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 and i said, i havent read this in a long time probably since i was a kid, i got the book and read it. In the book abtalks about the perpetrator, the one whos doing the abc murders using the pronoun he and then he stops and he says, this is Agatha Christie giving him these lines, he says Something Like this he says, i use he generically but you should remember the killer could be a woman. I like that. Thats cool. [laughter] i agree that this book is something that will be very useful for people like there are so many people could find this useful pick it up and get an interesting sort of rundown of where we are at and where we came from. Even if you hate the subject, read it. [laughter] absolutely. Im a writer i want people to read what i say. Disagree with me all you want, but please read it. Your critics are probably going to be more your most avid readers to look for a way to prove you wrong. They wont find it. [laughter] was there anything really most compelling to you or surprising to you or interesting to you out of the book like that you are delighted to find or found fascinating . Two things really, one is being able to find earlier and earlier coin pronouns earlier and earlier discussions of the gender problem that english has. I knew that it was being discussed in the late 19th century but i didnt know i assume a five pound stuff being discussed in 1789 there was stuff being discussed in 1750 i just havent come across. This trying to flip generic heat to give women the vote. I was completely unaware that until i began reading some of the pronouns issues the suffragists were talking about. I found that similarly very compelling i didnt know that either. Until i was looking at your book. I think it also sort of points to one of the things that your book be useful for and what makes it significant which is that this isnt just about table conversations and arguments about what is the right usage and a certain word. These have practical political implications in the world and our everyday lives. People are using pronouns now as a stand in for identity issues. This is really important and really new use of pronouns as a social and political marker. We been aware certainly that pronouns indicate status for a long time. The 17th century for example, the difference between you when being used as a plural and thou as a singular when you start using you as a singular initially its as a term of respect. Or if youre talking to the monarch or Something Like that. People reserved vowel singular to talk to god abreserved thou singular to talk to god. Its associated with intimacy. Once you singular you began to drive up singular thou thee and thy in the 18th century, people started to complain. You cant use you as a singular, its plural. Now this happened 200 to 300 years ago we are so entrenched and thinking of you as a perfectly normal singular that people write to me and say you dont need a new plural for the second person because its too confusing its too ambiguous. Are you talking to me . Are you talking to us . Whats invented new plural. And what, but it is plural. Its the singular thats the newcomer. That is so funny. People like to find problems. Especially in your mind of work, linguistics, people like to debate language. All they do. One of my linguist buddies jeff lundberg, who does the language thing on terry grosses show, got an email a couple weeks ago and sent it to me from a guy complaining about pronouns because i think jeff did a segment on singular day a while ago on terrys show. The email basically says, first you give them your pronouns and the next thing you know they are going to come for your freedom of speech [laughter] that is such a good point. [laughter] silence. [laughter] theyve made this pronoun thing the First Amendment issue. Thats real in the sense like Jordan Peterson for example if a candidate who felt very infringed when he was asked to properly identify the gender he didnt really like care force of a student in his class people feel their rights were being infringed upon or being forced, their mind is being controlled by the state. You cant make me be polite. [laughter] you cant pass a law saying i have to be nice to you. This is why its so significant in one way because like this is not people dont just easily dismiss always these people who are in positions of authority who feel as if calling someone who is a people of theirs perhaps by self identified pronoun. That they are not always sometimes they are supported and sometimes the student perhaps if its in that context their rights are at risk. Absolutely. It is important to understand what your book is getting at. The idea is not silencing the majority, the idea is giving the minority, people who are out of power, people who are in a precarious social situation, a voice in some respect and some control over language that the majority is reluctant to yield to them. Is there linguistic response to the argument that i abide by reality and in reality language is established in a certain way and abare not actual pronouns and you cannot force me to use them because they are not real and that is infringing on my freedom of speech. This is sort of this is what extremists say around this. Whats the linguistic response to that . There is a linguistic response and a legal response because we want to address that First Amendment issue as well. The linguistic response is that all words are invented words. [laughter] they came from somewhere. Someone somewhere, often in the deep mists of history made up a word and other people started using it. Somebody somewhere back in who knows when, invented he and other people said, i never heard that before, what does that mean . And somebody else invented she and someone invented the day and someone invented any other word. Some of these words actually caught on and eventually we got language. A lot of invented words go away, they never make it outside of a small group. Heres an example. We call it private language. You live in a social group may be a family maybe a bunch of remittance may be a bunch of friends may be a bunch of colleagues at work and within that small group you develop some unique words, some unique expressions that are not known to people outside the group and you use it as a way of Marking Group membership and who is in and who is out and sometimes your invention spreads because other people here you use it or see you write it and they say, it just naturally takes and they repeated and it spreads through a larger and larger Language Community and sometimes it just stays in that group like in my family mashed potatoes are dum, because my daughter named them when she was two or three, we have no idea why she called them that. Seven years later when her brother was born we just introduced mashed potatoes as dum. [laughter] i cant believe you did that to your son. [laughter] teaching him this lie. Im giving you this word lets see if it makes it out of this room. My guess is it wont. You never know. This is how language operates. Somebody make something up other people follow suit and repeated and sometimes you make up a word and it goes nowhere. So as the devils advocate i would say but everyone basically in society has agreed that he and she are like tied to biological markers and distinguished gender. So this fringe minority are fine but they dont have the right to change how all of us want to talk. Absolutely. They have no right to impose their language on the rest of us and yet language has a way of imposing itself on the rest of us. Without a rule, without a topdown directive that says you must do this. Because when we are in conversation with other people when we write to and about other people, the tendency to maximize communication efficiently and effectively is to give your audience what they expect. Because if you want them to do something if you want to convince them of something if you want them to buy something, you give your audience to make concessions. But should you be forced to . Should you be forced to . In an academic way. I do a language in law course or did before i retired. But i cannot compel you to speak in certain ways. There was a Supreme Court case in the 1940s where the court ruled that the government cannot require you to say the pledge of allegiance if you dont believe that saying the pledge of allegiance is your belief. And so there is a doctrine against compelled speech as well as protected speech. Given that, there is all kinds of language that falls outside the protection of the First Amendment. Obscenity, threats incitement, criminal conspiracy, slander, false advertising with these of these kinds of speeches are not protected by the First Amendment there are also all kinds of speech that the government can compel even under the auspices of the First Amendment. It can compel a Surgeon Generals warning on a pack of cigarettes. You can compel product labeling. You can compel pilots to speak english as the language of air traffic control. There are all kinds of language it can compel to the president to say the oath of office. So the legal stuff is complicated. Yes in terms of language change its very hard to make it a law and get everybody to follow the linguistic aspects of the law. You can make english the official language of the united states. Its not going to get our people to speak english. If anything it could backfire and discourage people who want to learn english for learning it is they feel unwelcome. Tends to be very efficient ways of controlling language through social pressure does seem to be an efficient way of controlling language. Hopefully your book can help eliminate more minds and open those who are close to the idea of respecting peoples autonomy and selfidentification in the classroom and beyond. We are now going to take some questions from the community who is here with us today. If you have something you want to say we do have a microphone so raise your hand so raise your hand inches wait a second and it will be brought to you. Thank you for the talk. As a writer i am interested in how they as a singular help solves the problem of managing things i case studies for example where you are writing about a customer and you are trying to figure out how not to have to see his or her. That was 20 years ago i remember that was a problem for me. Sometimes now because im in the grammar business, the antecedent challenge with dave because he can refer to people and things and theres no gender indicator so then its sometimes a little harder for the writer to find the antecedent and im wondering if you could talk about that. All language can be ambiguous they can be singular or pearl whirl or gender or mass gender or an embodiment of say im binary or used to hide someones identity that you are trying to protect. Times when the oped from the white house whistleblower a couple of years ago they referred to the whistleblower using the singular they and they did it because revealing the persons gender could put that person in jeopardy. It was a conscious choice on the part of the editors. They may do some silly things at the time but this was a good thing in terms of protecting the whistleblower or white house source. You is just as ambiguous if not as ambiguous as a plural. We have ways when a word is ambiguous of dealing with it a finding out what the meaning is. Either by explaining it, using for example all you wall or yall or use or you guys which may or may not be sexist depending on your point of view. We develop ways of disambiguating the language so there is no reason to expect it the singular they will be any more or less ambiguous than the singular you. We be able to find the antecedent if we need to find the antecedent. If we dont want to pursue the whistleblowers identity we just stay with the singular they. Thank you. Anyone else have a question . Wait just one moment for the mic. Thank you. This is really fascinating. As you know for a long time the quakers used even though the general population was using you and im wondering what the polarization, could there be a situation where everybody in new york city is using except Staten Island. Everybody always dumps once that my lan. They do it differently. Their the outer boroughs and they are pluto over there. Could you see a situation where because of the polarization of the really strong differences of culture and worldview on politics some of the country would be using they . You were going to make this a red state blue state thing. As a microcosm of Staten Island because they do tend to differ from the other boroughs but you know could it e. That how we speak the pronouns, i mean i think there isnt yet a Critical Mass using they and even under nonbinary not everyone agrees they want to do that but could it go in that direction and yet theres such big in the country that we would all be on board. Okay, so heres the thing about singular they because its in common ordinary use in the englishspeaking world and has been since the 14th century. The nonbinary aspect of singular they is a new wrinkle in the usage and so mary webster and the Oxford English dictionary both added a nonbinary sense to their definition of singular they which was already part of the definition of they. They both have a subset of they to talk about. Singular they like everybody or somebody or the riders they or the student they so now we have nonbinary use added to that. Its already used by the majority of english speakers, the vast majority of them. I dont see this kind of dialect marker separating progressives and conservatives or reds and blues or lefts and rights. They use another word. Might they be divisive. It may be that folks who reject the notion that a nonwinery person can even exist are not going to be using singular they fourperson who identifies as nonbinary but they are still using the words they in every other aspect are people who object to singular they and im not going to name names but they are famous critics of language who insist that their opinion is always right using singular they. We want the drama. We came here for the drama. Whos behind curtain number one . [laughter] not to bump into this question but it actually made me think of another aspect of it too which is gender markers and how in california is a nonbinary gender marker. These are both blue states and i could totally see the Political Division when it comes down to are we even acknowledging something beyond the gender binary or not . Thats just what i thought of. Everyone is going to use they whether they want to or not. Fortunately there are no pronouns on drivers licenses so we dont have to worry about that. It could happen. It could happen. Its so orwellian. First the pronouns and then they are going to take away your car. Then they want your children. Right here. Thank you. I wonder if you can comment a little on the agreement between it. I would say both of you are. What about the they. I have a real problem with they is. This is so cool. This is so cool, okay . Because people will say okay yeah im a big fan of singular they. But of course thereve herb has to be they are pretty campy day is except two things. I have come across people who not just nonstandard speakers who say they is or you is because of the whole other issue there are for i. D. S of english where this is a common kind of thing. But who are using nonline mary they with the singular verb and im thinking okay, people are going to start arguing about subject verb agreement and that to me is a sign that singular they is nonbinary is already solidly implanted. We have moved on. We are not going to argue that they cant be singular anymore. Im giving up that argument. Im sticking with the verb so you will have to pry the verb out of my cold dead fingers. We are going to have people who do one or the other and thats okay too. Its normal to language to have multiple ways of saying something and for people to disagree over whats right and what sounds right. We have time for one more question. Who really wants to ask something . The gentlemen here. They have a question. Is their language you are aware of that does it better . All languages are maximally efficient and expressing what the uses of the language need to express so, no. There is not an ideal language. There is not a language that does it better. Life may be better in sweden but it doesnt mean you have to learn swedish. It doesnt mean the swedes do it better in swedish. [inaudible] theres a masculine feminine and neuter and so is chairman and so did english. Long, long ago. Do tell. In old english. English have a whole lot of things that we dont want to revive. English used to have an opponent system separate from them for we to. There is i. There is we, everybody and then it was just you and me, two of the senate have separate pronouns are used to. There was use singular and plural and be which meant you and you. Just the two of you. And i have never seen anybody who said we should bring that back. I just said that. [laughter] thats crazy. I love that. We actually technically have time for a twominute question. Unless you dont want me to do that darling. Microphone. We dont need to. We have one minute now so we are running out of time. Power laws being written keeping this in mind. A sin not too long ago she might have been used which is binary but is it affecting how laws are being written the u. S. . So now the trend in writing statutes is to not use pronouns might not use pronouns in several states have rewritten their constitutions and their statutes so that lets say they are talking about the governor. Every time they mention the governor they repeat the governor, the governor. They dont say he or she are the they. Pronouns get too messy so the alternative is to repeat the noun over and over again. The city council person, the dog catcher whatever the now and you repeat the noun over and over again and thats considerable considered neutral and fair. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. Its been a wonderful conversation. [applause] we will be ending now. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] the want to be clear dont think the problem could be solved if the people dont trust institutions and appear the problem can be solved if institutions are trustworthy enough. Its also important to recognize that there are some serious reasons to be careful and skeptical about institutions in society. There a lot of ways in which institutions can be impressive and limit their freedom of choice imposed hierarchies on the slow to change it hard to move. More than that some institutions of our society can be literally a press for the term institutionalized racism is not a metaphor. So reality of American Life. The disposition against strong institutions erodes for mysterious reasons. The arguments for transparency for individualism emerged as correct as to excessively rigid and imperious institutionalism. Words like that are serious and need to be heated but populism ended june individualism also cause serious traders. Institutions can be terribly oppressive and yet we cant do without them. True they can reinforce the rule if its stronger the privilege in our society but its also true without functional institutions the week have no hope of indicating their rights. Institutions are sometimes the body impression that they can embody our highest ideals to defend this attrition is not to defend the status quo or the stronger the privilege. Functional institutions are most important for people who dont have power or privilege. They will be fine whatever happens in those editions can become cold and bureaucratic they are essential to acting our wormuth sentiments to. Without them we grow isolated alienated in dissolution. We see that around this but this is irony we confront now in American Life. The failures of her institutions have led us to demand that they be operated or demolished. They cant address those failures without renewing and rebuilding those very institutions. We need them to be respectful and legitimate. Its right institutionalism should guide our actions against the excessive institutional strength in American Life but our problems today are much more like institutional weakness. Thank you janice and thank everyone for being here. The weather has been difficult. Sorry about that. We have got parking challenges but appreciate you all being here. Tonight we are featuring a journalist and New York Times bestselling author Janice Kaplan enter fascinating book the genius of women from overlooked to changing the world janice will be in conversation with the ceo of the womens fund of central ohio and this is going to be an illuminating evening ill say that right now. I want to thank our venue fantastic