gender-free

A pronoun is a word which refers to an object without naming it. This page is interested in looking at third person pronouns with the hope of finding some gender-free alternatives to the singular animates 'he' and 'she'.

In the english language there are a number of accepted third person pronouns for example:

As 'it' is inanimate and 'they' is plural, when refering to an animate object (person or animal) in the third person using the english language we are forced to classify the subject in terms of their sex/gender and then state that gender. For a number of reasons an increasingly large group of people are looking for an alternative animate third person pronoun which is free of gender. The motivations are many and varied but in essence they believe that it's not always possible to gender a person and, perhaps more importantly, that it is desirable to only make reference to characteristics in other people when they are absolutely relevant to the information being conveyed. These people see an unnecessary reference to the gender of a person no different to superfluously refering to their religion or social class; it is an invitation for the other person to think of them differently. The implication is that a man doing something is in some way inherently different to the same task performed by a woman.

Ideally a gender-free pronoun set will fulfill a certain set of criteria. Primarily we should consider essential criteria, these must be met in order for a pronoun set to qualify as gender-free. A gender-free pronoun set must have no obviously gendered linguistic root, be it from this language or borrowed from, or influenced by, another. A gender-free pronoun must be applicable to all people rather than generally being used to only refer to one specific group. Regardless of whether this group is something which is conventionally considered a gender, if use of the pronoun implies something about the person in question then it may not be considered gender-free. Once a pronoun set qualifies as gender-free there are a number of desirable criteria which may be used to rate it against others. Our pronouns should be just one syllable long and easily pronounced. The set should be intuitive and easy to remember, this is helped if the set has some kind of internal logic. The set should be interchangable with the existing singular animate third person pronouns. Using our pronouns should not require rewording or restructuring of the rest of the sentance. Each of the pronouns in the set should be unique from each other while still appearing connected (we are only interested in making the gender of our subject ambiguous not anything else). It should be obvious where each pronoun in the set fits, this can be helped by the pronoun set having some kind of non-gendered linguistic root. Ideally our pronouns should be recognisable as pronouns. Our chosen gender-free pronoun set should meet as many desired criteria as possible. With this in mind we will now move on to an examination of the most currently popular and well known gender-free and potentially gender-free pronouns.

Singular They

The singular they has the benefit of using words already in the language (themself being the exception) and of being an accepted method of making an animate third person reference under some circumstances. However both of these apparent advantages are also serious disadvantages. Using words already accepted as plurals leads to ambiguity. It is desirable to have distinctly singular words rather than those which may be mistakenly interpreted as a plural. Words which are accepted as and expected to be plurals do not sit right in sentances where all other words are singular. 'They' seems to beg to be paired with 'were' rather than 'was'. A desirable characteristic of our gender-free pronouns is that they should be interchangable with the masculine and feminine pronouns and not require any other sentance restructuring. By contradicting current usage of the words we are producing a gender-free pronoun that will be extremely unintuitive to those wishing to adapt their speech to use it. The most frequent mistake I have observed in novice users of the singular they is mixed use of 'were' and 'was' and other confusions with pluralisation. Finally the singular they is only currently accepted when used to refer to an unnamed individual or an individual who is part of an organisation. "I talked to the bank and they said it might be possible." This limited acceptance actually works against us when we try to extend it to cover named individuals. This may be worked past with time and repeated use but to those unfamiliar with our usage it will seem as if we are tying our tongues in knots.

"My friend Jay said that they would be happy to help. In fact they was so pleased their face lit up and I hugged them."

Spivak Varient

I will begin by saying that this is my personal preference and my experience of using it in text and (to a limited degree) in speech has been very favourable. I call this set the Spivak varient because it is based on the pronoun set used by Michael Spivak in the book The Joy of TeX. The main difference between this and Spivak's set is that the subject has been changed from 'e' back to 'ey'. I say 'back to' because this set derived from the singular they (the 'th' has simply been removed from each word). By being based on an existing and semi-accepted gender-free pronoun in the english language the Spivak varient gains many of the advantages of the singular they. However by adjusting the original set in order to create new (but easily pronounced and natural sounding) words we overcome many of the disadvantages of duality, ambiguity and limitations of acceptance produced by the original set. There is a minor disadvantage that the 'em' sounds somewhat similar to 'him' however this is not due to the pronoun set being based on 'him' (a crime many of the others are guilty of but with 'she'/'her') and is overruled (in my opinion) by the fact that the pronoun genuinely is derived from a gender-free root (unlike many of the others appear to be). The Spivak and it's varients have been in use since approximately 1975. They have been used in at least one published book with a subject other than gender or linguistics. Many internet based social groups use them (although not always as their first preference) or are at least aware of their existance. The Spivak varient is this author's personal preference at this time.

"My friend Jay said that ey would be happy to help. In fact ey was so pleased eir face lit up and I hugged em."

Ze/hir

At this time I would estimate that this is the most commonly used non-gendered pronoun in 'gender varient' space. It is routinely used in forums such as the Sphere mailing list and throughout Kate Bornstein's My Gender Workbook. It has grown out of the two previously popular gender-free pronoun attempts below and attempted to overcome their limitations to some degree of success. Ze/hir is no longer obviously based on the feminine pronouns and not quite so easily rhymed with 'See here'. I would say that the 'z' sound is still ugly but less so now coupled with just one vowel. Unfortunately it has now developed the unfortunate quality of causing the speaker's speech to resemble some cross between the comedy english speaking 'French' characters from such films and television series as 'The Pink Panther', 'Allo Allo' and the cartoons of 'Pepe Le Pew' and the German accents of english language second world war films. Some people, most notably the usenet group alt.support.intergendered, replace 'ze' with 'xe'. This doesn't really change the pronounciation at all but may be more asethetically pleasing.

I would suggest that the most serious limitation of the Ze/hir pair is that gradually over time its meaning on the forums in which it is generally used has mutated into something quite different to its original intention. While Ze/hir may have been originally intended as a means of refering to a person without stating their gender it has since through common usage shifted to being a way of refering to a person who identifies as some 'third gendered' identity (while referring to all other people with either 'he' or 'she'). In effect Ze/hir is now the third gendered pronoun. To call a person 'ze' is to say that they identify as bi-, trans-, third-, poly-, other- or non-gendered. Ze/hir is not a gender-free pronoun. It has become the gendered pronoun of people who are gendered in a way which transcends the conventional binary gender system. I am not suggesting that this is in any way a negative thing. I'm sure for people who wish to maintain gendered pronouns having a gendered pronoun for people who don't fit male or female is very useful. However our stated aim is to find a gender-free pronoun set and to use it as a method of removing unneccesary gendering from our minds and language. With this in mind a third-gendered pronoun set is useless to us. For a truly gender-free pronoun to be successful it must be adopted and used for all people otherwise it will simply become another alternative 'third gendered' pronoun.

"My friend Jay said that ze would be happy to help. In fact ze was so pleased hir face lit up and I hugged hir."

Sie/hir

Pre-dating both the above and below Sie/hir was one of the first gender-free pronoun sets to be adopted on the internet. While having the benefit of being interchangable with the current third person animate pronouns it is also rather obviously derived from the female pronouns (they've simply replaced the middle letter of each with an 'i') and therefore has a slightly dubious claim to being 'gender-free'. I would suggest that any pronoun set obviously based on just one or the other gendered pronouns should be skipped over as a nice try that didn't really make it. The next most obvious problem is that they they sound like existing english words. 'Sie' rhymes with 'see' or 'sigh', 'hir' rhymes with 'hear' and 'here'. These words are far too common in the language to be ignored. Using Sie/hir will be confusing. In the defence of 'sie' I will say that it is supposedly derived from the german 'sie' meaning both 'they' and 'she'. However this is still in my mind derivation from a feminine root (note that the german 'sie' is not also equivalent to 'he').

"My friend Jay said that sie would be happy to help. In fact sie was so pleased hir face lit up and I hugged hir."

Zie/zir

Taking Sie/hir away from it's obvious feminine roots and (supposedly) making the pronounciation sound more german, Zie/zir is a valient attempt. However it falls short of our ideal by being fustratingly difficult to pronounce and feeling entirely alien to the rest of the english language. As the (unfortunately out of date) Gender Neutral Pronoun FAQ points out there are many magnitudes more english words beginning with 'e' than there are beginning with 'z'. There's a very good reason for that, people just don't like them. A 'z' followed by two different vowels is just one tongue tie too far for the average english speaker. Some attempts at alternative pronounciations have been made. Some say try placing an implied 't' to the start and pronouncing it as you would with the russian 'tzar'. I say give up. If a gender-free pronoun is to succeed outside of the internet and the written word it has to be easy and natural to say. Zie/zir is not.

"My friend Jay said that zie would be happy to help. In fact zie was so pleased zir face lit up and I hugged zir."

The Unviables

These are put together in the same place because I do not consider them to be viable gender-free pronouns but are often cited by others during gender-free pronoun discussions.

The animate it may seem to have some of the same benefits as the singular they however, while not only having all the ambiguity problems of singular they, it is also intensely emotive to many people. When someone is emotionally abused often the first thing that is stripped from them is the right to be treated as animate. By being referred to as an inanimate people will feel they are reduced to valueless objects. This is not acceptable when referring to others. Some individuals may wish to 'reclaim' 'it', maybe as a form of rebellion against a society which inflicts the binary gender system upon them, but for reference to unconcenting people the emotive power of 'it' should not be underestimated.

Non-gender-specific He is dragged out by certain linguistic purists when it is stated that there is no gender non-specific third person pronoun in the english language. It is often used in arguement against singular they or 'he/she'. 'He' is not a gender-free pronoun. It only works in situations where we are discussing a hypothetical person (it is accepted in the same situations singular they is currently allowed). As soon as the person in question is named we are very obviously suggesting that they are a man. "Sandra said he could spare some of his time." The female suggestion of the name coupled with the male pronoun leads us to assume Sandra was talking about someone else. Non-gender-specific He is very ambiguous indeed and just does not work in modern english.

'He or she' is often used as a polite alternative to the acceptable use of singular they. This is not only ugly, difficult and long winded to pronounce and useless when referring to a named person but it also makes the rather presumptious assertion that the person in question would be either a male or a female if only they'd tell us. All I can say is 'yuck' and the same goes to 'S/he' and all other varients.

'One' is often suggested as a gender-free or gender non-specific pronoun when discussions on this subject arise. The arguement is that it is an already accepted part of the english language. These suggestions imply that the person involved does not quite understand how gender-free pronouns are intended to be used. 'One' is again only usable when the person in question is hypothetical. As soon as the person is named the whole sentance falls to pieces.

Per was used in 1972 in Marge Piercy's book Woman on the Edge of Time. It is a shortening of 'person'. I am afraid I find myself dismissing it because it not only repeats (which I think makes the meaning ambiguous when we only wish to make gender ambiguous) but is also difficult and unnatural to pronounce. Previously to Per a small group of people experimented with 'person'. Frankly when your pronouns get more than one syllable long you might as well be using the person's name.

"My friend Jay said that it would be happy to help. In fact it was so pleased its face lit up and I hugged it."
"My friend Jay said that he would be happy to help. In fact he was so pleased his face lit up and I hugged him."
"My friend Jay said that he/she would be happy to help. In fact he/she was so pleased his/her face lit up and I hugged him/her."
"My friend Jay said that one would be happy to help. In fact one was so pleased ones face lit up and I hugged one."
"My friend Jay said that per would be happy to help. In fact per was so pleased per face lit up and I hugged per."

Conclusions, December 2001

While Ze/hir is the most commonly used non-gender pronoun, I would suggest that it can no longer claim to be gender-free. Of the currently available crop, I suggest that the Spivak Variant is the most viable and most desirable. At this point we need to decide if our Spivak Variant is good enough or if we should produce our own superior gender-free pronoun set building on some of the criticisms raised both here and elsewhere. Whatever pronoun set we do eventually adopt it is important that the adoptees use it to refer to all people and not just those living 'gender variant lifestyles'. If we fail to do this then any gender-free pronoun set will quickly become yet another third gendered pronoun.

Revisited, July 2003

Gender-Free Pronouns in Practice

Since writing this article in December 2001, my perspective on gender-free language has shifted slightly. At the time of writing I had very little experience of how the use of gender-free pronouns would work practically, in terms of how easy they were to use and how other people react to them. Since then I've followed more than one online journal whose author solely used gender-free pronouns, I've also kept my own online journal which instead refrained from both gendered language and pronouns and from neologistic gender-free pronouns.

I've noticed that readers of gender-free pronoun using journals tended to report how interesting it was, what a novelty it was or how it made them realise how much they, perhaps subconsciously, needed gendered pronouns or gender information, often reporting that they felt somehow uncomfortable. In contrast, it was extremely rare that readers of my journal even noticed that I was never referring to anyone's gender except in the rare situations where it was relevant. This has led me to the conclusion that currently the use of gender-free pronouns is something of a statement, a kind of linguistic 'mindfuck'. Use of neologistic gender-free pronouns makes people explicitly aware are that they are reading gender-free language, this often results in them thinking more about gender rather than less.

During this time I also followed a journal which used gender-free pronouns exclusively but which otherwise used huge amounts of gendered language. It was not unusual to see someone introduced with a gendered title such as 'stewardess' or referred to as a 'bloke', 'lady' or 'girl' in the course of the description, even though this information wasn't specifically relevant.

Given these experiences, I've come to the conclusion that gender-free language in general is more important than promoting gender-free pronouns. In many circumstances, unless one is trying to make an explicit statement about being gender-free, it may be preferable to simply avoid pronouns. Even if one chooses to adopt gender-free pronouns, it is important to adopt gender-free language in general first. If one uses gender-free pronouns but otherwise makes casual use of gendered descriptive words and titles, the effect is either counter-acted or worse, gender-free pronouns are made to look ridiculous or pointless.

Memevector Pronouns

As a result of this essay and my call to develop a superior gender-free pronoun, Jennifer Moore has attempted to devise a pronoun set which functions as gender-free, but is also a practical in a number of ways that existing options fall short on. As a singer songwriter, Jennifer took into account how pronouns sound and how they're often shortened when used conversationally. Many of the pronoun sets above are distinctive when written but, once spoken out loud, begin to sound too much like other existing pronouns.

Jennifer explains that the 'z' sound was added to a Spivak pronoun base in order to allow the pronouns to be distinctive when shortened during casual speech, while maintaining the benefits of having an existing non-gendered linguistic root. Personally, I still find the 'z' sound difficult to pronounce comfortably, but I accept Jennifer's arguments. Perhaps the next development will be a pronoun set which manages to be distinctive when shortened during casual use, while avoiding the almost inevitable 'z'.

"My friend Jay said that ze would be happy to help. In fact ze was so pleased zeir face lit up and I hugged em."

Lipreading

During the course of the discussion resulting from this essay and others' replies to it, it was mentioned that those who rely on lipreading in face to face communication may have specific problems with gender-free pronouns. It was reported that neologisms significantly disrupt lipreading patterns and cause confusion when the listener relies on a limited amount of audio information coupled with lip shapes. With this in mind, it might be desirable to first announce to known lip readers that you'll be using neologistic pronouns and explain what the words are and what they mean. We should also ensure that both the sounds and lip shapes of our pronouns are not confusable with existing pronouns. It is not acceptable to allow our pronouns to be only unique in sound or only in lip shape, as this would cause unnecessary confusion. It is clear that future designers of practical gender-free pronouns will need to consult with lip readers to ensure that these ideals are met.