7 ms·
> you’re already distracting roughly 50% of your potential readership If by 50% you mean 100% of the women having trouble making it through an article with mul
by CathyWest 8y ago
> you’re already distracting roughly 50% of your potential readership
If by 50% you mean 100% of the women having trouble making it through an article with multiple instances of "he" not immediately followed by "or she", that's a pretty bold claim.
I suspect the key factor in people's inability to focus on the central point of the article lies in their political persuasion rather than the shape of their genitalia.
- GuiA 8y ago50% refers to the mix of male and female people who get distracted by this; in my experience as a technical writer who would always use “he” when I was less experienced, perhaps 70% of women and 30% of men? It was certainly one aspect of my writing I got a lot of feedback on. Changing that habit was fairly easy, and has entirely solved the problem. I’m not sure what’s political about pointing out that “the user” of eg a computer system is not always a “he”, but if you want to bring the conversation there, have fun. If anything, it’s starting to feel to me like people with no interest in technical writing are coming out of the woodwork and making this political!
- CathyWest 8y ago> 50% refers to the mix of male and female people who get distracted by this; in my experience as a technical writer who would always use “he” when I was less experienced, perhaps 70% of women and 30% of men? But who were these people? I don't doubt that there exists a population such that half of it complains about lack of gender neutral language in technical writing, but it does not necessarily follow that the same half should also be arbiters of techincal writing style. > It was certainly one aspect of my writing I got a lot of feedback on. Changing that habit was fairly easy, and has entirely solved the problem. > > I’m not sure what’s political about pointing out that “the user” of eg a computer system is not always a “he”, but if you want to bring the conversation there, have fun. Back when the convention in English (and various other languages) was that male pronouns were used in mixed or unspecified situation there was no need to point this out, it was given by the convention. Pronouns with masculine grammatical gender being exclusively applicable to men is a recent innovation, without which the problem you are trying to solve wouldn't even exist. These shifts in meaning can of course happen organically, but I find it very curious that this particular one happened at the same time as the rise of feminism in the 20th century. More extreme examples of the same politicised language is using "womyn" instead of "woman" in order to prevent it from ending in "man".