Gender in English

[Gary Kern <gkern@alumni.princeton.edu>]

A.P.H. Itel wrote:
> 
> Here is the reply I get from a native American English
> speaker, Thom Schmitz (who is by the way of German
> descent and helps me quite a lot with my
> translations).
> 
> THE KING
> Would be HE ^Ö but in case of personafication could
> also be IT (e.g. when we play cards and have a king of
> spade, we have to refer to it as IT).
> THE MOTHER
> Would be SHE ^Ö but in cas it is personified, could
> also be IT (e.g. when iraqi people are speaking of
> their fight against U.S. as the « Mother of all war »,
> mother should be refered as IT).
> THE STONE
> Is neuter and then we have to use IT when refering to
> a stone. But in case it is personified, especially in
> the poetic language, it could be HE or SHE (e.g. Jesus
> is the stone-corner of the Temple. The stone corner
> would be refered as HE).
> THE CAT
> Refered as HE/SHE or IT.
> THE TIGER
> Refefered as HE/SHE or IT.
> THE BLACK BEAUTY
> Since this would most probably be a proper name, would
> be refered only as SHE.
> THE BOAT.
> Is SHE or IT. There is apparently no case of a boat
> which would be refered as HE.
> THE H.M.S. VICTORY
> Is a proper name, and thus would be refered as SHE or,
> in some case depending on the context as IT.
> THE THOUGHT
> Is neuter and has to be refered as IT.
> THE CHILD
> THE WITNESS
> THE GUEST
> THE PERSON
> These words, when personified must be referes as HE or
> SHE, depending on the context. But it is also possible
> to use them as ideas, or in a very general way. In
> such cases, we have to refer to them as IT.
> If I am reading a philosophical text speaking about
> the person, the child, the witness or the guest in a
> very large and general or technical sense, I will be
> allowed to say something like « the person in itself^Å
> » or « it is the child which is^Å », or « The guest has
> in traditional society its own status regarding
> hospitality^Å », or « a witness is in its own right to
> claim for a protection program^Å »
> 
*************************************
You are missing the essentials, which are that the feminist assaults on
the culture and language have worked to eradicate grammatical and
semantic gender differences.

For example, the feminine halves in the following pairs are falling into
disuse:

actor/actress
poet/poetesss
hero/heroine
Jew/Jewess
Negro/Negress

And so on.  A woman actress now insists on calling herself an actor.  A
woman Jew might take offense if you referrred to her as a Jewess.  In
some cases, the feminine form is unavoidable, such as prince/princess,
but these often refer to antiquated titles.  The only feminine form that
the feminists prefer is goddess, though I have actually heard of a
feminine goddess referred to as a god.

In America the dichotomy used to be guys and gals (or girls).  Both gals
and girls are falling into disuse, though "girls" may be used for
pre-puberty women.  For all post-puberty girls, the term "women" or
"young women" is used.  Colloquially, girls call themselves "guys." 
Hey, you guys!  It applies to all genders, and also pets.  It's as if
there had been a mannist movement in America, and all the boys and men
referred to themselves as "Hey, gals!"  The word "gals" is practically
never used, except derisively--i.e., someone who uses it is considered
sexist.

When you have a noun like king, prince, etc., which can only refer to a
man, then you must logically say "he/his" as the pronoun reference.  But
in very many cases, the gender is not so evident:  commander, horseman,
surgeon might refer to a woman.  If you know the gender of the
particular person, then you use the appropriate pronoun; but if you do
not know the gender, and are speaking in the abstract, then you use the
"his or her" form, or the awkward, but neutral, plural form:  

The doctor in charge usually prefers for his or her attendants to arrive
a half-hour early.

A doctor either obtains a grant or pays for their [i.e., his or her]
education.

In the popular media the "their" form is used almost universally,
regardless of the logical inconsistencies and idiocies that it may
produce.

Often a traditionally masculine noun is paired with a feminine pronoun
for a surprise effect:  "God forgive you, if she can!"  Or:  "The
surgeon is making her rounds."  Or:  "The senator is concerned about
health care, as she should be."  And so on.  Even "boxer," "body
builder" and "warden" are not necessarily masculine.

The question of how to deal with nouns that have "man" in them has not
entirely been decided:  policeman, horseman, spokesman...  For a time,
particularly in the 60's and 70's, there was an attempt to replace all
the "man" suffixes and prefixes with "person," but it led to a number of
ludicrous results:  mailperson, chairperson, personhood, personkind, and
so on.  In some cases the "man" was just dropped:  "Jane will be chair
for this committee."  In others, the "man" was retained, but with the
"he or she" pronoun, etc.  "Jane Bly, our chairman, will open the
session."  Then, of course, "woman" took the place of man when
appropriate:  "Olga Bergoltz is the toughest policewoman you hope you
never meet."  All these options are still to be heard and read, though
"person" seems to be falling out.

The whole point, of course, is for women to be men--that is, to assume
professions, roles and attitudes that for centuries were the province of
men.  Some women think they will be more fulfilled and happier, and
maybe they will.  The language will undergo distortions, which will
irritate oldtimers like me, but it will survive.  Foreigners will have
to learn all the historical changes, memorizing the rules and wondering
at the exceptions, as in every language:  "The captain turned to the
other officers and said:  'Hey, guys, pay attention!  The chair is about
to speak.  Each one stopped what they were doing, put down their cases
and looked front:  Madeleine Chambers was about to announce the new
policy on brassieres."

GK