82,882
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: | ||
{{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. | {{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 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. | 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, 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. | 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. | ||