[WikiEN-l] WikiWomen (was Partial deletion)

Thu Jul 17 19:26:28 UTC 2003

Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:

> What I think you're actually saying is that you *refer to* people 
> whose gender
> you don't know as "he". This has never been entirely standard, and 
> will annoy
> quite a few people at this epoch. Using full names, "they", and 
> workarounds
> like "that person", is probably a better idea.

I think if you put a dozen grammarians in a room and ask them about 
this, you're going to end up with a fight. =]  I do think it was 
standard to use "he" at one time -- you'd hardly find anything else in 
19th-century writing -- but it's not any longer. Many people also 
dislike "they", because it's using plural forms (both the plural 
pronoun, and to be consistent, plural verbs) to refer to a single 
person.  Those people seem to be losing that particular battle though.

As of late I've noticed in much academic writing a preferred solution 
has been to simply use "she".  It's not really any better than using 
"he" as far as correctness goes, but people are less likely to complain 
about it being sexist, so it has taken off especially in fields that 
have traditionally been criticized for excluding women, such as 
philosophy and computer science.  I do find it somewhat jarring when I 
read it though, as I'm used to "she" being used to refer to people who 
are actually female, so it takes me a minute to realize from context 
that it's being used as a generic pronoun.  Sort of along the same 
lines, but not particularly jarring, is using female examples when 
making up fictional people to explain a point.  I've also noticed 
somewhat humorously that it's become common when making up fictional 
dialogues in philosophy to make the "reasonable" side be female, and 
make the "wrong" side be male.  I suppose doing it in the reverse would 
lead to charges of sexism.

In any case that was a bit of rambling, but I find this all very 
interesting.

-Mark