1.6.3. How to Avoid Sexist Language

The linguistic manifestations of inequality and stereotyping based on sex are hardly disputable. The question that remains is whether changing the language will alter the unequal position of men and women in society or whether achieving increased social equality must precede increased linguistic equality. One answer might be that language simply mirrors sociocultural patterns: If a society treats women as unequal, then language will simply provide the symbolic mechanism for displaying society's underlying discriminatory base. Changing to alternate, more neutral forms will not really stop underlying sex stereotyping, as items characteristically undergo semantic derogation when associated with a feminine referent. After all, at one point, words like mistress and governess were neutral counterparts of their male equivalents mister and governor. So changing language-use patterns may simply be a linguistic cosmetic for an underlying problem of social inequality. From this vantage point, language dutifully follows a symbolic course set for it by the established social system; language can hardly be blamed for the more fundamental social inequity to be confronted.

However, it must be noted that just as language mirrors the prevailing social order, the use of language may reinforce and perpetuate the acceptance of these social conditions. Thus, whereas it may seem pointless to begin using he or she in place of generic he or to change one's title from Mrs or Miss to Ms, there is a sense in which if we do not make these changes, we continue to endorse the notion that women don't "count" as much as men and that women can only be defined in relation to the men who surround them. There is an obvious interdependence between language as a reflection of social differences and language as a socializing instrument. Changing language-use patterns may thus go hand-in-hand with changing social conditions. In other words, language reform may actually serve as an impetus for social change.

While there remains some discussion among linguists and other scholars of language concerning what constitutes "realistic" language reform with respect to sex reference in English, there seems to be a consensus on a number of proposed reforms. In fact, the Linguistic Society of America, the most influential organization for language scholars in the United States, has adopted a clear policy statement regarding non-sexist language usage, which includes the following strategies for avoiding sexist language:

1. Whenever possible, use plurals (people, they) and other appropriate alternatives, rather than only masculine pronouns and "pseudo-generics" such as man, unless referring specifically to males.

2. Avoid generic statements which inaccurately refer only to one sex (e.g., "Speakers use language for many purposes — to argue with their wives ..." or "Americans use lots of obscenities but not around women").

3. Whenever possible, use terms that avoid sexual stereotyping. Such terms as server, professor, and nurse can be effectively used as gender neutral; marked terms like waitress, lady professor, and male nurse cannot.

(from the Linguistic Society of America Guidelines for Nonsexist Usage, approved by the LSA Executive Committee, May 1995)