Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Good; I see no reason not to have this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Sexist language is a huge problem on Wikipedia, and modern English needs to rely heavily on neutral wording. The sexes are equal in the modern world, so sexist language is as archaic as "ye" and "whilst". — Deckiller 21:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonably, as long as no-one starts objecting to words because of folk etymologies, like the oft-heard (off wikipedia, anyway) objection to "manhole". SamBC(talk) 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please write your comments at MOS talk; I've copied the text above to that place. Tony 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Singular they remains technically incorrect"

"At present, the singular they remains technically incorrect and many English speakers will view it as unencyclopedic, but it is a popular compromise and allowed by some style guides."

Huh? Just which technicality is it that proscribes "they" in Each politician is responsible for their constituency?

If I may recycle an example from p.494 of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (highly recommended, and a snip at just ₤125); perhaps those who demur at "singular they" would care to provide a superior alternative to their in Let me know if your father or your mother changes their mind. And which are these style guides that disallow singular they? I daresay those old codgers Strunk and White tut tut over it, but they're beyond a joke.

Listen, kids: If singular they was good enough for Jehovah, that settles the matter. (Or if you insist, here's a follow-up.) Yes, singular they is good. -- Hoary 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If we leave it at as the single sentence people will never accept it. You like the singular they—great. Many people do not. (Note I'm not one of those people but I'm anticipating the response.) Either we don't have it at all or we have it with a caveat. Marskell 12:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the singular they clause yesterday, because it was generating too much opposition and was threatening to capsize the whole proposal. After hearing the ABC Radio program on it (transcript), I believe that it's not, in many cases, technically wrong. But there's too much prejudice against it on WP (despite the fact that it appears all over the place), and I suggest that it be dealt with later, after this proposal is shepherded through. Removing the singular they clause is a compromise, and compromise is going to be required to get this through. Tony 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I had the same thought over lunch. I've removed it for the timebeing. Marskell 13:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Marskell: You like the singular they—great. No I don't. (My earlier comment Yes, singular they is good. was A Joke.) I don't like it and I don't dislike it; just as I don't like or dislike singular you. I recognize it as a fact of standard English.

So it seems that my earlier message didn't get through. Right then, I'll rephrase it: the proposition that The singular they remains technically incorrect is horseshit. If you want, you can mollify WP's considerable population of adoring readers of the newspaper columns of ignorant or senile "language mavens" by omitting mention of this oh-so-shocking ingredient of standard English (as demonstrably spoken by the Supreme Being, no less). But don't expect me for one to agree to any proposed guideline that recycles such egregious ignorance of language. -- Hoary 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried putting it back with a bland statement of fact that doesn't say that it is either correct or incorrect, but acknowledges the variation in opinions - hopefully that's reasonably acceptable and no-one will remove it in a knee-jerk reaction. Hoary, you're veering heavily towards not being WP:CIVIL, I agree with your basic sentiment, but please try to keep WP:COOL. SamBC(talk) 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 13:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hoary, "technically incorrect" was simply wording I'd pulled out from the previous version of it; as I said in the summary, tweak it if you don't like it.
Beyond that, I'd to like to offer a fuck off. I have never dealt with you and I have no idea why you are posting so venomously. Marskell 13:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Gentlemen, you two are among those I respect most at WP, and it pains me to see that there are bad feelings. We need people to collaborate on this issue, or there'll be no progress and the chance for consensus lost. Please? Tony 14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, at what point was I uncivil in this discussion, or how was my comment regarding civility in itself uncivil? This isn't a denial as much as confused but genuine question. SamBC(talk) 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you've been uncivil, but I see a general rising of tempers around this issue and multiple people on both sides being downright nasty; so a one-sided warning is unlikely to help. >Radiant< 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe it's me who's supposed to have been uncivil. Well I misphrased myself: above, I wrote "adoring readers" when I meant "doting readers" but should have said "credulous readers". And maybe I didn't do enough rewording elsewhere, either. Funny thing, though: I thought (i) the gist of WP:CIVIL was that people must act with civility toward one another, and (ii) I had been less than civil about cognitions, not editors.
Whatever. It's late here and I'm going to bed. Happy editing, all! -- Hoary 14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You lost at me at "kids." But whatever, as you say.
Is the vote to leave this in for now or to save it? I'm not in the "because it's much debated we need to avoid discussing it" camp. Because it's much debated we need to offer some guidance. Perhaps an agree to disagree statement as I did here. But I think singular they is more or less fine and perhaps we should more directly advocate it. Tony's link provides good examples. (If it's good enough for Jane Austin...) Marskell 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(Although I don't retract my second post—if simply avoiding the subject for the timebeing helps get the proposal through then lets avoid it.) Marskell 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It pains me to see such anger and hostility surrounding a debate about the use of a single word in Wikipedia. Let's remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and not one opinion's quest for superiority over another. We here at this project are all on the same team; we are all working to make progress toward providing the most reliable encyclopedic content. Debate is a natural part of the encyclopedia building process, but let us remember that all debates that move us forward are about content to include in the encyclopedia, not heated arguments that almost stoop down to the level of insult-throwing verbal wrestling matches. Unless all the editors here can accept that they will debate in order to improve Wikipedia, this argument will tear us apart, not bring us together. Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean it's alright to throw expletives left and right and bring people down in a debate about equality and political correctness. Hope this helps, and happy editing, Arky ¡Hablar! 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I had intended my last in the "let's move along" spirit. Your concern is appreciated, however. (I think you saw more dry annoyance than real anger in the above exchange.) Marskell 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May I suggest a minor restructuring?

I've marked my proposed changes in boldface. The move of the "Please consider" sentence is intended to start the section off with a request – which is what it is – rather than "is not concerned with editors' beliefs". Since that latter statement is then followed by an intent concerning the effect on some people's "beliefs", a little clarification is required, which I've attempted to add. I attempted to clarify that "using he or she" means using the formula "he or she" and not "'he' or 'she'". I have also softened the final sentence to avoid indicating a preferential usage ("may still be used"), leaving it up to the editor unless the subject has a known preference. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gender-neutral language

Please consider the use of gender-neutral language where this can be achieved in reasonably tidy wording and without loss of precision. The use of gender-neutral language is not a statement about editors’ beliefs, but is intended to minimize or avoid language that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes, such as:

  • he, his, she and her to refer to both sexes
  • man to stand for both sexes, either as a separate item (man’s journey into the unknown) or a suffix (fireman)
  • grammatically marked items to represent one sex (actress, conductress, career woman and male nurse), with the possible implication that the participation of the other sex is the norm
  • non-parallel expressions (man and wife).

This recommendation does not apply to direct quotations, the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), or where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school (“If any student broke that rule, she was severely punished”).

There are a number of ways of avoiding the use of generic male and female pronouns, among which are:

  • pluralizing (not “A player starts by moving his piece”, but “Players start by moving their piece”), although this can be problematic where the text needs to emphasize individuals, or where it creates a need to switch regularly between singular and plural
  • using the formula "he or she" (“Each politician is responsible for his or her constituency”), although this can be ungainly if repeated within a short space
  • otherwise rewording (not “A pilot must keep his spacepod under control at all times; if he loses control, he must hit ‘new game’ immediately”, but “A pilot must keep the spacepod under control at all times; if that control is lost, the pilot must hit ‘new game’ immediately”)
  • using the singular they (“Each politician is responsible for their constituency”). The grammatical validity of this remains disputed, and it is both widely used and widely disagreed with.

Other generic usages can sometimes be avoided; for example, by using operated or staffed (instead of manned), people or humanity (man), layperson (layman), business people or business owners (businessmen). In these cases, ensure that the basic meaning is preserved. Where the gender of an individual subject is known, either gender-specific or gender-neutral suffixes may still be used, although the subject’s preference, if known, should be followed ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman").

I think the comments below don't apply to this draft. I have no problem with Askari's proposed changes, except that I presume the word not is missing in error from the opening, before "a statement". Am I correct? Tony 01:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Your assumption is correct, and I've amended the example with the correction. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Unnecessary political correctness. Our aim should be to communicate information precisely and concisely, not to avoid offending anyone (WP:NOT censored, remember). In a game description, saying "a player starts by moving his piece" is precisely correct; rewording is simply pointless. In all foreign languages with which I am familiar (French and Spanish, in which gender is used much more extensively than in English), the linguistic default, where gender is uncertain, is to use male terminology. (For instance, in Spanish, the pronoun "they" would be ellos for a group of men and ellas for a group of women, but for a group of both men and women, ellos is used.) This is not sexism. It's standard usage in almost all languages AFAIK, and there is absolutely no need to rewrite Wikipedia according to feminist POV. WaltonOne 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a nice example, Walton, but this is English, not Spanish or French, we don't have the equivalent –as or –os contruction, and your example doesn't apply. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As I responded on WP:ANI (which is a very strange place to post on this topic) [1] and as pointed out above by Marskell, the practice of not substituting masculine pronouns where gender is indeterminate and another option can easily be used is standard in news and many other world organizations, and Wikipedia would only be catching up if we enacted this guideline. Tony's draft does an excellent job of showing how easy it can be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What's done in Spanish or French is irrelevant. Well and truly irrelevant. With my very so-so knowledge of it, I'd guess Il is much more embedded in French than he has ever been in English. It's used without qualification to mean "one (person)". But interestingly, I've been taught "one" is a Gallicism when used in English, which makes it all very funny. Perhaps it's not a borrowing—it doesn't matter because it's still irrelevant. Other languages and other wikis can decide on their own usage. We decide on ours. Marskell 20:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Walton; we ought to say what we want; besides, few people follow this gender-neutral language anyway. I know I almost never do. 22:50, 16 October 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.210.255 (talk)
I think Wikipedia should follow the language through these changes if they are adopted by society as a whole first. It is our job to describe the current world, not to lead it in an advanced run on political correctness. If the language used by the English world is sexists then that is not a problem for Wikipedia to solve, but society itself. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[Reindent] Could we please keep the comments in this subsection restricted to the proposed changes outlined above? The main MOS talk thread is the place for discussions of "political correctness". I'd really like to get feedback on my proposed changes to the draft. Thank you, Askari Mark (Talk) 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singular they

We now read:

using the singular they (“Each politician is responsible for their constituency”). The grammatical validity of this is widely disputed, although it is widely used.

In the spirit of amity, fraternity, blah blah, I'm willing to go the extra kilometre not to offend self-styled "purists". But project pages too should I think avoid counterfactual assertions. And I see no evidence that the "grammatical validity" of singular they is "widely disputed". I even looked at that singular they article, and indeed got the first impression that there was some grammatical objection to it, but after a slightly closer reading this impression evaporated.

So how about:

using the singular they (“Each politician is responsible for their constituency”). The felicity of this is sometimes disputed, although it is widely used.

-- Hoary 08:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PS (i) I don't even know what "grammatical validity" means. I took this to mean "grammatically acceptable". (ii) I'm increasingly getting the impression that even the guidebooks to "correct" writing have given up on this one. -- Hoary 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "felicity" is an incredibly poor choice - most people will see this and wonder what a girl's name has to with anything. I'm going to look it up now, but as "felicitations" means congratulations, IIRC, I'm having trouble guessing the etymology...
Grammatical validity basically means that, were it possible to build a formal parser for English, only things that are grammatically valid would be accepted without error. The disagreement as to the validity is essentially a disagreement as to what the rules for such a parser would be. Of course, that only helps if you know about parsers, but it's the best I can think of in terms of explanation. Hope that helps. SamBC(talk) 10:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OR:

using the singular they (“Each politician is responsible for their constituency”), although the grammatical correctness of this widely used option is disputed.

Tony 10:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I think that opponents of the usage will feel that it spins it more to being acceptable. It's still a compromise. SamBC(talk) 11:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Remove "widely used", then? Tony 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just who is it who says that singular they is not grammatically correct? Who are these "opponents of the usage"? (The last time I looked, the singular they article suggested something similar but only managed to name a single "grammarian": somebody who wasn't a grammarian and who died in 1933.) -- Hoary 12:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Goodness me, don't remove "widely used" - it is widely used. I think the phrasing is good, I was just anticipating opposition. SamBC(talk) 21:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thought you said the opponents would balk. Hoary, the opponents of the usage are in a great lather at MOS talk. They are, regrettably, part of the constituency and have to be taken notice of. Tony 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm tempted to suggest that me and my new chum Marskell might deal with them with his recent and most welcome present to me.... Your good motives aside, you seem to want to say that the grammatical correctness of singular they is [present tense] disputed. I've had trouble believing that it could be disputed, but I've been open to evidence; and no evidence for it has yet come either here or within that article. Yes, an MoS proposal is a waste of time if it isn't approved; and to be approved it must be diplomatically phrased; and that's why, pace Sambc, I wouldn't mind if for example "widely used" were removed (even though it is widely used), or if singular they were described as regarded by some editors as stylistically infelicitous, mediocre or whatever. But as it is, the proposal seems to propagate a linguistic fiction. Which is particularly odd in the context of dealing with a different linguistic fiction (that he is sex-neutral). -- Hoary 01:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Stylistically is preferable, I think. Are you in harmony with Pulham's contention concerning the bound and unbound context? Tony 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, and it could be a good idea to summarize this, if it could be done in a way that curmudgeons (I borrow the word from Pullum) might digest without spitting out their soup in indignation. -- Hoary 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think widely disputed should stay, but it should be made clear that it is "widely disputed" in the way that evolution is "widely disputed"—i.e., by people who wouldn't recognize competent analysis of the subject if it bit them on the nose. Strad 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There is really no call to make comments like that when there are people on this talk page who've disputed it (note: not me). That could be construed as a personal attack, as people disputing it have identified themselves, and therefore you are attacking a group of identified users. Please, please, can we keep some civility here. SamBC(talk) 20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it should be worded like that. But something needs to be said that would pre-empt the sea of talk page comments like, "My English teacher said that singular they is wrong, so there." Disputing that singular they is grammatically incorrect means disputing that it has a significant presence in corpora of Standard English or (and I'm borrowing from Pullum here) asserting that what is "grammatically correct" Standard English is independent of how good writers and speakers use the language. Neither of these views are supported by linguists or linguistic analysis, and that's something that needs to make it into this guideline. Strad 20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with saying "stylistically" rather than "grammatically" is that those who've voiced opposition identify the problem as one of grammar. SamBC(talk) 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, can I say that I don't think much of this detail is going to survive. The reality is that the objections are so vehement that we're going to be reduced to a couple of very mild sentences about GNL. That's the only way this is going to get through unless there's a sudden, voluminous rush of support for the full text. Tony 01:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues from WT:MOS#Proposal for guidelines on gender-neutral language

These are the only issues I could see spelled out:

  • "man-made" is not necessarily "artificial" [it's not?]
  • "manned" is not the same as "staffed" or "operated" [I agree.]

Are there any other problems with this essay? I see that the first has been removed, and I have hidden the second with HTML comments. ←BenB4 03:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change this directly?

Is it appropriate for me to make modifications to this essay directly, or should they be discussed here first? --Dan East 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies here as much as anywhere else... SamBC(talk) 12:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's POV

I don't think it is constructive to make references to an editor's POV. It doesn't matter why an editor decides to utilize or apply GNL, as long as the end result adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. I've reworded the essay in an attempt to indicate that GNL in and of itself does not indicate biased POV. --Dan East 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This entire page is not the proposed guideline

There is a lot of opposition to anything more than the single sentence Jimbo approved -- so lets keep this an {{essay}} until the MoS discussion settles. The examples and advice don't make good proscriptive material. Is there a reason the entire page should be a proposal? ←BenB4 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, by definition, because it proposes that Wikipedia uses a certain kind of language. >Radiant< 08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, there was a pretty wide view a few days ago that the only bit that should be in any guideline or policy is the short bit that ended up in MOS, with an essay outlining ways to write GNL. That's what this is now supposed to be. SamBC(talk) 11:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:POL doesn't actually describe the difference between a proposal and an essay, but the gist of this is that there's wide support for MOS including the very short point that you keep removing, even though you seemed to let it sit there for a while, but not for the detailed instructions on how to write GNL, so they were to be kept in a seperate non-guideline page. This seems to make sense to everyone else. Oh, and please discuss here rather than through edit summaries. SamBC(talk) 11:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


In line with all this, I've changed the tag to {{how-to}}, as that seems to possibly meet Radiant!'s concerns, or will make the purpose of the page clearer. It still doesn't seem quite right, but hopefully someone can find a better tag. SamBC(talk) 11:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I wonder if this page is actually "detailing a common practice? It appears to be detailing something that its proponents would like to become common practice. >Radiant< 12:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said, the tag isn't quite right, but it's the nearest I can find. No-one is advocating this full text becoming a policy or guideline, the "settlement" was for a short piece in the guideline MOS (as supported by Jimbo, for what that's worth), and then a non-guideline discussion of how to do it (because the vast majority of consensus problems were with the details of how to do it). SamBC(talk) 12:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, gender neutral language is clearly common practice. Most people on Wikipedia do their best to avoid unnecessary gender-specific language. This is a statement of the best practices way to do it. Wikidemo 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      I am aware that you would like this to become common practice (q.v. your recent proposal to mandate it), but could you please give evidence for the assertion that it already is on Wikipedia? >Radiant< 12:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      Yes, I can give evidence for this assertion. I turn to judge, in which he seems to be avoided, and in which I read the utterly idiomatic and gender neutral if a person believes that a law applied against them in court is unconstitutional, they can apply for consideration.... (my emphasis). -- Hoary 13:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is detailing a common practice. On he alone, see for example Chap. 5, §17.2.4 (a) ("Purportedly sex-neutral he", pp.491–3) of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. What evidence do you have that it is not detailing a common practice, and how old is this evidence? -- Hoary 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I meant "common practice on Wikipedia", as that's what the page currently says. >Radiant< 12:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Radiant!, are you now satisfied from the explanations above that "proposal" is not appropriate? You object to how-to, on what could be seen as a technicality — what would you suggest? SamBC(talk) 12:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm not really objecting at the moment, I am simply wondering whether it is true that this is common practice on Wikipedia. If it is, then that should be easy to point out, and you'd be correct about "how-to". If it is not, then it would seem that this page proposes to chance current practice. Note that judged by the first dozen edits this page is intended as a proposal, and the wording hasn't substantially changed since then. >Radiant< 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, it's hard to point out, because it's proving a negative. I've not seen many (can't think of any) articles that have any distinct amount of non-neutral language.
            • The page was initially a proposal, and then through discussion here and WT:MOS this changed. If the wording isn't appropriate to being a helpful guide to writing GNL, then the best thing is to help try to fix it. SamBC(talk) 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, it is common practice on Wikipedia. From the definition of farmer: The term farmer usually applies to a person who grows field crops.... They may, however, provide raw materials.... I'm sure you'll be relieved to learn this. -- Hoary 13:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
              • But according to this very page, the grammatical correctness of that phrase is widely disputed. If something is common practice and widely disputed, there would appear to be something wrong. >Radiant< 14:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Well, it is common practice, and it does appear to be widely disputed. At least, those who dispute it reject the idea of phrasing saying that some object. Calling a spade a spade is fine, even if the spade is kept in the fridge... wow, that was a weird metaphore. Please blame my painkillers. It's hardly a novel idea in language that something be both common, and considered "wrong". Consider the French use of "walkman", where the academy insists that the word they should use is "balladeur" (sp?). The very people who legally define what is right in the language say it's wrong, but "walkman" is used almost universally in everyday speech. SamBC(talk) 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
              • No, the page says that its "grammatical validity" is widely disputed. In the context of a natural language, the notion of "grammatical validity" is very obscure. (Perhaps the writer was thinking of the validation of HTML syntax against a DTD.) Yes, the grammatical correctness of singular they is even now disputed by the most senescent "language experts" (a) and people who take these seriously (b). It's not disputed at all by actual thinking linguists (such as Huddleston and Pullum) (c). This mumbo jumbo about grammatical validity is, I infer, left in the proposed guideline as a sop to the sensibilities of group (b). -- Hoary 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"A foo is a person. They do this and that". Notice the changing from singular to plural? I hate that sort of thing. The fact is that the English language lacks gender neutral singular personal pronouns. I don't like the idea of resorting to bad grammar to avoid this. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
And that is an opinion that many disagree with, including some respected grammar guides, not to mention a number of great authors. Singular they covers it quite well. Hence it being mentioned but with caveats. This is getting slightly beyond the stated point of this section, though. SamBC(talk) 14:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
While we can surely disagree, I don't think my comment was off topic. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't off-topic (note hyphen), but seems to have resulted from a quick reading of the text overleaf. "The grammatical validity of this is widely disputed, although it is widely used." What more could you possibly want, even if it irritates you? It's as though the singular they is something that dare not speaketh its name. I don't see people patrolling WP to weed it out—I even see it on policy pages. Possibly because it's becoming unobtrusive. Tony 15:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Singular they: if it's OK for god, it's OK for me. (And I speak as an atheist.) -- Hoary 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this discussion has somehow moved from "Is gender-neutral-language common practice on en.wp?" to "Is singular they correct, incorrect, or evil?". The latter is a debate which has repeatedly shown potential to cycle ad infinitum, both sides are currently represented, if someone wants to change "validity" to something more correct then they can, but can we drop it and get back to the question of the tagging of this page? SamBC(talk) 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Would it be a reasonable compromise to recommend that people use a form of GNL other than singular they? There are many ways of making language gender-neutral, and singular they appears to attract the most controversy. >Radiant< 10:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It does attract a lot of controversy, but it also widely seen as correct, and unless MoS is going to "rule" on it generally (which I doubt will ever happen) it would seem inappropriate to make that decision here. Lots of examples above show how it is used on wikipedia, so... I do share your desire to avoid the controversy, however. I just don't think that giving in to dogmatism is generally a good idea. SamBC(talk) 11:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor detail

Businessman does not imply business owner. Rich Farmbrough, 10:09 5 October 2007 (GMT).

I agree; not a good example, and there are so many others. Tony (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the sentence...

The Manual of Style guidelines on gender-neutral language state, "Please consider using gender-neutral language where it can be done without loss of neatness and precision."

Can anyone name an example of a time where it cannot be done without loss of neatness and precision?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask PManderson. He has the generic male all over his talk page, and was a strident objector to the introduction of this policy. Tony (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tony's comment immediately above that businessman is a difficult case; if he were not so intent on making this a personal matter, he would have seen that he is contradicting himself. For that matter, referring to a generic Wikipedian involves either using the existing generic pronoun, inventing one, or incurring a small but genuine loss of neatness. If those who communicate with me have done the sensible thing, it only improves my opinion of them. One is only a partial solution, even for those whose dialect includes it.
I suppose there is an argument that elegant gender-neutrality can always be achieved, whether we see how to or not; if someone sees a way of rephrasing to make that theoretical point, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PC language #1. Chairman vs. Chairperson vs. Chair

(moved from WT:MOS)

Hi all, couldn't find anything on a cursory search - has anyone discussed whether we should opt for a preferred term? I always found chairperson ungainly and was much pleased with an expert on gender's use of the succinct and monosyllabic chair. Any thoughts (apart from the usual moan on instruction creep which I will preemptively acknowledge) :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Chair" is widely adopted by professionals and journalists in the U.S. TCMOS, Sections 5.202 and 8.31 (online, by subscription) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree: "Chair" is the best way. BTW, it doesn't matter that the "man" in "chairman" didn't refer to the male gender in the original French; what is important is the likelihood that it will be perceived as gender-specific by modern English-language readers. TONY (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just curious. Are you confusing the etymologies of "chairman" and "manhole", or have you got an etymological reference that contradicts the ones I've found? SamBC(talk) 10:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Actor vs. Actress

Is there a preference of actor versus actress for a female? I have seen actor used for either. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Many people prefer not to "mark" female actors with a special word, since the inescapable conclusion is that male actors are the default. TONY (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Actor is indeed generally acceptable. Following the suggestions of this page, "actress" shouldn't be used in most instances, as it's gender-specific where a gender-neutral term ("actor") is available. Tony is also correct as to the major reason many object to the use of the term "actress"; it's also worth noting that, even now, a female thespian is often referred to as an actress until they reach a certain status, at which point they tend to be referred to as actors. The gender-biased implications are obvious. SamBC(talk) 09:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Describe this "certain status". Georgia guy (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hard to define, but it's usually the case that the term "Actor" is used more for widely respected, older female thespians than less respected, younger ones. SamBC(talk) 15:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You must be careful here. "Actresses rarely suffer from age discrimination" has a rather different meaning from "Actors rarely suffer from age discrimination". To the extent that a person might well believe the latter to be true and the former false. Sometimes gender specificity is exactly what is needed. And actor is indeed male-marked. Calling Judi Dench an actor is as strange to me as saying that Bill Clinton is Hillary's wife. But Judi is a female thespian just as Bill is a male spouse. "Thespian" is a far more gender-neutral term than "actor" or "actress" (just as "spouse" is a far more gender-neutral term than "husband" or "wife"). -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explicitly neutral pronouns (ze, hir, etc)

I've just been quietly rewording a few articles to avoid using this sort of thing and instead to use they (or a name) where possible; would it be worth mentioning something about it in passing here?

On the other hand, we de-facto discourage it already - I've found only four cases in the main namespace so far, and half of those seem to have been typos for 'his' - this is after going through 350 pages. It's very unusual to have a situation where we can't rework the text to use conventional English forms - Leslie Feinberg might be one, where we use 'ze' in the sentence stating they prefer that mode of address, but evade it everywhere else in the article.

Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)