English formally has no pronoun for referring to an unknown number of people or a single person whose gender is unknown.
We do this every day in practice, though puritanical grammarians shiver in revulsion. Eg:
Knock knock.
Person 1: Who's at the door?
Person 2: I don't know, but I see a car out front.
Person 1: Go see what they want.
"They" can be he, she, or combinations thereof.
I find this use perfectly acceptable in spoken and informal written English, but if you're accustomed to listening for it, you can't stop hearing it, and it becomes like aural diverticulitis.
There are many (poor) alternative, like he/she, she/he, s/he, pluralizing the subject and verb, or worse, choosing a gender and sticking with it, which often sounds like a political statement more than grammatical agreement.
I was recently however able to skirt this issue myself, which I like to do if I can (and if I can't, I don't worry).
This is from my recent post here 
:
Before
The distinction between the religious and nonreligious (or irreligious or atheist or progressive or skeptical - any will serve, it depends on the person identifying themself this way) can be illustrated by a few broad examples.
After
The distinction between the religious and nonreligious (or irreligious or atheist or progressive or skeptical - any will serve, it depends on the person claiming the title) can be illustrated by a few broad examples.
I could have pluralized both ("it depends on the people identifying themselves this way"), but that sets up a plural agreement I didn't want to maintain if I needed to continue talking about "them"; and since skeptics probably more than any other group don't want to be identified with a group, a grammatical solution is the wrong solution.
(Now look what I went and did, I generalized about skeptics to illustrate why I didn't want to generalize about skeptics.)
[1]
An incidental footnote with no referent - that means there is no [1] above:
While listening to atheist talk on WPRR 
recently, I was struck by how sympathetic I am to civil discourse on both sides, and how often I want to take the other side regardless of which side I'm listening to.
That is, when listening to Christian theology, I am always thinking of how I disagree, and the same is true if I'm listening to the atheist/skeptic, especially if those sides are making fun of the other, which is all too common. (Probably says something about my Judeo-Christian dichotomous mindset )
As I mentioned to an old college roommate this weekend (Mark Jorristma, who looks great and brought his terrific and talented son along), I said I want to be able to worship in a conservative community while having the flexibility to disagree.
(I find I'm less comfortable being conservative among progressives than vice versa; not because progressives are especially mean, but because my religious roots are conservative and I'm more comfortable and able to handle discussion among conservatives. Since I worship nowhere, but serve rather as a Sunday taxi for my family, I suppose these are just mental gymnastics at this point.)
As much as I want to feel and say I'm comfortable believing what I will, I still feel like I don't belong to either side; I am part of a progressive diaspora that entertains ideas across a wide spectrum, but is not welcome at any one place across it.
And yes, there's a very real and unhappy emotional component to this, like being the only one not invited to a party.
There are some personalities and forums with which I am thoroughly at home, because it's all about inquiry, not the shortcomings of the other guy. One of my favorites: Brian Dunning, http://skeptoid.com/ 
Current reading/listening; a little lopsided, adding more science soon; Evolution of God so far seems to echo sentiments I’m already inclined toward, but refreshing to hear someone saying some of the same things I am already thinking and also saying these ideas may be insufficient. I love that moment where I learn I may learn something new.
Started: 2012-04-12
No comments:
Post a Comment