5 ms·

Write Without Gender

1 points by arcb 11y ago

Our biases in writing English give gender unnecessary importance. Here’s a way to avoid it.

ohjeez 11y ago
Oh god no. Grammar still matters, dammit.
- arcb 11y ago
  Grammar does matter. This article tries to isolate cases in which we can remove implicit gender bias. Sweden's neutral pronoun may be the answer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01/sweden-is-about-to-add-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-to-its-official-dictionary/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01...
tacone 11y ago
This is insanity at best. Genders exist, differences exist, accept them and live with it. And by the way, let's take two languages that use honorifics: french and italian. In those language, the neutral third person does not exist at all. Every being, and every thing is associated to a gender. Take the "sea": in french is feminine, in italian is masculine, and nobody ever gave a dime about it.
Nadya 11y ago
"Sally is working with Brian. They are working on a method to diagnose cancer in lizards." Am I talking about Sally and Brian or only Sally? Does the context help at all? "Sally is working with Brian. She is working on a method to diagnose cancer in lizards." It is now immediately recognized that I am talking about Sally's work. Perhaps Brian is working on a way to detect clogged arteries in lizards and is working on lizard-related research with Sally.
- arcb 11y ago
  This is good feedback. As mentioned below in the thread, using a gender neutral pronoun may serve as an in-between. Sweden's working on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01/sweden-is-about-to-add-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-to-its-official-dictionary/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01... I agree that the write-up is flawed - it tries to take on a deeper problem which someone smarter would probably have solved ages ago, had it been simpler. The thesis boils down to - we have to understand cases where gender shouldn't matter, and have the tools to be able to write appropriately. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
- tacone 11y ago
  Yes, it's just ambiguous. Also, the post fails to understand the honorific form: honorific it is used only when you're talking to a person directly: "are they going to leave the house?" is correct only when you're asking it to the subject itself. Otherwise you would just use he/she or a title name (queen, king, lord etc) If you're looking to replace he/she you should not use an honorific form. You should either use "it", or invent a fourth third person (es, ish, woot, you name it). Still the problem stays: political correctness traded for ambiguity.
  - arcb 11y ago
    You're definitely on to something. Sweden's working on a neutral pronoun. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01/sweden-is-about-to-add-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-to-its-official-dictionary/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01... To respond to the point on recognizing when to use honorifics - various languages around the world conjugate singular third person honorifics to a plural verb, and that's what I was referring to. I wrote the article and will happily claim it's flawed - it tries to take on an old, deep problem with not too many clear outs. It also tries to focus on a specific problem many institutions around the world have with unnecessary bias invoking writing styles. It tries to provide options that can be used practically, while understanding trade-offs.
    - arcb 11y ago
      Additionally, this article does a good job of articulating the case for using 'they': http://www.copyediting.com/epicene-they-gaining-greater-acceptance http://www.copyediting.com/epicene-they-gaining-greater-acce...
  - arcb 11y ago
    You're definitely on to something. Sweden's working on a neutral pronoun. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01/sweden-is-about-to-add-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-to-its-official-dictionary/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01... To respond to the point on recognizing when to use honorifics - various languages around the world conjugate singular third person honorifics to a plural verb, and that's what I was referring to. I wrote the article and will happily claim it's flawed - it tries to take on an old, deep problem with not too many clear outs. It also tries to focus on a specific problem many institutions around the world have with unnecessary bias invoking writing styles. It tries to provide options that can be used practically, while understanding trade-offs.
paulhauggis 11y ago
"Use the pronouns they/them/their." No. We have gender differences and writing so gives a different perspective on the subject at hand. Why are we trying to be the same when we obviously aren't?
- arcb 11y ago
  On this point specifically, let's think about what happens in a professional context that actively tries to look past the gender of the subject and focus on the outcomes delivered by the person. Would you agree that gender can add a bias to a lot of cases where it shouldn't exist?

1 points by arcb 11y ago

Our biases in writing English give gender unnecessary importance. Here’s a way to avoid it.

ohjeez 11y ago

Oh god no. Grammar still matters, dammit.

arcb 11y ago
Grammar does matter. This article tries to isolate cases in which we can remove implicit gender bias. Sweden's neutral pronoun may be the answer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01/sweden-is-about-to-add-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-to-its-official-dictionary/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01...

tacone 11y ago

This is insanity at best. Genders exist, differences exist, accept them and live with it. And by the way, let's take two languages that use honorifics: french and italian. In those language, the neutral third person does not exist at all. Every being, and every thing is associated to a gender. Take the "sea": in french is feminine, in italian is masculine, and nobody ever gave a dime about it.

Nadya 11y ago

"Sally is working with Brian. They are working on a method to diagnose cancer in lizards." Am I talking about Sally and Brian or only Sally? Does the context help at all? "Sally is working with Brian. She is working on a method to diagnose cancer in lizards." It is now immediately recognized that I am talking about Sally's work. Perhaps Brian is working on a way to detect clogged arteries in lizards and is working on lizard-related research with Sally.

arcb 11y ago
This is good feedback. As mentioned below in the thread, using a gender neutral pronoun may serve as an in-between. Sweden's working on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01/sweden-is-about-to-add-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-to-its-official-dictionary/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01... I agree that the write-up is flawed - it tries to take on a deeper problem which someone smarter would probably have solved ages ago, had it been simpler. The thesis boils down to - we have to understand cases where gender shouldn't matter, and have the tools to be able to write appropriately. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
tacone 11y ago
Yes, it's just ambiguous. Also, the post fails to understand the honorific form: honorific it is used only when you're talking to a person directly: "are they going to leave the house?" is correct only when you're asking it to the subject itself. Otherwise you would just use he/she or a title name (queen, king, lord etc) If you're looking to replace he/she you should not use an honorific form. You should either use "it", or invent a fourth third person (es, ish, woot, you name it). Still the problem stays: political correctness traded for ambiguity.
- arcb 11y ago
  You're definitely on to something. Sweden's working on a neutral pronoun. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01/sweden-is-about-to-add-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-to-its-official-dictionary/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01... To respond to the point on recognizing when to use honorifics - various languages around the world conjugate singular third person honorifics to a plural verb, and that's what I was referring to. I wrote the article and will happily claim it's flawed - it tries to take on an old, deep problem with not too many clear outs. It also tries to focus on a specific problem many institutions around the world have with unnecessary bias invoking writing styles. It tries to provide options that can be used practically, while understanding trade-offs.
  - arcb 11y ago
    Additionally, this article does a good job of articulating the case for using 'they': http://www.copyediting.com/epicene-they-gaining-greater-acceptance http://www.copyediting.com/epicene-they-gaining-greater-acce...
- arcb 11y ago
  You're definitely on to something. Sweden's working on a neutral pronoun. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01/sweden-is-about-to-add-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-to-its-official-dictionary/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/01... To respond to the point on recognizing when to use honorifics - various languages around the world conjugate singular third person honorifics to a plural verb, and that's what I was referring to. I wrote the article and will happily claim it's flawed - it tries to take on an old, deep problem with not too many clear outs. It also tries to focus on a specific problem many institutions around the world have with unnecessary bias invoking writing styles. It tries to provide options that can be used practically, while understanding trade-offs.

paulhauggis 11y ago

"Use the pronouns they/them/their." No. We have gender differences and writing so gives a different perspective on the subject at hand. Why are we trying to be the same when we obviously aren't?

arcb 11y ago
On this point specifically, let's think about what happens in a professional context that actively tries to look past the gender of the subject and focus on the outcomes delivered by the person. Would you agree that gender can add a bias to a lot of cases where it shouldn't exist?