Man, Woman, Human

A discussion of gender inclusive langauge in academic discourse

by Nikki Ellis
Faith & Reason Writer

Language is power. Words have the ability to destroy, encourage, express, manipulate, persuade or inform. If we fully understand the strength of our language, we should desire to wield it very carefully, choosing with consideration the way we will address each audience. Our words can either work for us or against us, in both speaking and writing.

Although there may be general campus-wide agreement with the above statement, there is sharp disagreement at Covenant over the use of gender inclusive language in academic discourse. The current convention in scholarly discourse as proclaimed by both the Modern Language Association and the American Psychological Association is to require use of gender inclusive language for any published articles or discourse. Examples of gender inclusive language include using “human” instead of “man” and “he or she” instead of “he.” Following the required conventions of discourse is necessary to gain credibility. As the convention stands, not using gender inclusive language in discourse weakens an argument as much as poor grammar or misspellings. A writer must follow these conventions in order to gain credibility as a thoughtful and intelligent communicator.

According to Biblical studies professors Drs. Roger Lambert and Dan McDougall, the PCA has no stance against the use of gender inclusive language in academic discourse, and the Scriptures do not specifically address the idea of gender in language.

One argument for older, gender-exclusive forms is that they are traditional. But to argue against gender inclusive language on the basis of tradition is in effect to universalize the ever-evolving English language as having a normative form. Whether or not words like “man” and “he” were ever truly understood to be indicative of both male and female, it is the case that within the current construction of our language, these words connote a specifically male image.

It has been argued that gender inclusive language lacks the flow of simply using “he” or “man” and that it makes writing more awkward and less aesthetically pleasing. But many new things sound awkward to the ear at first, particularly if they have been learned in a different way. One cannot base aesthetic pleasure merely on that which is familiar. Also, the goal of academic discourse is hardly aesthetics alone.

The goal of written scholarly discourse is to communicate. In order to be an effective communicator, every writer must ask the question “Who is my audience?” before he or she begins the writing process. The goal of answering this question is to address one’s audience as specifically as possible. In terms of gender, there are three distinct audiences: all female, mixed company, and all male. The use of gender inclusive language is a call for three specifically different ways of addressing each group (woman, human, man), instead of only two (woman, man).

The move toward gender inclusive language is also a move toward writing with more specificity and clarity. When using “man” to speak of humanity, it can be unclear as to whether the writer is referring to men alone or to men and women. However, the term “man” is rarely, if ever, used to refer to a group of only women. No one writes, “Since creation, man has nursed his babies at his breast,” unless the writer is willing to risk a laugh.

Because the goal of academic discourse is to reach an audience, it is obviously best to include all members of the audience in your discourse, instead of distancing any group of them. The use of gender inclusive language is not just a mark of consideration for your audience, but can actually make your arguments or information more effective by directly reaching a greater number of people. There is also more clarity as to whom you are appealing, since male language can be unclear in the distinctions between a male audience and a mixed audience. Gender inclusive language makes your communication clearer, more personal and more effective. We have too long been lacking in our consideration of audience. We must use the freedom of our language to be better communicators, reaching out to those who are male and female, all of whom are human.