“What do they mean?” a systematic review on the interpretation, usage and acceptability of “they”

Abstract

The rise of feminist and LGBTQIA+ movements paved the way for many equality reforms. These include language reforms, which facilitate inclusion of multiple groups in society. For example, the shift from the generic “he” to “he or she” and “they” allows for the inclusion of women, transgender, and non-binary individuals in many narratives. For this reason, many institutions worldwide encourage neutral language. It remains unclear how individuals interpret neutral language. One case of neutral language is the pronoun “they,” which has been assigned multiple definitions from the 1970s to 2022. We examine how the pronoun “they” has been interpreted, used, and accepted over time. We discuss trends in the findings and make suggestions for future research directions, including the need for better methods to investigate pronouns and clarification on what the focus of neutral language should be. This timely commentary has implications for action on equality, diversity, and inclusion.

Introduction

Language aids individuals in conceptualizing the world around them. Indeed, research demonstrates the impact of language on cognition and culture (for a review see Boroditsky, 2019). Given the close relationship between culture and language, Sniezek and Jazwinski (1986) suggest that the views of an androcentric society are demonstrated linguistically. Bodine (1975) presents this eloquently: “dictated by an androcentric world-view; linguistically, human beings were to be considered male unless proven otherwise” (p. 133), a statement that remains prevalent today (see Bailey et al., 2019). One way that language influences androcentrism is via personal pronouns, which are terms used to identify an individual. The current systematic review identifies how one solution to androcentrism in language, the pronoun “they,” has been interpreted historically, through a review of literature from as early as 1970 up until 2022. The review aims to inform subsequent research directions and future interventions to support equality, diversity, and inclusion.

Throughout history, there has been a shift in how pronouns, and in particular pronouns used generically, are understood. For example, the pronoun “he” has historically been used as a generic referent, as well as a masculine referent. The pronoun “they” has been interpreted in different ways throughout history. Changes in how pronouns are defined are related to legal and societal changes. For example, the rise of the LGBTQIA+ movement in the 2000s brought legal changes that allowed individuals to identify with their chosen gender. In Sweden, the pronoun “hen” was adopted as an entirely neutral pronoun (Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015). In English speaking countries, a similar attempt was made with neopronouns (“ze” and “hir”) but has not progressed beyond the LGBTQIA+ communities (Crawford and Fox, 2007). A common alternative is the pronoun “they,” which is defined as a plural referent, a generic referent, a singular indefinite pronoun antecedent, and a referent for a single person who identifies as non-binary (Merriam-Webster, 2022). However, given how many definitions it holds, it is not clear how “they” is understood and interpreted today.

The generic “he”

The concept of androcentrism was first coined by Gilman (1911), who wrote that society rests on the assumption that men are the ideal human type, whereas women are an accompaniment. In an androcentric society, men are seen as “the measure of all things” (Bailey et al., 2019). These beliefs manifest in language.

Others have argued against the androcentric worldview’s impact on language, stating that intention is enough to guarantee both clarity and equity (see Martyna, 1980). Martyna questioned whether “he” could be intentionally utilized in a purely generic form. Moreover, what is the guarantee that the user of “he” means it generically without explicitly stating so? Intent, however, in the usage of “he” is not the only problem. The recipient’s understanding of “he” is key too – utilizing “he” as a generic pronoun does not mean the recipient will understand it in the intended sense and may instead interpret “he” as denoting a man (Sniezek and Jazwinski, 1986). Many (e.g., Kidd, 1971; Soto, 1976; Moulton et al., 1978; MacKay and Fulkerson, 1979; MacKay, 1980; Switzer, 1990; Miller and James, 2009; Khan and Daneman, 2011) have shown that “he” evokes masculine imagery. What this implies is that “he” seems to function as a male-specific pronoun. Therefore, it is not that “he” cannot function generically but that “he” cannot function in a purely generic form.

Movements such as feminism, LGBTQIA+, and transgender communities have argued that a generic form needs to be introduced for equal language. This argument is often misunderstood as a radical language change that would eradicate specific and generic forms of “he,” which feminist linguists noted back in the late 1900s (Martyna, 1980). However, the movements do not aim to exclude men from the narrative. The opposition to the generic “he” is based on a desire for both equal rights and equal language – in other words, to create social equality that would allow for fair communication about genders (Martyna, 1980) and individuals who do not identify with a gender (Wayne, 2005).

Is “he or she” the solution?

Because the pronoun “he” is not appropriate to be a generic referent, researchers have tended to utilize “he or she” as one of the pronoun options. The latter has been referred to as a feminization strategy that aims to produce more gender-neutral language. Research has suggested that “he or she” produces a degree of gender neutrality. For example, Hyde (1984) reported that “he or she” significantly produced the highest percentage of feminine stories (42%) compared to other pronouns (“he” and “they”). For “he or she” there was an almost equal balance of stories with masculine and feminine characters (58% of the characters in the stories for “he or she” were men). Gastil (1990) and Switzer (1990) showed similar findings, reporting that “he or she” produced a balance of feminine and masculine images. Lindqvist et al. (2019) supports such findings. In their study “he or she” did not evoke a masculine-stereotyped bias in a recruitment advert. Overall, what these findings suggest is that the combination of the pronouns “he or she” appear to function more generically than the pronoun “he.”

At the same time, the order of “he or she” is unbalanced in that “he” precedes “she.” Sexist prescriptions have existed in English to order men before women in binomial phrases to mark differences in people’s worth (Bodine, 1975). This concept dates back centuries as early philosophers claimed that linguistically, gender ordering should be according to the worthier of the pair being set first (Wilson, 1553, as cited in Bodine, 1975). Perhaps part of the reason “he or she” cannot be considered entirely gender-neutral may result from a masculine bias in research. Hegarty et al. (2016) note that research that focuses on male-first binomials identify these as gender-neutral or gender-fair language despite an influence of male dominance on order preferences. In sum, it seems that using “he or she” does not lead to inclusivity in language.

Research on the gendered binomial order demonstrates the ubiquity of a masculine bias. Kesebir (2017) explored the permanence of the “male-first pattern” in a variety of words across a range of English corpora, including “he or she.” Their results show that in texts published in the 20th Century, “he or she” is more likely to start with “he” instead of “she” (97.5%). The lack of variability (i.e., often described as “frozen order” by linguists) of “he or she” poses a problem because linguists have identified word order as relevant to social categories. For example, the more powerful element of a binomial phrase is more likely to be mentioned first (Benor and Levy, 2006). Thus, the “male-first pattern” may reflect a society where “men are the measure of all things” (Bailey et al., 2019). Nevertheless, preferences for male-first forms of several gendered binomials have weakened since the 1970s (Mollin, 2013), which coincides with the increasing support for gender equality and gender-fair language in many English-speaking countries (Hegarty et al., 2016). Nonetheless, the use of male-first linguistic forms serve to reinforce gender-stereotypes in a recurrent pattern. For example, Kesebir (2017) demonstrated that linguistic choice in gendered conjoined phrases such as “mother and father” and “businessman and businesswoman” matter because individuals assign more relevancy to the first mention rather than the second mention in a conjoined phrase. Thus, language such as “he or she” helps maintain androcentric worldviews, and as a result, maintains the oppressive social order that marginalizes non-men.

There is an additional concern with the generic “he” and “he or she”: neither “he” nor “he or she” can be genderless. With the growth of the transgender community, the gender binary of “male and female” is becoming unrepresentative because many individuals do not identify with their birth gender. Whilst much research has found that “he or she” has the potential to evoke gender-neutral imagery (e.g., Hyde, 1984; Gastil, 1990; Lindqvist et al., 2019), that imagery seems exclusive to women and men and not the genders who do not fit in the binary. In fact, in their investigation of which pronouns native English speakers use to refer to a genderless pronoun, LaScotte (2016) found that participants did not always envision someone outside of the gender binary when they used “he or she.” As a result, “he or she” reinforces the gender binary (Saguy and Williams, 2022), which researchers have suggested should be replaced with a multiple-category gender/sex system, of which the categories are not mutually exclusive (Hyde et al., 2019). To solve this problem, in terms of gender-fair language, we need to determine which alternative pronoun possesses the ability to evoke imagery beyond the gender binary.

A genderless and gender-neutral pronoun

To identify an effective alternative to the problems mentioned in this review (essentially, the generic “he” and “he or she” as masculine-biased pronouns and thus, unrepresentative of women and those who identify beyond the gender binary), we need to establish an alternative that represents everyone. The representative would need to include individuals who identify with a gender and individuals who do not identify with any gender. Therefore, the pronoun is expected to be gender-neutral and genderless simultaneously.

In 2012, Sweden introduced a third person pronoun that is exclusively genderless/gender-neutral: “hen.” “Hen” is meant to be used generically when the gender is unknown or irrelevant, or to identify a transgender or genderless individual (Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015). Sendén et al. explored the attitudes to the introduction of “hen” from 2012 to 2015, as well as the use of the Swedish third-person pronoun. Attitudes to “hen” have changed over time, beginning with negative attitudes that became more positive as of 2015. There was a concomitant change in behavior. In 2013 and 2014, participants reported to rarely using “hen.” By 2015 the use of “hen” increased by 25%. Left-wing orientation and low sexism predicted individuals’ use of “hen” (19% of participants). Conversely, higher levels of right-wing orientation and sexism was associated with lower use of “hen” (15% of participants). Attitudes to “hen” changed faster than behavior. Making grammatical changes to a language is a difficult process (Paterson, 2014). However, “hen” demonstrates that language can change. In fact, Gustafsson Sendén et al. (2021) reported that, from 2015 to 2018, individuals have continued to perceive “hen” more positively. The introduction of “hen” and the changes in attitudes with regards to the gender-neutral/genderless Swedish pronoun give way for other languages to introduce their own gender-neutral/genderless pronoun. A similar attempt has been made in English-speaking countries with less success. Indeed, transgender communities have introduced “ze” and “hir” as genderless pronouns. However, these pronouns have not been very widespread outside LGBTQIA+ and transgender communities (Crawford and Fox, 2007).

The grammatical structure in the English language as it exists facilitates the use of a gender-neutral/genderless pronoun because it already contains a pronoun that has been interpreted as gender-neutral by researchers and even linguists: “they” (Quirk et al., 1972, 1985; Wales, 1996). As a result, gender-fair language has been encouraged by a variety of institutions. For example, the American Psychological Association (2020) recommended that authors “do not use the generic ‘he’ or ‘he or she’ to refer to a generic person; instead, authors must rewrite the sentence or use the singular ‘they’. When writing about a known individual, use that person’s identified pronouns” (paragraph 29). Additionally, in 2008, the European Parliament released guidelines that encourage the use of gender-neutral language and advise members to avoid the use of the generic “he” and “man.” The United Nations in 2018 also released guidelines on gender-fair language, advising users to only make gender visible when it is relevant for communication as well as providing inclusive examples of language, e.g., “humankind.” In countries like Australia, for example, use of non-sexist language has been encouraged for several decades (e.g., the new national anthem was changed to become more inclusive, “Australia sons” became “Australians all”; Strahan, 2008). Similarly, the Canadian’s Department of Justice encourages the use of gender-neutral language (Department of Justice Canada, 2023). In non-English speaking countries, gender-fair language has been encouraged as well, e.g., the Netherlands and Germany (Weida, 2022). Furthermore, there are many countries whose language is already genderless, such as Armenian, Persian and Swahili. Many academic institutions worldwide encourage gender-fair language. The National Centre for State Courts has released guidance on how courts can encourage gender-inclusive language (Wirkus and Zarnow, 2023). In 2022, the Supreme Court of the Philippines approved guidelines on the use of gender-fair language in the Judiciary and Gender-Fair Courtroom Etiquette, and the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary in the United Kingdom released guidelines on gender equality in 2013, encouraging users to use gender-neutral language. It is worth noting that there are countries that oppose the inclusion of gender-fair language. For example, Argentina implemented a policy in June 2022 that forbade public educational institutions from using gender-neutral language on the basis of grammatical sanctity (Lankes, 2022). In France, the French Senate passed a bill banning inclusive language (Bollinger, 2023), claiming that their masculine form acts as a neutral form. Nevertheless, these examples suggest that a wide variety of institutions are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of fair and inclusive language and are encouraging their members to follow.

When individuals use “they,” it can have positive effects. “They” produces gender-neutral/inclusive imagery in comparison to “he” and, to some extent, “he or she.” For example, Switzer (1990) presented children with a brief scenario (in which the pronoun differed for each participant) before asking multiple questions about the character. “They” aided children in producing inclusive imagery. Additionally, Conkright et al. (2000) explored the effects of pronoun type on children’s recall and interpretation of stories. In their findings, the authors showed that the pronoun “they” was evenly interpreted as either generic or as a specific gender. LaScotte (2016) investigated which pronouns native English speakers used when referring to a genderless person (i.e., “the ideal student”). Most participants (79%) used a gender-inclusive approach to describe the target (i.e., using “he or she” or singular “they”), with 68% of the participants using singular “they.” What this may mean is that “they” as a generic pronoun may be useful to help individuals express less gendered ideals and help them create a more inclusive worldwide view. Indeed, utilizing the pronoun “they” as gender-neutral/genderless may be an alternative to the generic “he” and “he or she.”

Nevertheless, even if “they” appears to be the alternate pronoun to encourage genderless imagery and ideals, research has found mixed results with regard to the pronoun “they.” For example, some report that “they” produces a mix of gender-neutral imagery (Switzer, 1990; Conkright et al., 2000), whereas others report that “they” also works to produce gender specific imagery (Lindqvist et al., 2019). Martyna (1980) argued that although users intend to use the pronoun “he” generically, its use is not restricted to these uses. Similar issues arise with “they.” Bodine (1975) explained that grammarians identified the pronoun “they” as plural in the 19th Century, which means that users may use “they” as a plural referent, as well as a specific-gender singular referent, and not just a purely genderless pronoun.

Lindqvist et al. (2019) investigated the effect of three language strategies on the reduction of the masculine bias through a recruitment candidate advert. The language utilized in the advert varied according to the language strategy. In the paired strategy, the advert used “he or she.” In the traditional neutral strategy, the advert either used a gender-neutral noun (“the applicant”) or the singular gender-neutral “they.” Finally, in the new gender-neutral strategy, the non-gendered pronoun “ze” was used. Lindqvist et al. found that the wording used in the description of the candidate significantly impacted the participants’ gender associations. The gender-neutral noun “the applicant” and the singular gender-neutral pronoun “they” possessed a masculine bias. In other words, participants were more likely to choose a man for the candidate. When “he or she” or “ze” was utilized, there was no masculine bias. With regards to “ze,” familiarity with the pronoun did not significantly impact participants’ gender association of the candidate. Most participants were familiar with the singular “they” but were less familiar with the other pronouns, such as “ze.” Lindqvist et al. suggest that the singular “they” is not in the same category as the newly created gender-neutral alternatives. Instead, “they” is a familiar pronoun with a different use (i.e., singular rather than the conventional plural).

Combined, the evidence suggests two main conclusions. First, “he” does not function generically, and it is not a gender-neutral nor a genderless pronoun. Secondly, binomials (“he or she”) are a better alternative to the generic “he” as a gender-neutral pronoun but not interpreted as a genderless pronoun. As a result, this systematic review will not investigate either of these topics. We focus on understanding how people use, accept, and interpret the pronoun “they” over recent history. Thus, this review examines what “they” means, how individuals use the pronoun “they,” and the acceptance of the pronoun “they” over time. This review will examine literature from the 1970s to 2022. Based on Gustafsson Sendén et al.’s (2015) findings, which demonstrate a change over time regarding the Swedish pronoun “hen,” we hypothesize that “they” will become more gender-neutral, increase in use, and rise in acceptability over time.

Method

Search strategy

We searched two digital databases, PsychINFO and Web of Science, for empirical research that investigated the interpretation of the pronoun “they.” We chose PsychINFO because it contains information related to psychology, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences. Web of Science allows the search to be conducted across a wide range of science, social science, and humanities databases simultaneously. In Supplementary Table S1 we show the initial search terms, their combinations, and the results from the searches.

After the initial search, we re-evaluated the terms and searched synonyms. Supplementary Table S2 displays these terms, their combinations, and the results.

Because the two main searches did not yield many results, we conducted a third search with terms taken from Ansara and Hegarty (2013). We display the results from the third search in Table 1.

An additional digital database, Google Scholar, was used in the search for empirical research after the initial searches did not yield many results. However, this search did not result in new papers. We conducted manual searches from the reference lists of the included articles, as well as Google Scholar citation searches, which resulted in 28 papers. Studies were selected based on being published between 1970 and 2022, written in English, and investigating the pronoun “they” in the English language. A Zotero digital library was used to safekeep the studies selected. Studies were included if they included empirical research investigating participants’ interpretation of the pronoun “they” – that is, whether the pronoun “they” refers to individuals of the gender binary, beyond the gender binary or a combination. Studies that investigated other pronouns, including “they,” were included in the review. Figure 1 includes a PRISMA flow diagram of the process by which the papers were identified and then eliminated.

Figure 1

Study sample

Table 2 displays a summary of the characteristics (e.g., the year of publication, the samples, the methodology of the empirical studies) in the review. Table 3 shows the relevant outcomes.

Information extraction

Information such as year of publication, study samples, and methodology were extracted if included in the research paper. We extracted and then thematically analyzed findings relating to the pronoun “they.” Three categories emerged: meaning of “they,” use of “they,” and acceptance of “they.”

Search results

In total, the database search revealed 4,014 publications, of which 23 were initially selected. However, of these 23 papers, 19 were excluded. The exclusion criterion for the search was papers that were not investigating the pronoun “they” and its interpretation. Duplicate papers were merged in the original database search and not retrieved for consideration. Overall, 4,010 publications were removed entirely. Further manual searches were conducted from the reference lists of the included articles, as well as Google Scholar citation searches. Twenty-eight papers emerged from these searches, resulting in 32 papers in total reviewed by two independent reviewers (see Figure 1 for PRISMA Flow Chart).

Quality check

The 32 articles identified in the search results were assessed using the Quantitative Assessment Tool by Kmet et al. (2004). The tool’s criteria contains 14 items (see Table 4), which are scored on the basis of the extent to which the criteria was met: “Yes,” “Partial,” “No” and “Not Applicable.” For each research paper, a summary score was calculated using the assessment tool guidelines (see Table 5). Two reviewers independently performed quality assessments, and disagreements were solved by consensus. A score of 75% or over indicated strong quality, a score between 55 and 75% indicated moderate quality and a score of 55% or less indicated weak quality (from Van Cutsem et al., 2017).

Results and discussion

Overview

This study examined how the pronoun “they” is interpreted. We hypothesized that there would be a change of interpretation, use, and acceptability of “they” over time in which “they” would become more inclusive over the years. Through the examination of papers and analysis, we examined the meaning of “they,” the use of “they,” and the acceptance of “they.”

Figure 1 illustrates how we selected the studies. Thirty-two studies were included after full-text review: 21 on the meaning of “they,” nine on the use of “they” and six on the acceptance of “they.” Year of publication ranged from 1978 to 2022, with two studies conducted in the 1970s, three in the 1980s, five in the 1990s, three in the 2000s, six in the 2010s, and 13 studies in the 2020s. Out of the 32 studies, five had a child sample (3 to 12 years of age) and the remaining 27 were conducted with an adult sample. Twenty-one of the studies took place in the United States, whilst five were set in the United Kingdom, two in Australia, Finland, and Sweden, and one each in China, Hong Kong, and Canada. Two studies were corpus based, one of which extracted papers from multiple countries worldwide (see Table 4). One of the studies did not report which country they took place in. We present a summary of the studies’ year of publications, samples, method, and relevant outcomes in Tables 2, 3.

The meaning of “they”

Because this review investigates the interpretation of the pronoun “they” across time, the results are presented in chronological order to present a timeline of how the pronoun “they” has changed over the years. Two early studies (Moulton et al., 1978; Hyde, 1984) report the pronoun “they” to be more masculine-biased, with fewer than 50% of participants referring to women in their story-creation tasks. Thus, early work suggests that “they” was masculine biased initially. This masculine bias seems to change in the mid-1980s. In 1985, the pronoun “they” was reported to function in a non-masculine biased manner, with 68% of choices in the character identification task being feminine (Fisk, 1985). This finding continues through 1989 to 1997, in which studies report that the pronoun “they” generates more inclusive imagery (Khosroshahi, 1989; Kroepelin, 1989; Gastil, 1990; Switzer, 1990; Prentice, 1994; Bennett-Kastor, 1996; Prögler-Rössler, 1997).

From the year 2000 onwards, we see a variety of results. For example, girls appear to use the pronoun “they” more generically than boys do (Conkright et al., 2000), which may be an effect of a continued prevalent androcentric worldview (see Bailey et al., 2019) where a masculine bias is still observed in language. Thus, girls use the pronoun “they” more generically than boys because it represents them too. The pronoun “they” also has a plural meaning as documented by Lee (2007). “They” also seems to have a “gender not relevant” meaning (Strahan, 2008, p. 28). This means that if the gender of the referent is not relevant or necessary to the conversation, the pronoun “they” was used. The pronoun “they” is a more inclusive pronoun than the pronoun “he” because the findings show more feminine connotations than “he” (Noll et al., 2018), and even acts as a gender-neutral pronoun (LaScotte, 2016), which is seen in 2019 as well (Bradley et al., 2019). However, in 2019, the pronoun “they” continues to possess a masculine bias (Lindqvist et al., 2019). In a study in 2020, “they” has a feminine association (von der Malsburg et al., 2020). In fact, data demonstrates that individuals use a range of pronouns (i.e., “he,” “she,” “they,” or “he or she”) to refer to a singular, non-gender antecedent (LaScotte, 2021).

In the 2020s, “they” is also used to refer to individuals who are non-binary who personally use the pronouns “they/them” (Arnold et al., 2021). Thus, in the 2020s, there are different interpretations of the singular pronoun “they.” Indeed, “they” is used as a non-binary personal pronoun, as a universal gender-neutral pronoun, and as an indefinite pronoun (Saguy and Williams, 2022).

Overall, there appears to be a linear progression in interpretation. In sum, the pronoun “they” was interpreted with a masculine bias in the 1980s and this linguistically reflected the views of an androcentric society (Sniezek and Jazwinski, 1986), as “human beings were to be considered male unless proven otherwise” (Bodine, 1975, p. 133). However, the second wave of feminism between the 1960s and 1970s (Pauwels, 2003) drew attention to gender biases in language as women felt excluded because of specific linguistic choices such as the use of the pronoun “he” as a generic pronoun (i.e., the pronoun “he” could refer to men and women). This shift in Western society may explain the move from the pronoun “they” possessing a masculine bias in the late 1970s and early 1980s to becoming more inclusive in the 1990s. However, this definition of inclusivity is restricted to the gender binary. It seems that in some of the aforementioned studies (e.g., Moulton et al., 1978; Hyde, 1984; Fisk, 1985; Khosroshahi, 1989; Kroepelin, 1989; Gastil, 1990; Switzer, 1990; Prentice, 1994), “they” possessing feminine connotations suggested it was an inclusive pronoun, but this does not represent genders other than women and men.

With the rise of the LGBTQIA+ movement in the 2000s, we witness the pronoun “they” shifting into a more neutral and genderless territory. The movement has impacted many legislative efforts to recognize gender identity all over the world. For example, the introduction of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act in the United Kingdom, which allows transgender people to identify with their chosen gender fully and legally and acquire a new birth certificate. In Canada, there was an adjustment of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code in 2017. Australia has passed multiple legislations since 2014 to recognize transgender rights, whilst Sweden has had legislations in place since 1972 and continues to re-evaluate their laws up until the current day. China and Hong Kong, on the other hand, have laws in place that recognize gender identity, however, only after post-sexual reassignment surgery. Similarly, in Finland, a legal gender reassignment on official documents is only recognized if the person is sterilized or for other reasons infertile. In the United States, as of February 2021, the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, was passed in the House of Representatives, and is awaiting consideration in the Senate. Laws regarding transgender rights differ from state to state, with many states in 2022 passing anti-LGBTQIA+ bills (Lavietes and Ramos, 2022). Nevertheless, many institutions such as the European Parliament (2008), the United Nations (2018), and the American Psychological Association (2020) encourage non-sexist and non-gendered language in their rules in recognition of fluid gender identity. Simultaneous with increased legal protection, a shift in interpretation is observed up until recent years, where the data reflects more fluid interpretations of the pronoun “they.” For example, “they” has masculine and feminine associations, as well as gender-neutral and non-binary interpretations. Although transgender rights differ worldwide, changes have occurred; research suggests that these changes are reflected in the pronoun “they” (Figure 2).

Figure 2

The use of “they” in spoken and written English

If the pronoun “they” is interpreted as more generic through time, then it is expected to become more common in spoken and written English language. The studies examined in this systematic review investigated whether the pronoun “they” was used in speech or written language, how commonly it was used in comparison to other pronouns, and how the pronoun “they” can be used (as gender-neutral, masculine, feminine or non-binary). Martyna (1978) was the first to report findings on the use of the pronoun “they.” The pronoun “they” was more commonly used in spoken responses than in written responses possibly because “they” is easier to say than “he or she” and individuals are more used to “they” in colloquial language. In the late 1990s, Bennett-Kastor (1996) reported children frequently chose the pronoun “they” (13.1%) more when writing a story than the pronouns “he” (11.9%) and “she” (5.6%). In addition, Prögler-Rössler (1997) recorded a written usage of 59% of the pronoun “they” by their student population compared to “s/he” (7%), “she” (9%), “he” (12%) and other (13%). More recently, there have been more reports on the usage of the pronoun “they.” For example, in written responses, the pronoun “they” was used 20.6% of the time (Ahokas, 2020) and in speech, the pronoun “they” was the most common choice. Hekanaho (2020) found singular “they” was the most commonly used (80%) pronoun in written responses. Stormbom (2020) conducted a search of gendered language in open research articles and reported that singular “they” was the most commonly used pronoun (46.8%). Similarly, Yakut et al. (2021) found that the usage of the pronoun “they” as a non-binary singular pronoun considerably increased from the year 2010 to the year 2019 in Social Science academic journals. In Chinese University students’ English writing, Zhang and Yang (2021) found that singular “they” accounted for 15% of the total pronoun usage in comparison to gendered pronouns.

Overall, with time, the pronoun “they” became a common choice of pronoun, even in countries where the participants’ first language was not English (e.g., Ahokas, 2020; Hekanaho, 2020; Zhang and Yang, 2021). This increase in usage fits with historical context. With the rise of the LGBTQIA+ movement, and in particular, individuals in the movement who do not identify with their assigned sex or any specific gender (i.e., non-binary individuals, transgender individuals, and others), linguistic choices that refer to identity are changing. For example, non-binary people may adopt the pronoun “they” as their referent of choice. The history of the interpretation of the pronoun “they” suggests it has become more fluid and its meaning open to interpretation. For example, early research (Quirk et al., 1972, 1985; Wales, 1996) reported that the pronoun “they” was already interpreted and used as gender-neutral by researchers and even linguists. Moreover, more institutions are encouraging the use of non-sexist language. For example, the change in the lyrics of the Australian National anthem previously outlined, demonstrates a move away from masculine oriented language (“Australia sons”) to more gender neutral and inclusive language (“Australians all”; Strahan, 2008) (Figure 3).

Figure 3

The acceptance of “they”

Given the increased familiarity of the pronoun “they” over time, we next turn to an examination of the acceptance of the pronoun “they.” More specifically, research has examined whether this pronoun has been accepted as a generic pronoun or a plural pronoun, and whether language structure impacts the rates of acceptance. Garnham et al. (2012) discovered that the pronoun “they” received positive judgment (i.e., participants approved of the sentence construction) when constructed with a plural word (“singers”) and binary genders (“men” and “women”). Doherty and Conklin (2017) reported that their participants rated the pronoun “they” as less natural than pronouns that matched the gender of the referent in the task but more natural than pronouns that did not match the gender of the referent shown. Konnelly and Cowper (2020) found participants objected to the use of singular “they” for social reasons – in particular, to defend the sanctity of grammar. Similarly, Bradley (2020) found that prescriptivist attitudes contributed to the rejection of certain uses of singular “they.” Moulton et al. (2020) reported that their participants thought sentences with “they” were just as acceptable as sentences with singular gendered pronouns (i.e., participants rated sentences for naturalness on a seven-point scale), despite whether the gender of the referent was known or unknown. Hekanaho (2020) reported that singular “they” was the most commonly accepted generic pronoun (94%), as well as the most accepted non-binary pronoun (67%). When looking at gender differences, 97% of transgender participants accepted non-binary pronouns. Meanwhile, 61% of cisgender male participants accepted “they” as a non-binary pronoun and 73% of cisgender female participants accepted “they” as a non-binary pronoun.

The results reflect a shift in acceptance, although it appears that there is still a debate of prescriptivist bias in terms of acceptance. Bodine (1975) explained that from the 19th century onwards, prescriptive grammarians identified the pronoun “they” as plural only, and it appears this interpretation is still rooted in the English language today. However, the data suggests that the pronoun “they” is still accepted as a generic and as a non-binary pronoun, although its meaning and interpretation has varied in recent years. It may be that new alternative pronouns (neopronouns), such as “ey,” “em,” “xe,” and “ze,” which have no historical attachments to them, are easier to perceive and be accepted as non-binary and neutral. Lindqvist et al. (2019), who reported that the pronoun “they” possessed a masculine bias, also examined the neopronoun “ze,” and concluded that this pronoun could eliminate a masculine bias. In contrast, the pronoun “they” is not in the same category as neopronouns because of its familiar nature. When “they” is compared to gendered pronouns such as “he or she” it may appear to be more inclusive, but when compared to neopronouns, it possesses a masculine bias, whereas the neopronouns are perceived as neutral (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Overall, the findings support all three hypotheses: that “they” would become more gender-neutral in meaning, as well as increase in use and in acceptability over time. The hypothesized change is observed as the pronoun “they” is shown to be fluid and flexible, as well as a common choice of pronoun. The pronoun “they” may be gendered, neutral and genderless. Despite the prescriptivist bias debate, the pronoun “they” is still declared singular and plural. In essence, the pronoun “they” has become inclusive for all members of society and adaptable as needed.

At the same time, “they” might continue to evolve and follow the trajectory of “you,” a generic for second person singular and plural. Speakers often use additional morphology, such as “y’all” to differentiate when “you” refers to more than one individual as opposed to an individual. Over time, we may begin to hear phrases such as “they all” to differentiate the third person singular and plural. Future research will be able to detail this trajectory.

Limitations

There are limitations in the current review that should be noted. Our review is based on articles that we were able to access. Although we contacted 10 researchers for unpublished research, we did not receive replies. In addition, our systematic review is confined to the articles we found in the databases we searched.

Future directions

There are other future directions that should be addressed based on gaps in the research base. For example, research that required participants to describe a character often asked the binary (i.e., woman or man) gender of the character (Hyde, 1984; Fisk, 1985; Gastil, 1990; Bennett-Kastor, 1996) or for participants to name the character (Moulton et al., 1978; Khosroshahi, 1989; Switzer, 1990), which were then labeled per the binary gender. This method is restrictive because it does not allow for a gender outside of the binary to be considered. This limitation may have resulted because of the year the research articles were published in. In addition, it may have occurred because the focus of some of the previous studies was to understand whether the pronoun “he” was generic or possessed a masculine bias. Nevertheless, when assessing whether pronouns elicit gendered meanings, all categories of gender need to be considered, and the choices given to the participants must not be restricted to the binary. Two exceptions are Bradley et al. (2019) and Lindqvist et al. (2019), which included photographs of individuals who were non-binary (judged by reliability rating) and in the gender binary.

The population of each study must be considered as well, and future studies must consider recruiting varied samples. Hyde (1984), Fisk (1985), Switzer (1990), Bennett-Kastor (1996), and Conkright et al. (2000) were the only researchers to explore pronouns with a child sample (3–12 years-old). This omission suggests children are underrepresented in the topic of pronouns and how these are interpreted, and it cannot be established how children understand the pronoun “they.” The available literature suggests that “they” possesses masculine connotations (Hyde, 1984; Switzer, 1990) and at the same time, functions in a non-masculine biased way (Fisk, 1985), such as holding a gender-neutral association (Bennett-Kastor, 1996), when compared to “he or she” alternatives (Switzer, 1990); girls perceive the pronoun “they” as more generic than boys (Conkright et al., 2000). There is not sufficient research on the pronoun “they” with children to suggest what their interpretation of the pronoun “they” is and how children obtained this understanding. Of the remaining studies that conducted empirical research, their samples were all adults. Thus, the conclusions that emerged from the review can be applied to adults. However, the majority of adult samples were university students, and whilst an accessible sample, it may be considered a biased sample due to demand characteristics or their educational level. Future research should expand on the kind of adult sample recruited so that samples vary in age, levels of education, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender identity to obtain a representative idea of how multiple adult samples interpret the pronoun “they.”

Conclusion

Overall, what the data suggests is that there has been a shift in terms of interpretation, usage, and acceptance of the pronoun “they.” However, given the gaps in the literature (e.g., age of sample), further research is necessary. First, future research needs to investigate neopronouns and how to integrate neopronouns in mainstream society, including their interpretation, acceptance, usage, etc. As mentioned, Sweden introduced a third person pronoun, exclusively genderless/generic: “hen.” There was an increase in positive attitudes between 2012 to 2018 (Gustafsson Sendén et al., 2015, 2021). Thus, whilst language reforms are difficult to achieve (Paterson, 2014), it is not impossible, and further research is required into neopronouns to assess whether a similar reform can be achieved in the English language.

Second, research should continue to investigate the pronoun “they” with multiple population types (i.e., children and adults) to decipher how it is interpreted (i.e., a masculine biased pronoun, a feminine biased pronoun, a generic pronoun, a non-binary pronoun, a plural pronoun). There are many benefits that come with understanding how the pronoun “they” is interpreted, and in turn, how the pronoun can be integrated into multiple aspects of society. For example, research needs to investigate if “they” can be integrated into education and weaken related gender-stereotypes. Future research could focus on the impact the pronoun “they” may have on gender-stereotypes as well as the impact the pronoun “they” has on prejudice. For example, integrating the use of “they” in everyday language may reduce levels of sexism or racism. Language is a powerful tool, and as the linguistic relativity hypothesis suggests, the languages we speak influence the way we think about the world (Whorf, 1956). This influence of language on thought has been demonstrated in various domains, including grammatical gender (e.g., Bassetti, 2007; Sato and Athanasopoulos, 2018). Thus, further investigation of the pronoun “they” is crucial. Whilst a language reform may not solve these societal impacts of bias, it may contribute to creating greater inclusivity and equality for all.

References

• 1

  Ahokas O. (2020). He or she or they: generic pronoun use among Finnish and Swedish L2 speakers of English. Bachelor’s thesis, Stockholm University. Diva Portal. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1388806&dswid=5369

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  American Psychological Association (2020) Gender. Available at: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Ansara Y. G. Hegarty P. (2013). Misgendering in English language contexts: applying non-cisgenderist methods to feminist research. Int. J. Multiple Res. Approaches7, 160–177. doi: 10.5172/mra.2013.7.2.160

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Arnold J. E. Mayo H. C. Dong L. (2021). My pronouns are they/them: talking about pronouns changes how pronouns are understood. Psychon. Bull. Rev.28, 1688–1697. doi: 10.3758/s13423-021-01905-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Bailey A. H. LaFrance M. Dovidio J. F. (2019). Is man the measure of all things? A social cognitive account of Androcentrism. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.23, 307–331. doi: 10.1177/1088868318782848

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Bassetti B. (2007). Bilingualism and thought: grammatical gender and concepts of objects in Italian–German bilingual children. Int. J. Biling.11, 251–273. doi: 10.1177/13670069070110030101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Bennett-Kastor T. L. (1996). Anaphora, nonanaphora, and the generic use of pronouns by children. Am. Speech71, 285–301. doi: 10.2307/455551

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Benor S. Levy R. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language82, 233–278. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0077

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Bodine A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: singular ‘they’, sex-indefinite ‘he’, and ‘he or she’. Lang. Soc.4, 129–146. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500004607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Bollinger A. (2023), French president Emmanuel Macron supports ban on gender-inclusive language. Available at: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/11/french-president-emmanuel-macron-supports-ban-on-gender-inclusive-language/

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Boroditsky L. (2019). Language and the brain. Science366:13. doi: 10.1126/science.aaz6490

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Bradley E. D. (2020). The influence of linguistic and social attitudes on grammaticality judgments of singular ‘they’. Lang. Sci.78:101272. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101272

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Bradley E. D. Salkind J. Moore A. Teitsort S. (2019). Singular 'they' and novel pronouns: gender-neutral, nonbinary, or both?Proceed. Linguist. Soc. Am.36, 1–7. doi: 10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4542

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Conkright L. Flannagan D. Dykes J. (2000). Effects of pronoun type and gender role consistency on children’s recall and interpretation of stories. Sex Roles J. Res.43, 481–497. doi: 10.1023/A:1007167432657

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Crawford M. Fox A. (2007). IX. From sex to gender and back again: co-optation of a feminist language reform. Fem. Psychol.17, 481–486. doi: 10.1177/0959353507084333

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Department of Justice Canada . (2023) Gender-neutral Language. Government of Canada. Available at: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/legis-redact/legistics/p1p15.html

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Doherty A. Conklin K. (2017). How gender-expectancy affects the processing of “them”. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.70, 718–735. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.11545

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  European Parliament (2008). Gender-neutral language in the European parliament. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/151780/GNL_Guidelines_EN.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Fisk W. R. (1985). Responses to "neutral" pronoun presentations and the development of sex-biased responding. Dev. Psychol.21, 481–485. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.21.3.481

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Garnham A. Gabriel U. Sarrasin O. Gygax P. Oakhill J. (2012). Gender representation in different languages and grammatical marking on pronouns: when beauticians, musicians, and mechanics remain men. Discourse Process.49, 481–500. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2012.688184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Gastil J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: the oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles J. Res.23, 629–643. doi: 10.1007/BF00289252

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Gilman P. C. (1911). The Man-Made World or Our Androcentric Culture. Johnson.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Gustafsson Sendén M. Bäck E. A. Lindqvist A. (2015). Introducing a gender-neutral pronoun in a natural gender language: the influence of time on attitudes and behavior. Front. Psychol.6:893. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Gustafsson Sendén M. Renström E. Lindqvist A. (2021). Pronouns beyond the binary: the change of attitudes and use over time. Gend. Soc.35, 588–615. doi: 10.1177/08912432211029226

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Gygax P. Gabriel U. Sarrasin O. Oakhill J. Garnham A. (2008). Generically intended, but specifically interpreted: When beauticians, musicians and mechanics are all men. Language and Cognitive Processes. 23, 464–485.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Hegarty P. Mollin S. Foels R. (2016). “Binomial word order and social status” in Advances in intergroup communication. eds. GilesH.MaassA. (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing), 119–135.

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Hekanaho L. (2020). Generic and nonbinary pronouns: usage, acceptability and attitudes. Doctoral thesis, University of Helsinki

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Hyde J. S. (1984). Children’s understanding of sexist language. Dev. Psychol.20, 697–706. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.697

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Hyde J. S. Bigler R. S. Joel D. Tate C. C. van Anders S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: five challenges to the gender binary. Am. Psychol.74, 171–193. doi: 10.1037/amp0000307

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Kesebir S. (2017). Word order denotes relevance differences: the case of conjoined phrases with lexical gender. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.113, 262–279. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000094

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Khan M. Daneman M. (2011). How readers spontaneously interpret man-suffix words: evidence from eye movements. J. Psycholinguist. Res.40, 351–366. doi: 10.1007/s10936-011-9173-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Khosroshahi F. (1989). Penguins don't care, but women do: a social identity analysis of a Whorfian problem. Lang. Soc.18, 505–525. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500013889

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Kidd V. (1971). A study of the images produced through the use of male pronouns as the generic. Moments Contemp. Rhetoric Commun.1, 25–30.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Kmet L. M. Cook L. S. Lee R. C. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Heritage Found. Med. Res.6, 1–20. doi: 10.7939/R37M04F16

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Konnelly L. Cowper E. (2020). Gender diversity and morphosyntax: an account of singular they. J. Gen. Linguist.5:40. doi: 10.5334/gjgl.1000

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Kroepelin J. M. (1989). Is" he" considered a gender neutral pronoun?Proceed. Deseret Lang. Linguist. Soc. Symposium15, 86–103.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Lankes A. (2022) One of the World’s First Bans on Gender-Neutral Language. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/world/americas/argentina-gender-neutral-spanish.html

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  LaScotte D. K. (2016). Singular they: an empirical study of generic pronoun use. Am. Speech91, 62–80. doi: 10.1215/00031283-3509469

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  LaScotte D. K. (2021). Nonnative English learners’ use and understanding of singular they. Lang. Aware.30, 84–94. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2020.1869753

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Lavietes M. Ramos E. (2022), Nearly 240 anti-LGBTQ bills filed in 2022 so far, most of them targeting trans people. NBC News. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/nearly-240-anti-lgbtq-bills-filed-2022-far-targeting-trans-people-rcna20418

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Lee J. F. (2007). Acceptability of sexist language among young people in Hong Kong. Sex Roles56, 285–295. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9170-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Lindqvist A. Renström E. A. Gustafsson Sendén M. (2019). Reducing a male bias in language? Establishing the efficiency of three different gender-fair language strategies. Sex Roles J. Res.81, 109–117. doi: 10.1007/s11199-018-0974-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  MacKay D. (1980). On the goals, principles, and procedures for prescriptive grammar. Lang. Soc.9, 349–367. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500008253

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  MacKay D. Fulkerson D. (1979). On the comprehension and production of pronouns. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav.18, 661–673. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90369-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Martyna W. (1978). What does ‘he’ mean?: use of the generic masculine. J. Commun.28, 131–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01576.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Martyna W. (1980). Beyond the "he/man" approach: the case for nonsexist language. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc.5, 482–493. doi: 10.1086/493733

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Merriam-Webster (2022). They. In http://Merriam-Webster.comdictionary. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they (Accessed August 9, 2022)

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Miller M. M. James L. E. (2009). Is the generic pronoun he still comprehended as excluding women?Am. J. Psychol.122, 483–496. doi: 10.2307/27784423

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Mollin M. (2013). Radical pacifism in modern America: Egalitarianism and protest. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Moulton K. Han C. H. Block T. Gendron H. Nederveen S. (2020). Singular they in context. J. Gen. Linguist.5:122. doi: 10.5334/gjgl.1012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  Moulton J. Robinson G. M. Elias C. (1978). Psychology in action: sex Bias in language use, "neutral" pronouns that Aren't. Am. Psychol.33, 1032–1036. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.33.11.1032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Noll J. Lowry M. Bryant J. (2018). Changes over time in the comprehension of he and they as epicene pronouns. J. Psycholinguist. Res.47, 1057–1068. doi: 10.1007/s10936-018-9577-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  Page M. J. McKenzie J. E. Bossuyt P. M. Boutron I. Hoffmann T. C. Mulrow C. D. et al . (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Paterson L. (2014). British pronoun use, prescription, and processing. Palgrave Macmillan: London

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Pauwels A. (2003). “Linguistic sexism and feminist linguistic activism” in The handbook of language and gender. eds. HolmesJ.MeverhoffM. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing)

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Prentice D. A. (1994). Do language reforms change our way of thinking?J. Lang. Soc. Psychol.13, 3–19. doi: 10.1177/0261927X941310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Prögler-Rössler K. (1997). Sexism in language–a study on pronoun usage in generic contexts. Vienna English Working Papers6, 34–48.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Quirk R. Greenbaum S. Leech G. Svartvik J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. Essex, England: Longman.

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Quirk R. Greenbaum S. Leech G. Svartvik J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Essex, England: Longman.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  Saguy A. C. Williams J. A. (2022). A little word that means a lot: a reassessment of singular they in a new era of gender politics. Gend. Soc.36, 5–31. doi: 10.1177/0891243221105792

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Sato S. Athanasopoulos P. (2018). Grammatical gender affects gender perception: evidence for the structural-feedback hypothesis. Cognition176, 220–231. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Sniezek J. A. Jazwinski C. H. (1986). Gender Bias in English: in search of fair language. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.16, 642–662. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01165.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Soto D. (1976). Alternatives to using masculine pronouns when referring to the species. In Paper presentation Western speech communication association 46th annual meeting, San Francisco, United States.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Stormbom C. (2020). Gendering in open access research articles: the role of epicene pronouns. Engl. Specif. Purp.60, 193–204. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2020.08.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Strahan T. E. (2008). ‘They’ in Australian English: non-gender-specific or specifically non-gendered?Austr. J. Linguist.28, 17–29. doi: 10.1080/07268600701877473

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Switzer J. Y. (1990). The impact of generic word choices: an empirical investigation of age- and sex-related differences. Sex Roles22, 69–82. doi: 10.1007/BF00288155

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  United Nations (2018). United Nations Gender-Inclusive Language. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/gender-inclusive-language/guidelines.shtml

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Van Cutsem J. Marcora S. De Pauw K. Bailey S. Meeusen R. Roelands B. (2017). The effects of mental fatigue on physical performance: a systematic review. Sports Med.47, 1569–1588. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0672-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  von der Malsburg T. Poppels T. Levy R. P. (2020). Implicit gender bias in linguistic descriptions for expected events: the cases of the 2016 United States and 2017 United Kingdom elections. Psychol. Sci.31, 115–128. doi: 10.1177/09567976198906

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Wales K. (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Wayne L. D. (2005). Neutral pronouns: a modest proposal whose time has come. Can. Woman Stud.24, 85–91.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Weida K. (2022), Your guide to inclusive language around the world. Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@kazweida/your-guide-to-inclusive-language-around-the-world-22dc1b2cb221

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Whorf B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writing of Benjamín Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  Wilson T. (1553). Arte of rhetorique. Gainsville: Scholars Facsimiles and Reprints, 1962.

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Wirkus A. Zarnow Z. (2023). Gender inclusivity in the courts: How to treat everyone with fairness, dignity, and impartiality. Williamsburg, Virginia: National Center for State Courts.

  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Yakut I. Genç B. Bada E. (2021). Epicene pronoun usage in the social sciences: the case of research articles. J. Engl. Acad. Purp.52:101005. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Zhang X. Yang H. (2021). Gender voices in Chinese university students’ English writing: a corpus study. Linguist. Educ.64:100935. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2021.10093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar