Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people

RfC regarding MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people
I propose adding the following section to MOS:GENDERID:

MOS:GENDERID currently does not specify how biographies of people who identify as neither male nor female should be handled. I have seen inconsistencies with the use of pronouns on articles of such people; some use singular they, others avoid the use of pronouns and instead refer to the person by name. I have previously edited the Grace Dunham and Zoë Quinn articles, both of whom are people who transitioned from a female identity to a non-binary identity, to avoid the use of pronouns, and was met with silent consensus, indicating that no editor objected to such usage. This proposal avoids the use of pronouns on such articles altogether, which is an appropriate compromise between Wikipedia editors, a demographic affected by WP:Systemic bias and therefore more exposed to gender issues, and many readers who may still find singular they to be hard to follow and/or consider that to be incorrect grammar. Singular they is commonly used when the gender of a person is unknown, but this is not the case with genderqueer people, and the use of singular they to refer to a specific person may come off as unnatural to far more people. f e  minist  14:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support, as proposer. f  e  minist  14:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I dislike singular they, and you can write an article while keeping pronouns to a minimum, you just have to be clever about it, and try to state the person's name in as many different ways as possible. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This would only advise against singular they for articles on individuals who don't identify using he or she, which is a small minority of the biographies we currently have. I see no reason to advise against singular they (which is gender neutral) for these while not doing so for others. We should be consistent when possible. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support makes sense and is not awkward in context. Nice job, feminist! Cheers, Friy Man  talk 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)  (Moved to Oppose)
 * 1) Support It's probably a sign that I listened too well to my English teachers, but I find the singular they more distracting than repeated use of the subject's name (awkward as that is). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See my replies here and here. There is no reason to disallow the use of singular they, which is neutral, in the case of individuals who identify as neither male nor female while allowing not disallowing it in all others [(unless his or her is prescribed as the standard for other articles)]. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that the Manual of Style endorses or recommends the use of the singular they. (Please let me know if I'm mistaken.) Recommending against its use in a very small number of articles doesn't seem problematic to me. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The closest thing to the subject I can find is MOS:GNL, which doesn't cover it. Gender-neutral language, a related essay, states "There is no Wikipedia consensus either for or against the [use of] singular they." — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The version of the Zoë Quinn article that refers each time the person by name sounds a bit bumpy, but the version with they sounds strange and can't be understand without an explanation (which is given in that case by footnote "a"). (This is true at least for me as a non-native speaker being not that informed in the genderqueer discussion in English.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyfal (talk • contribs)
 * A "bit" bumpy: here are some quotes: "Quinn was born in 1987 and spent Quinn's childhood"; "Quinn detailed Quinn's experience"; "Quinn also has a magnetic implant in Quinn's left ring finger". That is extremely clunky. Yes, singular they is explained in a footnote, but in the version you link to, so is the endless repetition of Quinn. BethNaught (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to reduce the endless repetitions and think this version now is not any longer extremely clunky, only somewhat clunky. (Except for the sentence "Quinn says Quinn's therapist..." where I didn't find a solution). Of course my vote for Support assumes that in each affected article, a majority of repetitions can be avoided, but I'm optimistic. (And I apologize for the forgotten signature in my last contribution.) --Cyfal (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is more an example of what happens when someone tries to write pronoun-avoidant language for the first time. You just don't do it that way. "Quinn was born in 1987 and spent Quinn's childhood" is just created by substituting the referent in for the pronoun. Proper pronoun-avoidance would look to surrounding sentences and create Quinn was born in 1987. Growing up in a small town near the Adirondack Mountains in New York, Quinn often played video games. Pronoun avoidance not only avoids using pronouns, but avoids sentence and paragraph structures where a reader would expect a pronoun. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, with the condition that if the grammar sounds too clunky, then use they.  J 947 (c)  04:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support if it can be done naturally. It would be the first choice -- the singular they is a last expedient. I notice Cyfal's latest revision uses it once or twice. But in the example phrase in the RfC "Doe has written many novels and Doe's work has been featured in many publications. " is not ideal -- "Doe has written many novels, and the works have been featured in many publications. " is better.  DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. This will help avoid neologisms. KMF (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. My personal preference is to use pronoun-avoidant language wherever possible. I stridently oppose singular they in articlespace, even if there is some argument that it is "part of English": It is part of vernacular English, and as such is contrary to the spirit if not letter of WP:TONE. Moreover, its use is still the subject of significant controversy in virtually every sphere of academic and professional writing, and our choosing sides in this debate has the potential to decrease our usefulness and credibility to individuals interested in those topics. Part of NPOV, moreover, is the avoidance of adopting a structural point of view: Avoiding taking sides, where possible, by making changes in structure and word choice. Pronoun-avoidant language does this, and its imperfection insofar as creating slightly more awkward language (which frankly only really happens where the writer isn't very experienced at it) does far less to harm our overall quality and usability than either other alternative. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, and English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone who can understand English. Picking sides, even where one side is more affirmative of a person's gender identity, is less preferable to staying neutral and thereby excluding readers. It is no more Wikipedia's business to affirm our subjects than it is to denigrate them. Our purpose is to describe our subjects. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. A particular problem applies here due to the language's inherent sexual designation in pronouns. "They" has the separate problem of suggesting two or more individuals. User:Feminist's proposal is a good one, I think. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support deprecating "singular they", and eliminating it unless footnoted at each use; weak support for the rest of the proposal. (Singular they may have been used for centuries, but not since there has been any attempt to standardize spelling or grammar.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose - "avoid the use of pronouns whenever possible" leads to awkward sentences. I wouldn't oppose a proposal stating singular they should be used in these cases. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 14:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - pronouns are vital to this language. We can't just throw them away! It is better to use singular they, then not using pronouns at all! I would support an RfC for using singular they in genderqueer biographies. Cheers,  Friy Man  talk 16:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with singular they is that it is (still) not widely accepted by readers. Avoiding the use of pronouns is not difficult: just mention the person by name. This still makes for a less jarring reading experience to readers who are not accustomed to the use of singular they. f  e  minist  16:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See my reply to ThePlatypusofDoom above. All the arguments against singular they presented here so far would apply to its use in all biographies, not just in the case of individuals who identify as neither male nor female. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - As mentioned above, this would apply to a very small number of articles. That being said, the singular 'they' still seems to be the best choice for the sake of consistency, until an alternative becomes widely accepted by english speakers (e.g "xe, ze, sie"). bojo  &#124;  talk  19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Xe" is probably objectionable to fewer people than singular they. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: we essentially have a choice between singular they and not using any pronouns. Ultimately this is a style preference, and I prefer singular they. However I would like to rebut the argument that "some readers dislike or are unfamiliar with singular they, therefore we should not use it", on two grounds: 1) endless repetition of the name is also bad style. In a language where the norm is to use pronouns regularly, replacing "he" (or "she") with "they" is arguably less of a jarring deviation from the norm, if it is even considered a deviation, than repeating the name; 2) We already accept that some articles are in British, others in American etc. English. Therefore, some articles will contain spellings, words and grammar unfamiliar to or regarded as wrong by a substantial part of the Anglosphere. Since this change affects only a small number of articles, there is no reason not to apply the same principle—this is an international encyclopedia which may not always conform to your particular dialect. BethNaught (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I point out above, this is a false dichotomy. Proper pronoun avoidance, which is what this proposal articulates, is not marked by writing a sentence with pronouns as you normally might, and merely substituting the referent's name in anywhere a pronoun is found. It is marked by writing from a pronoun-agnostic mindset. Moreover, when done properly, articles so written both sound and flow better. The comparison to ENGVAR is particularly inapt, and moreover is self-defeating. There is no national or regional dialect of English, of which I am aware, in which singular they is uniformly considered acceptable at all levels of writing. Comparing this to the use of "colour" or "color" in dialects of English is simply incorrect: These spellings are considered correct or incorrect whether the writer is a primary schoolchild, someone writing a blog post, an author of textbooks, a newspaper editor, or a legislator. Some outliers exist, of course, but for the most part those outliers were at the pinnacle, the bleeding edge, of language at their time, and would choose other forms as a deliberate rejection of prescriptive norms. This would be completely out of line with Wikipedia's mission, which is to provide an encyclopedia for everyone. We only tolerate ENGVAR, by the way, because we lack a technical means of presenting different dialect variants of articles to different readers as we do with Chinese Wikipedia. There is simply no academic consensus that singular they belongs in our toolbox of pronouns, at least any more than wholly artificial pronouns. Wikipedia is written using a formal, professional tone, and its continued viability depends on this. The fact of the matter is that this proposal is directly aimed at avoiding controversy. The continuous rehashing of the "Singular they is okay!" arguments below only goes to show how seriously we need this kind of practical, commonsense proposal. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This is a maladaptive solution to a problem that is virtually nonexistent. We go with the pronoun that reliable sources use. I oppose the use of "they". Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. These restrictions (speaking of both "no pronouns" and "singular they") would make most or all of the articles to which they would apply either too difficult to read or too grammatically awkward. Possibly even both.  Not to mention, this guideline would just be plain WP:CREEPy.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 01:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (Updated 22:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC).)
 * 3) Oppose If someone has clearly stated what their pronouns are, we shouldn't ignore that and try to work around it just because prescriptivists don't like it. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 15:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. There's no reason to use awkward constructions like "Quinn detailed Quinn's experience". Just use the correct pronouns. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not "Quinn detailed the experience this way"? or "Quinn detailed the experience as follows"? Bus stop (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Repeated use of names is awful and is unacceptable in any dialect of English. Singular "they" is an established feature of some dialects, so is objectionable to fewer readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, with caveats. I'm weighing in as an agender person who prefers singular they pronouns for myself. I believe there does need to be more explicit guidance in MOS:GENDERID for referring to non-binary people, as well as a talk page template equivalent to Template:MOS-TW and Template:MOS-TM (though I have issues with the wording of both of them at present, for some context see my 2016 WikiConference North America presentation). I also understand that some people have difficulty with, or simply object to, the use of singular they for known persons. I support rewriting sentences without using pronouns at all if it's staightforward enough to do so. However, if someone uses "they" for their pronoun then we ought to honor that request, instead of repeating a person's name over and over, which is awkward. Singular they has been in common use for centuries, and its use as a pronoun for known people has been added to major dictionaries. (Note that I also do not consider "genderqueer" to be synonymous with "non-binary", but that's yet another issue, also mentioned in my presentation...) Funcrunch (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Someone can dispute whether gravity exists, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They can similarly dispute whether the singular "they" is appropriate English, but that doesn't mean it isn't conventional in the spoken and written language. The singular "they" remains the best way to go. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose &mdash; The implementation of the genderneutral 'they' has been fairly uncontroversial in multiple articles, and I do not believe there is a real downside to this usage. There is no reason to avoid pronouns altogether when there is a perfectly fine set of pronouns available. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose on precisely the grounds that  states: respect people's choice of their own pronouns. And as  notes, "Singular they has been in common use for centuries". --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per, , and - singular they has a track record of common use and respecting people's choice of their own pronouns is important. That said, the spirit of proposals like this, which aim to add more explicit guidance for referring to non-binary people, is moving in the right direction so thanks for that. Siko (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per and . If the subject's preferred pronouns are they/them/their, there's no good reason not to use them. There may be other situations where pronouns can be just as easily avoided. Since this will apply to a relatively small number of articles, I'd rather be able to address these situations on a case-by-case basis, rather than try to prescribe something broadly and fit the cases into a rule. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - What's wrong with using singular "they"? Kaldari (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - As per Kaldari. The objective is to not introduce gendered language where inappropriate, how that is achieved should be decided by editors. I also see no need for mandating consistency within an article, the name and singular "they" can happily co-exist as far as I'm concerned. Scribolt (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - We have a number of options to avoid gendered pronouns where we think that is desirable, including name, singular they and careful crafting of language. It is editorial choice which to use, and where to use them.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC).


 * 1) Oppose - Of course we should avoid pronouns that misgender people, but it's a huge leap to say that for certain people, the distinctive function of pronouns doesn't apply. Whatever people's personal distastes, singular "they" is part of English, and as others have pointed out, there are other constructions that create elegant prose without ascribing the subject a gender. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Editing can eliminate most of the annoying repetition in a sentence of the person's name. If using he or she would offend someone because they feel genderless or they feel that their gender changes from time to time, and this fact is well known and reliably sourced, then use the occasional singular they in their article when a pronoun makes sense, with a footnote to explain why it is done in the particular article. The singular they was used by such important English writers as Chaucer, Shakespeare, and C.S Lewis, and several influential style guides allow it.  If some reader doesn't like it, then he probably also don't like to see a version of English other than the one in use in his country (British versus US, for instance). Edison (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Chaucer and Shakespeare wrote in Middle English. Lewis may be a relevant data point, but only hardly still—singular they was not in wide use at the time. In present-day, modern English, singular they is the subject of substantial controversy. As I say above, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to resolve academic controversy in favor of one side or the other. We should not adopt a structural point of view like this. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any mainstream linguist familiar with English will tell you that singular they is in widespread use and has been for many years. And Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English, not Middle English. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is tantamount to saying that Wikipedia editors should be permitted to use emoji freely in articles because they are in widespread use. Any mainstream linguist—and I am a linguist, thank you very much, in addition to being an attorney—will tell you that an adherence to descriptivism does not result in dictating that any phrasing, spelling, or word choice that results in the conveyance of intended meaning is thus proper. The entire point of a manual of style is to prescribe style and promote uniformity, and on Wikipedia we adhere to a professional style. Singular they has no place in modern professional writing. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am unimpressed by silly off-topic  strawman statements about emojis, wall of text replies to each  editor who holds a different opinion,  claims that "Singular 'they' is the subject of intense controversy in all varieties of English," and any argument to authority by an anonymous editor that he is a "linguist" and a lawyer. Do you remember Essjay's sad history of falsely claiming that he was a professor, so people had to give way to his intellectual superiority? And don't even start about how people who are old and have a higher education will be offended by use of singular they. I doubt you have the advantage of me either in age or in years of college. I can deal with it. You have said your piece, and repeating the same arguments over and over is pointless. Edison (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you don't care for appeals to authority. I expect that you'll strike the one you make in your disavow the one made in the post above mine in reference to "any mainstream linguist." I think you may also wish to reconsider your projection regarding strawmanning; my criticism is leveled directly at the core of your argument, that we should follow a descriptivist mindset, and therefore should allow singular they because it conveys intended meaning. I pointed out that emoji are used in the same way. There is no principled difference between your argument and my counterpoint. So drop the tired old "You're strawmanning!" line. It rather severely belies the weakness of your reasoning. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. In addition to the many good points mentioned above, avoiding pronouns for genderqueer people only just seems wrong. Why only them? It seems to me that the proposal creates an unintentionally discriminatory double standard. James (talk/contribs) 20:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) (edit conflict) Oppose per arguments by Rich Farmbrough and Edison. There is nothing wrong with the singular they. As has been pointed out, it has a long history of use by many famous writers and is not that difficult to follow. Certainly better than "Joe wrote that Joe's family had always loved Joe, and Joe loved Joe's family back." Yikes. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How about "According to these letters there was mutual love between Joe and Joe's family"? Bus stop (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to using clever wording, I'm just opposed to anything that limits our editorial options rather than expands them. Even if you strike the last portion of my comment, the rest of it still stands. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Here's a radical theory: a gender-neutral pronoun can be used freely regardless of gender because it's gender neutral. There is quite literally no reason whatsoever behind the suggestion that genderqueer people shouldn't be called 'they'. This is basic English. S warm   ♠  20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose basically per BethNaught - the use of singular they is widely considered acceptable and will be a more workable solution in some situations than endlessly repeating the person's name, so I don't think we should be actively discouraging its use.  Hut 8.5  20:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of these points is correct. (1) Singular they is the subject of intense controversy in all varieties of English, and is nowhere near uniformly accepted at the formal level of writing Wikipedia uses. (2) Nobody is proposing that we substitute a person's name for all pronouns referring to that person in an article. Please see my responses above, and Rich Farmbrough's note below. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed the point regarding ENGVAR. It isn't that singular they is recommended by some national variety of English, it is that the differences between national varieties of English attract controversy, just as singular they does. We are able to tolerate people using different national varieties of English, so we should be able to tolerate people using singular they. Usage of singular they isn't uniformly accepted in formal writing, no, but it isn't uniformly discouraged either. It comes down to personal preference. The proposal doesn't forbid the use of pronouns for genderqueer people in all circumstances but it does make them essentially a last resort.  Hut 8.5  21:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of 's points is correct – in my view, which is worth precisely as much or as little as theirs. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR was designed to avoid controversy because the controversy could not be resolved without choosing one or another English variant as correct. This is nothing like that situation, and not merely because we can avoid the controversy with a few simple rewordings here or there. Simply put, this is not the canonical usage within any national variety of English. This is not the canonical usage within any regional variety of English. Singular they is the subject of intense controversy within all forms of professional writing. The assertions throughout this discussion that this problem is resolved by recognizing that there is nothing wrong with using singular they are remarkable for how tone-deaf they are. You might as well go into an ENGVAR situation and tell another editor that he is wrong for wanting to use the spelling "color" because everyone knows the proper spelling is "colour". Except in that case, there is little live controversy. Certainly much less than there is here. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we could avoid a lot of the ENGVAR differences by avoiding the use of words which differ between British and American English, but generally we don't. Trying to do so would doubtless result in writing which sounds rather awkward, as some of the examples cited above of supposed best practice do to me. I'm not saying we should recommend the use of singular they, I'm saying that we should allow it if editors want to use it. I don't see how "this is controversial" leads to "we must avoid this at all costs".  Hut 8.5  06:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per BethNaught. Let people make the choice of how they want to deal with this situation when it comes up. No need for the instruction creep. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, for many reasons. It simply makes no sense to give content writers fewer options rather than more options, especially in a sensitive subject area.  On a practical level, this would result in awkward borderline-nonsensical wording like "Stephen wrote in Stephen's memoirs that Stephen didn't think Stephen's time on Stephen's show was among Stephen's best work."  This would make our genderqueer articles worse than our other articles, and subject them to likely ridicule.  Also, on a philosophical level, while I understand that our articles don't necessarily reflect the beliefs of their subjects, it seems almost malevolent to insist all genderqueer articles must conform to an arbitrary rule, since the concept that there's only one correct way to do something is against the very essence of what genderqueer is all about.  Frankly, this is such a thoroughly misguided idea that I'm a bit surprised it even got to the point of taking a vote. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This proposal does nothing to reduce options, at least not below the level that are available without it in practice—which is to use singular they just about everywhere. Pronoun avoidance is a means of taking the focus off an article subject's pronoun preference and putting the focus on something more substantive, like the humanity of the article subject. I admit, it requires skillful writing to implement correctly, but repeating the same strawman that it reduces articles about genderqueer and non-binary individuals to awkward repetition of their first names is bordering on disruptive. To write articles in the way you suggest would do a great injustice to article subjects. You have misconstrued this proposal, and have greatly underestimated what lowers the credibility of Wikipedia. Requiring higher-quality writing, which is what this proposal effectively does, will not only improve our coverage of genderqueer and non-binary individuals, but will make those articles more accessible to a higher range of readers. People who accept singular they will not notice its departure, while people who do not accept singular they will not stop reading because it annoys them. It will make our editors better writers for the effort it takes. The only "malevolence" here is to require a little extra thinking, which is probably a very good idea if writing about genderqueer and non-binary people requires such sensitivity as you indicate. No, this is actually a proposal aimed at inclusiveness. It is aimed at making articles on genderqueer and non-binary individuals more readable to a wider group of people, which is the entire purpose of a manual of style. If anything, this proposal, which requires our editors to shift focus to the person rather than the pronoun, is highly contrary to the "only one way" philosophy that your counterargument will cause in practice. There is nothing malevolent, let alone insensitive in pushing our editors to use their language skills, thereby encouraging readers to evaluate article subjects by their individual merits, rather than something that is, by definition, a non-content word. It represents a move away from form and towards substance.  Is this the perfect idea? Absolutely not. It will require our volunteers to expend more effort. How one makes the leap from requiring a little more effort out of an article writer to oppressing an article subject is positively beyond me. The rule announced in GENDERID is not and has never been to mandate the use of the referent's preferred pronouns; instead it is not to use pronouns that are incompatible with the referent's announced gender identity. It is far more harmful to the human dignity of our article subjects when we write about them in language a significant segment of the English speaking population finds awkward, or to take it one step farther, one which the majority of English speakers do not understand (such as xe/xer/xerself). Apparently it's entirely possible to rationalize this movement—as argued above, and correctly, a large number of people use singular they in everyday speech. And given the shift towards populist thought in the last year, perhaps it's going to overtake other options sooner than I imagine. But I see no real purpose in hastening the day. It certainly is not within Wikipedia's goals to effect language change. And is absolutely contrary to our goals to write in such a way as to exclude older readers, as well as readers with enough higher education to expect prescriptive rules in everyday reading but without so much education that they have adopted a pure descriptivist mindset. No, I think we should try to write for as many people as we can. That we should focus on subjects of articles as human beings shaped by and interesting for their experiences and accomplishments rather than what box they would tick on a survey. That we should care at least that much for people's dignity. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose as worded. To refer to subjects of articles by surnames repeatedly is clunky at best. Moreover, the proscription against singular they is unwarranted. Like ending sentences with prepositions and using double negatives, it's a natural part of English speech, had been for centuries, even if poo-pooed by prescriptive linguists. If am individual uses they/them, I see no sound reason to not use it. Reader preference should not override self-determination. I understand the desire to avoid neologistic pronouns like xe/xir, but this is too contorted. Reflexivity: the "strong" part of my oppose might come in part from my own experiences with this issue as someone who prefers they/them but if generally okay with any pronouns other than it. I'm sure that colours my view of this, though even considering that, I oppose this proposal.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To say that this overrides self-determination is to say that it's the same as using a person's biological sex rather than gender to determine pronoun choice in articles. That mischaracterizes what is being done here. This is an attempt to strike a balance, to find a compromise, whereby we can still respect article subjects' self-determination but retain the articles' accessibility. It does this by omitting pronouns where possible. And, with all due respect, this is a MOS proposal. It by definition is prescriptive. Arguing that double negatives, sentence-final prepositions, and split infinitives are fine simply because we understand the meaning misses the point entirely. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to educate. Standardization of language and style makes conveying information easier and more predictable. If you wish to propose eliminating the MOS you may wish to start a different RfC. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken on the prescriptive language, but I don't buy the argument that this "retain[s] the articles' accessibility". My comment about prescriptive language was to illustrate that, though singular they is historically prescribed against, it is not unnatural and does not present a meaningful barrier to readers' understanding because it is commonplace and naturally used in English. I can see this argument made with neologistic pronouns (or even old but unused gender neutral pronouns like thon), but not singular they.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for both technical (clunky sentences) and personal (some individuals may specifically prefer to be referred to with the singular 'they') reasons. --NoGhost (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Politically-driven micromanagement of writing style. The governing ethos of WP is WP:IGNORE ALL RULES (use common sense), not WP:RULES FOR EVERYTHING. Guideline creep. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Softlavender and Carrite. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - News articles about nonbinary people such as Asia Kate Dillon use singular they without being confusing or ambiguous, presumably as a result of adhering to guidance such as the AP Stylebook, which advocates for using singular they when pronouns can't be comfortably avoided. Language is shifting, and it will naturally be uncomfortable for people who aren't shifting with it. I'm not saying we should use singular they in situations where it would be confusing or ambiguous, but I don't think we should avoid it as extremely as this proposal suggests. -- Cassolotl   (talk) pronouns: they/them  21:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose: To be fair, I am an advocate for singular they, but whatever your opinion on it, replacing all pronouns with surnames in for nonbinary biographical articles would be exceedingly awkward. Some examples using biographical articles (not nonbinary people, but just as an example) from today's front page with all pronouns changed to surnames:  Jane Gibson: "Gibson died at Gibson's home in Etna on 10 June 2008, aged 83."    Adolf Hitler: "During Hitler's service at headquarters, Hitler pursued Hitler's artwork"     Mohammed Mohiedin Anis: "Anis states that Anis' fascination with classic cars goes back to the 1950 Pontiac that Anis' father drove, and which Anis still owns."     And the best one, Hannibal: "In Hannibal's first few years in Italy, Hannibal won three dramatic victories—the Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae, in which Hannibal distinguished Hannibal for Hannibal's ability to determine Hannibal and Hannibal's opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and to play the battle to Hannibal's strengths and the enemy's weaknesses—and won over many allies of Rome."</ul> Blue Edits (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, that is not what's being advocated by this proposal. The proposal calls for pronoun-avoidance and does not dictate substitution of names for pronouns. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose mainly because it is a clunky suggestion. However, it is an improvement on using "ze", which is the preferred choice of students at today's universities.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hardly; it is the preferred choice of some overeager student unions that hardly reflect on all -- or even most -- students at those universities. One hopes. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as per the comments above. The singular "they" is gender-neutral and appears to be the least awkward solution available for such a sensitive matter. The proposal would lead to extremely awkward sentences. --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose : Singular they: it's not hip anymore, it's standard. There are those who like it and those who don't (I don't, though I use it) but it is correct, to the same extent that anything in English is, absent any central authority on the matter (unlike French, where you can at least refer to the Académie Française as such -- in theory). Articles can and should use whatever construction is most fluid for each individual sentence, no MOS diktat needed. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Attempts to control language should be resisted as antipathetic to Wikipedia's values. Another Rfc of a related nature is under debate here: Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
 * I think you mean RfC,, not AfD.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 04:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I do. Thanks for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC).
 * 1) Oppose as unnecessary artifice until the language itself moulds itself to our needs (rather, as is repeatedly being pushed for in these pages, than we attempt to bend ourselves to it). &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, because I think no rule is required. Improve case by case, but only if an article is difficult to read, as it is. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, Singular "they" is perfectly grammatical. People are entitled to not like it (just like some people don't like split infinitives); but one does not have to meet their ill-founded objections. It's not a good idea to legislate this kind of thing; names and pronouns should be used as appropriate, in context. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, mostly per BethNaught. There's nothing wrong with Singular they, though it does still sound strange. That will pass. The Washington Post has allowed it since 2015; the AP followed suit last month. This proposal moves in the opposite direction. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - unfortunately, English isn't well designed to deal with such people. Any possible use of this proposed policy would make the article awward at best, and quite possibly confusing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I think the prescriptivists are forgetting that language is a human tool, and that if something isn't working, we should be allowed to change it. Sro23 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per, , , et al. Singular they is both standard and proper for some referents. With respect for , contrary to their assertions, referent substitution is the pronoun avoidance technique explicitly endorsed by this proposal: "avoid They… their… and instead use Doe… Doe's…." Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Singular they has been used in other contexts for hundreds of years by respected authors. Singular "they" may be an appropriate pronoun choice in some circumstances and should be allowed rather than forbidden. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. There's no reason to ban the use of singular they, especially if that is what the article subject explicitly wants to be referred to as, which is often the case with genderqueer people. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Singular "they" is perfectly cromulent. the wub "?!"  14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. I support anyone who finds good constructions that avoid the issue. However "they" needs to be acceptable as the (sometimes) best available option to avoid linguistic trainwrecks. A construction like Quin says Quin... is unacceptably unnatural. "Xe" or "ze" might be a future option, but they currently have insufficient usage/acceptance. Concerns have been raised that foreign readers may have trouble, and that some native readers may object. These are reasonable concerns, but unpersuasive given the practical options. Foreign readers might have trouble with anything, and singular-they is common enough English that they will quickly need to face it anyway. Native readers who object are well familiar with the usage, and I suspect that most of them will grudgingly admit that they are on the losing end of actual common usage. Thou shoulde knoweth: "Proper" language is not defined by dead textbooks. Proper language is defined by actual living common usage. Alsee (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Herostratus feels that Herostratus would not comfortable having to write "Herostratus" all the time instead a pronoun, and Herostratus further finds that Herostratus's experience with editors that Herostratus has interacted with, based on what these editors have told Herostratus, is that it is micro-managing to tell editors to use "Herostratus" instead of "they", and Herostratus thinks that makes sense. Herostratus (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
This RFC should have been advertised at WT:MOS. I'll add a note there. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me that this discussion is also relevant to WP:GGTF and WP:LGBT, so I left notes there as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The example of converting Zoe Quinn from "they" to proper noun, incidentally, is not a good one: "Quinn thought a game would be a good way to depict depression, imposing a set of rules on players Quinn might not otherwise experience in Quinn's day-to-day lives." The second and third "Quinn" in this case have replaced plural pronouns referring to players and should be: "Quinn thought a game would be a good way to depict depression, imposing a set of rules on players they might not otherwise experience in their day-to-day lives."

Similarly "their collaboration" has become "Quinn's collboration".

This example does not, of course, vitiate the proposal, but it is perhaps a warning not to get carried away. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC).


 * There's no neutral section so I'll just comment here. I think both use of surname and use of singular "they" can sound terribly awkward and clunky – but there's no other option (other than non-standard "xe", "ze" etc. which are not well-known enough to use). With Quinn specifically, she has said "I don’t ever want to have the pronouns conversation because I feel equally apathetic to being called “he” or “she” so I guess if you just want to be accurate go for “they” but I won’t be offended by any." (source), so I'm not sure this proposal matters too much for the article Zoë Quinn. As for articles on other non-binary people I can see the benefits of this proposal but I can also see the benefits of allowing singular "they". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good example of a situation where you can just follow whatever sources use. Same goes with Jack Monroe (who I still really need to edit, I might do that now): In these kinds of situations, genderneutral pronouns aren't really relevant. I'm more interested in the people who actively pursue genderneutral pronouns. ~ Mable  ( chat ) 09:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This is heading towards a snow close, it seems. Is someone willing to close it?  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 15:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are ways to rewrite it so we're not repeating "Doe" over and over while still avoiding pronouns, and this option seems to have been ignored. For instance, in the example above, we could say "Doe has written many novels and has had work featured in many publications." Sounds less awkward, though it requires more work. Smartyllama (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)