On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:18:44 -0600, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>
>	I'm not sure to what extent Tim was joking/exaggerating,

Nor I

> but what seems trivial to you may not be so. 

Yeah, go on.

>It has often been argued that language and
>choice of words does often dictate people's perceptions, and that at
>times changing them has changed those perceptions over a matter of
>decades. 

You have a point.

>I haven't studied it in detail,

Go on.

> but I'm not sure the argument
>is without merit. It may well be that the very argument about the choice
>of words makes more people aware of the issues and that's what effects
>change - not the actual change in wording.
>
>	Either way, seems like a win/win situation. 

Or a win/lose if you must speak American.

>As I said, I see no harm in
>either adding a third person pronoun that is gender neutral (has the
>shift from using "humanity" instead of "mankind", or "businessperson"
>instead of "businessman" damaged anything?), or allowing both he and she
>to be used as a gender neutral pronoun of someone whose gender is not
>specified.

I can't say that I agree. Action not words and fine words butter no parsnips.

>	I've seen "she" used frequently by people (some were women, and then I
>stopped bothering to check) in this regard. I don't know if it was
>naturally or with this in mind, but it didn't at all seem awkward except
>the first two times or so.
>
>	Languages are dynamic, and I'm rarely sympathetic to those who want to
>keep them static for the sake of being static.

Nor I.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message