February 10, 2009This Week’s Discussion ~ Gender possessives and pronouns
It drives me crazy almost every time I write. There is no gender neutral word for singular possessives and pronouns. Hence I find myself writing his/her and s/he or even using “their,” (even though “their” is plural.) I don’t mind s/he so much, but his/her is so cumbersome.
It amazes me that we still haven’t developed a new norm for this. Maybe it should start here. What if we decide on new words and just start using them?
And if we do, what will they be?
Thoughts?
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
My wife and I are having a baby and I’ve been reading several books on the subject to educate myself. One of the problems I have w/ the books is they are constantly switching from male to female, when describing the child, to the point of confusion in some cases.
Comment by Josh — February 11, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
I forgot my suggestions, here they are:
her / him = heir
hers / his = heirs
he / she = ?
Too confusing with the double meaining? What do you think?
Comment by Josh — February 11, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
The day is long past due to stop referring to the Supreme Being as “He”. Knowing that spirit has no gender, but contains all of the qualities of the masculine AND the feminine, to refer to It as “He” (and even “She”!) seems very limiting and dated. And using “It” somehow doesn’t do it either.
I agree that you have found a limitation in our language which probably creates a limitation in our thoughts, but I can’t think of a suitable word.
Comment by Fred — February 11, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
When confronted with the gender-neutral singular-possessive-form problem, the closest we might be able to come is the handy word, “one’s”. Granted, it sounds a bit stuffy these days and applies only to us earthlings, not to the deity. (The s/he thing is in the subjective case, so that’s out of the picture here.)
Depending upon the message, “one’s” in the third person possessive form singular can refer to ‘his’ or ‘her’, but not ‘their’, as you say. When speaking objectively or abstractedly — i.e., not too personally — it even qualifies for the second person possessive, ‘your’, or first person possessive, ‘my’.
Example: Although one’s observations may not hold much weight, my hope is that this helps in a pinch. Love your newsletter!
Comment by Mary Ann Bruno — February 11, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Perhaps we should create new words for this. I struggle in my school assignments in this area. Perhaps we can start using “SHIM” for him or “SHER” for her. This could take awhile to catch on…
Comment by Kathy DaSilva — February 27, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Oh, I’m glad to see input on this. I’m actually writing an article right now where I use:
She/he – Shre
His/her – Shris
Him/her – Shrim
What do you think? The first one is an adaptation of a Sanskrit word that is an honoring. The second and third combine letters from both genders, but in a way that I think makes the word use clear. I think of the s and th r as being more feminine and the h and as more masculine.
I’m getting used to it in my own writing. So I just have to become popular enough to start it as a trend. I’m open to changing this if I get a better idea.
Comment by merylrunion — February 27, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
I read both articles with the made up words and found them awkward and difficult to read. I lost some of the meaning of the story the first read through and would have enjoyed it more without the forced gender neutrality. Does it truly matter so much if he or she is used?
Comment by Tammy Batman — March 4, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Interesting idea! This truly is a gap in our language today.
My two cents:
I like shre a lot. It is short, clear, and easy to equate with a gender-neutral she and he. I picked it up right away.
I had trouble using shris and shrim. They didn’t remind me enough of their counterparts, his/her and him/her. I kept looking back at their definitions. She and he are easily combined; her and his are not as similar in letter composition. Shris leans towards his, with an sr added; it didn’t remind me of her. Similarly, Shrim made me think of him (+ sr) but not of her.
I imagine triggers for language acquisition and cognition vary somewhat from person to person. For me, shrim and shris seemed to cloud the masculine and reduce likelihood of my thinking of the feminine. Perhaps I don’t link she and her enough to have parts of she stand in for her, not sure. I wanted the new words to be more similar to the letters in the original words for easy recognition, interpretation, and use.
My vote: shre, herhis, himher
Comment by Karen — March 4, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Gender neutral…embrace your intent, but it’s awkward reading. Forces me to slow down and decode. Slowing down is a good thing but decoding is rough.
Comment by M Anderson — March 4, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
In the 1970s, there was an attempt to make gender-neutral language. That endeavor, obviously, was an abysmal failure. Since we already have gender neutral words (it, its, it’s), I don’t see the necessity. In addition, the average person would be averse to making such a change in the language (that has served us well for hundreds of years) for what purpose? Other languages that share our roots (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) don’t even have gender-neutral for, say, a *chair.*
As far as my reading it, I found it awkward and unappealing. It felt forced and seemed a little too cutesy to take seriously.
Comment by Irene King — March 4, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
For these articles I think it does matter what words I use, in that I don’t want to have to decide that Truth is male and Story is female, etc. The language forces drawing a line in the sand that is misleading. As an author, I have long felt limited by needing to disclose gender, and I don’t want to depersonalize the personal by using it etc. because that dehumanized us. This is a true limitation IMO, it doesn’t take all that long to get used to, but the questions is: are people willing to get used to it. It’s looking like they’re not.
Giving up isn’t part of my nature, but regrouping is, so I might explore a plan B here.
Comment by merylrunion — March 4, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
Great article, but I found that by the 4th paragraph, I switched back to regular pronouns in my mind as I read to make it easier to read. And “shrim” sounds too much like “shrimp” which made me chuckle as I read.
Comment by katie — March 5, 2009 @ 1:23 am
It was very difficult following the “gender neutral” words in your articles. It made me feel lost. The intent is a great idea & I wish you luck!!
Comment by dorothy — March 5, 2009 @ 10:48 am
As I mentioned earlier, other languages that share our roots don’t have gender-neutral for *anything,* and each noun is assigned a gender. Go figure.
At least we are able to have gender-neutral descriptions of everything that is actually gender-neutral, except for us, of course. Because we’re not. Although the language leans towards male as the de facto gender, it still makes for an easier read than a forced gender-neutral quasi-language. And it’s still easier than trying to remember whether a pen or a chair is male or female.
By the way, the language change that was suggested in the 70s by (a small portion) of the feminist movement was “ve.” Ve would stand in for He or She. Of course, when it came to possessives, the whole thing crumbled into infighting. It got silly and went away.
Comment by Irene King — March 11, 2009 @ 10:28 am
I was wondering what pronouns were tried earlier on.
I think this is more of a concern for authors than for many other people. It really isn’t a equal rights kind of issue or question for me – particularly with the new writing I’m doing. Sometimes I’d like to be clear I’m referring to a living being but not have to claim gender.
Like Ms., I think it wouldn’t take long to get used to it and it would be worth the trouble, just like going metric would be a good thing for us. That didn’t happen, and who knows when this might.
Anyway, thanks!
Comment by merylrunion — March 11, 2009 @ 10:37 am
I avoid the pronoun awkwardness by using a title or descriptor instead of the pronoun, especially in business writing, but also in my personal communications. Isn’t it easier to use “the baby”, “the student”, “the employee” than s/he? Using the descriptor lets the subject be the subject, without introducing the gender-weighted pronoun.
Which leads me to another important topic: There is a lot of talk amongst the feminist community about negative impacts of the “gender binary”. Why do we insist there are two genders? Aren’t we all just people? Why do we tend to divide groups into two? Liberal/Conservative, Man/Woman, Smart/Stupid…
This is a great topic!
Comment by Rachel — March 12, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Yes, yes. The black /white, either / or mindset puts us in boxes when there really is a continuum.
I do find using the descriptor too often is awkward, however.
Thanks for your input!
Comment by merylrunion — March 12, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
I’m afraid we’ve gone a little overboard in the political correctness when it comes to the English language.
First, I abhor the use of “their” when referring to singular entities. It’s grammatically incorrect, and it feeds into the “but it’s commonly used that way” argument. The broadcast media have long ago given up any rights to thinking of themselves as defenders or arbiters of the English language, so I’m afraid it’s up to us common folk.
I have no problem with saying, “If someone would like to challenge this idea, he is free to speak up now.” That, or “he or she” giving a mixed audience the choice. “He” has represented BOTH genders for many, many years. If I can explore my feminine side, why can’t we leave well enough alone?
Comment by Ron Pulliam — March 18, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Ron, my desire for gender neutral language is not about political correctness. It’s more about clarity – and as a writer, artistic flair. I prefer not to have to designate gender when it’s not relevant, emphasize gender when it is, and I’d like to be able to disguise gender without sounding convoluted until I choose to reveal it for effect.I find the current options very limiting. So when I’m really famous, I just might take up the cause again.
Comment by merylrunion — March 22, 2009 @ 10:57 am