Don't quote me on this, but I'd guess any place where one can use singular they one can also use nonpersonal one; however, if the focus is on something being about both genders (rather than, say, any gender) I'd explicitly use "he/she" or a variant thereof.
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?We follow official grammar rules, and the singular "they" is apparently an official part of the English language. However, there is no need to get into an argument over gender pronouns unless the article comes across biased as a result. The parenthesized (or she) in the description for Adorably Precocious Child is fine.
edited 5th Mar '12 11:31:55 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's also perfectly acceptable - grammatically at least - to use "he" regardless of the gender referred to. He can be all-encompassing. I know that's become politically loaded but it's true. Or you can just alternate, like they do in all new Tabletop RPG rulebooks.
edited 5th Mar '12 1:44:17 PM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.Oh, boy, the gender-neutral third-person singular discussion! I've seriously dealt with this way more times in my life than I care to think about (I'm an editor).
Technically speaking, every option listed in this thread is considered an acceptable gender-neutral third-person singular option. I personally would not want to edit any of them out, because that is a combination of misplaced linguistic wankery and an Edit War waiting to happen. That said, I can go through the rundown of the advantages and disadvantages of each one.
Simply using "he" to refer to a gender-neutral third party is perhaps the oldest formation, with roots in the French influences on English construction and grammar, and certainly the least confusing to use on a day-to-day basis. Of course, it's horribly paternalistic, loaded with Values Dissonance, and there are other formations that can claim at least some, if not all, of the above.
Using "whoever" (possibly with modifying clauses) is also rather old, has the strongest grammatical case for it, and is rather easy to use for all speakers. That said, it's easily the biggest mouthful/longest to type, particularly if modifying clauses become necessary.
Using "he/she" or "he or she" is a much more modern formation, and is probably the most popular formation of the moment. It manages to include both genders without putting a judgment call on either. That said, it comes off as a bit awkward, even when you're used to using the formation.
Using "one" has the advantage of being rather old as well, also adapted from the French influences on grammar and construction, in addition to even stripping out the vestiges of paternalism found in the French equivalent, "on." However, it has always come off as a bit stilted and stuffy in English (perhaps because the primary users of the formation tended to be aristocrats for several centuries), and it tends to come off as only slightly more humanizing than simply using "it" in such instances.
Using "they" has the advantage of flowing naturally in speech, not specifying any gender (even genderqueer), and having formations that everyone already knows how to use. That said, it's relatively new in use in such cases, which can frequently result in confusion when people aren't sure whether or not the speaker means the gender-neutral third-person singular or the general third-person plural.
Finally, there's the sticky wicket of the proposed third-person singular pronoun "ze" and its permutations. It does have the advantage of covering pretty much every case in theory. That said, most people don't even know it exists, and even some of the people that do know it and all of its appropriate derivatives argue that it should only be used for genderqueer folks and not for those who identify with binary male/female roles.
To give my opinion as someone who spends way too much time with the University of Chicago's Style Guide, I personally prefer using the singular "they," but I can deal with most of the above. The only ones I avoid are simply using the masculine and use of "ze" as a generic. I also would, if someone is trying to strip out any of the middle ones for simply "he," holler for a mod, since that's heading towards an Edit War.
That said, I will acknowledge that leaving alone people using different forms does break away from the wiki's stated purpose of making the page appear to be in one voice. I consider this a small sacrifice to be made in the sake of peaceful operation.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.![]()
"He can be all-encompassing." Except that a) in application, using "he" primes readers to think of men specifically rather than persons of either sex (I can provide cites if wanted), and b) in this case the trope is going from an Always Male to a gender-neutral definition, so my original goal was to make the description not-male-associated.
I suppose I could rewrite for default-she, which would avoid problem b.
edited 5th Mar '12 1:57:45 PM by lebrel
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.And there's another solution, which is to use Alice and Bob.
But you might as well just use the singular "they". We won't mind.
Using "he" as gender neutral is not actually gender neutral. It's just gender.
Using "one" works in some sentences, especially those where singular "they" would be confusing. But some sentence structures in English need a pronoun that refers back to a noun earlier in the sentence, which can't be done with "one" or "whoever." In that case, I much prefer "they." Example:
- One who jumps off a bridge can break one's neck.
- If a servant of Foo abandons their Foo god, they have no choice but to join the Anti-Foo or die.
edited 5th Mar '12 3:24:45 PM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.Hmmm.... it is really a shame that there being so many gender-neutral pronouns
we can not use any of the ones that actually solve all ambiguities¿. However, excepting the cases #14 mentions (and for which I can not find any single-word solution, but I'm not a native speaker), I can see "one" solving pretty much all issues.
Not that I would push it though. I find "singular they" has a particular charm, in particular when loading/unloading political or other varieties of statements.
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?I have the understanding "he/she" (in particular the "compact" version), singular "they" and "one" have seen academical use (I know "one" at least does, since I'm being paid to translate papers into English using it); I'd guess casual use too. They usually just sound weird because one is not used to it, but that more or less falls on the same rationalization bracket as "this trope has a reference I don't understand".
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?"One" is the most correct, but terribly inorganic for a wiki at this level of formality.
"They" works very well.
"Ze" and "hir" are technically in the English language now as well, but it carries a connotation of gender being screwed with in some way, so I'd recommend only using it in that context. (Ambiguous Gender, Gender Bender, that sort of thing.)

Do we have an official policy on the use of singular "they" in articles?
Cute Shotaro Boy was renamed to Adorably Precocious Child, and I tried to change the writeup to make it clear that the trope is gender-neutral, but Corahs Uncle immediately edited it to default-male. I went back and added a "he (or she)" in the first line, but it's clunky to do that too often, and now most of the trope description refers to a specifically male character. Is this really better than using singular "they"?
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.