Sorry...that's your own invented impression. Like I said, you smack of internet forum "gotcha." @izzy...it's not my method. It's not my rule of English I made up. I'm not the one who said it was mine, or even inferred it. A couple of guys who know little decided to pretend they know a lot and use me for a punching bag. I pushed back. They couldn't give it a rest.
No one ever claimed that you made it up. There's a large contingent that opposes singular they. There's a large contingent that doesn't. The issue was your declaration that one of those two groups is right, as if that's a fact. If you said, "I personally operate on my belief that chocolate chip cookies are the best cookie," that would be no big deal. No one would try to make you bake, eat, or serve other cookies if you don't want to. If you said, "It's an established fact that chocolate chip cookies are the best cookie," you're going to get opposition, and you're going to get people who expect you to offer some evidence and support for your argument. Gray areas are a thing.
Of course it's not a rule you made up, but there are obviously two schools of thought here: either singular 'they' is grammatically correct or it isn't. You can offer citations supporting your viewpoint and other people can offer citations supporting theirs. You're not objectively right here in the way that you've asserted you are. edit: Frankly, you seem to have a big victim complex here that I don't feel like dealing with, so whatever. It's plainly not worth trying to have a discussion.
I had some people read this thread, and the consensus is I was not who started the issue. For more objective readers who have waded through the BS to this, there aren't two schools of thought on this subject. There is how it is, which is what I was trying to mention (and was turned into some kind of crusade by the ones who did start the fight), and the way some people wish it was, but insist on claiming it is. I clearly said I wasn't happy with how the present rules of standard English handle pronouns in some specific instances. The uproar had to do with whatever the ones doing it had on their minds at the time they were doing it and is not for me to explain. On that score, suffice to say, I won't be bullied into backing down on the truth. To then accuse me of duplicity because in the end I had to post a citation they apparently insisted I had to have, then tried to slam me for having a citation...using a "guide", I'll leave their end of that as self-explanatory, again, not my problem. TYVM and have a nice day!
I see you're still having trouble distinguishing between journalism and writing fiction. Have fun with that.
Well, yes, journalism does tend to be more formal and standardized. But I thought we were talking about standards.
Maybe if you began a thread on the subject of Journalism, which is what the Washington Post does, versus Fiction, which is what keeping a main character gender neutral would be...this thread might at last go back to the OP's original topic about gender neutral pronouns.
You're really reaching here. Journalism quite often refers to people, and therefore also has to deal with the issue of gendered or gender neutral pronouns. The singular gender neutral they/their really doesn't care whether it's used in fiction or journalism. I really can't think of many rules of written English that care.
I can't help but notice that you're using only one space after a period. You must know, of course, that this is WRONG. There should be two spaces after a period. This is a long-established standard. There's no possibility that rules may change over time, and there's absolutely no flexibility. There is the right way and there is the wrong way. Two spaces is the right way. Period. (space space)
Would you accept "some" or "may" in there somewhere? Otherwise I think we're back to the 100% nature argument that I thought you weren't making...
OMG! IT's happening to you TOO!! IT must be the forum software!! How petty are we going to get here...we've made it to the gutter. Care to try for the sewer?
I appreciate a debate, but I posted this thread wanting to check on some grammar issues first and foremost. Please respect that. There is no need to flame up or be hypercritical of others. This is a place for discussion and working to help one another, not to tear others down or tell them that they are wrong point blank with no other alternatives. If you cannot respect this the please argue elsewhere. I truly appreciate all those who have responded to my thread with the sincerity of helping. The time you put into your answers is invaluable and I thank you for helping me to grow as a writer.
If I were attempting this, I think I'd refer to them as 'The Writer' throughout and use that as their name.
Singular "they" is fine, and has been for a long time: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/06/he-or-she-versus-they/ Next topic.
I tried that appeal to authority way back in post 46 and it was not found compelling. For the OP, though, I think "they" is what makes sense, except if the writer is trying to be subtle about the gender-neutrality. If I read someone using "they" as the singular pronoun (in writing that's otherwise smooth and polished) I assume the writer's goal was to be gender-neutral. If I read "The writer sat in front of their screen and tried to find the right words", I'm going to notice the "their" and wonder what's up. Of course, I would also notice a zheir, a his/her, etc. I think the only way to make this work without having the reader notice the pronouns is to either pick a gendered pronoun and later make it clear that the gender doesn't necessarily match (as was done in the Ancillary Justice series) or to avoid pronouns altogether, which is really hard to do in a natural way.
@BayView not just an appeal to authority, there are examples there going back almost 500 years, and the post recounts empirical evidence on the subject. Those who continue to argue probably just want to argue.
Why does the character have to be gender neutral? I mean unless it's a robot or a transgender or something like that, I don't see the reasoning necessarily.
I have a fantasy blog that I am working on to help smooth out my writing and have another place for those random ideas one gets when writing a book. Writer is not a male or female... well, I did not want to get stuck on those details. Instead I wanted to focus more so on the actions, movements, and descriptions that did not correspond to gender.
I would say it is virtually impossible. One's character traits are, by definition, who they really are. [thinking...reflecting...pondering...surmising...processing...deciding...] Probably, although, deep down, I suspect it happens far more often than we think. But since I have no basis for pegging exactly HOW often, yeah, I'll go with "can", which reflects my belief in an individual to overcome family and societal expectations. Okay? Are we cool with that?
