5.0059 Children: Gender and Ages (3/63)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Wed, 15 May 91 21:03:17 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0059. Wednesday, 15 May 1991.


(1) Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 23:46 CDT (29 lines)
From: "John D. Jones" <6563JONESJ@MUCSD.BITNET>
Subject: GENDER

(2) Date: Tue, 14 May 91 01:54:33 EST (22 lines)
From: "Don W." <UOG12005@vm.uoguelph.ca>
Subject: Gender of child

(3) Date: Tue, 14 May 91 11:24 O (12 lines)
From: "Chaim Milikowsky" <F12016@BARILAN.BITNET>
Subject: methods of noting ages

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 23:46 CDT
From: "John D. Jones" <6563JONESJ@MUCSD.BITNET>
Subject: GENDER

Regarding gender

Dennis Baron raises the problem of referring to children in ways that
avoid the use of "it" and the more inclusive but cumbersome "he/she" --
especially when such constructions are constantly repeated. It seems to
me that often the easiest way to refer to "generic children" or "generic
persons" for that matter is to use plural constructions such as
"children," "people," "indviduals," "persons," etc. Such constructions
allow us to correctly use the plural pronoun "they" (instead of what
frequently happens: e.g, "a child will cry when they are sick").

Moreover, such plural constructions do not typically prevent us from
talking about individuals in an abstract or generic sense. We can write
"people themselves," "individuals themselves," etc. For example,
compare "each individual must assume responsibility for his or her
actions" with "individuals themselves must assume responsibility for
their own actions." It seems to me that the basic meaning of both
assertions is identical. Of coure, such equivalences will not always
work. "The winner of this race can obtain his or her prize at the end
of the day" is not equivalently expressed as "the winners of this race
can obtain their prizes at the end of the day."

John D. Jones
Philosopy Department
Marquette University
6563JONESJ@MUCSD
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------33----
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 01:54:33 EST
From: "Don W." <UOG12005@vm.uoguelph.ca>
Subject: Gender of child

In Humanist 5.0037 (Mon 13 May) Dennis Baron points out that the pronoun
"it" referring to a child may be falling into disuse. In some Gmc
languages, the word for 'child' is neuter; perhaps the use of 'it' in
English to refer to a child, especially a baby, has roots in the history
of the language.

However, since "natural" has replaced "grammatical" gender in English,
you can call a baby 'he' or 'she' and it's a toss-up whether you're
right or not. If you call a baby 'it', you're darn near certain to be
wrong. Unless somebody's out perambulating a doll lifelike enough to
fool you.

The point is that 'it' refers to anything that has no "natural" gender.
If we want a gender-unspecific 3rd-person singular pronoun, somebody
will have to invent one. Or else start using 'they', 'them' and 'their'
in the singular.

Worse things could happen. Like trying to pronounce 's/he'. / = hiccup??

Don Webb
(also DonWebb@CSUS.EDU)
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------17----
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 11:24 O
From: "Chaim Milikowsky" <F12016@BARILAN.BITNET>
Subject: methods of noting ages

I remember a passing reference several years ago by
someone in HUMANIST who mentioned that some rent
cultures call someone ten years old when he is in
his tenth year and some when he is in his eleventh
year. Does anyone have references to this for me?

Thanks.

Chaim Milikowsky
Bar Ilan Talmud Department