epicene: ...
4. of the same gender class regardless of the sex of the being referred to ...
5. capable of referring to either sex... having common gender.
- Random House Unabridged Dictionary
I am utterly enraged, and doubly so since the object of my ire is something unspeakably geeky - though something geeky that seems to be deliberately trying to offend my feminist sensibilities. I refer, of course, to the problem of the perceived lack of a third-person epicene personal pronoun in English.
There have been many proposals to deal with the issue, but the problem is that, for one reason or another, they all suck.
- The phrase "he or she" has been proposed to indicate that the referent could be male or female. Unfortunately, almost everyone knows that this is stupid. As we know from the story of
Rufus Xavier Sarsaparilla, the purpose of a pronoun is to take the place of a noun to make sentences quicker and easier to say. Replacing a pronoun with the clunky phrase "he or she" defeats the purpose of using a pronoun in the first place. Linguists who advocate "he or she" should really refrain from making suggestions until they have as much grammatical acumen as anyone who watched
Schoolhouse Rock.
- Some have noticed that the third person
plural makes no gender distinction and have proposed that the third person plural pronoun "they" be used as a singular epicene pronoun. This proposal is almost as stupid as "he or she." It fails to take into account that the purpose of having the word "they" is that it indicates to the audience that multiple people or things are being indicated. If "they" becomes acceptable as a singular pronoun, it would lose its only reason for existing. The meaning would change to "one or more people or things that may be male or female or of an indeterminate gender or may be incapable of having gender." Effectively, at that point, you have broken the meaning of one of the most common words in English. This is why we can't have nice words!
- Since there is no convenient word in English that is always understood as "a male or female referent," some people would like to add a word such as "zie" or "thon" or "ta." This is an elegant solution, but unfortunately, people don't even recognize these as pronouns, so the only people who would immediately understand you would be other linguists. Everyone else would just wonder, "Who the fuck is Thon?"
- Some people insist on continuing to use the word "he" in the neuter sense as people have been doing pretty much since the inception of modern English. For the sake of fairness, I should point out that I am one of those people and that anyone who thinks that there is anything wrong with it is a moron.
At
kith.org (a website I stumbled upon recently that has some interesting and amusing word games), Jed Hartman wrote
an essay about epicene pronouns in which he said,
"If you believe that 'he' really is a gender-neutral pronoun in modern usage, consider the following sentence (attribution unknown): 'Man is a mammal: he bears his young live and suckles them at his breasts.'" This would be a compelling argument were it not for the fact that
there is absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence. Maybe I am biased because I read J.R.R. Tolkien at too young an age, but the word "Man" can be used to refer to the human race, including men, women, and people of ambiguous gender - and there are countless examples of this usage going back several centuries as well as modern usage. Since humanity (or "Man") is a species of mammal, it can be said that humanity bears live young and nurses said young. Whether the individuals who bear and nurse have Y chromosomes is irrelevant to the statement being made. If their gender were relevant, the writer should not have been using the epicene case in the first place. Using that sentence as "proof" that "he" does not work in the epicene case is like saying,
"If you believe that George W. Bush was a bad president, consider that he decided to invade Iraq." The argument only makes sense if you already agree with it. It's also like saying that photons shouldn't exist because they behave like waves
and particles, and that doesn't
sound right.
The insistence that the word "he" always carries a male connotation is absurd, anyway. If gender connotation of the literal meanings of words were really that important to our use of language, then a man who killed a woman could not be convicted of
homicide. Even if you got the case to court, no woman could give
testimony. If a woman objected to this situation, she would not be able to
protest. This might cause some men to become out of sorts, but they could not get
hysterical. There are a plethora of words that at one time literally only applied to people of one gender, but now can be used to refer to people of any gender, and that includes the word "he."
Of course the issue I hear most often regarding the use of "he" in the epicene case is the issue of sexism. I have heard way too many times of the problem that the unmarked state of a person in our society is white and male. I cannot argue that this isn't the case, but I have also noticed that the unmarked person is usually at least moderately attractive, which is not necessarily the case with the average person, and I have yet to hear anyone address that problem. As an androphobe, I am sensitive to the problem of the assumption of an unspecified gender being seen as male, but sometimes you have to choose your battles. The truth is that you can't regulate the way people think, and no amount of stupid word games is going to change that.
When you get down to it, the problem is not so much the lack of epicene pronouns as the existence of gendered pronouns. As an argument for the necessity of gendered pronouns, Jed Hartman echoed Samuel R. Delaney's assertion that we are gendered, and that so much of our behaviour and experience depends upon gender. This seems hypocritical to me, considering he freely mentions that the unmarked state is that of a
white male (and our experience in society is greatly dependent on race), and yet does not bring up the fact that no pronouns have racial characteristics. Pronouns are not meant to be descriptive, they are meant to be a quick stand-in for a named referent. If it's that fucking important to you that your audience know the gender of the referent, you can mention it when the referent is first identified.
The fact is that "he" already is an epicene pronoun, but in the interest of egalitarianism, I should point out that the only reason I say "he" rather than "she" is that of the two, "he" has fewer letters. Grammatically, there is no reason why one could not also use "she" in the epicene sense. However, I think it's silly when people try to regulate the use of
only "he" or
only "she" as a neuter pronoun, or even alternation between the two. A person can use "he" or "she" as much as she chooses, and it does not reveal any gender bias on his part.