, as am I, in usage is refreshing. He has had some unorthodox views on race, which I have enjoyed just because the mainstream view these days is so disenfranchising and infantilizing, and generally white-phobic. string me up, whatever, sorry for the contrarian view. For me I just see this new focus on slights done to the individual to be the new fragility, and is a misanthropic way to deal with strangers.

Look, I'm out here living my life, encountering assholes, reading polemics about how my demographic sucks in major newspaper and academic writing, but I am getting the fuck on with it because ultimately, when one is an individualist, I hold myself to an internal standard. I keep an eye on feedback from people in my inner to outer circles, and sometimes from strangers, but if a stranger happens to not get me and act like an asshole, oh fucking well, thats their inability to relate. And I move on with my life - you likely only live once, and going around with such a state of sour-pussed victimhood is you letting your life suck more than it needs to. peace out.

i was resistant at first to "they" for the issues of the plural meaning, but am coming around due to having a daughter (cis currently) that has some they preferring female preschool classmates - and out of respect for their request, i am acquiescing. the thing though is do we act assertively and confidently and tell people what we would prefer, because how are they to know, or do we act passive aggressively (seattle heyooo) and lie in the weeds, trap our prey, and then blow the fuck up on them. ask for what you need, then if it's not provided, decide something reasonable to do, but expecting other to know straight away is foolish. also, left out of this is we are talking about how people discuss you when you are not around. if you were present, people would call you by your name in the 3rd person, or you when addressing you directly.

"out of respect for their request, i am acquiescing."

Wish them luck in the real world beyond Seattle, beyond America, beyond that tiny bubble of urban, college educated, middle upper middle class, white, organically raised, coop shopping liberals, where no one gives a fuck and won't "acquiesce" to their childish needs.

I just invented a new gender. It's called "crepuscular novigender." Every twilight my gender because impossible to fully and adequately describe because I am the most complex living thing in the world. I refuse all pronouns. You will not refer to me using a pronoun of any kind. Pronouns are inherently bigoted. RESPECT THIS.

65

What's it to you, your majesty motherfucker? I mean, it might get too confusing for you because you have 6000 sick puppet identities ... but to the rest of us adults, no sweat. He, she, they, it, bitch, Bob, your majesty ... It takes minimal effort. It's pretty easy to treat people respectfully and call them whatever they like to be called. You should try it sometime.

Why are you so threatened? I don't need to grow the fuck up. I'm a grown secure unafraid adult. What's your deal sad sock puppet person?

Stranger, why can't we edit our comments? Do you know how much it takes the wind out of my sails when I post a snarky comment and there's a great big ol typo in it?
UGH!
Here goes, again:
I just invented a new gender. It's called "crepuscular novigender." Every twilight my gender becomes impossible to fully and adequately describe because I am the most complex living thing in the world. I refuse all pronouns. You will not refer to me using a pronoun of any kind. Pronouns are inherently bigoted. RESPECT THIS.

@81: I don't think the poster feels threatened. I just think s/he is pointing out idiocy. We can't just go around telling biology it's wrong and there are as many genders as we'd like there to be. It's just wrong. It's invalid. It's silly. It's selfish and childish. People are free to express themselves as wildly, and imaginatively, and uniquely as they want, but that doesn't mean they've come up with a new gender. And then expecting the world to basically invent new language just to refer to their royal selves is ridiculous, and the height of self-absorption. A man wants to express himself as something other than the stereotypical guy (whatever that is), then great! But that doesn't mean he's not a man. What they're describing is their personality, not their gender. And no, I'd never mangle the English language, and certainly never use some new non-sense word, just to refer to them. If they insisted, I'd insist on just calling them by their names. And yet that wouldn't be sufficient, I have no doubt. No doubt at all.

"What's it to you, your majesty motherfucker? "

Nothing, so don't insist I call you a giant "They-bie".

"6000 sick puppet identities"

Those aren't puppets, those are my identities m*therfu*ker and you better remember each and every one or I'll call the principal.

"I don't think the poster feels threatened. "

@83

Exactly. I'm not threatened by stupidity and narcissism, unless it's behind the wheel of a car or president of the USA. I find this self-indulgent, childish nonsense laughable.

83

Ok, I understand your position. Thanks for clarifying. I'm not so concerned about folks creating "new" genders. Many cultures across history have had more than 2 recognized genders. I think that's why some identify a difference between sex and culturally constructed gender.

I'm more concerned with being respectful to our fellow human beings. Referring to them how they like to be referred to isn't a big deal. Maybe to you it's idiocy, but so what?... it's not your idiocy, and you don't have to change your opinion or give up any autonomy or anything. I guess I don't see the big deal. Times change, language usage changes, cultures change ... that's how it's always been.

84-86

Just playing my part in our grand WWF style Slog show, BROTHER. Happy Slog Friday!

"Many cultures across history have had more than 2 recognized genders."

How many of them invented penicillin?

@87 there's a difference between being respectful of the way people expresses themselves, and being asked to believe and accept that there are dozens of genders. I know that many cultures acknowledge more than 2 genders, but it's not a biological reality. Many/most/all cultures acknowledge all kinds of things that are not literally true (god, magic, ghosts, faith healing, etc) and being forced to believe (or pretend to believe) in those ideas is wrong. I am very respectful of my wife's family's religious beliefs, but I don't hold them. I wouldn't tell them they're wrong. But I also wouldn't appreciate being told I was a bigot because I didn't believe them. This is what these "more than two gender" trends are doing. They are demanding that the rest of us buy into a belief system that does not hold up when put under rational scrutiny. I think it's great if someone wants to express him/herself in a way that defies gender norms; I applaud it, even, and it has a rich cultural history. It adds to the culture and to society. And a healthy society will embrace it. But it won't and shouldn't embrace dogmatic notions, against all reason and biological reality, simply because people WANT them to be true.

@87 just to clarify: I wouldn't tell my in-laws they're wrong, unless they began to try to force me to participate and express belief in their ideas. My wife is very committed to astrology, and I absolutely am not. I don't ridicule her for it, but she also does not force me to act based on horoscope or tarot readings. If she did, they'd be problems. It's the same with this notion of a myriad of genders. If that's someone's belief, fine. But the reality is that there's a tendency to label anyone who doesn't participate in it a bigot. Progressive liberals seem not to have any trouble harshly criticizing Christian beliefs...Dan Savage (whom I like a lot) kinda drags that belief through the mud every other week. If someone expressed that same level of disgust with this whole gender fluidity thing, I doubt they'd fit in in Seattles elite liberal circles.

89

I get what you're saying. I guess I've just never felt anyone was asking me to believe anything. They've just ask me to behave decently in public. Which I have no problem doing. I'm in corporate and community meetings with various organizations almost everyday, and most of them start with folks identifying their preferred pronouns as part of their introductions. It doesn't strike me as inflammatory or idiotic.

I guess I'm on the same wavelength as 76/78. I believe what I like, and I maintain my own integrity. Who cares what kids on Twitter say? I try to live with compassion and acceptance and treat people like I want to be treated. If someone calls me a bigot because I misuse a pronoun.. who cares? I'm not a bigot. That's their deal. But, it would give me an opportunity to pause and reflect on how my actions and words effect others. I can then listen to other points of view and decide whether or not to amend my thinking and behavior.

I just don't get who this "they" is and how they're forcing me to adopt their beliefs. But I do understand that in public and professional spheres, I do need to ensure I speak with thoughtfulness and respect. Calling people by their preferred name, pronoun, or title is one simple way to avoid potentially harmful misunderstandings.

But maybe we're talking past each other and circling two different parts of this issue? In any case, thanks for the discussion.

“disgust with this whole gender fluidity thing, I doubt they'd fit in in Seattles elite liberal circles.”

I swing with that crowd. I’d say 90% think it’s horseshit in private but to keep up appearances go with the flow. But I’m that rare person in Seattle who doesn’t give a shit what other people think of me. What they used to call a ‘non-conformist’.

92

So what you're saying is that 90 percent of Seattle's liberal elite are tolerant of ideas they don't necessarily agree with or identify with? And that they manage to treat people with those different ideas respectfully?

"So what you're saying is that 90 percent of Seattle's liberal elite are tolerant of ideas"

Nope. Not at all.

What I'm saying is 90% of liberal Seattleites are pussies and afraid of what other people might think of them if they said what they actually believe. because I've heard them say it when prodded.

@91 we may actually be in agreement, more or less. Depending on how you look at it. I wouldn't use the pronoun "ze" and I probably wouldn't refer to a person as "they", choosing instead to just use their name in place of any pronoun. And if someone told me they were "demiagender" I would say "that's cool!" and then move on with my life, befriending them if they wanted, etc etc. But if they asked me if I believed that being demiagender was real, I'd say I didn't. No more than I'd believe someone if they said they felt that they were a deity or a clairvoyant or whatever.
I guess my preference in terms of "gender fluidity" would be that people should be able to admit that both genders are capable of expressing themselves in a lot of different ways, that you can be a "he" and dress however you want, or present however you want. But it doesn't make you less of a "he."
But I think gender fluidity is perfectly fine, actually, but only between the two genders. But why I am on going on and on and on here like a self-absorbed know it all? Probably because I'm unemployed and bored. So unemployed.

Fuckin YAWN! already!

Thank you so much, Katie. As a bisexual ciswoman, I was worried I am a bigot and a hypocrite because I do not enthusiastically, eagerly, and unquestioningly support the gender-neutral thing. (Yes, I do call people whatever pronouns they wish. I also call people "he" or "she" according to what they look like unless I am told otherwise.)

Also, Katie, little you looked like an ordinary and adorable girl! glares at dumbasses who mistook you for a boy

In most cases, we can speak directly (using "you") to a person who is present for the discussion.

@98 Exactly.

As in, "What the fu*k are YOU talking about?"

I find it very dismissive and hurtful to those who have found a home in they to suggest that they is a new pronoun. First, as you note in this same article, you’ve heard they for years. My forty-something peers use it widely. And I’ve heard folks try to find a a commonly accepted gender neutral pronoun for the 25 years since I came out at age 16. And, of course, they has been around since Shakespearean times as a singular. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html
Katie, this article would have been much more interesting to me if you discussed it from a perspective of accepting the expansion of our understandings of gender and reflecting that woman can and do look all ways. Butch, femme, trans etc.
Even more interesting would be a discussion of why femininity isn’t often seen as gender neutral? Why is the gender neutral defaulted to feminine? And why is lesbian defaulted to butch?
As a queer femme, I certainly know too well the need to come out daily. And, your notion that you are, of course, the lesbian on the left and your twin sister, of course, grew up to be straight, erases me. But I would never suggest that we stop acknowledging butch lesbians as women just to bolster my visibility. Rather, I want us all to see and raise each other up more.

this doesn't really strike me as a real problem. just correct people and move on. trans people have to do this all the time - cis people can do it too.

BTW, "they" does NOT mean someone is "not cis." it means they're nonbinary. if it is indeed offensive to call a cis woman "they" by default, it would be equally (if not more) offensive to call a trans woman "they."

Jesus! Katie! Singular they is the pronoun you use when you don’t know someone’s gender and it’s 2018 and we don’t assume someone’s gender by appearance. If someone uses they/them and you prefer she/her tell them, they will respect you as a person and should use your preferred pronoun for the rest of time!

People get misgendered all. the. time. Must be nice to be a privileged cisgendered person with a platform to complain about it. Do you really expect people to read your mind and assume you go by she/her? Feels like a real push against encouraging folks to be open-minded about gender identity and presentation. Try living in the shoes of a trans person and then tell us how you feel. Sure, "they" encompasses a gender spectrum and can be used to describe many different unique identities, but for now, it's also the language we have to address folks without presuming someone's gender. Why so offended by this? How is this not progressive? Just state the way you'd like to be addressed, and if folks you've told don't respect your request, well, then's the time to complain.