Pronouns

[arwink]

That would be "his." There're many words in English that require context to nail down their exact meaning -- "his" is one of them. The "exclusive language" objectors are looking for any excuse to be offended, IMO..

Or, you know, they could just belong to the gender that's being excluded by its use. Language goes a long way towards shaping how we think, and english is full of subtle power-games that preference the male gender.

I get what you're aiming for here, I really do, but once you spend even a little lime looking at the theory behind the call for gender-equality in pronoun use it's kind of hard to see it from the same point of view.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Or, you know, they could just belong to the gender that's being excluded by its use. Language goes a long way towards shaping how we think, and english is full of subtle power-games that preference the male gender.

I get what you're aiming for here, I really do, but once you spend even a little lime looking at the theory behind the call for gender-equality in pronoun use it's kind of hard to see it from the same point of view.

I know the arguments and the theory behind it; I just don't agree. I don't think the use of "his" in a genderless sense is a conspiracy or a power-game with the intent of excluding women. I think the genderless use of "his" is understood to be genderless. "His" has a gender inclusive meaning or a gender specific meaning depending on context.

Those who protest the gender inclusive sense of pronouns like "his" insist that the word always carries its gender-specific meaning, even when it's used otherwise -- thus, it's always "exclusive." I don't see it that way.

 

[arwink]

I think the genderless use of "his" is understood to be genderless. "His" has a gender inclusive meaning or a gender specific meaning depending on context.

Leaving aside the political stuff that surrounds this arguement, which isn't entirely appropriate for the forum, I think the key change that needs to be made to this statement is "'His <i>had</i> a gender inclusive meaning..."

As you noted in one of your earlier posts, the meaning of words changes. Someone noticed that his wasn't as gender inclusive as we once believed, put the idea out to the world, and now it's stuck in the minds of a lot of people. They no longer feel included when they read he, and even the fact that you've decided that they're wrong means that you think of the word in a different way.

To borrow a phrase that was once thrown around about the OGL - the genie is out of the box. Once the concept that he wasn't neutral hit the public consciousness, it's an uphill battle to make them see it as such once again.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I know the arguments and the theory behind it; I just don't agree. I don't think the use of "his" in a genderless sense is a conspiracy or a power-game with the intent of excluding women.

That's not the argument. The argument is that, whether deliberately or otherwise, it does establish masculinity as the "default" gender.

I think that's nasty.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I'm using they/them/their now, but it's not like I'll stop buying your books, picket your office, or notify the language police if you use a different option.

Also, I think the WotC way is kind of cute -- sort of makes me think of the character as the iconic when they're talking about a class.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

That's not the argument. The argument is that, whether deliberately or otherwise, it does establish masculinity as the "default" gender.

Okay, let me rephrase, then: I don't think the use of "his" in a genderless sense is a conspiracy or a power-game, and I don't think it excludes women.

The genderless use of the word is genderless. It's long been understood to be genderless when used in that manner. Insisting that it's still gender-speficic, regardless of context, is kind of like insisting that someone saying "let's go swing a bat" is promoting cruelty to animals, IMO. Same word. Different context. Different meaning.

I think that's nasty

Indeed. As nasty as you want it to be.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Okay, let me rephrase, then: I don't think the use of "his" in a genderless sense is a conspiracy or a power-game, and I don't think it excludes women.

Sure, you have the right to believe that. I think you're deeply incorrect, of course.

No point continuing the discussion.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

To borrow a phrase that was once thrown around about the OGL - the genie is out of the box. Once the concept that he wasn't neutral hit the public consciousness, it's an uphill battle to make them see it as such once again.

I agree with you, there. The meaning of "he" might, indeed, change so that it can no longer be used in an inclusive sense. Certainly we've moved that direction in the last few decades. Unfortunately for all of us, the issue is still up in the air, so we have to suffer through the weirdness. All unnecessary, IMO, but as you point out, many people believe "he" must carry a masculine meaning in all cases, regardless of intent and context.

Let's hope the public doesn't buy into the concept that the word "women" is offensive, too, or we'll start seeing "women/womyn" wars in mainstream writing, too... :\

 

[mhacdebhandia]

On that score, I'd like to see people learn to use "woman" and "female" correctly.

Hillary Clinton is a "woman", not a "female", but she is a "female senator", not a "woman senator".

It amazes me to see the incorrect usage, especially since people would never dream of talking about "men senators".

 

[Corinth]

When gender is unknown, always go with the masculine form by default.