Gender neutral pronouns decrease bias

[MIdgebabe]

Found this interesting, ok, partly becuase it confirms what is suspect that emphasising someone’s sex makes biases easier to use

www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/05/he-she-or-gender-neutral-pronouns-reduce-biases-study

Note the use of they as singular goes back to 1300’s

“This study adds to the evidence showing that when we use language that actively includes women and LGBT people, it makes a real difference in reducing gender stereotyping. Using gender-neutral language is a positive step towards creating a world where everyone is accepted without exception.”

Urgh ‘accepted without exception’ is how we got to #waxmyballs.

That aside, not sure how replacing ‘she’ with ‘they’ constitutes ‘language that actively includes women’ - but I suppose the study could be a useful resource when HR comes knocking to tell you to put pronouns in your email - one could reply with ‘let’s have a company wide policy to use ‘they’ for absolutely bloody everyone instead’ 😂

How does this work for other languages?

I'm not convinced this would work in the long term. Short term in english possibly, but if you are reinforcing gender stereotypes through physical appearance / culture you are just reintroducing that bias without having words for it.

All this study is showing is a lingustic trend too - and thats an important flaw with what they are saying. Its not showing how people respond to a physical person.

I also don't think it addresses the dehumanising nature of language when you start to refer to woman as 'childbarers' or 'cervix havers'. Which might have a significant impact on the status of women in society as being seen as a commodity rather than human.

What you might gain on the one had you might be taking away - and taking away more in other areas - on the other hand.

Its an incredibly narrow study that taken in isolation needs to be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

Note the use of they as singular goes back to 1300’s

Yes - there's absolutely no need for posturing neologisms.

There are many contexts where using 'they' as a singular rather than he, she, or both makes perfect sense. The vast majority of contexts, in fact, where sex should be irrelevant.

If sex is relevant then he and she should be used. Any patient in an antenatal clinic is a woman, 'she' is the appropriate pronoun.

I also think it sidesteps the issue of taking responsibility for one's own cognitive biases - which can now be tested for. It is a little too close to telling women to act more like men in order to be accepted by men, when I'd rather deconstruct the whole man-favouring system.

As already mentioned though, it would be a hell of a lot fairer than enforcing pronouns on email signatures etc which is akin to forcing atheists to choose a religion and evangelise. (Because it is saying that pronouns are no longer sex based but based on gender - something many experience as a system of oppression rather than an identity).

After my previous post, I'd add that in contexts which have previously been heavily gendered, explicitly including both pronouns may be a good idea.

There's definitely a place for more use of the word they, but it does depend on context.

In this case its being suggested not to improve equality (which would benefit women more) but as a justification for the trans agenda and the subdigation of women. Stonewall are not friends of women.

It should be seen in that light.

I am not convinced.

Turkish has only one pronoun in the third person - it is therefore gender neutral by definition.

Yet somehow Turkey is not a bastion of human rights, with wonderful societal attitudes towards women or LGBT.

This is hardly new: we know sexism/misogyny exists which is why many companies now remove reference to sex from application forms: doing so can dramatically increase the number of women interviewed.

I speak a language where there is no "he" or "she" yet the verb for "to marry" goes "he married her" active and "she was married by him" passive.
Not exactly unbiased.

I'll wait for the replication studies. Won't hold my breath, these kinds of studies aren't particularly reliable.

Surely there’s a difference between talking hypothetically, e.g. about a doctor, using ‘they’ rather than ‘he’ and talking about a specific individual? I think gender neutrality in the first instance is helpful because it stops the assumption that all doctors are men. But in the second scenario, pretending someone isn’t female is unlikely to make a difference to prejudice.