Minstrel is right that some responses don't solve the problem. Although yes, if you're writing a fictional piece, and your character is saying or thinking something, you usually know that character's gender. But sometimes a character will be in a situation where he (or she) is giving advice or expressing some theory or philosophy. Often when discussing situations relating to a profession, one needs to relate some piece of advice without knowing the gender -- doctors, lawyers, teachers, soldiers, nurses, police officers, etc. Some advice is even applicable to parents, as opposed to specifically mothers or specifically fathers. "It" really isn't a resolution, either. I cringe when I read it in reference to a baby, or even to an animal. "It" is far more distracting than either "he" or "she."
Is it necessary to gender neutralize the English Language? When a person says "he" in a general context, no one thinks twice. When one says "man" it can be a man, men, or mankind. But when one writes "she" or "woman" it is referring to to either a woman or women in general. That is the structure of the English language, and has been for centuries. For the sake of political correctness, we most often write "people", "humans", or "mankind", but my question is this: is it necessary to accuse the language of being sexist, or to find fault with the fact that the default gender is masculine. Does the movement for gender equality really have anything to do (or should it have anything to do) with the structure of a language that has stood for so long? Honest question (not counter): how is the use of the masculine term dominating or offensive? I mean, from a writer's standpoint, if I write about a woman I use she. if I write about a man I use he. If I write about either gender, I use man or woman respectively. If I talk about human beings in general I use humans, men and women, mankind (it depends on the tone of the writing). Writing about any non-living thing calls for it unless you want to assign a gender for it. so for me, I'm not seeing the connection. As I see it It all comes down to the tone of the writing. The movement of gender equality is an important one, but it is one that should that should be directed at the mentality about the language not the structure thereof. New words may be appropriate to abolish the practice of offensive ones, but as I said above, "he" being the general one only seems offensive--in today's society--if you're open to be offended. It may be because I'm a guy, so I wouldn't mind someone giving me a legitimate answer. Edited to add: I have the utmost respect for the gender equality movement and do not mean to be coarse, rude, offensive, or inconsiderate towards anyone. edited once more to include that I agree with this:
I use 'one' and 'they' when I can, but I'm not offended by 'he'. I don't want to get gimmick-y or precious with the pronouns, so for the sake of clarity and what still seems to be the preferred convention, I then use 'he.' But I haven't run to this problem very often. I write my English papers with passive constructions, and with Finnish, I don't have this problem cos we have only one pronoun for both sexes, 'hän'. I know some people feel differently about this and I respect that, but I don't personally fight my let's-all-be-equal war with grammar.
If no one thought twice, this thread wouldn't exist. On "man" it appears that, yes, there was a time when "man" truly meant "an adult human being". That was in the past, but there was at least a time when it was true, among native speakers as well as grammarians. But I was interested to find a website just now that asserts that "he" as a generic singular pronoun is relatively recent, an invention of grammarians trying to stop the use of "they" for this purpose. (My vague impression was that this was because it would make English more tidily emulate Latin, though I'm not altogether clear on that.) It mentions an 1850 Act of Parliament declaring that "words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females." (This wasn't, as I read it, a decree telling people how to speak, but one changing the policy for the language of laws.) When I search on this phrase, I find a variety of websites and a general impression that the singular generic use of "he" is not in fact a natural part of the language, but was actively, and relatively recently (where less than 200 years old is recent), taught. And when the generic usage was inconvenient, it was unsurprisingly ignored--one website mentions that in 1879 female applicants to a medical school were barred on the grounds that the language about applicants used the word "he." Another mentions that women were barred from serving as doctors in the army because 'doctor' in the regulations was considered a masculine word, then allowed when they were badly needed, then barred again when they weren't. Ambiguity in language can be a very handy thing when you're trying to make that language say what you want it to say. As a woman, i'm not all that pleased about language that can exclude or include me at the will of the reader. Obviously "all men are created equal" doesn't refer to women; women certainly weren't going to be voting, even if they were white, landowners, and whatever other criteria were required. I also find it interesting that the Constitution uses the term "persons", not "men", when referring to the Census. That certainly suggest that in that period, masculine words were not seen as generic. I would say that we write it for the sake of accuracy and eliminating ambiguity, not political correctness. I feel no great loyalty to an element of the language that, as stated above, is less than two hundred years old, and was prescribed by grammarians rather than developed naturally by native speakers. Again: Not so long. And, there are studies indicating that when the "generic he" is used, people think of a male person. That, to me, is of substantial importance, as is the already-mentioned issue of convenient ambiguity. The assumption that the standard "default" human is male, and that women are a nonstandard variant on the standard model, does, yes, have potential for offense. The assumption that I should be content to be excluded from much of the language because some mid-nineteenth-century grammarians decided that for me, is also offensive. I'm not looking for that offense; it's right there in plain sight.
I understand what you're getting at, and to some extent you're correct. However, I'm not sure its a strong argument against getting rid of sexist/racist terminology. I'm old enough to remember when everybody said "Chairman." Then "Chairperson" came into usage, and everybody humphed and grumped for a while, because it was so PC. Now, nobody thinks twice. Same with "Ms." While people don't tend to say it all that often, it's very much in accepted written usage. These things gain acceptance quite quickly, actually. I also remember when people said "Indian." Now it's nearly always "Native American" (or First Nations) and nobody turns a hair. I think if people are aware of WHEN something was written, they can accept language we no longer use. However, it does mean people writing now have to watch what they say. But it all evens out, and quicker than you'd expect.
I never use "he" to mean everyone, because yes, I do find it offensive and peculiar. It has never, ever been a problem to write without it. I generally avoid personal pronouns altogether or use plural "they/their" for academic work, "mankind" is "humankind", "all PEOPLE are created equal" (unless I have to use a direct quote) and I use you/we for more informal writing, among other methods, and I can honestly say it is absolutely natural for me. I certainly do not feel I'm "twisting" my writing to suit some weird political correctness idea, e.g. Any serious writer can adjust his/her writing to the character they're writing. can be written A serious writer is able to adjust the writing to suit the character in question. (This is a far more acceptable academic style anyway) Don't you think it's odd to talk about "he" all the time?
It's a good thing the architects of the American Declaration of Independence didn't have such purists to deal with otherwise, we'd be stuck with the less lyrical, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal." And a more in-depth examination would find still other such "offenses". Seriously, are we so insecure about our own entity that we should take umbrage at a non-existent slight such as whether someone uses a gender specific pronoun that speaks to me, individually? I don't agree with Stephen King on a lot of things, but when I do, it is whole-hearted agreement. And, in this case, I would have to say, if you are really so concerned about someone's use of a generic "he" or "she" ... get over it!
English is much less sexist that most latin based languages where everything has a gender. As a rule in spanish, if there is a mixed group (even if there is one guy with 42,000 women) you would use masculine articles to refer to them.
Aha, good point. I see what we're dealing with now. I would use 'they' in that case. But I had never thought of using 'he' as being a problem. I suppose it is sexist, but do we really want to throw in 'he/she's or the even more peculiar 'xe' instead?
That's an informal solution, using 'they', but the problem with it is that it doesn't agree in number :/ "If a (singular) person is in trouble, they (plural) should call the police." You can avoid the problem by rewording the sentence, for example: "When in trouble, a person should call the police." That makes it gender neutral. But it's a more awkward construction. It's definitely a difficult thing to get around.
the whole problem harks back to what our entire species is called: anthropos [greek for 'man'] homo [latin for 'man'] human mankind and we xx-ers are even called 'woman/women! [which some liken to 'woe-man/men'] i find it amusing that 'homo' while meaning 'man' is a derogatory epithet for 'unmanly' men...
Why does 'they' in the personal, singular form have to be informal? Language changes all the time. It may be 'technically' informal right now, but it is very common, and will probably be acceptable in the near future. I see your point though, using it in the singular sense just introduces another layer of confusion that English doesn't need. @mammamaia Hah, that is so true! Good points.
I love gender discourse, ultimately I think most readers will be forgiving when there doesn't seem to be an acceptable equal term to refer to both sexes. Until your work is picked apart and deconstructed by enthusiastic students, you'll probably be fine with the 'norms' of language in regards to the majority of the population. I'm with KaTrain in that I will use 'one' or 'they', but sometimes even they sound stuffy or loaded with connotation.
I'm an avid proponent of the 'singular they'. "If a person is in trouble, they should call the police." In this case, 'they' is acting as a singular pronoun, although, in reality, it is plural. "If a person is in trouble [he or she] should call the police." The 'singular they' is really just a four-letter stand in for 'he or she'. It's functional, elegant, and already widely used; like 'yall', but that's a different thread
"If you are in trouble, you should call the police." "Police should be called if a person is in trouble." "When people are in trouble, they must call the police." I could continue, but I won't. There are so many ways to say this. I never use "he" in speaking, so why should I use it in writing? A baby lying in a pram could be a girl or a boy, for all I know. Of course it's nomal to use "it", and always has been. @ wordsmith: why on earth is the word "men" so much more 'lyrical' than saying "people", as a general principle of ethics? Sorry, don't get it. Although of course, as has been said, it actually did mean MEN at the time of writing, and propertied white men at that. The main problem, as someone said, is that a gender specific image comes to mind with some uses of "he".
And it acknowledges, but ignores, the descriptive nature of our language (people use the 'singular they' much more often than they use the formal he or she). English, especially American English, is decidedly NOT prescriptive.
Well, that's accepted usage, so that's what I would go with ("the traditional, formal he or she..."). To be honest, I don't really see a problem here. If you don't want to use "he," use "she" (and vice versa). Both are grammatically correct, and if readers have issue with either one of those, then it's their problem, not the writer's.
That is how the Chicago manual says to do it. Other style books might differ. In 5 years, it's any one's guess. I would say that, out side of technical, academic, and formal compositions, the author gets lots of leeway. If you are composing something for an audience that requires a specific style, by all means, follow that style book.
Not to mention how presumptuous to claim, "most readers find it ridiculous." Does the person who wrote what "most readers find" have some research to back up the belief? Or is it that the CMoS editor assumes his/her beliefs apply to most readers as well? If a reader is distracted seeing a '/' that clarifies the pronoun is gender undetermined, I picture excessive rigidity, a reader who doesn't like to see a single thing out of place, who can't handle the smallest irregularity or change. I wonder if the CMoS recognized the simple measure of adding "or her", "or she" instead of the '/'? I suppose they find that grammatically correct substitution also "distracting"? Some word changes are distracting. Penpersonship, for example, shows that just replacing 'man' in words with 'person' does have some hiccoughs. But this really is about more than his/her and s/he. Those are less problematic though more common areas of gendered language. Imagine how offensive our laws would be if they referred to Caucasians instead of men everywhere. If you are a woman, you are expected not to notice how often you are invisible under the law. If I were a lawyer defending a woman from a crime and the language in the law referred strictly to men, I would at least try to challenge the law my client was charged with. Gender-neutral bill does away with 'freshmen,' 'penmanship' Maybe you think that's just a technicality. How about these examples: At first glance you might think nothing's wrong here. But when you see the gender neutral corrections the problem becomes apparent. There are female professors and doctors, male flight attendants and fathers pack kids' lunches. Women work in the office, not girls. The connotation of non-gender neutral language goes much further than simple equality on a page.
No. I am not offended. Nor do I think I would I be offended if the convention was to use the feminine pronoun. This is the way the language developed. Leave it be.
To avoid using "they" as a singular, I've found I can sometimes reword the sentence as a plural. Using the example earlier in this thread: When people are in trouble, they should call the police. It's not a perfect solution, as I recognize the subtle change in the meaning, but I still find it more acceptable than "they" in the singular form in most circumstances. Sometimes a rewording can remove the pronoun and still get the basic point across: A person who is in trouble should call the police. I've used "one" on occasion, although it always feels slightly awkward. Reading "he" as the generic doesn't bother me at all, but for some reason it does bother me to write it myself.
I find it easier to use "he" as a generic when I'm part of the generic class being discussed. Ex. A blogger probably shouldn't try to offend someone, but he quite possibly will anyway.
not just kids! i often shudder at similar faux pas made by news anchors, politicians, and others who one would expect to use decent grammar...
