A Case for the use of "They" as a Universal Third Person Singular Pronoun

I have been erroneaously called by my husband's surname before.  This is a social convention that many people in the West are still accustomed to as being the norm.  The assumption is that when a woman gets married, she changes her name to that of her husband.  I did not. And I often got quite upset about being "misnamed", that people didn't bother to actually ask for my name, that their calling me by my husband's surname must mean they also are making other assumptions about who I am.  I was an angry feminist during this time.  I had little patience with people, extended no grace to them.  Rather, I took it personally and accused them of being sexist. But women taking their husband's surname was a common enough practice that most people simply don't think to question it until it gets pointed out to them.  After it gets pointed out a certain number of times, people slowly start to realize that things actually are not as they assumed them to be, or they're slowly changing and aren't as they used to be.  Then they adjust and instead of assuming, start asking before using a married woman's surname.  

We are now in such a time where more people are starting to realize that gender is the new version of this phenomenon.  Most of us have long assumed that there are two genders, based on the two biological sexes, and so we refer to people accordingly.  We do not mean to offend.  Many of us literally cannot comprehend a world in which there is such a thing as a gender spectrum.  Many people's first knee jerk reaction is to simply resist change and hold on to whatever is familiar at all costs. But as we get more and more exposure to the idea that some people transition from one gender to another, some don't believe either gender resonates with them, and some feel comfortable with both simultaneously, we, too, will slowly start to realize that there's a gender spectrum, rather than just assuming a person that looks a certain way must be one of two genders.  (Just like we used to assume that a woman must either have the surname of her father or her husband.)  Change to something as fundamental as gender, much like naming traditions, will take time.

Rather than getting angry, it behooves us to remember where we are in the scope of things.  We have to know whether our preferences are mainstream or not.  And if they are not, then it is our job to educate others, yes even tirelessly at times, about those preferences.  Because it will take time.  No amount of name-calling or cancelling of people for not being "woke" to the newest practices is going to help.  Rather, it's only going to force people to push back and get defensive about their position.  Most people are not trying to be intentionally hurtful towards others.  This doesn't mean that we should excuse hurtful behavior, but it also doesn't mean that we should fail to do our part to bring about change.  Change happens slowly, and it is more forthcoming when people feel safe to explore new ideas without fear of judgment or ridicule.

For instance, I do not understand the idea of nonbinary gender.  I understand "switching sides", I undersand non-conforming behaviors that resist gendered stereotypes, but I am struggling to appreciate the idea that some people simply do not have an attachment to either of the traditionally recognized genders.  Specifically, what I'm at a loss as to the changes taking place in how we talk about nonbinary people in the third person singular.

A living language can, does, and pretty much must change over time.  I also understand that different languages have different experiences with gendered language, and so they will have more or less problems adjusting to gender-neutral markers.  I have fought the use of "mankind" and the "universal he" to refer to humanity and unknown humans for decades.  I hate the practice of slapping a "Mrs." in front of a married man's first and last name to refer to his wife.  I actually found it perfectly acceptable to write "she/he" in academic papers in order to stay grammatical while also avoiding sexist assumptions (a practice that in recent years has gone by the wayside in favor of the "singular they", due to the alleged cumbersome nature of the latter).  But non-gendered third person singular pronouns are an entirely new can of worms for me.

I understand how a human being that does not identify with female nor male would resist using either of the gendered pronouns (she/he).  I undersand how said individual would nonetheless take offense at using the gender-neutral third person pronoun "it", as this connotes inanimate objects or perhaps animals in modern English (although there was a time when children were often referred to as "it").  I understand that a non-binary person may want to use "they" in place of "she" or "he", and in fact there is a precedent to do so in written English when talking about a person whose gender is unknown.  It is certainly more tricky to do so when referring to a known individual, because we are used to assuming that once we know a person, we can easily place them into one of two neat categories: she or he.  With time, this weirdness will pass.  

What I don't understand is the idea that different non-binary individuals get to "pick" made-up letter combinations, call them "their pronouns", and expect the rest of us to suddenly start using them as if they're words that are part of our everyday lexicon.  Xe, Co, Ze... these are not words anyone outside the trans community ever comes accross.  And if we're going to have a new word, which of course is perfectly acceptable, albeit awkward in the beginning, there needs to be a consensus, or the words must be interchangeable.  Otherwise, if Xe, Co, and Ze all refer to a non-binary individual in the third person, what distinguishes them from each other?  Are they not identical in meaning?  And if so, what is the point of having multiple words tasked with the exact same role in language?  This is highly inefficient.  Perhaps in other languages, the nuances might be ironed out.  In Spanish, for instance, there is a formal and an informal way to refer to the person you are addressing: "tu" or "usted".  Technically, they perform the same role, but the nuance of familiarity or politeness distinguishes them.  In English, we no longer utilize "thee" and "thou"; we only use "you".  So if the second person singular only has one word, and the third person singular already has three ("she", "he", and "it"), then adding not one but several more to the category is simply nonsensical.  

What makes more sense, actually, based on the history of the English language, is to collapse the third person singular pronouns that we are all already used to, rather than inventing additional ones.  People simply stopped using "thee" and "thou" because they were already comfortable using "you".  What if the same thing were to happen to the third person pronoun?  Instead of using "she" and "he" and "it", we could slowly start using "it" to refer to all people in the singular.  But this is actually not likely since, as mentioned above, there is a nuance between "she/he" and "it" in that only the first two are associated with human beings.  

Perhaps then, we can take our pointers from the second person pronoun again.  In English, we do not care if we are addressing one person or an entire group; we say "you".  Why couldn't we do the same when discussing people not present?  Whether the group is mixed sex or all same sex, we simply say "they" and no one blinks an eye.  What if we take the same "they" and tack onto it the singularity of the third person, just like we did with the singularity of the second person?  So now, everyone in the third person, singular or plural, female or male or otherwise, would all be referred to as "they".  And perhaps we keep "it" to differentiate inanimate objects in the third person singular, though they are already "they" in the plural, so maybe that would eventually go away as well.  In fact, in American Sign Language, the three pronouns are already the same sign; you simply point to the side and from the context of the conversation, you know if the sign means "she", "he", or "it".

Using "they" the way we use "you" would follow the precedent of the history of the English language, it would do away with distinguishing between genders within the pronouns used, it would utilize a word every English speaker is already familiar with, and it would honor those who do not identify with female or male genders exclusively.  Sounds like a win all the way around to me.

Getting Along with Others

Over the years, Oscar and I have greatly benefited from learning about our own and each other's temperaments, love languages, personality styles, etc.  It has helped us to remember that just because I am a certain way, just because I see the world in a particular light, just because I have this or that preference, doesn't mean that everyone does.  With that understanding comes an ongoing attempt to try to cater to the other person, so that our relationship is a give-and-take.  These insights have been so enlightening for us, that we try to share what we have learned with anyone and everyone who will listen.

We've taken personality-type quizzes while in the Army, on spiritual retreats, and through job enrichment workshops. But our passion for understanding each other started when we attended a marriage enrichment retreat.  (However, this does not mean that these insights are somehow limited to only romantic relationships!)

While on our WorldWide Marriage Encounter weekend, we learned that I am a Thinker and Oscar is a Catalyst.  (The other two personality styles described were that of Helper and Organizer.) It was eye-opening for me to understand that there is a reason why Oscar tends to do or say things to annoy me - this only happens when he's bored and trying to get a reaction just to have some fun with it.  He doesn't mean for it to be disrespectful.  This is actually a useful skill when it comes to getting out of a rut of some kind, be that social or work-related.  Catalysts make things happen.  If nothing is going on, invite a Catalyst, and things will start to happen!  Ever since making this discovery, I no longer let it get to me when he tries to get on my nerves, because now I know that that isn't his intention at all.  In fact, whenever he starts to do something that causes an annoyed reaction in me, I'm now able to step back and call him on it: "you're being a Catalyst".  We have a good laugh about it and a potential argument is dissolved before it begins.  Oscar, on the other hand, is able to understand that whatever he asks me, I need to think about it first.  Whatever he wants me to try to do, I'll need to think about it first.  He understands why I am not spontaneous - that would take all the fun out of thinking about it first!

Another thing we learned on our weekend that we had previously read about in a book: There are five love languages that we utilize when considering how we express our love for others, and how we interpret others' love for us.  Gifts, acts of service, quality time, words of affirmation, and physical touch are different ways we can show someone that we care about them.  If two people speak the same love language (so to speak), then their mutual expressions of love are pretty effortless.  Each knows what the other wants because it's what they want, too.  But when they speak different love languages, most people do not consider the fact that just because I like something, someone else may not.  My primary love language is words of affirmation.  I need to hear praise, compliments, encouragement.  I actually need to hear or read these sentiments in words. It is not enough to imply it for me.  I do not feel accepted, appreciated, or loved if these words don't come sincerely and frequently.

Oscar, on the other hand, speaks Acts of Service.  He knows he is loved when someone does something for him.  And serving others is how he expresses his care as well.  He will go out of his way if need be to run an errand, do a chore, help in whatever way he can.  This action is how he shows he cares.  The words to him are unnecessary.  Whereas I like to voice my love for him, but never connected mundane tasks like doing the dishes with an expression of my love.  Thanks to this realization about the different love languages, I have started to make a point of doing things I don't like to do but need to be done, because they now carry a special meaning.  They're not just chores anymore, but expressions of my care for Oscar.  This knowledge makes the task much more pleasant for me, and Oscar gets a steady dose of affirmation that I care about him.  To a lesser degree, we enjoy quality time and physical touch as well, but luckily neither of us is big on gifts as an expression of love. (I say luckily because when one person speaks Gifts and the other does not, a lot of arguments about "wasted" money can ensue. When both or neither speaks Gifts, there isn't this problem.)

Our temperaments are another key to understanding each other.  We read about the four temperaments - Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, and Melancholic - in a book. It was after reading about these four temperaments that I realized I could apply this information to any relationship, not just my marriage.  It was no surprise to me that I am Melancholic - this would follow if I'm a Thinker according to the previous assessment.  Oscar is a Sanguine - a friendly, happy-go-lucky life of the party.  Again, makes sense for a Catalyst to always be looking for a good time!  And then I read the section about Cholerics and saw my mother.  Suddenly, I began to understand why we often butted heads.  Apparently, the most difficult temperament for a Melancholic child to have in a parent is Choleric!  I'm overly sensitive - Cholerics are the least sensitive of the bunch.  Therefore, I take every little thing personally and dwell on it (remember, I'm a Thinker! That's what I do - I think, overthink, psychoanalyze every comment, gesture, action.)

One of the latest contributors to our wealth of knowledge about how different personalities can better get along comes from a parenting book: Raising Your Spirited Child, by Mary Sheedy Kurcinka.  I ordered the book when Natalia was about 4 months old, suspecting that she may be "spirited", a euphemism that basically means having more challenging behavior.  To my surprise, as I started reading the fascinating descriptions of what a spirited child is like, why, and what strategies can be helpful in working with - rather than against - a spirited child, I started to see myself in the role of spirited child!  No one ever talks about spirited adults, but it makes sense that spirited children grow up to be spirited adults!  So what can be expected of a spirited person? The aspects that apply to me include: a negative first reaction, slow to transition, intense reactions, sensitive, persistent, perceptive, serious and analytical mood.  Two other criteria are common among spirited folks: high energy and irregularity in bodily functions (sleep, hunger, bathroom breaks). Natalia seems to fit the description of a spirited child after all.  For instance, we cannot get her on any sort of sleeping schedule. Her bedtime can vary by two or more hours, regardless how we try to finagle her naps. But she warrants her own post!

Let me flesh out how these attributes look in me.  A negative first reaction is pretty self-explanatory. Whenever I am asked to try something new, for instance, my immediate reaction is no.  I often come around to a yes, but for someone who doesn't know this about me they may give up after the first try. Similarly, I'm slow to transition to anything new.  It takes me longer than most people to feel comfortable in any new endeavor. I have strong (intense) reactions to my emotions, both positive and negative.  Some may say that I "overreact" because of this.  (Just ask Oscar how I react to something I find very funny!) I'm also sensitive, so I experience my emotions more deeply than many others.  If I'm sad, I'm automatically very sad.  If I'm upset, I'm quite angry. I am persistent when I get fixated on wanting to do something.  This can be good in that it keeps me from quitting too easily.  Then again, it can be bad in that I may come across as stubborn and unyielding. I'm more perceptive than others, too.  I notice things others don't give a second thought to.  I have an eye for grammatical errors (don't call me on any typos here!), I notice sexist language.  I observe subtle facial expressions and intonation in people.  As a whole, I tend to stay serious and analytical, which makes sense if I'm always thinking about what I notice!

Another somewhat less recent addition to our repertoire has been the Called and Gifted workshop and small group discussions that followed.  Oscar and I both went through the workshop at our previous church several years ago, before I was pregnant with Natalia.  Then I went through it again this year, and followed up with 7 weeks of small group discussions.  The idea behind the Called and Gifted workshop is that God gives different people different gifts that He intends for us to use in order to share His grace with other.  These are different from talents, which are merely things we are good at. Charisms are skills we are meant to use for the benefit of others.  We can't help but share them, and they're bound to have positive results when used in the correct spirit.  There are many possibilities, some not even included in the inventory of the workshop.  My most likely charisms are writing, teaching, knowledge - all in line with the other assessments that indicate that I'm a melancholic thinker who is perceptive, intense, and sensitive.  Oscar, on the other hand, suspects his charisms include service (which makes total sense since his love language is acts of service).

With this background information, in a future post, I will try to delve into some of my other relationships in light of the differences between us.

Pet Peeve: Baby Matchmaking

Newsflash: my 9 month old daughter is too young to be dating!

While I realize that people who make these sort of comments are merely trying to be cute, it's irritating. Natalia does not need a "boyfriend", and she is no one's "girlfriend".  Granted, there's the term "play date" to consider, but let's be serious.  No one is equating a play date with a real date, so why turn an innocent budding friendship into something inappropriate? 


There, I said it.  I think it's inappropriate to be insinuating romance for a child.  Not only does it put children on the spot, it creates an environment where boys and girls can't freely associate with each other as friends without having to worry about their parents or other adults around them calling their interactions "cute" in the sense of "maybe they'll get married someday." I was at the receiving end of such "child matchmaking" a few times.  Sure, it was never an actual attempt at an arranged marriage like is the tradition in some cultures, but it always made me feel uncomfortable. 

Furthermore, making comments about the romantic "availability" of my daughter attempts to force her into a very narrow social role before she even has the chance to learn what all of her options are!  For starters, it implies that if she weren't able to attract the opposite sex, she'd be somehow in a "one-down" social position.  There is nothing wrong with NOT pairing up as an adult!  I don't want  my daughter to feel as though she needs to "find Mr. Right" or her life will be wrong.  Plenty of women settle for the first guy willing to stick around because of their low self esteem.  I want Natalia to know that there is no "better half" out there for her. She is complete all by herself!

And even if she does indeed find a life companion who gives her as much joy as her daddy gives me, who am I to insist that this special person must be a man?  God creates a variety of people, and babies are too young for us to know how their romantic lives will play out.  I don't want to create an environment in which she feels that unless she is romantically involved with a guy, she cannot discuss her love life with us.  We are her parents, and we don't want her to ever feel she needs to hide anything from us.

Something else that most people don't consider - there is such a thing as a religious vocation, meaning it is feasible that God may call her (and she may choose to respond) to the religious celibate life. This is a valid calling, no lesser than the calling to marriage and family life.  I will support my daughter either way, because my goal is for her happiness and fulfillment.  I am not interested in impressing my peers with pairing her up to some guy that can help her move up the social mobility ladder.

Finally, even if Natalia does grow up to marry a "nice boy" and do all the traditional things society expects, I want her to do so on her own terms, based on what pleases her. I don't want her young impressionable mind to be saturated with thoughts of making herself attractive to potential partners instead of spending her time in fascination of the incredible world around her.

I don't want her to learn at a young age that she is always being observed as a potential mate.  Such an awareness comes at a price.  I want her to be able to relax around others and be herself, befriend boys and girls, make no distinction between how she presents herself in front of one group versus the other.  I want her to be authentic.

I'm all for pretend play, and I understand perfectly that children often play by taking on adult roles, be that by dressing up in a particular career's uniform, or performing certain behaviors they see their parents doing.  But when Natalia starts this kind of pretend play, I want her to do so from a clean slate, choosing what she sees as most intriguing about being an adult on any given day and then playing accordingly.  I'm not going to narrow this play by encouraging her to wear makeup, nail polish, jewelry, or to have pretend boyfriends.  These things go together, in my mind, and they shouldn't be on her horizon until adolescence.

So if you have a little boy around Natalia's age, by all means, let's have a play date!  Let's get our kids together and let them enjoy each others' company.  But let's not mar their budding friendship by introducing the idea of couple-hood.  It's not anything against your little man, who I'm sure is adorable and a joy. It's simply not age appropriate.