Assumptions about gender

[Ross Gardler <ro...@gardler.org>]

Here's one things we should be more aware of (especially the men):

On an email list, with people from across the globe and therefor names 
that may not be recognisable to all, it is impossible to know who or 
what someone is. We recently gained a new member for our team on the 
Forrest project and I found myself referring to them as a "he".

She politely (and with humour) pointed out she was, in fact, a she not a he.

I have no defence for this failing. I had no reason to think that this 
person was a he other than my established, but faulty, perceptions of 
what kind of person appears on our lists.

I feel quite sure that the fact that I (and many others) make such 
assumptions will reduce the level of welcome that women feel on our lists.

I wonder how we best avoid this...?

Ross

Re: Assumptions about gender

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

I have experienced the same. And once people know I'm a woman, many want 
to spell my name "Jeanne". :-)

Often in email I write {s}he or {him|her}self.

I'm never offended when somebody assumes I'm a man -- and humor is a 
good, healthy response. More likely, it's the person making the 
assumption who is uncomfortable.

You're using one workaround, which is to use the gender-neutral plural 
that doesn't match the subject ("a new member" and "them"):

> We recently gained a new member for our team on the Forrest project and I found myself referring to them as a "he".



  -jean

Ross Gardler wrote:
> Here's one things we should be more aware of (especially the men):
> 
> On an email list, with people from across the globe and therefor names 
> that may not be recognisable to all, it is impossible to know who or 
> what someone is. We recently gained a new member for our team on the 
> Forrest project and I found myself referring to them as a "he".
> 
> She politely (and with humour) pointed out she was, in fact, a she not a 
> he.
> 
> I have no defence for this failing. I had no reason to think that this 
> person was a he other than my established, but faulty, perceptions of 
> what kind of person appears on our lists.
> 
> I feel quite sure that the fact that I (and many others) make such 
> assumptions will reduce the level of welcome that women feel on our lists.
> 
> I wonder how we best avoid this...?
> 
> Ross

Re: Assumptions about gender

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

Susan Cline wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>  
> Interesting.  This has always been something that I have not quite grasped ... why people think someone is a certain gender, and to be frank, why it is important to know one's gender when conversing via email. 

English doesn't make it very convenient to avoid gender references. 
Consider a hypothetical post:

    Rene and I discussed Jira issue 542 in IRC and here's a
    summary for the list of what we discussed.  [... hypothetical
    details removed ...] I said I would fix the problem with 'foo'.
    Rene said he would fix the problem with 'bar'.

Is Rene a {wo}man?  And is that sentence "Rene said *he* would fix the 
problem with 'bar'" a problem? 
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/decades/names1940s.html shows that in 
the 1940's "Rene" was #386 on the list of most common male names and 
#873 on the list of most common female names. So no help there -- and it 
just reinforces that it's best to not assume Rene's gender.

So, given this sentence:

    Rene said he would fix the problem with 'bar'.

What's the best way to avoid using "he"?

The singular "it" pronoun doesn't work and leaves one wondering what 
"it" is:

    Rene said it would fix the problem with 'bar'.

The Prentice Hall guide 
(http://www.prenhall.com/author_guide/tech1/ezprint.html) might suggest 
using "he or she", but it sounds awkward to my ear and also confusing:

    Rene said he or she would fix the problem with 'bar'.

Using "{s}he" would scream that I don't know if Rene is a man or woman, 
which distracts from the message I want to convey:

    Rene said {s}he would fix the problem with 'bar'.

On after thought, I'd probably punt and rewrite the sentence to avoid 
the gender reference entirely:

    Rene agreed to fix the problem with 'bar'.

here's a link I just found with helpful tips (and that convinces me that 
my usage of {s}he is truly awkward) and pointers to other links:
http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/style/gender.html

I especially liked its discussion for rewrites of Star Trek's "... to 
boldly go where no man has gone before".

  -jean

> A suggestion about how to avoid this - what about just referring to the person always by name, or if 'speaking' to them directly in email, by saying 'you'?
>  
> I'm glad you brought this up. This has always been a pet peeve of mine, that in general, 
> 'people' are usually assumed to be males.
>  
> Susan
> 
> 
> Ross Gardler <ro...@gardler.org> wrote:
> Here's one things we should be more aware of (especially the men):
> 
> On an email list, with people from across the globe and therefor names 
> that may not be recognisable to all, it is impossible to know who or 
> what someone is. We recently gained a new member for our team on the 
> Forrest project and I found myself referring to them as a "he".
> 
> She politely (and with humour) pointed out she was, in fact, a she not a he.
> 
> I have no defence for this failing. I had no reason to think that this 
> person was a he other than my established, but faulty, perceptions of 
> what kind of person appears on our lists.
> 
> I feel quite sure that the fact that I (and many others) make such 
> assumptions will reduce the level of welcome that women feel on our lists.
> 
> I wonder how we best avoid this...?
> 
> Ross
> 

Re: Assumptions about gender

[Susan Cline <ho...@pacbell.net>]

Hi Ross,
 
Interesting.  This has always been something that I have not quite grasped ... why people think someone is a certain gender, and to be frank, why it is important to know one's gender when conversing via email.
 
A suggestion about how to avoid this - what about just referring to the person always by name, or if 'speaking' to them directly in email, by saying 'you'?
 
I'm glad you brought this up. This has always been a pet peeve of mine, that in general, 
'people' are usually assumed to be males.
 
Susan


Ross Gardler <ro...@gardler.org> wrote:
Here's one things we should be more aware of (especially the men):

On an email list, with people from across the globe and therefor names 
that may not be recognisable to all, it is impossible to know who or 
what someone is. We recently gained a new member for our team on the 
Forrest project and I found myself referring to them as a "he".

She politely (and with humour) pointed out she was, in fact, a she not a he.

I have no defence for this failing. I had no reason to think that this 
person was a he other than my established, but faulty, perceptions of 
what kind of person appears on our lists.

I feel quite sure that the fact that I (and many others) make such 
assumptions will reduce the level of welcome that women feel on our lists.

I wonder how we best avoid this...?

Ross