82,903
edits
Sexist language: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
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. | 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, | This wiki frequently, mockingly, speaks of attorneys in the abstract. These days, an officer of the courts is marginally more likely to be female than male, but in general could be either. This creates challenges when using {{tag|pronoun}}s. | ||
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 noun]”. But pronouns do commit one to a gender: “[[he]]”, or “[[she]]”, “[[him]]” or “[[her]]” — no-one likes to be referred to as “it”. | 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”. | ||
{{c|grammar}} | {{c|grammar}} | ||