Affirmative positions

Promoters of gender-neutral language argue that its motivation is not to favor either gender over the other in contexts where the gender of a person or group of people is ambiguous. The perceived need for inclusive language arises because, according to widely accepted norms of current usage, masculine pronouns no longer communicate a generic sense of "anyone." Indeed, many people find such usage not only inaccurate but offensive.

There is a growing awareness that language does not merely reflect the way we think: it also shapes our thinking. (This is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis again.) If words and expressions that imply that women are inferior to men are constantly used, that assumption of inferiority tends to become part of our mindset.

In some cases, Gender-neutral language may be achieved through the use of gender-inclusive, gender-neutral or epicene words ("human being," "person," "individual," and so on) instead of gender-specific ones ("man," "he," "businessman," etc.), when speaking of people whose gender is unknown, ambiguous, or unimportant. If no gender-inclusive terms exist, new ones may be coined (e.g., "businessperson"), or there may be parallel usage of the existing gender-specific terms (as in "men and women," "he or she," "he/she," "(s)he," and so on).

Inclusive language follows the principles of gender-neutral language and extends them to other areas of language, such as referring neither to adults nor children when discussing a person whose age cannot otherwise be determined.

Some advocates of gender-neutral language argue that traditional language fails to reflect the presence of women in society adequately. This is referred to as "symbolic annihilation." In general, they are concerned about a number of issues:

• Use of exclusively gender-specific pronouns like "he" and "she." While English first person pronouns("I"/"we"), second person ("you"), and third person plural ("they") are gender-neutral,^[6]

• Use of "man" to refer to all people. (e.g., "mankind.")

• Use of gender-specific job titles.

• Use of "Miss" and "Mrs." (see "Ms.")

• Non-parallel usage, such as "man and wife."

• Stereotypical words such as "virile" and "ladylike."

• Words with stereotypical derivations such as "hysterical."

• That the word "woman" appears to include the word "man," as though "man" were the default or normal form.

Some reasons stated for these concerns are that gender-specific language:

• It marginalizes women and creates the impression of and reflects a male-dominated society.

• It makes women invisible in language, which, it is claimed, reflects their reality

• It is demeaning, such as when the wording appears to treat women only as property of marriage or calling other 'things' owned or operated by men by female adjectives (e.g., that car: "she's" a beauty, the "mother"land, etc.)

• It can perpetuate inaccurate and biased stereotypes about where men and women are supposed to be [e.g., chairman, statesman, congressman, physician vs. secretary, waitress, hostess]

Many people believe that the general use of the term "man" is offensive, or at least inaccurate. Phrases like "no man is an island" or "every man for himself" seem to exclude women. Although reading history as if every use of "man" or "he" was a deliberate insult to women is probably excessive, today's culture calls for alternatives.

Gender neutral language is widely accepted. It is also new, which can lead to traditional language sounding parochial or out-of-date to those who use the new forms. Some people, of both sexes, take offense at traditional language that they interpret as suggesting stereotypical assumptions about occupations. For example, when the language infers that all lawyers are men or that all teachers are women.

A deeper variant of these arguments involves the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the suggestion that our language shapes our thought processes. Some scholars believe that in order to eliminate sexism, we would do well to eliminate allegedly "sexist" forms from our language—this is an interesting argument. Other scholars, however, have pointed out that in languages that do not make the gender distinctions English makes there is still a high level of sexism. See for example, Japanese and Tukish.

Some advocates support the enforcement of rules and policies against gender-specific language by institutions including schools, governments and workplaces. Many editing houses, corporations, and government bodies have official policies in favor of in-house use of gender-neutral language. In some cases, laws exist regarding the use of gender-neutral language in certain situations, such as job advertisements. The majority of advocates for gender-neutral language generally prefer persuasion rather than enforcement. One method for such persuasion is creating guidelines that indicate how they believe language should be used, or providing an example through their own use of gender-neutral language.