What they say

The biggest story in the news since last week has revolved around President Obama's answer to a question about the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates. You've heard the sound bite where he says "the Cambridge Police acted stupidly." Whether you watched the press conference or not, that clip has been everywhere.

However, I'm not here to talk about that part of the sentence.

The word "stupidly" was not the end of that line; Obama continued, "...in arresting somebody when there was already proof they were in their own home."

Our topic today is not what you think it is.

~

At lunch the other day I was reading an article in Vanity Fair about the changing nature of "the American Dream" over time.

In the article the writer included some quotes from the past. From the 1931 book by the man who coined the phrase "the American Dream," James Truslow Adams, came this line about the Puritans: "[Their] migration... was one in which the common man as well as the leader was hoping for greater freedom and happiness for himself and his children."

~

Notice the difference between the two?

It's the pronouns when referring to a generalized, non-specific individual.

~

The quote from Adams revealed a bit about the common usage in past generations, where the male specific pronoun stood for both sexes if the person being referenced could be either. (Although, in that context, the leader almost certainly was a man, so to say "himself" and "his" would be applying to a male, but let's not dwell on that.)

These days, the same quotes would be phrased differently, as exemplified by the pronouns chosen by the president. Sexual equality is different. Politically correct or not, to have the male pronoun stand for both is sexist. And these days we're adept enough to want to avoid that, which is why the singular "somebody" gets paired with the plural "they" and "their," even though those are referring to one individual. (And, interestingly, it was known in this case that the "somebody" was male, and thus "he" and "his" could have been used without being sexist, but again, let's not dwell on that.)

~

When speaking of an individual in a gender-neutral context, proper usage would dictate that what should be done in such scenarios is to say "he or she" or "him or her" (in some acknowledgment of both sexes), but let's face it: that's awkward; it inserts extra syllables; it forces one to think ahead about whether the referenced individual could be to either sex.

As contemporary English has not invented a new pronoun to represent an individual who could be either one, to keep up with the changing mores, the common usage has taken to using "they" or "them" instead of "he or she" or "him or her." Obviously they and them are plural pronouns, referring to more than one person, so to say (for example) "If anyone wants that last piece of cake they can have it" creates an inconsistency. However, it does allow for an easier reference than proper usage would allow. Right or wrong, it's simpler. And common usage always operates to make things simpler.

However, it's still grammatically incorrect. "They" and "them" still mean something in their traditional usage, so it's not really good to turn them into pronouns that can be both singular and plural. But they are in the contemporary lexicon (and yes, use of the "singular they" does have historical precedents going back centuries, but not to the extent we see today), and I don't think even if a new term were concocted that it would supplant they/them for this purpose.

That much I can accept, at least certainly for casual or extemporaneous use. Still, even I have my limits.

~

A pillar of modern populist communication (for better or for worse) is Facebook. That social networking site issues alerts when a friend (or "friend") has "tagged" a photo you posted, identifying him- or herself in it. Yes, I'm being traditional in my pronoun choice, and here's why. In the alert message from the site, the wording that is used is a follows:

"[Friend's name] tagged themself in your photo." Then there's a hyperlink to the photo in question.

"Themself."

Again, I concede that use of they as a non-gender specific singular pronoun has become common in contemporary English. However, the use of that in a reflexive context like that, it looks really wrong.

I grant that it gets used, and there's a certain internal consistency of using it along with the singular they but... egad. (Unlike they and their, etc., themself is flagged as misspelled by every program out there. Computers still don't acknowledge that as correct in any context.)

So I propose this compromise: "They" and "them" resume their plurality of meaning, so that we don't have to run into the hideous contradiction that is "themself." When the gender of the person is unknown, the number of persons will become unknown as well, and assumed to be indeterminate. (That's what Wikipedia says. And to the extent that anything there is to be trusted, we'll pretend that supports my thesis.) Thus, "themselves" will always be the reflexive form and contemporary common usage will match proper usage grammatically.

It may not make anything clearer, but let's give up on that pipedream. Language ceased to be about clear communication a long time ago.

There's no hope for those Facebook messages, as "[Friend's name] tagged themselves..." will still look awkward. Of course, the site should know the sex of the person in question, so the code should be able to include the gender-specific pronoun. That, or the site needs to stop thinking that members need to be alerted altogether.

~

Sure, the novelty of Facebook will wear off in a few years and people will move on to the next trend, so I need only wait it out. However, I can lay the seeds now for what sort of gender-neutral terminology will be employed by those who are almost certainly working on whatever will supplant it.

Whoever you are, please remember: No "themself." Do whatever is necessary to avoid that at all costs.

Now I just need to figure out how to make sure the president eschews "themself" in his speeches and press conference answers. Were he to do that it would only serve to cement its use, and that would be... acting stupidly.