gender neutralization in language

[WALMART]

is this something to strive for?

does the application of gender to define an environment expedite mental rifts in the psyche?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I think it is, and does. I'm not going to place a priority on it, nor am I sure of its feasibility, but it is something to strive for.

I was just thinking the other day about how our use of gendered pronouns is incessant, always noting the genders of people in situations where it is totally irrelevant. I think it has the effect of constantly reminding people of a distinction, some sort of existence of a classification scheme and a dichotomy, and I think the mere presence of such divisions goes a long way in encouraging other gender distinctions in society, like roles or comportment.

 

[WALMART]

Yes, pronouns are where I watch myself most.

I use 'he' and 'they' interchangeably, 'she' being used only when a woman is being explicitly defined. It sucks.

 

[five sounds]

We need a gender neutral personal pronoun.

My way of handling it is to use 'he' for a default, because grammatically the male form is the default as a rule. I use 'she' as a default if I'm talking about something that might be a stereotypically male thing in order to not reinforce gender stereotypes. I'm averse to using 'they' since it's plural and I'm not talking about more than one person.

I'll use 'one' if I'm ok with sounding a little more formal or 'he or she' if I'm writing like a letter to parents of students or something where I feel like it's important to be politically correct.

The problem with English is that since we don't have grammatical gender for apart from biological gender, it's impossible to use it without evoking association with it. It's a problem.

 

[INTP]

I think the way that english language differentiates between men and women is sexist. I mean Man means a human in general, but males are "man" and females something else and when the persons gender is unknown the person is referred as he..

 

[gromit]

In formal writing, I mix up between male and female pronouns. In speech I'd say they/their

 

[Opal]

If there's an imbalance I'll usually jump the fence, even if it makes me technically wrong. Facts hinge on consensus, y'know.

Also, for anything hypothetical, "someone" works as less formal than "one". (I usually follow with an inappropriate "they" or "them" though)

 

[Qlip]

I always use 'they' or 'somebody' or 'someone' or 'one' if the subject's gender is not relevant or unknown, even though it can get awkward. I could try to just switch to hir and ey, I'm not sure I'm ready to make that statement, yet.

Sometimes with subjects like God, I'll use 'she' just because its unexpected and just as wrong as 'he'.

 

[Redbone]

I like the disclaimers people put in their writing about the use of pronouns. It's funny to me because I naturally assume it anyway.

Nobody wants to use "it"?

 

[Qlip]

I like the disclaimers people put in their writing about the use of pronouns. It's funny to me because I naturally assume it anyway.

Nobody wants to use "it"?

I want to think you're joking, but it doesn't seem like you are? If you're not, then I'm awfully curious if there's a difference in reaction between Ts and Fs on the prospect of being called 'it'.

 

[Opal]

I want to think you're joking, but it doesn't seem like you are? If you're not, then I'm awfully curious if there's a difference in reaction between Ts and Fs on the prospect of being called 'it'.

But you're the same type? Though I think he was joking, being called "it" would probably invalidate everything else that person said. No offense, just dismissal.

 

[Qlip]

But you're the same type? Though I think he was joking, being called "it" would probably invalidate everything else that person said. No offense, just dismissal.

Oh, *looks again*. Redbone was T last time I checked, it has changed its type since.

 

[Redbone]

But you're the same type? Though I think he she was joking, being called "it" would probably invalidate everything else that person said. No offense, just dismissal.

Yeah *shakes fist at [MENTION=10714]Qlip[/MENTION]*.

I just felt bad for "it" being overlooked and neglected. Is that F-enough?

 

[garbage]

We need one. I tend to use 'one,' 'they,' 'he,' 'he/she,' and 'he or she' to describe any particular singular.. depends on my mood and the context. All of those are not without problems.

See also: A Person Paper on Purity in Language

Another of Niss Moses' shrill objections is to the age-old differentiation of whites from blacks by the third-person pronouns "whe" and "ble." Ble promotes an absurd notion: that what we really need in English is a single pronoun covering both races. Numerous suggestions have been made, such as "pe," "tey," and others, These are all repugnant to the nature of the English language, as the average white in the street will testify, even if whe has no linguistic training whatsoever. Then there are advocates of usages such as "whe or ble," "whis or bler," and so forth. This makes for monstrosities such as the sentence "When the next President takes office, whe or ble will have to choose whis or bler cabinet with great care, for whe or ble would not want to offend any minorities." Contrast this with the spare elegance of the normal way of putting it, and there is no question which way we ought to speak. There are, of course, some yapping black libbers who advocate writing "bl/whe" everywhere, which, aside from looking terrible, has no reasonable pronunciation. Shall we say "blooey" all the time when we simply mean "whe"? Who wants to sound like a white with a chronic sneeze?​

See also: 5 Ways You Didn't Realize the English Language Is Defective

The Swedish simply invented their own word that meant "he or she" and ran with it. People have tried this trick with English as well, inventing gender-neutral pronouns like "xe" and "zie," but none of them ever really caught on, probably because most English-speakers don't like sounding like they're in a cyberpunk novel from 1988.

The irony is that this was actually solved as far back as the 14th century by using our now-incorrect "they" to mean "he or she." Chaucer and Shakespeare both used it, and it was only in the 18th century that a grammarian named Anne "Fuck Shakespeare" Fisher kicked off the anti-they trend and declared it improper.​

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I find it interesting that we don't use female pronouns unless we have to excepting if what we are talking about is a naval vessel, a nation, or something like that.

We really do need a third person non-gender pronoun that isn't "it" (because that sounds derogatory and has the connotation of non-human). Perhaps we need to make a more speech comfortable version of the third person pronoun "one" that has a possessive form that isn't "one's".

 

[Coriolis]

is this something to strive for?

Yes, inasmuch as accuracy in our writing and speaking is something to strive for. If you mean male, use he; if you mean female, use she. If you mean either/or, you somehow need to reflect this in your words, since he's are not she's, and vice versa.

There are many ways to handle this. Use of "one" or "he/she" has been suggested. One can also explain at the beginning of a document that the use of "he" or "she" therein should be taken to refer to both genders. I have seen writing that alternates pronoun by topic, page, or paragraph.

Nobody wants to use "it"?

English is different from at least some other languages in that our supposedly neuter pronoun "it" tends to be reserved for inanimate objects, while our "he" and "she" are only for animate objects, with the few exceptions noted (e.g. ships). Even in these exceptions, the use of "she" has the effect of anthropomorphizing the indicated item, suggesting it has a personality despite its inanimate nature. Other languages, by contrast, use their equivalents of he and she to refer to all manner of things from lamps to houses to qualities like justice and love. Some languages don't have a neuter pronoun. Some do, and even use it for people sometimes (e.g. German "Mädchen").

So, in English the use of neuter removes not just an assumed gender, but to some extent, the humanity of the subject.