Is there a non-gender specific word for saying himself (singular)?
 

I'm currently finishing up a paper I have to write for class, and in my opening paragraph I have the following sentence:

Themselves is a word, but themself isn't. I don't think I can use "themselves" there because I am changing from singular to plural in the span of one sentence, and that's no good.

I could use himself/herself, but I'd prefer to use a non-gender specific word, like "themself" but I was quite surprised to find that isn't even a recognized word unless it's written as two words (them self), and I am not sure if the meaning changes there or not.

Actually, now that I wrote that, I think "them self" could work there, but I'd appreciate it if someone could confirm this. For some reason I was looking for a compound, when I guess two words can suffice.

Thanks!

Would you consider hyphenating it?

If you do want to use "themself" at least you can console yourself by knowing that Emily Dickinson used it http://plagiarist.com/poetry/8776/ and at least one other person thinks it should be a word http://open-dictionary.com/Themself

Thanks for the links and the reply.

Since this is a paper for class, I'm not really sure what will fly. I really can't believe "themself" isn't a "recognized" word. The open-dictionary definition you provided works really well, and I am tempted to use it, but I am just not sure because I always assumed it was in fact a word.

I actually think the professor would prefer if I used a non-gender specific word, even if it doesn't exist (??), but assuming is something that I am generally pretty bad at. :)

I'll have to think on it. I appreciate the links though, they were very helpful.

Why don't you consider revising the whole sentence?

"We live in a world of discontentment, and when someone becomes discontent, the first thing they want to change is themselves . . ."

It is up to you, but your first part really could be an independent sentence:
We live in a world of discontentment. When a person becomes discontent, their first impulse is to change from within. (Or, "... change from within is their first impulse." if you have hang ups about ending a sentence with "within")

If you want to reduce your shifting from singular to plural, you might revise to: "When a person becomes discontent, the first impulse is to change from within." This implies that the impulse belongs to that person without directly connecting the two.

Good luck with your paper!

The first thing an individual wishes to change, is ones self.

oneself
one's self
one's own self
self image

Great replies, and I appreciate them a lot.

The more I read the sentence, the more I realize how clunky it is. I may have to re-word as suggested, but I also like the example that uses "one's self."

Thanks again, and if anyone has any more suggestions, please pose them.

I've noticed that when the poster replies to his own post, it seems to have an air of finality to that, but that isn't the case here.. I just want to give thanks for the help I've already received. Take care. :)

"itself", but that sounds very cold and impersonal when you're talking about people.

Whatever you do, just make sure you fix the (what's the word for it...) number agreement. You have a singular, someone, and then two plurals, they and themselves.

It's a replacement for cumbersome constructions ("he or she", "himself or herself") to refer to a single hypothetical person of any gender. "They" and "themselves" aren't plurals in this usage.... though you still treat them that way.

Ain't languages a beautiful thing?

Personally, I'd be more concerned with making such a strong claim about human nature than numerical agreement. You do back up the claim later in the paper, right?

Indeed, that sentence is in the opening paragraph of my paper on Pirandello's Henry IV. I tend to use general references to society/reality when introducing a thesis on a novel/play, because I feel that allows the reader to relate to what's going on in the written work.

Thanks again for the replies. I'm still playing around with possibities, and seeing what works best.

That's why I hate English class... But you're right (in my mind), making a valid point is more important than a minor mechanical error.

OK, I'm going to lay this out clearly: 'them', 'they', and 'their' are all plurals. Using any of these terms to refer to a single person is incorrect. The construction 'themself' is simply ridiculous. The 'they/them/their' usage is common enough that it's acceptable in everyday speech, but not in academic writing.
The pronoun 'one' is acceptable, but the term 'one' refers specifically to the writer or the speaker, not to a general member of the population. It's kind of synonomous with 'I' or 'me'. Thus, if I say "The first thing an individual wishes to change, is one's self," I am implying that the first thing any individual wishes to change is TIO's self.

I'm afraid the English language lacks a simple construction for your purpose. If you can't re-word the sentence (I would recommend "and when people become discontent, they want to change is themselves first . . .), you're going to have to bite the bullet and either use the clunky 'him or herself' phrase, or just pick a gender; 'himself' or 'herself' will often suffice, as long as it is reasonably clear that you are not excluding the gender you don't explicitly refer to. For example, let's say I'm writing a paper on an experiments in which a subject must perform a sequence of actions. I'd be happy enough to say 'he will be required to do this' and 'he should not do that' and 'we expect him to do the other', because it should be obvious that female subjects will behave the same way. If gender is irrelevant to your statement, you should get away with just picking a gender. As for which gender to pick, there is some contention. Some say you should pick one gender or another and stick with it; others say you should use different genders in different parts of your paper. That, at least, is a matter of style.

Best bet? If you're at college, your professor probably has a couple of publications to his or her name. Look them up, and try to see what construction is used in them. Otherwise, either just take a guess and hope you don't get marked down for it, or ask your teacher or a librarian at the college. In fact, I probably should have suggested that earlier. Just say you're not sure what the right construction is, and ask whoever will be marking your paper what the correct usage is. If you're writing an essay on Shakespeare, it's likely that it's an English unit/class anyway, so the question could not be more appropriate.

"one" is any unspecified person, so you could use that; it's gender-independent and doesn't refer to the author or anyone in particular.
personally, i'd try to reword that sentence to avoid that problem because it reminds me of the "it puts the lotion..." line from silence of the lambs.

How about changing "someone becomes" to "people become"? That would take care of your singular/plural confusion, and you could use your original sentence mostly intact.

You're right, fuzzybottom. I'd always thought 'one' referred to the speaker, but Mirriam-Webster just proved me wrong :p

Anyone ever heard of the word 'thon'? (here and here.) I remember reading about it as a child. There's even a FAQ!

TIO is correct in that all attempts to use "they," "them," "their" and
related words are in error, because all are plural.

Your original sentence should have been:

...when someone becomes discontent, the first thing he wants
to change is himself.

Educated readers will understand that this does not impute sex
to the subject.

And, by the way, it's sex we're talking about, not gender. Gender
is an attribute of grammar, and English doesn't have it. Always remember:
words have gender, people have sex.

As for your thesis, my experience is that discontented people usually,
as a first impluse, want to change everyone else.

Actually, TTT, Merriam-Webster says that 'gender' is synonymous with 'sex'. The first definition is yours, but the second is 'sex'.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...nder&x=15&y=15

The Queer Department at university, and in fact most of the people I know who are inclined to discuss such things, define 'sex' as the biological phenomenon, whereas 'gender' is an identity. As such, my sex is male and my gender is also male, but some individuals of the male sex (namely, transsexuals) may identify their gender as 'female'. Personally, I'm happy to use those definitions of the terms; they seem to be the common parlance at the moment, and bad things happen to those who cross the Queer Department.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and should not be
confused with usage guides. A dictionary will (correctly) tell you
that people use "infer" to mean "imply," or "enormity" to mean
"hugeness," or "stakeholder" to mean "interested party," even
though all three are incorrect and to be shunned.

Languages need trail blazers so that they don't stagnate. They
also need linguistic reactionaries such as myself, so that they
don't become hopeless hodgepodges of meaningless noises.