Monday, April 21, 2008
« Police cull half their crime prevention ... | Main | Cat invasion »
Over the past few days I've noticed a number of instances in which a British person has referred to a child (whose sex is unknown) with the pronoun "it", as in the following:

The smaller child has its eyes closed, and the bigger one its eyes open. (celebrity "news" story, LINK. Actually referring to one boy and one girl, but the writer does not appear to know which is which)

each child has its moment of glory as it goes up to collect a certificate proving its status as a "Young Egyptologist" (Swansea University, LINK).

To me the singular pronoun "it" sounds very strange when used to refer to a human, especially in the latter case where "it" is used multiple times; my initial feeling is that the use of "it" implies nonhuman characteristics (the only regular use I can think of hearing is offensive disparaging reference to someone of ambiguous gender). Oddly I don't have any such problem with singular "they" which seems like perhaps a more common (US English) way to avoid the "he/she" dilemma.  Indeed, google search for this use (e.g. ..."child has its"...) seems to give an abundance of UK sites once other kinds of cases are discarded (like "Parenting any exceptional child has its challenges", or reference to "child" that is not human, such as node/hierarchical structures).

So it's probably just that "it" is more acceptable to refer to a child in UK English. A quick scan of some other options suggests that this may not be true of adults. For example, "person has its" doesn't seem to give the same kind of results (most of the "neutral references" tend to be from non-English-speaking countries, or referring to a legal "person" which may or may not be human).  Nor does "human", and interestingly "teenager" doesn't seem to do it either. So maybe this use of "it" is only OK before a child hits puberty. But it's OK to use "it" to refer to it before then.

Monday, April 21, 2008 12:26:33 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [8]  |  Related posts:
Awkward headlines
dunce, PhD
On the latch
Going for a slash
Warm spiced wine keeps the mold away
Gang names

Friday, April 25, 2008 12:04:55 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
humbug! It is never right to use IT in reference to a child. As far as the reporter or whatever it was, it should be ashamed of itself@@
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:09:13 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I think you've got this right. One can understand, perhaps, referring to an unknown child as 'it', but a couple of months after my daughter was born, a 60-year-old, male BrE-speaking friend came to visit and consistently referred to her as 'it'. It's not the only time that's happened, but he's the only person who persisted in using it throughout the conversation, even with me using she/her. Since our girl has a name that's not well known in the UK and it isn't an overtly 'girly' name, I think some people call her 'it' because they can't remember what sex she is (we got a 'congratulations on your beautiful boy' card as well), and those ones switch to 'she' once they've had a clue from me in the conversation. But not this other friend...
Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:05:47 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I graduated from a UK grammar school in 1956. As far as I can remember, there was no such thing as singular "they". One could use he, she, it, or one. "They" was always plural. Back then, I wasn't aware of any dilemma about "he/she". If one needed to include both sexes, it was understood that "he" was inclusive. I do seem to remember people referring to babies as "it" until they were sure what sex it was. Made sense to me.

It's only during the past 15 years or so, here in the US, that I've begun to notice people using "they" as singular. To my ears it sounded dreadfully ungrammatical, but I'm gradually getting used to it. All the same, I still don't use it that way. For me, "they" will always be plural.

Monday, June 16, 2008 1:49:56 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Perhaps because children were chattel for so long, and that remnant of 'thing-ness' remains in the use of 'it.'

Languagehat recently defended the use of the singular 'they' - even quoting Jane Austen's as support. Anyway, language changes, that's what keeps it alive.


Monday, June 16, 2008 9:16:09 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
As a speaker of midwestern american English (Kokomo, Indiana), I find singular "they" perfectly grammatical, and only use the "inclusive he" (as mentioned by Pete Moor above) when forced to do so by editors.

It certainly makes sense to allow reference to babies as "it" until you know the sex, but to me, it just doesn't sound right, and my intuition is that this is a US/UK difference where such use seems to be more acceptable in the UK. See the first comment above (by my mother, lifelong speaker of US English) for an example of this.

Chattel explanation - would the same then apply for wives who were also considered chattel for a long time?
Monday, June 16, 2008 10:21:38 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I remember being very struck by the use of 'it' for children by Edith Nesbit (in the early years of the 20th century). She seemed almost to go out of her way to do it! Perhaps it was weirder because these children were the protagonists of her books rather than anonymous anybodies.
Friday, October 17, 2008 6:35:01 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Personally, I tend to refer to all children of all genders as "vile spawn."
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 6:07:48 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Yes, E. Nesbit. And I do it, too. (And I'm American.) It is true, Nesbits groups often include a non-human, so that "everyone brushed the dust from its face" or similar may have to include a bird or prehistoric sand-fairy or... But I much prefer it to "singular they". I'd like to see the practice spread.
Name
E-mail
Home page

Comment (HTML not allowed)  

Enter the code shown (prevents robots):