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) :D

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 <i>he</i> and <i>she</i> 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 <i>they</i>), 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 <i>he</i> and <i>she</i> 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 <i>(you) guys</i> 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 <b>impress</b> them with how conscious of gender-equality issues the writer considers themself to be. [safari's spellchecker does <b>not</b> like <i>themself</i>, 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 <i>she</i> as well (<i>"Ain't she a beaut?"</i>). 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]

<i>Not exclusively American</i> in the sense that writing <i>English</i> 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?

[chatfsh]

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, <b>meaningless</b>) 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), <i>parokhod</i>, is masculine (as is <i>korabl'</i>, 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 <i>sudno</i> (neuter noun) as <i>on</i> "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 <i>the guys</i> becomes a third-person reference, not second person/address like <i>(you) guys</i>.

[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 <i>they</i>), 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.

[chatfsh]

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

[MrFlibble]

So, it seems that the term

[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

[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 <i>it</i>. THAT is what makes the use of <i>she</i> for ships <b>interesting</b>.

Would you <b>ever</b> refer to a <i>sudno</i> or <i>lodka</i> using <i>on</i>?

[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.