Re: [Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Dominic dmcde...@cox.net wrote: This is not entirely relevant (though quite fascinating). There is no single definition of feminism, and its meaning is especially dependent on cultural mores of their time and place. You might call Boudica, Elizabeth I, or Abigail Adams feminists, but that doesn't mean they necessarily even supported most of what we'd call women's rights. I see where you are coming from, but I could just as easily point out that Martin Luther King referred to his own race as Negro if I wanted to defend its modern usage. Actually, you omitted the relevant content from my previous quote. I stated The NY times article describes her as a feminist, I don't. Whichever mores the NY times or the contributing writer subscribe to, might seem irrelevant but it is their characterization, not mine. You are however, free to take it up with them. :P On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: And I defended the reverting editor. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760 ). [...] I'm sure Dominic can correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Let's step back, though. To me, the more important issue here is that a new, possibly female, editor made an innocuous change in good faith and was reverted and branded a vandal. Whatever we think about the grammatical debate, it was not vandalism, and he or she (or they!) are a potential new editor we may have scared away. Our response should not simply be to forget about that and start a discussion about arcane policy, as if that's the solution. For example, I think you may have even given the impression to the new editor that the revert was justified because she didn't use the singular they (your fix), Ryan(!). Looking at the reverter's talk page history, this seems to be a pattern. We'll do more to make this project a more welcoming place to women and everyone else by addressing such antisocial and unwelcoming behavior than we will by debating between he or she or she and he and the singular they—both of which, it should be mentioned, are relatively gender neutral when compared to the generic he alternative. And this is something we agree on. This particular editor seems knowledgeable of Wikipedia policies, and is able to articulate her argument quite well. She responded to the previous comments ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468194043oldid=468193586) and seems intent on discussing this on a wider forum. She actually stopped after the first warning, and tried to engage the original editor. I suggested discussing this issue in MOS-related place, to which she agreed to. I hope she follows through. I would suggest maybe referring her to this list? She seems quiet knowledgeable and articulate. Maybe this list might benefit from having her perspective? Regards Theo ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern usage, they is the dominant form. See my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F Ryan Kaldari On 12/28/11 4:50 PM, Theo10011 wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org mailto:rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: I responded to the inquiry and replaced all the gendered pronouns at issue with singular they. On a related note, I'm very disappointed to learn that the Chicago Manual of Style (which provided the basis for the original Wikipedia Manual of Style) has stopped recommending the use of singular they. As the use of singular they has been steadily increasing since the 1960s (Pauwels 2003), it is curious that the Chicago Manual would be moving backwards. I have to wonder if there was some sort of political pressure involved. On a positive note, the 2011 edition of the New International Version Bible now uses singular they. And I defended the reverting editor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760). It's an interesting topic, but the original editor seems to be taking a political stance, which the reverting editor might not know about. The usage of Generic Antecedents, by definition require the gender to be unknown or irrelevant. The traditional usage has been predominantly masculine. I am not a native English speaker so I might be wrong on this, but the article is using Generic Antecedents. The approach taken in English language has certain usage hard-wired in the brain. There has been a long standing argument about the political undertone about its usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_antecedents#Political_opinions). What Kaldari did, while ideal to avoid any conflict or debate, is debatable in the grammatical sense. The usage note in Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/they) and other sources (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=2) dispute usage of singular they as a gender neutral singular pronoun rather than a plural pronoun. The usage note mentions This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference. I'm sure Dominic can correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Regards Theo ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote: ** Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern usage, they is the dominant form. See my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F Err...Ok, this might be a cultural thing..but why are you citing the translator notes for the New international version of the Bible for a grammatical choice? The translators notes mention, The gender-neutral pronoun they (them/their) is by far the most common way that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents. The article also goes on to mention, instances of what grammarians are increasingly calling the singular they (them or their) appear three times more frequently than generic masculine forms. The wide-spread modern usage is shifting towards they, again impelled by the desire to avoid sexist implications of HE, which is exactly what this particular case involved. Grammarians apparently dispute the usage. It might even come down to a stylistic choice in the end. My point stands, as does yours. Regards Theo ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
I think the way grammatical gender and gender inequality relate is an interesting topic, but this debate will get off-topic and technical quite quickly. Nevertheless, I gave it a stab in my inline replies below, along with hopefully a more useful observation. On 12/28/11 8:08 PM, Theo10011 wrote: Incidentally, the person credited for popularizing for this male-centric usage, is Anne fisher[1], an 18th-century British schoolmistress, and one of the first woman to write an English grammar book. [...] This is not entirely relevant (though quite fascinating). There is no single definition of feminism, and its meaning is especially dependent on cultural mores of their time and place. You might call Boudica, Elizabeth I, or Abigail Adams feminists, but that doesn't mean they necessarily even supported most of what we'd call women's rights. I see where you are coming from, but I could just as easily point out that Martin Luther King referred to his own race as Negro if I wanted to defend its modern usage. On 12/28/11 8:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern usage, they is the dominant form. See my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F This is also not entirely relevant. Manuals of style *prescribe* usages in formal language, rather than describing common usages. Some of the things you can find in the English Wikipedia's manual of style are actually quite uncommon in everyday writing, but still sound policy. On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org mailto:rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: I responded to the inquiry and replaced all the gendered pronouns at issue with singular they. On a related note, I'm very disappointed to learn that the Chicago Manual of Style (which provided the basis for the original Wikipedia Manual of Style) has stopped recommending the use of singular they. As the use of singular they has been steadily increasing since the 1960s (Pauwels 2003), it is curious that the Chicago Manual would be moving backwards. I have to wonder if there was some sort of political pressure involved. On a positive note, the 2011 edition of the New International Version Bible now uses singular they. I don't think it was political in the sense you are imagining. They have a page in their FAQ about the issue: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/Pronouns/Pronouns15.html. Briefly, the singular they was only ever endorsed in one edition, after which they changed their mind. Chicago does not disapprove of the singular they; rather, they essentially describe the controversy and refrain from taking a strong stance. The reason is pretty obvious: the singular they is justifiable for several reasons, but it can't really be justified on modern grammatical grounds---which is problematic since grammar tends to be somewhat important when it comes to formal writing. On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com mailto:de10...@gmail.com wrote: And I defended the reverting editor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760). [...] I'm sure Dominic can correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Since you asked... I kind of agree more with Theo here. I think the stance which most Wikipedians, including feminists, would agree to would be to adhere to the original author's language---like we do with regional spellings---with respect to singular they or he or she, but to frown upon stylistic changes from one or the other solely due to an editor's preference (and certainly to always frown upon a generic he). Let's step back, though. To me, the more important issue here is that a new, possibly female, editor made an innocuous change in good faith and was reverted and branded a vandal. Whatever we think about the grammatical debate, it was not vandalism, and he or she (or they!) are a potential new editor we may have scared away. Our response should not simply be to forget about that and start a discussion about arcane policy, as if that's the solution. For example, I think you may have even given the impression to the new editor that the revert was justified because she didn't use the singular they (your fix), Ryan(!). Looking at the reverter's talk page history, this seems to be a pattern. We'll do more to make this project a more welcoming place to women and everyone else by addressing such antisocial and unwelcoming behavior than we will by debating between he or she or she and he and the singular they---both of which,
Re: [Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern
usage, they is the dominant form. See my reply at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F
Err...Ok, this might be a cultural thing..but why are you citing the
translator notes for the New international version of the Bible for a
grammatical choice?
The translators notes mention, The gender-neutral pronoun ‟they”
(‟them”/‟their”) is by far the most common way that English-language
speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents. The article
also goes on to mention, instances of what grammarians are increasingly
calling the ‟singular they” (‟them” or ‟their”) appear three times more
frequently than generic masculine forms.
I agree, it would probably make more sense to refer to style manuals
that deal with new texts, and write a Wikipedia article on gender
representation in the Bible. The given translation might or might not
add to the original, I am no expert, but it sure is an interesting
topic to delve into (see e.g.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/gender.html)
The wide-spread modern usage is shifting towards they, again impelled by
the desire to avoid sexist implications of HE, which is exactly what this
particular case involved. Grammarians apparently dispute the usage. It might
even come down to a stylistic choice in the end.
We have a nice article on singular they, the interesting thing is that
even Shakespeare and others before him have used it in its current
meaning, so its not a modern invention (regardless of its current
Renaissance).
From a prescriptive point of view, one might dispute it, from a
descriptivist point of view it is certainly part of the language. It
is up to the English Wikipedia community to decide what its house
style will include.
As we are on this topic, it would be interesting to see (again, in a
nicely collected Wikipedia article) to how pairs of gendered
expressions behave in different languages. Without further proof, I
would probably not read too much politics into any usage. For example,
we have in English he or she but we also use ladies and gentlemen
and probably there is a balance somewhere in the usage of men and
women vs. women and men.[1] In Hungarian we would probably say nők
és férfiak ('women and men') and hölgyek és urak ('ladies and
gentlemen'), while fortunately we only have on pronoun for 'he or
she': ő – so this problem doesn't come up. It is probably different
for various languages.
Also, as Theo notes, it would be interesting to cite some good
cognitive linguistics study on the effects of pronouns on people. I
have read about studies that show that the gender of objects in
different languages affects the speakers way of thinking of them (e.g.
describing a bridge as masculine or feminine based on its gender in
the language), but it would be interesting to see if the order of
pronouns has any measurable effect[2].
Anyhow, an interesting practice that might go against gender
stereotyping – although probably not in a factual encyclopedia article
– is to use simply she where one would have to use he, he or she
or they.
Best regards,
Bence
(also not a native speaker; male)
[1] The balance is in favour of the former, but for example, the UN
uses both with equal frequency, while preferring he or she over she
or he 20:1.
[2] I am not sure about cognitive connotations, but the strange order
of the phrase might be more difficult to read, and possibly cause
problems who have difficulties reading, thus having an effect on
accessibility of the text. (Probably not an issue in the great scheme
of things, but something to consider for Simple Wikipedia if one was
to transfer any agreed change in usage)
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
