Gender-biased use of pronouns in definitions

[jmccrae]

There are a lot of definitions that use the male pronoun in a way that implies gender, when the term is not gendered. For example

a contract in which the contractor is paid his total cost plus a stated percentage of profit (06534775-n)

Which could be changed to

a contract in which the contractor is paid her or his total cost plus a stated percentage of profit

A complete list of changes has been collected here. This affects the definition of 189 synsets

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BnQttTXLDFUeeDwtrkIh2WM63n0teDRpYCI6oivZ5HI/edit?usp=sharing

In a few borderline cases, where it is not clear if gender is assumed we will instead rewrite to avoid the use of pronouns

belief of the Roman Catholic Church that God protects the pope from error when he speaks about faith or morality (04812863-n)

to

belief of the Roman Catholic Church that God protects the pope from error when the pope speaks about faith or morality

[fcbond]

Hi, I think it is good to change them. Like many Australians, I use androgynous '*they*' freely, and would prefer it to '*her or his*' or '*his or her*' in these examples. So: "*a contract in which the contractor is paid their total cost plus a stated percentage of profit*" I think in examples like --- *tabaard: a short sleeveless outer tunic emblazoned with a coat of arms; worn by a knight over his armor or by a herald* I would find '*her or his*' jarring as knights are almost always male (#*worn by a knight over her or his armor or by a herald*) while androgynous ' *they'* is fine (*worn by a knight over their armor or by a herald*). But I realize that there is a lot of individual variance as to pronoun acceptability.

…

On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 12:35, John McCrae ***@***.***> wrote: There are a lot of definitions that use the male pronoun in a way that implies gender, when the term is not gendered. For example a contract in which the contractor is paid *his* total cost plus a stated percentage of profit (06534775-n <https://en-word.net/lemma/cost-plus%20contract>) Which could be changed to a contract in which the contractor is paid *her or his* total cost plus a stated percentage of profit A complete list of changes has been collected here. This affects the definition of 189 synsets https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BnQttTXLDFUeeDwtrkIh2WM63n0teDRpYCI6oivZ5HI/edit?usp=sharing In a few borderline cases, where it is not clear if gender is assumed we will instead rewrite to avoid the use of pronouns belief of the Roman Catholic Church that God protects the pope from error when he speaks about faith or morality (04812863-n <https://en-word.net/lemma/papal%20infallibility>) to belief of the Roman Catholic Church that God protects the pope from error when *the pope* speaks about faith or morality — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1058>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIPZRXC4NJSP4TCA23KTRLZW2X75AVCNFSM6AAAAABOI7ZSTWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGUZDQMBZGAYDSNA> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Francis Bond <https://fcbond.github.io/>

[jmccrae]

The use of 'singular they' is still quite contested by style guides. Some recommend against and many only cautiously approve it. See here for more detail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

I do however think that adopting 'they' is not exclusionary to non-binary people, so that could be an advantage.

'Knight' was one of the words we highlighted as 'arguably gendered', so the plan was to change this definition to

a short sleeveless outer tunic emblazoned with a coat of arms; worn by a knight over the knight's armor or by a herald

[goodmami]

I'm in favor of changing them and thanks for the effort in identifying all those cases. Replacing he with he or she, however, is syntactically awkward and still exclusionary. Singular they is nearly as old as plural they, it's commonly used, and often entirely acceptable. Many folk wouldn't even notice if they'd just read a singular they. I think the main thing to be careful of is that a singular they does not become ambiguous with a plural they in some example.

The use of 'singular they' is still quite contested by style guides.

That may be true, likely the same style guides that say to never split infinitives and what words you shouldn't end a clause with, but the Wikipedia article you linked says this:

[...] by 2020, most style guides accepted the singular they as a personal pronoun.

I think it's ok to take a stand toward inclusivity here. We wouldn't be standing alone.

Personally I'm not bothered by using they in the pope or knight examples, but I think repeating the noun is an acceptable alternative.