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: <846@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Mar-86 11:11:10 EST
Article-I.D.: cylixd.846
Posted: Thu Mar 13 11:11:10 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 04:08:41 EST
References: <2859@amdahl.UUCP> <830@cylixd.UUCP> <978@h-sc1.UUCP> <177@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 29
Summary: 

In article <177@umcp-cs.UUCP> dsn@maryland.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes:
>In article <978@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP writes:
>>... 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...
>
>I, for one, think that it *does* have something to do with sex discrimination.

Would you mind explaining that?  I've always felt the contention that it
did rather silly.  

In the first place, many job titles that do not have *grammatical*
gender are thought by most users to carry strong connotations of gender
anyway.  Think of "nurse", "doctor", and "engineer".  Each of these
words is *grammatically* gender-neutral, but most speakers feel that
they carry such strong connotations of gender that they specify "male
nurse" or "woman doctor" (or engineer).

Similarly, certain other titles that have grammatical gender are
considered gender-neutral by speakers.  "Chairman" is one such word.
Any attempts to neuter it further ("chairperson") sound absurd.  It is
*already* neutral!  

To end gender discrimination, you need a change in attitude.  I don't
understand how calling a waiter a "waitperson" is going to accomplish
that.

	regards,
		Charli Phillips