|
I see the movement to make they a singular pronoun as the latest example of our decades-long effort to eradicate gendered or sexist language from our writing . I find it instructive to read legal-writing guidebooks from a time before our consciousness was raised on this issue . The leading guidebook in the 1950s was Frank Cooper ’ s Writing in Law Practice . The book offers excellent advice , but there is not a woman to be found . Instead , we get 510 pages of the “ generic he ” and dozens of examples of good and bad writing populated exclusively by men . 27 The same can be said for David Mellinkoff ’ s magisterial treatise , The Language of the Law from 1963 . This is a truly erudite work tracing influences on the language of the law back to the Celtic invasion of England . Still , Mellinkoff ’ s frequent use of gendered terms like “ draftsman ” and “ layman ” and the utter absence of women in any example tempers my enjoyment of the book . Instead , the book is filled with lines like this : “ Unlike the plumber , who is a doing man , the lawyer is primarily a communicating man .” 28 Strunk and White , for all their wonderful attention to detail in The Elements of Style , have nothing to say about omitting sexist language . 29
Henry Weihofen also says nothing about omitting sexist language in the first edition of his influential Legal Writing Style in 1961 . Worse , when recommending varying word choice for the same term to “ avoid ambiguity or excessive repetition ,” Weihofen argues that “ the substitute should be only a substitute , and not an elegant sobriquet , such as ‘ the weaker sex ’ for women , ‘ Old Glory ’ for the flag , or ‘ the staff of life ’ for bread .” 30 What is elegant about the sobriquet “ the weaker sex ”?!
We see halting steps toward omitting sexist language in the second edition of Legal Writing Style in 1980 . Reading Weihofen on legal-writing style , I often feel that no one has said it better since , and we should stop trying . The book is that good . But on sexist language Weihofen now sounds antiquated . The short section of the book is called , “ Avoid Sexist Expressions ( When You Can ).” 31 Weihofen urges readers to say “ personal rights ” instead of “ the rights of man ,” “ reasonable person ” instead of “ reasonable man ,” and “ police officer ” instead of “ policeman .” Yet Weihofen insists that the word “ man ” and “ men ” can also include women . Thus , we can say “ Madam Chairman ” and we can call a woman the “ foreman of the jury .” Weihofen says the declaration “ All men are created equal ” does not exclude women . 32 If Weihofen is right , then does “ All women are created equal ” include men ? I wonder what Weihofen would have thought of Mister Chairwoman .
We experienced something of a cultural
|
revolution in the 1970s and 1980s with the gradual acceptance of Ms . instead of Miss or Mrs . I say gradual because there was opposition . Although Ms . first appeared in 1901 , the New York Times did not adopt it until 1986 . 33 Now , a new gender-neutral honorific has been introduced and is gaining in popularity — Mx . Mx . is used “ as a title for those who do not identify as being of a particular gender , or for people who simply don ’ t want to be identified by gender .” 34 The earliest known use of Mx . was in 1977 . The New York Times has used Mx ., but was quick to make clear that this was an “ exception .” Still , Mx . seems to be catching on : It was added to the Merriam- Webster Unabridged Dictionary in 2016 . 35 Today , who would think ( or dare !) to write Miss . Perhaps in fifty years we will say the same thing about Mr . and Ms . Here , change can start with me . Feel free to call me Mx . Johnson !
The drive to omit sexist language went mainstream in the 1980s and 1990s . We now say layperson instead of layman , business executive instead of businessman , reporter instead of newsman , worker ’ s compensation instead of workman ’ s compensation , and firefighter instead of fireman . Common idioms and figures of speech like “ old wives ’ tales ” are now considered sexist . 36 Many states revised their codes and constitutions to make them gender neutral . Vermont did so in 1994 , making it the sixth state with a gender-neutral constitution . 37 This stands in stark contrast to the United States Code . The first section of the first title of the code still says that , for the entire code , “ words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well .” 38 What a welcome for women to the United States Code !
Vermont has been a leader in the effort to create a more gender-inclusive society . In 2009 , the University of Vermont began allowing students to choose their preferred pronoun , putting UVM “ at the forefront in recognizing the next step in identity politics : the validation of a third gender .” 39 UVM professor now receive class lists with a new column for pronouns . Students initially proposed they as an option , but the faculty rejected this idea , arguing it was grammatically incorrect . Students and faculty agreed on ze . This made UVM the first university in the country whose students could choose their preferred pronoun . In 2014 , faculty caved to student pressure and agreed to include they in the list of pronoun choices . The New York Times article on the subject said that “ grammarians . . . reminded naysayers that the English language is constantly evolving .” 40
Changes like this are happening internationally too . A grade school in Sweden , for example , has dropped all personal pronouns in an effort “ to blur gender lines
|
and , theoretically , cement opportunities for both women and men .” 41
This quote supports the point I made at the beginning of this column . Gender-neutral pronouns benefit the trans and genderqueer communities , but they also have a broader salutary effect . They blur or erase gender lines and therefore lead to greater gender equality . The great and , sadly , late Professor Cheryl Hanna saw the connection between the LGBT and women ’ s civil rights movements :
[ I ] f we accept the premise that masculinity — as a socially constructed set of beliefs about what it means to be a man — supports broader male privilege , then we must also accept that any attempt to redefine gender roles , including what it means to be a man as well as a woman , threatens that male privilege , and is threatening to many men . It is at this focal point that both women ’ s rights and gay and lesbian rights intersect . 42
Using gender-neutral pronouns disrupts and threatens male privilege by redefining gender roles through language : All people are created equal . In this regard , using the singular they ( and gender-neutral language in general ) is as much a feminist issue as it is a trans issue . We have come so far in the last fifty years in omitting sexist language and , more generally , “ de-gendering ” the language of the law . It seems fitting and not that big a step to use the singular they in our continuing push for gender equality .
I acknowledge that many see the use of they as a singular pronoun as still another example of the corruption and deterioration of the English language . We need not worry . English is strong and resilient because it is flexible . As the excellent PBS documentary from the 1980s , The Story of English , put it , “ English is in a constant state of renewal . The quicker the tempo of change , the quicker the rate of renewal .” 43 The documentary tells the story of a special session of the House of Lords in Britain in 1978 entitled , “ The English Language : Deterioration in Usage .” All agreed that the language was deteriorating . One peer lamented that it would be “ virtually impossible for a modern poet to write , the choir of gay companions .” 44 The documentary takes a dim view of this pessimism . Rather , it embraces change , with a thesis summarized by Ralph Waldo Emerson ’ s fine metaphor , “ The English language is the sea which receives tributaries from every region under heaven .” 45
I will close with two lines from T . S . Eliot ’ s poem , The Four Quartets : For last year ’ s words belong to last year ’ s language And next year ’ s words await another
|
Welcome to our Gender-Neutral Future |