I have chosen to write in the plural, so as not to possibly alienate any of my readers. Reverse genderism immediately alienates half the population and jars the senses, slowing down reading. "S/he" is horrible, and "he/she" (choose whichever is appropriate!) slows the reader's thoughts down. The exception is, for example, when I am quoting a female author. Then I write "She writes...".

Hi Henk,

I think perhaps you miss my point here: There is in almost every country a field of gender studies and in many places around the world, female oppression and discrimination still takes place. In Europe and other 'Western' countries there was a turn where we highlighted that men were not automatically given precedence simply because of gender, and in the current day, we have achieved this in the mainstream of thinking. Many of the writers in social science papers I process however, still tend to err on the feminine to the point of the old PC chairperson (when the chair is clearly a man) etc. My point is that rather than say that a researcher can run her study (when it could equally be a man), the poet pens her words (when the poet could equally be a man) .... we should be gender neutral and not feel (in unrelated contexts) obliged to prioritise the female above the male.

Do other writers worry about this ..... I think so: Ian has said he would alienate half his readership by (wrongly) prioritizing & Mats cited a whole country that had RECENTLY felt the need to introduce a gender-neutral pronoun. As with many discrimination issues, we often aggravate the matter more by siding with one side over another, instead of simply remaining neutral (& equal).

I am simply raising this area as we all write, subscribe to open vales etc, so I thought it might be of interest to other RG members :-)

In German language there are gender-specific forms of occupations, for example Professor (male) and Professorin (female). In many official documents a neutral form is chosen by Professor/in.

Last June Leipzig University changed the wording in its constitutional statutes from the male form to the female exclusively. I think, though, the professors are still addressed as Herr (Mr.) and not Frau (Mrs.). Wagging my head I'd rather stick to clumsy neutral form..

The generic "he" has been basically unacceptable in good academic writing for at least three decades (the issue first arose in the 1970s—read Robin Tolmach Lakoff's "Language and Woman's Place" and Miller and Swift's excellent "Handbook of Nonsexist Writing"). In my academic English writing courses for social scientists, I tell the participants to do one of three things:

First, if possible, convert the sentence into the plural (e.g., change "The average Dane drinks his coffee black" to "Most Danes drink their coffee black").

Second, as others have mentioned, when the plural form is inappropriate, use "he or she"—never "he/she" or "(s)he" because they are unpronounceable, and most readers "hear" the words in their heads as they are reading. The use of a blanket "he" or "she" for men and women alike is simply sexist writing, no matter what the intent.

Third, avoid the use of a great deal of "one," even when writing for a UK journal, for the simple reason that most non-native speakers of English use "one" incorrectly (many Americans do, too). I tell them to use "one" for the occasional sentence or paragraph, not for the entire paper. (I could go into this issue in detail but don't think that this is the place.)

One other point I always stress is that a good writer should never use "he" or "him" when discussing two males (or "she" or "her" when discussing two females), because the reader won't be able to tell which man the "he" is referring to. In English the solution to vagueness is always repetition: it's better to repeat the name and be clear than to use unclear pronouns.

I like Henk's comment about the Italian "Andrea"—or even the English "Pat" or "Lee," either of which could be male or female. Always do your homework.

In the end, perhaps the wisest choice is to pay attention to the language used in the papers published in the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. My observation is that the writers in the best journals always use either the plural or "he or she" as appropriate. In my 10 years of consulting in the social sciences, I have yet to run across one good journal that uses "she" across the board as some sort of antidote to the earlier generic "he."

Thanks, Natalie, for a lovely overview of the issue. You raise an important issue - gender-neutral writing sometimes overlaps with, but is not necessarily the same as, good writing: Henk's humorous reference to the Queen/he is a nice example. When I talk with students about how to address pronouns, I discuss it in terms of accuracy. Students who might fear that I am turning the class into a soap box about gender understand that it is simply confusing and inaccurate scholarship to write "he" when the person might be a woman, etc.

Of course the _Chicago Manual of Style_ wrote in one of its recent additions that it acknowledged the tendency to use identifiers such as "someone", "somebody", "everybody," etc. with "they" - as in "When someone is writing a book, they probably are an author" - and CMS acknowledges that this use will at some point in the future be officially accepted, but not yet. They, do, advise the plural.

On a side note, I learned to write s/he long ago as an undergraduate and also to read it as either "she or he" or "he or she" - we practiced this "internal reading" in class and also out loud, and it was easy to get used to. It is similar in Austria at the university level and some bureaucratic levels, with the plural of teachers written thusly, "Lehrer_innen," indicating that the group is comprised either of men and women, or unknown, whereas the plural of male teachers ("Lehrer") or female teachers ("Lehrerin") means that it is clear that the first plural group has only men in it and the second only women. When my students and colleagues read out loud, they read "Lehrer_innen" as "Lehrer und Lehrerinnen" without hesitation.

Mats' comment about Sweden suggests that a community can, in fact, get used to doing something differently, while Michael's experience at Leipzig (where I was a guest professor) made me remember that I was extremely confused by the simple use of female forms without a "signal" such as a slash (/) or underline (_).

Thanks, Benita. That a community can change is a critical point. Another example is the (legislated) disappearance from German of the word "Fraulein." A woman's marital status no longer appears in the politeness term of address, i.e., is no longer a matter of public social concern.

Having learned to read the generic "he" as a child, I had to train myself to say "he or she" instead of "he." It was quite simple: I made the decision and concentrated on using only the new phrase until it became second nature. It couldn't have taken me more than 3-4 weeks of paying constant attention to my speech. Now I can't imagine that I ever even learned the generic "he," let alone used it; when I read it in older books, I find myself appalled by it.

Of course writing in the plural is preferable. But when no gender is specified (e.g., a king), "he or she" is not only appropriate but often required by good journals that don't approve of sexist writing. Therefore, rather than seeing the use of non-sexist writing as self-referential, I view it as a sound strategy for publication in the top international journals.

Linda - my question is (to my understanding) about the acknowledgement of the female form, when in fact it is not the issue, and is also confined to the English language context.. Perhaps Natalies 'Kings' is a good example. In the main, male monarchs are called King and female Queen. I cannot therefore see a common instance where a) he or she would make logical sense, and b) where refering to a King as only he, may cause any question of exclusion. I don't think men are demanding to be Queens or visa versa. If we don't want to refer to the title itself e.g. 'The King was considered to have ....', we can use the plural - 'They were considered to have ...'.

The subject of gender related cognition is as you say 'old research', but this is not what I am refering to. I simply mean the token gestures of puting s/he, poetess etc, when gender is not the main (or even secondary) issue being discussed. In my view, it actually detracts from instances where there is a need to highlight difference. In cases where people are simply refering to each other indirectly (eg. 'If an author needs to ..... he or she can .....), you can simply use 'they' and avoid labelling altogether. So many times I have male writers deliberately using 'she' when gender indication is not needed, 'poet/poetess' when nobody cares if they are male or female (as in not relevant to the context) etc.

I see 'feminism' (I use the term loosely and without connotation) as a needed issue in selected contexts, but if we try to bring it into matters where it is not the focus of attention, then you in fact highlight distinction and segregation where none is intended (though we cannot account for the individual readers perception).

I know ... pretty pointl-ess ;-)

I am a bit skeptical of the phrase "token feminism". The issue of pronouns and correct writing can be coded as feminist or not, but the word "token" gives the discussion a different meaning. I do not see putting whatever variation of inclusiveness into writing as a token gesture - whether it is to use the plural forms, create new forms, write out "she or he" or s/he, etc., etc.

In the end, language is (also) the issue, since it is the way in which we make a point. If I can't tell from someone's pronouns what social class is the subject of the paper (royalty vs. commoners, to keep with the king example), then the author has done a poor job of communicating a point. Likewise, if the authors want to include everyone in a country (let us say a storm that affected everyone in similar ways - not the best example, granted), then there is no need to differentiate.

But when people write about "man's" greatest achievements, it irritates me, since there is no compelling reason to not use "humanity". And if I want to talk about test scores of pupils in schools (PISA, for example), and girls performed better at math than boys, then I need to identify female pupils vs. male pupils. And if a person of unknown gender (or sex, depending on your reading of those definitions) has done something that warrants mention during the test (such as a teacher who gives out the answers to a question without permission), then I can either keep writing "the teacher" "the teacher" "the teacher", or I can mention that the gender of the teacher is unknown, but s/he (or whatever form you prefer) was then disciplined by the administration and is now on suspension. And if I am writing in English about such an (invented) incident that occured in, for example, a German-speaking country, then it is likely that the German mentions in the substantive whether or not the teacher was male or female, and then it would be silly not to use those pronoun forms in English.

Those are obvious examples - but even if we do not _have_ to code gender forms as feminist issues, they have roots in feminist discussions, and we make assumptions based on language. I don't want people to assume that an astronaut is male just because most astronauts (to my knowledge) are still male, not least because I want my students to believe that any profession is (within regulations and qualifications and the reality of priviledge) open to them. And we know that children who routinely see doctors in books as male slowly identify doctors as male and nurses as female, etc.

And all that can be helped by (even awkward) use of a pronoun - perhaps not a big help, but I can't make changes beyond what I have control over.