Created by EJ Belcher
Last updated December 2003
He Said/She Said:

                                                                              http://www.imdb.com
the use of gender-sensitive language

Another component of objectivity is gender-sensitive language.  In this politically correct era when we must say “humankind” and tell “herstory” as well as history, students and professionals alike must be aware of not only what they say, but how they say it.  On the surface, it may seem obsessive to hone in on gender-sensitive language, the UNC Writing Center on-line handout says that "most English language readers no longer understand the word 'man' to be synonymous with 'people,' writers today must think more carefully about the ways they express gender in order to convey their ideas clearly and accurately to their readers" (1). 

In “Gender-sensitive Language,” the Asian Institute of Technology’s Style Guide offers these guidelines:
        1. Use the plural form for both nouns and pronouns.  2. Omit the pronoun 
        altogether.  3. Use his or her, he/she or s/he when you occasionally need to 
        stress the action of an individual.   Such references won’t be awkward unless 
        used frequently.  4. Vary pronoun choice when you want to give examples 
        emphasizing the action of an individual.  Ideally, choose pronouns that work
        counter to prevailing stereotypes.  5. Switch from the third person (he) to the 
        second person (you) or a “you understood’’ when this shift is appropriate for 
       what you are writing.  (1-3)
Of course, the key phrase for any of these suggestion is "unless used frequently."  Sometimes students see pluralizing all pronouns as a way to be objective.  While it may make the piece of writing "gender-blind," overuse of any one method is not the answer.  A better approach would probably be to vary the methods based on what is appropriate for a particular style of writing.  Objectivity is not necessarily the equivalent of political correctness. 

James Lufkin addresses our society’s need to be clear and correct in everything we say and write in “The Gulf Between Correctness and Understanding.”  He claims that this preoccupation “frequently goes hand in hand with a neglect of the reader’s point of view, which results in publications of such poor quality that instead of admiring them we should consider them unacceptable” (4).