Lingusitics What is the Impact of Gendered Language in Science?

[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.

 

[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?