Pabitra Mukhopadhyay


This conversation is closed.

He, she or s/he? Should languages be made gender neutral or be left on their own to preserve literary integrity?

My wife hates to be called an actress. She prefers ‘actor’ despite being reminded that semantically actor is not a gender neutral word. She maintains that words like author, actor, and doctor stress primarily on profession not gender.
I have a sneaking feeling she is feminist.
Feminists have long argued that sexist language can have real world consequences for gender relations and the relative status of men and women, and recent research suggests that grammatical gender can shape how people interpret the world around them along gender lines.
But language is as much a communication tool as literature. Some argue that steward and stewardess are distinct but equal terms and dropping one for another takes away the beauty of literary expression.
Interestingly there are a number of genderless languages, genderless in the less that these have no grammatical gender but have specific words to recognize gender. There are also natural gender languages which have evolved through a constant process on conscious neutralization of grammatical genders.
Things start to get serious when studies of Jennifer L. Prewitt-Freilino, T. Andrew Caswell and Emmi K. Laakso on the gendering of languages come to fore where after investigating 111 languages of the world their findings suggest that countries where gendered languages are spoken evidence less gender equality compared to countries with other grammatical gender systems. Furthermore, countries where natural gender languages are spoken demonstrate greater gender equality, which may be due to the ease of creating gender symmetric revisions to instances of sexist language.
Norway and Sweden show Global Gender Gap Indices of .82 and .81 (1 being ideally gender equal) and both these countries have natural gender languages. Yemen scores a GGG index of .46 with a gendered language.
Do you agree with this co-relation?

Closing Statement from Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

If language is supposed to be anything that reflects human consciousness, it needs to account for the discrimination towards women at one point or other. Societies may work consciously to change it towards gender neutrality or simply gender neutrality should impact it in meaningful ways. It may not be conclusive at this stage what changes what but this discussion leaves ample indications that it may not be wise just to ignore it.

  • thumb
    Apr 1 2013: It is not the language that holds the bias but the users.
    • thumb
      Apr 2 2013: Exactly. That is why users change, manipulate and discriminate the semantics. The user mindset is retained in languages.
    • Apr 7 2013: This seems sort of true, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone demonstrated that a gendered language can conduce gender bias. If you're using a language that correlates different things to different genres, that's likely to have some sort of influence. Perhaps especially on children.
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2013: In response to a bunch of the comments in this thread, I think this is worth considering: Our languages shape our identities and how we perceive the world, so our labels are extremely important. I always write "their"/"they" and my more progressive professors (several of them have very postmodern-derived approaches, which is wonderful) take no issue with it, because languages are continually growing. Not everyone identifies as "male" or "female" so these terms exclude people who do not shove themselves into either of the two linguistically available boxes, nor are all who identify as "female" identical. It is a lot like saying "black" and "white" when these terms mean noting essential as no two people who fall under the category "white" have identical skin colouring, and that "grey area" between albino and ebony encompasses just about everyone. Basically, to use language to assert that difference is important maintains the social significance of difference, and therefore sexism and racism and every other bigotry are permitted to persist. I would certainly not advocate for changing it in books already written though, because our history shapes who we are, it's nothing to be ashamed of unless we don't grow from it.
  • Mar 19 2013: Most of the languages prevalent in the world were evolved and developed many years ago. Sociological and cultural factors might have played an influential role in shaping these languages. As a result, we have a wide array of languages with diversity. Some have different verbs for different genders(e.g. Marathi/Hindi), some have different nouns/adjectives for different genders(Sanskrit), some are indifferent(Japanese).The beauty of languages lies in their differences and it should be retained.There must be a certain specific reason why these languages evolved this way. Unless the words are offensive or disrespectful, they should not be changed. So I think, it is not about language but attitude of society to perceive people on the basis of their gender. It's the question of gender inequality and not of the language.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: Good point Amruta. May I give you two points of thought?
      1. Evolution is an ongoing process. So it is supposed to be working on languages today. It is not that languages evolved many years ago and then froze.
      2. Evolution normally does not carry forward junk. Which fails by evolution gets extinct. Why that should not be applicable for languages?
      • Mar 20 2013: Agree. Some languages become extinct because they are not flexible or too difficult to learn. Languages should evolve as per the changing times. But essence of languages -say, some basic grammar rules or some basic expressions/words should not completely be lost in this process. There must be some experts studying languages and changes occurred to them in different levels of evolution. So even if the language becomes extinct or not spoken by many any more,we can have knowledge of how a specific language was when in its original form.

        In the above "He, She or S/he context", I think, all languages should evolve in the way that users will have the option to use either gender related words or neutral words.
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2013: Pabitra and Amruta,
        You write Pabitra..."Evolution is an ongoing process. So it is supposed to be working on languages..."

        Does the process of evolution actually "work" on any particular element of evolution? Or do things simply evolve, as Amruta suggests...."Languages should evolve as per the changing times".

        I agree with you Pabitra, that the process of evolution probably does not "carry forward junk", and, "which fails by evolution gets extinct". Don't you think that automatically happens with words and language use?

        Like, you know like, we have new words becoming like dominant, like all the time, like you know???

        I'm noticing that students coming to the U.S from other countries, are picking up the filler word "like", as a normal part of English!
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2013: Colleen, evolution can be seen both ways. When the focus is on the system and it's state and we look for a reason why it changed, evolution comes as a process; distinct from the system. But when we focus on the change the system can be said to be evolving. I'd prefer the first view simply because in that view system and environments are recognized as separate entities and we become careful as part of the system, civilization in this case, how we interact with it.
          When language is a system it's changes are attributed to the environments and it's evolution can preferably seen as a force acting on it, changing it bit by bit, by trial and error, keeping the 'useful' and rejecting the 'useless'.
          Things get complicated, however, when both the system and the environment start to modify each other. We call evolution 'natural' when the influence is from environment to the system so when both elements start modifying each other, the evolution cannot be called natural.
          Amruta argues in favor of retention of diversity whereas in reality we are seeing homogenization of cultures. I have a feeling languages are changing subtly towards homogenization. The core of my debate wants to examine if the conscious neutralization of genders in languages will interfere with the natural evolution of language. I mean should we change language to facilitate a social gender enlightenment or rather leave language on its own and expect social gender enlightenment to work on language, which is a normal or natural way how languages evolve.
          Sumana minds being called an actress on account of her certain experience in social context which she possibly dislikes. But if there is enough social enlightenment along gender lines may be Sumana's great grand daughter will not mind being called an actress. If by then we have neutralized the language along gender lines she will be left with neutral words like blogger, consultant, doctor and actor.
          Will you consider that a loss or good riddance?
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2013: I am aware of evolution Pabitra, and I agree that it is a process. I believe, and it seems to be thought of, as a natural you insightfully changes bit by bit...trial and error...keeping the useful and rejecting the useless.....I totally agree.

        I do not perceive Amruta arguing in favor of retention of diversity. In fact, Amruta clearly states..."Languages should evolve as per the changing times", which seems to be the same thing you are suggesting?

        Your question, as stated...."Should languages be made gender neutral or be left on their own to preserve literary integrity?", and your question above..."should we change language to facilitate a social gender enlightenment..." suggests to me the idea that the language is manipulated to "make" something happen....maybe awareness of equality?

        When we try to "maike" something happen, rather than allowing something to take a natural course, it doesn't seem like evolution, because I do not perceive natural evolution as being manipulated. Besides that, I am a very practical person and cannot imagine the time and energy it would take to change ALL languages!!!!! That seems VERY overwhelming!
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2013: Pabitra, my dear one, are we talking about language? Or climate change?

        I think/feel if a country chooses to change their language, that is fine. The last time I checked, I didn't have much influence with the world leaders, so if that is their be it.

        You asked..."
        " Should languages be made gender neutral or be left on their own to preserve literary integrity?"

        I believe that if a country wants to change their language, it is a choice they make, and I respect their choice. I believe my language is evolving, and if someone, somewhere is intent on changing the language, I will adapt:>)
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2013: I understand the history of oppression and inequality which must end. But doesn't making a deal out of these issues make the language awkward? Doesn't this mandatory use of s/he in our language only remind of the inequality? When will people stop getting offended and stop paying attention to these things?
  • thumb
    Mar 31 2013: This debate is not about English language's gender bias but about gender bias of languages as a whole and about the propriety of conscious neutralization of that bias in the context of linguistic integrity. But since we cannot discuss all languages in detail and English is the language of communication here, most discussions are veering around it, which I don't find unnatural.
    We see men and women as different and distinct. That is a biological truth. Socially, however, seeing such difference/distinction runs the risk of discrimination towards one, and I contend women. Sexist language is one expression of that risk. For English, sociolinguistically, there are clear expressions of discrimination towards women in as much as the language statistically exhibits more references of women as inferior to men than contrary.
    I would have been happy if I could see 'sexual distinction' in English as simplistically as Paul Lillebo did. Unfortunately, I see it right from the morphology of the language. Morpheme prefixes and suffixes such as -ess or -ette are used to derive feminine genders of words which enjoy the right to own the context with masculine bias. This reinforces my belief that linguistic expression of English language attests the biologically unfounded belief : women came from men or derived from men.
    Interestingly such derived feminine gendered words, by rule, do not imply just a difference and therefore equality. Semantically, the gendered pair words Master - Mistress, Governor - Governess, Call boy - Call girl are not of equal social meaning. I hope one will not dispute the degeneration of social class and importance of the feminine gender in each case.
    Even Man and Woman are not equal in meaning. I bid you to check the dictionaries to confirm the higher, broader and more powerful connotations of the word 'Man' compared to 'Woman'. If this is not bias, I don't know what is.
    • thumb
      Apr 1 2013: Labeling my contribution as "simplistic" certainly simplifies the task of evaluation for our fellow debaters. Strange, for one whose claimed mission is to rid our syntax of biased semantic labels.

      About your presumably non-simplistic recitation above, you say that the fact that the terms "Man and Woman are not equal in meaning," with "more powerful connotations of the word Man," shows conclusively that this is a result of bias. ("If this is not bias, I don't know what is.") But you haven't at all proved that these differences are the result of bias, only that they are different. The reason could perhaps be bias, but it could as well be experience and assessment. What investigations have you done to show that the uses of the words, over thousands of years, are not based on experience rather than simply bias?
      • thumb
        Apr 2 2013: Dear Paul,
        I am sorry if you didn't like my assessment of your argument as 'simplistic'. I would humbly draw your attention to the fact that here in TED there is provision for such assessment by anybody by way of clicking 'Thumbs up (Well argued!)', so I have not breached any any code of conduct, I suppose. I respect your contribution but like every one retain the right to assess it too. Kindly do not take it as anything personal.
        I am also sorry that you express your inability to elucidate the biological basis of your assertion, despite declaring your authority as a biologist. I am not one but love the subject and consider myself a student of it.
        As regards my investigation, I am also limited by character limitation here. But for you and anyone interested I propose an easy enough test. Take four authentic dictionaries like Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Cambridge and Macmillan; look up 'Man', count the contextual meanings (definitions) including idioms and note. Do the same exercise for 'Woman'. Compare.
        I find it very difficult to accept 'man' as representing human race on the basis of experience.
  • Mar 28 2013: Languages changes overtime. They are very dynamic, so in my opinion any attempt to preserve literary integrity are stupid.

    For those of you who are feminist, instead of calling an actress an actor. Why not calling an actor an actress?
    • thumb
      Mar 28 2013: Good point. But poets are very stupid then. i write poetry, I am stupid too. :)
      I am least perturbed to admit that I have stopped living my life solely on reason and logic. I put this debate to resolve a personal dilemma. In one part I think language should change to appreciate and express the social changes - gender equality in this case. In another part I shall miss words and usages that make me inspired to be a literary artist.
      I am possibly seeing the ray of hope, still a feeling basically, that the change may bring new beauty.
      If you give me good enough reward and respect for acting, I have no, repeat NO, problem to be called an actress. And i am no feminist.
  • Mar 27 2013: The only place gender language actually has a role is in the doctor's office. Outside of that, it's a leftover mechanism from an archaic part of the mind - one that can only group things into a few simple containers.

    Gender itself is really just a mix of personality traits that are linked to the reproductive role of that organism. The problem with us is that, in relations to gender, is that we always attempt to stuff 7 billion people into just two of them, even though the variety of 'genders' increases every day.

    Variety is hard/scary to deal with, so it's much easier to place everyone into two 'roles' and expect them to act accordingly. Are you a big, muscular woman? Are you a short, skinny male? Do you act according to what your culture dictates for your sex? Does your sexuality match the preferred norm? It doesn't matter who or what you actually are, because at the end you're still just 'he' or 'she', and those two terms invoke certain connotations that are 'expected' to be acknowledged and conformed to, or in the case of a reader of the terms, invoke a certain image.

    That is the real debate. Conformity and codependency to a term that's used to describe oneself, even though the definition of it might hardly be 'you' in reality. You also see great amounts of anger when males are females are considered with more equal terms, usually from the male population.

    Why does it matter whether I know the sex of the person delivering my mail? The only thing in your body that cares is the sexual reproductive parts of it. That's the part of human beings that actually wants gender language to remain in place.

    The languages that assign genders to items illustrates this all that well. They have set connotations/expectations for males/females and assign those attributes to items that they feel mimic them. Why? Because that's the only way in which they can (currently) think - with stereotypes.

    Replace the word "gender" with "personality" and you start to see how silly it
  • thumb
    Mar 27 2013: Language is a key element of our culture and there seems to be proof that it influences our world view.

    For example see Keith Chen's talk 'Could your language affect your ability to save money?'

    There are other folklore examples which seem to make similar connections between language and identity. In Europe we tend to associate cultures which have 'Romance languages' (e.g. French, Italian) with being more 'romantic' than those which have Germanic languages.

    So as our culture changes it makes sense that our language should change with it. Personally I would not like to see all language differences disappear.

    A social mono-culture could be as risky as an agricultural one.
    • Mar 27 2013: It wouldn't be socially mono though. You'd just start seeing a gigantic variety in personality and thoughts, compared to the two that we're currently being told to stick to. Personality and individuality essentially replace the two current molds of 'she' and 'he'.

      In other words, human beings start dividing themselves in other ways, outside of what's simply between their legs. You foster variety rather than stifle it (as how it mostly is now, especially in the poorer/more war-driven countries).
  • Mar 25 2013: I have "gender issues" or "gender identity issues" or whatever, and that literally stops me from learning Spanish, which would be really useful in my area. I could never call myself by the "appropriate" gender ending in classes. I use gender neutral terms when speaking about myself. To have to constantly refer to myself as a specific gender in everything I say... makes me a little nuts.

    I like English because it lets you (mostly) pick your battles. Sibling is useful but a little generic. "Sister" or "brother" actually relevant sometimes. I sometimes wish we had a gender-specific word for cousins. "Actor" not as relevant. "Doctor" Not relevant at all.

    In case you haven't noticed... I avoided stating a gender either direction. :D
    • thumb
      Mar 26 2013: That's great actually. The languages never acknowledge various shades between male and female.
  • Mar 24 2013: I think we must remember that words are symbols or maps of reality and not reality itself. This said, every word, offensive, colorful, kind, or "..." has value and should be cherished and preserved.

    Language is the artistic medium for each and everyone of us. We paint our experiences using a palette of words.

    Let's not start eating our crayons lest our images become too monotone.
  • Mar 23 2013: This is a massive question that becomes increasingly difficult to answer the more we try to understand what it actually asks.

    Is it possible it's more a culturally conditioned issue than a condition of gendered language? Does language influence culture or did culture influence language? It would take a very cleverly designed study to parse the distinction, I'm thinking a retrospective cross cultural meta analysis of the etiology of modern languages for several countries with disparate gender equalities. The control would have to be from a language which developed in a country where there has been equality from the beginning. A huge undertaking.
    • thumb

      . .

      • 0
      Mar 26 2013: This study "a retrospective cross cultural meta analysis of the etiology of modern languages for several countries with disparate gender equalities." is an EXCELLENT idea Andrew. Is there a country where there has been equality from the beginning?
      • Mar 26 2013: Carolyn Mcauley (posted below this reply) may be able to lend directions.
        • thumb

          . .

          • 0
          Mar 27 2013: Interesting - marked for further study -Thanks Andrew :-)

          "There is already a people who are gender neutral regarding words...they are in Zaire, Africa: Mbuti tribe ....The Mbuti tribe only have one word for elder,peer and child." This next part shows they are really smart: " They advocate competition as unacceptable as it isolates the winner and saddens the losers "

          5 Languages spoken in Zaire: French, Lingala · Kongo, Swahili · Tshiluba

          A sample of the language is:
          Bantu bonsu badi baledibwa badikadile ne badi ne makokeshi amwe. Badi ne lungenyi lwa bumuntu ne kondo ka moyo, badi ne bwa kwenzelangana malu mu buwetu.

          " All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. "

          Beautiful !!
      • Mar 27 2013: I chuckled when I read "Brotherhood" and can only assume their gender neutral word for that interpersonal relationsip doesn't directly translate to English, though camaraderie might work :P
        • thumb

          . .

          • 0
          Mar 28 2013: You are right!! That is funny :-) ....It seems English is the one needing to be'll take time but we can fix it. What word can we use to improve our language?

          " All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of _______________ - (Insert your better / best word?)

          I do like camaraderie...
  • thumb
    Mar 23 2013: Words are POWERFUL things. They can inspire or they can hold us back. For too long, the words "He" and "She" have been used against the "She" persons. There is a place for them, but there is also a NEED for gender neutral words.

    have you seen the TED talk where a linguist discovered a correlation between savings rates in countries with a language that use a future tense and those countries with languages that don't have them. i.e. Some languages say "It will rain tomorrow" whereas others say "It rain tomorrow". Those persons speaking languages that do not include a future tense have far higher savings rates than those who use languages such as English.

    Words are powerful unto themselves. Words have meanings. If there is no word to convey meaning, then people are harmed. Such as women in situations where gender is meaningless but used as a weapon anyhow.
    • thumb
      Mar 23 2013: It looks though many believe here that languages are results of our thoughts and not vice verse. I find it difficult to accept. Some argue that gender neutrality in a language is no measure of gender equality in the countries/societies where such languages are spoken. I have noticed that it was argued a conscious gender neutralization of languages is only a cosmetic dressing over the fissure across the gender lines.
      I think there is a lack of understanding regrading how a conscious gender neutralization works on a language. Such processes are not disruptive but incremental and works over huge spans of time, even centuries. I think such long and deep process cannot possibly be academic experiments but rather manifestation of societies' urge to shake free from gender discrimination. If English is not sufficiently gender neutral even today it might mean lack of true will by societies/countries to see women as equal where the language is spoken natively.
      I am not very fond of so called feminism which appears to seek special attention to women rather than true equality and I like women being different from men. I mean steward and stewardess are equal words - but what is the stress here? On stewardship or the gender of the person?
  • thumb

    Gord G

    • +1
    Mar 23 2013: Gender neutral and sexist language are distinctly different issues. The former is a question of designation. The latter is a grossly inappropriate bias.

    The implementation of gender neutrality in language will no more eradicate sexism than a fresh coat of paint on a slum will eradicate poverty. To object to unique designations is to infer that one designation is greater than the other. Gender specific titles actually promote equality by creating a platform to discuss the underlying bias.
    • thumb
      Mar 23 2013: Thank you for your opinion. But that gender bias and sexist language go hand in hand is not a matter of speculation anymore. I have cited peer reviewed research publication that concludes that grammatical gender in languages can shape how people interpret the world around them along gender lines. Also that the gender gap is smaller in countries where languages have been naturalized.
      • thumb

        Gord G

        • 0
        Mar 23 2013: Gender bias is different than gender neutral language.

        I'm suggesting the language didn't create the bias. The underlying bias defined the language. Eliminating the language denies there is a difference between genders.

        What needs to be eliminated is the belief that one gender is superior or inferior to the other. If the language is neutralized so is the the bias of the past will be supplanted by a denial of the difference. I don't believe either is a healthy position to adopt.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Mar 23 2013: Thanks Carolyn. That's interesting. Tribes are proto-societies. Can you please tell us more about the language of Mbuti?
      • Comment deleted

  • thumb

    . .

    • +1
    Mar 21 2013: I am with you wife on this. Changing the English language to gender-neutral would be a leap for mankind. It would greatly speed up the process of ending oppression and inequality, which must end if we wish to move forward . People in society are there to work and a lot of energy and time has been wasted by seeing their gender instead of their contribution, all at the expense of progress and economic growth.

    Literature and poetry, are free to be as they always are in a different class. And, getting a job, labor and being a contributing member of the economy is not the poetry part of life. Literary integrity and gender integrity and human integrity will all benefit from this change to a neutral language. Everyone should be able to get a job they are trained and fit for and earn their living.
    • thumb
      Mar 21 2013: Thank you Juliette. I like your straight forward honesty. :)
      But wait now, how come ladies here are standing beside my wife? :D
      • thumb

        . .

        • 0
        Mar 21 2013: we are all one......and when we stand on her side, we are automatically on yours (and vice versa ;-)❥
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2013: Language evolves, language always reflects the culture that created it.
    Our languages in the western culture have gone through ages where men and women had their specific role and place in society. These days, that's very rare, everybody is considered equal, and should get a fair possibility to apply for any job. So yes, adapt the language, let it reflect the culture we stand for, and so make it a natural gender language!
  • thumb
    Mar 20 2013: G'day Pabitra

    I think you’re as a big a worry as me somehow, you would fit in fine obviously & don't worry about the beauties chasing you just worry about the bronze Aussie blokes after your misses. :)

    • thumb
      Mar 20 2013: That's a distinct possibility Mathew. However, I have enough worries of that kind here :)
      After head banging for 20 years together, I honestly wonder why she put up with me this long. May be women feel safe with men of lesser caliber than theirs. Or may be she just loves me.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2013: Haha.....I'm in the same boat as I keep saying to my misses why do you put up with it maybe you should find yourself a newer model!!
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2013: I would advise your misses to stick to old, safer and trusted model as long it is functional ;)
    • thumb

      . .

      • 0
      Mar 23 2013: "For who can always act? but he,
      To whom a thousand memories call,
      Not being less but more than all
      The gentleness he seemed to be,
      But seemed the thing he was, and join'd
      Each office of the social hour
      To noble manners, as the flower
      And native growth of noble mind;
      And thus he bore without abuse
      The grand old name of Gentleman."


      Without good role models during developmental years (ages 10-18), reaching that degree of dignified chivalry is a struggle. Then at adulthood and marriage, young men have to wing it. So it would be helpful when fine gentlemen , like Matthew and Pabitra, would write books, to reach out to them and be that healthy figure for the young men of the world to emulate.
      • thumb
        Mar 23 2013: G'day Juliette

        Quite a nice & exact poem but it certainly doesn't refer to me for the main reason I couldn't put myself in my uncles shoes who was a true gentleman.

        Maturity is a funny word to use because I wouldn't say that I was mature as I can be quite a nutter at times however not usually to the bounds of carless immaturity. I’m afraid most blokes are or seem to be self-centred especially when they get with their mates & once mixed with immaturity this combination can become quite unbecoming but if we also add in a little macho-ness we have a cocktail of self-deprivation in one’s mannerism, (Bohemianism).

        • thumb

          . .

          • +1
          Mar 23 2013: Hi Mathew,

          Maybe you can write about your uncle!! I am sure anyone who has a long standing 'living' marriage qualifies to contribute to the mentoring of our youth. We have a joke here about six-degrees of Kevin. Amongst other things, it means that we are six people removed from knowing Kevin; a gentleman ;-)lol.

          I totally agree with you, it is best to steer clear of that cocktail all together. In the end of the day, it won't do anyone any good. Actually, it won't do anyone any good at any time of the day!!

          Meanwhile we need another column now for new definitions for words like " maturity "...will include responsible, thoughtful, kind, honorable, fun, fair, flexible & right amounts of nuttiness!! lol.
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2013: Removing gender differentiation in language and in the society are two completely different things.
    While there has been some evidence to show that the mother tongue one speaks may influence some of the cognitive processes in the mind (I suggest and recommend reading Guy Deutscher's book "Through the Language Glass" for a thoroughly insightful analysis of this phenomenon), it remains limited only to certain areas of the human experience, and logical reasoning is certainly not one of them.
    Admittedly, the linguistic system may influence one's associations about objects and people, but it is only one of the factors to determine the general social position of a person or a group of people. Historic development, contemporary social trends, influence of religion, etc. all work their way into our perception and judgment.
    So, to sum up, I do recognize that language can in fact influence how we think about people, but even if it were possible to instantly switch to a universal gender-neutral linguistic system, it would most likely still not solve any of the burning issues that sparked this discussion in the first place.
    • Mar 19 2013: is removing gender differentiation in society desirable? to me it's quite clear that men and women are different - equal, but different - and i see no problem with acknowledging this obvious fact in language or anything else. what's wrong with referring to a woman as she? it's the female equivalent term to 'he', and denotes no inferiority.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: "Removing gender differentiation in language and in the society are two completely different things." I am not sure. I shall try to get the book. Meanwhile can you please explain why you think so?
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2013: It is known that if a language does not have a word for a certain phenomenon, it does not mean that its speakers cannot comprehend it. For example, there are languages with only two words for color (roughly corresponding to "light" and "dark"), and yet, its speakers are perfectly capable of distinguishing all the colors of the visible spectrum.
        In the same way, if we removed the male/female differentiation from language, and invented gender-neutral pronouns and, for the sake of the argument, names for professions, it would still not make people any less aware of the factual reality that people do, in fact, come in more than one gender and that we are all able to perceive and understand this.
        So my argument is that making changes in language alone wouldn't do much good in obtaining more equality for the genders in the society. Deep social changes, and changes in the mindsets of people, are necessary if we want any concrete improvement. It is not the words that are the problem, it is the associations that are connected with them. When we stop dominantly associating the word "actress" with appearance, and "actor" with actual talent, then we'll be on a good path toward equality.
        • Mar 20 2013: just an fyi i think in support of your argument, here in japan there are 2 personal pronouns, 'san' which is female or for either gender, and 'kun' which is for males only, yet there are no men complaining that the word 'kun' is discriminatory, and it has been argued that gender inequality is much larger in japan (personally i disgree, but that's another story).
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2013: "So my argument is that making changes in language alone wouldn't do much good in obtaining more equality for the genders in the society. Deep social changes, and changes in the mindsets of people, are necessary if we want any concrete improvement. It is not the words that are the problem, it is the associations that are connected with them. When we stop dominantly associating the word "actress" with appearance, and "actor" with actual talent, then we'll be on a good path toward equality. "
          I am examining how language can affect deep social changes in the mindsets of people in the first place. My wife's or Colleen's views are indicative of their respective experiences how they have confronted the words like 'actress' in their lives. I think there is an insight to gained from that.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2013: If seeing how language can (or cannot?) influence the mind is what you're going for, I really do recommend Guy Deutscher's book like I said above, it was very eye-opening for me.
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2013: in a way we already have gone from he/she to e. . time to capitalize on the E, for U, as I . . . put them all on a basic capital letter . . . (as in drop the yo from yoU
    I find it interesting that in Holland, we have he/hij. She/zij. they/zij, she is /zij zij. and they zijn.
    in other words, 'She' and 'is' are the same words. while the pleural is femine as well.
    I do not know if any of the other languages have a similar.. I would think it would put a whole different slant on life.
    they also have jij or je for you. wij, for we and gij. . the genderless term, and of Capitalized for God. . .
    • Mar 18 2013: In Swedish we now have not only han (he), hon (she) but also hen as a pronoun for both.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: 'e' is a new think I learnt here. I am wondering how my poetry will feel with all 'he' and 'she' replaced with 'e'.
      • thumb
        Mar 28 2013: there's always poetic license., no?
        • thumb
          Mar 28 2013: Poetry is one great artistic expression of the humans, but art embodies aesthetics and appreciation which are always influenced by enlightenment and changing social orders. So the license should not be taken as a practical determinant of gender identities.
          I mean, 'she' as it comes in poetry most often deals with emotionality of feminine genders whereas it does hardly matter if the medical surgery undergone by someone comes from the hands of a female or male.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: My native language is Persian
    In this case, Persian is wonderful and I really like it just for this matter
    Persian doesn't have He/she or "ess" for females. In fact in Persian you can't specify gender in words and language as we see in English, French, Arabic and etc.
    This is very cool. I think as we go, gender in languages will fades away. One example is "guys" that used to be just for males but now females can use it too
    I wish a language without these kind of words.

    P.S: Even with Persian that is a gender less languages, but I see sexist action a lot more than lots of countries. It's not just the language, still the key is people.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: If you are from Iran, your country's GGG index is 0.58 and HDI is 0.76. GGG stands for Global Gender Gap and HDI stands for Human Development Index. The full names of the sub-scores for the Global Gender Gap Index are "Economic Participation and Opportunity", "Educational Attainment", "Health and Survival", and "Political Empowerment." All quantitative variables range from 0 to 1.
    • thumb

      . .

      • +1
      Mar 21 2013: Happy New Ruz Farokh!!
  • Mar 16 2013: Correlation =/= causation, the cultural representation of women and the way in which they are portrayed in media, I believe, would be the biggest influences on gender inequality.

    Empower women with equal rights and equal opportunities for education and equality will come in time. There is no quick fix.

    I feel it would be ridiculous to make language gender neutral. As much as some more radical feminists will argue to the contrary, men and women ARE different and will always be different.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: I still wonder if a lady will like to be addressed as a, say, Chairman. Or if Lalia Ali can be called a boxer why Angelina Jolie will be referred as an actress. Is language out of the scope of equal rights?
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: While I have been corrected for doing this, I use a plural pronoun, such as "they", went referring to an unknown individual. An example would be, "If a person wanted one they better act quickly." This avoids the awkward "he/she."

    Your wife has a real dilema. She is in a profession the gives out awards to female actresses and male actors because that is the way the parts are written. Granted actors of both genders have acted in reverse gender roles. "Linda Hunt, Hillary Swank, and Charlize Theron are in the elite circle of the very few actresses to receive Oscars for such movies." says Yahoo contributor Rianne Hill Soriano. Should it be male and female actors instead of actor and actress? Does either form avoid the issue?

    At some point transgender actors will need to be considered.

    But while feminism can complain, we do need to face the fact that XX & XY have they differences and we have to accept it.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: Thank you for your response Theodore. Linguistic constructions and propagation have myriad ways and they are interesting study. But I am not clear by any logic why a professional should be identified by gender. You mentioned actors doing reverse gender roles like say, Dustin Hoffman playing Tootsie. In Indian Folk Drama traditions there are notable actors who exclusively did female characters. But do we care really if one is treated by a female or male doctor or a good book comes from a female and male author? Or even a transgender person, as you have said.
      I do understand XX and XY are different physically and even psychologically. But what's the point of being explicit semantically unless it is logically required for identification?
      Feminist or not, I can see a large acceptance of my wife's point of view in my society. I have broached the subject here because I write a lot and aspire to be a pro so literary aesthetics concerns me deeply. Many literary experts claim that a conscious gender neutralization will harm the language. On the other hand likes of my wife maintain, social freedom of women is way more important than literary beauty (supposing that language can shape society along gender line).
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2013: You raise interesting points and society will need time to adjust its thinking to where gender neutrality can best apply
        Allow me to offer up this video by David Page.

        As you will see by watching the video for scientific research, a cell is not a cell, it is a male, or female cell in critical ways.
        • thumb
          Mar 19 2013: Thanks. I shall watch the video and come back with my views. If I may add here that neutrality does not negate the difference, it just does not recognize a preferred position of superiority.
  • Apr 10 2013: Pfff its a good question , because now we have many others kind of genders... I had working in my businees a transexual guy and she prefered always hers women name and of course a women treatment but al the oficial papers was with his man name and man treatment, now woth the words occurs the samething, In some languajes like spanish its most difficult cuz a lot of words are diferents between males and females. I think that somewords are techical words and dosent have gender, like pfesional activities, stuff, sciences, etc. And you can continue with the especification isue when your refering to persons like adjetives or some words that has to describe the gender itselfs. When you learn another languaje different to you native languaje this is maybe one of the most diffilcult issue to learn.
    • Apr 12 2013: Sometimes I wonder how people would handle "which bathroom to use," and "who's gonna be uncomfortable in either case," and I just now remembered one place I worked at that had only one small restroom (single-stall), and I don't think anyone had a single extra worry about it.
      However, that was a one-person-at-a-time restroom, so no one had to wonder about who else was in there.
  • Apr 7 2013: The only thing missing is respect & consideration!
    Why, if Feminists are up in arms about "sexist language," do they still cling to the word 'feminism'? The word itself divides by gender.
    As long as there's an important difference, there should be different words, otherwise the only words we'd need would be "schwa," and a few varying punctuation marks.

    Edit: Wow, 5 days and no one jumped on me!
    Anyways, 1/2 hour after I posted, I realized my mistake, (but I figured I'd give people time to catch it); "The word itself divides by gender," beacause "there's an important difference."
    This seems to be a slippery slope, and will need some more thought. Thank you for your patient help.
  • Apr 4 2013: It's stunning how gender neutral English is a little exposure to Spanish Bano Bana-you know. Also studied a little Hebrew when starting on numbers it's always masculine or feminine tense. Does it tie to farming roosters don't lay eggs.
  • Apr 4 2013: Language is a mode of communication. However language has been in the past heavily influenced by religion. Now this is not a religious debate, but to point out the gender inequality in language.
    When religion forces language to mention female as lesser of the species and especially in Islam where two votes counts for one; inheritance to siblings is divided as one portion to male and half portion to female.
    So how can language survive the scrutiny and enforcement of religion where it has such major impacts on it.
    Gender equality in language can not prevail.
  • Apr 4 2013: She said she cares about the profession not the gender, which is true since no one says Doctress or Authoress even when they are often professions possessed by females... its very likely that the only reason Actor has a female gender variant is to answer expectation so producers, writers , directors etc can indicate that they are looking for a Female Actor and not a Male Actor without having to get too confused with their words.
  • Apr 2 2013: ...language is a mode of communication, the expressive way...if the receiver is prejudiced nothing can further be done...if the sender sends it deliberately, check is important...The Mindfood Chef
  • thumb
    Mar 30 2013: Three aspects of language where sexual distinctions appear:
    1. Professions: As Pabitra said, "stewardess" is an example. German and French commonly use such gender designations. In English this is less common ("teacher" for both sexes), and many of these distinctions have disappeared. The suffix "-man" is a problem for some, though others take it simply as an "agent" designator without a gender implication. The usual replacement suffix, "-person" leads to some clumsier words, e.g., chairperson, fireperson, policeperson and foreperson. Many have turned to just "chair" or to "fire fighter" and "police officer," though "foreman" seems to be holding its own, as do "airman" and "seaman" in the Air Force and Navy. (Jokes are made about needing to switch to "woperson" and "huperson.") By the way, most hostesses and actresses don't seem interested in any change.

    2. Gendering of nouns: English doesn't use this, though most European languages do. Norwegian has 2 grammatical genders (common and neuter), but these have no relation to sexes of the objects spoken of. Thus man, woman, boy, girl, etc. are all treated the same grammatically. (Remnants of a feminine gender that existed earlier are still found in colloquial speech.) I see no hope of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. ridding their nouns of gender any time soon.

    3. Perhaps the most productive target for those who are anxious to degenderize language lies in our pronouns. In English, for example, if we want to say, "When a person has a fever, __ feels bad." it has been common to fill in the blank with "he." This was long accepted as meaning "he or she," but is less accepted today. Replacements involve "he/she" or switching to plural and writing "they." The problem is easily solved by creating a new inclusive pronoun for this case.
    ( I'm running out of space so I invite you to check my note about this, written nine years ago, on my web site Blue Ridge Journal: )
  • Mar 30 2013: LOL!
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2013: 40 commenters. Past half of time limit. The debate is poised interestingly. I shall try to come up with an interim-summary in a day or two. Thanks everyone.
  • thumb
    Mar 28 2013: We are living in a time of great change; technologically, economically and socially. So the language we use should, and will, change.

    But, there is often a 'but', and here it is.

    We live in a complex real world not in an isolated social experiment. Idea's can be transmitted quickly around the world, but their implementation in different settings can have unintended results.

    A little example: There is a growing body of thought, from the fields of psychology and linguistics, that it is more important to praise children for effort rather than result.

    The Walt Disney Company have tried to implement these ideas i some of their childrens TV shows. So the animated character Special Agent OSO gives digital medals to the audience and thanks them for their hard work. So children get the message that sitting watching TV is hard work.

    The point I am trying to make is that it is not easy to make positive social changes. Of there is always resistance to change, usually from the people who are favored by the current situation. But also it is pretty difficult to see how the change will play out as it starts to be implemented.

    And mono-culture may seem a safer alternative to many people.
  • thumb
    Mar 27 2013: If I may add.
    It will be rather silly to argue that we depend on languages to understand the difference between male and female - biological evolution takes over much before the linguistic expression can start to mean anything to us. I think higher primates understand the difference quite functionally in the survival race. Its seems to me that femininity and masculinity are contrived ideas of societies that result from gendered words and their usage.
    Virtues are traditionally attached to femininity and masculinity such that tenderness, beauty, grace, kindness are attached to one and roughness, power, speed and intellect to another. Our whole literature attested this difference for centuries. Why that has to be like this for ever, I wonder.
    • thumb
      Mar 30 2013: I'm afraid masculinity and femininity are not "contrived ideas of society..." Humans are an animal species, derived from anthropoid stock. Let's look at our closest relatives to see whether masculine and feminine features are "contrived ideas." We see in the great apes great innate differences between the sexes, not just physically but in their behavior and their roles. Unquestionably the early humanoids had similar differences between the sexes, and they have persisted to the present, not by any means "contrived."
      The inborn differences in behavior result partly from the genetic program of hormone production during a lifetime, which functions to assure reproduction and care of the young. If we decide to try to change the natural behavior patterns, fine, but let's start by acknowledging that that is what we are doing. Denying the natural differences between the sexes is a silly starting point.
      (If we want to be real sure, we can look further at the behavior of other higher animals, and see whether any differences between the sexes are natural or cultural. Look at birds and their mating and nesting behavior. Look at deer. And does a bull behave like a cow? A rooster like a hen? And are these cultural?)
      • thumb
        Mar 30 2013: I wish I could agree with you.
        Human societies have no parallel in the animal world. There are some rudimentary social behavior in some animals but nothing comparable in the scale and depth as that of human societies. So any biological logic can hardly extend up to human social traits and let us see language as one of those traits.
        I have maintained that gender and sex are not equal descriptions of reality. I'd argue that concepts of masculinity and femininity are not appropriate descriptions of sexes or genders either. These are way deeper than behavior and biological differences. For example when we say 'be a man' we do not necessarily doubt his anatomy.
        We show a bias ascribing qualities like tenderness, beauty, shyness, modesty, lack of aggressiveness and power to femininity and roughness, courage, outspokenness, brazenness, aggression and brute power to masculinity. This bias is reflected in our languages and attested by our literature. There is no biological basis to this bias. So I think the ideas are contrived.
        Do you behave like me? If not, do we need different genders?
        • thumb
          Mar 30 2013: "There is no biological basis to this bias." I wonder how you have determined that?
          With education in anthropology and evolutionary biology one recognizes that human societies have very deep parallels with the animal world. The genetic imprint of our distant ancestors, long before the rise of the human species, is still actively operating in our DNA. One cannot deny this, though one can be unaware of it.

          As to "biases," no one who has experience with life really believes that men are not often tender, shy, retiring, afraid, or introverted, or that women are not often aggressive, rough, crude, and lusting for power. There is clearly not an either-or distribution of such features between the sexes. This is known to everyone. But so is the existence of certain sexual ideals, which of course not everyone shares. The publishers of "women's magazines" and "men's magazines" have pretty well figured out what sells. You might take a look at some of these for a clue about majoritarian sexual-selection ideals. You'll find a remarkable consistency about the male ideal in the women's magazines, and vice versa. Here again, biology rules. It's the same thing as the female bird selecting her mate on the basis of ideal male sexual characteristics - often species-specific desirable colors or form of the plumage. In mammals, male power and ability to protect the female and the young have been common selection criteria, as they still are in humans. (No surprise here.) Sexual ideals and selection have been key factors in the evolutionary development of the higher animal species, including Homo sapiens. We are not as free of our genetic lineage as you might think. Check out a course in evolutionary human biology; it's fascinating.
          Paul L.
      • thumb
        Mar 30 2013: Please make your stand clear. Do you contend that the ideas that go with femininity and masculinity are direct outcomes of biological differences? Do you also contend that language and literature do not have stereotypes of feminine and masculine for any contexts other than biological difference? It is necessary to have that clarified because my high school biology taught me that in the animal world, there is nothing such as feminine or masculine, just male and female.
        I don't think there is any animal other than humans who use female beauty, fragility, desirability and male power, smartness and aggression as statements in contexts different from biological evolution. Check the media and advertisements, if literature is too huge a reference.
        Additionally, since you are a biologist, kindly enlighten me with the examples of species (other than humans) who select sexual partners on the basis of color of hair, a given body shape (different from genitalia), intelligence and emotional make up.
        • thumb
          Apr 1 2013: Sorry I can't give you a biology course here, Pabitra. I said it above, but I'll say it again: Many animals use their species' standard of appearance (beauty) or fitness or performance or power, etc., to choose a mate. So do humans. If you're trying to change that, I'm afraid it's a lost cause.
  • Mar 26 2013: Don't confuse sexism with being able to differentiate between genders. To say that using the word 'actor' for both male and female genders eliminates the bias between sexes makes little sense, because grammatically the differences are simply used to differentiate between the two. Some people have decided to be biased against 'actresses' but is that to make us remove the word completely so they can't be biased against actresses anymore?

    If your first language is a gender indifferent language you may never truly understand a language which differentiates between genders, but it has very little (if anything) to do with sexism and gender bias. But as an english speaking person, to refer to an economy as "she" is very uncomfortable, of course. It is definitely not the same in gender differentiating languages
    • thumb
      Mar 27 2013: I have least confusion there. I think sexism is noting but stressing the anatomical difference between male and female with subtle or explicit intent of statement of superiority of one over other or ridicule, belittlement and dominance of one over other. Gender is a linguistic response about the difference. I have been led to believe that grammatical gender of a language can shape how people interpret the world around them along gender lines. It seems a logical enough corollary to me that such a tool can be used to be overtly sexist in expression.

      The meaning of words seem to take on special significance in contexts. So it appears very plausible for me in a society that truly does not see the equality of genders can use gendered words to achieve sexist expressions. If I am not very wrong 'bitch' in English is semantically way more charged than a meaning 'female dog'.

      I don't think people just decide get biased about a word like 'actress' (particularly one who follows the profession of acting) but they rather get wary of such references on account of more uses of that word in contexts which are demeaning, disrespectful or casual than otherwise.

      I am not a professional linguist. But I think there is no such language as gender indifferent. There are languages which are grammatically gendered or there are languages that have no grammatical gender at all. The grammatically genderless languages are likely to have lesser discriminating contexts along anatomical differences between male and female.

      It looks logically possible to me that the societies that for centuries are trying to bridge the gender gaps on social indices must have tell-tale effects on the language for conscious gender neutralization. At least, such societies are less likely to accept sexism with any degree of fondness.
  • thumb
    Mar 25 2013: I suggest we should have gender neutral words in English for huMAN, perSON, he or she, unless talking about a male or FeMALE.

    But leave existing literature as it is.

    Language is powerful in how it limits or empowers us and the influences the way we think.

    It may be a factor in the Nordic countries, or did the Language reflect a preexisting bias? But I suggest there is more to it than just language.

    I note New Zealand was also one of the first countries to give women the vote, and English is the dominant language.
    • thumb
      Mar 26 2013: Ob, I don't think the gender balance in NZ has anything to do with English rather it is the result of the underlying Maori culture and language.
      • thumb
        Mar 26 2013: Hi PM,

        With respect I suggest underlying Maori culture had very little to do with the movement in NZ to get the vote for women.

        Maori culture was not that influential 100+ years ago. It probably has minimal impact on those of European decent even today.

        Interesting that Maori language has gender neutral pronouns.

        I note the bible reinforces wo Man - women made from men in genesis 2. But not in genesis one when is says they were created at the same time.
    • Mar 26 2013: I propose humin and perple.
  • thumb
    Mar 25 2013: I first heard of "She" in 2005 in my Economics class. My professor who did his PHD in Europe introduced the concept and asked about our views. We agreed to disagree.
    Personally, I think whether we maintain the status quo or we change to S/ does not matter. But I would prefer the former....I don't want to start writing S/he then his/her, and yes I love with country is referred as "her" steady economic growth".....
  • Mar 25 2013: I understand the concept of politically correctness, language is an evolving thing that never stops changing and to some degree there must at some time be an equilibrium. However in this world of PC BS we have come to a point where the words themselves mean little but are used as weapons against one another or are the shield behind which we hide from reality of truth. The fact is if someone says something we personally don't like we gather together as many as will side with us and we demonize both the words and speaker. In a court of law it is the one who can best the other in words and the use of them. People need to just get over themselves and realize that a title no matter what it is, as long as it is said in respect or in a non derogatory way the actual words themselves mean nothing but are a means to convey a message.
  • thumb
    Mar 23 2013: Please keep the 'He' and 'She' separated for everyone's benefit. It's much easier for everyone, I would think.
  • thumb
    Mar 23 2013: I always thought men treated their ships as “her” due to the fact that it connected them to the idea of a “her” and that it engendered a sense of worth, treat her like your mother or wife and you would look after her more. Yes, english is transformative, old english is some what strange to hear. How would one introduce their daughter to someone? What would replace he or she? I asked my youngest niece what she thought and i hope it gets her to think on it or years from now she looks back and asks herself “ Did that freaky uncle of mine know something” Ah, the future, what does it bring?
    • thumb
      Mar 23 2013: I shall be keen to know what your niece thinks. I came to know that 'e' is being proposed to replace 'he' or 'she'.
      See, Ken, I have this dilemma. I know that English and most languages have gender asymmetry. For a society free from gender bias that kind of language should change, arguably.
      But I like the language for it's literary beauty which I may miss if the language is changed.
  • thumb
    Mar 23 2013: So, What if women around the world object to using the word she or he, him or her? What or how do we refer to each other? How do we introduce our mothers to people? Primary Parental unit female No.1 allocated the name Jennifer? Jennifer unit 1? It sounds silly but we as individuals are gendered physically and if you don't like looking at the mirror still does not change what we are.

    "When my sibling gave birth to it's first child and named it Loghan, I thought it's name felt right since it was the first female of my family to be born of my generation line." There's something surprisingly unpersonal/robotic about this sentence.

    Of course this comment is a silly comment but it had to be asked.
    • thumb
      Mar 23 2013: Languages are surprisingly accomodative and resilient; sometimes more than we care to think they are. We are gendered physically, true but we are racially apart too. The modern values appreciate these differences but do not discriminate. May be we have gotten used to it but English as a language discriminate between genders. My own native Bangla does same. By discrimination I mean words and contexts that bear phonetic, grammatical or syntactical favor towards a particular gender. 'Man', 'mankind' are words English language have accepted to be used in contexts for Human and Humankind - don't you think that's a gender bias?
      The Lloyds have recently dropped all female pronouns for ships. When I asked one of my friends who is a marine for two decades about how such convention came to exist at the first place he said: you know you ride her....
      That's one distasteful sexist comment I have ever heard. But that's just one example.
      • thumb
        Mar 23 2013: Sorry, just getting used to using or accessing the net via a smartphone. It's my first.
  • thumb
    Mar 21 2013: G'day Kate

    Yes we are having a session a bitching session on ourselves not our wife’s which is a bit strange.

  • T 9

    • 0
    Mar 20 2013: >Global Gender Gap Indices of .82 and .81 (1 being ideally gender equal)

    The measurement system of the Global Gender Gap Index is intensely bigoted - areas of female advantage and male disadvantage are invisible to the Index. In an imaginary nation where women have 100% of the wealth, employment, access to services, etc., while all men are tortured in concentration camps, the GGGI would be your perfect 1. In a nation where men and women have a balanced, complimentary set of advantages and disadvantages for each gender, the GGGI could be ANY number between 0 and 1. It really says nothing about equality.

    The GGGI is more accurately described as a female supremacy index. It is misleading, and it and does not fairly serve the cause of gender equality.
    • thumb
      Mar 21 2013: I don't think so. In fact a large part of your contention is based on imaginary logic. In a hypothetical country where there are only women there will be no GGG applicable hence no GGGI. It is an accepted method of measuring gender gap by economic experts. There may be debates about better descriptions of such gap like there is debate about GDP being measure of growth, but in absence of such alternative and better proposals GGGI is a scientific/statistical tool being widely used.
      In any case, my debate uses GGGI only as an indicator and focuses on something else.
  • Mar 20 2013: I think everybody's view on this topic is pretty much valid after reading some comments (sorry if I over generalize, I didn't read all of them). Language and gender identity are definitely correlated, but the emphasis here is: correlated.

    This means that all the things we find can only be used to prove that these two things go together, but we can't generalize causal relations between the two.

    Gender specific language do have the possibility to create an environment that highlights the differences between the genders and lead to a relatively gender specific culture.
    On the other hand it is equally possible that some other factors caused the culture to be gender specific in the first place and that somehow lead to the development of a gender specific language in this area.

    Just pointing this out.
  • Mar 19 2013: Ok, you got me. I mean the real life, biological gap between the male and female dna is small, not that the psychological gap between gender perceptions is.

    The question was about language and I do think we should try to avoid embedding gender awaress in our language - Basically, Sex is far too interesting and exciting - it detracts from the more important boring and serious stuff. Sex started out as being about having babies and at a global population of 7bn we don't need any more people, so we should encourage other activities like growing vegetables, cold showers, climbing mountains or possibly just general gayness .

    Yes I think there will be a female president pretty soon, possibly the next Democrat after Obama if there is anyone of calilbre still around. I don't expect to see Republicans back in the White House. They are getting older, their brains have been shrinking and the modern economy cannot survive reductionist policy, and with the modern media it is getting more difficult to hide basic policy incompetences on foreign policy and economy. Replacement right winger puppet shows like the Tea Party and the Libertarian tendencies are also too transparent and cranky for their own good, though there is also the horrifying prospect of a maverick (male or female) charismatic coming out of the blue on a hard - right Nationalist ticket. But they'd have to undertake do some pretty horrible classic Nazi type stuff at home because of the logic of politics - I don't think the the real US people are going to buy that - they like flag waving and talking apple pie at home but prefer their bombing to be a long way away.

    But appearances are deceptive - the first female President will be backed and manipulated by the same vested interests as every other President. For historic reasons they'll mostly be male, and for a long while to come. Women generally need a real, vigorous and savage feminism to thrive, they've a lot of historic stuff to throw off
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2013: We live in an interesting time. While there is a need to establish ourselves in this world as individuals, as business entities, or nations, there is also a trend of globalization and erasing all limits and differences between people.

    It's a controversy. On one hand, we cannot function unless we have a role with clear responsibilities. On the other hand, this role imposed by ourselves or by society is often restricting our growth. These days questions are asked, why can't a woman be an army general or a fighter pilot or a priest or a president or a coal miner? So, until we say "he" of a general, we keep mentally excluding women from these roles.

    Things can get bizarre. I won't be surprised if soon doctors figure out how to have men bear children. Shall we then refer to a mom as s/he or shall we stick to tradition? I doubt, however, men will make an issue out of this.

    Other parts of our identity like nationality or citizenship also seem to disintegrate these days.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2013: I think that languages should be left on their own to preserve literary integrity. I am a high literary enthusiast and believe that it wold be really confusing if I was called a "he" because I obviously identify as a "she." Perhaps to say that "he" and "she are both advocated as scientific concepts rather than sexist concepts, to describe the human reproductive organs. I have no problem with the words actress, her, she. I feel like it makes the most sense because that is the way it has been portrayed in society for the last thousands of years. We would have to change an entire language for that to happen. Not to say hundreds of languages. I would certainly think that god is a "he" because he was in the form as Jesus, which was most certainly a man. But I am not religious therefore I do not have much thought on the subject matter. What I'm really trying to say is that I think we should keep it to "he, she" and keep it simple.
    • thumb
      Mar 20 2013: I am in a dilemma here Cat. The literary integrity is rather strongly founded on the linguistic aesthetics in my view and aesthetics change. If you visit a museum of arts and watch paintings right from Victorian through expressionistic to modern abstract, I hope you will appreciate our taste and idea of beauty evolved over time. Though I will certainly have a lot of trouble using 'e' in my poetry, I am not sure if one day a new and gender neutral sense of beauty cannot emerge in languages.
      I do not believe in God spiritually, so my opinion about God being a 'he' is rather inconsequential. But I have noticed women being discriminated along gender lines by those who believe in God with a conviction God is a 'he', a father or a son and language plays a crucial part here. This is just an observation.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2013: I don't know if God is male or female. I really don't care the word is more important. In Bible reading I would arrive at the conclusion that God is male. However, that God had a attitude and hates women, to me at least, is quite a stretch.
    • thumb
      Mar 20 2013: You live in a good place Bob with good, well meaning people around you. In organized Hinduism, which is basically a lot of trash, the Shankaracharya is the equivalent of pope. One Shnakrachraya once maintained that women cannot be priests simply because Hindu priests are Brahmins who need to exhibit their sacred thread over their bare chest. I take it as an attitude of God towards women as long as Shankaracharyas are sole representatives of Gods.
  • Mar 19 2013: First off all, sorry for my english. I hope it will be comprehensible. Well,

    There’s a correlation between language and gender, but not between sex and language. This is the main mistake we make, we confuse gender with sex and these are two different things. Language structure has nothing to do with sexism. The gender depends on the structure of each language. There are language without gender and languages with gender. In the last ones, the gender is a classification system of the nouns and it depends on categories which are neutral, feminine or masculine. Some language use the masculine as a generic and some others the feminine and this is an arbitrary categorization. While sexism exists in all the world societies, the gender exists only in the 15% of languages in the world. So, sexism is not a language issue.
  • thumb
    Mar 19 2013: Pabitra, I guess that the question here is , have we become overly politically correct. The answer to that would be different for each person you ask. If we are writing instructions for a pilot of an airplane and use the term "he will .." does that mean that a female flying the plane should not perform the task? No that would be silly.

    If we went to every book and changed, where approperiate, all he / she to read s/he ... would all of the sexist people in the world be happy? No. There are a equal amount of males and females that want it all their way. For years we have read "he" as the person doing the task.

    To change the terms in a guide to Pregnancy to ... "s/he will be allowed to nurse the baby at the first opportunity"
    seems a little silly.

    Use the correct term when possable but to go nuts with this serves no real purpose and will not stop either the men or women who are sexist.

    If in a speech I use the term he or the term she in a sentence and you concentrate only on that ... what have you missed. Even though I gave you the answer for eternal youth .... you are only concerned with the male chauvinist pig at the microphone who hates women. A equal argument could be given for a female speaker.

    It is easy to find fault ... see only one side ..... emerge yourself in hate. I don't recommend it.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: I got your point Bob. But many women and I ( I am not a woman, at least the last time I checked) feel that God is male and have an attitude towards females.
      I understand that any language has contexts and context determines the applicability of gender assertions. I also understand that a language cannot be gender neutralized overnight or entirely. My question is whether such an attempt is wise, ethical or aesthetic and if the countries that have naturalized their languages for genders are progressing towards a freer and more gender equality.
  • Mar 19 2013: i have a sneaking feeling that you are right about your wife!
    the words 'actor' and 'actress' are equivalent terms, being called an actress doesn't mean that she is something less than an actor. having these 2 distinct nouns is gender equal!
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: Thanks for reinforcing my suspicion. But what puzzles me is why there is no blogeress, consultantess or doctoress'. Feels like something has happened meanwhile.
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2013: I'm with your wife on this one Pabitra, and I do not call myself a feminist. I always prefered calling myself "actor" rather than "actress" simply because the word actress, to me, seems to project the idea of a "fluff head"....a person who is not as serious about the profession. "Actor" feels more credible to me....just my own personal preference, and a few people have felt it necessary to correct me a few times... that's ok:>)

        It's kind of interesting, to notice here on TED at times, how people for whom English is not the first language use words. I don't really care one way or the other, as long as the words used are not offensive. Perhaps I should be Hungarian:>)
        • Mar 20 2013: i came to realise long ago that words are not offensive, but people can be. if no offense was meant, none should be taken, and it does no-one any service to get offended by someone's choice of words.
      • Mar 20 2013: pabitra the reasons are historical. i could go into a long lesson about the introduction and evolution of words in english, but suffice it to saythat english has many quirks, and those quirks don't imply sexism or gender-bias, though they can be useful for differentiation.
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2013: Interesting point Ben. Words cannot be offensive on their own because they carry meanings in context. But they can be weapons of hurtful or hateful damage and it will be unfair if a language does not provide a balanced retaliation on the same count. I am not emphasizing on verbal abuse here just the huge preponderance of sexist contexts in any language in favor of a particular gender.
          It's somewhat like Gun control debate in the US.
      • Mar 20 2013: quite right, what matters is what was meant, not what was said. people can also veil extreme offense in very fine words.

        some people are also quick to jump on verbal abuse and attempt to ban it, which is greatly damaging to society as it stifles debate. let hateful people say whatever they want, and let them be rebutted by the more rational. the worst thing you can do is ban hateful speech because you also ensure that rebuttals are never voiced.
    • thumb
      Mar 20 2013: Good point serves no-one to get offended by someone's choice of words. I didn't word that very well:>(

      I agree with you that intent is important.
      • Mar 20 2013: i thought u worded it quite well! i got your point and i think you're right on with it. the way you interpret the word "actress" to mean fluff-head is up to you, not the speaker, and i think you do well to acknowledge that it's just your own personal feeling. so many people would just assume that another person must also mean to use the word actress in a negative way.
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2013: Thanks Ben,
          I am ok with my wording regarding how I expressed my feeling about personal preference with the words actor/actress.

          Then I wrote..."I don't really care one way or the other, as long as the words used are not offensive".

          I'm glad you reminded me that words are not usually offensive, and the way we use them, our intent, and/or interpretation is important.

          I had an interesting experience recently with this idea. I'm cleaning out my book shelves and donating books to the library. Sometimes, before they go, I read them one more time, which I did with the Autobiography of Malcolm with Alex Haley (1964), which is probably when I first read it.

          They both refer to themselves and others as "Negro", and the first time I saw that word, I cringed....I didn't stop cringing until way into the book. No matter how many times I logically told myself that they certainly have a right to use that word, and it's ok, it still rubbed me the wrong way. I finally got over it, but that was a good example to myself of word usage, meaning, and one aspect of how and why our language changes and evolves.
      • Mar 22 2013: hi again colleen. thanks for sharing your experience it's very interesting to hear that a single word can have such an effect, but that it can be overcome.

        it's just amazing to me how people can find the word 'negro' offensive, it's refers to an ancestry of southern africa, and carries no connotations of a person's being a slave, of lower intelligence or social standing, yet many people take offense to it as if it did. i get the argument about evolution of language, but i dispute the many people who use it to conclude that we can use words willy-nilly and give them any meaning we like. all that does it obfuscate communication, and if we continue on this path we won't be able to say anything because there will always be a person who takes offense to one of our words!

        to be honest if someone finds offense at being called an actress, which carries no negative connotation at all, they're just wrong and should get over it. airhead actress, bimbo actress etc they might have a point, but those words actually do carry derogatory meaning.
        • thumb
          Mar 22 2013: Hi again Ben:>)
          Words, and how they are used, can indeed have a big impact.

          I am aware of the origin of the word Negro. I also know the origin of the word Niger, and I recently had a challenge with that word as well, while reading about Heinrich Barth's exploration of the Niger River in 1850 - 1855.....interesting book BTW...."A Labyrinth of Kingdoms", "10,000 miles through Islamic Africa", by Steve Kemper...based on the journals and memoirs of Barth.

          Those words, were used in disrespectful, belittling, demeaning ways for so long, they became distasteful to use. I think it was people of color, who pushed the movement to NOT use those words?

          To be clear....I was not offended when called "actress", I simply had my own preference of "actor" when refering to myself:>)
      • Mar 22 2013: hi again colleen! i must apologise i didn't mean that you didn't know what negro meant, but that many people seem to get the impression it is derogatory.

        i wonder if you've lead us to the answer right there... in the past people who were disrespectful, belittling, and demeaning to people of colour used the word negro, but does that make the word disrespectful? i wonder if many people are not mistakenly attributing the offense to the words used rather than the person using them, or is it simply an association? this awful person used this word therefore the word is awful?

        you were clear before :) i'm glad to be having this conversation with a person who is aware of the difference! i'm also glad you've brought up the point of books more than once. as a teacher it is deeply troubling to me that many great works are discarded by well-meaning but misguided school boards simply because one word is used rather than their preferred alternative.
        • thumb
          Mar 23 2013: Hello Ben,
          No need to apologise....I think I understood what you were goes back to our original is not the word that is offensive, but rather how it is used and the intent?

          I don't believe the disrespectful use of the word "makes" it disrespectful. I DO believe there may be an association? Intent and how it is used. I think my challenge with these words reminds me of an association which still impacts my heart and mind.

          I is too bad that books are destroyed because some folks do not like something about the book. When we can read, and have books available to us, we can learn my humble opinion, is a pleasure:>)

          Awareness helps in all aspects of the life journey.....does it not?
        • thumb
          Mar 23 2013: Interesting discourse.
          Words by themselves cannot be offensive because offensive is subjective. Meanings of words are not intrinsic to them they apply in context. Contexts have relationship to history of social development.
          We know that a donkey is a fine animal, no dumber than a dog, even more diligent and as loyal. Still nobody will like to be called either a donkey or dog. Here in India people speak English in strange ways. I heard my university cricket coach to politely ask student players: please put your balls on the table.
          A person minds being called an actress not because semantics but because her experiences of putting the word in disrespectful context many times.
  • Mar 18 2013: The English language would be improved by the addition of some gender neutral pronouns, but the gender pronouns should not be discarded. "S/he" is awkward. I would prefer "e."
  • Mar 18 2013: Is S/he really mandatory? I actually like S/he better because its fitting. Its an improvement. A better abrv.
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2013: It depends on the context. If gender neutrality is not observed in a gender-sensitive issue, it is justifiably wrong. So it is not uncommon for the French teacher, which used to be restricted to "professeur", to now include "professeure".

    However, if it is just for convenience of expression in a context that simply reflects language conventions, you could still nag about it but I personally find it to be quite inconsequential. An example here would be the use of "他" and "他们“ to represent "him in third person" and "they" respectively.

    To frame it in terms of literary integrity sounds a bit too austere to me.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: "you could still nag about it but I personally find it to be quite inconsequential." Indian soldiers have, on record, refused to address their lady commanding officers as 'Sir'. This has a consequence and a serious one.
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2013: learn hungarian, problem solved. hungarian does not have genders at all. he/she translates to the same word.

    (if someone keeps mixing he and she when speaking, suspect he is hungarian)
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: I am certainly Hungarian then! Kidding. My native lingo is Bangla, which does not have genders as pronouns or noun cases. That screws up my English at times.
      But being genderless does not prevent Bangla from being sexist at times. For example, in Bangla a boy is 'Chheley' and a girl is 'Meye'. When Bangla refers to adolescence it uses 'Chheleybela' (bela meaning period/time) and there is no word such as 'Meyebela'. Taslima Nasrin makes a big deal of it.
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2013: oh, definitely, we have different names for male and female animals even. luckily, in addition to the gender-less name luckily.

        now going to do some wikipedia-ing on bangla.
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2013: Language shapes our thoughts, determines their structure. It takes a cultural change to change language. In Russian, Ukrainian, and most Slavic languages I know, all nouns have gender. Some nouns are neutral, but many are either feminine or masculine - even inanimate objects. Moreover, adjectives and verbs must be conjugated with nouns and have corresponding gender. If Russian is made gender-neutral, it will be a different language. This would require major changes in dictionary and grammar. I don't see it happening soon.
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: "Language shapes our thoughts, determines their structure." Arkady, I thought over it. It appears to me that our thoughts shape languages too and determine their structure.
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2013: As everything else, it goes both ways. Perhaps, thinking and speaking is one and the same process. I've heard an idea that we don't have a thought until we can express it with language. This is why repeated saying or hearing certain things can change our thoughts. This seems to be how religion, propaganda, and marketing works.
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2013: According to this theory, sexism in language translates into sexist views and attitudes. I think, this is why this issue exists. I know from experience that derogatory remarks come from and also cause derogatory attitude in both those who speaks and those who listen.
  • Mar 18 2013: Like Theodore A Hoppe, I use odd constructions instead of what I consider the painfully PC/obvious alternation of "he" and "she" when referring to "one" (which I used to use): even barbarisms such as "themself". And why not? Language evolves and many a current word has the opposite meaning to its earliest known form. As to gender French has the male/female problem, and it *is* a problem. For example, "Le président" would be the president of the republic, whereas "La présidente" would not be: she would be the wife of the president of the republic... (And they're desperately trying to avoid confronting the issue too ;o) Likewise, a female chemist would still be a "pharmacien" (male term) because it is the profession not the person, even though a 15th-C writer, Christine de Pisan, described herself as "une écrivaine" (female of écrivain), a term abolished nowadays. On the other hand, male frogs and mice are feminine, as are others I'm sure, without anyone batting an eyelid. So I wonder whether it's the actual word that *causes* any genderizing behavior, or the actual gender itself, the word simply facilitating or highlighting an underlying phenomenon. As to any form of authority making language change, fat chance I'd say! My two cents ;o)
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: Thanks Simon. The question is should language be left on its own to evolve or should we consciously structure it to fit our changing enlightenment about gender? No, wait; can we leave language on it's own at all? When a whole new paradigm is at work in the level of expression, it's way more than a authority, don't you think?
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2013: G'day Pabitra

    In Australia most of us don't care about literary integrity as there are more important things to worry about but I can see how some people would want some form of literary integrity as it does have it's place of course but so does our own Aussie literary expression.

    For example I can go up to an older women & say "hay girl howzya going" but of course if I know her a little better I might get away with old girl instead or even girly which in the most have no condescending meaning. Some older women like to be called girl some don't but I don't think too many young girls like to be called girl so really to answer your question I really depends on the circumstances.

    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: My wife will certainly love to immigrate to Oz. Problem is she will want me to follow. G'day Mathew. :)
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2013: G'day Pabitra

        The funniest thing just happened to me replying to you Pabitra, I was typing but nothing was coming up in the reply box!!!!

        Anyway I gather you wouldn't like to move to Oz, there not all like me you know some of them are quite sane!! :)

        • thumb
          Mar 20 2013: Haha! I am sure about that Mathew. I am just afraid that aussie beauties will be all over me and you can imagine how my wife may react to that! :D
  • Mar 17 2013: I don't see the need for gender difference in language because the differences between make and female are so small as to tend toward irrelevance when viewed against the size of give global issues we have to face. The main problem at the moment is no longer our local concerns of gender difference but our global problem of how to fit all the males, shemales and females onto one small planet. I suspect that emphasising that make and female are different is just a polite way of saying having sex is great fun and should be celebrated. If I wasn't do old and sad I'd agree with that wholeheartedly!
    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: Do you think the USA will have a woman in White House in the chair of the President in foreseeable future? Do you think the gap is that small?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Mar 19 2013: Hi Kate, I hope I don't end up eating all my fingernails by then :P
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 20 2013: Actually there is lot right about Australia Kate. I am a die hard cricket enthusiast (played cricket at the University level) and half my cricketing idols come from Australia. Though I don't get to see the admirable steely and competitive Aussie agression in cricket fields now a days, I love the general boisterous and outgoing image of Australian people. I have few friends from Oz and I deeply respect and adore them.
          It's just that I am a bit tied down with my poor, simple and struggling village folks here, whom I have ignored half my life.
  • Mar 16 2013: Thou mayest. It's your choice. Thank you Steinbeck for East of Eden.