Before i introduced our wonderful discussants i want to highlight some of the amazing events we have coming up this season tomorrow we have poet dennis smith joined with friends to read from their radiant new collection of poems on valentines day we have our largest public event Series Library after hours city of most cerebral happy hour. There will be poetry readings, trivia and interaction collections abbring your self, they bring your lover, the friend you want to turn into a lover to our special edition of library after hours. On february 25 we have two leading negotiators on the un Paris Agreement will join model and organizer Cameron Russell to present options that government corporations and individuals can take to fend off climate disaster. Those are events that if you just this month are amazing season also includes a tribute to Toni Morrisons beloved in partnership with the shop burke sumter stop a discussion with Michael Schiavone and writers reflecting on landmark aclu cases. We have talks with abterry mcmillan, and so many more. You can learn about our programs by signing up on our mailing list on a website. Libraries are so great. If you dont have a library card you should know why . Because you can check out materials and search your catalog of thousands of titles including the wonderful books that dennis has recommended and you can find those recommendations on your event program. You also have access to our amazing collections across our Research Divisions we have truman capotes paper route, a avirginia wills correspondence, you can ask access that with your library card. To give you a sense of the format for tonights conversation diana and dennis will speak for about 40 minutes, after which they will take a few questions from the audience remember there is a difference between questions and declarations we let questions here. With that now please join me in welcoming diana to rjnd dennis baron. [applause] hello. Thank you for coming to this Public Library in manhattan. Joining me and dennis here today to talk about his new book. [applause] did anybody here feel excited to read this book . Me too. When i got asked to do this event i was really excited because i am a journalist and i work in media. Work at vice fulltime i also freelance for various different obligations on print and digital publications as well. Ive been doing that for five years and as a trans person who writes about trans issues i have fielded so many comments and inquiries from the public around various aspects of what it means to be transgender or gender nonconforming which inherently is connected to a change in language often for people who are altering the way in which they are living their lives in the world, identity and identifying factors like names and pronouns are part of that. So much of that feedback has been confusion and criticism of a change or seemingly new aspect language thats occurring. Which people are uncomfortable with. Sometimes there is no problem and people are quite fine and other times theres large controversies that surround the way in which we are seeing language changes this versioning Transgender Movement has occurred over the last 10 years. When i saw this book and i saw it was really a historical approach to looking at the way in which pronouns have been shaped over the years, i thought, this actually just needed to be written. Who better to be able to supply an argument or not even an argument but a position and history and analysis of language and linguist cysts specifically around the subject matter. While you dont directly deal with transgender issues your soul, someone like me is greatly benefited by the book that you produced. With that i would but to ask you to tell us a little bit about this book and what made you want to read it. Thank you first of all for the introduction. And for you are agreeing to be here tonight. Absolutely. And for all of you who came to listen to us. I came upon pronouns quite by accident many years ago when i was researching Something Else i can even remember what it was. Ive always been interested in people who tried to reform language they found something they didnt like or something that was missing and felt that they could make it right. We dont have enough words we have too many words. [laughter] there was a guy in 1792 James Anderson who fortunately was it economist rather than a linguist but he decided english needed 13 genders that masculine and feminine neuter were not enough 13 genders, fortunately he did not provide 13 different pronouns, they didnt provide any pronouns at all but his contribution to the linguistic landscape of 18thcentury scotland went completely ignored probably that was a good thing because we have enough trouble memorizing grammar rules in school if we had to multiply that by 13, what would that do to the sat . [laughter] it would be a nightmare, the country would shut down. One of the things i discovered was that starting in the late 18th and early 19th century people were noticing a missing word or noticing that a word was missing. From english. It was a third person singular pronoun that was not gender specific but that referred to people. We have a third person singular it but nobody uses it for people particularly for adult people unless they mean to insult the person they are talking about. Very common for 19th century politicians to call their opponents it. Anyway, starting around the middle of the 19th century i noticed people begin cleaning pronouns to fill the missing word gap the earliest one i found. This looks like a discussion that was happening somewhat culturally like where is our third pronoun . We are missing a pronoun. And this was in 2018 . [laughter] this was in the earliest discussion i found was 1789. So its not brandnew, interesting. It wasnt associated with trans issues or gender nonconforming issues at the time, partly i think we didnt have a vocabulary developed enough to talk about those issues its not that people were not aware of gender nonconforming persons but it just wasnt a subject of grammatical concern at the time. There had been other issues involved. People started coining words in in 1981. I found the first coined pronoun e, the person who coined it brandnew md from yale who apparently did not find practicing medicine very satisfying and thought hed write a grammar book. In his spare time. Maybe he didnt have too many patients, i dont know was that he wrote this grammar book of only one copy of it survived, interestingly enough, Yale University library. He gave them the coffee. [laughter] thanks for nothing heres my third gender programpronoun. Nobody in their right mind is the by a grammar book that a doctor wrote. Wow. So thats very, if you like that says a lot. Even for someone, theres a lot of ignorance around these kind of issues from both sides because it someone who has take no issue with the construction and integration of new gender pronouns into the american lexicon or wherever. Im also not that wellinformed about the history of the third or nongender pronoun. Its interesting to add that both for people who may be interested already in supporting people who are very critical questioning if this is even possible to do. Its having historical precedent as certain validation to the use of this language but maybe its not necessary even as a linguist how do you approach this idea of thinking of language as something that can be right or wrong . I tend to cover my own approach to languages that its what we do, its what we say and its what we write its not what we are supposed to do its what we actually do do and sometimes there is a disconnect between the rules that we think we are supposed to operate by and what we actually produce when we speak and write. I am more interested in exploring how people actually use language and how they feel it may be differs from what they are supposed to be doing. We are aware often that we are breaking a rule that maybe we dont know why that rule is there. Maybe we ought to question why that rule is there and why it bothers us so much if other people are breaking the rules. For example, using day as a singular. Highly controversial. Highly controversial. a i was talking to somebody this afternoon and he said, this is great, people should be allowed to use the pronouns that they want to use, but you know what, singular day is just absingular they is just wrong. There was a guy interviewing me. [laughter] ohno. What do you say when somebody has that attitude . This is just wrong . I said but its been around since the 14th century, they is a singular is been around for centuries for hundreds. s 1312 century to the guy. Maybe he lives abit was not in the 12th century. Maybe thats his lifestyle. Like i only did 12 century stuff. We didnt have pronouns that began with th in the 12th century. It came later. Because we use day singularly all the time ab because we use they singularly all the time. People who object to singular they use singular they all the time. Whoever they are . You got a phone call, did they leave a message . We just say it, its totally normal english. It such a clear example in our conversation prior to getting up on this stage we were discussing it and i thought it was very appropriate what you were saying about how its something people dont take issue with, use but then take issue with it when its associated with gender and he made a point that sometimes these things can be standards for other perhaps social norms or amores conflicting with them theyve now attached. Language is often a substitute. We can agree whats right or wrong about language, we dont have to talk about the fact that everybody here should speak english, thats one example. The official English Movement argues that when in rome, do with the romans do. When youre in the u. S. You are expected to speak english you dont speak english go back where you came from. Its a stand in for antiimmigrant feeling. Its okay to criticize peoples language. Its not quite before 2016 it didnt used to be so normal to criticize where people came from before 1924 it was okay to do it the pronoun thing is can be a stand in for attitudes toward gender nonconformity just as its used to celebrate nonbinary people it can be used to attack them. Within like the conversation i feel like its an interesting pairing because my work focuses so highly on transgender rights and culture and politics in the united states. So in dealing in my work with the different perspectives on this that exist within politics and communities across the country for years now, you have not specifically been focused on transgender issues in your work, to my understanding, right . Right. A linguist who notices cultures changing the aspect of it. I find that there interesting and useful because i wonder how in your experience part of wanting to write this book mustve been inspired in part by seeing the increase usage of different kinds of pronouns may be in the classroom, outside of the classroom and culture and what was that like for you as linguist who is focusing on a linguistic perspective specifically in much of transgender rights issue. I find it very exciting and very interesting that all of a sudden people are having general conversations about a part of speech. The lucky academic may be the only time this happens. [laughter] am happy to make this contribution at the time when all the sudden parts of speech or a particular part of speech, not just pronouns but a particular kind of pronouns versus singular pronouns there are stories about them in the newspapers every week. Maybe even every day. So wow, i used to tell people you go to a party and they say what you do . I would say, im an english teacher. They would go, oh. [laughter] oh no. I better watch my grammar. [laughter] i was at a new dentist once and preparing to fill a cavity and he said, would you do . I said abi was all numbed up. He could understand what i said. Im an english teacher. He said that was my worst subject. He said the obligatory, i better watch my grammar, like im silently correcting his grammar. You see the tshirts. I watched his hand tightened on the drill. All the sudden people want to talk about grammar. Thats business for me. Right . All of a sudden the doctor is in. [laughter] its also like language around the world doesnt always have gender pronouns. Like english does its not actually necessary in language. There are no gender pronouns in finnish or chinese or mandarin. It has nothing to do with whether the cultures are sexist or inclusive or anything its just a phenomenon just happens. The diversity with fast that exists in language. One language swedish has been fairly successful in introducing a nonbinary genderneutral pronoun which was invented in the 1960s but became popular in the 1990s and has just about five years ago been put into the official Swedish Academy dictionary so one of the things that seems to be going on with this pronoun is that when newspapers use it or when its used on tv shows if you ever watch any scanning war on pbs you will find a couple episodes where they discuss him its well enough known in sweden that you dont have to explain what it is when it appears. Because we are definitely not there yet. Not there yet. Even with terms like sis gender is something that i still frequently get. Its interesting because its grown so i watched it progress over five years where for a while its like, not even using it unless i was speaking with someone who i knew already knew it because i knew the other person wouldnt, at least i thought that, then i noticed is that started to change id be surprised when someone knew the term who i didnt expect to. Its known more widely now but still not known that widely and often have to define it for people and yet its not its like as if its not like it was created yesterday. There are plenty of people who dont know that there is a pronoun issue that are not part of this conversation and one of the things i hope my book is useful for is one somebody is new to the discussion this will give them some background on where the pronouns came from, the fact that gender has been an issue off and on for decades, centuries in english in the 19th century americans suffragists picked on the use of he in voting statutes because in 1850 in england and 1871 in the u. S. And in 1867 in canada the governments passed laws saying every time a masculine noun or pronoun appears in the law it includes women. Nothing binary was not an issue then. In terms of the rights of men and women were. So the suffragists argued, if he in the criminal law means that a woman committing a crime can be convicted of it and punished for it, then he in the voting law means that women can vote. So we got to vote. Clever. There you go. Susan b anthony raised this argued in 1872 speaking at an illinois separatist meeting and unfortunately judges and legislators in the u. S. And the uk. Female judges and legislators . [laughter] they were all men. Shocking. They were men who were supporting women suffrage. Number there were. They actually filed bills in parliament to give her abto give women the vote. What was the response to the suffragists argument . The legislators and judges said no, i dont think so. Crimes, penalties, yes. Genderneutral, anybody is covered under a crime but if its also right like boating or becoming an attorney for doctor then that right has to be specifically conferred, he is not generic, he is not neutral in the loss. So 1841 two american abolitionists got into an argument a public argument in the press over whether he in the constitution in article 2, which describes the qualifications and the duties of the president whether he in article 2 means a woman cant be president and absaid he means a woman cant be president and wendell phillips, who you may have heard of, said but wait a minute, he in the fifth amendment gives both men and women the right to remain silent. So he in article 2 means a woman could be president. Its generic. Its not exclusionary. That really flushes out the points he made earlier about the way in which language is often just used in often comes into play while we are dealing with political and cultural issues. I guess it makes sense because we can communicate primarily through language. It also makes me think about, yes, we are dealing with the idea of adding or making popular new third nongendered pronouns or their gender pronouns and things like this today but theres also a history of he and she and their construction and i find it fascinating because it can help break down the essentialism that speak in to the idea of was there something you found compelling about the history of he and she in english . One of the problems with he when used generically is all too often theres a notch to inclusivity but when you are dealing with a practical issue the interpretation was almost always, this excludes women that just means men. In a few instances where you have a generic use of she, the response a where . [laughter] in the early 20th century you start seeing complaints by men, men seem to want a lot about language. Its like theyre really sensitive and emotional. They dont have the right temperament. You start seeing complaints by men that, teachers when we talk about teachers the pronouns always she but men teach. What about us . What about us . You are ignoring us. Apparently the National Education association in the early 1900s there was a rebellion by a group of male teachers who objected to the use of generic she to refer to teachers and the publications of the nea. They stood up as an annual nea meeting and said, you cant use generic she anymore. The editor of one of the nea journals put out a call in the next issue saying, weve had this complaint would anyone like to suggest a pronoun . And there were couple of writing suggestions for coin pronouns to solve this problem but what the nea wound up doing was dishing generic she in favor of generic he. Even though at the time most teachers were still women, they caved. Thats really interesting in part because its so complicated in some ways where you feel like absolutely at that time at such a clear example of sexism but i think now more today like we think often about like what assumptions are we making when we think about careers like nurses and one gender pronoun would you describe to someone or today you might be like old thinking to use automatically a she pronoun when thinking of a nurse or a teacher. Yet back when in a different time in history there was men standing up feeling probably emasculated because they had been subjected to this various pronoun to itself. Its terrible thing to be in the minority because the eternity of the majority easily bruised male ego. She was very unhappy because she didnt want to be seen as a woman when she was a man. That teacher back then. Poor thing. Today. That would work. Heres an interesting one. I found quite by accident. I was reading because i watch the bbc production of i guess christie abc murders