Gender Neutral

[wretchedotis]

Interesting read:

Should we use gender-neutral pronouns instead of 'he' and 'she'? - Your Community

[Mess]

Ridiculous. It is not hard to write engaging sentences without refering to gender.

If we are talking about someone we know, that person can be identified by "he" or "she." If we do not know the person, it is acceptable to write, "Someone came into the room. They did not make a sound." There is no confusion there, it is not ambiguous, we know exactly what is meant. Using "they" in the second sentence is indicative of "he or she". Since the pronoun is essentially replacing "he" and "she" in the sentence, the plural is even arguably accurate, it is referencing multiple possibilties.

In cases where we make generalized statements there is no necessity for a neutral pronoun. "People are often daft when it comes to grammar. They would do better if they had a style guide handy." There is no need for a "he or she" or a single neutral pronoun if you word a sentence properly.

[wretchedotis]

It's not hard, sure. But how easy is it to do when you're not paying attention to it?

Would be interesting for things like family law - whereby a judge wouldn't be influenced by whom is whom.

It tickled my fancy when I read it as the subject gets alot of attention here (or so it seems).

[May_May]

I do have to admit that I've used a neutral term for gender a couple of times in the past two weeks, and it has worked well into the conversation.

it

No need to capitalize !

[hadenough]

MM - so funny - "it" is a term my mom has used for years and yes, I myself use it quite often too! Can get a bit confusing though when there's a few "its" - occasionally we have to clarify

Personally, I've found that when I really don't like somebody, I find it near impossible to use their "proper name."

[Epona]

Oh... like it1, it2, it3.... ? :-D

[Tayken]

Ridiculous. It is not hard to write engaging sentences without refering to gender.

If we are talking about someone we know, that person can be identified by "he" or "she." If we do not know the person, it is acceptable to write, "Someone came into the room. They did not make a sound." There is no confusion there, it is not ambiguous, we know exactly what is meant. Using "they" in the second sentence is indicative of "he or she". Since the pronoun is essentially replacing "he" and "she" in the sentence, the plural is even arguably accurate, it is referencing multiple possibilties.

In cases where we make generalized statements there is no necessity for a neutral pronoun. "People are often daft when it comes to grammar. They would do better if they had a style guide handy." There is no need for a "he or she" or a single neutral pronoun if you word a sentence properly.

I agree. There is a point where gender neutral is a bit of a silly problem. If you are refering to someone that is clearly identified by gender it isn't an issue.

Where the gender neutral issue unfolds is in "domestic violence" ("intimate partner abuse") where the neutrality of the ontology used to describe DV (IPA) is all slanted to the male being the abuser and the woman being the victim. Considering the balance in most statistics that IPA happens equally by both genders it is high time that the material become gender neutral.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[billiechic]

in the instance of court documents, you can use "the respondent" or "the applicant" in place of he/she or mother/father.

ITA with Tayken. The only place that it is significantly slanted is in DV publications. And I think that is causing or contributing to the gender bias there.

Once the publications become unbiased we may actually make some progress towards recognizing it as effecting both genders quite equally. I think that would also recognize the impact of emotional/mental abuse in DV cases, as it is understandable that there would be some differences between the type of physical violence committed by a woman, and a man, based on physical capacities of course.