Gender Neutral Third Person Singular Pronoun

[bonder]

So, this is something that really bugs me. It really irritates me when people say things like "someone lost their keys." It used to be you'd say "someone lost his keys" and it was fine regardless of whether that someone happened to be male or female. Now, that's apparently not cool. So, in order to have the possessive pronoun agree with the subject, you have to write "someone lost his or her keys" which gets wordy and cumbersome. Technically, "it" is a third person singular pronoun and "its" is the possessive form. However, people tend to take offense if you refer to someone as "it", as though the term should only be applied to inanimate objects. So, I guess I'm stuck using "his or her" as I refuse to use "they/their" in a case when the subject is singular. Does this bother anyone else? Also, what other solutions to this problem do other people use?

[Yakk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

Used by Michael Spivak in "The Joy of TeX" back in the day: he doesn't remember where he lifted it from.

Basically, you drop the th from the plural pronouns.

ey, em, eir, eirs, emself.

[Ari]

Ambiguous "they" has been in use for centuries. Freaking Jane Austin used it. It's not until the enthusiasts for Latin grammar came along that it started to become "unofficial", because it didn't fit into their neat and tidy pronoun boxes.

It even goes beyond gender-neutrality, singular "they" denotes ambiguity even in situation where both subjects are the same gender. I think it's a highly useful addition to the language, and I can't understand people who either want to entrench the ridiculous use of "him" when no male gender is implied, or want to reverse the tide of sexism by saying "her" instead

I think you should suck it up and add some plural ambiguity to your language. There is very, very rarely a time where you will be able to confuse singular and plural "they", and everyone will understand what you mean.

[gmalivuk]

I think you should suck it up and add some plural ambiguity to your language. There is very, very rarely a time where you will be able to confuse singular and plural "they", and everyone will understand what you mean.

After all, as I always like to point out, the once-only-plural (and objective) "you" has come to be singular (and nominative) as well. And yet, somehow, English seems to have survived.

[bigglesworth]

Mandarin Chinese has also survived without differentiating gender (And, indeed, from my brief learnings, most western-style grammar)

[jtniehof]

GNP FAQ, for more detail on the topic than you probably want.

[Freyja]

It does have a long history, but the main reason for its current use is to help even out the gender disparity in language. Language is very sexist and a lot of people feel left out by androcentric pronouns or feel that the designation of their sex isn't relevant to discussion.

For instance, if you use a phrase like, "all men are created equal," we know that you're probably referring to people in general, male or female. However, the use of the androcentric "men", regardless of denotation, has a connotation that excludes an entire segment of our population. Even more, it implies that the male form is the biological and linguistic standard, which marks the female form as somehow deviant and, therefore, deficient (even though science has told us that females are, in fact, the biological standard).

Others, as i've mentioned, aren't so concerned with inequality so much as they see the whole issue of sex and gender as irrelevant. By using gender neutral pronouns- and there are far more than just "they/their"- you are supporting the fact that it shouldn't matter whether your audience is female or male.

[Yakk]

Even more, it implies that the male form is the biological and linguistic standard, which marks the female form as somehow deviant and, therefore, deficient (even though science has told us that females are, in fact, the biological standard).

And thus marking the male form as somehow deviant and, therefore, deficient.

Did you mean to say that?

[Ari]

GNP FAQ, for more detail on the topic than you probably want.

This actually has a few things that I disagree with. Take their example of: "If you see Chris, tell them to come back at five." That's actually a rather common usage in the history of singular they and is thoroughly appropriate. Just because we do know the gender of someone does not automatically make it worth stating in a sentence. Or we might not actually know the gender of Chris, seeing it's a double-gendered name.

For instance, if you use a phrase like, "all men are created equal," we know that you're probably referring to people in general, male or female. However, the use of the androcentric "men", regardless of denotation, has a connotation that excludes an entire segment of our population. Even more, it implies that the male form is the biological and linguistic standard, which marks the female form as somehow deviant and, therefore, deficient (even though science has told us that females are, in fact, the biological standard).

FYI, "men" in that phrase could easily be changed to "people" to remove the issue. I've got a cheatsheet for some common sexist language issues somewhere... yay academia?

And thus marking the male form as somehow deviant and, therefore, deficient.

Did you mean to say that?

And as Yakk points out, you're overreaching from feminism to female superiority, if only subtly. Going down that road is dangerous, because if we want feminism to keep its momentum, it needs male support too.

[Alpha Omicron]

Singular they: Accepted everywhere.

[Amicitia]

How about "he"?

[Ari]

How about "he"?

As above, it leads to the expectation of male gender when it's attempted to be used in situations also appropriate for women. "The patient is admitted to the maternity ward. He is stable." hardly seems fair usage, does it? Any gender-neutral pronoun should be able to comfortably apply in both male-specific and female-specific cases.

[Avram]

"Every one must judge of their own feelings." - Byron
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." - Wilde
"God send every one their heart's desire!" - Shakespeare
"But every body is to judge for themselves." - Austen
"A person cannot help their birth." - Thackerey

It's interesting to note that the singular "they" acts like a plural noun in the context of a sentence (taking plural verbs), even when its meaning is singular. Compare "when a person is late, they are a nuisance" to "when a person is late, he is a nuisance"

Also, as far as I know, singular "they" is only used when the gender of the person in question is unknown.
Correct: "I saw a person walking their dog"
Incorrect: "I saw a woman walking their dog"

There are other situations where singular "they" doesn't work as intended. Compare:
- "The doctor drove off in their car"
- "The doctor drove off in his car"

Few people would interpret the "their" in the first sentence as referring to the doctor.

Singular "they" appears to work best with pronouns like "someone," "everyone," "anybody," or "nobody."

In general, singular "they" works better with indefinite nouns. Compare:
- "a police officer keeps their gun loaded at all times"
- "the police officer keeps their gun loaded at all times"

[gmalivuk]

In general, singular "they" works better with indefinite nouns. Compare:
- "a police officer keeps their gun loaded at all times"
- "the police officer keeps their gun loaded at all times"

The thing with singular "they" is that, at least in past usage, it can't just be used willy nilly for singular. The Wikipedia article on it has far more information that I intend to include here, but suffice to say there are far more nuances to this thing than the mere question of whether "they" can be used for singular.

And personally, I think that your first sentence, whether "correct" or not, sounds strange. When you're talking about "a police officer" to mean the same as "police officers in general" (which it seems you are), then just use the plural like we normally do. "Police officers keep their guns loaded at all times."

Compare: "An apple is good for you all the time." vs "Apples are good for you all the time."
In this pair, where "they" doesn't figure at all, I still think the second is better. Couldn't explain why, exactly, but there you go...

[Infornographer]

When I studied English, I learned to use "he," although it seems this has fallen out of use in colloquial English. In Turkey, we have a single word "O" to reference both genders in the third person singular. I think the majority of non-romantic languages use this construction, whereas all the romantic languages I can think of have specific third person pronouns that distinguish gender. This leaves me to wonder whether or not gender-specificity in English represents a relic from its romantic roots, where all nouns have genders. Sadly, I do not have the linguistics background to assess this conjecture further. Any XKCDians out there who know for sure?

[Avram]

And personally, I think that your first sentence, whether "correct" or not, sounds strange. When you're talking about "a police officer" to mean the same as "police officers in general" (which it seems you are), then just use the plural like we normally do. "Police officers keep their guns loaded at all times."

I wasn't recommending that usage, but it is fairly common. Especially with the word "person," as in "a person should always love their parents." Pluralizing the subject would certainly be a better choice, but this usage is common.

When I studied English, I learned to use "he," although it seems this has fallen out of use in colloquial English. In Turkey, we have a single word "O" to reference both genders in the third person singular. I think the majority of non-romantic languages use this construction, whereas all the romantic languages I can think of have specific third person pronouns that distinguish gender. This leaves me to wonder whether or not gender-specificity in English represents a relic from its romantic roots, where all nouns have genders. Sadly, I do not have the linguistics background to assess this conjecture further. Any XKCDians out there who know for sure?

Gendered nouns are found in a lot more languages that just romantic. Almost all of the Indo-European languages (a group which includes languages such as English, Norwegian, Russian, Greek, Gaelic, Persian, Hindi, etc) assign gender to nouns (not just pronouns). English is a rare exception among Indo-European languages; it only distinguishes gender in third-person singular pronouns. Old English (a Germanic language) had a gender system, as well as a case system, but these were later lost (I can't remember when or how).

In English, there actually is a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun: "it." However, since this pronoun also indicates inanimacy, it isn't used to refer to people. I think this is actually common in Indo-European languages (such as German); can anyone verify this?

[Ari]

When I studied English, I learned to use "he," although it seems this has fallen out of use in colloquial English. In Turkey, we have a single word "O" to reference both genders in the third person singular. I think the majority of non-romantic languages use this construction, whereas all the romantic languages I can think of have specific third person pronouns that distinguish gender. This leaves me to wonder whether or not gender-specificity in English represents a relic from its romantic roots, where all nouns have genders. Sadly, I do not have the linguistics background to assess this conjecture further. Any XKCDians out there who know for sure?

He as a general third-person pronoun is still in usage in colloquial conversation, at least in New Zealand, but it's regarded as either a grammatical mistake or simply mildly sexist.

I'm not positive on the subject, but I'm pretty sure that English used to have grammatical gender, indeed.

[fnordulicious]

I'm not positive on the subject, but I'm pretty sure that English used to have grammatical gender, indeed.

Most certainly, although today it basically has natural gender except in some conventional contexts like boats (which ironically were neuter gender in Old English) and other vehicles, personification of heavenly bodies like the Moon, and certain types of tools and instruments. This artifact of grammatical gender in an otherwise natural gender system might be called “conventional gender” or “sentimental gender”. The Wikipedia article on Old English morphology has some good examples of grammatical gender in our ancestral language. It essentially disappeared during the transition from Old to Middle English. Similar processes happened to some extent in continental North Germanic languages (Swe, Nor, Dan), as well as in Frisian, Dutch, and some varieties of Low German, although these languages still generally retain a two way grammatical gender using definite articles, e.g. Dutch de for common gender (collapsed masculine and feminine) and het for neuter gender.

[Freyja]

For instance, if you use a phrase like, "all men are created equal," we know that you're probably referring to people in general, male or female. However, the use of the androcentric "men", regardless of denotation, has a connotation that excludes an entire segment of our population. Even more, it implies that the male form is the biological and linguistic standard, which marks the female form as somehow deviant and, therefore, deficient (even though science has told us that females are, in fact, the biological standard).

FYI, "men" in that phrase could easily be changed to "people" to remove the issue. I've got a cheatsheet for some common sexist language issues somewhere... yay academia?

I'm well aware that "people" could replace "men". I just used that as an example. Besides, although "people" works, it isn't a linguistic panacea. There are a lot of non-gendered terms that continue to cause problems anyway. For instance, if you replace "policeman" with "police officer" or just "officer", you still see cases where women, when addressed as an "officer" are marked as the deviant form. If you're talking about a man, he's simply called "officer", while a woman is a "female officer". So i'm sure your cheatsheet has some useful terms that work when taken out of context, but i promise you that they're not a viable solution when used in context... yay academia?

And thus marking the male form as somehow deviant and, therefore, deficient.

Did you mean to say that?

And as Yakk points out, you're overreaching from feminism to female superiority, if only subtly. Going down that road is dangerous, because if we want feminism to keep its momentum, it needs male support too.

No, i think you misinterpreted what i said. I'm not overreaching from feminism to female superiority. I'd be doing that if i said that the female form is that standard to which men must adhere. I'm simply stating a known sociolinguistic fact: the masculine form of speech has historically been the standard. Anything that does not match that standard (ie "women's language") is seen as deviating from that standard and deficient.

Trust me, i'm more about equality than anything else.

If anything, most of my current research is work to support my hypothesis that the division in language is more about power and less about gender. The fact that we have so called "men's" and "women's" languages is simply due to the fact that men were in a position of power for such a long period of time. Because men were typically the more powerful and women less powerful, the language of power and the language of powerlessness were simply associated with those respective genders. As women continue to move into occupations and social positions once held only by men, the field begins to level out. It's no longer uncommon to find a man who speaks in what was traditionally "women's language", and vice-versa.

So it's not about superiority. It's about equality. A linguistic androgyny, if you will. There are some fundamental differences that will persevere through this great shift, but their effects are minute when compared to the larger scheme of things. Unless there's a serious social backlash, the use of words like "their" and "they" will become standard, as will a number of other drastic changes.

[gmalivuk]

And thus marking the male form as somehow deviant and, therefore, deficient.

Did you mean to say that?

And as Yakk points out, you're overreaching from feminism to female superiority, if only subtly. Going down that road is dangerous, because if we want feminism to keep its momentum, it needs male support too.

No, i think you misinterpreted what i said. I'm not overreaching from feminism to female superiority. I'd be doing that if i said that the female form is that standard to which men must adhere.

They were reacting to your statement of biology. But, Yakk, it's worth noting that your own body started development as female. It's why you have nipples, for instance. So there's actually some backup for saying the female biological form is the "norm", where there isn't linguistically.

[4=5]

And thus marking the male form as somehow deviant and, therefore, deficient.

Did you mean to say that?

And as Yakk points out, you're overreaching from feminism to female superiority, if only subtly. Going down that road is dangerous, because if we want feminism to keep its momentum, it needs male support too.

No, i think you misinterpreted what i said. I'm not overreaching from feminism to female superiority. I'd be doing that if i said that the female form is that standard to which men must adhere.

They were reacting to your statement of biology. But, Yakk, it's worth noting that your own body started development as female. It's why you have nipples, for instance. So there's actually some backup for saying the female biological form is the "norm", where there isn't linguistically.

and if it makes some of you feel better men are more evolved then women ,
the last common male ancestor existed half as long ago as the last common femail ancestor (100,000 years comparied to 200,000 years)

[gmalivuk]

and if it makes some of you feel better men are more evolved then women ,
the last common male ancestor existed half as long ago as the last common femail ancestor (100,000 years comparied to 200,000 years)

"More evolved" is a meaningless statement when you're making it about contemporaries. It's like saying you and I are equidistant from each other.

Your second fact, while marginally interesting, doesn't actually tell us much of use. Also, I was under the impression that both mitochondrial "Eve" and Y-chromosome "Adam" were more recent than both of the ages you give. But in any case, the death of a single woman could, in principle, shoot the female common ancestor date up by thousands of years, just like the death of a single man could do with the male common ancestor.

(For clarification, I'm talking here about the most recent common female ancestor, along the female line, of all living women. If we're just talking about the most recent common ancestor of all living humans who happened to be female, she would be only one generation before or after the most recent common ancestor of all living humans who happened to be male. Also, both of those probably lived, at most, a mere few tens of thousands of years ago.*)

* I know this is way off topic now, but to perhaps further help clarify with an example: Take myself and my cousin Ryan. Our mothers are sisters. So our most recent female common ancestor is our maternal grandmother, and our most recent male common ancestor is our maternal grandfather. Our most recent Y-chromosomal ancestor, however, lived much farther back than our grandparents. To find him, we need to trace back exclusively along the male line to find where those meet. Our fathers aren't brothers, and their fathers aren't brothers, and their fathers aren't brothers, and so on. So in general the Y-chromosome or mitochondrial ancestors of men and women, respectively, need to have lived far longer ago than the "mere" latest shared ancestor of all living humans.

[4=5]

"More evolved" is a meaningless statement when you're making it about contemporaries. It's like saying you and I are equidistant from each other.

I know that's why I said it

and you make good points I had forgotten it was along the male line and the female line

[Ari]

I'm well aware that "people" could replace "men". I just used that as an example. Besides, although "people" works, it isn't a linguistic panacea. There are a lot of non-gendered terms that continue to cause problems anyway. For instance, if you replace "policeman" with "police officer" or just "officer", you still see cases where women, when addressed as an "officer" are marked as the deviant form. If you're talking about a man, he's simply called "officer", while a woman is a "female officer". So i'm sure your cheatsheet has some useful terms that work when taken out of context, but i promise you that they're not a viable solution when used in context... yay academia?

The issue is that they're taking an androgynous term- "officer" and deliberately undoing that in the case of women- "female officer". It's not a problem with the language so much as the user, and dropping "female officer" when you're not talking about something gender-relevant can be inappropriate. Sometimes we should be able to androgynise ourselves for professional reasons. (I have a feeling I'm going to want to when I start my education degree)

No, i think you misinterpreted what i said. I'm not overreaching from feminism to female superiority. I'd be doing that if i said that the female form is that standard to which men must adhere. I'm simply stating a known sociolinguistic fact: the masculine form of speech has historically been the standard. Anything that does not match that standard (ie "women's language") is seen as deviating from that standard and deficient.

Trust me, i'm more about equality than anything else.

If anything, most of my current research is work to support my hypothesis that the division in language is more about power and less about gender. The fact that we have so called "men's" and "women's" languages is simply due to the fact that men were in a position of power for such a long period of time. Because men were typically the more powerful and women less powerful, the language of power and the language of powerlessness were simply associated with those respective genders. As women continue to move into occupations and social positions once held only by men, the field begins to level out. It's no longer uncommon to find a man who speaks in what was traditionally "women's language", and vice-versa.

So it's not about superiority. It's about equality. A linguistic androgyny, if you will. There are some fundamental differences that will persevere through this great shift, but their effects are minute when compared to the larger scheme of things. Unless there's a serious social backlash, the use of words like "their" and "they" will become standard, as will a number of other drastic changes.

We're talking at cross purposes. My shot at you was from assuming too much from the word "biological". Apologies

That said... a "standard" of language is not something that stands still, it's actually a dynamic consensus. (You're thinking of linguistic standards as stone tablets, while I think of them more like articles on a wiki) You can easily "infect" someone else's language with a term by using it yourself a lot, and making a point of using it in certain situations without actually correcting them. This is usually how language change spreads in the first place.

I don't see failure to adopt the actual thinking behind these terms as you gave an example of earlier as a fundamental flaw. As androgynous words spread, it will eventually become easier for people to think in them naturally rather than artificially.

[Freyja]

Okay, i know you mean no offense, but i'm having trouble ignoring a couple of your points. So i'm just going to go ahead and address them so that i can move on with my little life.

That said... a "standard" of language is not something that stands still, it's actually a dynamic consensus. (You're thinking of linguistic standards as stone tablets, while I think of them more like articles on a wiki)

No. No, i'm not. I never said that language is static. Trust me, as a linguist, i'm very well aware that language is dynamic. A static langauge is a dead langauge. That's Language 101. Anyone who's prepared to argue linguistics surely knows that. So i don't know what gave you the idea that i thought of linguistic standards as "stone tablets", but that's so far from the truth it's not funny. I can't think of a single research project i've done that isn't about change.

You can easily "infect" someone else's language with a term by using it yourself a lot, and making a point of using it in certain situations without actually correcting them. This is usually how language change spreads in the first place.

That, and Communities of Practice. And shift in annunciation. And... You get the idea.

I don't see failure to adopt the actual thinking behind these terms as you gave an example of earlier as a fundamental flaw. As androgynous words spread, it will eventually become easier for people to think in them naturally rather than artificially.

... okay, wait. What? I never said that linguistic androgyny wouldn't spread. I'm arguing that it will occur. I just said that as things currently are, the androcentric "he" and the marking of deviance in supposedly gender-neutral terms are very common.

[thecommabandit]

I really don't get this debate. I've picked up using 'they' and 'their' as naturally as I picked up using 'he' and 'she' but from what I've heard American linguists and academics don't like it. Then you get some people coming up with idiotic words like 'ze' and whatever random sounds someone has strung together next.

Ok, thats fine. My qualms with that are out and done with. Next: the use of the male nouns. What the hell is the problem? Spanish gets along fine with having all the adjectives and nouns listed in the dictionary as masculine and having a lot of plurals utilising the masculine form of a noun. No-one complains about that even though behind English and Mandarin it's one of the most spoken languages on the planet. Just think about that sentence for a moment: "all men are created equal." Now back then no-one would have argued about the use of 'men'. Regardless, it refers to humankind, not men. Just like you say 'mankind' (some people do occasionally use 'womankind' in feminism but this word makes my eyes role and my ears twitch). An important factor to consider (especially in novels, poems, speeches and other writings) is the feel of the words. I doubt anyone could honestly say that they'd've preferred good old Abraham Lincoln to say "[...] the proposition that all men and women are created equal." to what he actually said. It just doesn't sound or flow right. Monosyllabic words can have immense power when used well but shoving another one and a two-syllable (bisyllabic?) word there just screws it all up.

[JayDee]

I think it isn't fair that there's no word for the male sex, and we got stuck with the generic 'man'. The females get the special treatment of having their own, 'woman'. And now it seems that males are getting stuck with the second-hand 'man' which is no longer being used as the word for all humans. Personally I think that rather than change policeman to policeperson and the like, males should have been given there own word. I suggest 'heman'. Mankind would refer to both sexes, who would have their own word derived from it. That would be equality.

Seriously though, is 'man' really androcentric? Or is that a modern interpretation?

[Ari]

@Freyja: Sounds like I completely misunderstood you. Apologies. One of the hazards of writing, especially for me!

I really don't get this debate. I've picked up using 'they' and 'their' as naturally as I picked up using 'he' and 'she' but from what I've heard American linguists and academics don't like it. Then you get some people coming up with idiotic words like 'ze' and whatever random sounds someone has strung together next.

Ok, thats fine. My qualms with that are out and done with. Next: the use of the male nouns. What the hell is the problem? Spanish gets along fine with having all the adjectives and nouns listed in the dictionary as masculine and having a lot of plurals utilising the masculine form of a noun. No-one complains about that even though behind English and Mandarin it's one of the most spoken languages on the planet. Just think about that sentence for a moment: "all men are created equal." Now back then no-one would have argued about the use of 'men'. Regardless, it refers to humankind, not men. Just like you say 'mankind' (some people do occasionally use 'womankind' in feminism but this word makes my eyes role and my ears twitch). An important factor to consider (especially in novels, poems, speeches and other writings) is the feel of the words. I doubt anyone could honestly say that they'd've preferred good old Abraham Lincoln to say "[...] the proposition that all men and women are created equal." to what he actually said. It just doesn't sound or flow right. Monosyllabic words can have immense power when used well but shoving another one and a two-syllable (bisyllabic?) word there just screws it all up.

I'd prefer that he had said "all people are created equal", but that's just me. It's a 5-man task? No, it's a 5-person task, a 5-user task, etc... ungendered words can be just as elegant, you just need to stop thinking in terms of the completely familiar, which can be difficult for someone who doesn't really examine how they use language. The fact is that while you feel drawn to the word 'man' instinctively, it's really hard to know whether that's because it's a familiar, gender-biased way of thinking, or whether you just like the monosyllable.

Also, on a sidenote, Abraham probably didn't mean to include women anyway. The American founders weren't perfect, and the idea that the thinking they came up with will last you forever with no reinterpretation is a lovely case of intellectual stagnation

I think it isn't fair that there's no word for the male sex, and we got stuck with the generic 'man'. The females get the special treatment of having their own, 'woman'. And now it seems that males are getting stuck with the second-hand 'man' which is no longer being used as the word for all humans. Personally I think that rather than change policeman to policeperson and the like, males should have been given there own word. I suggest 'heman'. Mankind would refer to both sexes, who would have their own word derived from it. That would be equality.

Seriously though, is 'man' really androcentric? Or is that a modern interpretation?

Yes, it's androcentric, because its use as a general term probably evolved as a result of the exclusion of women from many pursuits. "Mankind" would strike me as a result of people just not considering that women were even worth mentioning when describing the species. And I'm beginning to feel sick just writing that. Eww.

I'd also caution you about the whole "man, it sucks that I don't have a distinct identity" mode of thinking that seems implied in this thought. You do have a distinct and powerful identity as a man, and it's one that many women have begun to emulate now that they've had a chance. You haven't lost any part of your culture- rather it's become so powerful that other people are adopting it.

[JayDee]

I'd also caution you about the whole "man, it sucks that I don't have a distinct identity" mode of thinking that seems implied in this thought. You do have a distinct and powerful identity as a man, and it's one that many women have begun to emulate now that they've had a chance. You haven't lost any part of your culture- rather it's become so powerful that other people are adopting it.

The post was meant jokingly. And I was only complaining about the lack of a word itself, I am happy with male identity. Perhaps I shouldn't dismiss the whole issue so flippantly, but it bugs me when people decided to make words longer for what seems little reason. I like my monosyllables.

[Ari]

I'd also caution you about the whole "man, it sucks that I don't have a distinct identity" mode of thinking that seems implied in this thought. You do have a distinct and powerful identity as a man, and it's one that many women have begun to emulate now that they've had a chance. You haven't lost any part of your culture- rather it's become so powerful that other people are adopting it.

The post was meant jokingly. And I was only complaining about the lack of a word itself, I am happy with male identity. Perhaps I shouldn't dismiss the whole issue so flippantly, but it bugs me when people decided to make words longer for what seems little reason. I like my monosyllables.

It's not "little reason." It's so you remind yourself not to think of a male viewpoint as somehow more legitimate, which to me seems rather important.

[JayDee]

It's not "little reason." It's so you remind yourself not to think of a male viewpoint as somehow more legitimate, which to me seems rather important.

Well, maybe some people need that reminder. I fairly certain I never confused man as meaning male, and that the possibility of doing so only occurred to me when I was being taught to say 'fireperson' instead of 'fireman'. It reminds me of the episode of South Park where the boys can't work out why the town flag is considered offensive.

I know there is valid reason. But it is, and always has, seemed such a petty thing. But I am probably a special case, and I do tend to over-react to people telling me what words I should / shouldn't use.

[GodShapedBullet]

[. . .]it's worth noting that your own body started development as female. It's why you have nipples, for instance. So there's actually some backup for saying the female biological form is the "norm", where there isn't linguistically.

Sorry to bring this back up when it is off topic, but the idea that everyone is initially developmentally female kind of bothers me and I want to fight it wherever it may be. And I'd be happy to discuss it in some other thread I guess if this thread can't handle the discussion of two topics at once.

Males don't start developmentally female. They don't have ovaries. They don't produce larger sex cells than their future sexual partners. They don't have the absence of a Y chromosome. Eventually they develop the duct that would turn into the uterus and the fallopian tubes given the exposure to the right hormones. Females have an equally useless duct that would develop into male genital ducts if given a chance. Both sexes are left with functionally less useful remnants of parts that would have gone on to be something useful in the other sex. Nipples are a prominent example. However, the existence of these remnants doesn't mean that developmentally we were all the other sex.

Furthermore, it is silly to talk about one sex or the other being a biological norm. Historically, asexual reproduction has not been an option for humans, so neither sex by itself represents a viable organism.

If you define femaleness as the property of lacking a penis, then the claim that males start developmentally female makes sense. But that definition has two problems: One, lacking a penis doesn't always make you female. Men who have their penises removed are still men. Two, defining femaleness like that ignores what it is to be female.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand, I find my inability to tell when I read "All men are created equal" whether the writer means "all people" or "all men, and I just didn't even consider women because that's the way our society is" a good illustration of why it is nice to have gender neutral words for gender neutral situations. If I want to talk about men specifically, I have a tougher time of it than if I want to talk about women specifically, because if I just say "men", people might assume I'm talking about people.

I think it isn't fair that there's no word for the male sex, and we got stuck with the generic 'man'. The females get the special treatment of having their own, 'woman'. And now it seems that males are getting stuck with the second-hand 'man' which is no longer being used as the word for all humans. [. . .]

Even though this post was tongue in cheek, it still brings up a good point. Using gender specific words for gender neutral situations makes those gender specific words less meaningful in gender specific situations.

Though, to play Devil's Advocate to myself, the argument that gender neutral words are more efficient isn't really the best one, since it's not as if our language is suffering or ever will suffer from being too inefficient to communicate effectively. So I guess the main argument I'd go with is that "they" and "people" and words like them are getting pretty popular and their more sex-specific counterparts are getting less popular, so I guess they are part of the language now.

[Ari]

Nice post, GodShapedBullet

It's not "little reason." It's so you remind yourself not to think of a male viewpoint as somehow more legitimate, which to me seems rather important.

Well, maybe some people need that reminder. I fairly certain I never confused man as meaning male, and that the possibility of doing so only occurred to me when I was being taught to say 'fireperson' instead of 'fireman'. It reminds me of the episode of South Park where the boys can't work out why the town flag is considered offensive.

I know there is valid reason. But it is, and always has, seemed such a petty thing. But I am probably a special case, and I do tend to over-react to people telling me what words I should / shouldn't use.

Well, imagine if the word "man" had the same subtext applying to "caucasian" as it did to "male". It would certainly be an issue, because you'd find it hard to talk without implying people who weren't caucasians weren't people, and it would make it a conscious effort not to think racist thoughts. Basically, the idea behind eliminating sexist language is the same as eliminating our largely hypothetical example of racist language- it helps avoid people unconsciously excluding women in their thoughts merely because of the way language is structured. (because people do begin to think in set phrases, the same way they begin to speak in them) It seems trivial considering it just as a change to wording, sure, but then if you stop to think about its impact in how we conceive society...

Well, considering things like how many high-profile individuals such as major CEOs or politicians in your country are women, whether they have equal reproductive or social rights to men, whether traditionally female pursuits are equally valued to traditionally male ones, or whether they are on average paid anywhere near as much for their work, it might make you wonder if to some degree the way we conceive women as part of society might be impacted by such subtle factors as sexist language.

(Coincidentally, this forum is a great example of one of the few traditionally female fields that is well-valued- women tend to dominate writing, journalism, language-teaching and linguistics at the more practical levels. It's really only at university-level academics that men are well-represented)

[JayDee]

Well, considering things like how many high-profile individuals such as major CEOs or politicians in your country are women, whether they have equal reproductive or social rights to men, whether traditionally female pursuits are equally valued to traditionally male ones, or whether they are on average paid anywhere near as much for their work, it might make you wonder if to some degree the way we conceive women as part of society might be impacted by such subtle factors as sexist language.

Ok. This I agree with. Language is very pervasive. The part that seems ridiculous then, is the claim that the word (or word root) 'man' is sexist. But then, I'll admit that my point is irrelevant. Even if there is no historical evidence whatsoever that the word usage is sexist, the fact that people today perceive it so is enough.

I just wish they could have chosen better (ie, monosyllabic) replacements.

[Ari]

Well, considering things like how many high-profile individuals such as major CEOs or politicians in your country are women, whether they have equal reproductive or social rights to men, whether traditionally female pursuits are equally valued to traditionally male ones, or whether they are on average paid anywhere near as much for their work, it might make you wonder if to some degree the way we conceive women as part of society might be impacted by such subtle factors as sexist language.

Ok. This I agree with. Language is very pervasive. The part that seems ridiculous then, is the claim that the word (or word root) 'man' is sexist. But then, I'll admit that my point is irrelevant. Even if there is no historical evidence whatsoever that the word usage is sexist, the fact that people today perceive it so is enough.

I just wish they could have chosen better (ie, monosyllabic) replacements.

The idea isn't necessarily that the word "man" by itself is sexist. Just that it's being used in a way that can imply sexist ideas. As for picking monosyllables- well, there's no existing word with a meaning even close to "people" that's a monosyllable, and making up new words is a pretty good way to get your language reform declared ridiculous, sadly.

[GodShapedBullet]

As for picking monosyllables- well, there's no existing word with a meaning even close to "people" that's a monosyllable, and making up new words is a pretty good way to get your language reform declared ridiculous, sadly.

It is a bit ridiculous to make up new words for language reform. Language reform itself is a bit ridiculous, actually. People that make money writing books about how language is supposed to be will always have a job, because their books are never successful. The same problems that plague the typical prescriptivist plague language reformers. Try as you might, people are still going to use the word "nauseous" to describe how the ocean makes you feel, and, try as you might, firmly entrenched sexist language is going to be very hard to remove.

So what can you do when encountered with language that you want to change? Some protips:

Try anyway: You'll probably just get laughed at, but maybe people will see your point and adopt your point of view and way of speaking. There's going to be some critical mass when enough people are using your modified version of the language when you can sit back and watch your reform spread all on its own. You are going to have an easier time of it if you have a good reason for your language change. I suspect that some well-meaning language reformers might be partially responsible for the popularity of "they" as a third person singular pronoun. You are also going to have an easier time of it if you have a lot of charisma and access to mass media. I suspect that as a result of his tireless efforts, Justin Timberlake might be responsible for bringing "sexy" back, if it was ever gone.

If the language starts to fix itself, stand back, help it, but don't get in it's way: So maybe "they" became popular when you were really hoping everyone was going to use "xe" or "thon" or whatever other ugly looking thing it was you came up with. You need to pick your battles, and I don't think having to occasionally use context to differentiate between they (pl.) and they (sing.) is worth it. Be happy! Your language is less sexist now.

If sexism in language doesn't really bother you, of course, you shouldn't bother with changing it. Maybe you aren't concerned that using androcentric language makes you consider women as less important. It's not a ridiculous thing not to be concerned about. I trust linguists when they tell me that despite the hype, language doesn't shape thought nearly as much as people once thought. You don't actually think in your native language. If you did, how could you ever have a thought you couldn't put into words? So maybe you don't need to worry about how saying things like "all men are created equal" and "the doctor just left. He'll be back in a sec" will affect how you think of women.

Personally, I don't think androcentric language is going to make me sexist, and even if it was, it'd be a trivial concern compared to what seeing women underrepresented in the jobs of highest power is probably doing to me subconsciously. But I'd still like to see it gone, for two reasons. One, I'd rather not take the chance that I might be wrong. Two, there are enough people that are upset about it that I feel like it's just as well.

Lastly, I don't think it's that important to have a single syllable word to replace "man". I think words like "humankind" and "personhood" are awkward not because of the extra syllable, but because they are relatively unfamiliar. Two syllables go by pretty quickly. But if you really need one, maybe you should borrow a page from Nas and Captain Charisma Christian Cage and just call people your "peeps."

[JayDee]

Maybe you aren't concerned that using androcentric language makes you seem to some people to consider women as less important.

Fixed.

[GodShapedBullet]

Maybe you aren't concerned that using androcentric language might make you consider women as less important.

Fixed.

Fixed.

That's actually a much better way to fix it. The issue isn't how you appear to people. No one is going to think you are a sexist because you use androcentric language. And that wasn't my point. My point is that some people are concerned that using androcentric language can make you sexist, and that's not all people.

But good catch. I guess my meaning wasn't quite clear.

[JayDee]

Maybe you aren't concerned that using androcentric language might make you consider women as less important.

Fixed.

Fixed.

That's actually a much better way to fix it. The issue isn't how you appear to people. No one is going to think you are a sexist because you use androcentric language. And that wasn't my point. My point is that some people are concerned that using androcentric language can make you sexist, and that's not all people.

But good catch. I guess my meaning wasn't quite clear.

Seriously? That's even more ridiculous than what I was already thinking. Wow.

[GodShapedBullet]

That's actually a much better way to fix it. The issue isn't how you appear to people. No one is going to think you are a sexist because you use androcentric language. And that wasn't my point. My point is that some people are concerned that using androcentric language can make you sexist, and that's not all people.

But good catch. I guess my meaning wasn't quite clear.

Seriously? That's even more ridiculous than what I was already thinking. Wow.

Well, it isn't so extreme that you are going to turn into a womanhater all of a sudden because you say he and man instead of they are person. That would be ridiculous. A primary concern in feminism is that women seem intrinsically just as capable for the highest jobs as men, all the structural barriers to them getting those jobs have been removed, and they are still vastly underrepresented in those high jobs (the so called glass ceiling effect). So what is holding women down now? The idea is that when it comes to selecting leaders, people doing the selection will compare the candidates to leaders they already know, to think of what qualities they should look for. Because of previous sexism, there was a historic underrepresentation of women as leaders. So when those selectors think about what those leaders are like, they subconsciously think of maleness as a quality of a leader. It's a really scary theory because it is self-perpetuating. The more women are denied certain jobs because the mental image of someone that would have that job is male, the more they are going to be denied them. It's also scary because no one involved is actually that sexist. They are trying their best to evaluate the candidates fairly.

How to combat this? It's pretty hard. Which is why people are hypervigilant about something like androcentric language, because the fear is that it might contribute to the subconscious idea that women are somehow a deviation.