Fascinating:
(...) today the “dominant masculine” no longer applies in grammar, and
still no gender-neutral pronoun thrives. It turns out that it’s not just
the conservatism of the pronoun system that’s blocking the
gender-neutral pronoun. It’s also the fact that the speakers of English
seem content to muddle along without this particular innovation. Even
before the generic masculine started its decline, singular they
was always an option, both in speech and, despite the tongue-clicking
of purists, in serious writing as well. More recently, writers seeking
to avoid the generic masculine have been plugging in the coordinate he or she, him or her, his or her(s), sometimes choosing slashed forms instead, he/she, him/her, his/her(s), despite long-standing objections that such constructions are cumbersome, especially when they’re repeated several times.
In fact, despite the almost universal condemnation of the coordinate he or she by supporters of gender-neutral pronouns, the rule books now opt for he or she and not an invented word to replace the generic he. Students
who once were taught that the masculine pronoun must always be used in
cases of mixed or doubtful gender are now taught instead to use
coordinate forms, not for gender balance or grammatical precision, but
simply because that’s the new rule. Those writers who question the rule,
who realize that multiple he-or-she’s just don’t make for
readable prose, won’t seek out a new gender-neutral pronoun. Instead
they’ll recast some sentences as plural, and for the rest they’ll just
take their chances with singular they. After all, if you, which is also gender neutral, can serve both for singular and plural, why can’t they
do the same? In any case, after more than 100 attempts to coin a
gender-neutral pronoun over the course of more than 150 years, thon and its competitors will remain what they always have been, the words that failed.
The issue of gender irks me less in English than in French for I have made the recent realization that it is easier to be gender-neutral in the former than in the latter. I had always assumed with foolish pride that French was a less sexist and gender-oriented language than English. My opinion changed when I decided that two of the main characters, Andrea and Leah, of my novel, L’Empreinte des
Choses Brisées, weren't going to have a gender..I had read and loved Jeanette Winterson's Written on the body and thought unconscionably that it would interesting to try to write a story in French with gender-neutral characters without the issue of gender-neutrality being the main aspect of the story. I didn't realize how difficult that decision would make the story very challenging to write. In French, masculine pronouns are gender-neutral for characters are presumed to be male if the writer doesn't use the female pronoun elle or doesn't assert their gender. My point isn't very compelling, but it is that French is such a specific and a precise language that gender-neutrality is almost impossible to achieve because masculinity is assumed not only to be the norm, but to be all encompassing. To be frank, I'm not sure that I succeeded in making my characters gender-neutral for most people so far who have read the book assumed with a disturbing certainty that my characters can only be women in spite of the fact that I keep asserting that I don't know their gender, for they never told me what it was. In short, French makes androgyny and gender-neutrality difficult,.
As Eluard, I believe that words don't lie and that it has forced me to realize that in fact, language says a lot more than it should about gender and its place within a society. The argument isn't that language frames one's mind or conditions one's thinking, but rather that it mirrors most societal conditions and what has always been believed about gender.