Comment by w10-1
9 hours ago
The article points out that Chaucer used "they" to refer to singular unknown person, so the usage is very old. It seems more respectful than assuming they are male.
I find myself wrong all the time, and I'm glad for the lesson!
Leaning on Chaucer isn't sufficient, because it was once a pronoun used for people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(pronoun)
So maybe we should bring back it, or ignore Chaucer as an authority.
The point isn't that we should all speak like Chaucer, it's that singular they isn't a new thing within our lifetimes.
I get what you’re saying, but Chaucer was not in _my_ lifetime.
"They" has been used as a singular pronoun continuously since Chaucer. Shakespeare used it. Dickens used it.
Even people who complain about the singular "they" use it when they're not paying attention. It's a regular part of the English language.
But not with continuity, not popularly over that whole time span.
If it's something we're all accustomed to and comfortable with, why even mention that it was being used in the distant past? The article is trying to simultaneously argue "try this new term they, it's easy, everybody's saying it now, it's modern, you'll love it" and "this term is not at all strange and new, you're silly if you feel uncomfortable with it because it has always been used." It's trying to have it both ways in its wrangling.
Do people also casually use it to refer to humans, or is it just me?