"Ladies and gentlemen"

[DynamicSpirit]

"They" is very rarely ambiguous because it is almost always contextual. It's been used as a pronoun for unknown or ambiguous gendered subjects for a very long time!

But that usage was a bit different. They has for a long time been used in the singular but generally only to indicate an unknown person, and generally in contexts where it was unlikely to cause confusion, with something like 'he or she' substituted if using 'they' was likely to cause confusion. 'They' was (quite rightly) not generally used to refer to people whose identities are known (other than very occasionally if you didn't know enough about the person to know their gender). That usage, where you refer to someone you know as 'they' purely because that person has demanded it and claims to take offence if you don't refer to them as 'they' is completely new (and to my mind is plain wrong).

1) "I have forgotten my ticket and will go and see a ticket clerk before I travel to get it sorted - I hope they're helpful!"

Yes that's a good example of using 'they' to refer to a completely unknown person - as has long been the case. Notice that in this example, the context makes the plurality completely unambiguous - which is one reason why it's long been fine and correct to use it here.

2) "Why do they always fine me when I can't present my railcard on the train?"

I don't think that's quite the same thing. In this case 'they' arguably refers to the organisation doing the fining, and therefore is correctly referring to multiple people.

3) "I saw Jamie earlier as I heard they were upset - they were fine, but I've seen them have better days"

Yes, this is an example of the very new usage that has come about purely as a result of trans activism and which I would argue is wrong. This sentence would not have been written - say - 20 years ago, unless you actually do not know whether Jamie is a man or a woman.

"They" is a fixture of the language and you may as well start getting cross and uptight about the people who use "they" in the second example because it's not entirely clear who "they" are unless you have the context either.

It's not so much about getting cross about it, as about that people who insist on using 'they' are in one small way making English language less precise and more ambiguous - and therefore in some cases making it harder to express precisely what you mean. That is objectively a bad thing.

 

[trainophile]

On example 3, I would immediately wonder Jamie and who? His wife? His parents? It sounds totally wrong to use they in that context.

 

[jon81uk]

On example 3, I would immediately wonder Jamie and who? His wife? His parents? It sounds totally wrong to use they in that context.

But with the context of the word Jamie it is obvious that only they are being referred to. If it was "I saw Jamie and their partner earlier...." then you know more than one person is present.

 

[Purple Train]

On example 3, I would immediately wonder Jamie and who? His wife? His parents? It sounds totally wrong to use they in that context.

Jamie is used as a given name for both sexes, which might have been what the poster was getting at.

Though I do agree with you that it sounds wrong when Jamie's gender is known.

 

[AlterEgo]

But that usage was a bit different. They has for a long time been used in the singular but generally only to indicate an unknown person, and generally in contexts where it was unlikely to cause confusion, with something like 'he or she' substituted if using 'they' was likely to cause confusion. 'They' was (quite rightly) not generally used to refer to people whose identities are known (other than very occasionally if you didn't know enough about the person to know their gender). That usage, where you refer to someone you know as 'they' purely because that person has demanded it and claims to take offence if you don't refer to them as 'they' is completely new (and to my mind is plain wrong).

I'll be honest I would be irritated if someone addressed me in any way other than "he" and likely so would you.

Yes that's a good example of using 'they' to refer to a completely unknown person - as has long been the case. Notice that in this example, the context makes the plurality completely unambiguous - which is one reason why it's long been fine and correct to use it here.

Yes, as you agree, the context is key - so if I say "Jamie is not feeling well and they probably need to go to the hospital" you can fine well detect Jamie has they/them pronouns. That's the context. What's unclear about that?

It's no different to:

"I inspected the points this morning; they're clipped now" or
"When I spoke to Amanda and Billy earlier they assured me they would hit the deadline"

I don't think that's quite the same thing. In this case 'they' arguably refers to the organisation doing the fining, and therefore is correctly referring to multiple people.

"Arguably" because it's ambiguous despite being entirely correct usage, and I'm glad we seem to agree "they" is an ambiguous word by its nature.

Yes, this is an example of the very new usage that has come about purely as a result of trans activism and which I would argue is wrong. This sentence would not have been written - say - 20 years ago, unless you actually do not know whether Jamie is a man or a woman.

Well you don't know if Jamie is a man or a woman and yet the sentence makes perfect sense. In this context you don't need to know their gender, or perhaps their gender is ambiguous, or they simply prefer not to be thought of as either. Non-binary does seem an alien concept to me, but if people want me to use "they", who am I to refuse, or even put up paper-thin arguments about the pronoun?

It's not so much about getting cross about it, as about that people who insist on using 'they' are in one small way making English language less precise and more ambiguous - and therefore in some cases making it harder to express precisely what you mean. That is objectively a bad thing.

"They" is extremely ambiguous and unsatisfactory in that respect. If being unclear really is your concern, you can petition for "they" to be abandoned altogether in favour of specific pronouns for every context.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2023 ==

On example 3, I would immediately wonder Jamie and who? His wife? His parents? It sounds totally wrong to use they in that context.

Only because you know their name and immediately think that also knowing their gender is a given.

Lots of non-English names are gender-ambiguous. I know someone called Rayyan and someone called Majd. If you don't know them personally to know which gender each of them are, what pronouns would you give them?

 

[bleeder4]

Lots of non-English names are gender-ambiguous. I know someone called Rayyan and someone called Majd. If you don't know them personally to know which gender each of them are, what pronouns would you give them?

I can't answer for the original poster, but I myself would use "they" up until I knew whether they were a man or a woman (as I have just done now with this sentence). At that point I would then use the correct pronoun (either "he" or "she"). As the word "they" is gender-neutral, in cases where gender is known then it's unnecessary, unless it is used to refer to more than one person.

 

[Typhoon]

I still start most on train announcements with "ladies and gentlemen" and always will. Only other option I would consider is "ladies gentlemen boys girls and everything In between" just as Sara Cox does weekday afternoons on Radio 2.

To me it is the right length for an intro, anyone who is doing something (reading, writing an e-mail, searching in a bag, doing a Sudoku, whatever) has sufficient time to turn their attention from what they are doing to concentrate on the announcement (Good Morning, everybody is similar). Irrespective of whether it is acceptable 'Hi, Guys' is too short. The message will start, leading to 'what is (s)he saying?' before the message ends.

 

[dk1]

To me it is the right length for an intro, anyone who is doing something (reading, writing an e-mail, searching in a bag, doing a Sudoku, whatever) has sufficient time to turn their attention from what they are doing to concentrate on the announcement (Good Morning, everybody is similar). Irrespective of whether it is acceptable 'Hi, Guys' is too short. The message will start, leading to 'what is (s)he saying?' before the message ends.

Precisely mate, it’s just perfect. Hi guys is far too American. You can’t go wrong with ladies & gentleman and that why I won’t be swayed into changing.

 

[prod_pep]

Even as this gender identity business has gained traction over recent years, I honestly never thought a polite, innocuous, kindly phrase like 'ladies and gentlemen' would end up on the chopping board. Good on those who continue to use it and I hope they never find themselves in the utterly ridiculous situation of being told off for it. It's still common in railway announcements in my experience and long may that continue.

The less said about 'guys', the better. Too informal and too American.

 

[jon81uk]

Precisely mate, it’s just perfect. Hi guys is far too American. You can’t go wrong with ladies & gentleman and that why I won’t be swayed into changing.

Even as this gender identity business has gained traction over recent years, I honestly never thought a polite, innocuous, kindly phrase like 'ladies and gentlemen' would end up on the chopping board. Good on those who continue to use it and I hope they never find themselves in the utterly ridiculous situation of being told off for it. It's still common in railway announcements in my experience and long may that continue.

The less said about 'guys', the better. Too informal and too American.

No one is asking for guys to be used.

 

[dk1]

No one is asking for guys to be used.

Read the comment from Typhoon.

 

[trainophile]

How about ladies, gentlemen and the undecided.

 

[jon81uk]

Read the comment from Typhoon.

Nope, Typhoon said guys is too short.

 

[najaB]

To me it is the right length for an intro, anyone who is doing something (reading, writing an e-mail, searching in a bag, doing a Sudoku, whatever) has sufficient time to turn their attention from what they are doing to concentrate on the announcement (Good Morning, everybody is similar). Irrespective of whether it is acceptable 'Hi, Guys' is too short. The message will start, leading to 'what is (s)he saying?' before the message ends.

"Friends, Romans, countrypeople - lend me your ears" instead then?

More seriously, how about "Hello. Could I have your attention for a moment please..." as long as (if not longer than) "Ladies and Gentlemen".

 

[PudseyBearHST]

Completely agree. I’ve been referred to as he/she or they before because the other person “didn’t want to offend me and assume my gender” even though I’m obviously a male. The irony is that to avoid offending a very small percentage of the population, you end up offending the majority.

I'll be honest I would be irritated if someone addressed me in any way other than "he" and likely so would you.

 

[dk1]

Nope, Typhoon said guys is too short.

And why I replied as I did.

 

[Enthusiast]

The irony is that to avoid offending a very small percentage of the population, you end up offending the majority.

Precisely. We're talking about 0.5% of the population here (if that). "They" is totally inappropriate when referring to a known individual and if there are people for whom "he" or "she" (etc.) is unacceptable they need to devise other pronouns that are not already in use.

When an announcement begins "Ladies and Gentlemen" those hearing it can ignore it if they believe they are being excluded. However, in many circumstances - especially if they are on a train - they may find it's to their advantage to ignore their feelings and listen up.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It seems a little odd to me that some find certain announcement terms offensive, unacceptable or outdated, when they have no problem with the increased swearing and bad language which blights everyday life.

Just be glad you aren't in Australia where in informal settings even the swear word considered the worst is often used as a term of endearment!

How about 'Good morning/afternoon/evening Folks!'....or does that sound too North American?

The word "folk" is already a plural, there's no need for the s. Saying "folks" is just plain wrong as well as being a particularly grating modern affectation. You wouldn't say "I'm off to shear the sheeps".

Its been said already, but quite honestly getting upset over pronouns in the context of a world that could easily tip over into WWIII just seems, well somewhat trivial. Everyone should have the right to be who they want to be, so long of course that this doesn't impede someone else's right to be who they want to be. But nobody has the right to expect the world to bend over backwards and do backflips every time they get slightly offended by not using their preferred pronoun. Frankly it is starting to feel like society is descending into (even more) self pity, megalomania and narcissism.

We are little more than neurotic apes, living on ball of molten rock hurtling through space around a giant nuclear reactor, in an area filled billions of other reactors, plus giant rocks and waves of radiation, any of which at any moment could wipe life on this planet out of existence. Better still these apes not content with all the danger around them, choose to build guns and bombs, even ones that could do almost as much extinction level damage whist throwing bullets and bombs at each other with impunity. Furthermore this species threatens each other because of arbitrary lines in the sand, or whose deity is the shiniest. Its like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

Yet here we are with wars starting and others in the oven ready-baked, but its pronouns that upset some the most. Its been said by some that our species coming down from the tress was a big mistake, but I'm firmly in the "should have stayed in the water" camp, because with every passing year I understand humans and society less.

Finally a bit of common-sense!

 

[CharlieSpotted]

How about ladies, gentlemen and the undecided.

Entirely inappropriate. Some of the people who identify as neither ladies nor gentlemen may be undecided, but others may have decided that neither of those terms describe them.

I suspect you know this and are being unkind.

The obvious answer has been repeated many times in the 4 pages of this thread... it's "everyone".

 

[Mag_seven]

The obvious answer has been repeated many times in the 4 pages of this thread... it's "everyone".

Indeed and I think this is a good point to wrap this discussion up. Thanks to all who contributed.