Ideological origins of resistance against gender‐inclusive language reforms: Singular they as a de‐gendering or multi‐gendering strategy.
Saved in:
| Title: | Ideological origins of resistance against gender‐inclusive language reforms: Singular they as a de‐gendering or multi‐gendering strategy. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Renström, Emma A. (AUTHOR), Klysing, Amanda (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Political Psychology. Oct2025, Vol. 46 Issue 5, p1062-1080. 19p. |
| Subjects: | Gender-neutral language, Gender-nonconforming people, Social norms, Group identity, Language planning |
| Abstract: | Gender is traditionally conceptualized as a binary construct, which is reflected in the use of binary‐gendered third‐person pronouns. Gender‐inclusive pronouns such as singular they challenge this conceptualization, which can evoke resistance against their use. Singular they can be used generically when gender is unknown (de‐gendering), or to specifically highlight an individual's non‐binary gender identity (multi‐gendering). The different uses of singular they can threaten different ideological convictions and impact the use and perception of the pronoun. Experiment 1 (N = 599) showed that in de‐gendering contexts, participants preferred to use singular they but in multi‐gendering contexts they preferred binary pronouns. Social identification with one's gender group, RWA and binary gender views predicted less use of singular they in both contexts. In Experiment 2 (N = 199), participants evaluated sentences with singular they in de‐gendering and multi‐gendering contexts. Overall, sentences with singular they in de‐gendering contexts were more positively evaluated. SDO predicted less positive evaluations of they in de‐gendering contexts, while RWA and binary gender views predicted less positive evaluations of they in multi‐gendered contexts. The findings provide important knowledge in understanding ideological motivations for resistance against gender‐inclusive language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Political Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Gender is traditionally conceptualized as a binary construct, which is reflected in the use of binary‐gendered third‐person pronouns. Gender‐inclusive pronouns such as singular they challenge this conceptualization, which can evoke resistance against their use. Singular they can be used generically when gender is unknown (de‐gendering), or to specifically highlight an individual's non‐binary gender identity (multi‐gendering). The different uses of singular they can threaten different ideological convictions and impact the use and perception of the pronoun. Experiment 1 (N = 599) showed that in de‐gendering contexts, participants preferred to use singular they but in multi‐gendering contexts they preferred binary pronouns. Social identification with one's gender group, RWA and binary gender views predicted less use of singular they in both contexts. In Experiment 2 (N = 199), participants evaluated sentences with singular they in de‐gendering and multi‐gendering contexts. Overall, sentences with singular they in de‐gendering contexts were more positively evaluated. SDO predicted less positive evaluations of they in de‐gendering contexts, while RWA and binary gender views predicted less positive evaluations of they in multi‐gendered contexts. The findings provide important knowledge in understanding ideological motivations for resistance against gender‐inclusive language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0162895X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/pops.13058 |
