OK, I'm annoyed,..... he or she, he or she, ...

When I were in school, I was taught that as a rule, the word "he" could be used to connote either male or female when the identity of the person being referenced is not immediately known. It was neuter gender. Now, maybe in my old age I have missed something but is it necessary for the news folks on all channels to qualify their comments about the pilot of the Nike plane as "he or she" this and "he or she" that. Are we not aware enough to recognize that the pilot may be of either sex? Just me, I quess. Must be getting old. PS, why is the word 'quess' not in spell check?

I guess, quess.

I hate to think of the number of times I have done that. You are right, as I study my keystrokes, I now realize that I head right for the 'q' when starting to type the word 'guess'. Boy,I have a nerve making any comments. Time to take a break from TV and go walk the dog. Thanks for making me aware.

The q in the display font does look like a g. Peace. :hi:

It is where you automatically assume a woman will do certain things and a man will do certain things. Doctors are He and Nurses are she.

To a young mind, it creates stereotypes of what you can (and can't do) when you grow up.

If you always hear about the stewardess and the captain (male) then you'll think as a woman you can't fly a plane and as a man you can't be a steward on a plane.

So to correct it, we try to avoid the use of HE as a default and say "he or she" so we aren't subconsciously programming our society to stereotype roles.

Instead of using He/She a person can describe the subject (for example instead of saying the pilot flew his plane, you say the pilot flew a plane).

English lesson over *smile*

Was he a gynocologist?

"Lady Doctor" is the euphemism that my aunt used to use.

Lady Doctor was any woman who was a doctor. Ever wonder why there's a PGA and an LPGA and NBA and a WNBA? Because the PGA is for men and the NBA is for men. (I'm only thinking of sports examples right now.)

It's grammatically correct to use "he" for both sexes. It's grammatically correct to use racial slurs, too. People who care about equality make the extra effort to be inclusive in their language.

P.S. Sometimes the problem can be avoided by using the plural. Instead of "The pilot...he..." you can use "Pilots...they..."

But I have reservations about this part:

"It's grammatically correct to use "he" for both sexes. It's grammatically correct to use racial slurs, too. People who care about equality make the extra effort to be inclusive in their language."

The problem isn't that Speaker X is being exclusive or inclusive, but rather that Speaker X doesn't see the need to consider it in those terms, while Listener X does see that need. Speaker X must first be helped to recognize the problem, and then Speaker X and Listener X can come up with a solution that doesn't seem false or artificial.

Until about 8 years ago I considered the term "guy" and "girl" to be of equal baggage, until a woman opened my eyes to the sexism of the latter term. The same goes here, I think.

Still, I have to admit that I'm a little squeamish about equating pronoun gender with racial slurs. Somehow "Niggers shouldn't vote" just seems tangibly different from "Everyone brought his own pencil."

Gender issues are absolutely valid and should be addressed, but I think it's a rhetorical mistake to equate a 1000-year pronoun artifact with racist labels. Such an argument will quickly accelerate the argument beyond useful bounds, I think, and no one will benefit.

Honestly, if you broads would leave the writing to us menfolk, none of this would be a problem. :sarcasm:

I guess my point was that we're often ruled by more than grammatical considerations. Maybe a better thing to say would be that a lie can be perfectly grammatical, but I'd rather have the truth with a few mistakes thrown in.

Any profession other than nurse or teacher. It reminds me of that old quote about a woman writing being like a dog walking on its hind legs. You're not surprised that the dog doesn't do it very well. You're only surprised that the dog does it at all.

It's a cousin to "male nurse" I guess!!!

Those old stereotypes, they are the curse that keeps on giving....

The "flew a plane" suggestion is helpful, but it's not a panacea. For example, what if the pilot ruptured her appendix? To say "the pilot ruptured an appendix" seems conspicuously artificial, since it's not as though she has half a dozen of them in her gut. And if she ruptured somebody else's appendix, then we'd be probably want more specificity than "an appendix!"

In writing, it's simply cumbersome to use "he or she" or even "she/he."

My practice is to alternate or randomize their use without regard to gender stereotypes, while still maintaining consistently. That is, a "she" will be "she" or "her" throughout the example, and a "he" will be "he" or "him." But "she" might be a doctor and "he" might just as readily be a nurse.

It just sounds false to say "she/he" or "she or he" or "he or she" of "s-slash-he," because no one uses those constructions in casual conversation. IMO, if we're talking about a specific doctor, then we should use "he" or "she" to match that doctor's sex. But if we're talking about some hypothetical doctor, we should use "he" or "she" arbitrarily (with, I suppose, a 49/51 percent ratio).

For me, this isn't a relic of sexism but a matter of utility and a desire to avoid artifice. Hell, if we decide right now to adopt "she" as the "genderless" pronoun, I'll start using it right now.

At least for now. Granted, this is on its way to changing, but until it does, then it strikes me as incorrect.

Yeah, I know--that's hardly a solid guideline, but it's consistent with current rules of grammar, I believe.

If the pilot's a woman, she ruptured her appendix. If the pilot's a man, he ruptured his appendix.

Yeah, after I posted, I realized that it was kind of a dumb example.

I mean, you wouldn't be speaking about a genderless "hypothetical" pilot while discussing a particular ruptured appendix.

Unless the appendix was just setting there on the pilot's seat, I guess.

Still, though the example was poor, I think the idea is valid. There are cases in which it is preferable to refer to a generic pilot using a singular pronoun, so the question remains as to which pronoun (or signifier) that should be.

You can imagine a P&P on how to deal with medical emergencies with pilots. "When confronted with medical emergencies, good pilots will turn over control to their copilots."

Talk about being annoyed. I lived for my whole life being left out of language. I don't see that it's too much to ask that I be included.

Didn't mean to exclude you or your sex if that's how it came across.

Still, I can't help thinking that all this "pluralize it" talk is simply avoiding the issue, rather than solving it.

Suppose that same P&P includes this instruction:

"When each pilot's name is called, that pilot will state that pilot's name and that pilot's place of training."

There are cases in which pluralization won't work without sounding discordant, so what happens then?

I don't think he/she his/her is too awkward. It's harder when spoken, true.

I'm not a total nutcase about this, but if the change isn't onerous, I'd like to see gender-neutral whenever possible.

My example talks about an unknown gender. Yours is talking about a specific person so the gender should be known.


When people use "he or she" they are doing so in a case when the gender can be either/or.

When you talk about what happens to a person, you know the gender, when you are describing actions of a profession, you don't know the gender.

For example, write a training manual for a airline employee to use on how to contact the pilot of the plane.

You will not know the gender of the pilot ahead of time.

The instructions are "The pilot monitors channel 3 at all times. He will be reachable on that channel." Okay you have just assumed the pilot is a man. Instead you write "The pilot monitors channel 3 at all times and is available on that channel."

See the difference?

See reply #41, wherein I address my error.

But thanks for the catch!

"Lady Stallions" (United Soccer League)
"Lady Rams" (Owasso, OK; Fordham)

Not sure what this means one way or the other.

Talkin Gender Neutral Blues
(Kristin Lems)2005-01-19words and music by Kristin Lems c 2005

I was walkin down the street one day
Reading the signs that passed my way
And after a while I started to see
That none of those words referred to me...
Good will towards men, all men are created equal,
Praise Him!

Well I asked some friends if they agreed
That they felt left out in the things they read
They told me yes, and added some more
And soon we all felt pretty sore
You got your Congressman, spaceman, sideman....
But I never heard a no house husband!

Well some men came by and a fight began to grow:
?You girls are so dumb you just don?t know,
These here are called ?generic words?
They?re meant to include both the bees and the birds.?
Well gee fellas, how am I supposed to know?
I certainly don?t feel included!

Ok said I, if that?s so true,
I?ll just use ?woman? to cover the two
?It don?t make a difference to us,? they said
?If you wanna use woman, go right ahead.?
I said, thanks, that?s really sisterly of you
Glad to see you believe in sportswomanship!

?Now hold your horses,? they started to cry.
I think I?ll hold my mares, said I.
?You?re leavin all of us guys behind.?
Why no, we?re all part of womankind.
So don?t fret friends, take it like a woman
You?ll get used to it, just like we all did!

http://www.kristinlems.com/music-10.html

We all, regardless of gender, started out inside a woman, so it really does make more sense!

May I e-mail your lyrics to a few friends? They're brilliant!

:yourock:

thanks for letting me know that kristen lems is not only still around, but lives in my area. haven't heard her in a llloooooonnngg time.

Female is, but we don't pull rank.

as proof I would never say that to a guy.

:hide:

:evilgrin:

BTW, I have a niece who's a kickboxer. 98% of men wouldn't stand a chance with her.


:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

I've been training for the last twenty five plus years - good for your niece!

No, not about might though -- it's more about how paternalistic our society is. Generally whenever someone calls you "missy" (but seriously), whether you're a gal or a guy, they're picking a fight anyway.

I would NEVER do such a thing. I swear!

But etymologically, the English "male" gender has taken the place of the "neuter" gender in most cases. And a 1000-year-old linguistic convention predates any understanding of X and Y chromosomes by a good many centuries.

That doesn't mean it has to be that way, or that it always will be, but that's how it is for now.

Let's fix the problem, certainly, but I don't think that appeals to genetic priority will help the cause!

Lighten up, son

Doh!

:P

Quess seems to be available.

It's unknown at the time if Quess is able to land the aircraft.

:hi:

Now, I think, the assumption is, if they're using "he," the person in question is male. It doesn't really connote ambiguity anymore.

AP says "he" is acceptable as a last resort, but one really should re-write the sentence if possible (vs. "a reporter really should re-write the sentence if he can").

plus you can read it with a british accent if you need to. Central Liverpool of course.

:silly:

I believe one should avoid vexacious people who correct grammar at the expense of substance, and using a gender article, or intentionally, subjunctive poor punctuation, is the best way to flush her out.

:silly:

in the third person on your profile. Bosshog believes one should avoid such flushing out.

I lived in England and Scotland for two years. I could listen to them prattle on all day.

I recall in my old Navy days the anality of gender neutrality in correspondence and anything coming from the podium.

Much easier.

the word "they" is plural.

He or she is such awkward usage that when possible, "they" is substituted. It's moving slowly, but "he" to indicate either gender is pretty silly.

I don't think bad grammar is the way to solve sexist language.

But that's just me. (or rahter - "that's just I"!)

That is how most people speak, but an english teacher won't like it much in a paper. I have to say, working as an english tutor in a busy college writing lab, reading he or she this and he or she that gets very tiresome in a 4-5 page paper.

I think that's the point.

It's just language trying to catch up to society.

That way, they can use "they" and "them."

Ironically, in the middle ages, English was more gender-neutral than it is now. In Old English, the word "man" literally meant a person of either sex. If you wanted to be more specific, you said "wereman" for males and "wyfman" for females.

... where every noun has gender: masculine, feminine, or neuter.

it just seems to fit the best.

Why bother with gender and just use "it."

I mean, if you're referring to a specific person where gender is known, use "he" or "she" but if you're referring to a role that person plays, then use "it."

"The doctor called. It wants to see you right away" with "it" referring to "the doctor."

:thumbsup:
Also advisable when referring to a DUer with profile hidden or gender "undeclared."

"if I were queen of the universe"

oh wait a minute. . . I did that once

}(

queen does have to meanings, one applies to a female and the other to a male :)

:shrug:

I can't help but wonder how this brouhaha would be handled in German. :eyes:

I have been stumped as of late with the greeting "Gentlemen". Now we know that we can use "Dear Madam", instead of "Dear Sir" if the person is female, but how do we become gender inclusive with "Gentlemen"? I have coped out with "To Whom it May Concern", although I know my old business school teacher would have screamed that it is an address not a greeting. For instance your address would be "To Whom It May Concern" and then the greeting would be "Gentlemen". Of course that was back in the days when all executives would be men.

Especially when it's plural. Like there can't possibly be a woman in a decision-making capacity here.

I'm OK with "To whom it may concern:" or "Dear Sir or Madam." Usually I'll try to find out who I'm sending it to...and then that opens up the whole problem of trying to match a courtesy title to a unisex or unfamiliar name.

"To Whom it May Concern" sounds so ... snippy or something. :) But, I'm not thrilled with "Dear Madams and Sirs" or anything like that, either. We need something else! :) Sometimes, I just do "Greetings" and leave it at that, like I'm in a fantasy/adventure novel.

I just ran across that in a fantasy novel. :-)

And, why is nobody remarking on the "When I were in school....?" Was that a spoof on the part of OP?

"When I was in school". Obviously I did not complete the change. I never expected so much controversy on this. My comment was directed at the awkwardness of the broadcasters presentation.

In the past, it was standard to use "he" all the time. Those days are over. One way to avoid such language is to use a plural noun, so that you can use "they" or "them" (which are, unlike "he", gender neutral). Another way is to use "he" sometimes and "she" other times. In the case of one pilot whose gender is unknown, unfortunately, the rather clunky "he or she" is the only appropriate expression.

I don't know who taught you that "he" could refer to a male or a female, but I don't know of any credible organization in language arts education that would assent to that.

Here are a few guideline pages:

http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/publications/texts/nonsexist.html

Here's the statement from the National Council of Teachers of English:

http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/lang/107647.htm

reading to do. Maybe I will find some way to accept the awkwardness
of this he/she thing. The vast majority of responders find me wrong so I must be. I will get my facts in order in the future.

Language is inevitably laden with a politics. I think the movement for non-sexist language was one of the effects of the feminist movement and really kicked in around the late-1970's. It's considered standard today to do lessons on sexist and non-sexist language in writing courses.

See how easy that is, newscasters?

There is a small movement on the net to reform the english language. Gender free pronouns are used by a small minority to replace sexist language such as he and she.

There is a debate in the community about what should be the standard. I am on the zie/zir side of the debate. Zie replaces he/she and zir replaces his/her/him.

The other "popular" form is Sie/hir which I don't like because it's based on the german word for "she".

I encourage everyone to replace gender pronouns with non gender ones.

pronounced (in the south where I grew up):

A miz is az good az a miz iz.

And it's been going on a long time and needs to keep on this way.

Check out "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell. He writes about how the political use of language has degraded the quality of writing. This is an example that he didn't live to see. To use the phrase "he or she" is simply bad writing. It's also cumbersome to say. I wanted to decapitate my professors when they told me to use this phrase, and always brought up Orwell's essay.

Political "Correctness" sucks the mean one.

I wish there were more ladies like you in the world. sarcasm off. btw, i'm sure you didn't mind being referred to as female. oops, i said sarcasm was off...

That was pretty clever.

There is no room for "fairness and respect" in art. If you believe otherwise, you might have something in common with the censors of old.

And it needn't be awkward at all.
I have two daughters.
We call the person who brings our mail the "Mail Carrier" (our mail carrier has ALWAYS been a woman).

Police Officer is nearly as easy to say as "Policeman".
Firefighter is nearly as easy to say as "Fireman".

We know many women who serve in these capacities.
It's a NO-BRAINER as far as I'm concerned to do away with gender specific terminology that serves to eliminate the very possibility of a women holding those positions, despite the fact we see them doing it every day! It is anachronistic speech.

After all, we comfortably did away with thine's and thou's, didn't we?