Well, considering all the threads lately about "trans genders," how am I supposed to know what to call a person anymore, anyway?! If picking he over she is so offensive, and vice versa, and and you don't want to alternate, or include them both, then it sounds to me like you want a neutered/spayed pronoun, hence "it" will do just fine.
I edit copy from in-house and external sources that continues to blow my mind. Sentences with no verbs. Multiple tenses in the same sentences. massive run-ons and articles that have no common chronological progression. It's madness; madness I say. We are a dying breed, we masters of the written word. This. Like I said previously, 'they' is now a singular placeholder for two other pronouns (he or she). It's fun watching our language evolve, and speculating as to why...
The problem is not that I am excessively rigid. I don't like s/he simply because I can't pronounce it. I can't read it aloud. If a word cannot be both written and spoken, it shouldn't be part of the language. Others in this thread have suggested similar alternatives, but these alternatives don't solve the problem; they merely avoid it. "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." "Then don't do that." Hee hee! I saw what you did there! More and more, I think this is the most reasonable solution, and the one people will be most likely to adopt. I know the problem will eventually evaporate; I just feel like I'm waist deep in it right now.
What makes you think this isn't how language develops? It's not like it develops and then stops. "Offensive" is a straw man word here. Not a single person in the thread has said using "he" was offensive. Your post reflects the problem. If I work toward gender equality by pointing out the language is a hinderance, people who knee-jerk resist change are likely to exaggerate what I've said, imagining I'm unjustly offended, blah blah blah. I believe it is read as 'she-he' the same way you would read and/or. Do you write out 'and or or'? You are brewing a tempest in a tea pot. And that was my point about the rigidness of the CMoS. It's a minor change. Going on and on about it is a lot of work to resist a tiny change. Why is that if it is not rigidly resisting change? I doubt there are that many misogynists among those who find reason to dislike s/he. It takes a couple extra seconds to reword a passage. There are multiple options besides s/he. 'He or she' is three extra letters and two extra syllables. How many times have you re-written a sentence in your work to improve it? Why is this different? Such a burden, how ever will you deal with it. No offense but I am curious why you are so much more upset than I am offended? If it's too much trouble for you to rewrite a sentence, don't do it. Just don't complain that I do it, or if I explain why I do it. Social change is slow. That doesn't offend me. I choose to make an effort in this case. That shouldn't bother you when you read the s/he I wrote on a page.
I think Minstrel's point is that s/he is a nonstandard, ineloquent, and not easily pronounced 'solution' to the problem. I do not believe he is stating that s/he is offensive to him. As a technical writer, I find both 's/he' and 'and/or' to be too informal for daily use. Beyond that, I'm not even clear on what you are arguing here, Ginger.
Do you write out "and or or" in formal writing? Is it ineloquent to simply write out "he or she" if you don't like the slash? I purposefully used the word, "upset", and stayed away from "offended". If you go back and reread what I said, you will see that. My point is I'm not offended seeing 'he' used when gender is unknown, but I do want the option of being able to use alternatives because I believe the hidden messages in language are powerful things. Don't use s/he if you don't like it. Just don't bitch about me using it unless you are going to suggest a gender neutral option. In other words, don't tell me you'd rather see 'he', but if you want to say you'd rather see 'he or she' then I respect that.
Speaking of the power of words, notice the difference in claiming women are offended by the use of 'he' as a gender neutral pronoun, and simply saying some women choose to use alternatives because they believe words matter?
hehehe, you said 'do do'. I use "he or she" some times, most often I just use 'they'. "He or she" isn't ineloquent, but it is inefficient. When dealing with word or character limits, it's an easy cut to make. I believe that difference is how vehemently one debates the issue's importance on an internet message board. I'm really good friends with a neigh-militant feminist, she uses 'they' and asks others to be more neutral, but she doesn't get her [gender-neutral undergarments] in a bind if someone uses the formal 'He' in their writing. C'est la vie.
And you put an inefficient space in 'sometimes'. Good grief! You prefer a plural pronoun where a singular pronoun is called for because you don't like seeing a slash? Why not use 'one' instead? Seems just as easy and efficient to me as using 'he'. So now my reasoned discussion of the matter is my being offended and having my panties in a bunch? Wow, talk about an undercurrent of sexism. Care to point out any of my sentences you view as 'vehement debate'?
I already explained my thoughts regarding the 'singular they' on pages 2 and 3, but in short: Yes. I do. Not really. You seem to wander off after someone offers up proof that you are incorrect, so there isn't any point; and we are way off topic already. Have a nice day Ginger.
I don't understand why people who are transgendered would be referenced here. A person who identifies as female is referenced as she or her. A person who identifies as male is referenced as he or him. If you want to argue with a person's self-identification, that's another issue. Your second comment needs to be reworded. The "you" is inappropriate, as particularly in the last part of the sentence, it reads as if you are attributing sentiments to me, specifically. Since I earlier directly stated that I am not offended by "he," you are obviously not referring to me. So your comment is unclear. I'm assuming you mean something along the lines of: If we determine that picking he over she is offensive, and alternating usage or including "she/he" is undesirable, then the only available alternative is "it." My opinion is that the usage of "it" is not desirable, because it carries with it a certain connotation of de-humanizing the person to which it refers. Really more than just dehumanizing -- a devaluing of the properties of any sentient being.
So you choose a known grammar error, using a plural pronoun where a singular one belongs rather than switch to a correct option, 'one'. Proof that I'm incorrect? Huh? However, it's obvious you have no examples supporting your sexist (despite the fact you tried to disguise it) reference to my posts. It's called a dodge, accuse someone of something then when confronted, conveniently change the subject because your cannot support you claim. Duly noted.
Thanks for the insightful reply. Again, I don't mean any offense. I rarely get involved with things of this nature because even my most genuine of comments are mistaken by someone. I still don't see it as belittling or offensive in this day in age--probably because I am a man--but I admit I learned from that. Thank you for the knowledge.
'Offensive' is not the issue, and I'm not sure 'belittling' is accurate either. It may not be apparent but the use of the term, offensive, has it's own negative connotation and I encourage women to steer clear of it as well. It implies an overreaction and that is what people who don't perceive the problem like to think the fuss is. I've bolded some sentences below for the benefit of skim readers. Gender-neutral language matters Gender-Sensitive Language sexist language Sexism in language is common. It's a fact of life, no need to be offended by the state of cultural evolution. It's my philosophy that change is slow, one needs to chip away at the things that need changing. I make an effort to use gender neutral language (and sometimes a bit of affirmative action language, selectively choosing to use the generic "she") to add my drops to the bucket. Drops will eventually fill a bucket if there are enough of them. When I have a bit more time to post some good sources, I may start a new thread on the power of framing and the power of words as the issue is much much deeper than just the sexism in language. Hmmm, maybe I should write my first blog entry. And speaking of invisibility, history is exactly that, his story. I've a head full of observations I've collected over time about the sexist selection of what historians choose to write about and what is taught in history classes. There is a whole perspective on life that is conspicuously absent from history books. What do you think women were doing during all those wars and governing that one finds in a typical history account? The history of half the population is absent, or covered with a few token references. That might have to be blog entry #2.
Thank you for the interesting quotes, ginger. In spite of back-pattings about how much more equal society is becoming, I feel sometimes that in the past 20 years there has been a real slide back into the objectification of women, with incredible pressure concerning the "right" appearance, "feminine" behaviour vs (god forbid) feminist behaviour, and spurious "celebration of gender differences" among other things. I am so thankful I was young in the 70s. Can't stand the bad mouthing of feminism these days.
The most worrisome backslide I see are the cases of teen boys raping unconscious girls at parties and the seemingly nonchalant attitude it was just partying kids (as in both the victims and the rapists) getting out of hand. I also saw an 'educational' video a day or so ago, put together by some branch of the military telling service members to be careful, not take that extra drink that might lead to regretful behavior. There's no clue there by the producers that the video not only blames the victims for getting raped because they got drunk (not what has been happening at all) but it also dismisses the rapes as simple mistakes in judgement. On the more positive side, these things tend to be two steps forward, one step back, and I hope we might be back on those forward steps with all the attention to these cases.
I think feminism got a bad rap because of a few well publicized/promoted instances. I'm a feminist, I am well aware of inequality and the power of words to harm. That said, raising hell to get an entire state's laws rewritten to be gender neutral doesn't really help the cause--it hurts it instead. Take Washington for instance. All laws post 1983 had to be gender neutral (unless one gender was being specifically referenced). So, moving forward from that point, all legislation is neutral. But in 2007, they undertook a 6-year-long effort to completely rewrite all of their laws to be neutral. On paper, that is all well and dandy, but at what cost did this change come? What legislation took a back-seat while this was debated? What programs were not funded so that this could happen? For people who did not receive a service so that the laws could be rewritten, the whole ordeal seems petty and dumb. 'Feminists' get blamed, and the 'militant feminist' becomes the unpopular stereotype. I mean honestly, how often are legal documents, let alone 30+ year old ones, caroused by non-lawyers? It was a lot of effort for a symbolic victory that has no real impact. Splitting hairs over semantic differences between 'offended' and 'upset' or down-playing the opinions of others, or discounting the opinions of people who are attempting to use/promote gender-neutral writing, but in a manner different from your own, similarly distracts from the issue at hand. The editors at the Chicago Manual of Style, for example, are writing for a very specific context. They acknowledge that 'he' is no longer acceptable as a referrer to generic entities, and offer a solution that fits their needs. To discount their manual as outright incorrect only stalls the progression of the movement. I find similar fault with the Bechdel Test, but that again, is another topic. As to the modern slide back into 'correct' and 'feminine' behavior/dress/images, that is likely the result of a combination of factors. Backlash from people who are pushing too aggressively for change (these are the people who fault stay-at-home mothers for setting 'the cause' back) is part of it. Popular television shows like Mad Men promote a nostalgia for a period where people were cooler and sexier. Along those lines, it is sometimes just fun to celebrate those ties to a sense of cultural identity. A resurgence of a style of dress or behavior is not damaging to women; but requiring one is. *EDIT* This is more of a rant in response to this thread, and not intended as a comment at you madhoca.
A thought prompted by GingerCoffee's interesting quotes: Considering that English is a lingua franca, it's actually not a bad idea to aid the language to elolve into a more gender neutral direction. For those who are not used to filter "manned missions" or "mankind" etc. it might come off rather strange and unequal that "man" refers to both, men and women in these contexts, or that they should use "he" when they want to refer to someone whose gender is not known. I remember being a kid and very confused that the foreign languages I started to study, English, Swedish and German had different pronouns for men and women, or, in German's case, that certain words are feminine, certain are masculine, some are neutral.
English is such a bastard language that it's honestly surprising we don't have a gender neutral singular pronoun, when so many other languages do. Does the Swedish language have such a word (and is it pronounceable by Americans?) if so let's just use that. (If the Muppets taught me anything, the word is pronounced "fieeeshiee")
When one is just referring to simple pronouns, there is a lot less significance to using 'he' to mean he or she, and so on. The reason this became an issue was not simply the language convention of using the male pronoun to sometimes mean either gender. That point gets overlooked in this discussion. Perhaps people recall the now old puzzle: A lot of people were stumped by this puzzle when it was first written. When my son was ~4 we visited a friend in the hospital and upon seeing a person dressed in scrubs my 4 yr old said it was a doctor. When I asked why he thought that, he didn't say it was because the person had on scrubs, he said it was because it was a man. You think you are raising a modern thinking child and you find they absorb the culture around them despite your efforts. Not to get too side tracked here, but where does a 4 yr old get the idea doctors are men? It's not just picture books. We are a verbal species. It's one thing to use 'he' to mean he or she. It's another thing to see a doctor referred to consistently as a 'he' when you are 4. This isn't about using male pronouns, it's about looking for messages framed in our word choices and making a conscious effort not to contribute to the messages that negatively affect perceptions.
Bear with me here, I've gone back to carefully review what has been said: So much contradiction in your post. You claim you are "well aware of inequality and the power of words to harm", then call the legislation which sets an example by state leaders a symbolic victory with no real impact. How can you say you understand the impact of language while you rant about the uselessness of state legislatures setting an important example? Washington gender-neutral language bill signed into law As far as I know, there was no major backlash from our state legislators against radical feminists agendas. It was pretty much a safe vote for legislators, barely made the news. I'm sure some Republicans balked about the costs, but that's a separate issue. You'd need to look at benefits of the change, and you aren't willing to recognize those benefits. You say you get it about words, then call my pointing out the negative and inaccurate connotation of "offended", splitting hairs. You missed the point. I'm not upset or offended. I said Minstrel was upset and I was referring to his OP and thread title. I said I purposefully didn't claim Minstrel was offended. Here's the exchange for review: As for the CMoS, just who are you referring to that discounted "the opinions of people who are attempting to use/promote gender-neutral writing, but in a manner different from your own"? I agreed with their option. My gripe was with the claim that the authors know what other people think about the matter. Did they do a survey? Or do they just claim to speak for everyone? Notice the manual says you should not use the plural pronouns where singular pronouns belong. Wasn't it you that said you use them anyway? The manual says to write it out, "he or she" etc. That is what I said to do if one didn't like the slash. That was in the same post where you got your jock strap in a bunch.
I speak up when I think something's important. Improving the lot of women and promoting critical thinking are two things I think are very important.
"When an American turns 18, he or she must sign up for Selective Service within 30 days or risk imprisonment. " That's what you mean by promoting equality, right?
