The original concern, which by the way wasn't mine
, had to do with [huj]'s semantic association, not its grammatical function.
The original concern was that [hju] (a.k.a. Hugh) like 'him/his' can be viewed by some as being exlusively male, wherein lies the problem. The
-ologists at the time were trying to reduce gender bias.
Suggesting [hju] is fine with me, but, again, to some people it neither address nor takes into consideration the original concern. As far as they are concerned, suggesting [hju] is comparable to suggesting "mr" for "mr/mrs".
The issue at the time was not that [hju] and "mr" have male gender associations-on the contrary, it's that they are exclusive. -ologists were looking for an inclusive term.
Mike:
Quote:
Some people say that their preferable technique to avoid gender-biased pronouns is to change the noun into plural. I find such a solution
problematic and even detrimental to the language's ethical and conceptual
capacity to deal with individuals. Compare:
A hero is one who places huself at risk for another.
|
First: Well, uhm, wouldn't we use "himself" in that sentence, "Hero" being male, and "Heroine" being female?
A hero is one who places himself...
A heroine is one who placed herself...
Second: I think I understand, but how ethnicity relates to the topic of gender bias pronouns is a fuzzy one. Could you be more specific?