Since 'man' and 'men' have become exclusive, terms such as 'crewed/uncrewed' are being used to fill in the gap left by manned/unmanned, but it occurs to me that 'crewed' does not really work with, for example, an unmanned border post. What would AWADers suggest instead?

While we're at it, does anyone know of a 'definitive' list of alternatives to the common male-centric terminology?

I dunno. We'll probably need some input from the wopersons in the group.

well a border post exist for a reason--perhaps it is automated?

so rather than unmanned it is a automated (or automatic) border post? with electronic recording devices.

> well a border post exist for a reason--perhaps it is automated?

Yeah, I know what you mean, but I was thinking more along the lines of this: 'The border post was unmanned at the time we crossed.'

I guess you could say, 'There were no border personnel at the post when we crossed', but that's changing things around quite a lot.

>>an unmanned border post<<

An opportunity.

Juliet

    Come, civil night,
Thou sober-suited matron, all in black,
And learn me how to lose a winning match,
Played for a pair of stainless maidenhoods.
Hood my unmanned blood, bating in my cheeks,
With thy black mantle till strange love grow bold,
Think true love acted simple modesty.
Come, night; come, Romeo; come, thou day in night;
For thou wilt lie upon the wings of night
Whiter than new snow upon a raven's back.

Unmanned here means untamed. Nice usage of the verb to learn, too.

[While in another play ...]

Lady Macbeth: What, quite unmann'd in folly?

Macbeth: If I stand here, I saw him.

Lady Macbeth: Fie, for shame!

How about staffed/unstaffed? Works better for me than crewed/uncrewed.

When we got to the border crossing post, we found it was delicate.

> How about staffed/unstaffed? Works better for me than crewed/uncrewed.

Good suggestion. I'm sure there are other circumstances where 'staffed' wouldn't work quite as well, but it works well here. It may, for example, sound a little weird to say an 'unstaffed crane'; I think then reverting to 'uncrewed' may be better.

Such a great thread! I wonder if anybody has any answers for the second part of BYouth's initial post, about a "definitive" (I suppose meaning more or less accepted) list of gender-neutral terms that are preferrable to some of the so-called discriminatory ones?

Thanks!

Bryan Garner gives eight solutions in Chapter 7 of "The Elements of Legal Style."

I’m not thrilled about “staffed/unstaffed” because that implies that there should be more than one person sitting there and all of them were out. Staff represents a group of people.

I’d see staff being used in the case where somebody walked in to an office with several desks, and there was nobody around. Then saying the place was unstaffed would work.

Perhaps not politically correct, but I do not feel diminished in any way by the words manned or unmanned. It’s one of those words that, to me, does not specifically imply that the person was male, like the word mailman does.

>It’s one of those words that, to me, does not specifically imply that the person was male, like the word mailman does.

boy(!), howdy -- that's an awfully narrow and sharp (not to say cheesy) distinction.

In reply to:

---

Juliet

Come, civil night,
Thou sober-suited matron, all in black,
And learn me how to lose a winning match,
Played for a pair of stainless maidenhoods.
Hood my unmanned blood, bating in my cheeks,
With thy black mantle till strange love grow bold,
Think true love acted simple modesty.
Come, night; come, Romeo; come, thou day in night;
For thou wilt lie upon the wings of night
Whiter than new snow upon a raven's back.

Unmanned here means untamed. Nice usage of the verb to learn, too.

---

I always assumed it referred to the fact that she was still a virgin, and all that messy stuff with bloodied sheets and such.


Bingley

>It’s one of those words that, to me, does not specifically imply that the person was male, like the word mailman does.

>>boy(!), howdy -- that's an awfully narrow and sharp (not to say cheesy) distinction.

Well, I kind of understand the reasoning - this is where you come down to the crux of the matter. I mean, I personally don't think too much of gender neutral language if it ends up as clunky 'he/she' formations and no matter what people say about the plural pronouns being fine it does *not sound better than just using the singular male to me.
At least in this case too, there doesn't seem to be an obvious way around the problem. In other cases, I've heard of mixing pronouns, but it isn't very popular; certainly not in technical texts! I also read a book which used male phrasing throughout but commented in the introduction that this was in no way meant to discriminate against the other sex, but rather was chosen simply becuase it was simple. That approach worked in that case, I think. Be that as it may, anyone involved in writing publicised English texts has to grapple with genders whether they like it or not. I do wonder how things are managed in other languages. English certainly seems to be an exception in its thoroughness as far as I can tell, and a little hyper-PC compared to other languages, is it not?

>>personally, I don't think too much of gender-neutral language<<

But many readers do. If the object is to communicate, it is wise not to alienate them. This is not to endorse an over-indulgence in pcese, but considerations of gender do not obscure and, in fact, have merit.

a lot of mainline Protestant churches re-wrote their hymnals and other service books in the last couple of decades to eliminate gender-specific language. I'm all for it. we do it for future generations.

all that messy stuff with bloodied sheets

The monologue perhaps, but I was typing about the use of the word unmanned. (The Latin virgo 'maiden, virgin' is related to vir 'man' and English were as in werewolf or weregeld.) Unmanned for deflowered is kind of a stretch, though.

whoops, came out as a double post.

Bingley

No, no, you misunderstand me. I was thinking of unmanned here equalling undeflowered.

Bingley

undeflowered

Ah, I see.

> considerations of gender do not obscure and, in fact, have merit

I certainly think there is merit in making communication more accessible to everyone and that GN language can facilitate that. My point was that it isn't all that black and white. Clearly there are *some cases where GN versions do obscure the direct meaning or complicate matters (see above). Oh, well. Touchy topic, no doubt. I don't see all the advocates of PC and GN language come to the rescue when people get into linguistic quagmires over certain wording, but they come runnning when they find a combination of letters with 'man' in it though. Maybe we should just ban all but 'it' as a 3rd person next;-)

Belli,

Agreed, in general. A rule of thumb

Don't use the gn equivalent if there isn't one.

(The language is moving toward using "they," which don't bother me none atall.)

(The language is moving toward using "they," which don't bother me none atall.)

Singular, gender-neutral they has been in use since around Chaucer's time. Give it a couple of more years and it should re-arrive.

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxgender.html

Language Log has some choice postings on it, too.

In Québec, we have an expression that goes, “Il cherche toujours la bête noire” (he’s always looking for the black beast) to mean somebody who always looks for insults even when no insult is present, or intended.

Saying that a border post is unmanned in no way implies that only men are able to work at this post. There is no subtle, hidden meaning in the word that says men are better than women and that only men could possibly work at a border post, and no possible way it can be interpreted as demeaning to women.

As to nouns, it does make sense to have more accurate nomenclature. Mailman is a noun that describes a man that delivers mail. It doesn’t imply that only men can do this job, however it is an inaccurate noun for a woman doing this job. Having a female variation makes sense. In the case of mailman, the accepted term here is postage carrier, which is gender neutral, and accurate also.

I’ve read texts that alternate pronouns religiously, “he” in one sentence, “she” in the other, “one” (as in “one can use the wrench to…), “they” and so on – and I found it extremely cumbersome and hard to follow. There is no flow to a text created in this way. Women are not elevated or helped by this, and I say it is foolish to think it is an improvement.

There are real barriers affecting the elevation of women to the level that men have – in some places women are still considered chattel, in others, women are tortured and discarded like refuse. Women should get over being insulted about a booth being “unmanned” and move on to real issue.

I’m not saying women shouldn’t be vigilant in assuring that they not be subclassed, I’m saying that we should be smart enough to judge when something is really meant to insult or demean, and when something is not, and to put our energies into the real problems affecting women.


“Arrête de voir les bibittes où y’en a pas ! “ (Stop seeing bugs where there are none.)

And lastly, “Fait une femme de toi.” – (Make a woman of yourself.) Be mature and be intelligent. The booth is unmanned. Get over it dag nabbit.

>>Singular, gender-neutral they has been in use since around Chaucer's time. Give it a couple of more years and it should re-arrive.<<

I was being conservative in the hope of *avoiding* a jibe -- that's I get when I don't attribute: I was paraphrasing Bryan Garner whose book I mentioned earlier.
;-)

Well, then I wasn't jibing you, but tweaking Mr Garner's nose. He should know better. (I just looked at his entry on sexism, and saw the sentence is question.) Thanks.

>>tweaking Mr. Garner's nose<<

I suppose he's just touching on the issue for the sake of legal writers who freeze at the idea of using "they."

And thank you, too.

expanding on an example from Fowler:

prescrip: Everyone was blowing his nose.
p.c.: Everyone was blowing his/her nose.
extreme p.c.: Everyone was blowing hir nose.
singular they: Everyone was blowing their nose.
or: Everyone was blowing their noses?
or: Everyone were blowing their noses??

What about the likes of ships in pcese? "My, she was yar!"

They were all blowing their noses.

Or, voh is they. Given my own position in favour of the gender neutral singular they, it has been a delight to learn Hindi, which has a gender neutral singular pronoun. The convenience makes up for the fact that it breaks Hindi's own "rules" for pronunciation.

Hubby came up with "unattended" as an alternative to unmanned.

How about "abandoned"?

Abandoned...I think it depends on whether the guard is coming back, or simply temporarily away. With abandoned, I'd think the guard was gone for good.

> unattended

That's perfect for a border post, isn't it. Full marks:-)

...Hindi, which has a gender neutral singular pronoun

So does English. Please splain the difference, dear Max.

>> Hubby came up with "unattended" as an alternative to unmanned.<<

Kudos

Depends on whether he went out to buy cigarettes and are coming back in just a moment. His superiors might rightly speak of an abandoned post ...

superiors are to be ignored on cigarette breaks

In reply to:

---

...Hindi, which has a gender neutral singular pronoun

So does English. Please splain the difference, dear Max.

---

Sorry, ASp. I should have added "for use when speaking of people". While in English, one would never use "it" of a person without risking giving offence, and one would not use "one" without risking being thouight a pompous twat, in Hindi, "voh" is the standard pronoun for he/she/it.

Thanks for the explanation Max, mon chou, but it was our mademoiselle ASp that asked the question. Though if I am to be mistaken for someone, I think I'd be quite happy to be mistaken for her.

>>manned/umanned<<

Unattended was also the first thing that popped into my mind (thanks, bel ) in that particular instance. However, I really never contemplated the dilemma of manned/umanned before. Because, I guess, it's one of those terms and phrases that have reached beyond their original genderism to become, in effect, agenderal, if you will.

And remember..."going postal" is always gender neutral.

Quote:

---

one of those terms and phrases that have reached beyond their original genderism to become, in effect, agenderal, if you will.

---

Back when gender meant something in English and gender had yet to become conflated with sex, man and woman were both masculine and wife, which meant "woman" at the time, was neuter.