Sexist language: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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. | {{pe}}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 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. | ||
Revision as of 10:59, 2 December 2019
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
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 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[1]. This creates challenges when using pronouns.
Generally, there is much to admire about pronouns. Lawyers don’t use them often enough: they are more idiomatic and easier on the ear that the lawyer’s usual stand-in “such [insert noun]”. But pronouns tend to commit you to a gender: “he”, or “she”, “him” or “her” — seeing as no-one likes to be referred to as “it”, and “he or she” is an abomination before all right-thinking men. Or women[2].
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.