Sexist language: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
One of the failings of the English language is that it doesn’t deal awfully well with what these days is called “[[gender neutrality]]”, but more properly could be called “[[sexual indifference]]”, except that that sounds like something else altogether.
{{a|drafting|}}One of the failings of the English language is that it doesn’t deal awfully well with what these days is called “[[gender neutrality]]”, but more properly could be called “[[sexual indifference]]”, except that that sounds like something else altogether.


This wiki frequently, mockingly, speaks of the [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]] in the abstract. These days, an officer of the courts is marginally more likely to be a woman than a man, but the [[hypothetical]] [[lawyer]], for whom we have such great affection and about whom we speak at such length, is neither one thing nor the other<ref>As they used to say of the great Bob Cunis.</ref>. This creates challenges when using {{tag|pronoun}}s.
This wiki frequently, mockingly, speaks of the [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]] in the abstract. These days, an officer of the courts is marginally more likely to be female than male, but the [[hypothetical]] [[lawyer]], for whom we have such great affection and about whom we speak at such length, is neither one thing nor the other<ref>As they used to say of the great [[Bob Cunis]].</ref>. This creates challenges when using {{tag|pronoun}}s. And nor, needless to say, is biological sex the only game in town — there was a time when we would scoff at misuse of the word “[[gender]]” to describe what was really “sex”. But it seems to the [[JC]] there is room in a robust conceptual scheme for both — “sex” is biological; “gender” psychological, for want of better words — and arguing the toss between them is, well, a little fruitless.


Generally, we like {{tag|pronoun}}s. We don’t think lawyers use them often enough: they are more idiomatic and easier on the ear that the lawyer’s usual stand in “[[such]] [insert {{tag|noun}}]”. But pronouns do commit one to a {{tag|gender}}: “[[he]]”, or “[[she]]”, “[[him]]” or “[[her]]” — no-one likes to be referred to as “it”, and he or she is an abomination before all right-thinking {{sex|men}}. Or {{sex|women}}.
{{pronouns on the JC}}
 
Now it is also true that the very point of satire is to poke the ribs of sacred cows, so perhaps I should be more phlegmatic — but pick your battles, and all that.


Now it is also true that the point of satire is to poke the ribs of sacred cows, and right now few are more sacred. Perhaps [[I]] should be more phlegmatic — but pick your battles, and all that.
{{sa}}
*[[Pronoun]]
*[[Hary Poter]]
{{c|grammar}}
{{c|grammar}}
{{ref}}
{{ref}}