From: utzoo!decvax!pur-ee!ecn-pa.alexande
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Title: re: IT (and some other comments)
Article-I.D.: ecn-pa.205
Posted: Mon Jul 19 11:56:56 1982
Received: Sun Jul 25 03:23:22 1982

        Personally, I find that those who object to the tradition of using the
        male gender as non-specific react even more violently to the use of
        `it' and other specifically neuter words.

Of course, people object to the use of 'it' and other neuter words as applied
to themselves.  Humans have a great aversion to being classed as objects, or
to be denied their humanity in other ways.  'It' is not a human word, it is an
object word.

Also, the use of the male gender terms for neuter gender is, of course,
considered correct by the vast majority of grammarians.  The problem is that
there are many sets of rules that apply to most common situations, and
language is one thing that touches on almost all fronts.  As an example of
the applicability of various sets of rules to a single situation, it is
grammatically correct to say to someone, "You are a dirty, foul-smelling pig,
and deserve to be hung upside down until you die", but this could hardly be
approved according to the rules of courtesy.  Also, it is grammatically
correct to say "George McGovern was elected President of the United States in
1972", but this is contrary to fact.

I view the controversy over non-sexist language in a similar vein.  It is
perhaps grammatically correct to say, "The chairperson may be either a man or
a woman.  His duties include...", but this runs contrary to the goal of
non-sexist language.  The goal here is not to eliminate the use of gender-
specific words, or to phase out all reference to gender in situations where
such reference is called for, it is only to allow the speaker to keep the
question of gender open in those situations where no specific gender is called
for, and to thus help the listener avoid forming pre-conceived notions of the
gender of the person referred to.  This, I believe, can have a real influence
on the way that people think, and perhaps can allow children to grow up
without falling into the trap of thinking of certain occupations, offices, or
professions as limited to one sex or the other when either can clearly fill
these.  If, after all, one continually refers to the "ChairMAN of the Board,"
one finds it hard to escape the eventual identification of that person as a
man, even if the speaker did not intend to convey any gender specific
information.  On the other hand, if one hears of the "Chairit of the Board,"
one finds it even more difficult to avoid the picture of some inhuman monster
sitting at the head of the council table with a very large gavel in hand.

This is the very reason, in fact, why many people have suggested the need for
a new type of pronoun that would not be ambiguous as to whether it referred to
males or to all people.  If such a thing already existed, undoubtedly those of
us who support the use of such things would readily use it, but no such word
exists.  This leaves only three possibilities:  1) use awkward, but commonly
acceptable grammatical constructions such as "he or she";  2) use
constructions that are currently considered incorrect (e.g. "them") and hope
that they will eventually be considered correct;  or  3) create a new class of
words that will convey no gender-specific information.  I currently use a
combination of the first two, but I consider the third to be the optimal
solution in the long run.

				Alan Alexander-Manifold
				Purdue University
				pur-ee!ecn.pa!alexande