LANGUAGE

I Have Some Questions About Inclusive/Non-Discriminatory Language

Sure, I could just ‘Do My Own Research’, but I’m asking here instead

Last time I checked, I was pretty damned privileged. As a white, middle-class, university-educated, straight man, the only identity-based disrespect likely to come my way is to be casually and collectively dismissed as being ‘pale, stale and male’. And this particular PSM can take that hit without too much distress.

This means that I have no personal experience of the need for modifications to the way language is used in order to avoid offence, discrimination or exclusion. I acknowledge its importance, and am happy to follow the lead of both individuals and the acknowledged representatives of particular groups as to their preferences. But I don’t feel it in my bones.

And so there are certain aspects of the linguistic shifts we have happily seen over recent years that I find puzzling, and wonder if their rationale makes as much sense as it might.

‘What’s it to you?’ some might ask. It’s not my decision, after all, and I’ve already stated that it doesn’t really affect me.

My response would be that first of all, it does in the sense that I write here as a hobby, but more importantly, translate into English as a job. If a client requests that inclusive language be used when translating texts from Spanish (which can simply miss out subject pronouns, for example, avoiding the need even to preface a verb with ‘he’ or ‘she’), I need to know that I am getting it right, and can explain to them why.

Again, that’s my job, so I guess I should just DMOR.

But there is also the issue of how receptive less liberal members of the privileged English-speaking mainstream will be to such suggested changes, and hence their effectiveness in successfully universalising and normalising inclusive language.

The more logical an explanation that can be offered, the more likely widespread acceptance will be, except among the regrettably large number whose prejudice and insecurity prompts them to reject any alternative to the linguistic overcooked steak and fries that is all their lobotomised empathy allows them.

That is why I raise these questions here, in the hope that this outstanding platform for informed, civil debate can offer an insight from other perspectives, and perhaps prompt a reflection on the soundness of the reasoning behind the forms now consolidating a position of normative acceptance.

He/him, she/her, they/them

Inevitably the sociopolitical hot potato of pronouns heads the list. What I don’t get here is the need to express this choice as ‘nominative/accusative’.

Are there any circumstances in which someone might choose to be referred to as ‘he/them’ or ‘they/her’. This is not meant as a puerile Dave Chappelle stand-up gag. It’s a genuine question. Does one grammatical form not presuppose the other? And if so, why are both needed? It is perhaps meant for added emphasis, so as not to be overlooked?

This would make sense, but could potentially prove counterproductive, further fuelling the ‘making a fuss over nothing’ counterargument. Clearly, this not an ‘argument’ in any genuine sense, but a bigoted, paranoid gut reaction, so perhaps the precise formulation would make no difference anyway, except among the more easily convinced fence-sitters of the middle ground.

I recall Tim Berners-Lee expressing regret over including the double slash in the web prefix ‘http://’, as the characters served no purpose in separating the different parts of the address, and simply meant billions of wasted keystrokes and bits.

The parallels are very loose in this case, but might the same have happened here? Or am I missing some vital point in my outsider ignorance?

Themself

Should we be using this word as standard in the singular? One of the fallacious objections to the use of ‘they’ as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is that ‘they can only ever be plural’. Six centuries of usage, dating back at least to the Middle English text William and the Werewolf in 1375 according to the scholars at the Oxford English Dictionary, convincingly argue otherwise.

But one aspect which again could be cited in support of rejecting singular ‘they’ is the reflexive form. ‘Themselves’ quite clearly has a plural feel to it, because of the final ‘-s’. The alternative ‘themself’ does exist, although as I write this, Word’s autocorrect insists on changing it to ‘themselves’. But oddly enough then accepts the form without the prescriptive protestation of a squiggly red line.

Are people advocating for its more wider use? And would it be helpful to do so?

Capitalised ‘Black’

This is in fact the issue that prompted me to write this whole piece. I was reading an article in the UK liberal/left-of-centre newspaper The Guardian the other day, which stated something like ‘Clearly Black and brown citizens are finding it harder to access affordable housing’.

And that didn’t strike me as successfully inclusive.

‘Black’ was capitalised, but ‘brown’ was not. The terms were being used to refer to population groups neither of which, as I understand, is any more ethnographically, racially, demographically or genetically more uniform than the other. They are being identified in terms of skin pigmentation, and specifically here the prejudice and assumptions that pigmentation exposes them to.

But the fact that one term is capitalised and the other is not immediately leaps off the page as implying hierarchically different status. Capitalisation is used to establish a distinct sense of entity and identity. And hence to advocate for collective acknowledgement and rights.

If one group is to be capitalised on the basis of the colour adjective used to identify them as individuals and a community, shouldn’t this apply universally? I presume there is some reasoning behind that decision. But what is it?

I apologise if I seem to be splitting hairs here. Though if you have made it this far, presumably you also agree that these matters are worthy of our consideration.

I passionately believe that language and how we use it are vitally important in shaping our sense of self and society, and feel that these — and many more — facets of the way we are now choosing to reshape our communal discourse in the interests of greater harmony, security and dignity, are worth discussing.

Because unless we get the process right, and can present convincing arguments to those objectors capable of hearing them, we run the risk of struggling to achieve the normalisation on which its success depends.

Your comments would be most welcome.