Lingusitics What is the Impact of Gendered Language in Science?

[Cryptonic]

What really irks me is reading/hearing gendered language in science - or ANYWHERE for that matter! But especially in science, as it should use strictly non-gendered language, I strongly feel, to preserve objective scientific accuracy. "He" the observer, "he" the scientist, the "manned" space program, "she" the spacecraft ...etc.

This is not so much about "political correctness", but simply about scientific neutrality.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What really irks me is reading/hearing gendered language in science - or ANYWHERE for that matter! But especially in science, as it should use strictly non-gendered language, I strongly feel, to preserve objective scientific accuracy. "He" the observer, "he" the scientist, the "manned" space program, "she" the spacecraft ...etc.

This is not so much about "political correctness", but simply about scientific neutrality.

Unfortunately the English language (and many others) doesn't have a "common" gender third person singular pronoun. The common gender, as opposed to the neuter, recognizes the noun referenced is masculine or feminine but combines the two. The neuter refers to nouns that are neither masculine nor feminine. The only languages of which I know with the common gender singular pronoun are the Scandinavian group, although there may be others outside of Europe. I wrote a book where I tried to deal with this problem in various ways, but usually just fell back to the clumsy he/she or she/he. Many people use the common/neuter gender plural "they" but this is really incorrect if you're referring to a singular noun.

If you think English is bad, French is worse. French does not have a common gender plural pronoun (and has no neuter nouns). If you have a mixed group, you must use the masculine form ils even it contains only one male; this by the decree of the French Academy (L'Académie française). Also since there is no singular neuter pronoun corresponding to the English 'it', you must the masculine form il in unspecified cases where English would use "it" such as "It's raining."

 

[Cryptonic]

Well I think using the singular "they" is quite acceptable - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they. "Crewed" instead of "manned"... "Humanity"/"Humankind" instead of "Mankind"... and a spacecraft is an IT, not a "she"! :P

I just think here in the 21st century, there is no excuse for such archaic use of language like this anymore. NASA website and Discovery Channel etc is full of gendered language.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Are you serious lol? Science doesn't concern itself with the so called "gendered language"; science concerns itself with the more important things like, oh yeah, scientific inquiry. Maybe the reason why those terms are still used is because scientists are too busy doing their jobs and not wasting time caring about whether their words are gender neutral.

 

[ZapperZ]

What really irks me is reading/hearing gendered language in science - or ANYWHERE for that matter! But especially in science, as it should use strictly non-gendered language, I strongly feel, to preserve objective scientific accuracy. "He" the observer, "he" the scientist, the "manned" space program, "she" the spacecraft ...etc.

This is not so much about "political correctness", but simply about scientific neutrality.

Of all the things we have to worry about in science, I will say that I've never seen a more trivial example than this. Nowhere in your complain here is there any consideration of any kind of consequences for such a thing. Did it deprive of someone an interest in science? Did it cause serious emotional distress?

No? Then you're complaining about something that just annoys you?

Zz.

 

[fluidistic]

If you have a mixed group, you must use the masculine form iles

I think you meant "ils".

 

[KingNothing]

I don't mind it at all. It's just how the English language is.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Things are better now than when I went to school. Back then only boys ever rolled balls down inclines. Now Bob is in one rocket, but Alice is in the other. I think Einstein put it best when he or she said:

Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty boy or girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativism.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think you meant "ils".

Vous êtes corrects, mais cela devrait être "iles" et le "-es" devrait être prononcé donc nous pouvons distinguer la forme singulière et plurielle dans le discours.

Either that or start pronouncing the endings of the verbs in the third person plural.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, if you want to be objective about it boys are bigger than girls, so nanny nanny boo boo.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Well I think using the singular "they" is quite acceptable - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they.

Maybe so, but my editors said no.

 

[fluidistic]

Vous êtes corrects, mais cela devrait être "iles" et le "-es" devrait être prononcé donc nous pouvons distinguer la forme singulière et plurielle dans le discours.

Either that or start pronouncing the endings of the verbs in the third person plural.

I think we're going off topic for the discussion so we might be use PM's for the next post.
I'll correct your sentence: Vous êtes correct rather than corrects. This is a Quebecism (so I guess it's still correct). In France one would say "Vous avez raison".
If you mind to explain me why we should use "iles" rather than "ils", I'd love to know it. And also why we should pronounce it differently than "il".
"donc nous pouvons" should be "donc nous pourrions" if I understood well your sentence.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think we're going off topic for the discussion so we might be use PM's for the next post.
I'll correct your sentence: Vous êtes correct rather than corrects. This is a Quebecism (so I guess it's still correct). In France one would say "Vous avez raison".
If you mind to explain me why we should use "iles" rather than "ils", I'd love to know it. And also why we should pronounce it differently than "il".
"donc nous pouvons" should be "donc nous pourrions" if I understood well your sentence.

Hmm. pourrions is the conditional tense which I did not intend. That part of the sentence was meant to mean "... so we can (are able to) distinguish the singular and plural form in speech." As far as "iles" is concerned, it was not meant to be serious. I explain in my PM.

 

[skippy1729]

Try describing a quantum cryptography protocol without Bob, Alice and Eve!

 

[flyingpig]

I've always thought "he" refers to both man and woman

 

[kcajrenreb]

"He" only refers to a male. Unless you're joking, in that case, Haha.

 

[Cryptonic]

Of all the things we have to worry about in science, I will say that I've never seen a more trivial example than this. Nowhere in your complain here is there any consideration of any kind of consequences for such a thing. Did it deprive of someone an interest in science? Did it cause serious emotional distress?

No? Then you're complaining about something that just annoys you?

Zz.

Well go ask a woman in science what she feels, perhaps? We are talking about half the world's population. Or do you think science is a man's domain?

I'm saddened that you feel this is a trivial issue, not even worthy of being raised. I think it's very important, and yes it annoys me very much that we're in the 21st century still using archaic gendered language.

I know a lot of folk have knee-jerk reactions to "political correctness" - myself included, generally - but this is a whole 'nother matter.

 

[Cryptonic]

I've always thought "he" refers to both man and woman

In the 1950s, maybe?

 

[KingNothing]

Well go ask a woman in science what she feels, perhaps? We are talking about half the world's population. Or do you think science is a man's domain?

This is a very poor thought path to go down. Rather than presenting a logical argument of why it would be worth it for society to change our language, you've implied that women in science are more bothered by gendered language than men, and accused a very respected member of being sexist because his views differ from yours. Now you've created this man-vs-woman atmosphere that most men and women feel uncomfortable with. In short, you are marginalizing yourself and others who share your views.

I can think of two main reasons most scientists don't care:
1) They don't see it as an issue worthy of time and energy.
2) It has absolutely nothing to do with science.

It's part of the English language, not science.

 

[KingNothing]

For the record, I make a serious attempt at using gender-neutral language in everything I write.

These are my reasons for wanting to do so:
-It's more accurate if I am describing a situation where gender is unknown.
-It lowers the chance that some over-PC zealot comes and yells at me

These are my reasons for not wanting to do so:
-It takes too much space in a document
-It gets really wordy really fast
-It can be more confusing for readers. In cases where communication of key concepts is crucial, this can be really bad.

 

[Cryptonic]

KingNothing, I don't quite know how to reply to your comments? I'm quite gob-smacked!

Rather than presenting a logical argument of why it would be worth it for society to change our language, you've implied that women in science are more bothered by gendered language than men

I'm not suggesting we change our language, for crying out loud! I'm just suggesting we should be more conscious of HOW we use it! And why wouldn't women in science be more bothered than men by this? Here's a thought experiment for you: turn the tables around completely, instead of "he" this/"he" that, substitute "she" this/"she" that. There's something wrong there, no? I have read books by female physicists by the way (gasp!). They all make a point of acknowledging the inherent patriachalism in science.

accused a very respected member of being sexist because his views differ from yours

Oh spare me, please. I did no such thing. I was bewildered as to how he could consider my point "trivial"?

Now you've created this man-vs-woman atmosphere that most men and women feel uncomfortable with. In short, you are marginalizing yourself and others who share your views.

Very subjective analysis. I could say the exact same thing about your comments here in my thread.

I can think of two main reasons most scientists don't care:
1) They don't see it as an issue worthy of time and energy.
2) It has absolutely nothing to do with science.

"Most" scientists? Care to cite some references to qualify your use of the word "most"? And are we talking male or female scientists? Or both? Lee Smolin obviously thinks it's an issue, because you'd be hard-pressed to find an instance of archaic gendered language in his books. And it has EVERYTHING to do with science! How can science pretend to be objective & impartial when it uses language rampant with irrational/illogical gender-bias?? Aren't we all aiming for true absolute accuracy & transparency of communication?

For the record, I make a serious attempt at using gender-neutral language in everything I write.

These are my reasons for wanting to do so:
-It's more accurate if I am describing a situation where gender is unknown.

Umm... So what was the point of all the above? This is the entire point I am making here!

It lowers the chance that some over-PC zealot comes and yells at me

Ah yes. Now I'm beginning to see. So non-sexism is "PC"?

These are my reasons for not wanting to do so:
-It takes too much space in a document
-It gets really wordy really fast
-It can be more confusing for readers. In cases where communication of key concepts is crucial, this can be really bad

Absolute nonsense. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. Well, actually, it's true that the word "they" takes up two more letters than the word "he". That's about it. The only legitimate reason NOT to use non-gendered language is:
-Mental laziness
-Hidden political agenda

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Absolute nonsense. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. Well, actually, it's true that the word "they" takes up two more letters than the word "he". That's about it. The only legitimate reason NOT to use non-gendered language is:
-Mental laziness
-Hidden political agenda

I tend to be sure to use non gendered terms in everything I write on forums and KingNothing is correct about it causing some issues with sentence structure. The term "they" can easily become tricky and cause confusion as to whom exactly it is referencing. I often find myself using the terms "person" and "persons" among others. Getting grammar correct and easing the flow of the language are also major issues.

Langauge is an organic thing. It changes on its own over time and requires people in general to change and adopt differing styles of speech. You can not just tell them "Hey this is the way we are doing things now" because they will tend to use what ever language they are in the habit of using already. If you go from one place to another where both areas speak the same language you will find each speaking it differently. Go to the right places online and you will see no end of moaning about Americans butchering the English language. If we can not even get people in two different parts of the same city to agree to speak the language the same then good luck getting the whole english speaking world to do so.

 

[Phrak]

I find this sucking-up business to women an annoyance. It distracts from the material.

When and if we find women on par with men in the sciences and technical arts, the language will naturally follow. The forced language is social manipulation. And it goes beyond language manipulation. I had a girl friend in college. She was going for her accelerated masters in elecrical engineering under a "Women in Engineering Program" of some sort, building on arts degree. I was a second year student. Guess which of us was tutoring the other.

 

[russ_watters]

And it has EVERYTHING to do with science! How can science pretend to be objective & impartial when it uses language rampant with irrational/illogical gender-bias?? Aren't we all aiming for true absolute accuracy & transparency of communication?

It uses the language available to it: you suggested in a previous post using language that is simply grammaticality incorrect. Sure, grammar can change, but that's not a change driven by science, it is a change in culture and linguistics. The others are right that that has nothing to do with science.

Absolute nonsense. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. Well, actually, it's true that the word "they" takes up two more letters than the word "he". That's about it. The only legitimate reason NOT to use non-gendered language is:
-Mental laziness
-Hidden political agenda

And the third reason, again - that scientists aren't linguists or lexicographers. Because of this, I think you're wearing the shoe on the wrong foot here: to stubbornly insist on using incorrect grammar must be due to a no-so-hidden political agenda.

 

[wuliheron]

You can debate the whole chicken or the egg thing all you want, but there ain't nobody here but us chickens. Science is part of academic culture which has introduced numerous changes in the English language and to this day helps to establish what is taught in our schools!

 

[Ken Natton]

I find this sucking-up business to women an annoyance. It distracts from the material.

When and if we find women on par with men in the sciences and technical arts, the language will naturally follow. The forced language is social manipulation. And it goes beyond language manipulation. I had a girl friend in college. She was going for her accelerated masters in elecrical engineering under a "Women in Engineering Program" of some sort, building on arts degree. I was a second year student. Guess which of us was tutoring the other.

I am not necessarily in total support of Cryptonic's viewpoint, but it is abundantly clear to me that the attitude reflected in this post does as much to support her argument as pretty much anything could.

 

[Cryptonic]

OK I'm giving up this thread. I'm quite astounded by the negative reaction it has caused. I'm also wondering why no women have spoken up? NO, I'm not "sucking up to women" whatsoever. My intentions were PURELY scientific all the way.

Alas, I can see irrational emotionalism running sick through science today. It sucks.

Thanks Ken Natton for at least "sort of" sticking up for my viewpoint, although you DID have to qualify it with "I am not necessary in total support of Cryptonic's viewpoint" [WHY?]... oh and btw I am a male ha... weird huh?

Also thank you to SW VandeCarr who seems to see some validity in my original post, but hit a brick wall with his publisher.

The "singular 'they'", people, the "singular 'they'"! Please! This is the 21st Century!

 

[Ken Natton]

... oh and btw I am a male ha... weird huh?

I did anticipate the possibility that you might be, but decided that using his / her might have supported the argument of the clumsiness of gender non-specific language.

...although you DID have to qualify it with "I am not necessary in total support of Cryptonic's viewpoint" [WHY?]

The reason I said that is because I am not in unequivocal support of your case. It seems to me that the use of male or female pronouns when referring to a generalised or hypothetical individual ought not to be problematic. The only reason that it is problematic is because of the existence of the kind of attitude reflected in Phrak’s post. That is why the solution that some have employed is to use only female pronouns unless referring to a specific male. If society ever became as female dominated as it is currently male dominated, that might become problematic. As things stand, it is probably politically the most prudent course.

But that reflects another truth about which both you and some of those arguing against you are quite wrong. Like it or not, everything human beings do, including science, is political. It cannot be otherwise.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I have no trouble using they for singular. However, if that's the extent of your objection, change the whole sentence to plural.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well go ask a woman in science what she feels, perhaps? We are talking about half the world's population. Or do you think science is a man's domain?

I'm saddened that you feel this is a trivial issue, not even worthy of being raised. I think it's very important, and yes it annoys me very much that we're in the 21st century still using archaic gendered language.

I know a lot of folk have knee-jerk reactions to "political correctness" - myself included, generally - but this is a whole 'nother matter.

You have not shown a single shred of evidence that the usage of such language actually affects women in science.

For your information, before you go all gung-ho on me about not being sensitive to such thing, I've volunteered my time and effort for the past 6 years in efforts to http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2007/03/science-careers-in-search-of-women.html" , and have done several outreach programs targetting such kids. I've also tried to gather anedectodal accounts and other studies regarding how science is taught in school and how it may affect how girls perceive such things. In other words, I don't just come here and spew out my personal preference without any substance. One of the questions I've always asked the girls is how influential it is for them to see a woman in a particular science profession for them to consider that profession. Without a doubt, I would say more than 75% of these girls say that it plays no significance!

Now, if that many of these girls did not think that a man role model makes any difference than a woman role model, how many do you think would be affected by the usage of the language in science in influencing their interest in science? I would love to see you cite a study in which such a usage has an important influence, beyond simply what you THINK it would do.

OK I'm giving up this thread. I'm quite astounded by the negative reaction it has caused. I'm also wondering why no women have spoken up? NO, I'm not "sucking up to women" whatsoever. My intentions were PURELY scientific all the way.

Alas, I can see irrational emotionalism running sick through science today. It sucks.

Nothing of what you've done here is "scientific". You presented a hypothesis, but provided no evidence to support it other than simply arguing for it. It is a prime example of your own irrational emotionalism.

There are plenty of effort and corrections that we should do in promoting science to women. I hate to think that we're barking up the wrong tree and putting way too much effort into something that has very little influence and very little effect. At some point, these meaningless actions will simply dilute the things that we should put our resources on.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Addendum:

Note that in other languages, such as Malay/Indonesian, there is a non-gender specific reference to a third person. "Dia" means "that person" (i.e. "he" or "she") without referring to that person's gender.

So, does that mean that there should be a higher percentage of Malaysian/Indonesian women in Science than those in the English language world that is handicapped with a gender-specific third party word? After all, if this is such an influence, we could see its affect in such scenarios.

Zz.

 

[KingNothing]

No, it really does mess up sentence structure. Take this non-gendered example:

They were really making a big deal out of the whole thing. I guess it really affected them.

If "they" can mean "he" or "she", and "them" can mean "him" or "her", it's still unclear whether this sentence is using non-gendered singular pronouns, or if it's using plural pronouns. It could mean either. I could say this sentence to 100 different people and some of them would no doubt interpret it differently than others. I remember having my English teachers correct me and tell me that "they" and "them" are strictly plural pronouns. This is a very recent development.

But, if I said this:

He or she was really making a big deal out of the whole thing. I guess it really affected him or her.

In casual conversations, people would think I was weird.

 

[Cryptonic]

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.

 

[KingNothing]

They were really making a big deal out of the whole thing. I guess it really affected them.

It's a hypothetical gender-less situation. In which case, it's grammatically correct but semantically insufficient. From reading it, there is no way to tell whether I am using they/them as singular or plural pronouns.

I really wish our language and culture did have a simpler way of stating these things.

 

[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.