The English pronoun they is an epicene (gender-neutral) third-person pronoun that can refer to plural antecedents of any gender and, under certain circumstances, to a singular antecedent that refers to a person.
Source: https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21719768-prais...
1. used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified.
2. used to refer to a person or animal of unspecified sex
3. any person
"They" is more modern, if a little awkward in some cases, but the english language is fluid and thus "he", alongside "they", remains perfectly acceptable for those who wish to use it in that capacity. The message was able to be conveyed, which is the only requirement of the english language.
> "They" may be more modern, if a little awkward in some cases, but the english language is fluid and thus "he", alongside "they", remains a perfectly acceptable for those who wish to use it in that capacity.
Well. I am not sure of your sources for your statements (1 to 3). But would love to read them, as this is a topic of great interest to me. Especially as they go against everything I did learn during my time studying the history of languages (German and English).
I know of language fluidity and I know of a time around the 14th century where "he" was in some contexts used in a more gender neutral way (and even that is debated nowadays). And even then the neutral "they" (singular and plural) was also in use in cases that were clearly gender neutral.
So looking back into the development and the history of the English language I cannot find (or recollect) indicators for your way of reading "he" as being totally fine and acceptable and really gender neutral (and not just a sign of a more patriarchal society).
Talking about fluidity of language. At least in the last some years there has been a development of "he" being incivil and assuming and therefore should probably not be used in a gender neutral way. Also that other alternatives would be more civil and unassuming regarding others taking part in our conversations.
> The message was able to be conveyed, which is the only requirement of the english language.
Well technically speaking that is true. But aren't there always human beings part of every conversation? And imho our wetware isn't a purely logic parser for information. We are flawed and our flaws should be considered when trying to communicate. Esp. if we try to get an idea across and not wanting to "hurt"/alienate others.
We have different "ways" we process information. The purely informational part of a message is but one of them. Ignoring the others might just hinder our arguments/ideas from getting the recognition they deserve.
One model of communication for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model
[Edit] Removed unnecessary quote markers.
The dictionary, as provided by Google in this case. Although you are likely to find similar definitions in any dictionary. The usage, even if falling out of fashion, is still common enough to be recorded.
> Well technically speaking that is true. But aren't there always human beings part of every conversation? And imho our wetware isn't a purely logic parser for information.
Which is fine. The original comment provided enough information to indicate that this person was referring to the original article, which reveals that the author is female. Even if you accidentally parsed "he" as referring to the male gender at first, the context surrounding the comment would quickly clarify that misunderstanding and highlight that the comment was written in a gender-neutral form. That "wetware" you refer to makes humans particularly great at forming these connections between disjointed sets of information.
The singular "they" dates back to at least middle english and Chaucer, its proscription is the recent event (~18th century) and went mostly ignored by informal speakers: https://books.google.be/books?id=Lijcg3vt9yAC&pg=PA93&redir_...
Not in english.
The fact that you were able to successfully recognize that the person who used 'He' was specifically referring to Julia Evans without having to question that person means that the message was conveyed quite succinctly and the subject was perfectly understood, which is correct from the perspective of the english language.
Either "they" or "the author" is a much better choice today.
As, in fact, they have. "They" was the gender-neutral singular pronoun in English for a long, long time. The idea of "he" as the "neutral" pronoun was forced onto the language only within the last couple of centuries. And now "they" can be, and is being, forced back.
Exactly. English is fluid and you can correctly use any word you want, as long as the message is accurately conveyed. And in this case it provably was, as the person I replied to specifically recognized that the original commenter was referring to Julia Evans when using he. So what is the issue here?
Attempting to retrofit a "well it's OK to use it gender-neutral" explanation onto that doesn't work. And trying to enforce a gender-neutral "he" is hopefully going to stop working in the near future.
Although, for what it is worth, even if this person is a man, I see no harm in using "she" as well. It's just plain not pertinent information to get the proper gender here. The message that it is referring to the original author would still be conveyed, and that is the only thing that really matters. English really doesn't care about anything else.
