End of Gender: His n' Hers n' Hens

sleeping cat with the words I iz dreaming of gender nootrol pronownz underneath

Swedes are tossing out their “His n’ Hers” bath towels in favor of language that’s a little more inclusive.

Earlier this month Sweden’s online National Encyclopedia adopted the gender-neutral pronoun “hen” in addition to “he” [han] and “she” [hon]. Post-media explosion, the controversy extends beyond the Swedish-speaking world.

Slate reports that Sweden’s linguists caught their first whiff of gender neutral language in the mid-1960s. In 1994, linguist Hans Karlgren proposed using hen as a personal pronoun to replace the awkward “he or she” that clutters formal writing.

But Karlgren’s strictly practical view of having a word that “enables us to speak of a person without specifying their gender” has been taken up by a political movement.

Social Democrat politicians have proposed installing gender-neutral bathrooms in public establishments. The Swedish Bowling Association plans to merge male and female bowling tournaments to make the sport gender-neutral. Swedish preschools are banning gendered language, referring to students as “friends” rather than “boys and girls.”

The rest of the world has its own rumblings of an emerging gender-neutral culture but when it comes to pronouns, places like the mainstream US are far behind Sweden.

English-speaking queer circles use a variety of gender-neutral pronouns like “ze/hir.” As Kate Bornstein recently pointed out on Melissa Harris-Perry’s show, the singular “they” is growing in popularity, despite breaking grammar rules. But outside of spaces where gender-neutral language is explicitly encouraged to show respect, gender-netural pronouns are obsolete. And we could really use them.

I’m not suggesting that we should obliterate “he’s” and “she’s” from our vocabularies and identities. Lots of people like to be “he’s” and “she’s,” sometimes both, and sometimes one or the other depending on the weather or time of day. But if we used gender-neutral pronouns to refer to those whose pronoun preferences we don’t know, we’d avoid making assumptions about people’s identities. For those of us whose genders are often misread, that would save us from many an awkward encounter.

Some Swedes insist that adding a pronoun to their national encyclopedia won’t change existing gender inequalities, and while they’re right to assume that words alone don’t make a movement, language can still have a massive impact.

Encouraging people to read, write, speak, and think in language that prevents us making assumptions is a huge step towards acknowledging the variety of gender identities around us. I know a lot of “he’s,” “she’s,” “ze’s” and “hens” who would appreciate the effort.

Previously: “Transsexual Killer” Strikes Again, “He-Wax,” She Wax, We All Wax?

by Malic White
View profile »

Get Bitch Media's top 9 reads of the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning! Sign up for the Weekly Reader:

4 Comments Have Been Posted

I think it's quite likely

I think it's quite likely "they" will become more used as a singular pronoun, it's a pretty heat solution. I also like using "s/he" when writing.

I wish we had this in

I wish we had this in English! I use 'they' and it is pretty widely accepted, but can be clumsy sometimes. I can't imagine the logistics of introducing the new word though.

I'm reading 'The Left Hand of Darkness' by Ursula K Le Guin, written in 1969. It's about an alien world where the people are androgynous most of the time. Once a month the enter 'kemmer' and take on either female or male characteristics and copulate, etc. Despite this 'androgeny', the human (male) narrator refers to people as 'him'/'he' throughout the book. It is discussed - that because there is no gender neutral pronoun equivalent in English he uses him/he, but I figure that the author creates so many other words in this book, e.g. for languages, races, seasons and days of the months, why couldn't she create this word?

Aside from the pronoun issue, the characters in the book (a lot of them politicians) are described most often in masculine terms, and every time someone shows female characteristics they are described in negative ways, e.g. 'There was in this attitude something feminine, a refusal of the abstract, the ideal, a submissiveness to the given, which rather displeased me.' (p. 228, Berkley Publishing Group, 2010). There are heaps more examples, this is just the one I noticed on the way to work this morning.

I really like some of the concepts in the book, but really struggle getting past these issues.

Has anyone else read this book? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Whoops, double post, can

Whoops, double post, can someone delete one?

Add new comment