Gender Neutral Writing

19 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Writing was easier in the past, when "he" and "man" could be used for general purposes. Now it is about finding non-awkward ways to avoid mentioning gender in a sentence. "One small step for humanity, one giant leap for homosapiens."
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    "He" and "man" are what is called "false" generics. So it's actually a good thing they aren't used - it reflects the evolution from the idea of women as subspecies instead of just a gender of the species. It's awkward, though, because our language was set up as subordinating - with the female being a tagged* form of the male - fe-male, wo-man, s-he. Even the substitution of "human" is a subconscious indication of not just two genders, but of two different genus within the species.

    Unfortunately, the only way we can actually get away from this is by using a plural "their", as in "a person needs to mind their own..." Language purists who understand proper grammar but not the subconscious semantic impact of words go crazy over this construction and fight it. There aren't really any gender neutral words to substitute, though, like you get in German with "herr" and "frau".

    Spoken language attempts to adjust by the word "woman" being pronounced "womin", but that hasn't translated out into written language yet.

    About the only thing we're going to do to eradicate a naturally subordinating language is to completely change the words for women into untagged words completely.

    *a tagged morpheme is a morpheme or word that has a prefix or suffix added to qualify a portion of a category. Thus the tagged morpheme is always subordinate to the main morpheme. The main morpheme indicates the natural state or main class in a category.

    Yes this is the type of crap I actually studied and still write answers about when I wake up at 4:30 in the morning. Go figure.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9867368].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      "He" and "man" are what is called "false" generics.<snip>
      Sure, I understand and don't dispute the rationale behind it, but I still find it awkward at times. I think adding true generics could work, like "ta" for singular and "ta yi" for plural.
      Signature

      Project HERE.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9867374].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

        Sure, I understand and don't dispute the rationale behind it, but I still find it awkward at times. I think adding true generics could work, like "ta" for singular and "ta yi" for plural.

        It is awkward right now, but it will evolve over time. Few really still hold objection to using "their" for a singular any more and that's a sign of evolution. Making new words was talked about decades ago, but not enough really understand the issue deeply enough to have new words actually legislated - which is the way any artificial change would have to be adopted in the short term.

        What I find interesting is that "human" is actually a subordinate of "man" instead of visa versa. That's a pretty intense statement when ya think about it.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9867420].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    MOST languages have this type of thing. BTW did YOU know that there is NO way to say I in Hindi or Arabic? There probably isn't in Hebrew EITHER! If you want to say I, you have to say "I, a male,", or "I, a female,"! EVEN THE VERBS change!!!!!!!!! So you think YOU have it bad! I imagine a lot of kids get a ribbing over a literal SLIP of the tongue! Seriously, a SLIP can change the sound enough to make it sound like the other. English sometimes gets a bad rap, even when it often has a LOT of things going for it!

    There IS a kind of pronoun set though,in english! one/they! So if one wants to specify that something can apply to either sex, they can simply use one and they! SPANISH, for example, has the SAME sort of thing! "Se habla espanol"(One speaks spanish)!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9867540].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    "They" is the plural that I was talking about (their). It's technically wrong, but is mostly accepted now in light of the lack of alternatives.

    I agree that English, while a nightmare in the spelling aspect, is pretty functional. I can't imagine using a tonal language that depends on the pitch of the word for meaning, a language that has thousands of characters in written form, or a class dependent language. They would drive me nuts very quickly. French wasn't too bad with the "vous" and "tu" polite and familiar forms, but the languages that have clear class differences....yikes. Maculine and feminine in languages (i.e. the "le" and "la" in French) drive me nuts, too. I have some sort of mental block on those and get them wrong as often as right. Of course, if it's something your first language does it's no more headache than any other.

    Socially, though, how do you ever integrate a society when the very structure of the language they speak tells the people they are different from the others the way cast system languages do? People get all freaked about everyone not seeing everyone as equal now days - yet the very structure of their language violate the idea of equality. (Structure works subconsciously not consciously).
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9867939].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      "Giant leap for mankind" I find ok as the word man is in both genders names, woman and man. If you said "Womankind" you would be referring to one gender.

      Changing "Where No Man Has Gone Before" to "No One" was definitely required as it originally was referring to the male only.
      Signature

      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9867965].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        "Giant leap for mankind" I find ok as the word man is in both genders names, woman and man. If you said "Womankind" you would be referring to one gender.

        Changing "Where No Man Has Gone Before" to "No One" was definitely required as it originally was referring to the male only.
        Mankind is also a tagged morpheme - and with the semantic impact of "kind" on the end of "man" it actually absorbs some of the false generic. Had he said one step for "man" - it would have been a complete false generic. It would have been the most neutral in the form of ".....for humankind". Under the circumstances of the surrounding events - I don't think that was really where people's subconscious were focusing.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868266].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          Mankind is also a tagged morpheme - and with the semantic impact of "kind" on the end of "man" it actually absorbs some of the false generic. Had he said one step for "man" - it would have been a complete false generic. It would have been the most neutral in the form of ".....for humankind". Under the circumstances of the surrounding events - I don't think that was really where people's subconscious were focusing.
          He SHOULD have said one step for A man, and one giant step for mankind. WHY "A MAN"? Because it was HIS step, one PERSON! MANKIND refers to the ENTIRE SPECIES! Over half of that HAPPENS to be FEMALE, but it is called MAN KIND! It is NOT to in ANY way be sexist!

          As for the beginning of star trek where they said "NO MAN had gone before"? There are only TWO ways to look at that!

          1. MAN means a MALE PERSON. So if you dislike that, are we to understand that a WOMAN has been there? I mean THINK of it! It isn't saying a man made an accomplishment. It speaks of a LACK of accomplishment. BTW They had WOMEN on even the very first episode of star trek! Even on the PILOT, that I think is only shown when they have like marathons, etc.... And Even UHURA, a BLACK woman no less, is not really in any low class role. ALSO, she was one of the MAIN stars, and was among many men that may not have even had names! Still, they had women on the way missions, and in the sickbay, etc... Gene roddenberry HIMSELF said he tried to make it all inclusive. He had some aliens, americans, scottish, chinese, russian, africans, black, white, male, female, etc... It was even an accident, it was all intentional.

          2. MAN means a PERSON. In that case, why would anyone be against the statement?

          TODAY, they changed it to ONE! That is INSULTING at best! Wouldn't spock and his kind be among ONE? What of the klingons? What of all the others? If they could be identified as ONE, then saying "no one" is SENSELESS! If it were true, there would be NO federation, and no REASON for one.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868463].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

    Writing was easier in the past, when "he" and "man" could be used for general purposes. Now it is about finding non-awkward ways to avoid mentioning gender in a sentence. "One small step for humanity, one giant leap for homosapiens."


    Whoops.....
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868005].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
    No worries OP.

    No amount of mutilations can make English any uglier.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868505].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

      No worries OP.

      No amount of mutilations can make English any uglier.
      HEY, I think some of the other tenses, declanations, etc... that were in earlier versions of English made it WORSE!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868533].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
    Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

    "One small step for humanity, one giant leap for homosapiens."
    I suppose a truly gender-neutral version of that famous phrase would be: one small step for a human being; one giant leap for the genus, homo. But a man and mankind were reasonable substitutes, given the situation.

    Whether or not our language will eventually incorporate a gender-neutral word to replace he or she (that's better than s/he), I think the point has been made. For the most part, male authors today using a generic he aren't immediately assumed to be ingrained sexists. But only a few decades ago, arguments about the gender of language were an important step in altering the cultural mindset, and at least gave those who worked with the written and spoken word pause for thought.

    As Sal said, using their is more egalitarian, if technically ungrammatical. And the phrase he or she is cumbersome if used throughout the text. However, we've probably reached the stage where most people, realizing that the language has this particular limitation, are now willing to accept that no assumption of gender supremacy is intended by the author or speaker.

    It's a legacy of this issue though, that even now, many authors preface their books with a note on how they've decided to approach the neutral-gender matter. Some elect to alternate he and she by chapter. Others willfully use she throughout, either to cause the least offence or perhaps to start redressing the balance after centuries of he literary dominance. Still others will acknowledge the inherent language inequality but ask us to accept that their use of he is not to be taken as a personal philosophy on their own gender politics.


    Frank
    Signature


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868549].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

      I suppose a truly gender-neutral version of that famous phrase would be: one small step for a human being
      So an astronaut can not even refer to their OWN gender!?!?!!?!? I submit that if a man can not call themselves a man, a woman should not be able to call themselves a woman! We can then forget about all visable things, have women wear something to obscure their breasts/figure, and not have makeup, etc... We can then have all wear short hair, and neutral clothing, maybe something to change the voice, remove all pronouns, etc... and make all equal. I don't know how humanity will survive, but for the generation or two, nobody could claim sexism!

      Whether or not our language will eventually incorporate a gender-neutral word to replace he or she (that's better than s/he), I think the point has been made. For the most part, male authors today using a generic he aren't immediately assumed to be ingrained sexists. But only a few decades ago, arguments about the gender of language were an important step in altering the cultural mindset, and at least gave those who worked with the written and spoken word pause for thought.

      As Sal said, using their is more egalitarian, if technically ungrammatical. And the phrase he or she is cumbersome if used throughout the text. However, we've probably reached the stage where most people, realizing that the language has this particular limitation, are now willing to accept that no assumption of gender supremacy is intended by the author or speaker.
      I've seen a LOT of articles, etc... that have used the pronouns SHE and HER. So don't assume this is a male thing, or even that it is claiming superiority. I have used s/he and his/her a LOT. I even try to use male/female to avoid ageism. But things go TOO far.

      HECK the idea of sports, like a girl, was NEVER to insult females. females earlier tended to be away from sports, and many DID have an unusual way of doing some things. It was used merely as a prod for males. And ideally males AND females should be happy with who they are. In the past, that has been used as a prod for BOTH to insult and prod. Females have been accused of having male attributes and vice/versa.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868642].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        So an astronaut can not even refer to their OWN gender!?!?!!?!?
        It was a comment on the OP's use of that well-known phrase as a humorous example of gender-neutrality. Not a new NASA directive.

        I've seen a LOT of articles, etc... that have used the pronouns SHE and HER. So don't assume this is a male thing, or even that it is claiming superiority.
        Yes, writers use she and her - mainly when they're writing about females, but also, occasionally as a generic term. However, it's far more common to see he and him used when no particular gender is specified. As I said, I think, now, that most readers are fairly relaxed about this. Where it might still be an issue (and justified, I think) is when the terms he or him are employed automatically when describing a profession such as a doctor or a CEO, for example, with the implied assumption that the person in such a position of authority must be male.

        HECK the idea of sports, like a girl, was NEVER to insult females. females earlier tended to be away from sports, and many DID have an unusual way of doing some things. It was used merely as a prod for males. And ideally males AND females should be happy with who they are. In the past, that has been used as a prod for BOTH to insult and prod. Females have been accused of having male attributes and vice/versa.
        Steve, I try to follow what you say - really I do - but I have no clue at all what the above paragraph means.


        Frank
        Signature


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868696].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
          Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

          It was a comment on the OP's use of that well-known phrase as a humorous example of gender-neutrality. Not a new NASA directive.<snip>
          It is reassuring that my humorous intent wasn't lost on everybody.
          Signature

          Project HERE.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868718].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

            It is reassuring that my humorous intent wasn't lost on everybody.
            I'm sorry. It wasn't lost on me. It was just 4:30 in the AM and I'd woken up and couldn't sleep so when the subject came up, I just started typing. LMAO. You may make any gender specific slam about that one that you want to. I probably would deserve the "loquacious fingers" comments.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868936].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              I'm sorry. It wasn't lost on me. It was just 4:30 in the AM and I'd woken up and couldn't sleep so when the subject came up, I just started typing. LMAO. You may make any gender specific slam about that one that you want to. I probably would deserve the "loquacious fingers" comments.
              I have no issues with your response which, in actuality, has more merit than my original message.
              Signature

              Project HERE.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868998].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

          Yes, writers use she and her - mainly when they're writing about females, but also, occasionally as a generic term. However, it's far more common to see he and him used when no particular gender is specified. As I said, I think, now, that most readers are fairly relaxed about this. Where it might still be an issue (and justified, I think) is when the terms he or him are employed automatically when describing a profession such as a doctor or a CEO, for example, with the implied assumption that the person in such a position of authority must be male.
          If I were talking about fashion, makeup, or some aspect of feminine health, I wouldn't even bring it up. But NOPE! I was talking about articles concerning writing articles, ads, and programming, applying for general jobs, fixing various things, etc.... I have ALSO seen it relating to doctors.

          The ONLY pattern explaining this is that maybe 80% of such writers are female. As for the other 20%? Some women obscure the fact that they are women, in such cases, so one can never truly be sure.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868873].message }}

Trending Topics