{"id":5491,"date":"2004-04-10T03:52:28","date_gmt":"2004-04-10T07:52:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/04\/10\/pronoun-wars-say-no-to-em-yes"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:54","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:54","slug":"pronoun-wars-say-no-to-em-yes-to-de-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/04\/10\/pronoun-wars-say-no-to-em-yes-to-de-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Pronoun Wars: say no to “em,” yes to “de”"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

 \"eKeyS\" \"mKeyS\" . . ??<\/FONT><\/EM><\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
[Wea<\/EM>kend<\/A> Special]  Until reading <\/FONT>Scheherazade’s post<\/FONT><\/A> yesterday, this middle-aged guy didn’t know there was an “em<\/STRONG>” phenomenon, much less a related controversy.  It seems that “em” is used by a number of writers as a gender-neutral pronoun — for both subject and object.  Lately, <\/FONT>The Uncivil Litigator<\/FONT><\/A> has been thinking, and inviting comments, about the use of gender-neutral pronouns, and has <\/FONT>collected<\/FONT><\/A> some links on the topic.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
Indeed, it was UCL<\/EM> who “inspired” Scheherazade’s post, which argues against the use of “em” (or any <\/FONT><\/FONT>epicene<\/FONT><\/A> pronoun) <\/FONT>to mask the gender of the subject person.  My summary of Sherry’s position is “if gender isn’t important to the story, just pick one; don’t make up an annoying pronoun.”  UCL<\/EM> thinks there are times when you owe it to the subject to make sure her or his identity can’t be determined from reading the piece; UCL <\/EM>also thinks just picking or switching genders is “lying” to your audience.  If it matters, I agree stylistically with Sherry.   On a practical level, it also seems that masking the gender may not solve UCL<\/EM>‘s problem of keeping the subject’s identity secret.  If readers would know who the person is when his or her gender is specified, masking the gender probably offers little protection.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
On the broader issue of using gender-neutral singular pronouns (when gender is unknown or irrelevant), I’m not really convinced we need them.  [To me, it’s the males who get the short end of the traditional linguistic stick in the context of pronouns — they don’t have one of their own, since “he” encompasses both genders.<\/FONT>  But, it’s an injustice we are willing to accept in deference to history, and to avoid the pain of change.]  As <\/FONT>Evan Schaeffer<\/FONT><\/A> said in a <\/FONT>comment<\/FONT><\/A> to UCL:<\/U><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"hKeyS\" \"eKeyS\"  “This is one of those topics upon which you will never please everyone, but . . . on my site, I try to use the plural ‘they’ whenever possible, but often this isn’t possible. In those cases, I use ‘he.’ I’ve always felt this was the language that was handed down to us, etc. Well, lately I started changing my mind somewhat, and began substituting ‘she’ every now and then. My wife, who serves an my editor from time to time, said this was absurb. I should stick with “he,” she told me. She’s always taken the non-specific ‘he’ to mean ‘he or she.’ So I’ve got to go with my wife — ‘he’ it is.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Nonetheless, I understand why others disagree with this position and would want to create and use gender-neutral pronouns.  Although I’m not a linguist, I do have some suggestions for those who want to achieve this goal (after at least ten hours thinking really<\/EM> hard about it).  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
The biggest problem with introducing any important new terminology into a language, of course, is that it will be jarring<\/A> to many in the audience, create confusion and annoyance, and meet with resistance.   In addition, the existence of competing neologisms will further retard and maybe defeat the process.   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n