The use of gender-neutral pronouns in English

[MrFlibble]

Recently I've been participating in a discussion concerning translations on a Russian forum, and one of the members suggested that the pursuit of political correctness has gone so far that you can no longer be sure whether she refers to male or female if there is no direct statement indicating the gender. According to that person on the forum, the feminine pronoun can be used instead of the masculine pronoun not only to refer to antecedents of mixed or indeterminate gender, but also in other cases if the author/speaker wishes to be politically correct. So, for example, she in the phrase

(1) I met my friend yesterday at the store, and she told me the news.

may be interpreted as referring to a male person if there is no other information to contradict such interpretation.

I've looked up the matter on Wikipedia and the sources it gives links to, and I've found this passage:

Writers do use she as a conscious alternative relatively frequently. However, it is as open to the arguments about inherent sexism as continuing to use he for the generic form.

(source)

From what I have read, though, I've got the impression that the main concern of gender neutrality is with the "reference to antecedents of mixed or indeterminate gender", as in

(2) If anyone wants to say something, he/she/they can do so after the lecture.

whereas the universal use of a gender-neutral pronoun is a slightly different matter. Am I wrong?

Also, if she may really be used to refer to a male person, as in (1), does that mean that the grammatical category of gender in English is disappearing?

[Dunenewt]

"I met my friend yesterday at the store, and she told me the news."

This would imply your friend was a woman, it would never ever imply your friend was a man.

"I met my friend yesterday at the store, and they told me the news."

This would imply your friend could either be male or female.

[MrFlibble]

Tanks for clearing that up Dunenewt I almost thought I missed something big time (that guy who told me about "she" meaning "he" posed as some kind of expert on contemporary American English)

BTW, I also prefer using "singular they" in such cases.

[SandChigger]

In the things I read I see a lot of writers consciously switching back and forth between he and she to refer to a non-specific singular referent, and to be honest, it always strikes me as odd ... forced. It's funny, but people trying to show how unprejudiced they are in this way actually prejudices me against them.

The spoken language has a way around this (the singular they), we just have to accept it in the written. It's not like using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular would be the first illogical thing in English. Or the first time that particular "error" has be committed ... if YOU follow my drift.

[MrFlibble]

In the things I read I see a lot of writers consciously switching back and forth between he and she to refer to a non-specific singular referent, and to be honest, it always strikes me as odd ... forced. It's funny, but people trying to show how unprejudiced they are in this way actually prejudices me against them.

I read about it in the online sources I found, although I never encountered such use myself. It must produce an odd feeling, like the author who does it wants to deliberately confuse the readers...

On a vaguely related note, I've encountered instances when a female speaker informally addressed her female friends as guys. Is it an acceptable norm (at least, in an informal conversation, maybe only among young people)? Is guys considered gender-neutral in such contexts, or is it thought to reflect "male bias"?

[SandChigger]

To me, using (you) guys to refer to females is odd, but I caught myself doing it the other day in class, so... It's not a usage I grew up with, so it's either an innovation of the last few decades or something from one dialect that has spread. I would think it's more a North American usage, but 'Newt and the others can confirm that.

(With the "he/she switching", it doesn't come across as an attempt to confuse readers so much as an attempt to impress them with how conscious of gender-equality issues the writer considers themself to be. [Safari's spellchecker does not like themself, surprise surprise!] I would be very dubious indeed of anyone claiming that they do it unconsciously or naturally.)

[Wolf]

Referring to groups of girls that you are familiar with as "guys" is increasingly common; and is appropriate for both males to say to female friends, or females to say to female friends, but is seen most usually (by me) when there is a group of mixed male and female friends.

As for usage of "she" in contemporary American English... it's something that appears quite frequently in legal writing. Unknown actors are increasingly referred to as "she" when they may very well turn out to be male actors. "You will certainly alienate a judge with that argument; she will probably rule against you." However, I only really see this usage in reference to professional actors--e.g., the lawyer, the judge, the representative, etc.--as opposed to all unknown or unnamed actors, generally.

It's also something we see used to refer to countries--in historical writing, the United Kingdom may be described as a "she," for example, especially when "the nation" or "the government" is cast as an individual actor. This is especially common in military history. "She [France] was unable to secure friendlier relations with Britain before 1904."

Finally, American English tends to refer to ships or other sailing vessels as "she," where I understand that modern Russian uses the masculine form to refer to the same. There is no rule for this, I believe it to be merely idiosyncratic.

[SandChigger]

The ship usage is fairly old, isn't it, and not exclusively American?

Men also refer to vehicles like cars & motorcycles using she as well ("Ain't she a beaut?"). An indication of affection, pride (especially when they work on them themselves), etc?


Edit: fixed creeping italic spread.

[Wolf]

Idiosyncratic in the sense that gender-pronouns for sailing vessels vary from culture to culture.

[SandChigger]

Not exclusively American in the sense that writing English alone would have been sufficient.

[Wolf]

I never claimed that it was exclusively American, and since the conversation was (as I recall) about American English, I thought I'd retain that level of specificity. The panoply of English languages is not alone in its usage of the feminine in referring to sailing vessels, would it be sufficient to mention the others, as well?

[Hwi Noree]

It is fairly common to use the term "you guys" as a gender-neutral expression when addressing one's female acquaintances, however, such usage would not be appropriate in all circumstances. For instance, while at dinner with my female friends, I might phrase a question accordingly, "Did you guys watch the political debates last night?"  Whereas prior to that event, when I'm arranging my affairs so that I can meet with them, I wouldn't say, "Hey babe, you wouldn't mind if I go out with the guys tonight, would you?"  As that would convey an entirely different meaning, greatly increasing the probability that I would receive a negative reply to my inquiry.

[SandChigger]

I never claimed that it was exclusively American, and since the conversation was (as I recall) about American English, I thought I'd retain that level of specificity.

But if you're discussing English in comparison to Russian, it's an unnecessary (or, rather, meaningless) level of specificity.

What makes the English use of a feminine pronoun to refer to an inanimate, gender-free object is the fact that English has logical gender, unlike Russian, which has grammatical gender. Since the word for ship (at least the first one in my dictionary), parokhod, is masculine (as is korabl', the second, and first word to turn up for "ship" on Google Translate), the use of a masculine pronoun to refer to a ship isn't terribly interesting. Now, if Russians also refer to a sudno (neuter noun) as on "he", THAT would be interesting. Perhaps Mr Flibble will oblige us with his native intuitions on that ... unless you're prepared to dump a treatise on it first?

For instance, while at dinner with my female friends, I might phrase a question accordingly, "Did you guys watch the political debates last night?"

That's another great example. I probably wouldn't even pause if I overhead one woman say that to a group of women. But the guys becomes a third-person reference, not second person/address like (you) guys.

[Wolf]

No need for a treatise. Yours was sufficient, and (quite appropriately) unnecessary. Or, I suppose, perhaps even meaningless?

I say this because I'm not quite sure I understand your first sentence: "What makes the English use of a feminine pronoun to refer to an inanimate, gender-free object is the fact that English has logical gender"? I think you meant to say, "What makes the English use of a feminine pronoun to refer to an inanimate, gender-free object interesting is the fact that ..." etc. This would make more sense given the subsequent comparison to Russian, i.e., what would make the Russian usage interesting (which, incidentally, I'm very curious to find out about from our resident muzhik). Logical gender isn't the thing that's making English use a feminine pronoun, which is what your current sentence suggests, at least, as far as I understand what's going on. But, hey, we're just talking about grammar, right?

(P.S. For speakers of Russian, the Russian word for "boat" is fantastic for its... eh... "phonetic similarity" to another word.)

[Edric O]

The spoken language has a way around this (the singular they), we just have to accept it in the written. It's not like using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular would be the first illogical thing in English. Or the first time that particular "error" has be committed ... if YOU follow my drift.

What art thou talking about?

It is fairly common to use the term "you guys" as a gender-neutral expression when addressing one's female acquaintances, however, such usage would not be appropriate in all circumstances. For instance, while at dinner with my female friends, I might phrase a question accordingly, "Did you guys watch the political debates last night?"  Whereas prior to that event, when I'm arranging my affairs so that I can meet with them, I wouldn't say, "Hey babe, you wouldn't mind if I go out with the guys tonight, would you?"  As that would convey an entirely different meaning, greatly increasing the probability that I would receive a negative reply to my inquiry.

That's a very good point. I've often heard female acquaintances being referred to as "guys" in the second person ("you guys"), but never in the third person ("the guys"). "You guys" can refer to either males or females, but "the guys" always refers to males.

[Hwi Noree]

That's a very good point. I've often heard female acquaintances being referred to as "guys" in the second person ("you guys"), but never in the third person ("the guys"). "You guys" can refer to either males or females, but "the guys" always refers to males.

True, but that doesn’t really get to the heart of the issue.  It seems that “guys” occupies a rather unique position in our modern vernacular in that depending upon the grammatical person, “guys” can be used to refer to both genders or to males alone.  But note how the rule fails to apply consistently across the board when it relates to other masculine terms such as fellow, dude, chap, lad, etc.  Addressing one’s female acquaintances by any of those terms would no doubt elicit expressions of bewilderment and/or offense.

So, it seems that the term “you guys” has managed to successfully transcend the traditional gender reference, whereas the other terms clearly have not, regardless of the grammatical person.

What I find to be slightly annoying is the use of the term “mankind” when speaking in reference to all of humankind.  Of course, it is commonly understood that the term “mankind” signifies all of humankind, regardless of gender.  And further, that when Neil Armstrong stepped out onto the moon’s surface and announced, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" he wasn’t limiting the spectacular and momentous accomplishment to the skill and endeavors of men.  But what if the astronaut had been female and she had said, "That's one small step for a woman, one giant leap for womankind"?  It definitely shifts the emphasis, and in doing so, attributes and isolates the pride in the accomplishment to one specific segment of humankind.
 
Seriously, it’s no big deal or anything, but since we’re on the subject…would it be too much to ask that the expression “mankind” should be replaced with “humankind” or “humanity”?  (Naturally, exceptions would be made when it is one’s express intention to exclude women from the subject under discussion.)

[MrFlibble]

So, it seems that the term “you guys” has managed to successfully transcend the traditional gender reference, whereas the other terms clearly have not, regardless of the grammatical person.

Could it have the same roots as the use of "ladies" to address a completely male audience by a male speaker in a humorous, ironical way or as a sign of cameraderie?

Seriously, it’s no big deal or anything, but since we’re on the subject…would it be too much to ask that the expression “mankind” should be replaced with “humankind” or “humanity”?  (Naturally, exceptions would be made when it is one’s express intention to exclude women from the subject under discussion.)

It seems to be a general tendency for the masculine form in the Indo-European languages to become markless, and thus get a generic meaning and usage. There is also no denying that the reason for the masculine form to develop such traits was at least in part influenced by extralinguistic, social context. The question is, should a language be deliberately purged of what was once a reflection of "male bias". I think everything depends on the speakers' intuition. Even as a non-native speaker, I feel that using the masculine pronoun in phrases like The speaker can use this form if he thinks it's appropriate could potentially exclude female referents. This is why I prefer the use of "singular they" (although sometimes it may sound clumsy). If you, and other native speakers, feel that man- in mankind has clear masculine connotations, and subsequently replace it with humankind in speech, this might lead to the former becoming less frequently used, to the extent of becoming obsolete. This is the natural way of language development: words drift between the center and the periphery of the active vocabulary, and those at the periphery may shift into passive vocabulary.

The idea I don't like very much is that of enforcing or forbidding the use of certain words by extralinguistic means (like court order), as well as based on extralinguistic reasons. I've got a feeling that language doesn't like tampering with itself very much, and has its own ways of change and development.

I say this because I'm not quite sure I understand your first sentence: "What makes the English use of a feminine pronoun to refer to an inanimate, gender-free object is the fact that English has logical gender"?

I think SandChigger meant that English-speaking people have a certain freedom in choosing whether a ship should be a he or a she (if they want to personify it, that is). In Russian, the language itself imposes gender upon inanimate objects, as the nouns have a characteristic of grammatical gender, manifested by specific inflexions.

It is interesting to note that sometimes the grammatical gender contradicts the logical gender, as there are some words that are grammatically of feminine gender, yet they refer to male persons. There is also a class of grammatically feminine nouns that can refer to both male and female persons, depending on context.

(P.S. For speakers of Russian, the Russian word for "boat" is fantastic for its... eh... "phonetic similarity" to another word.)

What word are you talking about? Here's a quick list of Russian words for vessels:

судно n (sudno) 'vessel' (a generic term)
лодка f (lodka) 'boat'
корабль m (korabl') 'ship'
пароход m (parokhod) 'steamboat'
теплоход m (teplokhod) 'motor ship'

There are quite a few other, but they are more specific, below the basic level, so to speak. None of them sound like anything specifically interesting IMO...

[Khan]

Lodka sounds a little like vodka.

[Wolf]

шлюпка (sloop)--Sorry about the confusion, I was fairly drunk at the time.

[Edric O]

Seriously, it’s no big deal or anything, but since we’re on the subject…would it be too much to ask that the expression “mankind” should be replaced with “humankind” or “humanity”?  (Naturally, exceptions would be made when it is one’s express intention to exclude women from the subject under discussion.)

Hmm, "humankind" - I like it. For some reason, I feel that a term ending in "-kind" is somehow more... Inspiring? Emotional? Poetic? I prefer "humanity" as a generic term, but I often use "mankind" when I'm trying to sound like I'm talking about an issue of cosmic importance. For example, if we're talking about the survival of the species, I would probably say "the survival of Mankind" (I also like to capitalize Mankind and Humanity). But, as an example of generic use, the fictional political entity that eventually unites the whole species in my sci-fi universe is called the Commonwealth of Humanity.

I never thought of using "Humankind" instead. That's a good idea.

[SandChigger]

I think SandChigger meant that English-speaking people have a certain freedom in choosing whether a ship should be a he or a she (if they want to personify it, that is). In Russian, the language itself imposes gender upon inanimate objects, as the nouns have a characteristic of grammatical gender, manifested by specific inflexions.

Quite. Since English has logical (or natural) gender, inanimate objects are normally referred to by it. THAT is what makes the use of she for ships interesting.

Would you ever refer to a sudno or lodka using on?

[Wolf]

You mean, as in, он на судна (on na sudna)?

EDIT: Whoops, you mean, on as in he. Gotcha. Thought you meant the preposition.

[SandChigger]

No ... the boardware doesn't like it when I try to enter cyrillic, hence the italicized romanization.

Test: У нас есть маленькая лодка.

[SandChigger]

(Now it seems OK. Who knows. )

[Wolf]

Yeah, I was having issues with it as well, but found copy & paste works fine from a Word file--a surprising amount of confusion can ensue with transliterated Russian.

Нет маленькие лодки, только маленькие матросы.

Oh, and to answer your question... damfino.

[Edric O]

It's strange to suddenly find that so many people here know Russian (ok, "many" in this case means "three," but still). I should try learning it one of these days...

[MrFlibble]

Would you ever refer to a sudno or lodka using on?

Absolutely not. It is worth mentioning, though, that if the name of a vessel has a different gender than the word for its generic term, the gender forms corresponding to the name may be used. But technically that's not the use of one gender to refer to antecedents of another gender, which would be a violation of grammaticity.

[Kiyouta]

I always thought the singular use of 'they' sounded odd... Especially if you had already introduced the subject as a particular gender.

[veK]

The gender issue is so annoying. I often see contracts with a side note that the whole text will be speaking of the male gender but refers to both. This "political correctness" annoys me me. If anybody really has a problem, then why don't we just invent a neutral form instead of starting to use both forms for both genders and make things even more complicated? Then funny thing is: we already have a neutral article in the german language (der, die, das - first one is male, second female, third is neutral). So "the sun" is female (die Sonne), "the moon" is male (der mond), and "the universe" is neutral (das universum).

[Dunenewt]

...and the girl is neutral.