Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women
Subject: Re: Pronouns devoid of gender connotations
Message-ID: <27887@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 10:34:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.27887
Posted: Wed Jul  3 10:34:28 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:47:00 EDT
References: <2718@decwrl.UUCP>, <498@rtech.UUCP> <743@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <11369@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 53
Xref: watmath net.nlang:3333 net.women:6253

> >> 	Stick with "Standard English":
> >> 
> >>		"If you should happen to see someone, say hello to him."
> >> 
> >>		The argument here is that this is gramatically correct,
> >>		and has served for many years.
> 
Isn't this, as many of the examples used in this "debate", a bit
artificial?  As with many phrases/sentences that people seem to object
to as sexist, there is a simpler way.  What on earth is the matter
with:
		"If you should happen to see someone, say hello."

I have seen few, if any, examples here that couldn't easily be
converted to nonsexist form (assuming, for the sake of argument, that
they *are* sexist) by just a *little* thought and common sense.

Granted that we all could stand to become more sensitive to the way
that what we say/write may be taken but habits are strong and the
habits of speech and writing have been forming over a lifetime.  Do
you wonder that there is resistance to change?  The great pronoun
debate seems, to me, to be producing a lot of dark heat, if I may
paraphrase a description of the arguments in net.abortion.

I'm not strongly opposed to looking for a gender-neutral pronoun but
I'm not sure that I'm strongly in favor of it either.  It seems to me,
as has often been suggested that a great deal of effort is being
spent treating the symptoms while we die of the disease (pronounitis? :-).
The examples chosen by both sides of the great debate are usually
awkward constructs chosen, it seems, exclusively to promote which ever
side of the argument the writer favors.

In the mean time may I suggest a tactic that may help to make others
as sensitive to sexist speech/writing as we enlightened netters are.
(:-)
Suppose that whenever we hear someone say something that is ambiguous
in a sexist way (as in the example that prompted this article) we say
"Do you mean a man, a woman or either?"  It is less convenient with
written work but letters to the editor or author or publisher are
certainly possible.  If people are called to account for their
ambiguous usage often enough they are apt to become more sensitive and
begin trying to get it right the first time.

Of *course*, it is a lot of work but do you really think it is any
more work than trying to overcome the resistance to changing lifelong
language habits?  What we really want to change, anyway, is the
attitudes.

As may be expected, all opinions are mine alone.
-- 
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa