Language reveals a great deal about a person's values and attitudes towards certain groups in society, and this is commonly seen in language related to gender. This can be shown by either:
a) intentionally using lexical choice that is gender-neutral or gender-inclusive, or
b) avoiding or discouraging terminology that is discriminatory to derogatory towards a particular gender
We will look at examples of both.
__________________________________________
We have previously discussed how using gender-neutral language in a sporting context can challenge the idea that sport is masculine by default, and be more inclusive of women.
In June 2022, The Advertiser, a newspaper in Adelaide, announced that AFLW players Erin Phillips and Chelsea Randall have been hired for coaching roles in the AFL.
Notably, The Advertiser added the adjective 'men's' before AFL to specify which competition was intended. The initialism 'AFL' does not include a letter to indicate gender (as the AFLW does), and is generally assumed to refer to the men's competition by default. However, the newspaper made a point of using a gendered adjective to combat this assumption and suggest that both competitions should be referred to equally; that is, with a gendered letter or word.
Small changes like this are making their way into our language, reflecting the growing values of gender equality in Australian society.
_________________________________________
The push for gender equality can also be seen in the workplace, as discussed in an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald in May 2022:
The article discusses the importance of using gender-neutral language when referring to professional titles, quoting behavioural economist Max Reisner, who says:
“Take the chair, for example. Three out of five organisations still refer to the chairman of the board, regardless of whether the role is held by a male or a female... While it’s positive to see that 40 per cent now use the recommended chair or chairperson, the majority of organisations (60 per cent) are using a label that positions the role as male-orientated."
Here, it is suggested that the compound 'chairman' is not gender-inclusive, and that alternatives such as the shortening 'chair' should be used to promote gender equality in the workplace.
What other professional titles can you think of that may need to be altered to become gender-neutral?
_________________________________________
Another article by linguist Kate Burridge on the news website 'The Conversation' (May 2021) suggests the avoidance of certain terms that hold sexist connotations, in order to promote values of gender equality:
In the article, Burridge states that, 'Language – as a behaviour – holds a mirror up to these values. And changing the way we think about language is an important step toward changing the way we think about gender.'
Burridge provides examples:
'Descriptions like “shrill”, “hysterical”, “scold”, “emotional” – the list goes on – speak to the wider truth that women’s language is policed more aggressively and condemned more readily than men’s.'
You can read the full article above for many more of these examples.
_________________________________________
However, language relating to sex and gender is becoming more complicated than ever, especially when referring to the LGBTQIA+ community.
Increasingly in society, we are seeing more people choosing to identify as trans, non-binary or in other ways that challenge traditional gender identity and roles in society. This has led to language that aims not just to be inclusive of either men or women, but to be truly gender-neutral and cater to the face needs of gender-diverse people.
There is an in-depth (long!) discussion of this topic in an article from the Sydney Morning Herald in January 2022:
For a full understanding of the issue, it is recommended that you read the whole article above, or conduct further research about this topic online. Some key examples from the article are shown below.
The article discusses the debate around replacing nouns like 'women' and 'mothers' with compound or modified terms such as 'birth-givers' or 'pregnant people'. These latter terms aim to include people who are biologically capable of giving birth, but do not identify as female.
Several experts are quoted in the article, including Professor Jenny Gamble, who says, 'Sex-based language is important due to sex-based oppression. Confusing the idea of gender identity and the reality of sex risks adverse health consequences and deeper and more insidious discrimination against women... Sex [a reproductive category], gender [a societal role], and gender identity [an inner sense of self] are not synonymous but are being treated as if they are.'
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) explains that 'it is a continuing challenge to apply language in a way that is clear, concise and preserves the dignity of all people being described.'
_________________________________________
In any case, in English Language, our job is not to judge whether or not this language is correct, but rather to observe how these linguistic choices reflect different values and attitudes about gender in Australian society.
This will be something to watch carefully over the coming years as this debate unfolds.
コメント