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

Manxman_in_exile

PossiblyOverworked wrote: »

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

And your issue is? Is "(s)he" in any dictionary? "he or she" is perfectly understandable. But why waste ink when you can say "he" and make it clear at the outset that "he" is to be read as being inclusive?

getmore4less

The key in this sort of technical/process document environment is consistency.

Not just with in a particular document but across all documents they should use the same language and be styled in a consistent way the last thing a place needs is someone coming in and starting to write documents in a different way and then changing the way they write them.

(S)he she or he etc is bonkers to use in technical documents that don't even need any gender based language.

It should be really difficult to tell who has written/reviewed any particular document.

KiKi

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I agree with you, OP. It can feel tough enough to get into a male dominated industry, let alone one that has male domination built into the smallest of things like this. (I also don't think you sound jealous - I think you're just recognising the reality of what happened to keep him!)

I wouldn't take it up with this guy, though - if he doesn't see the value of inclusive language, then it's not going to change from a conversation.

I'm going to assume you have regular 1:1 meetings with your line manager...? If so, when you're talking about work, I'd simply add this to the list of things to talk about - but not in a 'problem' way. Make it a different issue, so that you're raising the fact that it's happened without making it the actual issue. For example, "I understand from John that we're now changing from using inclusive language to one that refers to 'he' in documents. I just wanted to check if that applies to all our documents, because I'm writing X one at the moment, and I read a thing on the intranet yesterday / I'm conscious of all the messages / I heard something from HR about making sure we don't use discriminatory language. Can you just confirm for me?"

Or "I understand from John that we're now changing from using inclusive language to one that refers to 'he' in our new documents. I'm conscious that all our current documents don't do this, and therefore we're not being consistent in the team / organisation about how we present things technically. Do you need me or the team to now change all those previous documents?" (Of course, this one could land you with extra work!)

That way, you're making the issue one of "does this apply to everything" or "I appreciate the need for technical consistency" rather than "John has made me do this and I don't agree...".

That's how I'd handle it anyway - make your manager aware without making it the problem.

HTH
KiKi

getmore4less

I would not even mention John, it should just be related to the document pool and consistency, do a quick sample review across the docs and bring up any discrepancies including the the use of gender specific language.

trailingspouse

For people who don't think it matters, or don't think it's that big of an issue, here's a thought.

Imagine the document said something like 'The white Inspector should examine every 23rd teapot', and in the preamble there was a note saying 'white includes black'. That would be daft, wouldn't it.

getmore4less

trailingspouse wrote: »

For people who don't think it matters, or don't think it's that big of an issue, here's a thought.

Imagine the document said something like 'The white Inspector should examine every 23rd teapot', and in the preamble there was a note saying 'white includes black'. That would be daft, wouldn't it.

if white inspectors were the ones that wore white coats and there were green inspectors that wore green coats and black inspectors that wore black coats

If this specific testing was only for black and white trained inspectors it would make sense but you would drop Black/white in the text as you preable with this testing must be done by Black or white trained inspectors.


The easiest way to be inclusive is to drop personal/gender specific terms and refer to the neutral collective term for those that can carry out the task, in this case inspector.

sangie595

trailingspouse wrote: »

For people who don't think it matters, or don't think it's that big of an issue, here's a thought.

Imagine the document said something like 'The white Inspector should examine every 23rd teapot', and in the preamble there was a note saying 'white includes black'. That would be daft, wouldn't it.

I think you are getting confused. I don't think anyone is saying "it doesn't matter". They are saying that this is not something to make into a big deal in your workplace when you are already not all that popular there - there are better fights to pick. But I think that you're determined to pick the fight, so have at it. We have all observed that "you should pick your fights" - if this is the one that you choose to pick then have at it. It won't be won here. This board isn't the employer. So what we think is irrelevant. If this is a fight you want to have, by all means go have it with the employer. But if all you want to do is exercise your frustration with people on this board, it is misdirected. Because it isn't about what we might write, or what our employers would think, or what we think. You asked for advice. You got it. Take out or not.

trailingspouse

Erm - sangie595, I'm not the OP.

I'm giving advice, making suggestions etc to the OP, just as you are. We disagree on the advice we give, which is fine - and of course it's up to her which fights she picks. But she wouldn't be posting on here if she didn't think it was a problem.

And yes, personally, this is a fight I pick and continue to pick.

sangie595

trailingspouse wrote: »

Erm - sangie595, I'm not the OP.

I'm giving advice, making suggestions etc to the OP, just as you are. We disagree on the advice we give, which is fine - and of course it's up to her which fights she picks. But she wouldn't be posting on here if she didn't think it was a problem.

And yes, personally, this is a fight I pick and continue to pick.

Whatever. After four pages of this I have lost the will to live. But I think that what you, or I, might do is not the issue - the issue is that the OP is unlikely to win any friends or influence people in replicating a pernickety discussion in the workplace. They already aren't highly valued, and if they want to reinforce that on a point like this, then that is their decision. But all this thread has turned into is a long debate about the length of a piece of string, or angels dancing on pinheads. In terms of the language, there is no right answer. Absolutely any position taken on this could be "correct". The issue is not the language. It is whether you get into a fight over something for which there is no "correct" answer.


For information, I use "s/he". I don't, as I said somewhere on page 1, disagree with the sentiment. I disagree with the tactics.

Nicki

I just wonder what success looks like for the OP in this scenario. If she is hoping to validate her opinion that John only has "ostensible seniority" in the team and to take him down a peg or two, I think she will lose the battle. If she genuinely cares that all documents are gender neutral then she may be tasked with updating the whole bank on top of her existing workload. Or her manager may not agree with her assessment of the situation in which case it may be foreseeable that her relationship with John will be strained for a while.