What is the Impact of Gendered Language in Science?

[physics girl phd]

Random diversion from the topic:

I'm just waiting for the texts to eliminate the phrase "erect image"... I say "upright" or even "right-side-up" (vs. "upside-down"). I've never had ANY student challenge me.

It's less of a concern in my university classes... But from experience: You don't want to be a young, new female physics teacher in a high school saying "erect" (to the glee of the 15-18 y.o. male students in your class).

 

[KingNothing]

erect

Haha! You said 'erect'!

 

[russ_watters]

So are you taling about a male or female? If it's a hypothetical gender-less situation, your first example is correct. Is it not? I don't see the problem in the case you are positing as your reactionary counter-argument.

No, it is not correct: one is singular while the other is plural!

 

[bp_psy]

Random diversion from the topic:

I'm just waiting for the texts to eliminate the phrase "erect image"... I say "upright" or even "right-side-up" (vs. "upside-down"). I've never had ANY student challenge me.

It's less of a concern in my university classes... But from experience: You don't want to be a young, new female physics teacher in a high school saying "erect" (to the glee of the 15-18 y.o. male students in your class).

What about "thrust"? I know some people that consider it highly offensive.

 

[Cryptonic]

No, it is not correct: one is singular while the other is plural!

No, it is correct. "They" can be singular or plural. And KingNothing didn't put his example in context - which would have made it clear whether it was singular, plural, or whether it didn't matter either way.

If you can come up with an example of a problematic "they", by all means present it, but I can't think of one.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

If you can come up with an example of a problematic "they", by all means present it, but I can't think of one.

There are always ways to get around it, but using just "they, them, their" doesn't always work well.

"The genius who first discovered this has left no clue as to who ... was." Of course you can always say something like "that person", or completely reword the sentence, but there's still a lot of resistance to using "they" and changing the verb with an obviously singular subject.

 

[Char. Limit]

There is no reason whatsoever that English speaking cultures, or at least academia, can't adopt their own gender neutral pronouns. The Walden Two inspired commune known as Twin Oaks attempted to introduce "co" as a gender neutral pronoun and the English language is particularly famous for adopting new terms. The only obvious reasons why this has not been done already is cultural inertia and sexism.

Note that this is a scientific forum, so I'm used to seeing the logical and.

Really? Cultural inertia AND sexism? So you think nearly all scientists are not only lazy, but bigoted as well? And you expect this to stand up with zero evidence?

You sir are not scientific.

 

[Cryptonic]

There are always ways to get around it, but using just "they, them, their" doesn't always work well.

"The genius who first discovered this has left no clue as to who ... was." Of course you can always say something like "that person", or completely reword the sentence, but there's still a lot of resistance to using "they" and changing the verb with an obviously singular subject.

OK, I grant you that this is a great example of problematic phrasing. Thanks for the insight!

"The genius who first discovered this has left no clue as to who they were." (I can see the grammatical confusion in this sentence, but it "sounds" perfectly fine.)

"The genius who first discovered this has left no clue as to who he or she was."

Although a perfect example of problems arising from non-gendered use of English language, I would still strongly insist that either of the above is infinitely more preferable to this:

"The genius who first discovered this has left no clue as to who he was."

That is just plain WRONG, on many levels.

Thanks for your input, SW VanderCarr! My intention for my original post was to raise discussion like this. I think it's very important.

 

[KingNothing]

No, it is correct. "They" can be singular or plural. And KingNothing didn't put his example in context - which would have made it clear whether it was singular, plural, or whether it didn't matter either way.

If you can come up with an example of a problematic "they", by all means present it, but I can't think of one.

Heck, I just did. The very fact that it needs context is what makes it problematic. It's ambiguous, that's the whole point I'm trying to make.

I don't know why I'm even trying. You're clearly just going to nay-say whatever I say, even if it makes complete sense.

 

[wuliheron]

Note that this is a scientific forum, so I'm used to seeing the logical and.

Really? Cultural inertia AND sexism? So you think nearly all scientists are not only lazy, but bigoted as well? And you expect this to stand up with zero evidence?

You sir are not scientific.

Evidently despite your familiarity with "and" you are unfamiliar with logical fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

This particular one can be described as a "fallacy of necessity".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You know, I'm not even sure where the issue here is coming from. I can not think of any paper I have read that is at all recent which has used male reference to a nongender specific subject. I can not imagine that it is a very common occurrence. I do not even typically hear people in every day conversation referring to nongender specific subjects as male. From my participation in various online communities I would say that in the internet culture, where people come across and communicate with nongendered "avatars" on a regular basis, it is considered rather impolite to assume gender and people have become accustomed to speaking in nongender specific language. I even find myself altering my language to not assume sexual preference.

So I don't even know why you are making this complaint and I can see why most people here consider it a trivial nonissue. Can you actually show us where this horrifyingly sexist problem of gendered language in science is?

 

[ZapperZ]

Can you actually show us where this horrifyingly sexist problem of gendered language in science is?

Get in line, you Ape! I asked for evidence FIRST! :)

{still waiting}

Zz.

 

[Cryptonic]

No need to be facetious, guys.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

"The genius who first discovered this has left no clue as to who ... was."

That's why we don't know who it was. Linguists are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. That means they don't tell people how to speak the language, the people tell them.

 

[ZapperZ]

No need to be facetious, guys.

How do you know we are all "guys"?

Besides, I think it's a bit strange that you are not at all concerned that you make certain assertions without being able to back it up with valid evidence. Aren't you at all worried about that, and how you decide what is valid and what isn't? Think about the issues we face with everyday. What if everyone were to behave like this, where they somehow decide on something but with very little evidence? "Oh yes, gay marriage undermines traditional marriage". "Oh, definitely, immunization causes autism". "Yes, listening to Lady Gaga can cause moral decay!" We have seen plenty of evidence where people accepts something without any valid justification, other than they THINK that it is correct.

If nothing else, a forum such as PF should force people to pay attention to their sources and pay attention to how they arrive at their decisions. This transcends any particular subject matter, and to me, that is the most valuable thing this forum can teach people.

Zz.

 

[Cryptonic]

It's funny, y'know, I never meant this to be the whole can of worms it turned out to be. I was just making a simple comment in "General Discussion", something I feel is important. I'm quite amazed at the backlash. I'm also amazed no women have piped in here? Oh well.

A question for ZapperZ: Do you find my "issue" unimportant & "trivial" because a) using the pronoun "he" to cover males AND females is totally fine to you, or b) the use of "he", in your view, is no longer used like that and thus it's a non-issue?

Because it seems you have veered from a) to b) in the course of this thread. Are you just playing devil's advocate here in my thread? Trolling? Or are you trying to whip up any flimsy counter-argument you possibly can to try to discredit my original post? I'm sorry, I'm all open to contrary opinions, sure, but your posts reek of a childish vindictiveness here.

 

[Cryptonic]

If nothing else, a forum such as PF should force people to pay attention to their sources and pay attention to how they arrive at their decisions. This transcends any particular subject matter, and to me, that is the most valuable thing this forum can teach people.

OK, so now you are saying the problem of gendered language doesn't even exist.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

OK, so now you are saying the problem of gendered language doesn't even exist.

That's not what he said at all. He said you should pay attention to your sources. DId you?

 

[ZapperZ]

A question for ZapperZ: Do you find my "issue" unimportant & "trivial" because a) using the pronoun "he" to cover males AND females is totally fine to you, or b) the use of "he", in your view, is no longer used like that and thus it's a non-issue?

It is imperative that the person who makes the assertion be the one who produce the EVIDENCE. I didn't, out of the blue, come in here and claim that the gender specific references does no harm. If I did, I should show evidence for that. You, on the other hand, takes the approach of producing an assertion and THEN asking us to falsify it!

This is highly dubious. The FACT that you have not be able to show a shred of evidence to support your claim is highly disturbing, especially when you see nothing wrong with what you are doing and how you derive such a conclusion. I would question what other things you have accepted to be valid but without any substantial evidence for it.

Because it seems you have veered from a) to b) in the course of this thread. Are you just playing devil's advocate here in my thread? Trolling? Or are you trying to whip up any flimsy counter-argument you possibly can to try to discredit my original post? I'm sorry, I'm all open to contrary opinions, sure, but your posts reek of a childish vindictiveness here.

Unlike you, I don't just talk the talk, I also walk the walk. I don't just express my concern about the lack of women in science, I actually DO something about it. What have YOU done other than complain about things?

I had already express my concern on why I responded to you. We have a HUGE amount of stuff we can do to improve women's involvement in science, and to encourage young girls to go into science. When you bring out something like this that has no evidence in support of your assertion, you are going to not only distract from the 1st and 2nd order effect, but you are also diluting the message and effort of the problem! You become someone that cries wolf at every single thing that you IMAGINED to be causing something, so much so that the original message is harmed and will not be taken seriously.

It IS a smack of political correctness gone wild, in the sense that you want us to do something but without ample evidence that it is causing any harm in the first place. That has always been my argument and that has always been something you have not been able to show.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK, so now you are saying the problem of gendered language doesn't even exist.

As with your inability to carefully consider the "mechanism" of cause-and-effect, you also seem to exhibit your inability to comprehend what you read. I never claimed such a thing, and thus, I feel no desire to defend something I never said.

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm also amazed no women have piped in here?

How do you know?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

"she" the spacecraft .

I expect that news reporters say "There she goes." when a rocket is launched. But news reporters are hardly scientists. Can you come up with an example of a scientist using "she" to mean a spacecraft ?

 

[Cryptonic]

Conservatism runs deep in science. Very sad.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That's absolutely right. In science, viewpoints are made via evidence, not feelings. I, for one, think this is a good thing. You've been asked for evidence several times. If you provided some, maybe you could sway more people to your viewpoint.

 

[Cryptonic]

Seriously, the way most of you are reacting, it's like I've popped on here saying the Moon landings were faked. "SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!"

ZapperZ, how about addressing my point earlier about how you changed tact halfway through the course of this thread?

 

[ZapperZ]

Seriously, the way most of you are reacting, it's like I've popped on here saying the Moon landings were faked. "SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!"

ZapperZ, how about addressing my point earlier about how you changed tact halfway through the course of this thread?

What tact? What did I changed?

How about you admitting that you have zero evidence to back your claim? That this issue is actually rather moot since it is all made up?

Remember, YOU were the one who claimed to want to do Science. When the specific scientific methodology was applied to you, you balked.

Zz.

 

[Cryptonic]

Vanadium 50, what exactly are you & your chums asking of me? You want me to provide evidence of gendered language in science? In other words, you don't believe it exists whatsoever? Or, even if it does, it's completely unimportant?

I think I mentioned very early on that my issue isn't about "political correctness", it is about using language properly in science. So please, don't throw the "PC" thing at me. That is just plain childish.

You want evidence? Just open your eyes & ears. Go to NASA website & look up "manned spaceflight". You can find some glaring examples right there.

Look here - http://womeninplanetaryscience.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/gender-neutral-language-matters/

So it's just me being silly? C'mon...

 

[Cryptonic]

ZapperZ, I was querying why at the start of this thread you were saying "gendered language? big deal = trivial", but later on you were saying "gendered language? doesn't exist"

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, I was querying why at the start of this thread you were saying "gendered language? big deal = trivial", but later on you were saying "gendered language? doesn't exist"

No, I've been saying BOTH all along.

1. It is trivial IF it is true, because we see no effect of it. So I asked you for evidence that this is not, say, 1st order or even 2nd order effect. If it is trivial, why are you so concerned, considering that we can make a significantly more effect tackling 1st order issues?

2. It "doesn't exist" because I haven't seen it being cited. Based on my anecdotal survey of the high school girls that I encounter, many of which don't even consider not having a female role model in science as influential, I made a reasonable guess that not using a non-gendered term would have an even smaller influence, if any. The FACT that you could not show any evidence, even after repeated request, led me to conclude that this might as well not exist.

Do you understand this now?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Vanadium 50, what exactly are you & your chums asking of me? You want me to provide evidence of gendered language in science? In other words, you don't believe it exists whatsoever? Or, even if it does, it's completely unimportant?

I think I mentioned very early on that my issue isn't about "political correctness", it is about using language properly in science. So please, don't throw the "PC" thing at me. That is just plain childish.

You want evidence? Just open your eyes & ears. Go to NASA website & look up "manned spaceflight". You can find some glaring examples right there.

Look here - http://womeninplanetaryscience.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/gender-neutral-language-matters/

So it's just me being silly? C'mon...

C'mon yourself! This is what you call "evidence"? I mean, you could write the same letter to NASA, and then someone would be justified to cite this as evidence?

What about someone like me writing to NASA and tell them that there is no evidence to show that gender-specific reference causes harm. Would this then qualify as a valid reference to be used by someone else who wants to argue that gender-specific reference doesn't affect anything?

Again, consider the nature of your sources!. You are confusing someone's personal OPINION as if it is a valid evidence! This is almost as bad as a political campaign!

Zz.

 

[Cryptonic]

No, I'm afraid I'm not seeing your "logic" whatsoever. I think you are grasping onto some flimsy kind of counter-argument, which in turn belies a hidden political agenda of yours. You see my original post as some sort of "political correctness gone mad", and you are reacting emotionally to it, and trying to disguise your irrational emotional reactionism behind some strange mis-application of the "scientific method". Sorry ZapperZ, no dice.

 

[Cryptonic]

What about someone like me writing to NASA and tell them that there is no evidence to show that gender-specific reference causes harm.

OK, so you're falling back to your original argument? That gender-bias in language is ok & has no repercussions whatsoever?

 

[micromass]

No, I'm afraid I'm not seeing your "logic" whatsoever. I think you are grasping onto some flimsy kind of counter-argument, which in turn belies a hidden political agenda of yours. You see my original post as some sort of "political correctness gone mad", and you are reacting emotionally to it, and trying to disguise your irrational emotional reactionism behind some strange mis-application of the "scientific method". Sorry ZapperZ, no dice.

All that ZZ is a shred of evidence about what you're claiming here. You did not yet provide any.

 

[ZapperZ]

No, I'm afraid I'm not seeing your "logic" whatsoever. I think you are grasping onto some flimsy kind of counter-argument, which in turn belies a hidden political agenda of yours. You see my original post as some sort of "political correctness gone mad", and you are reacting emotionally to it, and trying to disguise your irrational emotional reactionism behind some strange mis-application of the "scientific method". Sorry ZapperZ, no dice.

Countering your argument using emotional reactionism is perfectly valid. After all, your original argument IS based on such a thing as well (no evidence). Thus, you are objecting to my doing exactly what you are doing.

I have no political agenda. I'm simply concerned that all the hard work many of us are doing in promoting science to girls and women will be trivialized by such triviality.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK, so you're falling back to your original argument? That gender-bias in language is ok & has no repercussions whatsoever?

No, I'm just illustrating the NATURE of the "evidence" that you are using, i.e. someone emotional objection. When you do that, one can also do the same thing to counter it, using the same type of evidence.

You really have a tough time following the central point of an argument, don't you?

Zz.