Co-worker editing documents with "(s)he" to just "he" about generic people

Geoff1963

I recently read a document by a senior judge, who explained at the beginning that the English language did not have a gender neutral pronoun, so "he" should be read as "he or she", with no implication intended. Many documents have a glossary of terms.
A document about diamond jewellery kept referencing "stones".

If other people are involved in the process ( e.g. The duty Manager ), then the pronoun could cause confusion between them, so using abbreviations for the roles is probably a good way.
A book about welding used welder and weldor, to discriminate the person and the equipment ; though they are strictly both alternative words for either.

It can be awkward if you are forced to assert yourself as the author of something you don't agree with, but a preface / glossary would probably cover that. Any novel begins by explaining that everything which follows is made up ; so the author doesn't get charged with criminal offences etc.

General good advice is to do the job the way the employer wants it done ( with caveats for illegality ), and take it up off-line with HR.

I've managed to get the wording of some processes changed, analogous to :
"You will be imprisoned for life, if you are convicted of murder" became
"Anyone convicted of murder, will be imprisoned for life"

PossiblyOverworked

getmore4less wrote: »

Seriously.....

there is a saying in the work place.

"Pick your battles"

This is not a battle you want to play at this time.

What does the document that covers document review say about how changes should be made?


you could avoid the singular/plural issue by going plural.

"The teapot inspectors must.......they"

or just substitute the title as suggested earlier to not only gender neutralise but depersonalse completely.

Yeah, I'm familiar with "choose your battles" (and I use it a lot of the time) and I was wondering whether this is something to fight over, or whether it's unimportant (I'm lucky enough to be in the position that I don't have more urgent employment concerns about stuff like paying less than minimum wage, dubious contact terms, etc.. to be concerned about)

There isn't a "document that covers document review", it's an unofficial process. As far as our professional body requires documents to be looked at by someone else, it's a "peer review" (rather than "review by someone more senior than the author") process that they call for, if that makes sense.

I like the use of "they" on some level, but since we have to word it very precisely it was deemed that "they" was ambiguous i.e. are there more than one person who have to report to the Manager on duty, etc.

PossiblyOverworked

theoretica wrote: »

I don't like (s)he as the brackets break up the text. In formal writing I will usually go for the full 'he or she' which reads better to me, despite being longer, or use titles or the passive case to reduce the number of occasions it is needed.

I did use "he or she" the first time and then (s)he afterwards -- Would you use "he or she" every time even when it is very frequently mentioned?

PossiblyOverworked

sangie595 wrote: »

Regardless of everything, the OP clearly had issues with the fact that this person was induced to stay - if you want to see how powerful language is as a tool, look at the words that the OP chooses to use about them, and it is clear that they dislike them and the manager intensely. Whether warranted out not.

The "correct" answer is the one that the most senior person decides is correct. Don't fight over small potatoes.

Wow, I'm struck by the fact that multiple experienced posters here picked up on my "disrespect" for the senior person or for the chain of command in general, or "intense dislike" etc. And I am quite surprised! I gave that context as a sort of "by the way", but maybe it is more telling than I thought!

I guess the words you are referring to are things like "spurious", "quasi" etc which do say very clearly that the senior person's position is (as I see it) not legitimate. And what I mean by that is in our day to day work this guy doesn't 'supervise' what I do in any sense (and hasn't been asked to / I haven't been asked to "report to John about X before you go any further with it" etc), doesn't have any approval or veto authority over it, doesn't tell me what duties to carry out (I get those from our mutual manager as do the rest of our team of 5 "Teapot Engineers" and 2 "Senior Teapot Engineers"), doesn't have to 'sign off' something I decide to do, etc etc. I don't "report to" this person in any sense.

Really, is the "correct" answer always the one that the ostensibly 'senior' person in the hierarchy came up with and then attributed to me, regardless of whether it makes sense or is "politically correct"?

I am always open to criticism and constructive comments, so please help me see what I am doing wrong.

PossiblyOverworked

Ozzuk wrote: »

This person is responsible for reviewing your work, so sit down with them and agree the best way of presenting your documents and take the issue away. Be armed with guidelines (if you can find them) to support your position, or at least rational arguments and suggestions.

I occasionally write technical documentation/technical reports, I always avoid gender completely when possible. I have also seen 'he/she' or even 'he or she' used extensively but never (s)he. Using (s)he IMO breaks the document flow and looks unprofessional.

Does your organisation adhere/aspire to an ISO standard? If so, it might be worth checking if there are formal guidelines for gender use, but from memory nothing springs to mind, its more about document control.

The docs are part of an ISO standard (hence the formal language) but that standard doesn't say anything about gender use.

Ugh, I fear you are right! Sitting down with this guy rankles because of previous (not about gender but similar conflicts) history, but it may be what I have to do.

The trouble with that is that now he has this Senior position, it will come off as "please sir can I have some more" rather than a discussion among equals.

TBagpuss

Singular 'they' isn't incorrect.

It simply went out of fashion, and is now coming back into use because it is a useful, inclusive option. (also one which the Oxford English Dictionary approves)

So 'they' is the obvious option because it is simple, inclusive, and accurate.

(s)he is clunky and breaks up the flow of the text so it's not a good option.

Next time you have to draft something, go with 'they' rather than (s)he.

For the current documents, you have a problem that someone senior to you has changed the draft, and presumably you now further amending it to use they/them instead of he/him may create problems for you, so on a practical level you have to decide whether you want to fight that battle now. Is there anyone more senior you can ask for clarification / authority to use 'they'? Would providing details of the OED guidance or something similar help?
If you are mostly bothered about having your name on the documents in their current, sexist form, can you amend them simply to add the other person as a contributor / second author, so his name as well as yours is on the document?

sangie595

PossiblyOverworked wrote: »

Wow, I'm struck by the fact that multiple experienced posters here picked up on my "disrespect" for the senior person or for the chain of command in general, or "intense dislike" etc. And I am quite surprised! I gave that context as a sort of "by the way", but maybe it is more telling than I thought!

I guess the words you are referring to are things like "spurious", "quasi" etc which do say very clearly that the senior person's position is (as I see it) not legitimate. And what I mean by that is in our day to day work this guy doesn't 'supervise' what I do in any sense (and hasn't been asked to / I haven't been asked to "report to John about X before you go any further with it" etc), doesn't have any approval or veto authority over it, doesn't tell me what duties to carry out (I get those from our mutual manager as do the rest of our team of 5 "Teapot Engineers" and 2 "Senior Teapot Engineers"), doesn't have to 'sign off' something I decide to do, etc etc. I don't "report to" this person in any sense.

Really, is the "correct" answer always the one that the ostensibly 'senior' person in the hierarchy came up with and then attributed to me, regardless of whether it makes sense or is "politically correct"?

I am always open to criticism and constructive comments, so please help me see what I am doing wrong.

I meant in this context - not always. Something like this isn't worth getting into a fight over, and if this person is the one who decides on the language used, let it slide - it's a "correct" (notice the inverted commas?) as anything else. You just pick the battles worth a fight. This isn't one. It isn't that you are doing something wrong - except maybe for getting worked up over something minor! It's work. It pays a wage so that you can live. Life is too short to make it that important...

Manxman_in_exile

PossiblyOverworked wrote: »

There is a generic "equality policy" (along with a load of other HR policies) about stuff like: age, gender, race, faith, marital status etc (I can't remember all of them but it is the "protected" characteristics) are not taken into account in any of our practices including recruitment, promotions, disciplinary action etc etc. I don't have it in front of me, but it's essentially that.

I don't follow you.


Do you want to be writing "(s)he (of whatever age, young or old, of whatever religious faith, whether married or not, or whether suffering from some sort of disability or not)" just to be "inclusive" when you could have just written "they"?).


Your job is to write a technical document that employees can readily understand. "He" is perfectly understandable by everyone. "(s)he" is obfuscatory. "(s)he is not a word.


I'd thought sangie's post #37 had sensibly drawn a close to this.

Manxman_in_exile

PossiblyOverworked wrote: »

I did use "he or she" the first time and then (s)he afterwards -- Would you use "he or she" every time even when it is very frequently mentioned?

I don't understand(*) why you used "he or she" the first time.


But if you've done that once, why not use it again? It doesn't matter if it's frequently mentioned, does it, because it's the "inclusivity" angle that's all important to you? By using "(s)he" repeatedly there is no doubt that you are signalling "correctness" above clarity. (Do you really think a female teapot inspector would not follow the procedures addressed to "he"?)


(*) As I and others have already posted, explain at the outset that "he" is inclusive. What could be simpler? It covers everything.


Did you say that your managers don't seem to like you?

PossiblyOverworked

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I don't follow you.


Do you want to be writing "(s)he (of whatever age, young or old, of whatever religious faith, whether married or not, or whether suffering from some sort of disability or not)" just to be "inclusive" when you could have just written "they"?).


Your job is to write a technical document that employees can readily understand. "He" is perfectly understandable by everyone. "(s)he" is obfuscatory. "(s)he is not a word.


I'd thought sangie's post #37 had sensibly drawn a close to this.

No I don't want to use some long drawn out substitute ("he, or she, of whatever religious faith, or whether suffering from" etc etc)

I'm not "PC obsessed" but I take issue with the idea that "he is understandable but (s)he is obfuscatory", I'm afraid.