Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sbcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!sbcs!debray
From: debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A Small Victory; Not at All
Message-ID: <187@sbcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Mar-85 19:49:40 EST
Article-I.D.: sbcs.187
Posted: Thu Mar 28 19:49:40 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Apr-85 05:28:22 EST
References: <824@druxo.UUCP> <269@mhuxr.UUCP> <2060@sun.uucp> <271@mhuxr.UUCP> <519@digi-g.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Science Dept, SUNY@Stony Brook
Lines: 23

> Specific people are male or female; hypothetical people usually don't have
> to be referred to as specifically male or female. However, it's quite common
> for the default to be male.

[stepping in gingerly where angels fear to tread ...]

Somehow, I've never felt that "he" _necessarily_ refers to males, just as
"you" isn't necessarily singular.  Maybe that's why I have trouble --
politically unfashionable though it currently might be -- empathising with
people who _insist_ that "he" necessarily refers to males.  Other languages
have their share of such overloaded words, e.g. German with "sie" (and
arguing that "we're not concerned with German here" is a cop-out!).

For someone who wants, nonetheless, to identify "he" with "male", I don't
see why Marcel's suggestion of using "one" isn't adequate -- makes for a
somewhat constrained style of expression, perhaps, but certainly a whole
lot more palatable than, say, "they is ...".
-- 
Saumya Debray
SUNY at Stony Brook

	uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray
	CSNet: debray@sbcs