Gender-neutral language: only a first step
Online posting: Oct. 16, 1997
Published in print: November 15, 1997 (CMAJ 1997;157:1349)
Re: "Brave new world of gender-inclusive language", by Emile Berger [full text] and by Gordon Guyatt and associates [full text],CMAJ 1997;157(6):641-2 and
"Gender sensitivity a sensitive issue", by Lawrence J. Clein [full text], CMAJ 1997;157(6):640
In the discussion concerning gender neutralization of the English language, I found it amusing that Dr. Guyatt and associates effectively invalidated the views of Dr. Berger by simply pointing out that he is not a woman. However, Guyatt is also a man. If the discussion is to be reduced to that level, what makes his views more valid than those of Berger or of any man?
Glibness aside, let me address what I think is the important issue. Language is important because it provides a historical perspective on the relationship between men and women. English
originated in a culture dominated by males, so terms such as "chairman" emerged from boardrooms full of men. Language is important because it reminds us of the male-dominant
attitudes that can pervade a workplace. However, to focus on language alone risks skirting the real issue: the way women are often treated by men in certain work environments. This attitudinal problem has the same origins as the language, but language is only a symptom. This is where I would agree with Dr. Lawrence Clein, who is also a man but whose opinion I hereby validate.
Language has nothing to do with women's tendency to shy away from surgical specialties. Every specialty attracts certain personality traits, and very traditional male attitudes toward women tend
to pervade surgery. From experience, I know that in no other specialty is the relationship between men and women sexualized as much as it is in surgery. No words are needed to make a woman
feel that it is her breasts and not her techniques that are being observed, because a look is all it takes. The banter and commentary heard in the OR only add to this atmosphere. Many men view such banter as an innocent and charming expression of a man's appreciation of women, but inappropriate sexualization of a relationship tells women they are nothing but objects of sexual
interest. Objectification is a dangerous process, one that makes it easier for a man to think he has a right to transgress interpersonal and professional boundaries. The traditional power hierarchy is invoked, and women can feel powerless and threatened because of it.
Sexualization of a professional relationship is the most unpleasant and effective way to invoke that power relationship, and language is merely a reflection of the attitudes underlying it. If changing language will also change attitudes, then I'm all for change, but we risk ignoring more delicate and more significant issues. Chairman, chair and chairperson are all the same to me. The way the words are said and the look or gestures that accompany them are more indicative of the degree to which I am being regarded with respect, equality and professional legitimacy.
Patricia Seymour, MD
Dundas, Ont.
patrish@interlynx.net
CMAJ email
CMAJ Readers' Forum