Return to APA Newsletters IndexThe following appeared in Volume 97, Number 1 (Fall 1997) of the APA Newsletters
Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy
Ze, Zer, Mer
Richard E. Creel
Ithaca College
Other than the male pronouns "he," "his," and "him," there are no singular pronouns in the English language that are commonly used without regard to gender to refer to humans, androgynous creatures (such as we find in science fiction and perhaps will find in fact on other planets), and persons without a gender (such as God and angels in many extant religious traditions). For excellent reasons this practice is becoming less and less common. Indeed, some individuals and professional societies have begun to use "she" and "her"
generically, rather than "he," "his," and "him." That change has been fitting and illuminating, but ultimately it suffers from the same problem from which the generic use of male pronouns suffers, viz., it is grammatically incorrect and can be confusing or misleading. Efforts have been made to avoid the unfair and ungrammatical nature of the preceding alternatives, but they have proven awkward and do not accommodate nongendered persons. To be sure, awkward or ungrammatical language is better than language that unjustly offends people, and especially women, who have bome the brunt of linguistic and other injustices for millennia. Fortunately, there is, I think, another, better way.
To get beyond the preceding difficulties, we need to come up with a set of nongendered personal pronouns that are widely adopted, and the sooner the better. More specifically, we need to go beyond: (1) the confusion and incorrectness of using male pronouns generically for all persons, e.g., "Everyone who pays his taxes by check should write his social security on his check" (ditto for the generic use of female pronouns), (2) the awkwardness of written and spoken locutions such as "he/she" and "he or she," e.g., "Everyone who pays his or her taxes by check should put his or her social security number on his or her check" or "Everyone who pays her/his taxes by check should put her/his social security number on her/his check" (also, this locution does not accommodate non-gendered persons such as God; of course God doesn’t pay taxes, but he/she should), (3) the incor-rectness of using a plural pronoun to refer to an individual, e.g., "When an individual is in distress, we should help them," and (4) the incorrectness of referring to non-gendered persons, such as the God of monotheism, as "he" or "she" or "it," e.g., "If we are faithful to God, he will bless us."
To capture in language the richness of actuality and possibility, we need nongendered personal pronouns that refer indifferently to persons whether they are female, male, or-as in the case of God, some angels, and perhaps extra-terrestrials-none of the above. I propose "ze," "zer," and "mer" as non-gendered personal pronouns for general use. I propose "ze" for the nominative case, "zer" for the possessive case, and "mer" for the accusative case. "Mer" is a blend of the last letter of"him" and the last two letters of "her"; "ze" is a blend of "she" and "he" ("se," with a modification to be explained); "zer" is a blend of "his" and "her" ("ser," with a modification to be explained). "Z" has been substituted for the "s" in "se" and "ser" to avoid such homophones as "see" and "sea" in the case of "se" and "sir" in the case of "ser. "Using these new pronouns and making the appropriate substitutions, the illustrative sentences above would read: "If we are faithful to God, ze will bless us"; "Everyone who pays zer taxes by check should write zer social security number on zer check"; "When an individual is in distress, we should help mer."
"Ze," "zer," and "mer" may seem awkward now, but if we use them regularly and the usage becomes widespread, they will soon seem quite natural. Meanwhile we will have enriched the categories of our language and improved our ability to communicate clearly, precisely, and grammatically. "She," "her," "he," "his," and "him" should, of course, continue to be used when appropriate. "Ze," "zer," and "mer" will supplement them, not supplant them.
To close on a personal note, in my philosophy of religion courses I explain these terms to my students, then I use them when I speak of God, which, of course, I do a lot. My students are not required to use these terms yet many of them are intrigued, attracted, and choose to do so, at first with self-conscious good-humor. My women students seem especially appreciative of an opportunity to speak of God without being forced to use a gendered pronoun or an awkward strategy designed to evade the use of pronouns altogether. Similar benefits accnue for general discussions of the nature of a person, whether in philosophy of religion or not. Hence, even if "ze," "zer," and "mer" do not enter into common usage (obviously the odds are greatly against that), nonetheless they can be very useful in philosophical discussions.