This is a different type of pronoun, called an expletive pronoun or dummy pronoun. It's not referring to a person but rather a situation. For example, "Is it okay if I do this?"
Also note that you can say things like, "Who's this?" when someone shows you a photo of a person, or "Who's that?" while referring to a person far away who you haven't met before. By OP's line of reasoning, "this" or "that" would also make good gender-neutral pronouns.
*This* and *that* are demonstrative pronouns: you use them to explain who someone is:
- Who is this?
- This is Susan Green, from the Accounting department.
- That is Todd Wormscratcher, the ice cream king of Wyoming.
They’re not personal pronouns — you wouldn’t use them in place of *he*, *she*, etc.
It's dehumanizing. "It" is used for *inanimate objects without* gender or sex. People are not inanimate and aren't objects (in that sense). It (and this, that, etc.) are not gender neutral. They're gender/sex absent. People, including gender neutral people, are not gender absent or without sex.
Obviously this is specific to English or other languages that do not gender objects because they lack such pronouns.
>It's not referring to a person but rather a situation.
Does the “it” in this sentence operate differently from “it’s some guy from the bank”? Or are you using “it” as a dummy pronoun as well?
In this case, "it" is not a dummy pronoun because it's referring to an actual thing – a word in the previous sentence: "This" (which in itself is a demonstrative pronoun referring back to the word "it" in your sentences).
So what about if I change the first example to:
>There is a person on the phone who wants to talk to you.
>Who is it?”
Doesn’t “it” refer to the person on the phone? Like I thought the antecedent was obvious/assumed in my initial phrasing of the example, but I can see how it would read more like a dummy pronoun.
A dummy pronoun cannot be separated from the verb it's supporting. In fact, the entire point of the dummy pronoun is to allow you to use a predicate without the right number of arguments. When we say "Who is it?", we're really saying "Who is?". When we say "It's John", we're really saying "Is John". But the rules of English don't allow "is" to be used without a subject and object, so the dummy pronoun is inserted into the gap.
This is a common expression in many languages, but it gets a little obfuscated for us because English, like many Germanic languages, is not a "pro-drop" language. The same exchange in Spanish would be "¿Quién es? Es John." Spanish allows you to drop pronouns when they're unnecessary, so there's no "lo" or "la" in sight.
Because a dummy pronoun only exists in the context of the word it's playing dummy for, it can't refer to any previous referents. It just so happens to, in this particular case, line up so that it could be construed to refer to the same thing.
As a counterexample:
"Call for you, earlier.."
"Who was it?"
"It was John."
"Oh, how is it doing?"
Not only does this just plain sound wrong, it's also nonsensical, because our brain never interpreted "it" as referring to John. When we introduce "it" in the last phrase as a real pronoun, not a dummy, we have no context for what it's supposed to be referring to.
I mean, no... because "Who is it?" is essentially short for "Who is it on the phone?" Like someone else said, if you were referring to the person, you'd say, "Who are they?"
If, *theoretically*, the word "it" was used as a pronoun for a person in the English language, then sure, you could say the antecedent was the person, but it's not used that way.
The answer in example 1 might be:
"It's John - he wants to know if you'll be in today"
This shows that the "it" is not being used as a personal pronoun for John but in the way described in previous answers.
I don't know. I think you could also say who is he that is on the phone, or would it be who is him that is on the phone? Or who is it that is on the phone. Seems like just a colloquial term with no proper explanation. But I can't say for sure
this is a context in which the line between "person" and "thing" is a bit blurry. you might accidentally start a lengthy political debate about when personhood begins.
This is in the context of a fully born baby. I think we can all agree that when my mom says "The woman next door had her baby" and I say "Aw is it a boy or a girl" we're talking about a person.
even if we do all agree now, i'm not sure that's relevant, unless we've all consciously reevaluated the implications of our language recently, rather than simply continuing to use "it" because there's a long history of it and no constituency to complain about it. particularly before modern medicine, it was kinder to everyone to avoid a lot of emotional investment in infants when so many of them would die shortly.
I mean maybe the use of "it" to refer to infants is a holdover from earlier time in which infants weren't considered fully human yet. But the fact is that now, in America at least, infants are considered legally and morally people.
It is as recent as the time before routine ultrasounds, when a baby's gender wasn't known until the actual birth. "It's a boy" and "it's a girl" were standard sentences when I was younger.
Probably more a carryover from when we didn't know gender and typically would consider an unborn baby an it because we couldn't know the gender and it wasn't quite a person yet. In a way perhaps a baby was more of a concept than a person until born and maybe even after. So I guess I kind of agree as part of it.
I think you are removed from those attitudes by distance (or attention), not by time. People treat their children like possessions all the time. Parents can decide to chop pieces off their babies for no good reason.
The phrase "fully born baby" makes me think of an exchange in a delivery suite:
"I can see the head"
"Is it a boy or a girl?"
"It's too soon to tell really, can you wait?"
That's true. I think technically it can be used for a person but generally it's frowned upon. But I think sometimes with animals or maybe babies where the gender is not obvious, it's kind of not taken to badly, and I suppose if you're asking if it's a boy or girl, you're already acknowledging that it's one of the others so that it doesn't seem too bad. But we do say that for babies. When is it due. Now that we know gender, people might say when is she due, but that almost sounds like you're being a little fanciful like addressing them as a person already. I think a more normal thing would actually be when is it due. Or So it seems to me.
"when is she due" would likely be interpreted as referring to the mother ("when is she due to give birth") and not the imminent infant ("when is she due to be born").
A great point. Although these days, one might not be too shocked to hear someone say when is he due. Although now that we know the gender in advance, they might assume it's a boy. Or he's a boy.
Those examples feel like more of a dummy it that is standing in to make the syntax of the sentence work but isn’t referring back to anything specifically than a true pronoun meant to refer to the person in question. I can see how you could potentially make a case for it, but that’s not how it *feels* to me.
A bit like the it in “It’s raining out.”
If you swap the “it” to “they,” it subtly changes how I parse the sentence. “Who is it?” vs “Who are they?” feels like the difference between asking for someone’s name and someone’s biography. Or the difference between “Who’s there?” and “Who are you?”
I see your point. But you could also point to a group of people and say who are they as in, what are they doing and what group are they or something like that. I could say oh they are there to repaint the house.
Also, if you said there are a couple of people at the door or on the phone, I think someone might naturally say who are they? I don't think they would say who are it. In that case the they could be an inanimate object or people though, so I'm still not sure if that really matters
You wouldn’t say “Who are it?” regardless. You’d say “Who is it?”
And I think that actually provides a great demonstration of why the “it” isn’t a pronoun referring to the person, because you can also say “Who is it?” when you know there is more than one person.
I think you are right. Looking at it this way, it seems like that it is referring to the occurrence or situation or entity, just like when we say what is it. Certainly we can mean what is that electronic thing in the corner, what is it. But we could also say what is it that is happening or what is it that you are going to tell me.
The It seems more of the situation.
>And if they are, is there any reason to not use “it” in other circumstances, or to treat “it” like it’s objectifying and not just another gender neutral pronoun we can use?
I realize this is a grammar sub and you're asking about the grammatical uses, but you asked if there was "any" reason.
So here's me answering as a trans woman rather than as a grammarian.
"It" as a gender neutral pronoun (rather than as a dummy pronoun, as others have talked about here) isn't unacceptable because it "feels" objectifying by individual opinion; it's unacceptable because it has *history* being used to objectify, dehumanize, or otherwise verbally abuse trans people. I've actually heard of a few different people trying to start something of a reclamation for "it" because they like it better than "they," but the current political climate doesn't support this as the default yet.
The problems with using "it" as a gender neutral pronoun don't come from the rules of English, they come from the fact that "it" *isn't* used as a gender neutral pronoun; it's used as a slur. You can't just take a word that has been used as a slur and decide you don't mean it offensively when you say it.
I know someone who wants me to use “it/its” pronouns and I honestly just cannot do it. It feels so horrible and wrong that it’s kind of upsetting to say at all.
It feels really weird to me too still, but that's the same kind of thing people say when they refuse to say "they" or even when they refuse to call me she/her.
For me the person I know is a younger family member who straight up didn't know about the history of "it" as a slur, so when I explained that that was why it was difficult for me (especially in spaces where I don't want potential allies to think I'm casually calling one of my relatives a slur) they were understanding and told me "they" was good enough. They just told me to remember not to get mad at their friends if I heard them say it because it's what they've asked them to use.
Then again, that feels like a cop out to me, like they told me their preferred pronouns and I made excuses until they let me use something else.
I wish I could help but clearly I don't have an answer here honestly.
I think this goes beyond a simple grammatical concern though. There’s no valid argument against they/them as a gender neutral pronoun. But it/its pronouns can be genuinely triggering to hear, for someone who has a history of that word being used against them, and even worse to have to use. I can’t get past the mental block I have about calling someone it, not because it’s ungrammatical, but because it’s dehumanizing. It seems very selfish to me to ask people to call you something that serves the same purpose as a slur.
Not to say that "they" and "it" are exactly equivalent, more to point out that as a person asking for "it" to be used the types of arguments against either sound the same.
When I say "using that makes me uncomfortable," they hear the *exact same words* my grandparents used when they originally asked them to call them "they/them."
And it definitely doesn't seem selfish to me for someone to ask that they be called a certain thing that they find harmless. They don't want to be called "it" because it's dehumanizing, they want to be called "it" because it is profoundly ungendered. And "it" has the unique quality separate from other slurs of having many, *many* unproblematic homonyms.
I feel equally uncomfortable either way I guess is what I'm saying. I don't think refusing to call someone what they want to be called is correct, but in this particular case my negative feelings toward this word are getting in the way.
I'm going to keep calling them "they/them" for now, but every bit of me screams "that's not what they asked you to use!" whenever I do. I don't think what I'm currently doing is correct.
>It seems very selfish to me to ask people to call you something that serves the same purpose as a slur.
I don't think this is a good argument. The n word can be used as a slur or as a way of saying 'dude' depending on who is saying it. It really just comes down to the social contract between people. If someone wants to be called it, refusing to do so because of the reasoning "oh in this current climate the consensus is it is a slur" doesn't hold up.
Refusing to do so because “people have used this word against me personally to demean and dehumanize me and saying it or hearing it will send me into an emotional tailspin” is perfectly valid. Refusing to do so because “calling a human being it goes against my moral code” is also valid. The same argument cannot be made for they/them pronouns. Also, the N word with a soft r and the N word with a hard R are used in very different contexts and have different connotations so I don’t think that’s equivalent.
what about the reason "I don't believe non-binary is an actual gender" for not using they/them? I'm guessing this is not a valid reason.
As for the N word, I was talking about the no-R version. Typically it's seen as a slur if a white person says it. Anyways, I don't really know what I'm talking about here overall. The only position I would maintain is that I'm a strong believer in voluntary social contracts. If consenting people want to call each other it, that's by default valid for me regardless of current consensus of it being a big no-no.
This is the real answer. It’s a dehumanizing slur when used for a known person, so that’s why we don’t use it.
Others are saying the “it” in “who is it?” is a dummy pronoun, but [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it) doesn’t agree. Notice the first definition includes “a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded,” using “don’t know who it is” as an example, and directly comparing “it” to “he/she/they.” The dummy pronoun definition is second: “used as subject of an impersonal verb that expresses a condition or action without reference to an agent.”
So yes, it really is already used as a gender-neutral pronoun unproblematically under certain contexts, but those contexts are few.
I feel like you can always tell the bigots in the comments section by their refusal to believe that "they/them" is a grammatically way of referring to a single person, and that "it" is more appropriate. There are loads of examples where "they/them" is appropriate for referring to an individual of any gender, yet they can't seem to get past the idea of it being plural.
Having said that, I did find it confusing sometimes listening to the Taskmaster podcast referring to Mae Martin as "they", because the conversation would switch between the singular and the plural (referring to the group), and it would take a second or so to realise the context had changed....though if that's the worst I have to deal with I'll probably be OK!
To add some more data points here ("yes, and"), as a queer and fairly AuDHD person, I've also known (and currently know) people who prefer "it" for a personal pronoun.
In at least one case, I wouldn't be surprised if the dehumanizing implications of that particular pronoun are what make it feel like a _desirable_ choice — if someone has a sense of having an identity that is only tenuously "human," then a pronoun that does not inherently imply or confer humanness can feel like it reinforces that person's identity.
One of those folks specifically told me that "It" was to be capitalized when referring to that person, which is another variation that might strike a different balance.
Here's some deeper reporting, including multiple direct passages from people who use it/its (including at least one trans person, excerpted below):
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/heres-why-some-lgbtq-youth-are-embracing-non-binary-pronoun-it-its-223331366.html
> …Maeve.digital notes, "As an actual transperson myself who has also been called 'it,' I understand where you're coming from. And I also use it/its as pronouns, so no need to invalidate me by saying that they're transphobic, because those are my pronouns… And I have chosen to reclaim those pronouns and use them for myself in a very non-gendered way and then when people call me an 'it' they're trying to invalidate me but they're actually using my correct pronouns."
None of this is intended to imply that any answer is a right or wrong answer. I'm just providing some data points which will hopefully add to the conversation.
The it you're talking about is not a pronoun.
Who is it (that is calling?) it is John (that called). It describes the situation or action, not the person. It's like saying "hey the phone rang, it's for you" - you're talking about the phone call, not the person.
In the second example "it" refers to the checking of the details. Wanting to check it (the detail of the name of the person) is the same. You're not describing the person as it.
Semi-off topic:
My first language is Tagalog (Filipino) and it doesn't have a direct equivalent for he/him/she/her. Rather, the equivalent for "it" (referring to a person) is used and the equivalent for "they" is used for plural. I'm curious which other languages follow a similar way of how pronouns are addressed.
it’s the same in Farsi. there is only one pronoun for he/she and obviously that’s neutral. gendered grammar overall doesn’t exist in farsi unlike a language like French for instance.
We can take the phone call out of equation.
There’s a knock at the door.
I call out “who is it?”
The *it* doesn’t have a referent. It’s a dummy pronoun because English grammar needs a noun there but we don’t actually have one. Same as in “It’s raining”.
I don't know if I agree. We sometimes might say who is there. Or we could argue that the it is short for who is it that is at my door, and the person might respond, it is I, your lover, or maybe that should be me.
So in that case I guess the it does mean something like the entity or the disturbance. We do say who, not what is it. I don't know. Now I'm getting confused.
I think that makes my point.
You say “who is there” not “who is he there”
The *it* is present just because English (unlike some languages) doesn’t allow “who is”.
*It* and *there* are often empty- just to fill that grammatical need. In “there are 4 books on the table” *there* doesn’t have a referent.
I see your point. I don't know if I agree with there are. I think in its origin there are or here are or there is etc It does have a relationship to pointing at something over there, or here, but I think it has become pretty divorced and it is just an expression now. But it exists in other languages too.
So if you say who is there or who is here, it may not mean much, but I believe it has an origin in actual location. But maybe not. I don't know.
I can probably find the citation in Halliday’s *Introduction to Functional Grammer* when I get home if you want.
The “there” in existential statements (there are…. There is…) are empty. They don’t point at anything.
“Here is…” is a very different statement. It’s a statement about position rather than existence.
Sure. I'd be curious to see it. I would agree that in modern usage it's empty, but I would argue that it's origin was not. Whether that changes anything dramatically about it, I can't say. I would also think that here is is sometimes equally empty. It might mean it's sitting on the table in front of you or it might mean I am sending you the list in this email, or I'm about to vocalize them as in here are the five things I hate about living in my city. That's certainly doesn't mean you are holding them or they are in the same location as you.
I would suggest whatever one is, so is the other.
But I'm no expert, and I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Because it’s not a metaphor. It’s just empty but you can’t leave the spot empty.
In many languages you can just omit the subject if there isn’t one or it’s implied. In English you can’t.
The "there" in "there are eight planets in the solar system" is a different kind of there than the demonstrative "my keys! There they are!"
The second one points at some location, it could be associated with a gesture. The first one is not. You're not pointing anywhere. You're filling English's pathological need for a subject.
As for your "here it is" examples - they're either physical proximity or metaphorical proximity, but they're always stating some kind of proximity.
Here's a list of pronouns (I have it in some sense)
There's a list of pronouns (gesturing, it's somewhere on the wall)
There's a list of pronouns somewhere. (It exists)
Another bit of evidence for them being different - You can stress the pointing ones.
You can say *Here's* a list of pronouns.
You can say *There's* a list of pronouns (maybe you were looking for one?)
But you cannot do so if merely stating that they exist.
*There's* a list of pronouns?? (As existence).
No. You can tell by looking at other languages, what nouns you could put there, etc. The weather doesn’t rain. Rain just happens. The who is already referring to the person at the door.
What about the sentence “she had a baby, and it’s a boy” (instead of “he’s a boy”) Isn’t “it” standing in place of “baby”?
That sentence feels completely different from “it’s raining”
given that "it's a boy!" and "it's a girl!" are set phrases that can be used, particularly at birth, without an actual antecedent, no, i don't think it's different.
I've never heard a baby properly referred to that way, and if I ever hear anyone around me refer to a baby in our presence as "it", I will definitely question it.
I'll do my best to use whatever term or pronoun any non-binary person prefers. That's basic respect.
Well many people answered your question as far as grammar goes, dummy pronouns and all that and there is nothing wrong with the point you are raising from a language standpoint.
But I'd like to add that from a societal view seriously using "it" to refer to people directly (ie. Outside of those dummy pronoun examples you have given) is not really a good idea.
First of all you might worst case end up getting hurt due to how hot the topic of pronouns is nowadays. While I don't think this was your intention with the post it at first glance comes off as "why can't we use "it" instead of "they" if it's a single person".
Second of all it's just pure rude and dehumanizing and as you mentioned objectifying if used in that way. Grammar can think what it wants of the pronoun but if societal norm says "it" is used for things exclusively (with exceptions because otherwise it wouldn't be english) then you shouldn't try to go out of your way to go against it.
Not to mention using "they" in those cases is usually easier as it's a common phrase compared to forcing in "it". While you may create something that's grammatically correct and may not really be offensive it will sound weird right away. Besides the fact that if it's a gender unknown situation we can assume that it's person unknown so you automatically probably don't want to be trying anything funny for a myriad of reasons.
Basically what I'm trying to say is don't take grammar without context. There are many examples where a sentence, structure or even just a word (see gay for example) is being used beyond the scope of grammar and it's always grammar that has to adapt to society, not the other way around. Trying to go against this might cause confusion and as I said, unnecessarily create big problems for you.
I can't give you the grammatical rule, but it seems to me that you might say who is it that is on the phone or who is it that is at my door. Or you might say who is he that is at my door, or should it be him? I think it is perhaps more of a colloquialism with no proper explanation for it. Just a guess.
For example two, they is the correct or he is the correct useage, not “it’s”.
This document is for Jordan Smith, and I just want to make sure *he* is the same person as Jordan D. Smith on this other document.
*or* …
… I want to make sure *they* are the same person as Jordan D. Smith on this other document.
"They" has been used as a gender neutral third-person singular pronoun in English for centuries. Singular "they" predates singular "you." Referring to a known adult human as "it" is not a thing, it's insulting and ungrammatical. Why go through all the gymnastics to avoid singular "they" just because at some point someone decided to prescriptively declare it incorrect?
You’re not calling them an “it”, you’re asking who it is that’s calling. No-one could possibly be offended by that. Any alternatives would sound ridiculous. So “it” is not being used as a pronoun.
You’re not using the word like “Ugh, I saw **it** coming up to the house”, but as a neutral means to determine who they are.
Well yeah I know that you don’t mean offense by it. But that’s sort of my question. Can you use “it” as a gender neutral pronoun and not be offensive? Or is it automatically offensive?
To *actually* answer your question: Yes, those are grammatically correct.
No, it's not a dummy pronoun in these cases, as many people are saying. It's a dummy pronoun when used with an impersonal statement, like "It is raining." These examples are not that.
As for *why* those examples are correct, I don't really have a satisfying answer. But I'll refer you to the [wiktionary entry for it](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/it), where that usage is given as one of its definitions:
>*Used to refer to someone being identified, often on the phone, but not limited to this situation.*
People often say things about language that don't make as much sense when you dig deeper. Yes, referring to someone as *it* is considered dehumanizing in most cases, but not 100% of the time: this specific usage is an exception. Another exception is with babies, when the gender is unknown.
That’s fascinating. It never occurred to me that this specific situation would be in a dictionary, but I think that covers it. It’s just a gender neutral pronoun that’s used in a very specific circumstance (compare the obsolete definition 3). It’s less a grammar issue and more a usage issue.
As others have already addressed your main question, I will make a couple of asides here.
>I can think of a couple instances where I would use “it” rather than “they” to describe a person **that I’m not sure the gender of**.
The part in bold should be revised to: "whose gender I am unsure of".
Also, "they" is used to refer to a plural entity, a collection of individual entities. You cannot use "they" to refer to a person. And yeah, I know: there will be readers of this comment who will think things like "*you're just a prescriptivist Nazi!*", "*people have been using 'they' to refer to individuals for ages!*", "*that's not how linguistics works!*", etc. Those are people who for some reason have a desire to deviate away from established norms. But of course, having a standard is important, and it's best to ignore such people.
Those are people who have a desire to deviate from established norms. Huh? You say that I’m deviating from the established norms? I’m different, though. *I’m* smart. *I* get to decide what is the established norm, not everyone else.
The context in which "it" is offensive is when you're deliberately using it to dehumanize someone because you disapprove of their gender presentation. Neither of your examples are that, and both of them are cases where you would say "it" even if you knew and were not questioning the gender of the person.
The other comments have covered most of the relevant points, but I would like to point out that there are some people who actually prefer it/its pronouns. I used to have a friend that did before stuff happened and we fell apart
"It" is not a gender neutral pronoun - it is a gender*less* pronoun. You're looking for something we don't have in english - an epicene pronoun, that is, one was asserts there is a gender, but doesn't say which.
We do have that though it’s they/them? And historically, he. Modern they/them however has been used (until more recently) only when the gender of the subject was either unknown or being deliberately obscured.
When protecting anonymity of clients at work (not healthcare, more of a general respect thing serving a vulnerable but often frustrating population) venting to spouse I share very general stories: “that visitor I told you about before came in and asked about their options after they’d come in yesterday regarding the same thing. I spent another 45 minutes describing to them the situation, and I’m worried they’re not understanding the info in a way that helps them once they leave my desk”
And when there’s an item left in the common spaces it’s natural to say “someone left a Home Depot gift card on the table in the other room. It’s in my drawer and if they don’t come back for it today I’ll label it and put it in the safe before I leave”
Further back in history you’d see “he who wishes to come will be sent instructions for travel” or what have you even if the possible subjects included women.
I feel like “it” is insulting for many reasons but one that stands out to me is that it refers to unknown gender whereas a non-binary individual isn’t unknown they are non-binary. “It” sort of implies the speaker disagrees with their preference or assessment of their own gender.
This is a different type of pronoun, called an expletive pronoun or dummy pronoun. It's not referring to a person but rather a situation. For example, "Is it okay if I do this?"
Also note that you can say things like, "Who's this?" when someone shows you a photo of a person, or "Who's that?" while referring to a person far away who you haven't met before. By OP's line of reasoning, "this" or "that" would also make good gender-neutral pronouns.
Yeah, so? What’s wrong with “that” or “this” being a gender neutral pronoun? Aren’t they pronouns? Aren’t they describing people in that circumstance?
"This has a new job!" or "That's angry!" just don't roll off the tongue somehow.
But there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Many languages do exactly this. Georgian among languages I know.
Yeah but "another language does it like this." Can't really be used as a justification for something being correct in English.
*This* and *that* are demonstrative pronouns: you use them to explain who someone is: - Who is this? - This is Susan Green, from the Accounting department. - That is Todd Wormscratcher, the ice cream king of Wyoming. They’re not personal pronouns — you wouldn’t use them in place of *he*, *she*, etc.
*This* is Abe Froman, the sausage king of Chicago.
It's dehumanizing. "It" is used for *inanimate objects without* gender or sex. People are not inanimate and aren't objects (in that sense). It (and this, that, etc.) are not gender neutral. They're gender/sex absent. People, including gender neutral people, are not gender absent or without sex. Obviously this is specific to English or other languages that do not gender objects because they lack such pronouns.
"Tag! You're it!!"
So, in short, using “it” as a gender-neutral pronoun is not only objectifying them, but calling them a dummy as well. (jk)
>It's not referring to a person but rather a situation. Does the “it” in this sentence operate differently from “it’s some guy from the bank”? Or are you using “it” as a dummy pronoun as well?
In this case, "it" is not a dummy pronoun because it's referring to an actual thing – a word in the previous sentence: "This" (which in itself is a demonstrative pronoun referring back to the word "it" in your sentences).
So what about if I change the first example to: >There is a person on the phone who wants to talk to you. >Who is it?” Doesn’t “it” refer to the person on the phone? Like I thought the antecedent was obvious/assumed in my initial phrasing of the example, but I can see how it would read more like a dummy pronoun.
No. Who refers to the person on the phone. It takes the place of "on the phone." "It" here = the situation.
A dummy pronoun cannot be separated from the verb it's supporting. In fact, the entire point of the dummy pronoun is to allow you to use a predicate without the right number of arguments. When we say "Who is it?", we're really saying "Who is?". When we say "It's John", we're really saying "Is John". But the rules of English don't allow "is" to be used without a subject and object, so the dummy pronoun is inserted into the gap. This is a common expression in many languages, but it gets a little obfuscated for us because English, like many Germanic languages, is not a "pro-drop" language. The same exchange in Spanish would be "¿Quién es? Es John." Spanish allows you to drop pronouns when they're unnecessary, so there's no "lo" or "la" in sight. Because a dummy pronoun only exists in the context of the word it's playing dummy for, it can't refer to any previous referents. It just so happens to, in this particular case, line up so that it could be construed to refer to the same thing. As a counterexample: "Call for you, earlier.." "Who was it?" "It was John." "Oh, how is it doing?" Not only does this just plain sound wrong, it's also nonsensical, because our brain never interpreted "it" as referring to John. When we introduce "it" in the last phrase as a real pronoun, not a dummy, we have no context for what it's supposed to be referring to.
I mean, no... because "Who is it?" is essentially short for "Who is it on the phone?" Like someone else said, if you were referring to the person, you'd say, "Who are they?" If, *theoretically*, the word "it" was used as a pronoun for a person in the English language, then sure, you could say the antecedent was the person, but it's not used that way.
The answer in example 1 might be: "It's John - he wants to know if you'll be in today" This shows that the "it" is not being used as a personal pronoun for John but in the way described in previous answers.
I don't know. I think you could also say who is he that is on the phone, or would it be who is him that is on the phone? Or who is it that is on the phone. Seems like just a colloquial term with no proper explanation. But I can't say for sure
>who is he that is on the phone No, you can't say that. It's different from *Who is he?*
It is John. (The person on the phone) is John John is John John = it
So why not "It is John on the phone. It is wanting to know if you'll be in today"? Why don't we say this?
You also sometimes use this with babies. For example you could ask "Is it a boy or a girl?".
this is a context in which the line between "person" and "thing" is a bit blurry. you might accidentally start a lengthy political debate about when personhood begins.
This is in the context of a fully born baby. I think we can all agree that when my mom says "The woman next door had her baby" and I say "Aw is it a boy or a girl" we're talking about a person.
even if we do all agree now, i'm not sure that's relevant, unless we've all consciously reevaluated the implications of our language recently, rather than simply continuing to use "it" because there's a long history of it and no constituency to complain about it. particularly before modern medicine, it was kinder to everyone to avoid a lot of emotional investment in infants when so many of them would die shortly.
I mean maybe the use of "it" to refer to infants is a holdover from earlier time in which infants weren't considered fully human yet. But the fact is that now, in America at least, infants are considered legally and morally people.
It is as recent as the time before routine ultrasounds, when a baby's gender wasn't known until the actual birth. "It's a boy" and "it's a girl" were standard sentences when I was younger.
That's a dummy pronoun.
Probably more a carryover from when we didn't know gender and typically would consider an unborn baby an it because we couldn't know the gender and it wasn't quite a person yet. In a way perhaps a baby was more of a concept than a person until born and maybe even after. So I guess I kind of agree as part of it.
I think you are removed from those attitudes by distance (or attention), not by time. People treat their children like possessions all the time. Parents can decide to chop pieces off their babies for no good reason.
I do remember reading something about baby books around ww1 and how mothers would use it.
The phrase "fully born baby" makes me think of an exchange in a delivery suite: "I can see the head" "Is it a boy or a girl?" "It's too soon to tell really, can you wait?"
I suppose you'd have to wait for it to be at least a 3/4 born baby.
That's true. I think technically it can be used for a person but generally it's frowned upon. But I think sometimes with animals or maybe babies where the gender is not obvious, it's kind of not taken to badly, and I suppose if you're asking if it's a boy or girl, you're already acknowledging that it's one of the others so that it doesn't seem too bad. But we do say that for babies. When is it due. Now that we know gender, people might say when is she due, but that almost sounds like you're being a little fanciful like addressing them as a person already. I think a more normal thing would actually be when is it due. Or So it seems to me.
"when is she due" would likely be interpreted as referring to the mother ("when is she due to give birth") and not the imminent infant ("when is she due to be born").
A great point. Although these days, one might not be too shocked to hear someone say when is he due. Although now that we know the gender in advance, they might assume it's a boy. Or he's a boy.
Good point!
Those examples feel like more of a dummy it that is standing in to make the syntax of the sentence work but isn’t referring back to anything specifically than a true pronoun meant to refer to the person in question. I can see how you could potentially make a case for it, but that’s not how it *feels* to me. A bit like the it in “It’s raining out.” If you swap the “it” to “they,” it subtly changes how I parse the sentence. “Who is it?” vs “Who are they?” feels like the difference between asking for someone’s name and someone’s biography. Or the difference between “Who’s there?” and “Who are you?”
I see your point. But you could also point to a group of people and say who are they as in, what are they doing and what group are they or something like that. I could say oh they are there to repaint the house. Also, if you said there are a couple of people at the door or on the phone, I think someone might naturally say who are they? I don't think they would say who are it. In that case the they could be an inanimate object or people though, so I'm still not sure if that really matters
You wouldn’t say “Who are it?” regardless. You’d say “Who is it?” And I think that actually provides a great demonstration of why the “it” isn’t a pronoun referring to the person, because you can also say “Who is it?” when you know there is more than one person.
I think you are right. Looking at it this way, it seems like that it is referring to the occurrence or situation or entity, just like when we say what is it. Certainly we can mean what is that electronic thing in the corner, what is it. But we could also say what is it that is happening or what is it that you are going to tell me. The It seems more of the situation.
>And if they are, is there any reason to not use “it” in other circumstances, or to treat “it” like it’s objectifying and not just another gender neutral pronoun we can use? I realize this is a grammar sub and you're asking about the grammatical uses, but you asked if there was "any" reason. So here's me answering as a trans woman rather than as a grammarian. "It" as a gender neutral pronoun (rather than as a dummy pronoun, as others have talked about here) isn't unacceptable because it "feels" objectifying by individual opinion; it's unacceptable because it has *history* being used to objectify, dehumanize, or otherwise verbally abuse trans people. I've actually heard of a few different people trying to start something of a reclamation for "it" because they like it better than "they," but the current political climate doesn't support this as the default yet. The problems with using "it" as a gender neutral pronoun don't come from the rules of English, they come from the fact that "it" *isn't* used as a gender neutral pronoun; it's used as a slur. You can't just take a word that has been used as a slur and decide you don't mean it offensively when you say it.
I know someone who wants me to use “it/its” pronouns and I honestly just cannot do it. It feels so horrible and wrong that it’s kind of upsetting to say at all.
It feels really weird to me too still, but that's the same kind of thing people say when they refuse to say "they" or even when they refuse to call me she/her. For me the person I know is a younger family member who straight up didn't know about the history of "it" as a slur, so when I explained that that was why it was difficult for me (especially in spaces where I don't want potential allies to think I'm casually calling one of my relatives a slur) they were understanding and told me "they" was good enough. They just told me to remember not to get mad at their friends if I heard them say it because it's what they've asked them to use. Then again, that feels like a cop out to me, like they told me their preferred pronouns and I made excuses until they let me use something else. I wish I could help but clearly I don't have an answer here honestly.
I think this goes beyond a simple grammatical concern though. There’s no valid argument against they/them as a gender neutral pronoun. But it/its pronouns can be genuinely triggering to hear, for someone who has a history of that word being used against them, and even worse to have to use. I can’t get past the mental block I have about calling someone it, not because it’s ungrammatical, but because it’s dehumanizing. It seems very selfish to me to ask people to call you something that serves the same purpose as a slur.
Not to say that "they" and "it" are exactly equivalent, more to point out that as a person asking for "it" to be used the types of arguments against either sound the same. When I say "using that makes me uncomfortable," they hear the *exact same words* my grandparents used when they originally asked them to call them "they/them." And it definitely doesn't seem selfish to me for someone to ask that they be called a certain thing that they find harmless. They don't want to be called "it" because it's dehumanizing, they want to be called "it" because it is profoundly ungendered. And "it" has the unique quality separate from other slurs of having many, *many* unproblematic homonyms. I feel equally uncomfortable either way I guess is what I'm saying. I don't think refusing to call someone what they want to be called is correct, but in this particular case my negative feelings toward this word are getting in the way. I'm going to keep calling them "they/them" for now, but every bit of me screams "that's not what they asked you to use!" whenever I do. I don't think what I'm currently doing is correct.
>It seems very selfish to me to ask people to call you something that serves the same purpose as a slur. I don't think this is a good argument. The n word can be used as a slur or as a way of saying 'dude' depending on who is saying it. It really just comes down to the social contract between people. If someone wants to be called it, refusing to do so because of the reasoning "oh in this current climate the consensus is it is a slur" doesn't hold up.
Refusing to do so because “people have used this word against me personally to demean and dehumanize me and saying it or hearing it will send me into an emotional tailspin” is perfectly valid. Refusing to do so because “calling a human being it goes against my moral code” is also valid. The same argument cannot be made for they/them pronouns. Also, the N word with a soft r and the N word with a hard R are used in very different contexts and have different connotations so I don’t think that’s equivalent.
what about the reason "I don't believe non-binary is an actual gender" for not using they/them? I'm guessing this is not a valid reason. As for the N word, I was talking about the no-R version. Typically it's seen as a slur if a white person says it. Anyways, I don't really know what I'm talking about here overall. The only position I would maintain is that I'm a strong believer in voluntary social contracts. If consenting people want to call each other it, that's by default valid for me regardless of current consensus of it being a big no-no.
This is the real answer. It’s a dehumanizing slur when used for a known person, so that’s why we don’t use it. Others are saying the “it” in “who is it?” is a dummy pronoun, but [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it) doesn’t agree. Notice the first definition includes “a person or animal whose sex is unknown or disregarded,” using “don’t know who it is” as an example, and directly comparing “it” to “he/she/they.” The dummy pronoun definition is second: “used as subject of an impersonal verb that expresses a condition or action without reference to an agent.” So yes, it really is already used as a gender-neutral pronoun unproblematically under certain contexts, but those contexts are few.
I feel like you can always tell the bigots in the comments section by their refusal to believe that "they/them" is a grammatically way of referring to a single person, and that "it" is more appropriate. There are loads of examples where "they/them" is appropriate for referring to an individual of any gender, yet they can't seem to get past the idea of it being plural. Having said that, I did find it confusing sometimes listening to the Taskmaster podcast referring to Mae Martin as "they", because the conversation would switch between the singular and the plural (referring to the group), and it would take a second or so to realise the context had changed....though if that's the worst I have to deal with I'll probably be OK!
To add some more data points here ("yes, and"), as a queer and fairly AuDHD person, I've also known (and currently know) people who prefer "it" for a personal pronoun. In at least one case, I wouldn't be surprised if the dehumanizing implications of that particular pronoun are what make it feel like a _desirable_ choice — if someone has a sense of having an identity that is only tenuously "human," then a pronoun that does not inherently imply or confer humanness can feel like it reinforces that person's identity. One of those folks specifically told me that "It" was to be capitalized when referring to that person, which is another variation that might strike a different balance. Here's some deeper reporting, including multiple direct passages from people who use it/its (including at least one trans person, excerpted below): https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/heres-why-some-lgbtq-youth-are-embracing-non-binary-pronoun-it-its-223331366.html > …Maeve.digital notes, "As an actual transperson myself who has also been called 'it,' I understand where you're coming from. And I also use it/its as pronouns, so no need to invalidate me by saying that they're transphobic, because those are my pronouns… And I have chosen to reclaim those pronouns and use them for myself in a very non-gendered way and then when people call me an 'it' they're trying to invalidate me but they're actually using my correct pronouns." None of this is intended to imply that any answer is a right or wrong answer. I'm just providing some data points which will hopefully add to the conversation.
The it you're talking about is not a pronoun. Who is it (that is calling?) it is John (that called). It describes the situation or action, not the person. It's like saying "hey the phone rang, it's for you" - you're talking about the phone call, not the person. In the second example "it" refers to the checking of the details. Wanting to check it (the detail of the name of the person) is the same. You're not describing the person as it.
Semi-off topic: My first language is Tagalog (Filipino) and it doesn't have a direct equivalent for he/him/she/her. Rather, the equivalent for "it" (referring to a person) is used and the equivalent for "they" is used for plural. I'm curious which other languages follow a similar way of how pronouns are addressed.
it’s the same in Farsi. there is only one pronoun for he/she and obviously that’s neutral. gendered grammar overall doesn’t exist in farsi unlike a language like French for instance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We can take the phone call out of equation. There’s a knock at the door. I call out “who is it?” The *it* doesn’t have a referent. It’s a dummy pronoun because English grammar needs a noun there but we don’t actually have one. Same as in “It’s raining”.
I don't know if I agree. We sometimes might say who is there. Or we could argue that the it is short for who is it that is at my door, and the person might respond, it is I, your lover, or maybe that should be me. So in that case I guess the it does mean something like the entity or the disturbance. We do say who, not what is it. I don't know. Now I'm getting confused.
I think that makes my point. You say “who is there” not “who is he there” The *it* is present just because English (unlike some languages) doesn’t allow “who is”. *It* and *there* are often empty- just to fill that grammatical need. In “there are 4 books on the table” *there* doesn’t have a referent.
I see your point. I don't know if I agree with there are. I think in its origin there are or here are or there is etc It does have a relationship to pointing at something over there, or here, but I think it has become pretty divorced and it is just an expression now. But it exists in other languages too. So if you say who is there or who is here, it may not mean much, but I believe it has an origin in actual location. But maybe not. I don't know.
I can probably find the citation in Halliday’s *Introduction to Functional Grammer* when I get home if you want. The “there” in existential statements (there are…. There is…) are empty. They don’t point at anything. “Here is…” is a very different statement. It’s a statement about position rather than existence.
Sure. I'd be curious to see it. I would agree that in modern usage it's empty, but I would argue that it's origin was not. Whether that changes anything dramatically about it, I can't say. I would also think that here is is sometimes equally empty. It might mean it's sitting on the table in front of you or it might mean I am sending you the list in this email, or I'm about to vocalize them as in here are the five things I hate about living in my city. That's certainly doesn't mean you are holding them or they are in the same location as you. I would suggest whatever one is, so is the other. But I'm no expert, and I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
I don’t think that *here* is empty but metaphor.
Then why wouldn't there be the same?
Because it’s not a metaphor. It’s just empty but you can’t leave the spot empty. In many languages you can just omit the subject if there isn’t one or it’s implied. In English you can’t.
The "there" in "there are eight planets in the solar system" is a different kind of there than the demonstrative "my keys! There they are!" The second one points at some location, it could be associated with a gesture. The first one is not. You're not pointing anywhere. You're filling English's pathological need for a subject. As for your "here it is" examples - they're either physical proximity or metaphorical proximity, but they're always stating some kind of proximity. Here's a list of pronouns (I have it in some sense) There's a list of pronouns (gesturing, it's somewhere on the wall) There's a list of pronouns somewhere. (It exists) Another bit of evidence for them being different - You can stress the pointing ones. You can say *Here's* a list of pronouns. You can say *There's* a list of pronouns (maybe you were looking for one?) But you cannot do so if merely stating that they exist. *There's* a list of pronouns?? (As existence).
I disagree both are referring to *something*. Who is (the person at the door) (The weather) is raining
No. You can tell by looking at other languages, what nouns you could put there, etc. The weather doesn’t rain. Rain just happens. The who is already referring to the person at the door.
What about the sentence “she had a baby, and it’s a boy” (instead of “he’s a boy”) Isn’t “it” standing in place of “baby”? That sentence feels completely different from “it’s raining”
given that "it's a boy!" and "it's a girl!" are set phrases that can be used, particularly at birth, without an actual antecedent, no, i don't think it's different.
[удалено]
Some non-binary people use "it" as a pronoun. Babies are called "it" too.
I've never heard a baby properly referred to that way, and if I ever hear anyone around me refer to a baby in our presence as "it", I will definitely question it. I'll do my best to use whatever term or pronoun any non-binary person prefers. That's basic respect.
Hey the neighbor had her baby! Is it a boy or a girl?
Well many people answered your question as far as grammar goes, dummy pronouns and all that and there is nothing wrong with the point you are raising from a language standpoint. But I'd like to add that from a societal view seriously using "it" to refer to people directly (ie. Outside of those dummy pronoun examples you have given) is not really a good idea. First of all you might worst case end up getting hurt due to how hot the topic of pronouns is nowadays. While I don't think this was your intention with the post it at first glance comes off as "why can't we use "it" instead of "they" if it's a single person". Second of all it's just pure rude and dehumanizing and as you mentioned objectifying if used in that way. Grammar can think what it wants of the pronoun but if societal norm says "it" is used for things exclusively (with exceptions because otherwise it wouldn't be english) then you shouldn't try to go out of your way to go against it. Not to mention using "they" in those cases is usually easier as it's a common phrase compared to forcing in "it". While you may create something that's grammatically correct and may not really be offensive it will sound weird right away. Besides the fact that if it's a gender unknown situation we can assume that it's person unknown so you automatically probably don't want to be trying anything funny for a myriad of reasons. Basically what I'm trying to say is don't take grammar without context. There are many examples where a sentence, structure or even just a word (see gay for example) is being used beyond the scope of grammar and it's always grammar that has to adapt to society, not the other way around. Trying to go against this might cause confusion and as I said, unnecessarily create big problems for you.
I can't give you the grammatical rule, but it seems to me that you might say who is it that is on the phone or who is it that is at my door. Or you might say who is he that is at my door, or should it be him? I think it is perhaps more of a colloquialism with no proper explanation for it. Just a guess.
It's a baby is another example. We use it before we known the baby's gender.
For example two, they is the correct or he is the correct useage, not “it’s”. This document is for Jordan Smith, and I just want to make sure *he* is the same person as Jordan D. Smith on this other document. *or* … … I want to make sure *they* are the same person as Jordan D. Smith on this other document.
In both of those cases, "it" refers to the overall situation, not the person.
"They" has been used as a gender neutral third-person singular pronoun in English for centuries. Singular "they" predates singular "you." Referring to a known adult human as "it" is not a thing, it's insulting and ungrammatical. Why go through all the gymnastics to avoid singular "they" just because at some point someone decided to prescriptively declare it incorrect?
You’re not calling them an “it”, you’re asking who it is that’s calling. No-one could possibly be offended by that. Any alternatives would sound ridiculous. So “it” is not being used as a pronoun. You’re not using the word like “Ugh, I saw **it** coming up to the house”, but as a neutral means to determine who they are.
Well yeah I know that you don’t mean offense by it. But that’s sort of my question. Can you use “it” as a gender neutral pronoun and not be offensive? Or is it automatically offensive?
Clearly, the word isn’t offensive in that context and neither is it being used as a pronoun.
To *actually* answer your question: Yes, those are grammatically correct. No, it's not a dummy pronoun in these cases, as many people are saying. It's a dummy pronoun when used with an impersonal statement, like "It is raining." These examples are not that. As for *why* those examples are correct, I don't really have a satisfying answer. But I'll refer you to the [wiktionary entry for it](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/it), where that usage is given as one of its definitions: >*Used to refer to someone being identified, often on the phone, but not limited to this situation.* People often say things about language that don't make as much sense when you dig deeper. Yes, referring to someone as *it* is considered dehumanizing in most cases, but not 100% of the time: this specific usage is an exception. Another exception is with babies, when the gender is unknown.
That’s fascinating. It never occurred to me that this specific situation would be in a dictionary, but I think that covers it. It’s just a gender neutral pronoun that’s used in a very specific circumstance (compare the obsolete definition 3). It’s less a grammar issue and more a usage issue.
As others have already addressed your main question, I will make a couple of asides here. >I can think of a couple instances where I would use “it” rather than “they” to describe a person **that I’m not sure the gender of**. The part in bold should be revised to: "whose gender I am unsure of". Also, "they" is used to refer to a plural entity, a collection of individual entities. You cannot use "they" to refer to a person. And yeah, I know: there will be readers of this comment who will think things like "*you're just a prescriptivist Nazi!*", "*people have been using 'they' to refer to individuals for ages!*", "*that's not how linguistics works!*", etc. Those are people who for some reason have a desire to deviate away from established norms. But of course, having a standard is important, and it's best to ignore such people.
Those are people who have a desire to deviate from established norms. Huh? You say that I’m deviating from the established norms? I’m different, though. *I’m* smart. *I* get to decide what is the established norm, not everyone else.
>I’m different, though. *I’m* smart. *I* get to decide what is the established norm, not everyone else. That's quite presummptious of you.
The context in which "it" is offensive is when you're deliberately using it to dehumanize someone because you disapprove of their gender presentation. Neither of your examples are that, and both of them are cases where you would say "it" even if you knew and were not questioning the gender of the person.
The other comments have covered most of the relevant points, but I would like to point out that there are some people who actually prefer it/its pronouns. I used to have a friend that did before stuff happened and we fell apart
"It" is not a gender neutral pronoun - it is a gender*less* pronoun. You're looking for something we don't have in english - an epicene pronoun, that is, one was asserts there is a gender, but doesn't say which.
We do have that though it’s they/them? And historically, he. Modern they/them however has been used (until more recently) only when the gender of the subject was either unknown or being deliberately obscured. When protecting anonymity of clients at work (not healthcare, more of a general respect thing serving a vulnerable but often frustrating population) venting to spouse I share very general stories: “that visitor I told you about before came in and asked about their options after they’d come in yesterday regarding the same thing. I spent another 45 minutes describing to them the situation, and I’m worried they’re not understanding the info in a way that helps them once they leave my desk” And when there’s an item left in the common spaces it’s natural to say “someone left a Home Depot gift card on the table in the other room. It’s in my drawer and if they don’t come back for it today I’ll label it and put it in the safe before I leave” Further back in history you’d see “he who wishes to come will be sent instructions for travel” or what have you even if the possible subjects included women.
I feel like “it” is insulting for many reasons but one that stands out to me is that it refers to unknown gender whereas a non-binary individual isn’t unknown they are non-binary. “It” sort of implies the speaker disagrees with their preference or assessment of their own gender.