cations of the language they use, a higher degree of precision
Will result. It should be remembered that imprecise word choices
may be interpreted as biased, discriminatory or demeaning,
even if they are not intended to be."
UNESCO Guidelines on Gender-Neutral Language
The UNESCO Guidelines on Gender-Neutral explains that gender-neutrality allows a language to be more precise by only using gendered language when it truly applies to a single gender. Perhaps more importantly, gender-neutral language in English ends the male-bias in words meant to describe all humans like man and mankind. The ideas outlined in UNESCO's handbook are not particularly unique; they are just an explicit set of guidelines for the larger movement away from traditionally male-oriented language. The handbook is full of suggestions on how to rephrase sentences like "Man's search for knowledge has led him to improve scientific methodology" to the un-gendered "The search for knowledge has led to improvements in scientific methodology."
In a piece for Men's News Daily, Theodore Dalrymple criticizes such gender-neutral language as "censorship" by social forces and sub-editors. He argues that though words like "mankind" are gendered, their replacements (humankind) are often longer, in his view uglier, and even gendered themselves (humankind still contains the word man). Dalrymple's argument seems very traditional in his refusal to change his use of English. However, he also raises some valid points, such as the continued presence of male-orientation in words that are supposedly gender-neutral. He is also correct to point out that in some instances, gender-neutral language can cause sentences to be less concise. Like the UNESCO report, Dalrymple's criticisms are not unique, but explicitly lay out some of the criticisms of gender-neutrality in language. However, unlike Dalrymple, we need not immediately dismiss the goal of gender-neutrality in language. Instead, his criticism raises the valid questions of how best to make the English language more precise and less male-oriented. In some cases, a simple replacement of words as outlined in the UNESCO report will suffice. In other cases though, as Dalrymple points out, there does not exist a way to concisely express an idea without suggesting a gender. Perhaps the creation or wider-spread usage of new words and pronouns would solve the problems outlined above.
References:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001149/114950mo.pdf
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/04/05/feminist-censorship-and-language-reform/
Great topic! Do you think there are cases of gendered language that are worse offenders than others? In what cases is gendered language particularly offensive or discriminatory? Do you think Dalrymple would be equally excited about keeping gendered language if the generic was feminine? For example, “Lady’s search for knowledge has led her to improve scientific methodology.”???? Are there any cases of an invented pronoun that has been widely adopted and used in a natural language?
ReplyDelete