Sexist language: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
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.
{{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 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.