Are you asserting that if I start talking about person X in a conversation… talk about what he does for a living, how he raises his children, how he gets along with his parents and so forth, that a typical listener will reliably understand person X’s gender to have not been specified? Will, for example, not be at all startled if I talk about him going in for a gynecological or prostrate exam?
Because I suspect that that claim is demonstrably wrong.
On the other hand, if you’re instead claiming that although a typical listener will reliably assume person X is male, they’d be incorrect to do so, because “he” is also a gender-neutral pronoun… well, OK. I won’t contest that claim, and I’ll agree that it matters in any situation where I’m not primarily interested in the actual meanings that get reliably communicated to other people by my speech.
“He” can refer to a person who is known to be male, or a person whose gender is indeterminate or unknown. In your example, the gender is neither indeterminate nor unknown.
You claim to know Person X; do you not know his gender? I don’t know anything about him, so I would refer to him as “he” until you inform me of his gender, at which point I would use one of the gender specific pronouns.
I never claimed to know person X’s gender, and in fact I don’t, so I can’t inform you of it.
Anyway, to repeat my original question: are you asserting that, after I spend a conversation talking about person X’s job and his family and various other aspects of his life, a typical listener will understand his gender to not have been specified?
(On the theme of the post, I think that bluntness is most polite here—this conversation doesn’t look like it’s about to progress further without prodding.)
TheOtherDave did claim to know person X’s gender? Unlikely, given the point of the example.
TheOtherDave did inform you of person X’s gender? Then, to repeat the question: What is that gender?
Are you asserting that if I start talking about person X in a conversation… talk about what he does for a living, how he raises his children, how he gets along with his parents and so forth, that a typical listener will reliably understand person X’s gender to have not been specified? Will, for example, not be at all startled if I talk about him going in for a gynecological or prostrate exam?
Because I suspect that that claim is demonstrably wrong.
On the other hand, if you’re instead claiming that although a typical listener will reliably assume person X is male, they’d be incorrect to do so, because “he” is also a gender-neutral pronoun… well, OK. I won’t contest that claim, and I’ll agree that it matters in any situation where I’m not primarily interested in the actual meanings that get reliably communicated to other people by my speech.
“He” can refer to a person who is known to be male, or a person whose gender is indeterminate or unknown. In your example, the gender is neither indeterminate nor unknown.
Person X’s gender sure seems unknown to me. Do you know it? What is it, and how did you figure that out?
You claim to know Person X; do you not know his gender? I don’t know anything about him, so I would refer to him as “he” until you inform me of his gender, at which point I would use one of the gender specific pronouns.
I never claimed to know person X’s gender, and in fact I don’t, so I can’t inform you of it.
Anyway, to repeat my original question: are you asserting that, after I spend a conversation talking about person X’s job and his family and various other aspects of his life, a typical listener will understand his gender to not have been specified?
It seems like a simple question to me.
As a matter of fact, you did.
(On the theme of the post, I think that bluntness is most polite here—this conversation doesn’t look like it’s about to progress further without prodding.)
TheOtherDave did claim to know person X’s gender? Unlikely, given the point of the example.
TheOtherDave did inform you of person X’s gender? Then, to repeat the question: What is that gender?