That's a bit condescending, don't you think? Some of us are long past being kids. And the fact that something isn't important to you doesn't mean it's hopelessly juvenile and not worthy of discussion.
So your point is, because in the US men have to sign up for a draft that hasn't been exercised since 1973, I as a woman shouldn't complain? Well since I'm a female health care practitioner, I'm also also subject to the draft, well beyond the age they would draft young men, by the way. But I also believe if more women were elected to the legislature, there'd be less war. It's not a given but there are many sociologists who think that's true. You know some Muslim men claim their burqa wearing women are sheltered and therefore better off. As an argument for continued gender inequality, it fails. There is also the school of thought (which there is more than ample evidence supporting) that both men and women are better off the more equal a society treats its women.
I agree, hence my point about the draft, mainly made as an attempt at levity, stands. I find the whole problem of treating men and women equally in society very fascinating. From most of your remarks in this thread and in others, you seem open minded and very well informed, probably much more informed than I am. I'd be interested to see some of your viewpoints on a few thoughts/questions I have on the subject, but privately, like in PM. Let me know. By the way, if you skim through some of my posts, you'll find I have in quite a few instanced used he/she, admittedly not so much to generate equality, but for accuracy of the statement.
Thanks for the compliment. You are welcome to send a PM but I don't guarantee I'll have an opinion or knowledge on whatever it is you are interested in discussing.
There's this "gender-blind" kindergarten in Sweden where they use a made-up pronoun "hen" instead of "han" (=he) or "hon" (=she). Sure, "hen" is pronouncable, but some people would probably find it offensive if used in English...
Because changing the language in a series of documents that fewer than 1% of the population will ever see is not exactly Earth-shattering. Attorneys average ~$85k a year in Washington. That's about a half-million dollars per attorney to pull off this project, and I am certain that more than one was involved. That is money that could have been spent on education or on developing/furthering a state-wide curriculum that promoted equality (for everyone). I am sorry that I feel differently about this than you, but that doesn't mean that I am sexist, a hypocrite, or insensitive to women's rights. Forgive me for interpreting the phrase "I am offended" to mean that you had taken offense to something. I guess I misunderstood you? Similar to how I misinterpreted your posts about CMoS not embracing 's/he' due to their 'rigid resistance to change' and 'presumptuous' authors/editors. I honestly don't know what you are trying to accomplish here. You keep attacking me for advocating use of the 'singular they'. You point out that the CMoS, which you personally disagree with, also discounts the singular they. You feel the s/he is the way forward; great, I am happy for you. I feel it's 'they'. If I write something that calls for the use of the Chicago Style book, I'll use their methodology. Otherwise I'll use what works for me. In any case, I will continue to write gender-neutral when possible. I suspect that you will too. Whatever, Ginger.
I seriously doubt that they outsourced this particular project to law firms. I don't see why it would require an attorney to change the language to be gender neutral. But even if it did, there are many, many, many attorneys who are employed by the federal government, and by Congress in particular, who would be able to effectuate or oversee it. I'm fairly certain the cost of this project was pretty minimal.
Federal employees are factored into the average rate. Any time a legal binding document is altered, a lawyer is present, otherwise the result may not be legally sound. If they used existing lawyers, from the federal payroll, those attorneys were not able to work on the projects that they would otherwise have been assigned to. A project like rewriting every law passed since 1889 is not cheap, and opportunity costs are still costs. I'm not familiar with the State's politics, but it appears that this issue delayed their budget process, which in turn, required additional legislative sessions (at the tax payer's expense, of course). Numbers are hard to find, but a person at THIS FORUM estimates: In any case, the sentiment there is an example of how such projects hinder the equality movement. Most attitudes seem to be negative there, and 'feminazis' will bear the blame. Yes, this will do some good for the movement, but it's doing harm too. Which is greater has yet to be determined.
Although it may seem odd, the term "legally binding document" is not necessarily the same as the codified statute or regulation itself, which is not really a "document." Legislation with shoddy language is passed all the time. In the 1980s, a low-level staffer's phone number was passed as part of the budget legislation, because it had been written into the margins of the paper containing the legislation. The legislative record, and the legislation enabling and enacting the gender neutral language will certainly contain a provision stating that the underlying interpretation of the laws is not to be changed, except insofar as the statute may have been mis-interpreted as not being gender neutral. The rote find and replace task is not something that would have to be done by an attorney. In addition, billable hours charged don't really relate to the salaries paid to the attorneys. Not only do government lawyers make less money than attorneys at the large law firms that would be involved in legislative work, but they are salaried employees. They're not charging the government for every hour they work, and they're usually exempt employees, meaning that they don't get paid overtime. This would be a low level project, I'm sure, to be done only when more pressing projects are not in need of attention.
Given that some words required special consideration, and that there was push-back from the military regarding others, I am going to assume this was not done by inerns. Even salaried employees have a theoretical maximum work load, and adding this project would, no doubt, require additional help (or a slow down in other areas). This wasn't free, but apparently no one has given an price estimate. (It appears that a 40 person team was established for revising the laws). Cost aside, the back lash is still harmful, and changing "penmanship" to "writing", or "freshman" to "first-year-student" really doesn't advance gender equality all that much; especially when you consider that all laws passed in the preceding 30 years have been gender neutral already. When people make fun of the 'victory' by asking what manta rays will be called now, or what manual transmissions will now be referred to as, you might have a problem.
Or "Malady", because you can't have malady without 'ma lady' I guess that my point is that there comes a point of diminishing returns. Pushing for people to use gender neutral pronouns in formal, legal, and casual writing has utility. Purging words from our lexicon due to possible or perceived sexist overtones really pushes the line though. 'Manage' has 'man' in it, but isn't sexist, because it comes from the latin root 'manus' meaning hand. Manage is likely a spill over from Italian as a verb regarding the control of horses.
I think that Stephen King, via Garball , has probably got the best answer. I also agree to some extent with the argument that political correctness often makes things worse, draws attention to things that we would not otherwise waste energy on. For centuries I guess 'man' as an overall term for ´mankind' ie 'humankind' has been understood to mean all of us of both sexes. In other languages there are similar things, for example father and mother = el padre and la madre in Spanish but parents is 'los Padres'. No-one gets upset and pulls their hair out looking for a gender neutral word for parents on the grounds that padres is also 'fathers'. If you need to I would do as Stephen King suggests and restructure the sentence but generally use he or they. I cannot see the benefit of changing between he and she and agree, as others have said, that it would just cause confusion. I don't mind s/he and in answer to the objection above that it is unpronounsibleI have always read it as 'he or she' and seem to remember being taught to do so at school, and that is a long time ago, so it is not a new idea!
I understood your complaint the first time. My answer is the same, since you don't recognize the significance of the leaders in the state setting an important example, it's not possible to discuss cost vs benefit. I repeat, imagine how offensive our laws would be if they referred to Caucasians instead of men everywhere. Can you imagine not spending the money to correct racist language in the law? I have no idea if you are sexist. But comments like the following suggest you might be more sexist than you believe you are: Nowhere in this thread have I said it bothers me that others use non-gender neutral language. I've said repeatedly that I choose not to and why, but that I'm not bothered other people don't change. And repeatedly you've interpreted my enthusiasm for saying why I believe it matters to be an overreaction. Again, look closely at the words I've used and what you think you've read me saying. Find a single post of mine where I've said it bothers me other people don't change what they write. You can't because there isn't one. Let's start with your out of context cherry pick: Now try again reading the phrase on context: Does that help? I'm confused. You note you misinterpreted my comments about the CMoS, then continue to misinterpret my comments. What I was saying was your advocacy of using the singular "they" was hypocritical given you complained about my criticisms of the CMoS. I could not care less if you use the singular "they". I choose to go a different route, that's all. Guess you don't like it when you see it, do you. Wonder why that is? You can't point to posts that support your assertions without cherry picking out of context phrases. Why not make an effort to re-read what I've said and compare it to what you thought you'd read? You might find out the problem you think is there isn't. An underlying current of sexism can be found in men who react to this issue believing women who bring it up are overreacting. I'm enthusiastic about the power of words for more than just the sexist framing. I believe it's an important component of teaching critical thinking. Politics and marketing are saturated with purposeful framing that slips in under people's radar, influencing them (and revealing underlying beliefs), in ways people are often blind to. Hidden connotation of framing should be taught in elementary schools but we are a long way from that accomplishment. Maybe it'll happen in my son's lifetime.
Since all of our laws are on digital media, that wouldn't be as hard as you make it out to be. The time frame doesn't mean full time staff were only working on this task that whole time. That forum link is to a fairly non-representative thread discussion, bunch of TEA Partiers maybe? You can find that sort of nonsense anywhere, it's meaningless tripe. I'm trying to find where the law "delayed the budget process" and how one would know. In this state we have the usual stranglehold of Republicans who refuse to vote for any new taxes ignoring all the benefits of infrastructure and education. The state budget has been a partisan fight every year for more than a decade. The fact this law passed tells you it was not very controversial. As for the 40 person code revisors office, it's not some task force just to rewrite sexist language in the law. They publish updated laws every single year, the entire statutes. It's interesting to compare these two news reports: The left wing HuffPo and this apparent right wing Independent [not] Journal Review. HuffPo notes And the supposed independent journal adds: Obviously Watson would have an answer, but the right wing blogger doesn't allow for that. So I looked into it for him From Watson's organization, Education Data Show Gender Gap in Career Preparation and If I Had A Hammer, I’d Hammer Out Occupational Segregation: The point is, while Michael Miller's right wing blog makes fun of Liz Watson's "words matter", Watson's group posts hard data on the unequal employment opportunities of women who might be seeking those journeyman plumber jobs. I live in WA State. There hasn't been any noticeable backlash here. While we have a red stripe east of the Cascades, we are still a blue state, so I don't know what you are talking about with the feminazi blaming. Perhaps if this were a couple decades ago, or if WA was in the Bible Belt you might still see that. It was time, just as it's time for legalizing gay marriage. I repeat my question because I would like an answer, what if the language was racist instead of sexist, should it be changed?
In response to your question, if the language was racist, it should be changed. However, the differences of connotation between "Journeyman plummer" and "N****r plumber" are rather profound. N****r has a long history of being used derogatorily and exists in the modern world as a offensive slur. 'Man', and it's derivative words, have been used as a unisex pronoun (as well as a male one) for more than 1,000 years. Only recently has the decision been made to give it new context and push for a separation between male/female/unisex terms. That is fine, I support it, but there is no way that the -man ending is comparable to N****r, S***k, C**t, or any of the other intentionally harmful words that exist in out vocabulary, in terms of harm. Racial language that is not a slur, is and has always been, used for specific groups--never universally to mean everyone. "No man shall kill another man" is understood to mean all people (by the historical context of our language) "No Anglo shall kill another Anglo" is not universal. I am not from Washington, so I'm only able to draw data from the (very limited) internet coverage. Thank you for finding more info on the topic, but I still believe that it's a symbolic victory more than an advancement for women. A scholar will likely see it as important. One of those women who makes under $10/hr would probably not really see the importance. tl;dr English words with male roots are less harmful and completely different than racial slurs/language because of historical context.
I'm sure you know it's called a straw man when you change an argument then argue against the changed version. Is vulgar language the only racist language that came to mind. Perhaps you might try answering the question more honestly, how I actually asked it. I asked if you'd think the changed legislative language would be important if the the word Caucasian was in front of every reference to men or a man? If the law was written so that ethnicity instead of gender was the issue, would you see why it needed to be changed? While you cite an example where we are supposed to all know the male reference is intended to mean men and women, do you believe the following examples always meant male or female occupations? policeman journeyman fireman postman And yet you claim you know that words matter. While I risk more tl;dr here, let me give you a different example. I'll try to make it short. I'm a nurse practitioner, been in nursing long enough to have seen a lot of cultural evolution in the profession. Changing the language was critical to changing the perception of nurses. We have a long way to go, but I learned a long time ago how much words did matter. The development of language describing nursing diagnoses gave nurses visibility as professionals in their own right. It changed the perception of nurses from simple extensions of physicians to independent professionals. Nurses don't help the doctor, they provide nursing care to the patient in collaboration with the medical care the physician and advanced practitioners provide. When I first became an independent contractor, along with other nurses we were sued by a nursing agency. They were angry we cut out the middleman. But because WA State had a modern definition of nursing as an autonomous profession, working for the patient, and not the traditional definition which many states still had where the nurse carries out medical orders, we won the case. This change in language followed a socio-cultural evolution in nursing. Without changing the language, the nursing profession was invisible. Even charges for our services were buried in the room charge of a hospital bill. How important is nursing care when the language equates it to the room rent? Believe me, going to court to prove you have the right to practice as an independent contractor, finding out the legal definition of nursing in your state supports you, but in other states you would have been seen as only carrying out someone else's instructions/orders, I know how much words matter, especially words in the law. Which is why the way you changed my argument in order to argue against something else was a straw man.
I use "he" but then again, I'm a male. And you think English is sexist? Check out a language with gendered nouns. It's pretty random (as far as I can discern) but in French, "la poubelle" is the garbage, and is feminine, as is "la guerre," which means the war. Then again, there are some pretty crappy male-gendered nouns too. Solution? Use he/him or her/she consistently. I really don't see why somebody would have an issue with this, it seems a little over-the-top.
Because, some people just absolutely must keep a constant flow of attention coming in and what better way to do that then to create never-ending arguments. Besides, it also has the added benefit of allowing them to make incredibly snide digs when--as inevitably it will--makes people so frustrated that they end-up making a few sharpish statements.
I'm not particularly offended by this issue - but this may, admittedly, unconsciously stem from the fact that I am male myself. I have, however, seen writers clarify that they would use 'he' or 'she' for certain roles (professions usually) not out of sexist desires, but about of statistical majority. The main example I have in mind is using 'she' for 'the reader' (because there were, statistically speaking, more female than male readers) or something of the like. There's also the possibility of using 'one' as a generic pronoun - I don't know if this would clash with your beliefs about the use of 'it', but it's another way to refer to a genderless entity. 'They' can work as well.
Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list of gender neutral pronouns, and some discussion of each one's pros/cons, as does this blog. They point out that when using he/she (and similar conventions) the order of which gender comes first can still be a point of contention. Also, the fact that s/he, and similar forms, is an abbreviation for "she or he"/"he or she" automatically discounts its value for academic or formal writing. I also found it fascinating that the 'singular they' seems to date back to the 15th century: The invented pronoun list there reads like a table from a foreign textbook. That, I believe, is why new constructions--be they invented pronouns or new abbreviations--will always struggle to take off. Unless the reader is well informed of their meaning, such words/conventions look like errors or foreign text. If I wrote into a grant the sentense: The granter would, no doubt, assume I had committed a typo and then failed to proof-read my submission. This is why I believe the 'singular they' is the best approach. It's been used in a gender-neutral context for ~500 years, it is familiar to everyone, and it doesn't require people to learn a new convention (everyone already is familiar with the singular they, even if they consider it informal). *** @Ginger No, I did not change your argument, I addressed it. You chose to disregard my response and offer up a list of unisex titles that, in your opinion, are gender specific (policeman, postman, etc). I've known many women with those titles. A straw man argument would be talking about how changing the laws regarding nursing allowed nurses (as a whole) to reinvent their profession, and then claiming that is the same as changing the title "fireman" to "firefighter". No woman in the modern age has been denied a position as a fireman because "it says fireMAN, not fireWOMAN". If they were, they could legally sue for gender discrimination. Ad hominem would be directly calling me sexist (four times) in this thread. Perhaps you have a personal bias that is changing the way you see the world (we all have confirmation biases, even me). Maybe your son thought a man in the hospital was a doctor because he's seen more male doctors than female ones. Perhaps a four-year-old isn't as eloquent with explaining their thoughts. I wasn't there, I'll never know. The title "doctor" is already gender neutral, so it has nothing to do with language any how. If your point is that "fireman" indirectly discourages female participation (because the title contains a gender specific word), why are there (by percentage) more female "firemen" than there are female "Construction Workers", a job title that has long been extremely male dominated, despite a gender neutral title? Whatever the case, I'm done cluttering the thread with this off-topic debate. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
