Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2e.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!hou2e!pskay
From: pskay@hou2e.UUCP (P.KAY)
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women
Subject: Re: Gender-specific responses to s/he
Message-ID: <401@hou2e.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 19:13:17 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2e.401
Posted: Fri Jan  4 19:13:17 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 03:43:47 EST
References: <1315@dciem.UUCP> <643@bunker.UUCP>, <1914@sun.uucp>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 33
Xref: watmath net.nlang:2317 net.women:3965

>> > Generic Versus Specific Inclusion of Women in Language: Effects on Recall
>> > 
>> > Mary Crawford and Linda English
>> > 
>> > J. Psycholinguistic Research, 1984, 13, 373
>> > 
>> > [Abstact from learned treatise on language and recall] 
>>
>> [Gary complains about what this means to his formal writing]
>
>Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons:
>it's easier to read than he/she or his/her, and is gender non-specific.
>				Sunny

Bravo Sunny! While I don't use that form in formal writing, I do
use "they" or "their" in in conversation or informal writing as the
generic form for a Homo sap. of unknown or irrelivent gender.
From observation this is generally acceptable to all but
grouchy, pain in the (insert part of human anatomy), old English
teachers (e.g. my mom :-)). So what do you say, netters? Lets
invoke Grimm's Rule of Usage and make our language (U.S.
Standard English in this case, the rest of you can start your own
crusades) reflect the social changes of the last decade or so.

			Paul S. Kay

			UUCP: ...ihnp4!hou2e!pskay
			      ...ihnp4!mvuxe!psk (the real me)
			USPS: Bell Labs, 1600 Osgood St.
			      N. Andover, Mass.*

* Please note change from UNIX 5.0. Merrimack Valley is back in
    Mass. It has never been in Maine, no matter what mm says!