sexist language

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

In article <1966 at xyzzy.UUCP> throopw at xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>How many people actually say the more accurate "If a typist has no
>current assignment, he should go to the supervisor and request one."?
>The more likely (and inaccurate) usage  "If a typist has no current
>assignment, she should go to the supervisor and request one." is
>nearly universal, and indicates clearly to me that people simply don't
>perceive the overloading of "he" as appologists for this usage claim.

I have redirected followups to talk.bizarre because this really has
nothing to do with comp.unix.wizards, and very little to do with sci.lang.

comp.unix.wizards readers: quit now.

sci.lang readers:  Throop's claim that "if a typist ... she ..." is
inaccurate (and the implicit corollary that this is sexist) is in error.
The supposition here is that if something is "unmarked", it must be
unmarked in all context.  That's not how it works.  But almost all
typists are female.  Therefore, when talking about typists, "she" is
the unmarked case.  (The parallel with Dyirbal, as discussed in Lakoff's
"Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things", is, I think, suggestive.)

I claim that anyone who seriously intends to _reform_ the English
language, rather than to club people around the ears with their
political opinions, will look for a neutral replacement for both "he"
and "she", and an astute reformer will look to related languages to
see whether there is already an English-like language with such a
set of pronouns, and will not overlook Pijin, where "i" (pronounced
"ee") is the 3rd-person-singular-human pronoun.  That people who
claim to be opposed to sexist language use "she" rather than "e"
makes me doubt both their sincerity and their freedom from ethnocentrism.
1/2 (:-).