Non-sexist language refers to writing or speaking styles that adequately reflect the presence of women in society and that do not betray or suggest sexist attitudes on the part of the writer or speaker. See below for examples.
Non-sexist language is very important to most feminists, who regard it as important for a variety of reasons. Chief among these is the claim that language that is not gender-neutral, such as using "he" to refer to a hypothetical person, marginalize women by presenting men as the default option. This is especially serious in contexts such as referring to, for example, a hypothetical doctor as "he," suggesting that male is the most obvious sex for a doctor to be. Other types of language, such as non-parallel usage ("cameramen and script girls" or "men and ladies", for example), can be patronizing.
A deeper variant of these arguments involves the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the idea that our language shapes our thought processes and that in order to eliminate sexism we would do well to eliminate sexist forms from our language.
Opponents of non-sexist language have argued that it is another form of excessive political correctness, and that it violates the rules of various standards of proper grammar or style. However, many dictionaries, stylebooks, and other authoritative guides now counsel the writer to use non-sexist language.
A brief guide to non-sexist usage in English
1) "He" should not be used to refer to a hypothetical person. "They" is now acceptable in most registers of spoken English, but it is sometimes not useful ("A doctor may ask themself..."). In such a case, or if "they" is considered too informal, the sentence should be recast, for example by putting it in the plural ("Doctors may ask themselves...")
2) Equivalent language should be used for members of both sexes. Do not say "men and ladies," "cameramen and script girls", or "man and wife"; instead, say "ladies and gentlemen" or "men and women," "camera operators and script assistants," and "husband and wife".
3) Gender-neutral job titles should be used, especially to refer to hypothetical persons; for example, "firefighter" instead of "fireman," "flight attendant" instead of "stewardess". In the rare case where no useful gender-neutral alternative is available, both genders should be used ("barman or barmaid" - note that "man" and "maid" are technically equivalent language in the sense of "servants").
It is quite proper to refer to a person whose sex is known with the suffix -man or -woman ("Ms. Jones is our new chairwoman" but "We are seeking a new chairperson"). Indeed, sometimes this can lead to a sort of hyper-correcting sexism, in which women become chairpersons but men remain chairmen.
Nearly all job titles that add a suffix to make the feminine should not. Usher, not usherette; comedian, not comedienne. Many of these are almost entirely obsolete now, such as sculptress, poetess, and aviatrix. The word "lady" should not be used, except if the masculine is "lord" (landlady). This goes double for expressions like "lady doctor"; if the sex really is relevant, say woman or female ("my grandmother was the first woman doctor in the province").
A few specific cases:
- In the vexed case of "waiter" and "waitress", the status quo seems to be to use those as gendered titles, with "server" (or sometimes "waitron" or "waitstaff") as a gender-neutral title.
- More and more women are calling themselves "actors" rather than "actresses" these days, especially in the live theatre.
- The suffix -man in "ombudsman" is not a masculine, as the term is from Swedish. Nevertheless, backformations such as "ombudsperson" and "ombuds" exist.
- The gender-neutral "fisher" has been used for "fisherman"; however, in Canada, many women who catch fish have inveighed harshly against this, demanding to be called "fishermen". Similarly, some female horseriders have expressed a preference to be described as a "horseman".
Many associations and governments publish handbooks of job titles featuring official recommendations for gender-neutral language.
3) Be wary when describing women primarily as wives; there is no reason to believe that a farmer's, pioneer's, or neighbour's wife is not herself a farmer, pioneer, or neighbour, so describe her as such.
4) See Ms.
5) Very often, especially in news stories and the like, a gratuitous physical or personal description of a woman will be provided when this wouldn't be done for a man. It should therefore be avoided.
Gender-neutral language in other languages
I will add more information here when it isn't 4:30 AM.