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 that does not remotely capture the possible universe of gender alternatives.<ref>To quote Stan — or Loretta — from ''Monty Python’s Life of Brian''.</ref>  

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. The [[JC]] has no desire to get into arguments with the warring factions of gendered