You people can go discuss and vote to support my poll or we can discuss it here!

Um, the answer is yes. Duh.

For all who disagree, try using the pronoun "she" as a default pronoun all the time. And watch the fun begin.

but the bigger picture is language cops spending time on the vocabulary issues, while then being incoherent about them, as in the (laudable) effort to make job titles strictly functional, eliminating gender refs. (ex.: waitress to waiter/server, hostess to host, stewardess to flight attendant) and so on,
while at the same time ADDING gender markers -- as French is doing increasingly, as in the association of "etudiants/etudiantes", or signalling gender of female government officials, ex: le/la ministre -- which are not strictly functional or task-descriptive;
What next? -- lawyers and lawyeresses, doctors and doctoresses?

anyways, by force of habit and laziness (a major force in language development), "he" will likely remain a neutral and general pronoun for most things referring to people in general and/or humanity in its generality, viz. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

impersonal he does NOT necessarily denote men
solely or primarily, any more than referring to a flock of "geese" means they are exclusively female and excludes gander

[ 14 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
For all who disagree, try using the pronoun "she" as a default pronoun all the time. And watch the fun begin.

---

The Storyteller does not create one primary character for herself.
Rather, she acts as a combination of director, moderator, narrator and referee. The Storyteller invents the drama through which the players direct their characters, creating plots and conflicts from her imagination.

[ 14 October 2006: Message edited by: Yst ]

So, over 25 years later, it's still filtering into the general public, and people still tend to be conservative in their language use. Yes, there are some examples of sex-free language starting to prevail (when's the last time you heard the word "poetess"?), but we're not there yet. Maybe in another hundred years, depending on what happens socially (if we become a conservative society, the language use isn't going to move forward).

As a technical writer, I try to avoid the whole issue by using either second person pronouns or the role the person is filling (designer, engineer, artist, animator, etc.). If I can't get by with either of these, then I'll revert to third person plural.

[ 14 October 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

As for English, there is no good reason why we can't use "it" to refer indifferently to males and females. In the case of animals, for example, we sometimes use "he" and "she", but may equally opt for "it". Banning "it" from human reference is just a case of species chauvinism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I was more thinking along the line that English doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun, it's pretty much impossible to avoid *not* using a non-gender-neutral third-person pronoun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I was more thinking along the line that English doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun, it's pretty much impossible to avoid *not* using a non-gender-neutral third-person pronoun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Stephen, you got a bit carried away and ended up with one too many negatives in that sentence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

Switch back and forth. I suggest sticking with one gender per example, as the following sounds awkward: "A writer who wants her audience to understand him should choose her words as carefully as he can." But the following sounds fine: "A write who wants her audience to understand her should chose her words as carefully as she can. And a reader who chooses his books carefully will probably find writers whom he can understand."

---

quote:

---

There are no systemic and institutional forces and structures that prop up systemic marginalization of men.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure how anyone can actually conscientiously write down such absolute sexist bullshit in the feminist forum and not get his stupid ass permanently banned.

---

quote:

---

For all who disagree, try using the pronoun "she" as a default pronoun all the time. And watch the fun begin.

---

Either Stephen J. Gould or Douglas Hofstadter (too lazy to look it up) wrote a marvelous essay on a debate he started amongst his students about the supposed gender-neutrality of "guys." One of his female students destroyed her argument when she said, "Of course 'guys' is gender-neutral. Even guys use it that way."

quote:

---

Switch back and forth. I suggest sticking with one gender per example, as the following sounds awkward: "A writer who wants her audience to understand him should choose her words as carefully as he can." But the following sounds fine: "A write who wants her audience to understand her should chose her words as carefully as she can. And a reader who chooses his books carefully will probably find writers whom he can understand."

---

I have always thought s/he is quite easy to utilize. Where is the big issue there? And I loathe "gals'" tho admittedly I slip up on occasion and say "you guys" when reerring to people of both genders.

I do think there are some situations where going too far has happaned - ie when a qualified male is not hired for a job and less qualified woman is. In those instances, the company (biz, govt) should state this is a woman only position and state why.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JaneyCanuck:
I have always thought s/he is quite easy to utilize.

---

quote:

---

don't think there's anything wrong with awkward/inconvenient language, actually. It continues to point out the assumptions our languages are based on, and how those assumptions are changing over the eras. Time will show a solution. In the meantime, stumble on awkwardly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
And I'll use the feminine pronoun when the context is such that 'she' is clearly the more appropriate choice (ex: single heads of households).

---

I propose using inappropriate choices: using "he" for single heads of households and "she" for plumbers -- i.e. when it is not "clearly" the most "appropriate" choice. Hmmm. Maybe not always: I'll probably still use "she" for mothers and "he" for fathers, though it can, occasionally, work out the other way. (That is, one's father can get a sex-change operation and now be a woman. I would take it that she is still one's father?)

BTW, I acknowledge that my own example (of switching back and forth) was stylistically awful -- as is often the case, the point could be made, and elegantly so, with no gender-specific pronouns at all. But, rarely, one really needs the pronouns.

In english besides the third person singular pronoun and the possessive adjectives (his, her) and a few oddities (like actor/actress ) you don't really have to deal with gender in speech. So it might seem easy for you guys -- -- to just use "he or she" when need be.

But in french all of our words have gender. So, with the rise of political corectness, we often end up with sentences like:

"Les Québécois et les Québécoises, les Canadiennes et les Canadiens et doivent prendre exemples sur les partisans et les partisanes de notre organisation qui sont déterminé(e)s a faire de notre pays un endroit plus acueillants pour les immigrants et les immigrantes de toutes origines"...

You have no idea how irritating it can be. First it kills the poetry and the natural passion of speech. Then it allowds bullshit to be wrapped in an appearance of good will that, as this newspeak is being repeated by politicains and spinned by the media, the general public get used to and at some point expects.

And the saddest consequence is that the few who resist this absurd putsh on the language and reclaim their right to speak the truth are being looked down as retarded chauvinist pigs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't find it awkward at all. If you MEAN "he or she" then why wouldn't you SAY "he or she"?

---

No one there has any problem with it.

Of course one can write clumsily with that usage, as Spector demonstrates, above.

But one can also write clearly with it, whereas using "he" to refer to women is both archaic and insensitive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Maybe because you end up with monstrosities like this: "If anyone needs to wash his or her hands before dinner, he or she had better bring his or her own towel and soap."

---

That's silly. I would re-frame it this way:

"If you need to wash your hands before dinner, you're more than welcome to use one of my towels and some of my soap. I'm sure you'll repay the kindness one day."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Québécois in the North:
Here's my view as a francophone. [...]

To me the use of masculine as a neutral term is not sexist; it is sincere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Maybe because you end up with monstrosities like this: "If anyone needs to wash his or her hands before dinner, he or she had better bring his or her own towel and soap."

---

English has a natural and native way of getting around this that has been around for centuries: the use of the pronoun "they". Only schoolmarms and prescriptivist grammarians, with no deep understanding of language in general, or the genius of English in particular, and hobbled by a finely-tuned authoritarian and Victorian sensibility, or perhaps a stick up their ass, put up much of a fuss about this. The usage has been recognized by the OED and by intelligent writers on usage. Those who prickle at it think language is something we should deduce from first principles, which principles presumably sprang forth, fully formed and evident to all, from the minds of prescriptivists like Athena from the mind of Zeus. (Historically, of course, it is the model of Latin that held sway in determining what proper English grammar should be -- an absurdity.)

"If anyone needs to wash their hands before dinner, they had better bring their own towel and soap."

quote:

---

they, pers. pron.

[...]

2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ‘he or she’).

See Jespersen Progress in Lang. §24.

1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf+a psalme scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne. 1535 Fisher Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues. 1749 Fielding Tom Jones viii. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it. 1759 Chesterfield Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a+gloomy temper+they cannot help it. 1835 Whewell in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would. 1858 Bagehot Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety. 1866 Ruskin Crown Wild Olives §38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing. 1874 [see themselves 5].

---

It was she who said she didn't find it awkward at all to use "he or she" or "s/he" rather than some of the alternative circumlocutions like pluralizing the pronouns (your own personal favourite, apparently). She agreed "entirely" with other posters who said there wasn't anything wrong with "awkward/inconvenient language" and "what's wrong with alternating 'he or she' and 'she or he'?"

My post, to which you evidently took great exception, was aimed at showing how awkwardness is not a virtue in language.

Now, which of us was it that has the stick up his ass?

[ 17 October 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

While I generally agree with rasmus's case, I, along with most style guides that even deem it appropriate to address gender-neutral pronouns, find it only works for indefinte individuals: i.e. "Anyone can raise their hands." But, the logic fails when the case is a specific individual whose gender is unknown, like: "The journalist who wrote this piece doesn't know his or her dangling participles from his or her misplaced modifiers." The singular "their" is generally considered inappropriate in that situation. As a matter of personal taste and leanness of prose, I would simply use "she" to avoid the clumpy phrasing.

I thought we were talking about writing, but in speech I will almost always use "him or her" or "he or she." I'm much more discrimnating when it comes to writing.

[ 17 October 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

And your alternative is?

The current PCT is Team Leader

I have always prefered being called "The Master"

I will now use my psychic powers to make you all bow down!

My bugaboo is the plural - 'guys'. It drives my mother nuts to be called 'guys', and so I try to avoid it. But 'gals' doesn't seem to work, and it's just inverting the problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
My bugaboo is the plural - 'guys'.

---

For a gender-neutral version of 'guys', I suggest 'folks'. It usually works. "How are you folks doing?" "You folks coming to the movies tonight?" Maybe a bit too folksy...

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
We really, really need a gender neutral second person plural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah. I guess "dudes and dudettes" would probably get annoying after the first few times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
In writing I tend to alternate, in speech I use whatever seems to make the most sense.

My bugaboo is the plural - 'guys'. It drives my mother nuts to be called 'guys', and so I try to avoid it. But 'gals' doesn't seem to work, and it's just inverting the problem.

We really, really need a gender neutral second person plural. "Y'all" is about as close as we get, and it's not a part of the Canadian idiom (except in parts of Alberta with pretensions).

---

lol... The only people in Alberta that use Y'all are Texas oilman coming up for a visit. I tend to use "You guys" in general conversation and to be honest will probably continue to. I have never had anyone object to it up until now.

If I am writing a document, I usually opt for "the worker" and then use the plural "they, we" when I want a pronoun. Using "He/She" is a poor solution, it doesn't really flow well. I don't like to use "it" for a person, I always felt is was kind of demeaning to use an object pronoun for a person.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alberta Guy:

I tend to use "You guys" in general conversation and to be honest will probably continue to. I have never had anyone object to it up until now. [...]

Using the masculine "man" for "mankind" seems to be catching on, but I am sure it far from satisfy's everyone. If someone came up with a universal gender neutral. I would use it.

---

Must be different circles, "hey guys!" or "Good Morning Guys!" is used often here, but then, usually it is when addressing a group of construction workers, maybe 5% are female.

When your talking about a group comprimising both genders, there are lots of inclusive terms like people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Constitutional Peasant:
Its hard to talk about humans as genderless because they generally aren't

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

Humans typically aren't eye-colourless either, but we rarely need to make reference to a person's eye colour, and we certainly don't need separate pronouns for separate eye colours.

---

Though if we did it would no doubt be a tool of oppression & disparity.

It's a rare day when you see a stetson or a giant belt buckle north of Edmonton

quote:

---

It's a rare day when you see a stetson or a giant belt buckle north of Edmonton

---

Uh..hellooo? Grande Prairie? 'Nuff said.

Never spent any time in Grande Prairie... You know, it could be that fashion has just left me behind. I am going to have to hit Welsh's Saddlery and Western Wear the next time I get into Edmonton.

"Big Hat ~ No Cattle" Classic Alberta Insult!

[ 30 October 2006: Message edited by: Alberta Guy ]

[ 05 November 2006: Message edited by: BrianG ]

[ 05 November 2006: Message edited by: BrianG ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

It is worth noting that, in Philosophy journals (anyway), it is not uncommon for writers to use "she" for the general pronoun, or to switch back and forth between "he" and "she". One gets used to it pretty quickly.

---

Oh, and I disagree with you. We aren't speaking French or Spanish, we are speaking English, and should be conscious of how we use our language to construct our understanding of reality.

BrianG: "It is so nice to see that we can so easily adapt to what is inconsistent and wrong....."

There are two senses of inconsistent: (1) a person is inconsistent if she espouses/believes/claims both a proposition and its negation; and (2) a person is inconsistent if she reacts to similar situations in dissimilar ways. A writer who switches back and forth between "he" and "she" is not being inconsistent in the first sense. And I'm not sure if she is being inconsistent in the second sense, especially if her switching back and forth is done consistently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
Martha: "It is worth noting that, in Philosophy journals (anyway), it is not uncommon for writers to use "she" for the general pronoun, or to switch back and forth between "he" and "she". One gets used to it pretty quickly."

BrianG: "It is so nice to see that we can so easily adapt to what is inconsistent and wrong....."

There are two senses of inconsistent: (1) a person is inconsistent if she espouses/believes/claims both a proposition and its negation; and (2) a person is inconsistent if she reacts to similar situations in dissimilar ways. A writer who switches back and forth between "he" and "she" is not being inconsistent in the first sense. And I'm not sure if she is being inconsistent in the second sense, especially if her switching back and forth is done consistently.

As for whether or not this practice is wrong, there are many senses of 'wrong': morally wrong; grammatically wrong; legally wrong; etc. Presumably BrianG means grammatically wrong. But BrianG should recognize that the grammar of English, in fact, changes: it used to be grammatically wrong to write, "Who did you invite to the party?" But the rules have changed: now it is grammatically acceptable. It used to be grammatically wrong to use 'you' as the informal second person singular -- the correct word was 'thou'. But the grammar on this point has changed as well. So those who switch back and forth between 'he' and 'she' are urging a change in our grammatical rules, something that can and does happen.

---

Touche`, Martha!
[i] I had not considered the possibility of being consistently inconsistent.......

[ii] There is no arguement that grammar changes. My comment was only that some changes are reasonable and some are trite. It is merely my personal opinion that energy wasted on the triviality of pronouns, when there are still so many valuable things to do, seems such a shame.

This arguement is actually in support of the feminist movement, because I constantly see the movement belittled when reasonable discussions come to this particularly trite issue.

This puts me in mind of another "politically correct" inanity recently adopted by the Federal Government's culture of bilingualism: being the trend of persons making speeches to switch from English to French, by paragraphs or even by sentences. This serves to make it nigh impossible for the majority of Canadians to understand the speech, even with the benefit of translators....... now wait a minute..... perhaps that's not altogether a BAD thing!!

[ 05 November 2006: Message edited by: BrianG ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vice Shelton:
It is unacceptable that one gender is seen as the norm...it is indicative of the subjugation of the female gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianG:
So, next you are going to argue that women ought not to be treated as sex objects...?

---

For example "hello, all" as the greeting at the start of a message becomes "Bonjour à toutes et à tous," while a statement that a workshop is open to all becomes "l'atelier est ouvert à
toutes et à tous." Similarly, "all those who have, by their efforts" becomes "toutes celles et tous ceux qui, par leurs efforts, ont."

And "a group of citizens" becomes "un regroupement de citoyennes et de citoyens." And "it's time that all Quebeckers" becomes "il est temps que l'ensemble des Québécoises et des Québécois." And "you are on the sympathizers list" becomes "vous faites partie de la liste de sympathisantes et de sympathisants." And "We ask the MNAs" becomes "on demande aux députées et députés." I could go on.

What are we complaining about?

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

... on the downside, though, that could lead to some truly bizarre mind-bending sentence constructions, such as...

"Sean washed its hands with a towel. It dropped it and picked it up and used it to wipe its hands again."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vice Shelton:
Using "he" is sexist because it implies that maleness is the norm (and the feminine is an anomaly). Interestingly, (but not surprisingly) we see this played out in Canadian politics every day. In politics, a male candidate is the norm, and a female candidate is an anomaly. This is why the physical appearance and personal relationships of female politicians make the news. (Look...SHE is a BLONDE! Wild.)
And when the person said "try using she instead of he and watch the fun," she probably meant in conversation. If I referred to a person as "she" when it was a male, he would be quite offended indeed. But if it was a woman that I referred to as "he," she would be expected to grin and bear it because hey - it's no big deal (right?).
It is unacceptable that one gender is seen as the norm...it is indicative of the subjugation of the female gender.

---

Or it could be something that's just a silly distraction from things that are much more important.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:

... on the downside, though, that could lead to some truly bizarre mind-bending sentence constructions, such as...

"Sean washed its hands with a towel. It dropped it and picked it up and used it to wipe its hands again."

---

Poor example. Is the following less "bizarre and mind-bending":

"Sean and Lisa washed their hands with towels. They dropped them and picked them up and used them to wipe their hands again."

or