Editing Androcentrism (section)

== Generic male language ==
{{Further|Male as norm}}
{{See also|Gender-neutral language}}

In literature, the use of masculine language to refer to men, women, intersex, and non-binary people may indicate a male or androcentric bias in society where men are seen as the 'norm', and women, intersex, and non-binary people are seen as the 'other'. Philosophy scholar [[Jennifer Saul]] argues that the use of male generic language marginalizes women, intersex, and non-binary people in society.<ref>{{cite web | last = Saul | first = Jennifer | title = Feminist philosophy of language | url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-language/#1.1 | website = plato.stanford.edu | publisher = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online) | date = 2004 | access-date = 17 March 2011}}</ref> In recent years, some writers have started to use more gender-inclusive language (for instance, using the pronouns [[singular they|they/them]] and using gender-inclusive words like humankind, person, partner, spouse, businessperson, firefighter, chairperson, and police officer).

Many studies have shown that male generic language is not interpreted as truly gender-inclusive.<ref>
''Studies'':
* {{cite journal | last = Bojarska | first = Katarzyna | title = Responding to lexical stimuli with gender associations: a cognitive–cultural model | journal = [[Journal of Language and Social Psychology]] | volume = 32 | issue = 1 | pages = 46&ndash;61 | doi = 10.1177/0261927X12463008 | date = March 2013 | s2cid = 145006661 }}
* {{cite journal | last = Hamilton | first = Mykol C. | title =Using masculine generics: Does generic ''he'' increase male bias in the user's imagery? | journal = [[Sex Roles (journal)|Sex Roles]] | volume = 19 | issue = 11&ndash;12 | pages = 785&ndash;799 | doi = 10.1007/BF00288993 | date = December 1988 | s2cid = 144493073 }}
* {{cite book | last1 = Hamilton | first1 = Mykol C. | last2 = Henley | first2 = Nancy M. | title = Sex bias in language: effects on the reader/hearer's cognitions | date = August 1982}} Paper presented at a conference of the [[American Psychological Association]], Los Angeles.
* {{cite journal | last1 = DeLoache | first1 = Judy S. | last2 = Cassidy | first2 = Deborah J. | last3 = Carpenter | first3 = C. Jan | title = The three bears are all boys: Mothers' gender labeling of neutral picture book characters | journal = [[Sex Roles (journal)|Sex Roles]] | volume = 17 | issue = 3&ndash;4 | pages = 163&ndash;178 | doi = 10.1007/BF00287623 | date = August 1987 | s2cid = 143834265 }}</ref> Psychological research has shown that, in comparison to unbiased terms such as "they" and "humankind", masculine terms lead to male-biased mental imagery in the mind of both the listener and the communicator.

Three studies by Mykol Hamilton show that there is not only a male → people bias but also a people → male bias.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Hamilton | first = Mykol C. | title = <nowiki>Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood: people = male, male = people</nowiki> | journal = [[Psychology of Women Quarterly]] | volume = 15 | issue = 3 | pages = 393&ndash;402 | doi = 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00415.x | date = November 1991 | s2cid = 143533483 }}</ref> In other words, a masculine bias remains even when people are exposed to only gender neutral language (although the bias is lessened). In two of her studies, half of the participants (after exposure to gender neutral language) had male-biased imagery but the rest of the participants displayed no gender bias at all.  In her third study, only males showed a masculine-bias (after exposure to gender neutral language) – females showed no gender bias. Hamilton asserted that this may be due to the fact that males have grown up being able to think more easily than females of "any person" as generic "he," since "he" applies to them. Further, of the two options for neutral language, neutral language that explicitly names women (e.g., "he or she") reduces androcentrism more effectively than neutral language that makes no mention of gender whatsoever (e.g., "human").<ref>{{cite journal | last = Khosroshahi | first = Fatemeh | title = Penguins don't care, but women do: A social identity analysis of a Whorfian problem | journal = [[Language in Society]] | volume = 18 | issue = 4 | pages = 505&ndash;525 | doi = 10.1017/S0047404500013889 | date = December 1989 | s2cid = 145728097 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bailey | first1 = April H. | last2 = LaFrance | first2 = Marianne | title = Who counts as human? Antecedents to androcentric behavior | journal = [[Sex Roles (journal)|Sex Roles]] | volume = 76 | issue = 11&ndash;12 | pages = 682&ndash;693 | doi = 10.1007/s11199-016-0648-4 | date = June 2017 | s2cid = 148460313 }}</ref>

Feminist anthropologist Sally Slocum argues that there has been a longstanding male bias in anthropological thought as evidenced by terminology used when referring to society, culture, and humankind. According to Slocum, "All too often the word 'man' is used in such an ambiguous fashion that it is impossible to decide whether it refers to males or just the human species in general, including both males and females."<ref>Slocum, Sally (2012) [1975], "[https://books.google.com/books?id=Kou0uQAACAAJ Woman the gatherer: male bias in anthropology]", in {{cite book | editor1-last = McGee | editor1-first = R. Jon | editor2-last = Warms | editor2-first = Richard L. | title = Anthropological theory: an introductory history | date = 11 July 2011 | pages = 399&ndash;407 | publisher = McGraw-Hill | location = New York | isbn = 9780078034886 }}</ref>

Men's language will be judged as the 'norm' and anything that women do linguistically will be judged negatively against this.<ref>Mooney, A., & Evans, B. (2019). Language, Power, and Society: An Introduction.</ref> The speech of a socially subordinate group will be interpreted as linguistically inadequate against that used by socially dominant groups.<ref>Wolfram, W. and Schilling-Estes, N. (1998) American English: Dialect and Variation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.</ref> It has been found that women use more hedges and qualifiers than men. Feminine speech has been viewed as more tentative and has been deemed powerless speech. This is based on the view that masculine speech is the standard.