Introduction

Human language is a living entity, mimicking organisms in its tendency to adjust and adapt over time to changes in its environment.[1] Most of the time, changes in grammar are slow and protracted over many generations, but sometimes, in eras of cultural and societal upheaval, speech changes in ways that are noticeable within only a few years. The latter situation describes the current revolution in the use of personal pronouns in American English; with regard to societal change, we find ourselves in what one New York Times writer has called “the identity era.”[2] Our evolving change in pronoun use is largely a response to concerns about social justice and equity of representation with regard to gender identity, but it may also represent a deeper concern about the structure of our language and its limited ability to refer adequately to individuals of unknown or nonbinary gender.

The written word is a reflection and a memorialization of the spoken word, and as such our writing generally responds more slowly than our speech to societal change. Legal writing, however, is a tool for progress, because lawyers are, by definition, concerned with representation and advocacy.[3] We are on the front lines in the use of written language.[4] Every brief, every memorandum, and every article that we write equips the next generation of lawyers with the advocacy tools it needs in our rapidly changing linguistic landscape.[5] It is unsurprising, then, that many in the legal academy have begun to advocate strongly for a more up-to-date approach to the use of pronouns in formal legal writing.[6]

This Essay is a response to one such scholar’s effort to urge the accelerated adoption of the singular they into formal legal writing. Robert Anderson’s 2022 article, Reclaiming the Singular They in Legal Writing, makes a forceful case that the third-person nongendered pronoun, traditionally used in formal writing only to refer to plural antecedents, is ready to “fill the blank” in standard written English grammar, providing a nongendered alternative to the singular he and she.[7] While Anderson gets much right in his case for the singular they, and his goal of encouraging the abandonment of a prescriptivist, sexist approach to legal language is laudable, his article oversimplifies the process of language change, particularly when it comes to formal writing. This is not a theoretical concern, as evidenced by recent legislative initiatives that restrict the use of personal gender pronouns and protect speakers who refuse to use pronouns that don’t correspond to the addressed person’s gender assigned at birth.[8]

Part I of this Essay examines the assertion that singular they is and always has been grammatical in English[9] by explaining the difference between the nonspecific they—in common usage since the Middle English period—and the specific, nongendered they currently on the rise in our era of societal change. Part II points out that formal legal writing does not track spoken usage in real time, a point largely overlooked in the existing literature on the subject of the singular they. Part III discusses the very real risks inherent in attempts to artificially speed up the process of language change beyond the comfort boundaries of contemporary language users. Hastening organic changes that are already underway runs the risk of rejection and backlash, slowing the process. More seriously, it risks feeding a countermovement that has already begun to display concerning consequences, such as legislative attempts to harness pronoun use in the public sphere. Part IV provides guidance on how legal writers can practice inclusive writing during the current transition period. Lastly, Part V looks ahead to a future in which the singular they will be fully accepted in formal legal writing.

This Essay does not argue that the use of singular they in formal legal writing is inadvisable or inappropriate. To the contrary, it assumes that the transition to they from the traditional gendered pronouns is well underway and inevitable, and that it represents great progress for English speakers and writers in terms of inclusion and representation. The purpose here is rather to engage in a more critical conversation about the foundations of the pro-they argument, to point out its strengths and weaknesses, and to posit that the change we as legal writers seek cannot be accomplished by fiat but must be left, at least to some extent, to its natural process.[10]

I. The Historical Grammaticality of the Singular They

Anderson is correct that “[t]he singular they is as old as English itself.”[11] Certainly, the generic singular they (of which he gives many examples in justifying his assertion) has been in use since at least the Middle English period. Our third-person singular pronouns are all gendered, creating a void—in Anderson’s terms, a “blank”—in situations where an antecedent’s gender or identity is unknown. Writers as far back as Chaucer[12] and Shakespeare[13] dealt simply with the problem by using nongendered singular forms of they and them; at least one scholar has pointed out that Chaucer’s written use in 1395 of the singular they, to refer to an unknown person, suggests that its usage in spoken English at the time was well-established.[14] Indeed, sentences like “Someone left their jacket on the back of the chair” do not necessarily sound ungrammatical or awkward to modern native speakers of American English.[15] Scientific studies show that English speakers overwhelmingly accept this generic (or “nonspecific”) use of the singular they.[16]

What is (relatively) new and innovative, however, is the emerging use of they and them for a singular antecedent whose identity is known.[17] An example: “Henry woke up this morning knowing that they would not be attending class,” where they replaces he to refer to Henry. While this usage, referred to as the specific singular they, has been endorsed by a good number of scholars, legal and otherwise,[18] linguists have documented that it is significantly less well-accepted among native English speakers than the nonspecific singular they.[19]

The primary problem with Anderson’s analysis is that he relies on the relatively uncontroversial grammaticality of the nonspecific singular they to justify the grammaticality of the emerging specific singular they—and these two theys are not the same. By conflating the they that refers to “someone” with the they that refers to “Henry,” Anderson smooths over a very real problem with the specific singular they as it is used in formal legal writing: It can be jarring to older or more conservative readers, and it annoys grammatical prescriptivists.[20] When the prescriptivists in question occupy the legal bench and are charged with deciding the fate of one’s client, the legal writer can tread into the dangerous territory of being judged for writing ungrammatically and, by extension, unprofessionally.[21]

Spoken English has already begun to close the gap between the acceptability of the specific and the nonspecific singular they, and it has done so gracefully, for the most part. But that is not the end of the story; we are talking here about formal written legal English, which, as I will explain below, is not the same thing.

Written language is an invention designed to record spoken language. Unlike spoken language, it is learned, rather than naturally acquired. (Consider the fact that most children arrive at their first kindergarten class fully fluent in their native language, but they must be taught to read and write it well over a period of years.) Spoken English comprises many naturally-evolving varieties across the globe, but the formal written version of English in which American lawyers conduct their business is an artificial dialect constructed for the express purpose of readability by people who speak widely varying dialects of the language.[22] It is expressly designed to be readable by all, and as such it adheres to a canon of relatively strict grammar rules that are taught in schools and universities and do not necessarily reflect our everyday speech.[23] It is largely free of regionalisms such as the commonly-heard pronouns y’all and hisself,[24] and it avoids contractions and colloquialisms such as wouldn’t’ve and can’t’ve, which are often perfectly acceptable in conversation, but less so in summary judgment motions and appellate briefs.

When spoken English changes and evolves, adapting to the social environment in which it is spoken, the written variety changes as well, but more slowly. Formal standard written English changes particularly slowly because it must avoid regionalisms and slang that are not necessarily understood or accepted by all readers. It often lags behind spoken varieties by decades—long enough for innovations to be tested and accepted by the reading public. This is why, as Anderson correctly points out, the occurrence of a singular generic they in English literature as early as the fourteenth century indicates that it had likely been in spoken use for “some time prior.”[25]

But this fact is also the precise reason why it is inaccurate to assume, which Anderson does, that a usage widely accepted in spoken English is instantly appropriate in formal written legal documents. The mere existence of controversy about the subject—and the admitted fact that “legal writing authorities . . . almost universally label [the specific singular they] ungrammatical and therefore not appropriate for formal writing”[26]—is enough evidence that standard written legal English is not yet ready to be ordered to transform its pronoun use. Indeed, some states have enacted legislation that offers protection from adverse consequences to individuals in public educational institutions who refuse the use the singular they after being requested to do so.[27] Legal writers in those places use the same standard artificial written dialect used in places where the singular they is widely accepted. As I will explain in the next section, the risks of prescribing language change to people who are not ready for it can be significant, and they can stall or reverse the natural process of language evolution in ways that are counter to the very worthy goals of inclusion and progress.

III. Risks of Rushing the Process

The movement to incorporate the specific singular they into formal legal writing is driven, as noted, by a genuine concern for inclusion and progress. The movement is likely to be successful eventually because the specific singular they has already seen considerable success in spoken English, especially among younger speakers. History has shown, however, that artificially speeding linguistic shift can be detrimental to progress. As the linguist Julie Sedivy has put it,

When a linguistic shift is too heavy-handed, too obviously driven by an agenda to change hearts and minds, it can run up against a response known as reactance. Reactance is our mind’s instinctive defense against the attempts of others to control our thoughts and behavior. It is more active in some people than others, but for all of us, sensing someone’s intent to persuade can be like the body’s detection of an invading organism, triggering a counterattack that turns us against the attempted persuasion.[28]

Reactance against pronoun change has already been significant in the United States, and it will continue in the current climate of anti-transgender and anti-nonbinary sentiment. In many states, pronouns that do not match a person’s sex assigned at birth have become a hot-button political topic, driving legislative efforts to curtail their use by transgender and nonbinary persons.[29] For example, in Florida, a person’s sex is statutorily defined as an “immutable biological trait,” and the use of pronouns that do not correspond to a person’s sex at birth is explicitly forbidden in public K-12 schools.[30] Employees and contractors of those schools are prohibited from providing students with personal titles and pronouns that do not match their sex assigned at birth,[31] and they may not ask students to disclose their own titles or personal gender pronouns.[32] Idaho has a similar law, requiring written parental permission before a minor student can use a pronoun that does not reflect their sex assigned at birth.[33] And if parents provide the required permission, Idaho public school employees and students cannot face adverse consequences for refusing to use a student’s pronoun if it does not match their sex assigned at birth.[34]

Although these laws are vulnerable to challenge under the First Amendment,[35] their mere existence reflects an alarming level of actual prejudice. Indeed, even at the federal level, reactance has taken the form of proposed legislation to demonize and curtail nontraditional pronoun use. For example, the “Productivity Over Pronouns Act,” introduced in the House of Representatives in February 2023, describes its aim as follows:

A bill [t]o prohibit the use of Federal funds in any program, project, or activity of any agency in the Executive Branch to provide principles, resources, or specific suggestions for gender neutral or inclusive language or inclusive communication principles to help inform an inclusive approach to carrying out any such program, project, and activity.[36]

The bill, if signed into law, would have specifically prohibited the use of federal funding in any government program that uses “preferred terms that attempt to represent an ongoing shift toward non-stigmatizing language.”[37] In other words, with the specific singular they squarely in its sights, it was a perfect example of legislative reactance.

It is my hope that these statutes do not reinforce a regressive trend that will take hold culturally and have a long-term slowing effect on our language’s evolution. Although historical attempts to restrict language use through statutes have been generally unsuccessful,[38] statutes telling people how they can and cannot speak, and how they can and cannot refer to themselves and each other, can cause minority groups to lose their heritage languages and can oppress those who rely on the prohibited speech as part of their identity.

Fortunately, it seems clear that the specific singular they is here to stay; although it is still far from universally accepted, it is enjoying increased success in spoken American English and is therefore likely to become a permanent part of formal written American English as well. Attempts to force its use before the natural process is complete run the risk of encouraging the countermovement. That does no one any favors, least of all those who need an alternative, nongendered pronoun as a matter of personal identity.

IV. Suggestions for Inclusive Writing While Change Is Underway

How, then, should legal writers proceed in the meantime, keeping true to their goals of representation and inclusion while being mindful of the risks of backlash? Skilled legal writers can simultaneously acknowledge that linguistic change is underway, support that change, and still write for an audience that is not completely on board.[39]

As Anderson correctly points out, the traditional use of the masculine pronoun he as a default is a practice rooted in patriarchal language conventions that often marginalized or excluded women.[40] The presumption that masculine forms include the feminine and the neuter comes from an antiquated misunderstanding of Latin grammar, made popular by the sixteenth-century professor William Lily in his widely used Latin textbook: “[T]he masculine gender is more worthy than the feminine, and the feminine more worthy than the neuter.”[41]

Scholars have therefore increasingly challenged and advised against the practice of using masculine pronouns as a default.[42] Anderson is correct in pointing out that a gendered default pronoun is unnecessary, given that English has a widely accepted and ungendered generic singular they. But, instead of categorically urging the use of a specific singular they, I offer the following suggestions for situations where a more conservative audience might not yet be ready to embrace they in its singular sense.[43]

A. Use an Individual’s Personal Gender Pronoun, and Explain if Necessary

When you know the preferred pronoun of the person about whom you are writing, the best choice is to use that pronoun. This option centers inclusivity and progress to the slight disadvantage of readability, especially for conservative or staunchly prescriptivist readers, but a skilled writer (and a zealous advocate) can incorporate non-traditional choices and use a variety of tactics to boost readability.

For example, a writer could employ the practice, now standard in journalism, of simply adding an explanatory phrase, in a footnote or an appositive, when a subject asks to be referred to by a singular nongendered they.[44] Explanatory phrases frequently and effectively provide context for the use of nontraditional, nonbinary honorifics like Mx.[45] Sometimes, both occur in the same sentence, making what might be otherwise jarring to a conservative reader quite smooth and readable. For example:

In just 2 years, the most common cannabis use pattern changed from “occasional use without vaping” to “frequent use with vaping,” said Mx. Kreski, who uses the honorific Mx. and the pronouns they/them.[46]

This approach also works for neologisms. For example, an individual might ask to be referred to as xe/xem/xir, ze/hir/hirs, or et/em/eir, or any combination of those words.[47] An individual’s request to use a neologism should be honored whenever possible. If a legal writer is concerned that the reader will be confused or put off, a brief explanatory phrase or footnote will go a long way toward increasing readability. Eventually, as nontraditional choices become more common and more widely accepted, explanatory phrases will no longer be necessary. Until that day, they can be quite helpful.

B. Avoid the Use of a Pronoun Altogether

Where a writer wishes to avoid a gendered pronoun and no specific request has been made, a good solution is avoidance: the use of no pronoun at all. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends avoidance as its preferred solution to the “pronoun problem” and lists various ways of accomplishing it, including:

  • The repetition of the antecedent noun;

  • The use of the passive voice (“an answer must be filed within thirty days”);

  • Pluralization (to make they unambiguously appropriate, as in “defendants are aware that they must file their answers within thirty days”);

  • Use of the alternative pronoun one, the relative pronoun who, or the article the (“a defendant must file the answer within thirty days”); or

  • Use of the imperative mood (“File an answer within thirty days”).[48]

Avoidance is, in many ways, the most attractive and the least controversial alternative to the use of a gendered pronoun. As noted, it can take several forms, which minimizes the potential for jarring the reader. The Chicago Manual’s several suggestions are unlikely to be judged ungrammatical or unnatural by native speakers of American English; alienation of even the most conservative and prescriptivist readers is therefore not a concern in most circumstances.

As with all potential solutions, however, there are issues. Avoidance does not work in every context. In particular, repeating the full name of the antecedent can be repetitive and awkward, such as in Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7, which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.”[49] This is a rewording of the old DR 5-101(B), which used the default masculine.[50] The repetition of names where pronouns would otherwise be appropriate can make legal writing difficult to read, which does not serve clients well.[51] And, of course, by its very nature, avoidance does not advance the cause of inclusiveness or even just mirror the progress that has been made toward the acceptance of nongendered pronouns in formal legal writing.

V. Looking to the Future: The Singular They

Where is formal legal writing headed, linguistically? When the day arrives, what will pronoun usage look like in a world where society has generally accepted a written version of what is already happening in spoken American English?

Given the fact that the singular they has become successful in American speech and, to a limited extent, in informal writing, it seems that formal legal writing will eventually accept this new pronoun as well. Uncomfortable as it may be to conservatives and prescriptivists, the singular they seems to have taken hold of the public imagination and has already entrenched itself in our grammar, much in the same way that plural you and your replaced singular thee, thou, and thy some five hundred years ago. For those who remain confused by the use of the singular they, the scholar John McWhorter has suggested capitalization, much in the way that I is capitalized as a pronoun (while we, unambiguous in its plurality, keeps its lower-case status):

Language always changes, but the new “they” usage has come along especially abruptly. Because it’s needed, why not make it easier to understand and use? Besides, a difference between “they” and “They” is kind of cool. English has too few pronouns overall. Writing “They” would let us sneak in what would look on the page like a new pronoun of a sort.[52]

McWhorter has a good point, and his suggestion is sound and forward-looking. My conclusion: The specific singular they has been a long time coming and is here to stay. Allowing this change in our language to enter the written standard on its own timeline is the best chance we have, as legal writers, to ensure its success. And by ensuring its success, we will come closer to our goal of championing inclusion and representation for all people.

  1. Mitchell G. Newberry, Christopher A. Ahern, Robin Clark & Joshua B. Plotkin, Detecting Evolutionary Forces in Language Change, 551 Nature 223, 223–26 (2017).

  2. Giles Harvey, An Acerbic Young Writer Takes Aim at the Identity Era, N.Y. Times Mag. (Sept. 13, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/magazine/tony-tulathimutte-rejection.html; see also U. Chi. Press Ed. Staff, The Chicago Manual of Style 374 (18th ed. 2024) (“The language is now in a transitional period, and no single approach to [the issue of gender neutrality in pronoun use] will find universal favor among writers and their readers.”); Brad Charles & Thomas Myers, Evolving They, Mich. Bar J. 38, 38 (June 2019) (referring to “a sea change in they’s usage”).

  3. Heidi K. Brown, Get with the Pronoun, 17 Legal Comm. & Rhetoric 61, 66 (2020).

  4. Judith D. Fischer, Bareheaded and Barefaced Counsel: Courts React to Unprofessionalism in Lawyers’ Papers, 31 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 1, 37 (1997) (“No lawyer can avoid his or her professional role as a reader and writer of words. Written words pervade the practice of law”); Charles & Myers, supra note 2, at 38 (“Attorneys, as wordsmiths, should embrace these changes, or at least begin to.”).

  5. See Amy Bice Larson & Jessica Mills, Words Matter: Understanding the Significance of Pronouns, 68 Fed. Law. 28, 28 (2021) (“Advocacy that is comprehensive yet succinct is central to the legal profession.”).

  6. See, e.g., Robert Anderson, Reclaiming the Singular They in Legal Writing, 19 Legal Comm. & Rhetoric 55 (2022); Brown, supra note 3, at 66; Tom Cobb, Embracing the Singular “They,” 73 N.W. Law. 12, 12 (May 2019).

  7. Anderson, supra note 6, at 56. English, of course, does have a neuter singular pronoun (it), but that pronoun is never used to refer to human beings except in the most derogatory of contexts, so it is almost always left out of the contemporary pronoun conversation.

  8. See infra notes 29–34 and accompanying text.

  9. Id. at 65 (quoting Antonio Gidi & Henry Weihofen, Legal Writing Style 30 (3d ed. 2018) (characterizing the singular they as having a “centuries-old prestigious pedigree going back to Middle English”)).

  10. It is also worth pointing out that my discussion here is limited to the employment of they as a generic replacement for the traditional default he or she when referring to a singular antecedent. As discussed more fully in part IV.A, infra, when a transgender or nonbinary individual asks to be referred to in writing by a specific pronoun, including a nontraditional pronoun, that request must be honored whenever possible, adding a brief explanatory note, if necessary, to avoid confusion. This is already standard practice in journalism. See, e.g., the examples given infra in notes 44–46 and accompanying text.

  11. Anderson, supra note 6, at 57.

  12. Alanna Noel Solomon, The Case for Singular they and Implications for English Language Teaching, 17 TESOL Working Paper Series 70 (2019).

  13. Geoffrey K. Pullam, Shakespeare used They with Singular Antecedents So There, Language Log (Jan. 5, 2006, 11:43 AM), http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html [https://perma.cc/8WLD-QVQT].

  14. Solomon, supra note 12, at 70; Anderson, supra note 6, at 57.

  15. The Columbia linguistics professor and popular New York Times columnist John McWhorter put it nicely:

    [U]sing “they” as a gender-neutral pronoun . . . is just great. It’s been used that way for at least 600 years, whether pedants like it or not. “A person can’t help their birth” (Thackeray in “Vanity Fair”). “And whoever finds himself out of such blame / They will come up and offer in God’s name” (Chaucer in “The Canterbury Tales”). To many English speakers, it has long felt quite natural.

    John McWhorter, I Have a Capital Suggestion for a New Pronoun, N.Y. Times (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/27/opinion/pronouns-they-language-capital.html.

  16. Kirby Conrod, Pronouns Raising and Emerging 93 (2019) (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington), https://linguistics.washington.edu/sites/linguistics/files/documents/research/diss_upload_25.pdf [https://perma.cc/V7L5-M3WG].

  17. See John McWhorter, Gender Pronouns are Changing. It’s Exhilarating, N.Y. Times (Sept. 21, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/opinion/gender-pronouns-they.html (observing that the use of they to refer to a specific person is “[n]ot your grandfather’s singular ‘they’ with its generic meaning”).

  18. See id.; see also Jessica A. Clarke, They, Them, and Theirs, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 894, 962 (2019) (characterizing the “grammatical objection” to gender-neutral pronouns as “dubious” but identifying as the main problem with this objection “that it elevates rules of grammar over considerations of how to treat one another equally.”); Heidi K. Brown, Inclusive Legal Writing: We Can Honor Good Grammar and Societal Change at the Same Time, 104 ABA J. 22, 23 (Apr. 2018); John McWhorter, Call Them What They Wants, The Atlantic (Sept. 4, 2018), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/the-new-they/568993 [https://perma.cc/KSC2-PAY5].

  19. Conrod, supra note 16, at 88.

  20. McWhorter, supra note 17; Suzanne E. Rowe, They/Them/Theirs: As Language Evolves, Pronouns Leap Forward, Or. St. Bar Bull. 17, 17–18 (Jan. 2020).

  21. See generally Fischer, supra note 4, at 27. Of course, as the audience for legal writing becomes younger and more accepting of the specific singular they, this problem will begin to fade into the past. But that will take time.

  22. Standard English, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Standard English [https://perma.cc/WR2L-D6XH] (last visited Nov. 29, 2025).

  23. See generally Ronald Carter, Standard Grammars, Spoken Grammars: Some Educational Implications, in Standard English: The Widening Debate 149 (Tony Bex & Richard J. Watts eds., 1999).

  24. Standard English, supra note 22.

  25. Anderson, supra note 6, at 57.

  26. Id. at 56.

  27. See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann. § 6-1-108 (West 2023) (protecting students and teachers in public schools and universities from adverse consequences resulting from “declining to address a person using a . . . [p]ronoun or title that is inconsistent with the person’s biological sex”); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 1000.071 (2023) (“[I]t is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person’s sex”).

  28. Julie Sedivy, Why Campaigns to Change Language Often Backfire, Nautilus (Oct. 7, 2019), https://nautil.us/why-campaigns-to-change-language-often-backfire-237568 [https://perma.cc/ADC7-JYML].

  29. Adeel Hassan, States Passed a Record Number of Transgender Laws. Here’s What They Say, N.Y. Times (June 27, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/transgender-laws-states.html.

  30. Fla. Stat. § 1000.071(1) (2023).

  31. Id. § 100.071(3).

  32. Id. § 100.071(4).

  33. Idaho Code § 67-5909B(3)(a) (2024).

  34. Id. § 67-5909B(3)(b), (4); see also supra note 27 (describing a similar statutory provision enacted by Arkansas). I use the term “sex assigned at birth” because it is more accurate than “biological sex,” which is reductive of both biology and sex and is often invoked to oppose transgender rights. See Jessica A. Clarke, Sex Assigned at Birth, 122 Colum. L. Rev. 1821, 1851–60 (2022) (analyzing the two concepts and their legal implications).

  35. See, e.g., Wood v. Fla. Dep’t of Educ., 729 F. Supp. 3d 1255, 1265 (N.D. Fla. 2024), vacated and remanded, 42 F.4th 1286 (11th Cir. 2025) (holding that enforcement of Florida’s pronoun statute likely violates the First Amendment rights of a transgender teacher).

  36. H.R. 985, 118th Cong. (2023). The bill did not progress out of committee, but its sentiments remain of considerable concern in an administration that has repeatedly shown itself to be hostile to the type of language change addressed here and in the Anderson article.

  37. Id. § 2(b)(3).

  38. See, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (striking down, on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, a statute proscribing the use of the German language in public schools); U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, English-Only Policies in the Workplace 69 (2011) (requiring employees to speak only English at all times in the workplace is both discriminatory and unlawful). California’s Proposition 227 was passed in 1998 and repealed in 2016 after heavy criticism of its language barring the use of bilingual education for English language learners. Proposition 227 English Language in Public Schools, Cal. Legis. Analyst’s Off. (1998), https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/1998/227_06_1998.htm [https://perma.cc/D2TG-J3W9]. See generally Thomas Ricento, A brief history of language restrictionism in the United States, Educ. Res. Info. Ctr. (ERIC), U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (1995), https://scispace.com/pdf/a-brief-history-of-language-restrictionism-in-the-united-3bgwh1pped.pdf [https://perma.cc/TV4C-GPYF].

  39. See Joyce R. Rosenberg, A Singular Understanding of “They,” 85 J. Kan. Bar Assoc. 20, 21 (2016) (“For now, technically-correct written language hasn’t quite caught up with the way people talk or with the preference to maintain gender-neutrality. Skillful writing can avoid the issue and satisfy a traditional (and critical) audience.”).

  40. See Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 508–09 (6th Cir. 2021) (discussing the rise of the use of the default masculine and the feminist response to it).

  41. Dennis Baron, The Politics of “He.” Literally, The Web of Language (Dec. 25, 2015, 1:15 PM), blogs.Illinois.edu/view/25/300287 [https://perma.cc/5RVE-7RRE]. The persistent contemporary use of the Latin masculine plural alumni to refer to groups of graduates of mixed gender and the feminine alumnae to refer only to all-female groups is part of Lily’s legacy. It is worth noting that Lily and his contemporaries applied Latin grammatical rules to English because of a pedantic obsession with the ancient Roman language and not because Latin in any way “gave birth to English.” See Anderson, supra note 6, at 67. English is a Germanic language and is not descended directly from Latin in the same way that Romance languages are.

  42. Richard C. Wydick & Amy E. Sloan, Plain English for Lawyers 60 (6th ed. 2019); see Linda H. Edwards, Legal Writing and Analysis 286 (3d ed. 2011) (“Although the use of masculine nouns and pronouns for general reference is technically permissible, most of today’s good writers avoid or minimize it”); Elizabeth Fajans, Joy Kanwar, & Helene S. Shapo, Writing and Analysis in the Law 226 (8th ed. 2024) (“Do not make gender visible when it is not relevant. Keep in mind that the generic use of . . . he . . . is not actually perceived as gender neutral, but perceived as male.”).

  43. For additional suggestions on writing clearly and inclusively on behalf of those who do not identify with the traditional gender binary, see Kathleen Dillon Narko, They/Them/Their: How to Write Clearly With Inclusive Pronouns, 36 CBA Rec. 44 (2022).

  44. See, e.g., Ja’han Jones, Black Activist Sentenced for Aiding Russian Propaganda Efforts in the U.S., The Reidout Blog (Dec. 11, 2024, 5:22 PM), https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/russia-propaganda-black-americans-augustus-romain-jr-rcna183843 [https://perma.cc/WQ7R-H9F4] ("Romain and Yeshitela had both been leaders of an umbrella organization known as the African People’s Socialist Party until Romain, who uses the nonbinary pronoun they, left to form their own group); James Sullivan, Spoken-Word Artist Andrea Gibson Is in the Fight for Hearts and Minds, Boston Globe (Apr. 25, 2019), https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2019/04/25/spoken-word-artist-andrea-gibson-fight-for-hearts-and-minds/nmP3v72uMYWnCEopqyvPfK/story.html (“Gibson, who uses the nonbinary pronouns they and them, has been performing a new poem of late on tour called ‘How I Became a Poet.’”).

  45. See, e.g., Valeriya Safronova, “Consumed as Content”: Child Influencers Make Big Money, but Who Pockets It?, Hartford Courant (Nov. 1, 2023) (“In Washington state, Chris McCarty, a college sophomore who uses the gender honorific Mx., has been working with local politicians since 2021 to design a law that will protect child social media stars”); Jada Yuan, At 60, Trans Cabaret Legend Justin Vivian Bond Is Celebrating Survival, Wash. Post (July 3, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/07/03/justin-vivian-bond-cabaret-singer [https://perma.cc/88GM-KHWP] (“‘No one sees you!’ says Bond, who goes by ‘Viv’ or ‘Mx Viv’ and uses they/them/she pronouns, chuckling”).

  46. Heidi Splete, Cannabis Vaping Continues Its Rise in Teens, MD Edge Pediatric News (May 19, 2022), https://www.mdedge.com/pediatricnews/article/254787/adolescent-medicine/cannabis-vaping-continues-its-rise-teens/page/0/1 [https://perma.cc/XMK4-SZZ3].

  47. Div. of Student Affs. Intercultural Engagement, UNC Greensboro, Neopronouns Explained (2024), https://intercultural.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Neopronouns-Explained-UNCG-Intercultural-Engagement.pdf [https://perma.cc/TK85-5AES].

  48. The Chicago Manual of Style, supra note 2, at 374–75.

  49. Model Rules of Pro. Conduct. 3.7(a) (A.B.A. 2023).

  50. Model Code of Pro. Resp. DR 5-101(B) (A.B.A. 1980) (“A lawyer shall not accept employment in contemplated or pending litigation if he knows or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness.”)

  51. See, e.g., Program Operations Manual Sys., Soc. Sec. Admin., Beneficiary Notice Policies and Procedures 00610.075 (July 2023) (“We do not recommend replacing every instance of a third person pronoun (he or she) with the person’s full name. Using the person’s name repeatedly makes the notice more difficult to read”).

  52. McWhorter, supra note 15.