Talk:Gender neutrality in English

More generally, nonsexist styles can include the use of brackets or capital letters to insert feminine endings (étudiantEs) or repeat gendered words

I have never seen any use of capital letters for feminine endings, only brackets (étudiant(e)s) in french from France. Are capital letters used in other french speaking countries ?

I've not seen the capital E either. -- Tarquin

Quebec, especially in leftist publications. I don't just make this stuff up, you know. - user:Montrealais

of course you don't. I was just wondering where it was used and how much vulgar it was. So the answers are Canada and out of the ordinary used. user:anthere

And under consideration for removal of sexist implications in the English language:

Human --> Huperson

Manatee --> Personatee

Manhatten --> Personhatten

Emancipation --> Epersoncipation

Manx --> Personx

Elementary --> Elepersonstary

David de Paoli

The majority of these above are of course rather foolish jokes, sometimes mistaken by the naive for real examples of words sometimes considered to be sexist. The element "man" in such words is not related to the English word "man", has no connotation of masculine gender, and such words are not actually targetted as sexist or in need of revision.

Also, "Manhattan" is misspelled. - user:Montrealais

Those sort of puns are tired now. They were kinda funny in the early 80s when we were all getting used to the concept ("Ms Fossington-Gore said they were a tribute to the achievements of personkind" -- Sue Townsend, The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, Aged 13 3/4, probably misquoted, my lousy semiphotographic memory) -- Tarquin 21:55 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Must be that your semiphotographic memory is out of film. BTW, they're not puns, nor is your comparison accurate. Unlike the "personkind" example, and as the poster immediately following me noted, the "man"s replaced in my lampooning examples don't refer to the word "man" in English. Lastly, as far as "being tired", I'm not offended in the least when I realize this criticism comes from someone who thinks "bogeys" (sic) are hillariously funny, especially when annoyingly repeated.David de Paoli

The whole "bogey" thing has been overblown out of all proportion: it was sarcasm on my part after we got a string of new pages on various activities which I didn't consider terribly, erm, encyclopedic. BTW, why the "sic"? That's the correct spealing --

Sorry. I simply thought your examples for criticising my little joke were erroneous. Normally I take criticism very well. As far as the (sic), I see you're form the UK? That might explain the difference. In American usage, the word "bogey" (boe- ghee) distictly refers to either the golf score or the military slang for an unidentified aircraft. I would use "boogey" or "boogie" as the diminutive of the slang "booger", but, hey, I've been wrong before.

Perhaps the reference is to the "boogey-man" (which is not related to boogers, but may be related to the military slang). If so, it derives from "Bugis," a large ethnic group in Indonesia famous for their sea-faring skills, which they have employed as traders and, I guess, as pirates too (or perhaps in resistance to Dutch colonialism?)Slrubenstein

Have we just managed to write a whole article on the etymology of the word "bogey" between us? Hooray! -- Tarquin

How NPOV is a page full of commands; eg, "Indeed, do not use terms such as..."? It seems to me that it is rather forcefully taking the point of view that "if you don't use this stilted form of the language, you are wrong." --the Epopt

On a brief skim, it doesn't look it's saying "you are wrong", but that you wouldn't be using "non-sexist language" as it is defined in this article. --Brion 23:09 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

I think it's a valid article to describe non-sexist language by providing a list of rules therefor. I tried to explain this in the first part of the article. Perhaps it should be italicized or something to set it off from the rest of the article. user:Montrealais

How does this look? Notice the first paragraph. - mtlais

Not exactly the most NPOV article on WIki. Apart from grammatical clangers (like using the word 'goal' twice (which I have axed), it presumes that there is such a thing as 'non-sexist language', which is widely disputed, the argument being that 'non-sexist language' simply involves 're-sexing language' in the other direction on occasions, providing terms that are not gender-neutral but feminised, which by definition is sexist language. Simply writing non-sexist language in that form presupposes the validity of one side of the argument, which by definition is POV. In a correct NPOV article on this topic where a term and its validity is disputed it should be writen as 'non-sexist language', indicating that the author is neither validating not invalidating the term, merely highlighting it is a disputed status. Other disputed terms in a specific context (eg, terrorist, etc) can also be contextualised as an opinion, not a 100% accepted fact, by writing it as 'terrorist', etc.

This article's NPOV could be strengthened by making equal use of published opinions by academics challenging the issue, validity and grammatical accuracy of some 'non-sexist language', something this article barely touches on. Nor, as this article suggests, do all publishing houses and publishing manuals accept the validity of 'non-sexist language'. (My own (woman) editor will not publish anything whose author refuses to use some of the terms listed, saying she is interested in publishing 'english, not a politically correct bastardised version of it to keep feminists happy!') Nor is it just non-feminists who are opposed to 'non-sexist language'. Many feminists too are deeply critical of it, regarding it not as an attempt to change attitudes but to hide the true sexist nature of society by window-dressing language, a common argument made against political correctness in general. Simply not being able to use 'offensive' language, whether sexist, rascist, homophobic or whatever, doesn't mean that behind the 'proper' language, those same attitiudes aren't just as present.

I am not taking sides on the debate, merely pointing out that this article, perhaps unintentionally, does so, which means it isn't NPOV, but in tone, language, content and structure implicitly endorses 'non sexist language'. JTD 04:05 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

I'd have to agree on a lack of NPOV as noted above; and also from a somewhat different angle. The article as it stands also has a bit of a schizo quality to it. In those paragraphs which criticized by JTD, there was a "pro-" bias; in alternating paragraphs; there also is a tendency to imply that the topic is practically a secret form of evil mind control by tyhe forces of "political correctness". As a result, neither side really makes a complete argument - they don't even seem to be addressing each other.

For example, lines like: Such usage, and indeed any expression that either explicitly or implicitly marginalises women should be banned seem a teeny bit over-the-top; at least in how the topic is generally interpreted amongst laymen (or should I say, "amongst the laity"? :)) Surely, there is a range of opinion on this topic?

At one point, it might have been considered "politically incorrect" (or the equivalent perjorative of the day) to insist on not calling a black man "boy" (the term could have been argued to seem neutral, e.g. "good ol' boys"). Today, we don't typically use the term "boy" in that way (in most of the US, at any rate) because social changes have rendered its use to be seen as rather offensive (as opposed to "politically incorrect"). (Unsuprisingly, racism continues to exist).

Considering the above, to someone like me standing outside the argument, it seems like some new usages have become generally (not universally) socially accepted as certain concepts became part of general cultural currency, and in other areas, it just seems to fade out because the related ideas don't become common currency ("womyn", "herstory", etc.). Sort of a chicken-and-the-egg thing; shades of gray and all. And these changes don't appear to be controlled solely by either the forces of "political correctness", or the decryers of "the 'bastardisation' of language for political purposes". The line Others argue that a change in language should evolve organically from changing public attitudes towards gender issues, rather than be enforced by Political Correctness ahead of such a change" is close to this idea, but it implies that the organic change doesn't include the voices of those who call for the type of changes that the proponents of 'non-sexist' usage call for.

I'm sure the original promulgators of the article topic had certain socio-linguistic theories which they used to justify coining and insisting on the use of these terms; and as noted by JTD, we can then present both sides (pro- and con-) of those theories in that light - and I might even learn something! :)

A possible suggestion on form would be to have separate sections relating to

reporting on (not endorsing or condemning) what appears to have become "standards" (such as NYTimes, etc.), as a sort of social barometer of the general acceptance of newer usages like "firefighter" and "news anchor".
a history of who first started pushing the specific idea of "non-sexist" language academically, in what context, and with what reasons;
criticisms of these arguments from a linguistic and political viewpoint.

Makes me wonder - do we have a "gender-neutral" policy at Wikipedia? Chas zzz brown 07:46 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with your questioning of the line Such usage, and indeed any expression that either explicitly or implicitly marginalises women should be banned. That is word for word the description of 'non-sexist language' given at a 'non-sexist language' university debate I attended, by a Professor of Women's Studies. (The debate involved six women, three for and three against.) As to the issues, the paragraphs cover the different arguments, and there are differing arguments. For the article to come down for or against the issue of non-sexist language would be by definition a POV and thus breaking Wiki rules. If the article's coverage of both sides' views is confusing and conflicting, it is because the arguments and perspectives are confusing and conflicting.

The issue of using 'boy' in a rascist sense is completely irrelevant and bares little parallel. The vast majority of people agreed that such terms and their contexts were rascist. Such overwhelming unity of opinion does not exist on 'non-sexist language', which pits some feminists who champion enforced 'non-sexist language' from others who disagree. It divides linguistic experts, publishing houses, newspaper house styles, men from other men, women from other women, etc.

Among the issues in 'non-sexist language' are

Is language inherently 'sexist'?
are words interpreted by the vast majority of their users as 'sexist', irrespective of what campaigners say?
Who defines what is 'sexist'?
If a term is 'sexist', should it be changed by decision or by evolution?
If by decision, who makes the decision?
How should it be enforced?
Should grammatical rules be followed or ignored in constructing 'gender-neutral' terms?

Your mention of the New York Times is interesting but it is by no means the standard. A proper evaluation should compare many newspapers, both broadsheet and tabloid in the US, Canada, Britain, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc.The scale of that work would produce a fascinating article but it must be careful not to be centred purely on the United States. For all too many articles on Wiki take US standards as the right standard, an alternative to the British-focused styles elsewhere, but equally unacceptance in an encyclopedia that is not just the property of the US but of the world wide web. But the scale of the work involved in producing such an article would be immense, and I don't know who is going to do this.

Regarding 'political correctness', this is one of many issues that divides much of the rest of the world from the US. Whereas many in the US see political correctness as a positive force, in much of the rest of the world, to call something political correctness is to give it the kiss of death, because political correctness is seen, rightly or wrongly, as agenda-led manipulation. If 'non-sexist language' was seen as political correctness in much of Europe, for example, it would kill it stone dead, with many people 'deliberately' going out of their way to break its rules to give the proverbial two-fingers to what is perceived as attempts to bully them into following rules made by cliques. That may indeed be unfair, but that is how it is perceived. In Ireland, for example, The Irish Times newspaper, which by its own admission is the most PC of Irish newspapers, has had columnists, notably John Waters, who have described some feminists as 'feminazis', arguing that in issues such as 'non-sexist language' a small minority of fanatics are trying to manipulate everyone else into obeying their agenda, whether they like it or not. In mentioning hostility to 'non-sexist language' and political correctness, I deliberately toned down much of the language critics use. Mind control would be a polite term used. Feminazis a stronger one. There are others far stronger.

I'm not taking sides in the debate, and I'm certainly not expressing any opinion. I'm simply pointing out that there are differing views. The article does need work, but it is less one sided than before, which is by definition, NPOV instead of the previous POV by implication. JTD 02:46 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Moved discussion of non-sexist usage in French to User:Montrealais/Non-sexist usage in French. - Montrealais 14:20 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

There have been studies on how sentences like "When a doctor sees his patient, he should first put her at ease." are interpreted. I heard of one which estimated that, for some texts, 60% of readers took a gender-specific interpretation, and 40% took a gender-neutral interpretation. However, that was from a comparatively biased source, so I want to try and find better.

I've also heard of studies purporting to show that changing language use by coercion and enforcement is essentially futile, and language change really only occurs when the user makes a positive decision on how sie wants to speak. Again, need a definite source. Martin

I've now found quite a few sources on studies done on the first point. As far as I can make out at this stage, it's pretty much a settled point that use of generic "man", "he", etc does have a gender-distorting effect on the reader/listener. To look for such sources I've looked through some of the various style guides, most of which quote their sources and these kinds of studies. I'm tempted to include this as a statement of scientific fact, unless I can find any studies which didn't show a result. Martin