It’s ugly, though. “They” is a plural. I just used it in my last post, but I didn’t like doing it; now it is gender-sensitive, but ungrammatical.
I also used the phrase “a new man”, because “a new person” doesn’t have the history of use that invokes the noble/creepy feelings that I wanted to communicate. I couldn’t think of any gender-neutral way around it.
If we took a vote, I’d vote for “it”. It also has a nice, dehumanizing ring to it, which would probably be good, given our anthropic tendencies.
Wikipedia points out that the singular or indeterminate-number “they” has a pretty long history in the english language—Shakespeare used it, for example.
This is interesting, because I’ve never found ‘they’ particlulary ugly or awkward. I do like ‘it’, though I suspect that the ‘dehumanizing ring’ to it would disappear if it were regularly used to refer to humans. The main reason I use ‘they’ instead is because, as far as I’m aware, it’s accepted by a reasonably large contingent of authorities on the language as grammatically correct. I also find it less awkward than ‘he/she’ (I never know whether to say “he-she” or “he or she”), and popular alternatives like ‘zie’ (of which there are too many variations, none of which is used often enough that a general audience will not require an explanation). I think the main problem we’d have no matter what we chose would be effectively encouraging widespread use, and I don’t have any very good ideas on how to do this.
That’s not a statement with a true/false value; it’s a philosophical/ethical assertion.
In any case, regardless of whether that statement is extensionally true at present, it will not be in the future, and we need to prepare for that future in advance.
Additionally, philosophy routinely finds it useful to ask hypothetical questions. Equipping ourselves with mental categories that make us incapable of comprehending hypotheticals about people from most possible worlds will lead to error.
Proof that they can be used singularly too: “It looks like someone left their jacket here, I wish I knew who it was so I could give them their jacket so they can stay warm.”
It’s ugly, though. “They” is a plural. I just used it in my last post, but I didn’t like doing it; now it is gender-sensitive, but ungrammatical.
I also used the phrase “a new man”, because “a new person” doesn’t have the history of use that invokes the noble/creepy feelings that I wanted to communicate. I couldn’t think of any gender-neutral way around it.
If we took a vote, I’d vote for “it”. It also has a nice, dehumanizing ring to it, which would probably be good, given our anthropic tendencies.
I can’t help linking Hofstadter’s very funny and apropos “Person Paper”:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
Wikipedia points out that the singular or indeterminate-number “they” has a pretty long history in the english language—Shakespeare used it, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
This is interesting, because I’ve never found ‘they’ particlulary ugly or awkward. I do like ‘it’, though I suspect that the ‘dehumanizing ring’ to it would disappear if it were regularly used to refer to humans. The main reason I use ‘they’ instead is because, as far as I’m aware, it’s accepted by a reasonably large contingent of authorities on the language as grammatically correct. I also find it less awkward than ‘he/she’ (I never know whether to say “he-she” or “he or she”), and popular alternatives like ‘zie’ (of which there are too many variations, none of which is used often enough that a general audience will not require an explanation). I think the main problem we’d have no matter what we chose would be effectively encouraging widespread use, and I don’t have any very good ideas on how to do this.
When you are speaking of people, “anthropic” is the right stance!
What an anthropic thing to say!
“Anthropic” means human-centric. I want humans to think of “people” as a more general term, not as a synonym for “human”.
People are human.
That’s not a statement with a true/false value; it’s a philosophical/ethical assertion.
In any case, regardless of whether that statement is extensionally true at present, it will not be in the future, and we need to prepare for that future in advance.
Additionally, philosophy routinely finds it useful to ask hypothetical questions. Equipping ourselves with mental categories that make us incapable of comprehending hypotheticals about people from most possible worlds will lead to error.
Proof that they can be used singularly too: “It looks like someone left their jacket here, I wish I knew who it was so I could give them their jacket so they can stay warm.”