Man is a curious animal...

Last week, Johnson posted on gendered language. If our workshop participants are typical, many of you have views on this topic. Here's a taste of what Johnson had to say:

In the history of English and other languages, men have magnanimously declared that grammatically or semantically masculine words could include women. In grammar, the traditional view is that the male pronoun is sex-neutral in sentences like "Everyone should find his seat and take out his notebook." And the scope of "man", "mankind", Jefferson's "all men are created equal", it was explained to women, included them too. But this has been a cause for feminist chagrin in modern times. Feminists and those hoping to avoid annoying people along these lines cautiously opt for "people" or "humankind" in place of "man" and "mankind".

More specific terms have been contentious too. At one point in history, "policemen" and "firemen" were not controversial because there were no policewomen and firewomen. Now, "police officers" and "firefighters" are the generic plurals of the day. But the conversion to sex-neutral terms has been patchy and inconsistent. The lowest enlisted ranks in America's navy are "seamen" — regardless of the sex of the sailors in question. The same applies to "airmen" in America's air force. Britain's Royal Navy has only "seamen" — but the Royal Air Force has "airwomen" as well as "airmen".

Other traditional terms are in similar disarray. Female Hollywood types are "actresses", uncontroversially, but many women of the serious New York stage call themselves "actors". No self-respecting female writer of verse calls herself a "poetess" any more. "Waitress" is holding its own against "server", but "stewardess" has quickly yielded to "flight attendant". "Hostess" is harmless but "mistress" is tainted.

Gender-neutral pronouns

Johnson posts on an attempt by a Swedish author to use a pronoun ('hen', which is 'they' in Swedish) that doesn't give readers a clue to a character's gender:

"When I read the book to older children who can repeat the story, then the boys call Kivi 'him' and the girls called Kivi 'her', says Jesper Lundqvist.

..."When I thought about it a bit it adds something in a certain context. If someone was at the doctor's, for example, and tells about it and says 'he' or 'she' for the doctor, it paints a certain picture. It's interesting what it does to the picture when someone calls the doctor 'hen'. "

The Johnson post includes an interesting discussion of the use of singular 'they' in English:

Yes, singular they has been used for quite a long time in impeccable English sources. It has three gender-neutral uses,when the gender of an antecedent is

plural and mixed:  Everyone has their own opinion.

unknown: Someone left their book here.

unimportant: Anyone who works here should know they'll have to work hard.

And it includes a link to an article on an invented transgender pronoun, which makes the point:

Political correctness means ditching a clear and precise word in favour of a vaguer term, to spare someone's feelings. This is a case of using a new word because the existing words are imprecise. They do not serve.

So what do you think? He, his and him? They, their, and them? Or something else entirely?