Non-binary gender identification in bylaws

[abl33]

Our organization is located in PA which has recently changed their Drivers license IDs to allow the option of Male/Female/X(non-binary) as three valid options.  This has already gone into effect for PA, though the US in general does not officially recognize it yet, it appears to be heading in that direction.  If we are updating our bylaws and intend to be inclusive, is there a consensus on how to include this third gender option into our text?

Should we update all references to he/she to he/she/they or some alternative?

Should we add a statement to define all references using he/she should be interpreted to include also include individuals who identify as non-binary as well?

Should we do nothing until the US federal government also makes a third option official?  I'm inclined to include it anyway since PA already does recognize it.

[George Mervosh]

I think it would be easier to omit all reference to gender in the bylaws and call it a day, since RONR (at the least the 11th edition) doesn't say anything about this.

[Benjamin Geiger]

I concur with Mr. Mervosh. Personally, I'd err on the side of avoiding pronouns whenever possible, falling back to the singular 'they' if needed.

[Richard Brown]

The 12 edition of RONR likewise has nothing to say about the matter and, with no disrespect intended toward Mr. Geiger, I find the use of the plural "they" to refer to a single individual abhorrent.  If for some reason "he" or "she" can't be used or is inappropriate in some particular instance, such as when trying to conceal someone's identity, I much prefer he/she rather than the abominable "they".

This has been a rather controversial topic on this forum from time to time.

[Dan Honemann]

46 minutes ago, abl33 said:

 

Should we update all references to he/she to he/she/they or some alternative?

 

Try he/she/it.

[Josh Martin]

57 minutes ago, abl33 said:

Our organization is located in PA which has recently changed their Drivers license IDs to allow the option of Male/Female/X(non-binary) as three valid options.  This has already gone into effect for PA, though the US in general does not officially recognize it yet, it appears to be heading in that direction.  If we are updating our bylaws and intend to be inclusive, is there a consensus on how to include this third gender option into our text?

Should we update all references to he/she to he/she/they or some alternative?

Should we add a statement to define all references using he/she should be interpreted to include also include individuals who identify as non-binary as well?

Should we do nothing until the US federal government also makes a third option official?  I'm inclined to include it anyway since PA already does recognize it.

RONR has no guidance on this subject. The organization is free to adopt such language as it wishes in this matter, and there is no parliamentary reason that the organization's practice in this regard needs to be consistent with the usage by government agencies at the state or federal level. If the organization is seeking guidance in this matter, it may be desirable to reach out to persons with expertise in this subject, or to other organizations or states/municipalities which have recently undergone similar efforts.

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, abl33 said:

Should we update all references to he/she to he/she/they or some alternative?

In case it helps the OP, the use of "they" as a singular is part of the Associated Press Style Guide, the Chicago Manual of Style, and both the MLA and APA Style Manuals. And Merriam-Webster made it their Word of the Year for 2019. Extrapolating from RONR (12th ed.) 2:18, these may be persuasive.

However, I prefer the solution that Mr. Mervosh and Mr. Geiger posted above.

Edited September 1, 2020 at 05:36 PM by Atul Kapur

[abl33]

Thank you all.  That was all good advice and feels like a decent consensus.  We will look to remove gender pronouns where practical and replace them with position titles where appropriate and stick to the MLA/APP Style Manuals for the rest.

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

The 12 edition of RONR likewise has nothing to say about the matter and, with no disrespect intended toward Mr. Geiger, I find the use of the plural "they" to refer to a single individual abhorrent.  If for some reason "he" or "she" can't be used or is inappropriate in some particular instance, such as when trying to conceal someone's identity, I much prefer he/she rather than the abominable "they".

This has been a rather controversial topic on this forum from time to time.

 

19 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

In case it helps the OP, the use of "they" as a singular is part of the Associated Press Style Guide, the Chicago Manual of Style, and both the MLA and APA Style Manuals. And Merriam-Webster made it their Word of the Year for 2019. Extrapolating from RONR (12th ed.) 2:18, these may be persuasive.

However, I prefer the solution that Mr. Mervosh and Mr. Geiger posted above.

While I prefer to restructure sentences, whenever possible. to avoid the use of any gender-specific pronouns, I do not find it as abhorrent as does Mr. Brown.  I recognize that language is continually evolving, as evidenced in part by the references listed by Dr. Kapur. 

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Try he/she/it.

OOOOOOooooooooo.

[Benjamin Geiger]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Try he/she/it.

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't follow.

[abl33]

22 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't follow.

I"m pretty sure non-binary people, or anyone for that matter would not appreciate being called "it", I believe "they" is the preference and I'd imagine "it" would actually be offensive and therefore better to not say anything than to use "it".

[Rob Elsman]

Actually, I think the Queen's English still requires the use of the masculine form when the gender is unknown or irrelevant in the context.

[Atul Kapur]

Can you cite where the Queen decrees this? Because the Oxford English Dictionary documents the singular use of "they" from 1375.

And, while it does not specifically mention Her Majesty The Queen, The University of Oxford Style Guide says that, when addressing a member of the peerage (e.g.: those entitled to call themselves Sir/Dame/Lord/Lady etc.) that, "If an individual has expressed a wish to be addressed in a particular way, even if it is technically incorrect, use their preferred style." (p. 18, emphasis added)

Edited September 2, 2020 at 11:02 PM by Atul Kapur
following U Oxford Style Guide re emphasis

[Richard Brown]

14 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Can you cite where the Queen decrees this? Because the Oxford English Dictionary documents the singular use of "they" from 1375.

And, while it does not specifically mention Her Majesty The Queen, The University of Oxford Style Guide says that, when addressing a member of the peerage (e.g.: those entitled to call themselves Sir/Dame/Lord/Lady etc.) that, "If an individual has expressed a wish to be addressed in a particular way, even if it is technically incorrect, use their preferred style." (p. 18, emphasis added)

I put the emphasis on the “it is technically incorrect” portion of that statement  😊
 

Edited to add: I note also that that passage is referring to addressing a person in the manner in which the person prefers to be addressed.  Here we are referring to using pronouns when no particular person is being addressed nor has expressed a preference. He and she refer to individuals. “They” refers to a group of people. I abhor the use of the pronoun they to refer to a single individual rather than a group of people.

Edited September 2, 2020 at 11:17 PM by Richard Brown
Edit last paragraph

[Atul Kapur]

The point is that the style guide uses the word "their" to refer to an individual when, as Mr. Elsman has put it, "when the gender is unknown or irrelevant in the context."

The authors of the Style Guide could have said:

If an individual has expressed a wish to be addressed in a particular way, even if it is technically incorrect, use his or her preferred style.

The authors did not.

I cited it as an example of the University of Oxford using the singular "they". It was as good an example of "the Queen's English" as I could find quickly.

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I abhor the use of the pronoun they to refer to a single individual rather than a group of people.

What do you find so abhorrent about it? Language is not static; it is in continual flux.

As I have said before, I prefer to reword a sentence to avoid use on any pronoun, if it can be done without undue complexity. My second preference, if avoiding any pronoun would be too awkward, would be make the antecedent plural and then use the plural "they" later in the sentence. If that also seems too awkward, I personally use "he or she"; but I certainly don't get offended if someone else prefers to use "they." 

[Gary Novosielski]

6 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Actually, I think the Queen's English still requires the use of the masculine form when the gender is unknown or irrelevant in the context.

It doesn't require it, but I'm sure if the masculine is used when the gender is unknown it would be understood as applying to all persons.  That was the rule I was taught in grade school mumblety years ago, but I don't think there are any style guides that still demand it.

I'm somewhat amused at the uproar about gender in English.  I wonder what the gender police do with heavily gendered languages where spoons are female and forks are male, for instance.  I don't believe life is sufficiently long to allow for obsessing over such matters. 

[Benjamin Geiger]

I mean, if the singular 'they' is good enough for the Bard...

Quote

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

(A Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3)

And here's a short lecture on the subject that I find rather entertaining and informative.

 

Edited September 3, 2020 at 01:47 PM by Benjamin Geiger

[Weldon Merritt]

I also have seen "s/he" used as a gender-neutral pronoun in writing, butI'm not sure how it should be pronounced in spoken English (maybe "sha-he"?). And I don't see that as any better than using "they." I suspect almost all of us, except perhaps the most pedantic, have used "they" as a singular pronoun more often than we admit in informal speech.

Edited September 4, 2020 at 01:37 AM by Weldon Merritt
Edited to correct typo.

[Rob Elsman]

Call me pedantic.  I have never sued anyone.

[Alex Meed]

When I chaired a bylaws committee, I used singular "they" in drafting the initial version of our revision. This is both because such usage is quickly becoming accepted in even formal varieties of English (and, as Mr. Geiger notes, was used long ago as well), and because I knew based on the character of the society that it would want its bylaws to use singular "they." In my personal writing, I use singular "they"; before that I used "he/she," which I abandoned years ago because it (a) excludes people who use neither of those pronouns and (b) is simply clumsy to the eye and ear.

The laws of Texas use the approach others in this thread have mentioned, which is to eliminate pronouns whenever possible, simply repeating nouns or otherwise restructuring the sentence instead. This was a directive by the legislature to the legislative counsel to avoid the then-current practice of using "he" in newly drafted legislation. I have used this arrangement as well, though my most recent writings tend to fully embrace singular "they," even in formal settings.

Which approach the society uses is ultimately a question it alone can decide, and in my opinion should decide for itself based on the tastes and preferences of its own members and the community it may wish to attract to membership.

Edited September 6, 2020 at 12:24 AM by Alex Meed

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I confronted this proactively with the national Libertarian Party and dragged some folks, kicking and screaming, into the reality that "they" is now perfectly appropriate in these circumstances.  Language changes.  If one wants to be stickler about such things, well, you wouldn't have wanted to be around at the Great Vowel Shift, you would have gone mad.

I was disappointed that the current version did not take care to modernize in this respect.  It is absolutely jarring to see "chairman" all over the place when there is a perfectly serviceable gender neutral word - Chair.  And the only thing worse than being jarred continually by such specific masculine terms - which like it or not - is a relic of a time when women typically did not do certain things - is when people artificially insert in "she" for parity.  It stops me from following the whole flow of any text or speech when that happens. 

So it goes beyond mere pronouns- things like "chairman" are, in my opinion, inexcusable to use in the text.

 

Edited September 8, 2020 at 12:00 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 9/2/2020 at 7:56 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I wonder what the gender police do with heavily gendered languages where spoons are female and forks are male, for instance.  I don't believe life is sufficiently long to allow for obsessing over such matters. 

Really?  Grammatical gender has nothing to do with biological sex with one exception - when it is referring to living things - ergo, latina, latino, perra, perro.  And they have issues there, thus latinx.

[Gary Novosielski]

15 hours ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

well, you wouldn't have wanted to be around at the Great Vowel Shift, you would have gone mad.

I still haven't fully recovered from it.