Xref: utzoo comp.edu:3716 uw.general:1960
Newsgroups: comp.edu,uw.general
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!contact!watcsc!maytag!watmath!arpepper
From: arpepper@watmath.waterloo.edu (Adrian Pepper)
Subject: Re: Assumptions about sex (Was Re: Recursion Summary)
Message-ID: <1990Oct25.182549.25328@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1990Oct23.211651.10227@contact.uucp> <1990Oct25.030752.6568@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1990Oct25.145511.13202@mks.com> <1990Oct25.155754.16065@mks.com>
Distribution: uw
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 18:25:49 GMT
Lines: 39

In article <1990Oct25.155754.16065@mks.com> bruce@mks.com (Bruce Payette) writes:
>Seriously, this doesn't seem to to be a unreasonable approach to the
>problem. The English language currently does not have an asexual
>singular pronoun. The other common approachs in written English:  using
>'(s)he', or continually altering the sex of the pronoun either can't be
>used in the spoken language or are simply unwieldy.  Using 'they' as
>both a singular and a plural pronoun seems to be the best solution.
>There is even a 'precedent' in the language. If I remember correctly
>(trivia-mode on) 'you' is/was the plural of 'thee' however it has been
>common practice to use 'you' to address either a group or an individual
>for a (very) long time.

People quibbling over this problem often fail to note that there are
two parts to it.  The asexual singular third-person pronoun is "he".
But there are complaints from some people that this language construct
infers other politics.

People who use "she" to refer to an unknown secretary or nurse
are obviously making biased assumptions.  And, in each individual case
of the use of "he", one cannot really tell whether the user is making
biased assumptions or not.

Myself, I think it would be a more powerful solution to continue the
use of masculine names and pronouns, making it clear that they should
not be construed as making assumptions about the actual sex of
individuals involved.  When I was very young, I had no problem with the
concept of "female postmen", for instance.  Changing names to other
things does not fight the basic problem.  Neither "nurse", nor
"secretary" would appear to indicate the sex of the person, for
instance.  And I have seen at least one woman insist on being referred
to as a "chairman" ("not a 'chair', not a 'chairperson'...")

But I guess other people have different opinions, and, in general, I do
use "they", (or change the point-of-view and use "one") where I feel my
statements may be misconstrued.

Adrian.

P.S. 'spell' doesn't appear to recognize 'asexual'.