Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:12722 sci.lang:3413 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,sci.lang Subject: Re: sexist language Message-ID: <1966@xyzzy.UUCP> Date: 21 Nov 88 19:56:44 GMT References: <1460@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <698@packard.UUCP> <1988Nov9.200939.6069@utzoo.uucp> <10837@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <1988Nov13.202622.23562@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <8883@smoke.BRL.MIL> Organization: Data General, RTP NC. Lines: 51 > gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) > In English as it existed before the recent politicization of the language, > there were two genders, masculine and feminine. [...] Even female > writers of English literature followed this rule without complaint. That a discriminatory practice predated the widespread consensus that the practice was, indeed, discriminatory, in no way indicates that the practice is worthy of continuation. > If anything, you could say that this rule discriminates against males, > because in some cases it can be difficult to tell whether "he" refers to > a person explicitly male or just to a generic person, whereas "she" > always unambiguously indicates a female. Nonsense. The existance of this ambiguity is no trouble to males in any way, since it is always resolved in favor of males whenever it is encountered. The fact that interesting human activities which happen to be performed by females must always be called out explicitly while those of males are included implicitly by this so-called-arbitrary rule simply means that any female abilities and activities can be conveniently ignored. > Folks, it really doesn't matter so long as the rules are consistently > applied, to maximize readability. True enough, but the rules do not maximize readability. They contain an ambiguity (or several) which is misleading at best, and blatantly discriminatory at worst. The lack of a gender-neutral pronoun forces usage that is open to misinterpretation because of ambiguity, or clumsy, or explicitly inaccurate. How many people actually say the more accurate "If a typist has no current assignment, he should go to the supervisor and request one."? The more likely (and inaccurate) usage "If a typist has no current assignment, she should go to the supervisor and request one." is nearly universal, and indicates clearly to me that people simply don't perceive the overloading of "he" as appologists for this usage claim. So, time-honored though the "sexism" of English is, I refuse to use the cop-out method of using male gender as inclusive. I have come to believe (due to my observations ofexamples of actual usage such as the above) that people will not correctly understand what I mean when I use these inclusive and ambiguous forms. I try very hard to avoid them, and would rather resort to somewhat clunky usage rather than "correct" but misleading usage. -- There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men. --- John Dalbert-Acton {1881} -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw