Gender Sensitive Language

[abuzar]

Dear All,

One of the fundamentals my teacher taught me about writing is 'to avoid
gender sensitive language to larger audience', not so is the case here I
guess as the writing mail on 24th of April goes as:

Quote:

what can a freelance writer do to make sure her working environment is as
comfortable, supportive, and reliable as it would be, were she working in a
city centre office?

Unquote.

Your take on this?

Regards
Ali Abuzar
Pakistan

[DanielScocco]

Abuzar, most writers still use "his" in those circunstances, for example:


If a web designer is trying to complete his work...

There are people that will find this sexist, because a web designer can be a man or a woman and you are implying he must be a man. Most people won't care though.

Then you have writers that try to be more balanced, and used the "her" instead of "his" to explicit that they are aware of those differences. Example:


If a web designer is trying to complete her work...

I think you are less likely to find fewer problems using the "her."

Finally, there are writers that stick a "their" pronoun there to make sure that are not getting biased to any side. Keep in mind this solution is not grammatically correct though. Example:


If a web designer is trying to complete their work...

Ah, and there is also the formal procedure of using both her and his, as in the example below:


If a web designer is trying to complete his/her work...

This final solution is perhaps the most correct one, but obviously it hurts the elegance of the writing.

Those are my views at least, other people are welcome to express theirs.

[michael420ts]

I'm curious as to why "If a web designer is trying to complete their work..." is grammatically incorrect. If their is refering to the web designer whoever that may be.

[abuzar]

Aye… Denial I also would like to go for the last of options you put forth. And if nobody cares of these lacunas we can not help but to propagate what is right. And in the world where we propagate pluralistic and basic value system and equate men and women to purge gender discrimination we should concentrate upon such sensitivities be it minor or major.

[DanielScocco]

Personally I just use "his" everywhere, at the risk of being considered sexist.

Michael, I don't think that "If a web designer is trying to complete their work..." is grammatically correct. "A" cannot agree with "their."

[susabelle]

Daniel is right, A webdesigner...their work is grammatically incorrect. It requires a singular.

[Genuine]

Ahhh, the singular 'they' debate.

Besides being a language pragmatist, there's also literary precedence for a singular they. Famous authors, including Austen and Shakespeare have used the singular they. I honestly think that the idea that 'they' couldn't be used as a singular was simply one among many of the silly rules that were codified by prescriptivists. (Is that a word?)

For example, the rule against double negatives---this is lifted from the fact that there is no double negative in Latin. Therefore, people tried to say that you couldn't used a double negative. There's the same problem with the "never end a sentence with a preposition" because of someone's intrepretation of the Latin base/roots.

The fact this is: the gender-neutral male pronoun is fast losing ground. Readers like myself are more jarred and more startled when we read "he" than when you use a singular they.

This issue has exploded over the 'Godblogs' arena when a Bible translation (the NIV) was updated and used the singular they. (This is the TNIV translation) The fact is that using a 'gender neutral' male pronoun is becoming more and more misunderstood. People read the word he, and they think male. Many conservative Christians who were outraged at the TNIV blatantly ignored the precedence of historical usage; they ignored the gender neutral terms used in the original languages of the Bible, and they rode rough-shod over any suggestion that...

language changes.

Go back 500 years, and try to talk to another English-speaking person. You'd have some serious problems. Like I said, I'm a language pragmatist. I don't believe in attempting to force the language to remain static. However, in this case, not only is recent popular usage on my side, historical evidence shows that the singular they was used by some of our most revered authors. So, yes, you can use the singular they.

And since this post is already too long, let's not go into the sexist assumptions bound up in much of the 'gender neutral' male pronouns.

[--Deb]

This is one of the thorniest issues, I think, because it doesn't have a clear or simple answer. Using "they/their" is sufficiently gender-neutral but is plural, but as Daniel said, the options aren't exactly the best. "He/She" or "S/He" is just messy and inelegant....

Yes, yes, I know--all the stuff you just read.

Personally, I try to avoid using they/their but sometimes just can't help myself. Or I alternate using he/his and she/hers from post to post or chapter to chapter so that it comes out "fair."

And then, there's the more formal "One." "One may find that using a mouse is awkward..." Though, since that doesn't appear very often at all in American writing (which is where I am), it just sounds pretentious. I think you need a British accent to make that one work...

--Deb

[RichardWade]

I am personally of the opinion that the easiest way to avoid non-sense like he/she and the singular their is for one to use "one."

[abuzar]

For Genuine, I would add is if we justify or substantiate ‘gender-neutral male pronoun’ argument in historical practices and context. There... we have to let us be acquainted with the state of women in our history. We also would have to relate that phenomenon with the fact that it was as near as 1928 when women were equalized as humans and got their right to verdict (the suffrage movement). In that event can we expect to have gender sensitive inscription approach in the times you referred–when women were marginalized as mere commodity?

[Ali]

I agree with Genuine that the use of "they" as a singular is becoming more and more common, and I suspect that in ten or twenty years, it may well be acceptable.

For now, though, I'd recommend using:
- s/he for academic work (yes, it looks ugly, but there's no risk of it being deemed "incorrect")
- "he" or "she" in alternate chapters or sections of books, with a brief disclaimer at the start

I'm British and have what is considered a "posh" accent and even I can't use "one" with a straight face!

If using gender-inclusive language is a real issue for you with a particular piece of writing, try recasting the sentences to put them into the plural. Eg:
"If a web designer is trying to complete his work..."
could be rewritten as:
"If web designers are trying to complete their work..."

I've often rewritten sentences like this in business writing.

Abuzar raises a very good point: I personally feel we shouldn't modernise older pieces of writing -- if they're not gender-inclusive, that reflects the historical and cultural context in which they were written.

[Genuine]

For Genuine, I would add is if we justify or substantiate ‘gender-neutral male pronoun’ argument in historical practices and context. There... we have to let us be acquainted with the state of women in our history. We also would have to relate that phenomenon with the fact that it was as near as 1928 when women were equalized as humans and got their right to verdict (the suffrage movement). In that event can we expect to have gender sensitive inscription approach in the times you referred–when women were marginalized as mere commodity?


I'm sorry if I'm being dense here, but I don't know what in the name of Sweet Sally you're trying to say here.

[BOYE AKINTOLA]

I aggree with Daniel that 'A' cannot go with 'THEIR' If we are to use 'their' then 'They' should replace 'A'. To avoid all these pitfalls , I will support the use of 'he' since this can stand for male or female at least in legal environment.

[Genuine]

You are aware of the fact that there is a historical precedence for the use of a singular they?

[DanielScocco]

Genuine, I agree with some parts of your argument, but not with others.

You say that language changes. It sure does, but mostly this change is related to new words that get introduced, or to some that have their meaning mutated.

That being said, I am don't think it is just as common for grammar rules to change.

I could be wrong, but I would need to see examples.

[Alex]

That does work in English, and may be German, where the plural form has no gender. But there are many other languages where the plural forms are gender specific. In Spanish, not only is 'they' different for both genders, but also 'we' and 'you'. That can drive my students literally mad :P

Personally, I don't see the necessity to use gender sensitive language everywhere. I even think that it is contradictory to the 'feminist ideal', by trying to reach 'equality' by stressing the differences. And it looks weird, to say the least. For example, Facebook uses 'they' and 'their', and I find "Mary updated their profile" an extremely ugly construction.

[m7weilm]

I tend to alternate his and her through a paragraph to show equality of gender. I also use the less than elegant s/he. I became acutely aware of gender language while studying Spanish, French and German--although the gender of many words seems incongruent with translation.

[qatharms]

When I read all this rhetoric, I am once again dumfounded to see how a political issue has tortured the language. I am a woman, and I am profoundly grateful for the progress made in liberating women from the status of being property. However, I do not find it offensive when people use the standard rules of grammar for communication. The rules of grammar exist because without them we would be completely mystified when we try to interpret what someone says or writes. The rules help us make sense of the words. The rules are not about our freedom or our political rights. Let's not be ridiculous. The rules work. Let's fight our political battles somewhere other than in the grammar of our language.

[Sigma-6]

"Readers like myself are more jarred and more startled when we read "he" than when you use a singular they. "

Same here. A gender neutral pronoun is a necessity, and not just for 'political' reasons (honestly, where did that come from?).

'Their' is perfectly acceptable, and has been for a very long time. If you have a problem with it, pluralize the sentence so it agrees. In my academic work, I personally choose whatever gives me the best result, usually (the admittedly cumbersome) 'he or she.'

When I write historical fiction, set in times when 'male' was by definition 'gender neutral' (because women were the 'second' sex and, frankly, chattel, thanks), I use 'he'. As the times have changed, so has the language; nowadays, we make the attempt.

It may not offend you, Quatharms (and I applaud you for resisting the culture of taking offense), but it's changing because the language *was* explicitly sexist. It was proper, but now it isn't. If English speaking society were still an explicitly sexist society--and I'll grant that in a lot of places, it still is--then it would remain proper.

I guess it just depends on who you're writing for. If I wrote a paper for a social history professor, for example, I'd be asking to lose marks by failing to use gender-neutral language. A classics professor wouldn't care, but I wouldn't lose any marks for using gender-neutral language. That being the case, it's clear to me which one is more profitable, politics aside.

[--Deb]

This is such a sticky problem because, while "their" is technically incorrect, it's gaining tacit approval by leaps and bounds. A lot of people know that it's wrong, but it kind of works, so they wink at it and just move quickly on with their sentences. Which, considering how awkward the "correct" alternatives are, I can kind of live with. As much of a stickler as I might be about "correctness," there's a point where letting the writing flow naturally is more important.

--Deb

[Maeve]

I just love this thread!
:)

[ADSET]

I find that for a lot of my work I have to write in a formal style -- I give in and pluralise the web designer -- then it works and reads OK.

[Sigma-6]

That can drive my students literally mad :P

That's my favourite kind of mad! :)

[J'druther]

My 5th grade English teacher (back in 1952) laid the rule as 'he/his/him' concerning which pronoun to indicate an indefinite person. Consider this a 'global pronoun' in that it is meant to be used simply to reflect someone, anyone, when not identifying a particular person.

Now, feminists argue in favor of having their sex recognized, and when a particular woman makes such an argument I have no problem addressing a response to her. And you see, in this last statement, the appropriate use of the pronoun 'her'? And I suppose that if each feminist, taken individually, was found to be female then a generic 'her' in referencing feminists might seem appropriate. But if she is argumentative, it is difficult to carry on a civil discussion with a feminist. See?

I will continue to use the language as I was taught, and hope to not offend any who strive to inject gender (or avoid it, using a plural form). But you know who you are, and what your preferences are, and nobody in this forum will convince you to do anything you don't want to do.

There now, I guess I told him off!:)

[Cecily]

Why does this generate so much argument, I wonder (not just here, but in other language groups, especially those with a mix of British, American and other users)?

What is the problem with “they” or “their” to refer to a single person of unspecified gender, e.g. “Somebody dropped their key”, rather than “Somebody dropped his key”, “Somebody dropped his/her key” or “A key was dropped by someone”?

Having read around the subject quite widely, it seems undisputed that the prohibition was first documented, and probably invented by Anne Fisher, an 18th-century British schoolmistress who wrote a grammar book that became very popular. There is nothing wrong with that except that it didn’t reflect even educated usage at the time, before or since. Chaucer, Austen, Byron, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Dickens and many others have used it routinely. I presume they did so because it was (and is) useful, widely used and unambiguous. In fact it’s so common, I expect that those who abhor it must find it very distracting reading anything other than a few newspapers that have very rigid style guides. (The PC/feminist angle is a red herring. It’s not like chairman/chairperson, but a longstanding and useful form.)

The only defence of Fisher and Fowler that I can see is to avoid apparent lack of verb agreement, e.g. “The jury was [singular] out for three hours, before they [plural] reached their verdict”. But surely one can strive to avoid that without banning ALL uses of singular “they”?

If “you” and “your” can be singular or plural, why the objections to “they” and “their”?

Why are BrE speakers generally more relaxed about it than AmE speakers, even though it was a Brit that caused the problem and Fowler still supports her?


Further thoughts, in no particular order:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=1
http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/
http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/they-singular.html.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/10/19/singular_challenge/
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003572.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003485.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001362.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000172.html
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2072
http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=133624050227&share_id=106162189737&comments=1

[Deeley]

Today's guest post, a guide to grant writing, contains several questionable uses of "they," starting with this one:

"It is the applicant’s responsibility and goal to present a strong enough case to convince a possible funder that they are worthy of receiving a grant."

Did the editor deliberately decide to let it pass?

[Cecily]

Today's guest post, a guide to grant writing, contains several questionable uses of "they,"...

The issue of singular they/their is style, not grammar and one that Americans often get very worked up about, but most Brits happily accept.

The prohibition was invented in the 18th-century (see my other post, immediately before yours).

If “you” can be singular or plural, why the objections to “they”? It's better than awkward constructions such as "he/she".

Allowing singular they is a practical acceptance of history and the fact it is useful, widely used (including by universally acclaimed writers), and is unambiguous.

See
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=1
http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/
http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/they-singular.html.

[Deeley]

I read your arguments, Cecily, and I found them compelling—especially your point about the practical acceptance of history. While it does no good to rail against time and tide, all of us can and do make choices about our own writing and speaking. Whose “rules” of grammar do I accept? Which new or disputed usages do I adopt?

I like it when subjects and verbs agree, so in the question at hand my choice is to avoid using "they" as a singular pronoun, as long as I can do it without seeming too fussy. Most of the time I can find a way—in writing at least. The point of my question last week was simply to ask what the editors of Daily Writing Tips thought about the singular “they” as they vetted the post I mentioned.

[Cecily]

all of us can and do make choices about our own writing and speaking.

Very true, and we don't always reach the same conclusion, especially if we're on opposite sides of the Atlantic.


I like it when subjects and verbs agree

So do I, but my point is that "they/their" does agree with both singular and plural subjects, just as "you" does, for all the reasons I gave.

Plural subjects: Children, what are you doing? I can teach them to tie their shoelaces.
Singular subject: John, what are you doing? I can teach that child to tie their shoelaces.

[Cecily]

Deeley, I assume you're in the US (apologies if that's a wrong assumption).

Do you come across singular they/their often in books and newspapers etc? I do, so I'm wondering if US and UK versions are altered beyond spelling differences to accommodate this difference as well or whether you either tune it out or get irritated every time you turn a page.

[Deeley]

So do I, but my point is that "they/their" does agree with both singular and plural subjects, just as "you" does, for all the reasons I gave.

Plural subjects: Children, what are you doing? I can teach them to tie their shoelaces.
Singular subject: John, what are you doing? I can teach that child to tie their shoelaces.

By that logic, we could also use "he" and "she" interchangeably.

[Deeley]

Deeley, I assume you're in the US (apologies if that's a wrong assumption).

Do you come across singular they/their often in books and newspapers etc? I do, so I'm wondering if US and UK versions are altered beyond spelling differences to accommodate this difference as well or whether you either tune it out or get irritated every time you turn a page.

I am in the US, yes.

I have certainly tuned out singular they/their in speech. When I notice the usage in print it's most often in newspapers, but I can't say that happens frequently. Maybe I've tuned it out there too.

[donald1]

yeah mostly "his" is used everywhere by writers or his/her is also correct.


regards,
Articles On Leadership and Management