I\u2019m all for eliminating bias, gender, religious, or ethnic, for our language.<\/p>\n
Assuming, for instance, that the pronoun \u2018he\u2019 represents both, or all, genders is not only sexist, but it\u2019s illogical. Even though the number of men and women on the planet is almost equal, albeit there are imbalances in some regions (There are, for example, far more women than men in the former Soviet states, and in Asia, the Arab world, and Northern Africa, men outnumber women), in general women outlive men globally. So, if we want to be fair, the common pronoun to refer to all people would be \u2018she.\u2019 Of course, we know that life has never been fair.<\/p>\n
The war over use of gender-neutral language has been going on for decades, and I\u2019m a total supporter\u2014with a few exceptions.<\/p>\n
Some of the made-up words being used make writing sound a bit silly and trivial, to me at least, and they often complicate writing, making it almost incomprehensible. I won\u2019t even go into words like \u2018ze,\u2019 \u2018hir,\u2019 or \u2018s\/he,\u2019 or the salacious \u2018s\/he\/it.\u2019 I would, though, like to address one of my pet peeves; the often indiscriminate use of \u2018they,\u2019 \u2018their,\u2019 or \u2018them\u2019 as a singular gender-neutral pronoun.<\/p>\n
Now, I acknowledge that this usage has been more or less common practice since the 1800s, and in many cases is correct, and not really a problem. But, when used indiscriminately, they can be quite confusing\u2014and, sometimes sound silly. Take, for instance, the sentence, \u2018John put their new address on their Facebook page,\u2019 or \u2018The baby threw their bottle at me.\u2019 In the first sentence, upon whose page did John put whose new address? In this case, it\u2019s probably safe to assume John is male, so the use of \u2018his,\u2019 doesn\u2019t strike me as biased in any way, and it\u2019s much easier to understand the meaning. In the second, we\u2019re clearly talking about a single baby, and although we don\u2019t know the gender, couldn\u2019t we just write, \u201cThe baby threw the bottle at me\u2019? Doesn\u2019t that communicate the same meaning?<\/p>\n
The problem with universal use of these words as a substitute for gender-specific pronouns is that if you\u2019re not careful it can lead to miscommunication. Allow me to give you a brief example:<\/p>\n
\u2018The college president released their policy on academic freedom today. They stressed that they want students to be able to express their opinion without fear that they will punish them. They can be assured that they will zealously guard their rights under the US Constitution and the bylaws of their institution.\u201d<\/p>\n
I could go on, but I hope I\u2019ve made my point. Is it clear who \u2018they\u2019 and \u2018their\u2019 are referring to in this passage? Imagine, if you will, if this went on for a thousand more words. I don\u2019t know about you, but I would be completely befuddled.<\/p>\n
Maybe I\u2019m a traditionalist, or a coward, or just lazy; or, as some of the students in my professional writing workshop no doubt think; I\u2019m an old codger resisting the inexorable and inevitable transformation of the English language to reflect changes in social consciousness. Actually, I like to think of myself as a practical person who believes that the objective of writing is to clearly communicate a message to an audience. To that end, my approach to the issue of gender neutrality is to eschew blatant and obvious gender-biased language. Policemen become law enforcement officers, and I don\u2019t add \u2018-ess\u2019 or \u2018ette\u2019 to words to indicate femininity. A waitress is a server, and a stewardess is a flight attendant. I also don\u2019t refer to \u2018male nurses,\u2019 or \u2018female doctors,\u2019 and a poet is a poet regardless of gender. This applies to my fiction as well as my professional nonfiction writing. If necessary, I\u2019ll rewrite a sentence, eliminating the pronouns if there is no other way. For example, instead of writing, \u201cI took my grandson to the zoo so they could learn about species conservation,\u2019 I\u2019ll write, \u2018In order to impart information about species conservation, I took my grandson to the zoo.\u2019<\/p>\n
In my professional writing workshop, for Rangel Foreign Affairs Scholars, I have to deal with 15 college seniors each summer, and this is a constant debate. While I appreciate and applaud their commitment to gender equality, my main goal is to help them learn to communicate accurately and effectively in a government setting. I\u2019m careful to emphasize that I understand and support their point of view, and don\u2019t expect or want them to change it. But, at the same time, I urge them to remember why they\u2019re taking the workshop; their goal should be learning how to write effectively and communicate accurately. They are there to learn how to convey an often complex message to a diverse audience. I want them to continue to strive for equality, but to do it without mangling or muddying their message.<\/p>\n
I have this depressing feeling sometimes that I\u2019m fighting a losing battle. But, you know what; I will never stop trying.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I\u2019m all for eliminating bias, gender, religious, or ethnic, for our language. Assuming, for instance, that the pronoun \u2018he\u2019 represents both, or all, genders is not only sexist, but it\u2019s illogical. Even though the number of men and women on the planet is almost equal, albeit there are imbalances in some regions (There are, for … <\/p>\n