Gender-neutral language in English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.
Gender-neutral language, Gender-neutral/Gender-neutrality, Gender-inclusive language, Inclusive language, Non-parallel usage, and Sexist language redirect here. For similar issues in other languages, please see Gender-neutral language in Indo-European languages and Gender-neutral language in non-Indo-European languages.

Gender-neutral language (gender-generic, gender-inclusive, non-sexist, or sex-neutral language) is language that attempts to refer neither to males nor females when discussing an abstract or hypothetical person whose sex cannot otherwise be determined. English does not have a system of grammatical gender for nouns in general, it instead uses gender-specific pronouns. Gender-neutral language in English includes but is not limited to the use of gender-neutral pronouns.

Inclusive language follows the principles of Gender-neutral language and extends them to other areas of language, such as referring neither to adults or children when discussing a person whose age cannot otherwise be determined.

Contents

[edit] Examples

One might state, "Tomorrow I will meet my new doctor; I hope he is friendly."; however, unless one is certain that the new doctor is a man, advocates of gender-neutral language generally argue that it would be better to repair the sentence so it does not use the gendered pronoun 'he'. Options include: "Tomorrow I will meet my new doctor, who I hope is friendly", "Tomorrow I will meet my new doctor; I hope the doctor is friendly" and "Tomorrow I will meet my new doctor; I hope they are friendly". (This last example of using the singular they as a gender-neutral pronoun is considered colloquial or wrong by some English speakers.) Further options include using one instead of he/she ("Tomorrow I will meet my new doctor; I hope one is friendly.") or even neologisms (e.g. "Tomorrow I will meet my new doctor; I hope e is friendly").

Some critics argue that gender-neutral language creates an undue burden on speakers to change the structure of their sentences, with the results being potentially awkward. They would cite the first example above as a case in point, as some see it as contrived, and many people's patterns of speech do not use non-defining relative clauses. (Colloquially speaking, the speech given in this example would often be described as sounding as if the speaker were "talking like a book".)

A business might advertise that it is looking for a new chair or chairperson, rather than chairman, which gender-neutral language advocates feel would imply that only a man would be acceptable for the position. Some advocates of gender-neutral language see it as unobjectionable to use gender-specific terms provided they are equally applied. For instance (continuing the example), one could refer to a male in such a position as a chairman, provided that a female would be referred to by the supposedly equivalent term chairwoman (which itself contains the word "woman") This practice is typically objected to by feminists due to the perceived irrelevancy of including gender/sex in any kind of title, position, or job. Therefore, some advocate that chairperson or chair are the only acceptable terms. (It is perhaps worth noting that traditionally the term chairman has explicitly included females, such a person being addressed as Madam Chairman rather than Mr Chairman. However, others argue if the word 'chairman' was really gender neutral and inclusive the female term 'Madam' would not be necessary because both sexes would be equally included in such a word, but because they are not the qualifier 'Madam' is added to appear as though it is no longer sexist language. In conclusion, the term itself is not inclusive just like "freshman", "fireman", "workman", "mailman", etc.)

[edit] Common positions

Views among advocates of gender-neutral language are spread over a wide range, from passionate argumentation in favour, to consistent use in their own speech and writing, to occasional use. However, most people simply decide for themselves whether to use it in their writing.

A great many people have no opinion on gender-neutral language and make no special effort to avoid what advocates may describe as sexist language. However, many terms advocated or proposed by advocates of gender-neutral language, such as "firefighter" or "he or she", have entered the common lexicon (in some cases, before advocacy of gender-neutral language began), and may be used by those who do not have any particular feeling about the subject.

Still others regard gender-neutral language as revisionist, as promoting poor or heavy writing, excessively "politically correct", or simply a cosmetic change that does nothing to actually repel sexism. They may consciously refuse to use forms of speech advocated by promoters of gender-neutral language.

[edit] History

Many of the masculine terms in Modern English come from gender neutral words in Old English. For example, the word mann was gender-neutral in Old English (though grammatically masculine) and could be used to refer to any adult human. For gender-specific usage, "wer" could be used to mean "man", and "wíf" to mean "woman". Since then, "man" replaced "wer" as the primary word referring to male persons, while also preserving its original gender-neutral meaning (people), especially in compounds such as mankind. Meanwhile, the word "woman" (from "wífman", grammatically feminine) replaced "wíf" as the word for female person. The word human is from Latin humanus, the adjectival form of homo.

During the 19th century, attempts to overlay Latin grammar rules onto English required the use of feminine endings in nouns ending with -or. This produced words like doctress and professress and even lawyeress, all of which have faded from use; though waitress, stewardess, and actress persist.

Belief in social effects of language was largely a 20th century phenomenon in the English-speaking world, and has been linked to the development of the concept of politically correct language and the principle of linguistic relativity by Benjamin Whorf and others.

[edit] Criticism and disputed issues

There are a wide range of disputed issues in the debate over 'non-sexist language'. Are there inherently sexist language forms, and if so, what are they? If they exist, should they be changed? If they should be changed, how should this be achieved?

[edit] Are some uses of language inherently sexist?

Some advocates of gender-neutral language, including many feminists, argue that traditional language fails to reflect the presence of women in society adequately. This is referred to as "symbolic annihilation." In general, they are concerned about a number of issues:

  • Use of exclusively gender-specific pronouns like he and she.
  • Use of man to refer to all people. (eg, mankind)
  • Use of gender-specific job titles.
  • Use of Miss and Mrs. (see Ms.)
  • Non-parallel usage, such as man and wife.
  • Stereotypical words such as virile and ladylike.
  • Words with stereotypical derivations such as hysterical.
  • That the word woman includes the word man, as though man were the default or normal form.

Feminist advocates of gender-neutral language believe the following about language which they deem sexist:

  • It marginalizes women and creates the impression of and reflects a male-dominated society.
  • It makes women invisibile in language which reflects our reality
  • It is demeaning, for example treating women only as marriage property or calling other 'things' owned or operated by men by female adjectives [ie. that car; she's a beauty, the motherland, etc.]
  • It can perpetuate inaccurate and biased stereotypes about where men and women are supposed to be [ex. chairman, statesman, congressman...trophy wife, waitress, hostess, etc.].

A deeper variant of these arguments involves the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the suggestion that our language shapes our thought processes and that in order to eliminate sexism we would do well to eliminate allegedly "sexist" forms from our language. Some people dismiss the effectiveness of such a suggestion, viewing "non-sexist language" as irrelevant window-dressing which merely hides sexist attitudes rather than changing them.

Opponents of gender neutral language modification do not accept these arguments as valid.

  • Most of them argue that traditional use of the English language, and other Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic languages, including using male pronouns when referencing both males and females, is not sexist. They point out that the difference between, for example, waiter and waitress, is purely for specificity, not quality differentiation, and the difference is not synonymous with judgement. Men and women are different, they say, and we shouldn't be afraid to admit that.
  • Some argue that there is no reason to assume that the traditional linguistic gender hierarchies reflects a bias against women. They say the female grammatical gender is simply marked and it could actually reflect women being more valued than men. [1]
  • They feel that rewriting text to eliminate gender-specific pronouns results in an awkward and ugly writing style.
  • Many of them regard it as "political correctness gone mad".
  • Some point out that while our current culture is more interested in feminism and equal rights for women, it evolved out of one that was not, and while we should attempt to modernize the way people think about gender relations, trying to weed out every single reference to the less sensitive past would be both impossible and undesirable. As long as the speaker does not intend a derogatory meaning, they argue, then there is no issue and the remnants of the past need not be changed.

[edit] Enforcement, persuasion, or evolution?

Only a tiny minority of advocates for gender-neutral language argue that using allegedly "sexist" language should be illegal. But many advocates do support the enforcement of rules and policies against language they feel is sexist by schools and workplaces. Hate speech legislation does exist in some countries, but applies to much more clear-cut and widely accepted cases of perceived prejudice. Many editing houses, corporations, and government bodies have official policies in favour of in-house use of gender-neutral language. In some cases, laws exist regarding the use of gender-neutral language in certain situations, such as job advertisements.

The majority of advocates for gender-neutral language generally prefer persuasion rather than enforcement. One tool of this persuasion is creating guidelines (see below) that indicate how they believe language should be used. Another tool they use is simply to make use of 'non-sexist language' themselves, thereby leading by example.

Some opponents of "non-sexist language" modification accept the basic premise that traditional use of gender in English reflects sexism, but argue that a change in language should evolve organically from changing public attitudes towards gender issues, rather than be achieved either by enforcement, or by persuasion.

[edit] Neologising

Some terms, such as firefighter and singular they, are sometimes criticized by opponents of gender neutral language-modification as neologisms. But supporters argue that they have a long history that predates the beginning of the women's liberation movement by centuries. At other times new terms have indeed been created, such as Womyn. The issue is sometimes confused by satirists who invent extreme examples of the supposed consequences of "non-sexist language."

Some critics accuse advocates of gender-neutral language-modification of "re-gendering" language, replacing masculine in some cases by feminine terms that are equally sexist. Other critics argue that some phrases used in non-sexist language violate the rules of proper grammar and style.

Some critics claim that phrases like "he or she" are not real English words, for they only exist in print, not in speech. In print it is easy for an editor to employ rules of gender-neutral language, but speech is practically impossible to control. People simply do not use "he or she" in their everyday speech; instead they use "they" or "he". Only the most determined reformer would actually use "he or she" in a casual conversation, since it would sound stilted and affected to many people.

Many feminist linguists see phrases such as he or she as a solution to a non-existent problem, arguing that most English speakers happily use the singular they without thinking twice. But many others still insist that it is a grammatical error. The feminist linguists argue that the case for the singular they is quite compelling based on the history of the English language. They argue that it has been in continuous use since the Middle Ages, and cite its use by some of the greatest English authors including Shakespeare and Chaucer. The editors of some style guides have been convinced by these arguments, and some guides now accept the singular they as grammatically correct.

Critics of the "singular they" argue that while it may sound acceptable in some contexts, in others it would clearly sound absurd. For example, they argue that no one would ever say anything like: "I'm going to babysit a two-year-old tomorrow. I hope they are well-behaved. I hope they can entertain themselves. I don't want any trouble with them." As a result, they argue, the "singular they" can never fully replace "he," "his," and "him" in cases where the gender is unknown.

However, to some readers the above only sounds strange because of its simple structure and makes perfect sense when rewritten as such: "I'm going to babysit a two-year-old tomorrow and I hope they're well-behaved. I hope they can entertain themself, because I don't want any trouble with them." Notice the use of themself. Themself is increasingly being used as a gender-neutral pronoun, serving as a singular form of themselves to take the place of 'himself' or 'herself'.

[edit] Guidelines

Many different authorities have presented guidelines on whether, and if so and where, to use gender-neutral, or "non-sexist" language. Several are listed below:

Many dictionaries, stylebooks, and some authoritative guides now counsel the writer to follow gender-neutral guidelines. These guidelines, though accepted by many, often remain controversial. Conflict often arises between the desire of some to modify the English language to avoid what they perceive as sexism, and the desire of others to either continue writing and speaking in a way that feels natural and comfortable to them, and/or to maintain traditional standards of grammatical correctness.

Standards advocated by supporters of the gender-neutral modification in English have been applied differently and to differing degrees among English speakers worldwide. This has reflecting differences in cultures and language structure, for example American English in contrast to British English. They are also impacted upon, depending on whether a person uses English as their first language or as a second language, regional variants or whether their form of English is based on grammatical structures inherited from a no longer widely used other language (for example, Hiberno-English) or owes its linguistic structure to earlier Old English or Elizabethan English. In these cases, language structure from their native tongue or linguistic inheritance may enter into their terminology.

[edit] References

This article does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since November 2006.

    [edit] Further reading

    [edit] See also

    [edit] External links

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Gender-neutral_language_in_English_4d8c.html"