Talk:Quest for gender-neutral pronouns

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Pronouns for people

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Monday, October 20th, 2003.

I'm backing out of an emerging edit war in the Shenzhou spacecraft and a few related pages (shenzhou 5, "manned space flight").

"Crewed spaceflight", whilst admittedly inelegant, is a perfectly valid, non-gender specific term for a spaceflight with a human or humans aboard. It's a term that NASA itself uses (along with human spaceflight).

Nevertheless, use of this term seems to have met with fierce resistance by Wikipedians who defend the use of the older "manned" term.

I would suggest that the deliberate choice of a gendered term where there is a non-gendered alternative readily available is inherently un-NPOV.

Like I said, I'm walking away from it, since it's very clear that the dinosaurs will have their day through sheer weight of numbers if nothing else.

--Rlandmann 09:44, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why can't "Manned spaceflight" include women? I think it's presumptuous to assume "manned spaceflight" does not include women, especially considering all the women who have gone into space (and I'm sure China will follow). Besides, "Crewed spaceflight" is horribly inelegant and silly. Calling people who disagree with you on this point "dinosaurs" is much much much worse. Daniel Quinlan 11:58, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
The "manned" term is no different from using, say "policemen" to refer to all police officers or "firemen" for all fire fighters. Would you argue that "it's presumptuous to assume that 'policemen' does not include women"? And I stand by the dinosaurs remark - the use of gendered terms like this is (thankfully) fading out of English. Do you have a more elegant suggestion for a non-gender specific term? --Rlandmann 22:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
"Policemen" and "firemen" does include women. "Man" has multiple meanings. Unlike some people, I understand English words can have more than one meaning. If the politically correct can't come up with a more catchy name for something supposedly sexist... "Crewed spaceflight" sounds like they're all wearing crew socks or perhaps some rowing is involved. Daniel Quinlan 23:03, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
I don't think anyone seriously contends that "man" does not have multiple meanings, do they? The issue is not with meaning but with implication - specifically, the implication that being human is synonyous with being a male human. Look - I'm the first to admit that "crewed" is not a pretty word, mainly as it's homophonous with "crude". But it's better IMNSHO than perpetuating the ugliness of past sexism. --Rlandmann 00:45, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you simply look at dictionaries, you should find freshman and man kind include women. I have never heard freshwoman, I think it is just not an English word. -- Taku 00:35, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Rlandpersonn, I don't think that whining, and calling those you disagree with 'dinosaurs', is going to endear anyone to your point of view, and it goes against the very idea you allege to be championing, namely respect for others. The non-gender specific 'man' and even 'he' is a convention of language that educated and civilized people have used for a long time -- understanding all the while that the sense of meaning includes both genders. If you note the liberty I have taken with your user name, you will understand why taking this issue ad absurdum is a crusade not worth fighting. I pride myself on striving for the highest form of English expression I know. I appreciate the many meanings which one word can convey, and the human ability to discern these meanings by context. Please show a little respect for others and refrain from cramming your PC ideas down our throats. Thank you. Paul Klenk 00:49, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've never heard of "freshwoman" either. The non-gendered word I've heard at Australian residential colleges (as long as 10 years ago) is "fresher". Can't speak for elsewhere on the planet. What does the existence (or lack thereof) of a non-gendered word for "freshman" have to do with this anyway, since non-gendered terms for human spaceflight definitely *do* exist? --Rlandmann 00:46, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just to lighten things up a bit here, has no one else noticed that 'crewed' rhymes with 'crude'? Paul Klenk 00:58, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Rlandmann did, 13 minutes ago. -- Tim Starling 01:02, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
Tim Starling wins a sticky bun and a free Wikipedia bookmark. Please pick up your items at the registration desk. 141.157.243.213 01:10, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Crewed spaceflight" - AAAAGH! Who the heck dreamt up that abomination??? Not more of this PC nonsense. BTW a survey in Ireland and Ireland among the police found that most women in the forces hate the term 'policewoman', find 'police officer' puke-enducing, and want to use 'policeman'. As a result, the Irish version of police-woman, ban gharda was scrapped (at the request of ban ghardaí) and they, by choice, use the same word as previously used by policemen and was always understood to mean a police-man. Oh and in Ireland the word 'fresher', meaning 'freshman', never ever freshwoman, is used. (BTW the majority of Freshman in Ireland are women!) Sorry, Rlandpersonn with your sexist unPC name, you are in a minority. FearÉIREANN 01:04, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, October 9th, 2003.

Should the encyclopedia be consistent in noun-pronoun relationships, and if so, what should be the accepted practice? For example: In "A musician plays his instrument" or "A musician plays her instrument" the noun and pronoun agree, but people might be offended by the perceived exclusion of one sex (assuming of course that we don't know who the musician is.) "A musician plays their instrument" is a construct often seen today, but one which grates on some people. "Musicians play their instruments" meets both objections, but isn't always a possible formation.

Any ideas or guidance on this? --User:Dolbier October 1, 2003.

I think that the use of gender-neutral pronouns and the singular they is generally preferred. There was some stuff about it on the mailing list a few months ago [1] but I don't know of any actual Wikipedia policies on the issue. See also [2]. Angela 04:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Singular they is fine, but everytime so-called gender-neutral pronouns are mentioned on Wikipedia, most people (and it includes me) feel like throwing up. They have all the linguistic beauty and attractiveness of a large fart and make many on wiki want to throw up. Please, please don't use those appalling linguistic bastardisations.

BTW - so-called gender-neutral pronouns are also largely un-used by most english speakers worldwide and so even from the point of view of comprehendability should never be used on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 01:42, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I really strongly object to both "her" (it completely escapes me how if you're trying to be non-sexist, using the other gender pronoun is any improvement) and the various neologisms. If the historical "he" doesn't do it for you, use "they". Sometimes that means you have to use "their", but as singular they points out, you can often reword to avoid it. Noel 23:01, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's hard to avoid "manned" and "unmanned." Even though this is not a good way of sayin things, the nearby alternatives are worse, so likely this will remain unchanged (the linguistic term for this situation would be "sub-optimal but evolutinarily stable," or to put it in other words, "bad, but better than the alternative and good enough for me.") However, saying "police officers" and "firefighters" is a more gender neutral alternative that is not so inelegent. As far as pronouns go, I think that the singular they is the way to go. There is a precedent, after all: "You" became singular (taking over the position once filled by "thee"). They should work the same way. Verbs should stil treat it as if it were plural, but it can be singular. Taking the examples:
  • To refer to a specific person of unknown gender.
    • I spoke to Gecko on IRC last night - they said that Russian was difficult.
    • That person in the red hat over there: do you think they are male or female?
    • Has your baby said their first word yet?
    • What did the doctor say when they saw the swelling?
  • In descriptions of people who are somehow hypothetical.
    • A farmer must set their alarm very early.
    • If a customer wants a refund, give it to them.
    • Could the last person to leave make sure they close the door?
  • To match words such as everyone and nobody.
    • Everyone in the band should break their guitar at the end of the set.
    • Nobody enjoys having salt on their cornflakes.
    • Who is good at twiddling their thumbs?

The singular they has the advantage of fitting all these situations. As far as the idea of "he" being gender neutral, this is somewhat dubious. I would never use "he" when referring to a female, and in ambiguous situation I feel it is still dubious, carrying strong connotations that the pronoun reffers to a male. The idea that the word "man" is non gender specific is even harder for me to believe. Yes, things have been done in a different way for a long time, but women have not had equal rights in many places until very recently (at least, when you compare this time period to the age of the English language). New constructions always feel awkward until people start to use them. --209.94.128.83 17:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump August 2003

How should Wikipedians deal with gender pronowns in articles? I am for gender pronowns, but I don't want to force gender pronouns were they aren't wanted. --hoshie

I go with Strunk & White, except that I usually use "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun instead of "he". This is much debated by grammarians and pedants, but I think sentences such as "If someone needs to use the bathroom during class, they can just excuse themselves." are increasingly well-accepted. I find some of the other "gender-neutral" formulations such as using "she" or "s/he" instead of "he" as the "unknown gender" pronoun to be very distracting since almost everything I've ever read is not written that way. Switching between "he" and "she" for the same person is even worse. Imagine reading Jane Austen or Shakespeare with such contortions. Using the plural "they" instead works better, in my opinion, because it's almost always clear from context whether or not "they" is really plural or not (and it has also received far greater usage than the other formulations). Daniel Quinlan 04:36, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
I think the author of this page nails it on the head (reading up to the "followup" section). Daniel Quinlan 04:43, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/they.html

See also: gender-neutral pronoun, singular they, gender-specific pronoun, non-sexist language, sie and hir, Spivak pronoun, it.

Choose whatever is clearest in the particular example - sometimes it will be singular they, sometimes it will be rephrasing, and sometimes it will be a construction like "him or her". Generic male should probably be avoided - studies seem to show that it's particularly prone to misinterpretation. Neologisms like (my personal preference) sie and hir aren't widespread enough to be used, except for a few transgenders who specifically desire to be so pronouned. Martin

Now sie hir, I strongly caution against sie and hir and Spivak pronouns in favor of singular they even in the case of transgendered people except for direct quotations, of course, or discussion of these virtually unused neologisms. sie and hir are understood by very few people and I care more about Wikipedia being easy to read. Case in point: I just had to look it up "sie and hir" which point I vaguely remembered reading about them before. Yes, I've read about them, but I never see them used so I forgot (and I have to wrack my brain to figure out how to use them whereas "they" comes naturally since it has been used well over a century in literature). Spivak has similar problems and also suffers from pronounciation problems ("he" and "e" is very similar in many regional dialects). Anyway, see this page also Singular "their" in Jane Austen and elsewhere: Anti-pedantry page. — Daniel Quinlan 02:09, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)


Moved from Reference Desk archive 3

I have noticed some peculiar features of the English language:

  • "I want to not..." seems to be ungrammatical. You must substitute "I don't want to...", even though, logically speaking, not wanting to do something is not the same as wanting to not do it.
  • "...supposed to not..." also seems to be ungrammatical.
  • It seems that it is acceptable to refer to a child of unknown gender as "it", yet it is never acceptable (and would be very insulting) to refer to an adult as "it". Why is this?

Under what heading(s) do these belong?

They are Idioms: "an expression whose meaning has little or no apparent relation to its wording. Encounters with idioms can be frustrating for non-native users of a language" Ortolan88
Regarding it, there was an explanation at gender-neutral pronoun, but it got moved to meta: [3]. I've moved the relevant section back to it.
Incidentally, I think the distinction between "I don't want to" and "I want to not" is definately not an idiom. An idiom is something like "raining cats and dogs" - the examples here are examples of obscure English grammar rather than idioms. Martin
In my opinion, these issues have nothing to do with idioms. Gramaticality judgements basically lie in the domain of syntax, although they may be influenced by a number of factors, from semantics to, say, human memory systems. As for people's ideas about negation in language, this should perhaps have its own article; recall that English once had double negatives, until some logically mind fellow (so as not to say fool) came along that decided that they didn't "make sense". --Ryguasu
"I want to not go" is ungrammatical because it is a split infinitive. similarly for "...supposed to not...". Hope that helps! Martin
That's true. Note that "I want not to go" is perfectly grammatical but more emphatic than "I don't want to go". However it is rather idiosyncratic. Most native speakers who want to emphasise a statement like that would say "I do not want to go" or "I really don't want to go". -- Derek Ross

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump May 2003

I've just edited closed source, replacing "he" with "they". This got me thinking. Does wiki have a policy on gender? "He" is old fahsioned and I think should be avoided in original writing. Some strange feminists think we should write "she" (I've seen this in some weird software manuals) - I think this is equally stupid. I changed to "they", which is common usage for a neutral gender case in the UK, but I understand that this is not universal? Thoughts? CGS

An option is s/he and his/her, both are dictionary entries. --Menchi 20:45 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
I think that makes one's writing look like a multiple choice test though. CGS
If you really want to go nuts (and drive other people in with you), then use sie and hir. --mav
See/edit also: gender-specific pronoun, gender-neutral pronoun, singular they, non-sexist language, and Spivak pronoun. Martin
I've never actually heard any feminist argument for always using "she" instead of the gender-neutral "he"; most just argue that "he" and "she" should be equally acceptable when a person's gender is unknown. I think that's usually what's going on when you see "she" used in that way. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that singular they is used in all dialects of English, and has been for centuries. It's just that people who are highly attached to prescriptive grammar rules that were suddenly made up in the nineteenth century for no particular reason will like to complain about it. :) 68.226.239.73

I consider the use of "they" as a sigular noun, and other such use of plual pronouns in the sigular, to be a simple error. If I find such a use in a page I am editing, i will pretty much always change it. If possible I will use a wording that doesn't require "he", "him" or the like. I will use "he or she" in preference to they, or reword to passive voice or some other construction. In a long article it is possible to alternate he and she. I would prefer a newly invented pronoun, but so far there is nothing like widespred acceptance of any such device. Until there is, wikipedia should not use it -- except in articles about linguistics, or about such proposals as noteworthy events in themselves or the like. wikipedia is suppoed to reflect existing human knowledge, not be a place for creating new usage conventions. I have been known to use "s/he" in personal writing, but I don't think this is widely aceepted enough to have a palce in wikipedia yet.

If there is no other reasonable choice, I will use a generic "he" or the like, rather than a singular "they". DESiegel 23:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you also consider the use of "you" as a singular pronoun an error that should be corrected to thou? Singular they has just as long a history as singular you. 68.226.239.73

[edit] Pronouns for countries

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, September 25th, 2003.

What is Wikipedia style for pronouns used for countries? For instance on the French Fifth Republic page, the feminine pronouns are used (presumably because la France is feminine in French) but in United States, the neuter pronouns are used. I don't have a stylebook on me now, but I believe AP style says neuter. If we don't already have a style it seems that that's what it should be. Basil Fawlty 16:00, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We don't have a specific style - just write how you feel comfortable. If you want to change a "she" to "it", that's fine, if someone wants to change an "it" to "she", that's also fine. Just don't get into an edit war over it, and all will be well. Martin 23:41, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
While "she" for countries is legal, it's very old-fashioned and carries - dare I say it - a whiff of sexism, the old-boy kind of thing you see in the 1911EB articles, where the "country" is like a female that has to be looked after by the male rulers. I also imagine it confuses readers for whom English is not the native language. Stan 00:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. - Tarquin 08:37, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouns for religious figures

[edit] Baha'i Faith

This article uses the capitalized pronouns to refer to the founder of the Baha'i Faith. Is that intrinsically POV? --Pakaran| 00:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose, a wee bit. Still, we cut most religious and mythological pages some slack - we don't always say Mohammad allegedly did this, or that Jesus is believed to have done that. Perhaps this is comparable. -- Finlay McWalter 23:24, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. Jesus Christ has a lower-case pronoun in the second or third sentence - "According to Christian belief, he was the messiah..." Yahweh uses mixed pronouns, and Allah uses solely caps. Muhammad, which is arguably a closer analogy than Allah - an inspired founder, not a god - never does. -- Pakaran 01:41, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
On top of that, it makes it hard to read for those of us who are speed readers. For example, this quote from the article:
Mírzá Husayn-`Alí, who took the title Bahá'u'lláh, which is Arabic for "the Glory of God", was a Persian nobleman who became one of the early, prominent followers of the Báb. He was arrested and imprisoned during a period of severe persecution in 1852. While incarcerated in the dungeon of the Siyáh-Chál in Tehran, He received the first intimations that He was the One anticipated by the Báb. Nine years later, in 1863, while exiled in Baghdad, Iraq, He formally announced His mission to His family and a small number of followers.
-- Pakaran| 01:49, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Finlay. I think lowercase pronouns would be more NPOV, but not worth the arguments that might crop up if it's changed. If they bother you, think of it more as a courtesy to people of that faith rather than a profession of the correctness of that faith. (I suppose "he or He", along the lines of "he or she", might be more inclusive, but nobody wants that. I view "He" as the courteous alternative to that.) Axlrosen 20:07, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. The issue is that I can see a future series of edit wars over which religions "get to have" the capitalized pronoun for their founders. If it was allowed to Scientology, for example, I personally would dislike that. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with it being given to Allah or Jesus Christ. So it's never going to be anything but personal preference. And I have preferences about which religions should not get the capitalized pronoun, even as an Atheist. I just wonder whether this is something we should have an overall policy over. -- Pakaran 21:10, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, we could have a rule that capitalized pronouns are reserved (as a courtesy) for those who are believed to God. This would leave Allah and JHWH capitalized, but would lower-case Bahaullah's pronouns. Hmm, then you could have an edit war over Jesus Christ between the pro-Nicenes and the Deists. Guess it's not the best idea. Dandrake| 01:05, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)
In any event it should be a courtesy, not an editorial position. I think we should make it "are presently believed by a significant number of people to be God" - otherwise we have to give the capital to David Koresh, Zeus and various Pharoahs and Chinese/Japanese Emperors. Allah and JHWH are not a problem then, and nobody says Moses or Muhammed or Bahaullah were gods - though Bahaullah is believed to have been a "Manifestation," or someone who was created at a higher-than-human status to give a message to humans. Jesus Christ is a special case, but I think Jesus would fit the "believed to be a god" criterion. As for Scientology, none of them believe Hubbard to be any kind of diety, so that's not an issue - at most, he is seen to be a particularly talented person who originated ideas that few would have been able to realize. -- Pakaran| 03:40, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think that it would be good to capitalize pronouns for religious figures if that is that religion's convention (at least in the article about that religion). If that is not NPOV, I would be force to go with saying that capitalizing pronouns in some cases but not others could never be NPOV and insist that God not be referred to as "He," which would undoubtedly offend some people.

[edit] "most commentators"

Twice the phrase "most commentators feel that it is unlikely to catch on" is used. Shouldn't this be replaced with something factual and measurable? Who are "most commentators"? Three of the five guys I talk to in the office? 68.7.95.232 07:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quest_for_gender-neutral_pronouns"