Epicenity in English
The case of Singular They
By Panagiotis Kaouris s3093220
Address: Stratigou Makrigianni 89, Aghios Dimitrios, Athens 17342 E-mail: p.kaouris@student.rug.nl
Ph. number: 00353838872419
Programme: Language and Cognition (ReMa) Supervisor: prof. Dr. Janet Fuller
Table of Contents Epicenity in English
The case of Singular They 1
Preface 4
Abstract 5
Introduction 6
The distinctive role of Singular They 11
Outline and overview 13
Theoretical Background 16
Historical Overview, Usage & Grammaticality 16
Contemporary Usage 19
Alternative gender-neutral pronouns 27
Generic He 28
He or She 30
Alternation of She and He 30
(S)he 31
Others 32
Cognitive processing of sThey 33
Singular They as a non-binary pronoun 41
Methodology 47
Research Question 47
Methods & Data 48
Material 48
Participants 49
Data Analysis 50
Limitations 50
Results & Discussion 51
Demographics (Section 1) 51
Branch Questions (Sections 2 & 3) 54
sThey as a gender-neutral pronoun (Section 4) 58
sThey as a non-binary pronoun (Section 5) 98
References 110
Appendix A 117
Appendix B 126
Table 1 126
Responses to the question “Do you use a gender-neutral pronoun in your mother tongue?
Which is your alternative for sThey? ”. 126
Table 2 128
Answers to the question “Are there any situations in which you avoid its use? ”. 128
Table 3 132
Answers to the question “ What kind of advantages (or disadvantages) "sThey" has over its
alternatives? ”. 132
Table 4 138
Answers to the question “Which pronoun do you use to refer to yourself? ” 138
Table 5 139
Answers to the question “What kind of importance does your pronoun has, for yourself?”. 139
Table 6 140
Answers to the question “Do you differentiate between gender-neutral "sThey" and "sThey"
Preface
The study was formulated and executed by Panagiotis Kaouris within the framework of the ReMa “Language & Cognition”. Its ambition is not only to function as a ReMa dissertation but to synchronously provide a meaningful insight on a prevailing subject of feminist linguistics and to serve as a stimulus for further research for both the writer and potential readers.
By feminist linguistics - referring to the term coined by Lakoff (1978) - I am attributing this paper to a distinct field that is not characterized by its research methods but by its research goal which is potential language reform. This is not a political project, nonetheless its drive is, indeed, political as sociolinguistics & sociology in general have an indubitable connection with political ideas. My judgement is that in these fields, neutrality is not expressed by not taking any stance but by being objective and factual. Therefore, this paper takes indeed a stance: it embraces the fact that the English language can be discriminatory towards women and non-binary persons and it examines the possibility and drive for change. It must be noted that such an intention has nothing to do with prescriptivism; the goal of this paper is not to state any rules or affirm a “correct” way to use the language but to discuss how we can use language in a more inclusive and beneficial manner.
Finally, I want to seize the opportunity of this short “personal” space, to thank my professor dr. Christoforos Charalampakis who introduced me to feminist linguistics and my supervisor, dr. Janet Fuller, who directed me to the subject of sThey, supervised me and supported me in the midst of a very tumultuous writing stretch.
Abstract
The singular form of the pronoun “They” is becoming more popular as the standard epicene pronoun, challenging the commonly used “Generic He”. This project explores singular They as a phenomenon in the framework of an evolving, gender-inclusive non-discriminatory language. The pronoun, its use, and its effects are analyzed. That is conducted, firstly, through a literature review investigating its perceived grammaticality and usage, its alternatives, its forms and its capacity in terms of cognition. Secondly, opinions about the use of sThey were elicited through an anonymous questionnaire. The results affirm that the pronoun already possesses a prominent role in both written and spoken English. Its users are profoundly positive regarding its salience, although speakers who disagree with its use tend to be equally assertive regarding its dismissal. The outcome of the analysis implies that sThey can be very effective in challenging perpetuated conventions of English, such as the hard-coded gender binary.
Keywords: sociolinguistics, feminist linguistics, feminism, gender-neutral language, epicene pronouns, singular they
Introduction
Undeniably, one of the defining features of human language & communication is anaphora, and pronouns, whether regarded as a definite part of speech or as various distinctive categories according to modern theorists, are its fundamental carriers. Generally, anaphora concerns the act of referring. Every case in which a given expression refers to another contextual entity can be considered anaphoric. In linguistic terms, anaphora is paired with cataphora both denoting the direction in which the act of referring is operating: anaphora referring backwards in a dialogue or text, while cataphora referring forwards.
But why is the anaphoric quality of the pronouns of such importance? Through the act of referring, the pronoun conveys certain attributes to the referred. One of these attributes, which pertains to the objectives of this dissertation, is gender. Thus, through the use of a pronoun a speaker can express information regarding their gender and, in such a manner, validate their gender identity. Understanding and analyzing the intricate nature of gender and gender identity is a lengthy task, which cannot be incorporated in the scope of this dissertation.
However, for the purpose of disambiguation in the framework of the dissertation, the term will be defined according to Deana F. Morrow, who in the volume “Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression in Social Work Practice” defines it in a palpable manner : "Gender identity 1
1The notion of gender identity can be defined through a wide variety of standpoints and research goals. As the scope of this project does not include delving into general gender theory, a straightforward definition is chosen to represent “gender identity” for the rest of the paper. While there are many theorists that define gender as something that surpasses even the notion of a “spectrum”, the term defined in “Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression in Social Work Practice”, which conforms with the “spectrum” theory, can also be regarded as universally encompassing and plainly practical.
refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as masculine or feminine, or some combination thereof” . In other words, gender is not classified into two distinct, opposite and2 disconnected forms of masculine and feminine, but is regarded as a point on a continuum with undefined boundaries. Furthermore, it is of importance to clarify that such a continuum, despite being a pioneering idea in comparison to the traditional equivalent, does not completely encompass the notion of gender, as there are cases in which gender identity does not correlate with masculinity or femininity. An example would be the “hijra” of various South Asian countries, a category of people that do not conform to any traditional notion of gender expression . Their sex is irrelevant to their gender expression, and are officially recognized as a “Third
3
gender” in specific countries . 4
Consequently, it becomes apparent that gender identity is a complex matter; and its complexity is only augmented when pronouns are brought into the equation. Specifically, if gender is regarded as something more than the binary of male/female, then the equivalent binary pronouns of the English language (he/she) cannot encompass a more complex or a more fluid notion. Using a binary pronoun to refer to a person that does not identify within the gender binary is not only invalid grammatically but it can also be surprisingly hurtful to the receiver, as it invalidates their identity. Until now, no detailed linguistic study has been conducted for the practice of misgendering through pronouns. However, multiple studies that have been carried out
2 Morrow, D. (2006), 8 3 Lorber, J. (1994), 92-83 4 Bevan, T. (2016). 70
on the psychology of transgendered persons demonstrate that misgendering can be extremely hurtful, especially in professional settings . 5
Moreover, an equally important problem arises in contexts where a person of unspecified or unknown gender is being referred to: since the personal pronouns of English are gendered, the speaker/writer is required to specify a gender, indirectly establishing a perceived gender identity to the referent. As with the antecedent, such practices can be especially problematic; the reasoning behind this will be explored in the next chapter. The question which arises spontaneously, is “How can we avoid these pitfalls?”. The answer is absolutely simple: gender-neutral language.
There are various ways in which a language can establish neutrality in anaphora. In Koiné, for example, the standardized Greek of the Hellenistic period, it is effortless and natural to avoid using gendered language. Additionally, a vast array of languages, from genderless languages to languages with grammatical gender, use gender-neutral pronouns, and thus completely or partially avoid these precarious situations. An inspirational example is that of Turkish; according to Friederike Braun, gender is one of the most salient social categories in the Turkish culture. However simultaneously, the Turkish language is surprisingly gender-neutral, as is the case with the third-person pronoun which does not differentiate referential gender , and6 subsequently does not convey a gender identity. Greek (modern) on the other hand, a language with grammatical gender, can use its “neutral gender” pronoun to signify gender-neutrality , 7 while Swedish, a natural gendered language, introduced a third gender-neutral pronoun “hen”, as
5 Gavriel, A. (2012). 6 Braun, F. (2001), 284-285 7 Douglas, A. (1988).
an addition to the already existing Swedish pronouns for she (hon) and he (han) . But what is 8 exactly a gender-neutral pronoun, and does English have one?
Gender neutral or gender inclusive pronouns are, simply, unspecific to one gender and, subsequently, their use does not label or associate the person being discussed with a specific gender. The primary historically acclaimed gender-neutral pronoun in English is the singular form of they. While many native English speakers may disagree with the notion that such a pronoun is valid and grammatical, as it will be revealed through the ensuing literature review, singular they is an existing part of English and it has been used throughout the previous millennium.
The primary reason for the introduction of such a pronoun is the undeniable shortcomings of commonly used alternatives, such as the prevalent “generic he”. These shortcomings, which have been already hinted at, will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. Other commonplace alternatives are “she or he”, their constant alternation, and various forms which contain diacritics, such as “(s)he”, “he/she”, “@e” and apostrophe containing variations. Without exception, these alternatives bear the negative quality of having only a valid written form. While corresponding utterances of these diacritics have been proposed, these utterances do not carry the naturalness of the “she” and “he” pronouns.
However, singular they is not the only gender-neutral pronoun that has been used traditionally. Dating back to the 17th century, the use of the third-person pronoun “it” has been proposed by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and is still being used today, albeit infrequently. Many9
8 Gustafsson, M., Bäck, E. A., & Lindqvist, A. (2015). 9 Coleridge, S. T., Coleridge, E. H. (1895). 190
complications arise from the use of this pronoun, the primary being that “it” is used to refer exclusively to objects However, one could argue that “it” is, indeed, being used naturally in cases in which gender is unknown, such as when we refer to unborn children “Will it be a boy or a girl” or even in cases of yet barely formed gender identities such as toddlers “Look how cute it is”!. Another case is that of the indefinite pronoun “one”, (which has been purposefully used in the previous sentence). Arguably, “One” is a perfect alternative as its direct translation is “a person”. However, its significant use in multiple contexts makes its case complicated. “One” does not only refer to a third-person but can also be used as a first or second person pronoun, replacing the “generic you”. Furthermore, its many uses in literature, quoting its numerical connotation as well, make it a less attractive alternative.
As the need for a widely accepted gender-neutral pronoun has grown more apparent over the last decades, many artificial pronouns have been discussed and proposed by sociologists, linguists, activists, feminists, social groups and even grammatologists. The “Xe” pronoun, invented by multiple persons but credited to Don Rickter in 1973 , was the first to attain a seat 10 in public discourse. Succeeding it, a similar set of artificial pronouns, called the “Spivak” pronouns were promulgated in an online community called “LamdaMOO”, based on the “E” pronoun used by Micheal Spivak. Many forms of these pronouns were fabricated, such as “Ey” by Elverson in 1975 , “Em” by Tintaji on 1977 and “Per” by writer Marge Piercy, meaning 11 12 person . However, the most recognizable artificial pronoun is arguably the “Ze” pronoun (and13
10 Wikipedia, (2019).https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xe 11 Black, J. (1975). 12
12 Lockheed, M. (1982). 13 Piercy, M. (1976).
its variants) which is still commonly used today both as a gender-neutral pronoun and as a pronoun to denote specific non-binary gender identities. The acclaim of this pronoun has grown to the extent that student unions of the Oxford University have asked the students to refer to each other as “Ze” . The use of such artificial pronouns is an alternative for the public who does not 14 agree with the use of “natural” pronouns such as those discussed before.
The distinctive role of Singular They
Throughout this introduction, the complexity of identifying a widely accepted gender-neutral pronoun for the English language has become discernible. Out of the wide variety of alternatives, there is one which stands out: Singular They. But what are the attributes which distinguish Singular They from other alternatives, and its consequent designation as the main subject of this dissertation?
Primarily, the widespread use of Singular They makes its case indubitably worth of research. In 2015, the American Dialect Society voted the singular form of the pronoun "they" as the "word of the year", simultaneously commenting on its relevance as a gender-neutral pronoun: “They was recognized by the society for its emerging use as a pronoun to refer to a known person, often as a conscious choice by a person rejecting the traditional gender binary of “he” and “she”.” . Arguably, this, among many other instances in which Singular They was15
14 Pells, R. (2016).
https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/oxford-university-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-peter-tatchell-stud ent-union-ze-xe-a7470196.html
distinguished throughout the current century, establishes the pronoun as the most widely known gender-neutral pronoun in English.
Secondly, in opposition to the other alternatives, Singular They is relatively well accepted by the majority of social communities. Some of its forms are naturally used in speech or writing, without one’s realization of the use of a gender-neutral pronoun. Currently, there is a general agreement that the generic “he” is a flawed choice for a gender-neutral pronoun and while other pronouns lose a significant following due to strong counter-arguments, such as the “dehumanizing” nature of the gender-neutral “it” and the distinctive unfamiliarity of the artificial pronouns, Singular They does not have an ardent opposition . It is also important to state that, 16 out of all the alternatives, Singular They is the only one receiving support from purist grammaticians and anti-feminist theorists. For example, Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, a “spearhead” of the so-called “anti-political correctness movement” supports the notion of a gender-neutral pronoun in the form of they . 17 Furthermore, genderfluid and non-binary people, who want to distance themselves from the binary gender identities, frequently refer to ‘they’ as their pronoun of choice.
Moreover, the historicity and the usage of singular they is remarkable. Not only does it appear in several texts of the last seven centuries, but it is included in a vast array of grammar and linguistic books, of different ages and varieties of English. This fact, in addition to the antecedent theoretical argumentation, naturally leads to the practical reasoning of the choice of
16 Although the disagreement regarding the creation of artificial pronouns is significantly more substantial than the use of the singular form of an existing pronoun, there is still vocal opposition against sThey. A subject which we will discuss further in the following chapters.
17 MacLellan, L. (2017).
Singular They as the research item: While there is ample research in gender studies and gender identities, gender-neutral pronouns, specifically, is an under-researched subject. Most of the literature regarding these pronouns is not written inside academia but by independent social theorists, journalists and activists. However, Singular They stands out with a considerable number of mentions, not limited to sociolinguistics, but also in other types of studies, such as cognitive experiments, establishing the pronoun as a valid research choice. These studies predominantly address Singular They either as a part of a greater project or specific aspects of it. Therefore, from an academic standpoint, a gap in literature is highlighted, in terms of studies that tackle the subject exclusively and comprehensively in addition to literature reviews. The prominence of the subject outside academia and the vast amount of published non-academic material stresses the need to fill this gap, even further.
On the contrary, it would be misleading to describe Singular They as the sole motivation for the formulation of this dissertation. First and foremost, the drive of this endeavor stemmed from my interest in the constantly emerging field of feminist linguistics, a field not characterized by linguistic prescriptivism but with the goal to enact social change through natural language use. In the 21st century, through the advent of the digital media, the existence of profuse sexism that is still concealed in many aspects of our societies has become undeniably apparent. One of these aspects, language, is still brimming with relics of a thoroughly patriarchal past, which consciously and subconsciously affects our present, everyday lives. Thus, although this dissertation is purely academic, its goal is, also, to add to the effort of the feminist language reform and, ultimately, aggregate to the pool of research striving for a gender-equal society.
Outline and overview
The present thesis is divided into six distinctive chapters (Introduction, Theoretical Background, Methodology, Results & Discussion, Conclusion) and also incorporates a Preface, an Abstract, an Appendix and References . A review of the literature available on Singular They 18 is conducted in the second chapter. The researched literature is reported through a subject-by-subject method, aiming to differentiate between affiliated but distinct aspects of the pronoun, with a varying depth of treatment depending on the available studies. The subsequent two chapters, Methodology and Results & Discussion, constitute the empirical research of this dissertation. The methodology is exhaustively demonstrated in addition to its reasoning, its goals and its limitations, followed by a presentation of the results. The results are joined with a short statistical analysis and are embedded with the literature and the research goals of the study. The author’s aim is to explore the results through the use of the literature and the outcome of its review, theorize and make assertions . Finally, the dissertation concludes with a critical19 reflection and implications for future research.
The author aims to explore the unique case of Singular They as a gender-neutral pronoun and deepen our understanding of the significance of gender-neutrality in the English language by providing insight into the following research question: Is the singular form of They an
18 The paper follows the writing guidelines of the 6th version of the American Psychological Association style manual with a variation in the style of citations. Instead of following the typical in-brackets, in-text citations, the paper incorporates a slightly differentiated system: it uses footnotes in addition to in-text citations. Footnotes follow the APA convention Author - Year and also include the page with the exception of cases in which general meaning from the whole article/book was used. URLs are also included in footnotes. In-text citations are not in brackets but are part of the text.
19 Combining the Results with the Discussion was a practical and necessary choice; the length of the questionnaire and a dataset comprising an abundance of both quantitative and qualitative data would generate a paper very difficult to follow, without explicitly repeating results inside the discussion. Furthermore, the absence of extensive literature on the subject and articles to embed only augments the aforementioned argument.
efficacious and substantiated choice as an epicene pronoun, how are the speakers of English experiencing its application and what is the perceivable outcome of its use ?Their aspiration is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the case of Singular They, approaching its multiple aspects through the available literature and rational discussion.
Theoretical Background
As a matter of course, in a linguistic research project, aiming to explore sThey and its 20 use, the first thing to consider is its historical trajectory, its older and contemporary usage and, subsequently, its perceived grammaticality and acceptability.
Historical Overview, Usage & Grammaticality
Despite the fact that the use of the sThey only became particularly prevalent in the last few decades, the pronoun is dated longer than most users would suppose. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, its earliest trace can be found in Middle English, as early as 1375 in a romantic medieval poem, named “William and the Werewolf” . 21
The excerpt reads:
Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere. (Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together)
.
22
While this particular text does not provide any characteristic insight into the historical usage of sThey, it serves as proof of the existence of an earlier form of the pronoun “they” being
20 For the rest of the paper Singular They will be referred as sThey 21 Oxford University Press. (2017).
referred anaphorically to a singular noun of indeterminate gender. However, we should not suppose that the poem introduces sThey, but we should most probably regard it as a hint to its earlier existence in oral communication. Notable is also the fact that the plural they is not significantly older and according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language “dates back at least to 1300” and is not a native English pronoun . 23 24
Over the next few centuries, sThey continues to be used periodically and appears in several eminent writers. The 14th version of The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers, highlights this, as part of an argument recommending the use of sThey. Among the mentioned writers are Austen, Chesterfield, Fielding, Ruskin, Scott, and Shakespeare . An example of the earliest in order can be found below: 25
Who makes you their confidant? (Jane Austen, Emma)
However, while the pronoun was deemed acceptable and attained significant usage throughout the centuries, it never attained standardization. Its most prominent contender was the “generic he” and it was commonly used alongside sThey. Burchfield in “The New Fowler's Modern English Usage” makes a stark statement regarding its historical usage: “From earliest times until about the 1960s it was unquestionably acceptable to use the pronoun “he” (and him, himself, his) with indefinite reference to mean 'anyone, a person (of either sex), especially after
23 Retrieved from https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=they
24 According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language it comes from the Old Norse. The source, describes the pronoun “they” as an exceptional phenomenon as “it is a classic example of the profound impact of that language on English: because pronouns are among the most basic elements of a language, they are rarely replaced with borrowings from foreign sources.”.
indefinite pronouns such as anybody, anyone, someone, etc., gender free words like doctor, person, etc., or in fixed phrases such as 'Every man for himself or 'One man one vote'” . 26
Eventually, both the “generic he” and sThey became a subject of dispute for grammaticians (reasonably so, as the study of language and grammar was prevailing and prescriptivism had become prominent) earning the “generic he” overwhelming support. So much so that even Ann Fisher, the first woman to write a grammar of English according to van Ostade, became also the first grammatician to explicitly recommend the use of “generic he” in her grammar, formulating the controversial rule of a standardized “generic he”: “The Masculine Person answers to the general Name, which comprehends both Male and Female; as, any Person who knows what he says” . 27
Indubitably, the progressive inclination towards the normalization of the “generic he” and the “eradication” of sThey were directly derived from a male-dominated society. Ann Bodine in her comprehensive analysis of the subject, “Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar: Singular 'They', Sex-Indefinite 'He', and 'He or She”, repeatedly highlights the sexist causes that generated the force to invalidate sThey, such as the overwhelmingly male-dominated world of literacy; and goes as far as to suggest that the existence of sThey received a coordinated “attack” from prescriptivists who believed in male dominance, which ultimately failed: “This usage (of sThey) came under attack by prescriptive grammarians. However, despite almost two centuries of vigorous attempts to analyze and regulate it out of existence, singular “they” is alive and well. Its survival is all the more remarkable considering that the weight of virtually the entire educational
26 Fowler, H. W.; Burchfield, R. W. (1996). 384
and publishing establishment has been behind the attempt to eradicate it.” . Her assertion cannot 28 be perceived as implausible given the fact that as of the present time, dating eight centuries in use, there are still grammaticians who perceive sThey as ungrammatical.
But how did these theorists substantiate their arguments regarding the English gender indefinite pronoun? Throughout the advance of the centuries, fewer and fewer grammaticians openly argued that their preference for the “generic he” is based on their conviction that the male takes precedence over the female. According to Ann Bodine, the main argument behind theorists who consider sThey ungrammatical is the inconsistency of the grammatical number, an arguably fallacious argument which presupposes that “They” is only plural . 29
All things considered, the ample polemics against sThey in its long history do not impair its significance at all. On the contrary, it becomes apparent that sThey, a pronoun that is not considered particularly common and is usually seen as a relatively new “invention” is in reality a significantly enduring part of the English language. But what is the viewpoint of contemporary experts and critics?
Contemporary Usage
From the historical overview and research regarding the grammaticality and usage of sThey, it is only natural to conclude what present-day writers theorize. Nonetheless, such an inquiry cannot follow a linear development, especially since English has been expanding constantly and its contemporary varieties are numerous, while their boundaries are transient. For
28 Bodine, A. (1975). 29 Bodine, A. (1975).
this reason, this study will examine the prominent writers individually, specifically the style guides, with the goal of establishing a more even-handed snapshot of its contemporary usage. It must be underlined withal, that not every style guide, grammar and writing expert has communicated an opinion regarding sThey or its alternatives. On the contrary, there are prominent style guides that do not contain any statements or statements are only found on specific editions or in supplementary online information.
Manual of the American Psychological Association. As the style guide chosen for the
composition of this dissertation, the APA Formatting and Style Guide will be the first to be examined. This manual makes for a particularly notable case as between the two latest published editions (6th published in 2009 and 7th published in 2019) there was a shift in opinion regarding sThey . The 6th edition of the APA manual, antithetically of the composer’s stance in this30 report, did not recommend the use of sThey. Specifically, it characterised it informal/ungrammatical and provided an example of an incorrect sentence: “Neither the highest scorer nor the lowest scorer in the group had any doubt about their competence.” . According to 31 its guidelines there are several alternatives that could be used instead: 1) Make the sentence plural: "Participants indicated their preferences. 2) Rewrite the sentence to replace the pronoun with an article (a, an, or the): "The participant indicated a preference." 3) Rewrite the sentence to drop the pronoun: "The participant indicated preferences." 4) Combine both singular pronouns (he or she, she or he, his or her, her or his, etc.): "The participant indicated his or her
30 The latest APA manual (2019) was published during the execution of the present study. The 5th version of the manual (2001) and the 6th version (2009) contained the same content on the matter.
preferences." (However, avoid overusing this strategy, as it can become cumbersome upon many repetitions.).” . Arguably, each one of these alternatives can be characterised as considerably32 more inconvenient in comparison to sThey.
Furthermore, while the 6th edition of APA did not explicitly recognize the distinction between sThey as a gender indefinite pronoun or sThey as a pronoun for non-binary, trans people, etc, it supported the usage of the latter. Chelsea Lee, APA style expert, stated that “APA supports the choice of communities to determine their own descriptors. Thus, when transgender and gender nonconforming people (including agender, genderqueer, and other communities) use the singular they as their pronoun, writers should likewise use the singular they when writing about them. Although the usage isn’t explicitly outlined in the Publication Manual, APA’s guidelines for bias-free language clearly state that writers should be sensitive to labels” and quotes the unequivocal statement of the guide “Respect people’s preferences; call people what they prefer to be called…” . 33
In 2019 the composers of the APA guide published an article in which they expressed a 34 complete “change of heart” on the subject. They declared their unconditional endorsement of the use of both forms of sThey, and acknowledged their past disapproval as well as the shift on the matter that is undergoing in academic writing . In more specific terms, they state “Always use a 35 person’s self-identified pronoun, including when a person uses the singular “they” as their
32 Chelsea, L. (2015). Retrieved from
https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/11/the-use-of-singular-they-in-apa-style.html
33 Chelsea, L. (2015). Retrieved from
https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/11/the-use-of-singular-they-in-apa-style.html 34 The points of the article were incorporated in the Section 4.18 of the 7th Manual (2020). 35 American Psychological Association. (2019). Retrieved From
pronoun.” and “Also use “they” as a generic third-person singular pronoun to refer to a person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context of the usage.” However, they did not reverse their approval for their former method of paraphrasing, recommending that “If you do not know the pronouns of the person being described, reword the sentence to avoid a pronoun or use the pronoun “they.”. These changes are extremely encouraging in regard to the development of a more gender-neutral language since they demonstrate that societal changes on the matter are directly influencing experts and academia. Furthermore, they indirectly acknowledge the lack of a universally accepted gender-neutral pronoun in English and indicate that sThey must be the answer to this issue.
Chicago Manual of Style. The second style guide to be investigated is the Chicago Manual of Style, one of the most acclaimed style guides in the academic world. Earlier in this section we quoted the 14th version of the Chicago Manual, which in its historical retrospect recognizes the sThey as a natural part of the English language and recommends its use . The 36 newer 16th version contains a less stark recommendation of its use, nonetheless it explicitly criticizes the “generic he” as a non-viable alternative: “A singular antecedent requires a singular referent pronoun. Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. While this usage is accepted in casual contexts, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing.” 37
36 Chicago University Press. (1993). 73-74 37 Chicago University Press. (2010). 222
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage . Having examined two style guides focusing
on American English, our next subject is The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, one of the most prominent British English guides. The guide is unequivocally explicit regarding the pronouns. It accepts sThey as a typical, non-arguable pronoun and highlights the questionability of its alternative, the “generic he”: "Generic/universal their provides a gender-free pronoun, avoiding the exclusive his and the clumsy his/her. It avoids gratuitous sexism and gives the statement broadest reference ... They, them, their are now freely used in agreement with singular indefinite pronouns and determiners, those with universal implications such as any(one), every(one), no(one), as well as each and some(one) , whose reference is often more individual ..."
.
38
The New Fowler's Modern English Usage. Another eminent British-English Focused
style guide, is the previously quoted “The New Fowler's Modern English Usage” which highlights its historical usage and accepts it as a natural part of the English Language but also describes sThey as unremarkable and standard: “Over the centuries, writers of standing have used they, their, and them with anaphoric reference to a singular noun or pronoun, and the practice has continued in the 20C. to the point that, traditional grammarians aside, such constructions are hardly noticed any more or are not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone.”. Interestingly, the guide book criticizes conservative grammaticians as the “exceptions” and
especially mentions Fowler, who in the earlier version of the guide stood against its use: “Fowler (1926) disliked the practice ... and gave a number of unattributed "faulty' examples …” . 39
Garner's Modern American Usage. Another noteworthy style guide is Garner's Modern American Usage.Garner adopts a particularly interesting stance regarding sThey. While he does not recommend sThey with conviction, he accepts its use and criticizes the opposition: “Where noun–pronoun disagreement can be avoided, avoid it. Where it can't be avoided, resort to it cautiously because some people will doubt your literacy ...Speakers of AmE resist this development more than speakers of BrE, in which the indeterminate they is already more or less standard." It is noteworthy that in his statements, Garner very clearly differentiates between40 American and British English, describing American speakers as more traditional and showing resistance to change, however he does not provide sufficient evidence of such a trend.
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. In contrast to the
aforementioned guide, it is interesting to examine the position of a British Grammar, specifically the A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. In a section considering linguistic concord, the writers mention sThey, which they regard as commonly used. Especially noteworthy is that they regard its use more natural in American English: “The pronoun they is commonly used as a 3rd person singular pronoun that is neutral between masculine and feminine. It is a convenient means of avoiding the dilemma of whether to use the heor she form.
39 Fowler, H. W.; Burchfield, R. W. (1996). 779 40 Garner, Bryan A. (2003). 718
At one time restricted to informal usage, it is now increasingly accepted even in formal usage, especially in AmE.” . 41
The Elements of Style. A slightly older, but assuredly well-known style guide, The
Elements of Style by Strunk & White contains an assertion that differs significantly from what we have examined until now. Its 1979 version not only vicariously characterises sThey as ungrammatical by condemning the fact that it uses a singular antecedent but it also supports the use of the “generic he”: “The use of he as a pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. He has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances. ... It has no pejorative connotation; it is never incorrect.” . The newer version, continues to disregard the use of sThey with the exact same42 wording, however it ironically acknowledges the opposition towards the “generic he”, even though it still considers it the standard and makes no mention of sexism: “Currently, however, many writers find the use of the generic he or his to rename indefinite antecedents limiting or offensive. Substituting he or she in its place is the logical thing to do if it works. But it often doesn't work, if only because repetition makes it sound boring or silly.” . 43
New Hart's Rules.Moving onwards to a divergent but equally important guide, the New Hart's Rules by Oxford University Press, which is a more specialised guide aimed at editors, the use of sThey is referred to as generally accepted: “Use of they in this sense (everyone needs to
41 Quirk, R. Greenbaum, S. Leech, G. Svartvik, J. (1985). 770 42 Strunk, W. White, E. B.. (1979). 60
feel that they matter) is becoming generally accepted both in speech and in writing, especially where it occurs after an indefinite pronoun such as everyone or someone, but should not be imposed by an editor if an author has used he or she consistently.” However, the value of 44 sThey in formal contexts is challenged in favour of “he or she” : “The alternative he or she is often preferred, and in formal contexts probably the best solution, but can become tiresome or long-winded when used frequently.” . Nonetheless, the editors clearly denounce the use of the45 “generic he” as sexist . 46
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Before concluding this section,
the thesis of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language has to receive a special mention since it proposes a very comprehensive and relatively objective refinement with respect to sThey: “The use of they with a singular antecedent goes back to Middle English, and in spite of criticism since the earliest prescriptive grammars it has continued to be very common in informal style. In recent years it has gained greater acceptance in other styles as the use of purportedly sex-neutral he has declined. It is particularly common with such antecedents as everyone, someone, no one;” . It becomes clear that the grammar does not explicitly recommend sThey,47 criticises its use in formal situations, yet acknowledges its case as a part of a prescriptivist objection. It highlights the issue of number agreement but expects this to resolve as the singular form of they continues to prevail over its alternatives . 48
44 Oxford University Press (2012).Oxford University Press. 2012 p. 27. 45 Oxford University Press (2012). 27
46 Oxford University Press (2012). 27 47 Huddleston, R. Pullum, G. (2002). 494 48 Huddleston, R. Pullum, G. (2002). 494
Alternative gender-neutral pronouns
In an attempt to clear the somewhat foggy landscape of sThey propositions in the previously reviewed style guides and grammars, I will now turn our discussion on the emerging pattern: Firstly, most - if not all - of these works mention a gender-neutral pronoun. Secondly, only a few of them refer to a specific pronoun as the sole standard pronoun. Most of them agree that there are a few alternatives, and criticise each one individually. Finally, the debate on this matter has circulated mostly around prescriptivist and political arguments. The question that surfaces is why do we debate the position of a gender-neutral pronoun in English, if not for prescriptivist reasons?
The answer is fairly straightforward: A generally acceptable gender-neutral pronoun is needed, yet debilitation over the most appropriate one has been an on-going matter for several decades . General agreement has not been reached and, it is of no or little concern, indeed,49 whether practical reasons, that is for the purposes of conveying a message as correctly as possible, or a more transient rationale can explain this. The crux of this discussion is not about settling to a norm or a new rule, but about comprehending and shaping our culture through language.
In this particular research project, our goal is to explore sThey as the standard gender-neutral pronoun and understand its position in language development. Nonetheless, for the aforementioned reasons, a comprehensive research on sThey would not be complete without examining a few of the alternatives, especially since debate still surrounds them consistently.
From an abundance of alternatives, the four succeeding ones were selected for investigation in the main part of this report on account of their prominence in literature and online frequency. 50
Generic He
As the most commonly used “gender neutral” pronoun for most of the language’s history, it is undeniable that we must consider it as an influential alternative. Nonetheless, its use has been criticized considerably, especially during the last few decades. The adjective “generic” indicates “he” as a pronoun that can be used, in general, for any gender. It may also refer to a common-gender pronoun, an epicene pronoun, a gender-neutral pronoun or purportedly sex-neutral.
Regardless of all of its shortcomings, the “generic he” is still widely in use and is referred to as canon by many grammars and style guides as we observed earlier. However, it is easy to identify that there is a reverse correlation of its acceptability over time and a discontinuation of its use by those who recognize its main flaw, namely its sexist nature. According to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, “it [he] has traditionally been regarded as the grammatically ‘correct’ choice in opposition to singular they; it is characteristic of relatively formal style. The issue of the choice between he and they has concerned writers on usage for some 200 years, but since this use of he represents one of the most obvious and central cases of sexism in language, the matter has received much more widespread attention since the early 1980s in the context of social changes in the status of women” . 51
50 Based on their prominence in the reviewed literature and also on how often they appear online. 51 Huddleston, R. Pullum, G. (2002). 494
The use of “generic he” is straightforward; when in need of a pronoun and a gender cannot or should not be identified in a singular wording, a “generic he” should be used which consequently encompasses any gender. This includes phrases like the following:
A mayor must always protect the interests of his citizens.
A customer returned his TV, claiming it was not working.
The first example constitutes the most straightforward use of the “generic he” because in a “general” sentence like this, gender does not have to be specified. However, it is evident without any analysis, that such use could be discriminatory and could carry sexist connotations. Nonetheless, such sentences have been commonly used and accepted as grammatical for the most part of the language’s history. The second example showcases a situation where using the “generic he” could potentially be misleading. Without enough context, the reader cannot know for certain whether the writer/speaker wants to convey information regarding the gender.
Considering the previously presented valid argument, that is “a gender-neutral pronoun is needed in the English language”, the choice of the “generic he” in similar contexts should be weighted on how important a disadvantage is because of its sexist nature. Nonetheless, this is not a purely theoretical debate, as, in terms of its subjective nature, the findings of Megan M. Miller and Lori E. James support the hypothesis that the “generic he” reduces the likelihood of thoughts of females in what are intended to be non–sex-specific instances . 52
He or She
The second most frequently encountered alternative to sThey, is the periphrastic “He or She” with minimal literature and ensuing theorization, in contrast to the “generic he” . In written communication it can also be marked as He/She but iterated with the conjunction “or”. Since a periphrastic form is obviously inconvenient, both users of sThey and of the “generic he” may not be inclined to use it. This alternative does not appear in the vast majority of scientific articles and style guides which deal with the subject. However, the latest version of the APA guide recommends “He or She” with skepticism and only in cases in which the author knows that these pronouns match the people being described . Nonetheless, the review of the various grammars53 and style guides demonstrated that it is widely acknowledged as it was included in almost every instance..
Taking into account that being cumbersome is a weighty flaw, a plausible hypothesis is that users of “He or She” are mostly people who do not consider sThey grammatical , although 54 they recognise the defects of the “generic he” and especially its sexist nature.
Alternation of She and He
A less known alternative method of the use of a singular gender-neutral pronoun, is the alternation of the two standard gendered pronouns. While this method can be considered diplomatic and impartial, it comes with its fair share of disadvantages.
53 American Psychological Association. (2019). Retrieved From
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/singular-they
Primarily, as it requires the use of the two existing gendered pronouns, any complication that develops through the use of the “generic he” or its female equivalent is carried over. Adding to this the confusion that could theoretically be created, no advantages can be identified over the use of other alternatives, other than the issue of grammaticality of sThey. While in theory, the alternation achieves neutrality, in practice -specifically in verbal communication- it is very hard to gauge whether a speaker is indeed alternating or is actually referring to a male or female referent. Furthermore, a forced alternation between two words can be quite hard to implement and very confusing, resulting in users eventually choosing in between the two.
However, there is a case where this alternation could be hypothetically implemented successfully: in written communication. Through the use of a simple specific rule, for example “alternate pronouns with each paragraph”, it would be uncomplicated for writers to hold fast to the alternation and create a genuine sense of neutrality throughout their text. Nonetheless, this poses the question of whether such use passes on the neutrality into verbal communication without creating an irrational discrepancy between written and verbal communication.
(S)he
This mixed pronoun is a simpler iteration of “He or She”. It can also be encountered as S/he and is frequently used in online forums, articles and generally texting. Although it is not as commonly used as other alternatives, it can be found in many dictionaries, for example the Cambridge English Dictionary and the Macmillan Dictionary . Due to its simplicity and55 56
55 Cambridge University Press. (2008). Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/s-he 56 Macmillan English Dictionary(2019). Retrieved from
straightforwardness, many people may intuitively use it instead of He or She. In regards to academic writing, the APA style specifically discourages its use . 57
While its simplicity overrides one of the most important disadvantages of “He or She”, it creates another one that could be considered a dealbreaker: it cannot be used in verbal communication. Although this could be avoided by using an alternative distinctive pronunciation, such a workaround would defeat its purpose, i.e. its simplicity.
Others
Constructed pronouns. One can encounter or devise a multitude of alternatives to tackle this subject. However, it is not practical and possible to describe each one of them in the present paper.
Constructed Pronouns. Influential alternatives that will not be investigated in the subsequent research are constructed pronouns that were proposed by various experts such as “Ey” , “Zhe” and “Ze” . Many varieties of such pronouns have been published over the years58 59 60 and have been embraced by specific communities or groups. However, it is exceedingly difficult for a new, foreign-sounding word to be inserted into the language and become canon, especially when there are already usable alternatives . It must be noted though that such constructions61 highlight the need for a generally accepted gender-neutral pronoun in English.
57 American Psychological Association. (2019). Retrieved From
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/singular-they
58 Black, J. (1975). 59 Foldvary, F. (2000). 60 Bornstein, K. (2013).
One. The use of the numerical pronoun “One” such as in this sentence: Everyone loves one’s mother. While an indubitably valid alternative, “One” has not seen much use, and according to Dennis Barron in the chronology of early nonbinary pronouns, it has never been a popular pronoun in American English. Even British English speakers avoid constructions such as the aforementioned . 62
Word paraphrasing. Finally, a distinctive alternative is word paraphrasing. That is, instead of using a gendered or a gender-neutral pronoun, the pronoun is completely avoided by paraphrasing the meaning of the sentence in a way which renders its use obsolete. While a few style guides suggest this, an example being the APA manual whose guidelines the present63 project follows, it is fair to assume paraphrasing could neither be realistically used outside formal writing, nor does it really resolve the matter by bypassing it.
Cognitive processing of sThey
Investigating the cognitive efficiency of sThey is a notably relevant course of action, not only because the main argument against sThey revolves around the premise that is not “natural” & ungrammatical but also because we are actively comparing sThey with other alternatives in order to identify disadvantages and advantages. Specifically, analyzing sThey in terms of cognition, refers to identifying whether there is any barrier or characteristic that impairs the cognitive process or, in general, how efficient sThey can be cognitively. As expected, after researching literature on the subject, only a very small number of relevant papers were found.
62 Retrieved from https://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/epicene.htm 63 American Psychological Association. (2001) .47
However, there is one study that stands out since it exclusively deals with the aforementioned subject and is simultaneously aligned with the main drive of this research project, namely the exploration of gender-neutrality in language.
In the aforementioned article, “In Search of Gender Neutrality: Is Singular They a Cognitively Efficient Substitute for Generic He?” written by Julie Foertsch and Morton Ann Gernsbacher, two reading-time experiments are presented, the goal of which is to identify whether sThey is a cognitively efficient substitute for generic “he or she”. In line with the present project, they substantiate their experiments by discussing the grammaticality of sThey and comparing it to its alternatives. While they accept the notion that sThey is widely considered ungrammatical , they affirm that the most common generic has fallen out of favor for being64 gender biased by quoting several papers on the comprehension of pronouns. They also review alternatives and their equivalent disadvantages, integrating the compound “he or she” in parts of their experiments for the purpose of comparison . 65
In order to achieve the goal of the study, two experiments were formulated, based on the results of a previous experiment by Kerr and Underwood (1984) which demonstrated that readers fixate longer on pronouns that are somehow surprising than on pronouns that are consistent with their expectations. Thus, their experiments focused on the matter of its diminished cognitive efficiency, established on the hypothesis that since sThey refers to a singular antecedent, it is possible to incur some form processing cost, slowing the comprehension of sentences . 66
64 Note: the paper was written in 1997
65 Foertsch, J., Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). 106 66 Foertsch, J., Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). 106-108
In the first experiment, participants read 72 three-clause sentences in a self-paced reading task and indicated their agreement or disagreement with the opinion expressed in each sentence (through a “true or false” prompt). The sentences in Experiment 1 contained non referential antecedents in the form of common nouns modified by indefinite determiners, and the subsequent variables were examined: The first independent variable was the type of antecedent read in the first clause. The antecedents were stereotypically masculine nouns, stereotypically feminine nouns, neutral nouns, or indefinite pronouns. The second independent variable was the pronoun that appeared in the second clause: he, she, or they. The dependent variable was the reading time for the clause containing the pronoun. The experiment demonstrated that singular they can be a cognitively efficient substitution for generic he or generic she when the non-referential antecedent is either an indefinite pronoun or a common noun with an indefinite determiner and the results are visualized in the following figure. 67
Figure 1. Effects of antecedent type (masculine, feminine, neutral, or indefinite) and pronoun {he, she, or they) on per-character reading time (RT) when sentences were used non-referentially).
Experiment 2 investigated whether similar results would be found with referential antecedents. In that experiment, the authors removed the indefinite pronoun sentences and modified the remaining masculine, feminine, and neutral antecedents to make them referential, giving the reader the impression that each sentence was about a specific person whose gender was presumably known . Similarly with Experiment 1, the dependent variable was the68 per-character reading time for the second clause. The results (mean per-character reading times)
for the three pronoun conditions for each of the three types of antecedent can be found in the figure below.
Figure 2. Effects of antecedent type (masculine, feminine, or neutral) and pronoun (he, she, or they) on per-character reading time (RT) when sentences were used referentially).
According to this data, when the antecedents are referential, sThey is no longer as efficient as a gendered pronoun that matches the gender stereotype of the antecedent. As can be seen in the figure above, sentences in which the antecedent suggests a male and the explicitness of the modifiers suggests the informant is talking about a particular person whose gender should be known, using sThey as an anaphor produces almost as much of a slowdown as using she.
Looking at the neutral antecedents, in contrast, there is no such disadvantage for clauses using they . The results from these experiments reinforce the ideas of both the present project and the69 discussed paper, and - at least in terms of cognitive processing- discern that sThey is an acceptable substitution for gender-specific pronouns with non referential antecedents, which are quite possibly ambiguous as to gender. In contrast, singular they is less acceptable with referential antecedents, for which there should be no ambiguity about gender . All in all, this 70 paper signifies an important milestone in the studies of gender-neutral language, and specifically of sThey, not only by disproving the notion that sThey can be “confusing” but also by emphasizing its “naturalness”. As a final note, an auxiliary part of the paper (post-experimental survey) reveals an interesting fact, closely related to this study. Fifty one percent of the readers stated that they did not believe that using sThey in place of “he or she” is ungrammatical . Since 71 the paper was written back in 1997, it further enhances the view that the opinion on sThey has been changing significantly and long-established style guides and grammars have to shift their opinions on this matter.
Another relevant study is that of Lydia Gabriela Speyer and Erik Schleef Processing, “Gender-neutral Pronouns: A Self-paced Reading Study of Learners of English”. It does not focus on native speakers but on learners of English with the aim of exploring the online processing of “he and she” and sThey to discover whether sThey presents a processing problem for non-native speakers . It consists of a self-paced reading experiment with 51 participants,72
69 Foertsch, J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997), 110 70 Foertsch, J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997), 111 71 Foertsch, J., Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997), 111 72 Speyer, L. G., Schleef, E. (2019) 793–815
students of an austrian university, with at least a B2 level of English. The goal of the experiments was to explore how reaction times (RTs) were affected by different pronouns after stereotypically feminine, masculine, and neutral antecedents, as well as after indefinite pronouns. The participants also had to complete a questionnaire on sThey.
Through within-subject ANOVAs the study resulted in significant effects for indefinite pronouns. SThey was read significantly faster thanshe and faster than he. On the other hand, non significant effects were found different pronoun conditions for either feminine, masculine, or neutral antecedents, which indicates that non-native speakers do not have any processing issues with any of the pronouns . The results are illustrated in Figure 3 below. 73
Figure 3. The average per-character RT in milliseconds for all four antecedents with the four pronoun conditions).
Their questionnaire, also, provides us with relevant results. Those demonstrate that while sThey is not yet regarded as a third-person pronoun by all participants, there is a clear developmental pattern to acquiring singular they as a third-person pronoun. Specifically “Looking at passive acceptance of singular they, 89 per cent (8 of 9 participants) of the participants with an English level of B2 always marked it as incorrect, compared with 46 per cent of the participants with a level of C1 (12 of 26) and 43 per cent of the participants with a level of C2 (7 of 16). For active use, results were quite similar: while 78 percent of the B2 speakers (7 of 9) and 35 percent of the C1 speakers (9 of 26) never used singular they, all C2 speakers (16) used singular they at least sometimes ”. These findings, while less relevant in 74 terms of the cognitive processing of sThey, provide a useful insight regarding the understanding of sThey by non-native speakers.
On the whole, these studies constitute a substantial milestone in the exploration of sThey and gender-neutral language in general. Their nature establishes their importance, as they constitute strong empirical data. While the matter of gender-neutrality is fundamentally sociopolitical, empirical data provide clarity into the discussion. By proving that sThey can be processed more efficiently than “generic he”, it is possible to tackle or augment arguments that were examined in the previous subchapters. However, it must be noted, that such proof cannot be used “per se” to determine which pronoun we should use, as efficiency is not a primary factor in
this debate. Therefore, a hypothetical higher efficiency of the “generic he” would not eliminate the need for a more gender-neutral language.
Singular They as a non-binary pronoun
In the last decades, sThey rose in prominence as a gender-neutral pronoun, yet the neutrality expressed by this epicene pronoun gave form to another iteration: an sThey that does not narrate absence or ignorance for gender, but gendered information based on that perceived absence. In either case, it is worth investigating further the extent to which the two construals of sThey contest or complement each other.
Over the last few decades, the fights for tolerance, recognition, respect and impartiality have arguably established the human rights movement and broadened its scope so as to incorporate gender and sexuality. As a result, more people are now disclosing how they feel about their gender and sexuality, creating communities and being vocal about who they are. While for the greater part of the history of the English language gender fell strictly into the binary of male and female, during the 80’s with the rise of the LGBT movement the term genderqueer was coined and was mainly used inside the activist community . That term75 resonated principally inside the transgender community, a vibrant multifarious community that was brimming with terms filled with depreciation, created by others for them. Until then, transgender and transsexual were the only terms that could be relatively “owned” by non-binary people - and these terms did not apply to the vast diversity that manifests in that community. This, to some extent, demonstrates why terms are still so important to persons who are not
cisgender. In 1992, the acclaimed transgender activist Leslie Feinberg made a remark on this matter, that it is still quoted frequently: “There are other words used to express the wide range of ‘gender outlaws’: transvestites, transsexuals, drag queens and drag kings, cross-dressers, bull daggers, stone butches, androgynes, diesel dykes or berdaches—a European colonist term. We didn’t choose these words. They don’t fit all of us. It’s hard to fight oppression without a name connoting pride, a language that honors us. In recent years a community has begun to emerge that is sometimes referred to as the gender or transgender community. Within our community is a diverse group of people who define ourselves in many different ways. Transgendered people are demanding the right to choose our own self-definitions.” . In these circumstances, a term and a 76 personal pronoun have a lot in common: they provide an identity, a feeling of belonging and they demystify many of the misperceptions associated with gender . This significance is intensified 77 when we apply it to minorities, such as the non-binary community, which are facing oppression and erasure. In view of the above premises, it is very important to consult the people that belong to these communities before making assumptions and reaching conclusions even when conducting research.
As of the second decade of the century, the non-binary community has grown more than ever both in size and vocality. Christina Richards, in her article “Non-binary or genderqueer genders” (2016) cited several studies regarding the population size of non-cis communities. One of these was conducted by van Caenegem et al. (2015) and “reported results based on two population-based surveys, one of 1832 Flemish individuals and one of 2472 sexual minority
76 Feinberg, L. (1992).
