Pronouns

[jack]

"When John was a woman, [he/she/they] said '...' " Which pronoun do you prefer? (That is, "he" is appropriate for John now, "she" would be appropriate for what John was then, and "they" would specify the ambiguity.)

"The things God or Jesus [was/were] recorded as saying are ..." Which pronoun do you prefer? (That is, do you treat them as two separate people (were)? Or one person (was)? :))

Obviously both are arbitrary, and I think both sufficiently specialised that most people wouldn't mind which you used, I just wondered if anyone had a strong opinion :)

Comments

[cornute.livejournal.com]

In the first case, I'd use "she" for a time in someone's life when they were definitely presenting as female, if I had to use a pronoun.

However, it's possible NOT to use a pronoun in any reference. "When John had that job as a bra fitter, John told me that clients really preferred John's expertise." Awkward, but it avoids having to ask the person if it bothers them to be referred to by the old pronoun.

It's also possible to use pronouns only for the unambiguous current states-- "John told me that he remembered all the customers at the bar who complimented John's appearance." Even knowing that John has previous experience as a woman, John's work at the bar may have been pre- or post- transition and it might be better not to guess. (Also, I'm avoiding the whole awkward time in the middle where some people know one thing and some know another. Even if you "know" what John was at the time because you were there, you may have been the only person who thought of John as a chick while he was successfully passing everywhere else, and you will seriously hurt his feelings if you say so!)

I'm really in the third camp, for obvious reasons.

In the second example, it really depends on how Jesus was presenting at the time.

</goingtohell>

[naath.livejournal.com]

But don't re-use the name like that it sounds all overly-chumy and sales-person (see, someone will take issue with *anything*). Nowt wrong with a singular 'they'.

[cornute.livejournal.com]

Somewhere, a transgendered grammarian is crying.

Yeah, I'd likely rephrase not to need the name or a pronoun either one. But then I'm a gamer and have a lot of experience referring to the person across the room from me playing that hot female character without saying "He's gone to take a leak, back in a minute."

I like the "they" too.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Appropriate icon :)

However, it's possible NOT to use a pronoun in any reference.

Oh yes, in actual usage it may (or may not) be better to avoid the issue. In actual fact, both examples come from real life, and in the first I wanted to use "she", decided "he" might be preferable, and settled on "they" as an acceptable stop-gap (knowing that the person in question was generally in favour of singular "they" :)).

It's also possible to use pronouns only for the unambiguous current states

Is a particularly nice way of rephrasing if you do.

In the second example, it really depends on how Jesus was presenting at the time.

Well, it no doubt does :)