Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli
From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: "he or she" - a grammatical problem solved
Message-ID: <845@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 18:01:46 EST
Article-I.D.: cylixd.845
Posted: Mon Mar 10 18:01:46 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Mar-86 07:24:07 EST
References: <2859@amdahl.UUCP> <830@cylixd.UUCP> <978@h-sc1.UUCP>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 41
Summary: 

In article <978@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP writes:
>> The problem is, of course, that writers and speakers *need* a singular
>> pronoun of indefinite gender, and they need one that doesn't offend
>> their sensibilities.  The singular "they" and "he/she" both offend
>> nearly every writer that I know.  "He" for a person of unkown gender is
>> likely to offend the reader.  So what is a writer to do? [Charli Phillips]
>
>Why is 'he' for a person of unknown gender likely to offend the reader?
>Why don't you just consider 'he' the singular pronoun of unknown gender?
>From context it is usually quite clear whether 'he' is intended to convey
>natural gender or is used just as a placeholder.

I agree with you.  I am not in the least offended by "he" in the common
gender.  However, I ocassionally find that the people who pay me for
what I write don't want to pay for "he" in the common gender.  It
appears to offend them.  Since it is hard to communicate with someone
who is offended by the way you're phrasing the idea, I try to be
careful.

>> an "aviatrix"?  Those forms have died.  Why don't we simply do away
>> with the remaining grammatical gender as well?
>
>That is unrealistic. Why don't we simply do away with pretentions that
>grammatical gender has anything to do with the social problems of sex
>discrimination? Or is that equally unrealistic...
>

Again, I agree with you.  I was intending to be a bit satiric, but since
I didn't :-) the article, no one noticed.  I'm not going to refer to a
woman as "he" any time soon, although I think that would be better than
referring to someone of unknown gender as s/he.  (How do you say that,
anyway?)

While we're on the subject, I find that the more extreme efforts to
avoid neutral "he" and "-man" sound both stilted and patronizing.  This
can make my work as a writer difficult - I have to avoid the neutral
"he" and "-man" to make my employer happy, and I have to avoid many
constructions designed to avoid them to make *myself* happy.  

	regards,
		Charli Phillips