What do you think about "it"?

[Eddie the head]

"It" is reserved for objects rather than beings, you can probably get away with referring to an animal as it unless they are someone's pet, but don't be surprised if people are offended if you describe them or their kid as it, since you are effectively calling that person an object.

I've always thought this kind of thinking was funny. When you boil it down humans are an object. We have a complex nervous system, but that doesn't make us not physical objects. I'm not saying this for any sort of political or social reason I just think it's funny. I mean I understand that human life has value to us because we are human, but I do find funny the metal gymnastics people go though to say we are something other then just complex chemistry. Having said that. . .

Yeah it's kind of not a good idea to call children an "it" Like I said human life has value because we are human. Saying it sounds like you're calling "it" not a human.

 

[visiblenoise]

The only things you're going to call "it" are things that don't gain or lose anything from the disrespect some anal retentive listener perceives. Besides, there are a million more effective options if you really did intend to convey disrespect. I say it doesn't matter.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

However they should only be used as a singular pronoun in which the subject is already shown to be singular in the sentence itself or immediately previous in the conversation. Otherwise, he, she, or a proper noun should be used.

I have no qualms with using more specific pronouns than "they", as long as their use is correct. Also, in the context of the OP it is already established that the baby, animal etc. is singular.

Current convention among sci-fi authors not overly enamored with the singular they is to default to the gender of the speaker, which is a perfectly sensible position and completely avoids all the they idiocy.

The whole point of this conversation is which pronouns are suitable when the gender is not known, so I don't see how this is relevant.

That is true, but in the same way "it" can be used to describe a person. If we're talking about the best way to describe a person, "they" isn't necessarily better.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime's post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.932548.23468927] provides a good situation where "they" is better than "it". I have yet to hear of a situation where it is better to refer to a person as "it" than "they".

 

[Something Amyss]

'They' is just as bad as 'it', if not worse because it is plural.

Why is implying someone is more than one person as bad as implying they're inanimate?

I tend to use "they" myself. I'd prefer gender neutrality to technical correctness.

Just pointing out that "they" does have a history of being a singular nondescript pronoun in the English language.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've always thought this kind of thinking was funny. When you boil it down humans are an object. We have a complex nervous system, but that doesn't make us not physical objects.

Yeah, do you also think that buying and selling human beings is cool? Seems the same line of reasoning here would allow it.

 

[silverhawk100]

There are gender neutral pronouns, but they haven't widely caught on in most of the West.

In the East they are widely used?

Also, no there aren't gender neutral pronouns, it is a flaw of the English language. What there are are people who think they can engineer language, a natural and societal organism (sorry, English purists, literally literally means 'exaggeratedly figuratively' these days).

 

[JoJo]

"It" is reserved for objects rather than beings, you can probably get away with referring to an animal as it unless they are someone's pet, but don't be surprised if people are offended if you describe them or their kid as it, since you are effectively calling that person an object.

I've always thought this kind of thinking was funny. When you boil it down humans are an object. We have a complex nervous system, but that doesn't make us not physical objects. I'm not saying this for any sort of political or social reason I just think it's funny. I mean I understand that human life has value to us because we are human, but I do find funny the metal gymnastics people go though to say we are something other then just complex chemistry. Having said that. . .

Yeah it's kind of not a good idea to call children an "it" Like I said human life has value because we are human. Saying it sounds like you're calling "it" not a human.

Though, the concept of an object is a human-created one, there's no inherent objectness found in nature you can measure with stick. If you want to get really reductionist, the entire universe is just a complex arrangement of energy governed by a few rules and maybe some chance thrown in. That perspective can be useful in physics or philosophical thought, not so much when we're describing day-to-day life :-D

If we are to accept people who do not identify their gender to match the sex they are born with, should we not also accept the people who use pronouns in terms of sex rather than gender?

I don't think a core part of a person's identity (gender) is really comparable with a preference in how you address other people. It's simple politeness to use the gender pronoun a person wishes you to use, of course being a free country you're free not to be polite, as long as you accept that the other person is equally free to use their freedom of speech to be call you out for that choice.

 

[Qizx]

As a Spanish speaker I don't have that problem, since there's no direct equivalent of 'it'.
Masculine or feminine pronouns are a thing though. For example, "I'm looking for it" can be either "Lo estoy buscando" or "La estoy buscando", depending on the (painfully arbitrary) gender of the subject. Phones are male, cell phones are female. Books are male, bookstores are female. Houses are female, homes are male. And so on.
In English though? I'll "it" animals and babies all the time.

I feel your pain buddy, German here and we also have our absurd masculine and feminine pronouns. It's something that as I learn other languages just confuses me more.

As for the topic? I'll use "it" sometimes, but I will generally try to avoid it... Damn it I said it... I said the word again! (I honestly didn't even intend to start a Monty Python reference it just happened.

 

[Eddie the head]

Though, the concept of an object is a human-created one, there's no inherent objectness found in nature you can measure with stick. If you want to get really reductionist, the entire universe is just a complex arrangement of energy governed by a few rules and maybe some chance thrown in. That perspective can be useful in physics or philosophical thought, not so much when we're describing day-to-day life :-D

Yeah I know that's why I said It's probably not a good idea to anyone an "it." I just think it's funny to think about things that way sometimes. I'm not trying to make a point about how things should be or anything. Not that your reply come across as really doing that but. . . .

I've always thought this kind of thinking was funny. When you boil it down humans are an object. We have a complex nervous system, but that doesn't make us not physical objects.

Yeah, do you also think that buying and selling human beings is cool? Seems the same line of reasoning here would allow it.

Quit disingenuously quote mining people.

 

[K12]

There really needs to be a gender neutral pronoun for people (Shklim/ Shkler?). It's a real pain in the arse writing about a hypothetical or unknown person. Writing a job description and having to use "the candidate" all the damn time or writing up information on an anonymous contact can be made needlessly clunky and unnatural sounding. You can barely ever get away with using "it" when referring to a baby let alone an adult. I end up using "they" all the time which can sometimes end up sounding ambiguous.

It's very hard to get wide spread adoption of a new common grammatical things. It's not like "selfie" or "clickbait" which describe new things.

 

[Something Amyss]

Quit disingenuously quote mining people.

I haven't started. The full context of your post changes nothing about my question. You said you understood why, and then went on to demonstrate you didn't by calling it mental gymnastics.

 

[Eddie the head]

Quit disingenuously quote mining people.

I haven't started. The full context of your post changes nothing about my question. You said you understood why, and then went on to demonstrate you didn't by calling it mental gymnastics.

It's basically all I ever see you do to be honest. But here.

I'm not saying this for any sort of political or social reason I just think it's funny.

A passing thought. Nothing to do with policy or how society should be. A causal observation of what is. By any reasonable definition of object, humans are objects.

I mean I understand that human life has value to us because we are human, but I do find funny the metal gymnastics people go though to say we are something other then just complex chemistry.

We value things that are more like "us." We want those things treated with dignity because they're like "us," and we want to be treated with dignity. People take it as offensive when you say we are like everything else. They think it means we shouldn't treat them with dignity. Like JoJo pointed out it's really just a passing reductionist thought.

I mean all I really need to point out here is that JoJo took it as the idle thought that it was. If you took something more form it, then the problem is with you.

 

[McElroy]

I'm Finnish. I win by default.

(as most people probably know already, Finnish has no gendered pronouns, and thus replacing "s/he" with "it" in informal speech is completely acceptable and common)

In English though, I've actually accustomed to using 'they' when I don't know the person's gender (or that gender is irrelevant). Before I think that I simply used 'he' if nothing implied otherwise.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

It's a cat, it doesn't care how do you call it.

Same can be applied to babies, unless their parents are around.

Spoiler: Then again

 

[Something Amyss]

It's basically all I ever see you do to be honest.

Then perhaps you've mistake quote mining for something else. I guess, though, that further discourse is fruitless, if anything I do is going to be written off as quote mining.

For the record, your post is very much sourced and can reasonably be read. Responding only to the relevant (although likely hyperbolic) claim is not quote mining. And I already explained the last one, which you seem to have deliberately ignored.

 

[Creator002]

I do it all the time. My cousin recently had a daughter and I can't stop saying "it" when referring to her. It's actually easier just not to talk around his wife about the baby.
I don't see anything wrong with it personally. If there's a pronoun a person prefers to be called by (for example, I prefer he[footnote]I'm cis white male scum. [/footnote]), I'll just use that pronoun. If it's a baby or animal or some other life form/object that doesn't really know or care what its gender is, I'll say "it" unless there's a reason not to.
If only them European languages could get with the program. It'd make learning nouns a bit easier (I'm looking at you, German!).

 

[CaitSeith]

I always use it for objects and animals (unless the animal owner asks me otherwise). After all, they don't mind.

 

[CaitSeith]

It's basically all I ever see you do to be honest.

Then perhaps you've mistake quote mining for something else. I guess, though, that further discourse is fruitless, if anything I do is going to be written off as quote mining.

For the record, your post is very much sourced and can reasonably be read. Responding only to the relevant (although likely hyperbolic) claim is not quote mining. And I already explained the last one, which you seem to have deliberately ignored.

Someone once called this "putting words in someone else's mouth". I'm not sure if it applies in this case, but it was pretty similar. What do you think?

 

[Lieju]

I'm Finnish, and we use 'it' or the Finnish equivalent to refer to humans all the time. It's the casual way to refer to people generally.
But in English, it can be dehumanizing. Depends on the context though but generally it's not something I'd use.

 

[Jute88]

I'm Finnish, and we use 'it' or the Finnish equivalent to refer to humans all the time. It's the casual way to refer to people generally.
But in English, it can be dehumanizing. Depends on the context though but generally it's not something I'd use.

Fellow Finn here. I agree with you with "it" in Finnish, though apparently older people don't approve of it that much.