I just want to say that with Princeton University’s new language guidelines “banning” any reference to “man” or other gender-specific terms and with the rulings concerning the non-restrictive use of public restrooms without regard to privacy or decorum, I have a new approach to writing.
Be it understood that when I use gender-specific personal pronouns in my writings, I mean anybody…unless I don’t. At which time to prevent confusion, I (henceforth, the “writer”) will leave it up to the reader to draw personal conclusions about the biology of the referenced individual and the potential sexism of the writer. Bear in mind that the reader’s inferences based on the writings may be influenced by their own sex-biased view of the world…or not…as the writer (not this writer in this case) may have identified differently on the date of the writings and thus approached the subject from a confused point of view…
As an aid, feel free to use the alternative pronouns as suggested by the collective wisdom of highbrow colleges for interpretive use by plebeian communicators when reading or writing. A link shared by a friend led me to an article on www.thecollegefix.com which reports these suggestions:
From Princeton – “ze, zie and hir,” “they and theirs,” and “Ey, em, eir and emself”
From the University of Tennessee we get – “ze, xe, hir, hirs and zirs”
Words have meaning and no two words are alike – and, obviously, the above suggestions have none! The dictionary definition of any two words may match, but the difference between those two words will nuance the meaning of a phrase or sentence. That article also mentions the suggested substitution of “ancestors” for “forefathers.” The term “forefathers” is for those who came before, but implies the “fathering” (if I may be so sexist) – a founding or creation – of something. “Ancestor,” on the other hand, simply means those who came before, and somewhat implies a direct biological descent so the only “fathering” implied is biological, neither philosophical nor figurative.
When I attended, Baylor University required Old Testament and New Testament survey classes. In class one day, a discussion developed concerning two versions of the Bible – the Revised Standard Version and the King James. In one, the term used was “God’s justice.” In the other, it stated “God’s judgement.” The rest of the sentence was identical. For our purposes, it doesn’t matter which is right or more accurate. The point is that by changing the word, the nuanced meaning of that sentence was changed because while justice and judgement may overlap, they are not necessarily the same.
The language changes recommended by a handful of universities are to allow everyone to feel “welcome, accepted and respected.” I would think that an incoming freshman at a college would feel a lot more welcome, accepted and respected if the people there communicated in a common, understood language and didn’t revert to such incoherent, nonsensical jargon. This is particularly true when you consider that the implication of the Marquette University policy is forced compliance in student writings. Just like our forefathers ancestors intended in the 1st Amendment…
CasualComments.com 