Neutral positions

Many people have no recognition of any potential problem with gender-specific language. Thus, they have no opinion on gender-neutral language and make no special effort to avoid what advocates may describe as sexist language. However, many terms advocated or proposed by advocates of gender-neutral language, such as "firefighter" or "he or she," have entered the common lexicon and may be used by those who do not have any particular feeling about the subject.

Negative positions

In an attempt to remain fair minded I am also including the other side of the gender-neutral language debate. Those who say we do not need to bother changing the language. The criticisms of promoting gender-neutral language extend from a "It's much ado about nothing," and "It's political correctness gone mad, to "It's unnecessarily ruining the English language."

Some regard gender-neutral language as revisionist, as excessively politically correct, as promoting poor or heavy writing, or simply a cosmetic change that does nothing to actually repel sexism. They may consciously refuse to use forms of speech advocated by promoters of gender-neutral language. Some critics have noted:

• Traditional use of the English language, and other Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic languages, including using male pronouns when referencing both males and females, is not sexist. They point out that the difference between, for example, "waiter" and "waitress," is purely for specificity, not quality differentiation, and the difference is not synonymous with judgment.

• Men and women are different and speakers need not be afraid to admit that.

• There is no reason to assume that the traditional linguistic gender hierarchies reflect a bias against women. The female grammatical gender is simply marked and it could actually reflect women being "more" valued than men.

• Rewriting text to eliminate gender-specific pronouns often results in an awkward and ugly writing style.

• So long as the speaker does not intend a derogatory meaning then there is no issue and the remnants of the past need not be changed.

• Traditional use of gender in English does reflect sexism. However, a change in language should evolve organically from changing public attitudes towards gender issues, rather than be achieved either by enforcement or by persuasion.

I would just as a last thought like to insert my opinion on this issue. There is no reason NOT to change the English language and make it more gender-neutral. In my opinion it is better to go to the trouble of changing the English language and making it free from gender bias, than have someone feel devalued or discriminated against. It is not a difficult process and it only serves to make the language more specific, clearer, and freer of discrimination. If something is this easy to do and is this beneficial to both genders why not do it.

That being said, I have assigned as one of your readings the rules for writing in a neutral way. The article I have assigned, “Avoiding discrimination” also includes information on how to refer to African Americans, Native Americans, and other often times discriminated against groups—please read it.

So ends the last lecture in our sociolinguistics class. I hope you have gotten something out of the class and maybe it has helped you learn the English language a little bit better.

Now, our last seminar will be next week. Please read the short articles I have assigned and try to answer the questions. You must answer at least one question to get any a participation grade.

The following class will be our sociolinguistics conference. You must hand your papers in at the Sociolinguistic conference in 2 weeks to receive full credit. If they are late I MAY take a point off of your total grade. There is no reason for a late paper. You will have had at least 10 weeks to write it. The presentations should be no more than 7 minutes long. I will time you. You will be presenting your work to the class so please make it interesting.

-------------------------------------------------------------