asa@rayssd.UUCP (01/27/84)
<<<<< >>>>>>>> I would like to hear some thoughts on solutions to the gender elimination problem in writing. Here are some of my own thoughts: 1) substitute the word 'one'. This has the advantage that lthe word exists, and that a similar formation occurs in other languages (see African and Amerindian). It has the disadvantage of stretching the semantic field of an existing word, thus demanding more attention to context. 2) substitute the word 'it'. This has the advantage that it makes use of an existing singular form, thus involving only the deletion of the other two forms now used. It has the strong disadvantage that it makes people feel that they are being referred to as objects, and is therefore highly resented. 3) collapse the singular/plural distinction, in a manner similar to the collapse of the singular/plural 'you' distinction. This has the advantage that the process has been used before, and that those who want a plural can add '-all', as Souterners have done for the 'you' form. Thus, 'they' becomes the neutral singular, and gender disappears. 4) do a back-formation from the plural, to form a consistent set with the 'I/we' forms. For example, we might use 'thai/they' or 'thee/they'. The latter would be interesting, because we could resurrect a perfectly good word, puting it to use in a different way. This has the advantage that it emphasizes the neutrality of the form, and that the precedent already exists. It has the disadvantage of psychological newness. These are the only rational solutions I have thought of so far. It seems to me that we need to do something, to get out of the current endless tug-of-war over whether the default for the general case shall be 'he' or 'she'.
jlg@lanl-a.UUCP (02/05/84)
I vote for using 'HE'!!! That is standard english usage an there is no reason to change.
brat@gatech.UUCP (Steven Goldberg) (02/06/84)
Using "they" is a bad idea, although it's a widely used word in spoken American
English, but it confounds the idea of singular with plural - something we'd
always like to get away from doing. It seems people have a hard enough time
keeping their subjects agreeing with their verbs. I vote for 'he' (the current
rule for this case), or 'one', which is probably best, if sexism is to be
totally eliminated(?)....
Steven
--
Steven Goldberg
CSNet: brat@gatech ARPA: brat.gatech@csnet-relay
UUCP: ...!{sb1,allegra,ut-ngp}!gatech!brat
...!decvax!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!bratdelph@tesla.UUCP (02/07/84)
I much prefer s/h/it.
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (02/08/84)
This is definitely a controversial one. Personally I like to have the option of using "they" in a singular sense, sparingly. I don't feel that any important confusion over singular/plural distinctions results. However, last year I was editing text, Organization and Procedures description for a religious body, with a view to removing 'sexist' language while keeping a decent style. My suggestion that we have the flexibility to use "they" in the singular sense was objected to by someone who felt that the words "they" and "them" have an intrinsic depersonalizing and distancing aura (to use my own words for his point). It was decided not to use "them" etc. I still use it in my own writing at times. Nearly all the time, a sentence can be reorganised to avoid needing to use a sex-linked pronoun, but not always neatly. Julian Davies ...!utzoo!uwo!julian
james@alberta.UUCP (James Borynec) (02/08/84)
If we actually want to eliminate sexism in language, I recommend that
we eliminate one of two sets of words entirely from the english language:
1) he, his, man, Mr, him, etc...
2) she, her, hers, woman, Miss, Mrs, Ms, etc...
In the interests of saving ink, I suggest that we eliminate catagory 2.
-- Jim Borynec
note: we should probably keep "male" and "female" around for situations that
*have* to have a sexual bias.decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (02/12/84)
Article A follows: The only apparent purpose for pronouns is to allow brevity of expression. That is, some person P uses a pronoun so that P has a convenient way to refer to a thing whose specification may long. A's author I points out in A that a referential mechanism M exists, and that M is already heavily employed in computer science and in mathematics. The readers R may have noticed I's peculiar habit H of using variable names instead of pronouns in A. H is equal to M. I is Dave Decot "Non-Americans are people, too." decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)
wombat@uicsl.UUCP (02/12/84)
#R:rayssd:-36700:uicsl:8600040:000:298 uicsl!wombat Feb 10 11:22:00 1984 Many people think there is a reason to change. I've felt left out for too long already. I used to prefer the s/he constructions, but it seems like the they/them/their forms are being used more and more in conversation, so, although they look funny in writing at first, I've switched. Wombat
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (02/12/84)
-- >>> >I vote for using 'HE'!!! That is standard english usage an there is >>> >no reason to change. >>> One reason to change should be obvious! There are a number of 'she' >>> people around who are NOT included in standard english usage. If you see any merit to the Sapir-Wharrf hypothesis--that words are the tools which shape the way you think--then you'll have to admit that using 'he' as the generic third person must contradict any ideals of sexual equality. This situation may not have a good remedy, and some may believe that it doesn't need one, but that does not invalidate the problem. An imaginative non-sexist third-person pronoun was developed by the Twin Oaks Community in Virginia. Highly committed to a philosophy of co-operative living, they use "co". Declension: "co, cos, co." -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 12 Feb 84 [23 Pluviose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
janel@uo-vax1.UUCP (02/12/84)
>I vote for using 'HE'!!! That is standard english usage an there is >no reason to change. One reason to change should be obvious! There are a number of 'she' people around who are NOT included in standard english usage. Perhaps you don't think that is a problem, and that women should be invisible in mixed-gender references in our language. If you feel the choice of gender pronoun is trivial, try changing all 'he' references to 'she' and see how reading it makes you feel. --Jane Laursen .../uoregon/janel
gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (02/13/84)
>>I vote for using 'HE'!!! That is standard english usage an there is >>no reason to change. > >One reason to change should be obvious! There are a number of 'she' >people around who are NOT included in standard english usage. Perhaps >you don't think that is a problem, and that women should be invisible >in mixed-gender references in our language. If you feel the choice of >gender pronoun is trivial, try changing all 'he' references to 'she' and >see how reading it makes you feel. > > --Jane Laursen > .../uoregon/janel (hoo! Isn't it getting warm in here?) While it is obvious that `he' is the masculine pronoun, it is less obvious that `he' is also an English word meaning `[def 2.] the person; the one; anyone...' [from Webster's New World Dictionary]. This is not to say there is no problem here, but to illuminate the intent of usage. `He' is sexist to the interpreter of the word -- the word itself, in one of it's meanings, is in fact inclusive. -- Gordon A. Moffett { allegra, decvax!decwrl } !amd70!proper hplabs!intelca!proper!gam
ed@unisoft.UUCP (Ed Gould) (02/13/84)
I vote for coercing the singular/plural and using they. -- Ed Gould ucbvax!mtxinu!ed
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (02/13/84)
I have taken to avoiding the whole he/she problem in technical writing by adopting second person pronouns: "with this program, you can ..."
grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (02/15/84)
Let's face it; emotional issues aside, it would be very useful
to have a personal pronoun which did not involve a specific gender.
The problem with using 'he' (regardless of whether it is sexist) is
that it is ambiguous: it is the same as the masculine personal pronoun.
I use 'they' 'them' and 'their' as genderless personal pronouns.
these are also ambiguous because they are the same as the plural pronouns.
However, it is easier to make oneself clear using 'they' than using 'he'.
It would be nice to come up with three brand new never-before-used
pronouns (or we could borrow some from Old Norse), but unfortunately
launching a new word or set of words is a very difficult and complex
business. 'They' has the advantage of being currently understood by
most people (even those that don't approve of this usage).
On the other hand, this seems as good a place as any to start
up some new words. Let's make up three new words, for the nominative,
objective and possesive forms of the NEW genderless pronoun! Then
we'll all agree to use them. The words should:
1) Be short (what's a pronoun for, eh?)
2) Be euphonic
3) Sound like English
4) Fit in well with eachother & with their sibling pronouns
Maybe there should be some other rules as well, but these seem
to fit the bill. I will see if I can come up with anything. If
you have any suggestions for pronouns, mail them to me, I'll summerize
and we can vote. If you think this is a stupid idea, you may be right.
Still, we have to start somewhere.
"You remember me, I'm the one with no cute signoff message"
-Glennsaj@iuvax.UUCP (02/15/84)
#R:rayssd:-36700:iuvax:7100001:000:290 iuvax!brennan Feb 8 22:25:00 1984 'HE' loses. I'm all for 'THEY'. It's already in the language and should not be hard for people to get used to. There is no reason to say that just because HE is currently used that it is fine. Sexism in language perpetuates sexism in society! Jeff Brennan ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!brennan
saj@iuvax.UUCP (02/15/84)
#R:rayssd:-36700:iuvax:7100003:000:697 iuvax!brennan Feb 12 21:41:00 1984 gatech!brat said: > Using "they" is a bad idea, ..., ... it confounds the idea of singular > with plural - something we'd always like to get away from doing. "you" already confounds this idea. "they" still conjugates as a plural; it just does not, necessarily, refer to a plural. And, as rayssd!asa said, "all" can be added to specify the plural if needed. alberta!james said: > If we actually want to eliminate sexism in language, I recommend that > we eliminate one of two sets of words entirely from the english language: > 1) he, his, man, Mr, him, etc... > 2) she, her, hers, woman, Miss, Mrs, Ms, etc... We need to eliminate *both* sets! Jeff Brennan ...!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!brennan
grass@uiuccsb.UUCP (02/17/84)
#R:rayssd:-36700:uiuccsb:10500018:000:971
uiuccsb!grass Feb 16 10:31:00 1984
>From what I can tell from a semester and a half of Japanese, it has
virtually no pronouns at all. There are several meaning "I" and "we"
(with or without gender marking, with or without formalness)
but I have asked and been told that the equivalents of "he, she, it,
they" exist but are virtually never used. When you speak of a third
person, you use their name or names with a title (no gender clue
here, but it does carry social rank). Otherwise, the subject of
sentences is supposed to be understood from context. This does
not seem to create any problems.
Japanese doesn't have gender distinctions in noun forms, or in
any of the various forms of verbs and adjectives. However,
it is easy to tell from word choice and GRAMMAR (!) whether
a man or a woman is writing/speaking. I am told that the
distinction is much less marked for younger women, especially
educated ones. The language doesn't change to reflect
whether a man or woman is being talked about.jack@rlgvax.UUCP (Jack Waugh) (02/18/84)
I prefer "she", except when talking about nurses, secretaries, etc.
holmes@dalcs.UUCP (Ray Holmes) (02/18/84)
[] How about 'se'? It incorporates at least 50% of each of 'he' and 'she' and is not already taken. Ray
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (02/20/84)
Ray Holmes:
How about 'se'? It incorporates at least 50% of each of 'he' and
'she' and is not already taken.
Sounds ok, but what about him/her, his/her?
How about ser , se's (SAIR, SEES)
or sem , ser (SEHM, SAIR)
or hem , hir (HEHM, HEAR) ?
Dave Decot "Women are people, too."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (02/22/84)
Jeff Brennan (iuvax!brennan) defends the collapse of "he" and "she" to
"they" and its confusion of plural and singular by pointing out that
"you" already confuses them. This is true, but I don't think that it's
a convincing defense -- many forms of English feel the need to make the
distinction and have invented forms with which to make it: "y'all",
"you guys", and the like. Who wants to bet that if the trend to use
"they" to indicate third person singular continues, we will soon notice
the form "they all" filling the role of third person plural?
Personally, I think that our language will probably remain sexist in
its pronouns, and, if not, that the change will be an unplanned and
largely unconscious one (probably to "they"). But as long as we're
playing with linguistic utopias, here is my vote for the new pronoun
scheme (with apologies to Ray Holmes and Dave Decot):
O-> he him his his
O-+ she her her hers
O== se sim ser sers
I think that these forms are close enough to the corresponding forms of
"he" and "she" that they wouldn't confuse anybody for long. (So that
they will seem equally familiar whether written or spoken, they should
be pronounced like the old sexist pronouns: "ser" rhymes with "her",
not with "hair".)
--- Prentiss Riddle
--- ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddlerh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (02/28/84)
This subject has been beaten to death N times, as N goes to nausea. (Ad nauseum >> Ad infinitum). Like a certain other annonying issue, whose name I dasn't mention for fear of triggering a discussion, nothing gets accomplished in the flaming that accompanies this issue. People who think "he" is sexist continue to think "he" is sexist, and people who think "he" is perfectly okay continue to think "he" is perfectly okay. Everything interesting and several things boring have been said already. Please think about this when submitting. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh