Editing Gender neutrality in English (section)

==Examples of gender neutral language==

===Job titles===
{{Main|Gender-specific job title}}
Gender-neutral job titles do not specify the gender of the person referred to, particularly when the gender is not in fact known, or is not yet specified (as in job advertisements). Examples include ''firefighter'' instead of ''fireman''; ''flight attendant'' instead of ''steward'' or ''stewardess''; ''bartender'' instead of ''barman'' or ''barmaid''; and ''chairperson'' or ''chair'' instead of ''chairman'' or ''chairwoman''.

There are also cases where a distinct female form exists, but the basic (or "male") form does not intrinsically indicate a male (such as by including ''man''), and can equally well be applied to any member of the profession, whether male or female or of unspecified sex. Examples include ''actor'' and ''actress''; ''usher'' and ''usherette''; ''comedian'' and ''comedienne''. In such cases, proponents of gender-neutral language generally advocate the non-use of the distinct female form (always using ''comedian'' rather than ''comedienne'', for example, even if the referent is known to be a woman).

Terms such as ''male nurse'', ''male model'' or ''female judge'' are sometimes used in cases where the gender is irrelevant or already understood (as in "my brother is a male nurse"). Many advisors on non-sexist usage discourage such phrasing, as it implies that someone of that gender is an inferior or atypical member of the profession. Another discouraged form is the prefixing of an ordinary job title with ''lady'', as in ''lady doctor'': here ''woman'' or ''female'' is preferred if it is necessary to specify the gender. Some jobs are known colloquially with a gender marker: [[washerwoman]] or laundress (now usually referred to as a laundry worker), [[tea lady]] (formerly in offices, still in hospitals), [[lunch lady]] ([[American English]]) or dinner lady ([[British English]]), cleaning lady for [[cleaner]] (formerly known as a [[charwoman]] or charlady), and so on.

===Generic words for humans===
Another issue for gender-neutral language concerns the use of the words ''man'', ''men'' and ''mankind'' to refer to a person or people of unspecified sex or to persons of both sexes.

Although [[man (word)|the word ''man'']] originally referred to both males and females, some feel that it no longer does so unambiguously.<ref>{{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|pp=11-17}}</ref> In [[Old English]], the word ''[[were|wer]]'' referred to males only and ''wif'' to females only, while ''man'' referred to both,<ref>{{harvp|Curzan|2003|p=134}}</ref> although in practice ''man'' was sometimes also used in Old English to refer only to males.<ref>{{harvp|Curzan|2003|p=163}}</ref> In time, ''wer'' fell out of use, and ''man'' came to refer sometimes to both sexes and sometimes to males only; "[a]s long as most generalizations about men were made by men about men, the ambiguity nestling in this dual usage was either not noticed or thought not to matter."<ref name="Miller and Swift 1988 12"/> By the 18th century, ''man'' had come to refer primarily to males; some writers who wished to use the term in the older sense deemed it necessary to spell out their meaning. [[Anthony Trollope]], for example, writes of "the infinite simplicity and silliness of mankind and womankind",<ref>Quoted in {{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|p=26}}</ref> and when "[[Edmund Burke]], writing of the [[French Revolution]], used ''men'' in the old, inclusive way, he took pains to spell out his meaning: 'Such a deplorable havoc is made in the minds of men (both sexes) in France....'"<ref name="Miller and Swift 1988 12">{{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|p=12}}</ref>

Proponents of gender-neutral language argue that seemingly generic uses of the word "man" are often not in fact generic. Miller and Swift illustrate with the following quotation:

<blockquote>As for man, he is no different from the rest. His back aches, he ruptures easily, his women have difficulties in childbirth....</blockquote>

"If ''man'' and ''he'' were truly generic, the parallel phrase would have been ''he has difficulties in childbirth''", Miller and Swift comment.<ref>{{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|p=15}}</ref> Writing for the [[American Philosophical Association]], Virginia L. Warren follows Janice Moulton and suggests truly generic uses of the word ''man'' would be perceived as "false, funny, or insulting", offering as an example the sentence "Some men are female."<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Warren |first1=Virginia L. |title=Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language |url=https://www.apaonline.org/page/nonsexist |publisher=[[American Philosophical Association]] |access-date=29 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302025159/https://www.apaonline.org/page/nonsexist |archive-date=2 March 2020 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Further, some commentators point out that the ostensibly gender-neutral use of ''man'' has in fact sometimes been used to exclude women:<ref>{{harvp|Freeman|1979|p=492}}</ref>

<blockquote>[[Thomas Jefferson]] did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the [[consent of the governed]]." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word ''men'' in its principal sense of ''males'', and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise.<ref name="Miller and Swift 1988 12"/></blockquote>

For reasons like those above, supporters of gender-neutral language argue that linguistic clarity as well as equality would be better served by having ''man'' and ''men'' refer unambiguously to males, and ''human(s)'' or ''people'' to all persons;<ref>{{harvp|Freeman|1979|p=493}}</ref> similarly, the word ''mankind'' replaced by ''humankind'' or ''humanity''.<ref>{{harvp|Miller|Swift|1988|pp=27}}</ref><!--

In gender-neutral language, when the description of defined genders has a practical need, the words "Male and Female" are often used as opposed to "Men and Women" in an attempt to make emphasis on the scientific features of male and female humans as opposed to cultural associations and baggage that may come with the words "Men and Women". {{clarification needed|date=January 2013}}-->

The use of the word ''man'' as a generic word referring to all humans has been declining, particularly among female speakers and writers.<ref name="Miller and Swift 1988"/>

===Pronouns===
{{See also|Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns#Gender-neutral pronouns in modern standard English}}
 
Another target of frequent criticism by proponents of gender-neutral language is the use of the masculine [[English personal pronouns|pronoun]] ''he'' (and its derived forms ''him'', ''his'' and ''himself'') to refer to antecedents of [[Grammatical gender#Contextual determination of gender|indeterminate gender]]. Although this usage is traditional, some critics argue that it was invented and propagated by males, whose explicit goal was the linguistic representation of male superiority.<ref>{{harvp|Spender|1980|pp=147}}. Among writers defending the usage of generic ''he'', the author cites a Thomas Wilson, writing in 1553, and grammarian Joshua Poole (1646).</ref> The use of the generic ''he'' was approved in an Act of Parliament, the [[Interpretation Act 1850]] (the provision continues in the [[Interpretation Act 1978]], although this states equally that the feminine includes the masculine). On the other hand, in 1879 the word "he" in by-laws was used to block admission of women to the Massachusetts Medical Society.<ref name="UPenn">{{Cite web |author=Carolyn Jacobsen |title=Some Notes on Gender-Neutral Language |work=english.upenn.edu |url=http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cjacobso/gender.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702092056/http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cjacobso/gender.html |archive-date=2 July 2010 |access-date=16 July 2016 }}</ref>

Proposed alternatives to the generic ''he'' include ''he or she'' (or ''she or he''), ''s/he'', or the use of [[singular they|singular ''they'']]. Each of these alternatives has met with objections. The use of ''he or she'' has been criticized for reinforcing the [[gender binary]].<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Chak |first1=Avinash |title=Beyond 'he' and 'she': The rise of non-binary pronouns |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34901704 |website=BBC News |access-date=11 May 2021 |date=7 December 2015}}</ref> Some<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/pronoun.asp | title=Pronouns &#124; Pronoun Examples and Rules }}</ref> see the use of singular ''they'' to be a grammatical error, but according to most references, ''they'', ''their'' and ''them'' have long been grammatically acceptable as gender-neutral singular pronouns in English, having been used in the singular continuously since the [[Middle Ages]], including by a number of prominent authors, such as [[Geoffrey Chaucer]], [[William Shakespeare]], and [[Jane Austen]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Churchyard |first=Henry |title=Jane Austen and other famous authors violate what everyone learned in their English class |url=http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html | access-date=14 April 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090430053036/http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html |archive-date=2009-04-30}}</ref> Linguist [[Steven Pinker]] goes further and argues that traditional grammar proscriptions regarding the use of singular "they" are themselves incorrect:

{{blockquote|The logical point that you, [[Holden Caulfield]], and everyone but the language mavens intuitively grasp is that ''everyone'' and ''they'' are not an "antecedent" and a "pronoun" referring to the same person in the world, which would force them to agree in number. They are a "quantifier" and a "bound variable", a different logical relationship. Everyone returned to their seats means "For all X, X returned to X's seat." The "X" does not refer to any particular person or group of people; it is simply a placeholder that keeps track of the roles that players play across different relationships. In this case, the X that comes back to a seat is the same X that owns the seat that X comes back to. The ''their'' there does not, in fact, have plural number, because it refers neither to one thing nor to many things; it does not refer at all.<ref>{{harvp|Pinker |2000}}</ref>}}

Some [[style guide]]s (e.g. [[APA style|APA]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=APA Styleguide |url=https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/singular-they}}</ref>) accept singular ''they'' as grammatically correct,<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Cambridge Guide to English Usage |last=Peters |first=Pam |year=2004 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-62181-6 |url=https://archive.org/details/cambridgeguideto00pete_0 }}</ref> while others {{which|date=April 2020}} reject it. Some, such as ''The Chicago Manual of Style'', hold a neutral position on the issue, and contend that any approach used is likely to displease some readers.<ref name="Press2003">{{Cite book|author=University of Chicago. Press|title=The Chicago Manual of Style|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EBMlLYwqmjYC|year=2003|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-10403-4|page=233}}</ref>

Research has found that the use of masculine pronouns in a generic sense creates "male bias" by evoking a disproportionate number of male images and excluding thoughts of women in non-sex specific instances.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Megan M. |first2=Lorie E. |last2=James |year=2009 |jstor=27784423 |title=Is the generic pronoun he still comprehended as excluding women? |journal=The American Journal of Psychology |volume=122 |issue=4 |pages=483–96 |doi=10.2307/27784423 |pmid=20066927|s2cid=44644673 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF00288993 |title=Using masculine generics: Does generic he increase male bias in the user's imagery? |year=1988 |last1=Hamilton |first1=Mykol C. |journal=Sex Roles |volume=19 |issue=11–12 |pages=785–99|s2cid=144493073 }}</ref> Moreover, a study by John Gastil found that while ''they'' functions as a generic pronoun for both males and females, males may comprehend ''he/she'' in a manner similar to ''he''.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF00289252 |title=Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics |year=1990 |last1=Gastil |first1=John |journal=Sex Roles |volume=23 |issue=11–12 |pages=629–43|s2cid=33772213 }}</ref>

===Honorifics===
Proponents of gender-neutral language point out that while [[Mr]] is used for men regardless of marital status, the titles [[Miss]] and [[Mrs]] indicate a woman's marital status, and thus signal her sexual availability in a way that men's titles do not.<ref>{{harvp|Freeman|1979|p=491}}</ref> The honorific "[[Ms.|Ms]]" can be used for women regardless of marital status.

The gender-neutral honorific [[Mx (title)|Mx]] ({{small|usually}} {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɪ|k|s}} "mix", {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ʌ|k|s}} {{respell|MUKS}}) can be used in place of gendered honorifics to provide gender neutrality.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Jane Fae |url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/it%E2%80%99s-going-be-mr-mrs-or-%E2%80%98mx%E2%80%99-brighton-city-goes-trans-friendly180113 |title=It's going to be Mr, Mrs or 'Mx' in Brighton as city goes trans friendly |publisher=Gay Star News |date=18 January 2013 |access-date=2013-09-10 |archive-date=2021-01-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122100500/https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/it%E2%80%99s-going-be-mr-mrs-or-%E2%80%98mx%E2%80%99-brighton-city-goes-trans-friendly180113/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9634668/Honorifics-could-be-dropped-from-official-letters-by-council.html |title=Honorifics could be dropped from official letters by council |newspaper=The Telegraph |date=October 25, 2012 |access-date=July 16, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/bhcc/school_appeals/Trans_Equality_Report_final_pdf.pdf |title=Trans Equality Scrutiny Panel |publisher=Brighton & Hove City Council |date=January 2013 |access-date=2013-09-10 }}{{dead link|date=January 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Adoption of the honorific has been relatively rapid and thorough in the UK. In 2013, [[Brighton and Hove]] City Council in [[Sussex]], England, voted to allow its use on council forms,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-22465531|title=Mx (Mixter) title adopted in Brighton for transgender people|date=10 May 2013|work=BBC News|access-date=13 February 2014}}</ref> and in 2014, [[The Royal Bank of Scotland]] included the title as an option.<ref>{{Cite news |url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/nov/17/rbs-bank-that-likes-to-say-mx |title= RBS: the bank that likes to say Mx |work= The Guardian |date= 17 November 2014 |first= Emine |last= Saner |access-date= 26 January 2015}}</ref> In 2015, recognition spread more broadly across UK institutions, including the Royal Mail, government agencies responsible for documents such as drivers' licenses, and several other major banks.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Now pick Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms . . . or Mx for no specific gender|url=https://www.thetimes.com/article/now-pick-mr-mrs-miss-ms-or-mx-for-no-specific-gender-t2rb5bh62rs|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708200006/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/now-pick-mr-mrs-miss-ms-or-mx-for-no-specific-gender-t2rb5bh62rs|archive-date=2017-07-08|website=[[The Times]]}}</ref> In 2015, it was included in the ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]''.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Mx|url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/mx?q=MX#Mx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904001636/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/mx?q=Mx#Mx|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 4, 2015|website=Oxford dictionaries|access-date=14 November 2015}}</ref>