As a grammar nerd, I call bullshit. "They" as gender-neutral singular pronoun has been part of the English language for centuries, and it's only in the last hundred years or so (give or take a bit, I don't have time to look it up right now) that prescriptivists have started freaking out about it. Yeah, it's a little awkward, but modern English NEEDS a gender-neutral singular pronoun, and "they" is the best we have.<p>It was good enough for Shakespeare, and it's good enough for me.
I dislike the premise of this article.<p>All the alternatives have worse disadvantages:<p>- repeating the name "Matt" is awkward<p>- gender is an awkward requirement for sending a giftcard<p>- assuming someone is male unless they are known to be female is awkward<p>- "he/she" is awkward<p>And, crucially:<p>- singular <i>they</i> is widely used and understood and has significant historical precedent <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they</a>
I don't understand the outrage over singular "they". I agree that it's not particularly logical, but what part of the English language is?? It sounds natural, at least. It's certainly widely used, and will likely become a "correct" form within a few decades.<p>The OP suggests guessing gender from names. There are too many unusual cases and gender-neutral names to be able to guess gender from a name alone. Even ignoring non-english-speaking world, I know several guys named "Kelly" and "Kim" and I have a female cousin named "James" (she goes by "Jill", though).<p>Adding a gender field is often not feasible and a bad idea for other reasons (gender identity, etc). It's far better to sidestep the issue with commonly-used-but-not-quite-formally-correct grammar, i.m.o.
<p><pre><code> Wasn’t that easy?
</code></pre>
No, because there are a reasonably large number of people, especially in Starbucks' home town, who want to be referred to as ze, zer, or one of a number of other gender-neutral, recently-minted pronouns. <a href="http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~writingcenter/Gender-Neutral_Language.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~writingcenter/Gender-Neutral_L...</a><p>So now you either need to ask a user for their name <i>and</i> preferred pronoun, or just refer to them as "they".
<i>Speaking of pretentious-douchebag-grammar-nerds, allow me to explain the evolution of the “I’m going to refer to a singular noun with a plural pronoun” linguistic phenomenon. It’s a product of increased gender equality. People used to generically refer to everyone as males</i><p>That's entirely and entirely typically wrong. Singular "they" has been well-established in English for centuries. The great writers have always used it freely—that includes Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Dickens, Oscar Wilde, and seemingly everybody else. "A person can't help their birth," says Becky Sharp in <i>Vanity Fair</i>. (Edit: it's fun to dig up these classical examples, because they sound so modern and fresh. "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes"—Wilde. "It's enough to drive anyone out of their senses"—Shaw. "Everybody does and says what they please"—Byron.)<p>The ironic thing is that the "rule" about generic "he" (and later, "he or she" and all the other stilted variants) was fabricated by grammarians who looked at how English actually worked, said "Goodness no that can't be right because Latin doesn't do that", and started telling everybody their grammar was wrong.<p>(Notice how I just used singular "they". Should I have said, "telling everybody his grammar was wrong"? Or "his or her", or "his/er", or just "her", if you're one of those? Or, to adapt the OP's suggestion, "telling everybody everybody's grammar was wrong"?)<p>People never stopped using it, though, and by 1850 the grammarians were so indignant about this that they petitioned the British Parliament to make "he" the legal standard. And people kept on using "they", because it works.<p>Edit: There are so many sources on this that you can't kick Google without stirring some up, but <a href="http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/" rel="nofollow">http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-th...</a> and <a href="http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html</a> are particularly good and <a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html" rel="nofollow">http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.h...</a> is hilarious.
Asking for a gender on a signup form with binary choice is a good way to end up at the center of a protest from the perpetually aggrieved. Repeating the sender's name in consecutive clauses is clunky and jarring. It would be much easier to just reconstruct the sentence slightly:<p>"Matt Hofstadt wanted to make your day by sending you..."
Singular they was covered on an episode [1] of Lexicon Valley, which might be enlightening to anyone who opposes its use (and interesting to pretty much anyone).<p>[1] <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/05/lexicon_valley_seeking_a_gender_neutral_alternative_to_he_and_she_.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/0...</a>
They isn't just plural, it's also gender-neutral.<p>Gender neutral pronouns: they're here to stay[1].<p>[1] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ehrFk-gLk" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ehrFk-gLk</a>
This would require either a whole new field on the checkout form (gender) or some incomplete database lookup for gender-name mappings; neither is a good option. Using 'they' is pretty common practice to refer to someone gender neutrally.
For every Starbucks messing up he/she/they, I can count 10 websites that can't get this right:<p><pre><code> printf("%d %s in your cart",x,(x==1) ? "item" : "items");
0 items
1 item
2 items
</code></pre>
I could swear eBay printed "1 items" for the first decade of it's existence.
<p><pre><code> Redeeming your eGift couldn't be easier. All you need to do is:
1. Redeem your eGift
2.
3.
</code></pre>
That doesn't really work for me, either. Surely steps 2/3 would never be reached - you'd end up in an infinite eGift redemption loop!
"Matt Hofstadt wanted to make your day so Matt sent you..." is uglier and less pleasant to read than the version with "they've". I don't see any argument in the article for what's actually wrong with using "they" - sure, it violates one of English's alleged rules, but the author acknowledges that those rules don't actually matter.<p>(Personally I think women should insist on being called "he" - "she" is a grammatical diminutive which implies inferiority - but given that they haven't, singular they is the best approach available).
Using singular they is fine, but since too many people will jump on you and say you're doing it wrong, it's probably a better play to just restructure the whole sentence to avoid gender and the awkward double first name. Something like:<p>"$NAME wants to make your day with a $20 gift card..."<p>The author here is incorrect. I also dislike namedropping random startups / people I've never heard of, or actually just namedropping in general.<p>Also: <a href="http://xkcd.com/326/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/326/</a>
As the author, I should probably take my own advice and do what I always tell my students. If the structure of the sentence causes so much controversy that it distracts from the meaning, change the sentence. Allow me to offer an alternative that solves everything:<p>"Matt Hofstadt wanted to make your day by sending you a $20.00 USD Starbucks Card eGift to spend on your favorite beverage."
> <i>"the mistake is surely damaging the “high quality” brand Starbucks cultivates in order to sell $5 coffee."</i><p>I would <i>love</i> to see the author try to seriously defend that assertion.
they can be used for singular. grammarians are, necessarily, several decades behind their actual language (but they never seem to want to admit it).<p>anyway, if Aaron Dinin really wants a fix, they (!!!) should've just removed the sickening and pointless, "wanted to make your day". so:<p>"Matt Hofstadt sent you a $20.00 USD Starbucks Card eGift to...", blah blah blah blah blah.
ha! this is awesome coming from super expensive coffee selling Starbucks, who just increased the price of their products, so they can pay for professional editing...lol, j/k<p>The author's solution about using the first name of the person should be the standard across the board. It hurts to read these sentences as much as reading bad code.