The problematic case of gender-neutral pronouns: A response to "A Modest Proposal"

ABSTRACT

A response to Moser and Devereux (2017), “A Modest Proposal.”

We have been invited to evaluate Moser and Devereux's letter to the editor of the International Journal of Transgenderism (2017) from our perspective as linguists specializing in gender and sexuality. As sociolinguists, we produce empirical research on how identity is represented and articulated through actual language use, with all of its many subtleties, particularly focusing upon sensitivities to language variation across different communities and cultures. We are delighted to have been given the opportunity to consider this interesting proposal, and we agree with its authors that, in many contexts, there is a clear need for gender-neutral pronouns (GNPs). For instance, it is of course essential to have GNPs in order to refer to both gender-nonconforming and gender-conforming individuals in a sensitive way. As the authors of "A Modest Proposal" argue, the misgendering of individuals can cause considerable distress, and the incorrect use of pronouns may often have this effect. Sometimes, this can be due to a lack of familiarity with the gender-neutral options that are potentially available. The proposal of a set of new GNPs, to be used in published articles in the International Journal of Transgenderism by those who wish to do so, is therefore well-intentioned and timely. Based on sociolinguistic evidence, however, we are unfortunately unable to support the GNP system put forward or endorse the argument that it be adopted as a standard form. We outline the rationale for this rejection below.

Cultural sensitivity

Whilst the authors of "A Modest Proposal" have put forward a new system with what are clearly admirable aims—to more easily enable the editors of the journal to adopt a set of GNPs for their journal—the very argument that a single system needs to be chosen and used contradicts long-standing sociolinguistic research into the relationship between pronoun use and gender identities. More than 20 years of empirical evidence into the complex relationship between language, gender, and sexuality has shown that, across a range of cultural contexts, pronoun choices are intrinsically linked to the expression and realization of (trans)gendered identities. Indeed, studies into non-Western contexts have consistently demonstrated how gender-nonconforming language users may use grammatical forms classed as "masculine" or "feminine" to project different subjectivities—sometimes creatively using both forms interchangeably to express different aspects of their identity at different moments (Borba & Ostermann, 2007; Hall, 1997; Hall & O'Donovan, 1996; Kulick, 1996). Replacing these diverse, culturally specific gendered pronouns with a standardized set of GNPs would run the risk of erasing the experience of those with identities that cannot be realized within the structural confines of the English language. Whilst the proposal is clearly commendable for its intention of increasing the sensitivity with which we talk about gender, then, there can be no "one-size-fits-all" approach without this being insensitive to language users from a range of different cultures.

Selecting just one set of GNPs could also lead to other unintended consequences, such as a loss of the nuance between existing GNP options within different language systems. The particular model put forward by the authors depends on a system of grammar that is largely tied to the English language; the "traditional pronouns" set forward here (he and she) are not easily translatable to other languages, such as Spanish, where gender is shown through inflections to nouns rather than through different pronouns. There are also a number of sociolinguistic issues with the proposal; the authors suggested the alternative options "e," "er(s)," and "erself." When used in an English-speaking context, these options reflect the widespread dialect feature known as h-dropping. Several different varieties of English have this already as part of their distinct accent; language users could easily misinterpret the "e" as the nonstandard, stigmatized form of the male pronoun he, leading to misunderstanding and potential negative evaluation.

Creating a standard set of GNPs?

It is unlikely that the form of sociolinguistic change suggested by the authors—whereby the use of a new set of GNPs in an academic journal could eventually lead to more widespread use once the mass media begins to use them—would ever occur. New linguistic features are typically introduced to a language by speakers who perceive them to be somehow beneficial to them or they may be imposed by totalitarian governmental regimes (Wright, 2007). Though the media has a role to play in any democracy in terms of indirectly spreading new forms of language use, the use of language to define oneself in a political or subcultural context is far more likely to emerge successfully from "grassroots" movements than from the privileged perspective of academia. Indeed, as we discuss in more detail below, existing GNPs have already gained currency through this very process.

Additionally, even if such change were to occur, whereby one set of GNPs was established as the "standard,” this could in itself have some damaging repercussions. Specifically, it could eventually result in existing pronoun systems being positioned as somehow inferior. Sociolinguistic research tells us that, when one system of language is positioned as “better” than others (such as “Standard English” being taught in schools around the world), regional variations on this language become stigmatized (Kerswill, 2007; Trudgill, 1979). The consequences of such linguistic prescriptivism can include increased social inequality; those who use forms thought to be less valid may be perceived as less intelligent, less cultured, and less capable members of society (Milroy, 2007; Milroy & Milroy, 1998). To privilege one set of GNPs as “better,” then, would potentially lead to the stigmatization of those used in other languages and in other cultural and subcultural contexts.

A need for new GNPs?

We support the political intentions of encouraging the use of GNPs in this proposal, and admire the attempt to provide a workable set of GNPs that could be used within an English-speaking academic context. However, we refute the argument that existing GNP options are not workable because they are awkward or difficult to adopt; in both English and non-English speaking contexts, GNPs have been introduced with some success already. For example, GNP alternatives to “she” and “he” include the Swedish “hen”; research has shown that Swedish speakers tend to perceive this GNP positively and its use is becoming increasingly widespread (Bäck, Lindqvist, & Gustafsson Sendén, 2015). In contexts in which English is used, the use of “they” has also gained significant currency as a singular pronoun in recent years.

Though it may be interpreted by many as marking out the plural, “they” was regularly used as a singular GNP prior to the establishment of “Standard English” grammar rules in the 18th Century (Bodine, 1975). In fact, “they” is now becoming accepted as a singular pronoun in a range of English-speaking institutional contexts including Australia (Pauwels & Winter, 2006) and Canada (Liberman, 2008) and has been found to be increasingly used as a singular pronoun in the British press, replacing such forms as generic “he” to refer to all genders (Paterson, 2014). In recent years, “they” has been included in a number of influential style guides, including, most notably the Washington Post (USA) and the Economist (UK). Furthermore, its use as a legitimate GNP has been observed and celebrated by the American Dialect Society, who chose it as their “Word of the Year 2015.”

The above evidence strongly supports the argument that “they” is widely understood when used as a GNP. We therefore posit that its use by authors in the International Journal of Transgenderism would be far from problematic, depending on the cultural context being discussed. The use of “they” has the added benefit of being familiar to all native and nonnative speakers of English, as opposed to the creation of original pronouns with new spellings and pronunciations that can far too easily be subject to misinterpretation. Of course, as the authors themselves acknowledge, the use of any GNP would be appropriate only in contexts where those being discussed expressed the desire to be referred to in a nonbinary way; it is vital to give those being discussed in the journal a voice by using their preferred referring expressions, which may well be “she” or “he.”

Terms of address

We acknowledge with interest and frustration the authors’ valuable observation that formal terms of address (such as “sir” and “madam”) are highly gendered. We agree that there currently exists no satisfactory alternative, though there are certain colloquial, regional exceptions to this, such as the use of non–gender specific “duck” and “love” in certain areas of Northern England and the Midlands in the United Kingdom. The unthinking use of “sir” to refer to a person who identifies as female or non-binary can have significant consequences on an individual's sense of self, yet there is not currently a body of linguistic work that seeks to address this. Though we do not perceive this to be a fundamental issue for academic journal article writing, as terms of address are used principally in written discourse in either formal letter writing or email, we would be eager to see this problem of binary gender terms being addressed.

Summary

Overall, we believe that the existing range of GNPs being used within English and non-English contexts alike are both practical and understandable, and that it is unnecessary—and would indeed be cumbersome—to introduce a new system of GNPs. Indeed, as we have expressed above, there are many potential pitfalls of introducing and prescribing a new standardized system. In an academic context, we would advocate the use of “they” if deemed to be appropriate by those being researched; we also note that in many research disciplines alternatives such as “ze” and “hir” are being used successfully. We do not believe that a new system of GNPs is needed for academic purposes and, furthermore, conclude that the one presented in “A Modest Proposal” is, unfortunately, sociolinguistically problematic. Ultimately, we encourage authors of papers in the International Journal of Transgenderism to make use of GNPs in a way that most accurately reflects the preferences and uses of the subjects under study.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Lotte Verheijen for her assistance in collating the information provided here.

ORCID

Lucy Jones http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8947-9577

Louise Mullany http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0046-1985