Sexist language: Difference between revisions

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. And nor 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, there is much to admire about {{tag|pronoun}}s. 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 {{tag|noun}}]”. But pronouns tend to commit you to a {{tag|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. And, these days, they do not remotely capture the possible universe of gender alternatives. The [[JC]] does not propose to try. If this aggrieves you, feel free to find another  site offering free, satirical observations on the law and practice of derivatives that better suits your preferences.

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. The [[JC]] has no desire to get into arguments with the warring factions in the gender wars. We have J.K. Rowling and her ingrate actor friends for that.