By Keira Burger ’27

Majors: International Studies and Sociology

Contributor Biography: Keira Burger is a first-year student intending to double major in International Studies and Sociology. An avid writer, she enjoys exploring how language shapes our daily lives.  

Brief Description: This essay explores different perceptions of gendered language at Washington College, questioning its definition and effect on how college students view binary and non-binary gender concepts. 

The following was created for FYS 101-20: Language is Limitless

Gendered language ranges from the routine, ordinary use of “policeman” and “waitress,” to the obscene resounding in “whore” and “son of a bitch,” but a conclusive definition of this rhetoric is hazy and perhaps unclear to the 18-year-old student, who has just arrived on campus with a set of pre-existing beliefs and a lot to learn about diversity. They may realize their usage of gendered language does not completely parallel that of their peers. In fact, they may find their perceptions of gender, and subsequent use of gender-specific vocabulary, are but a reflection of the beliefs their home and community perpetuated. Although their newfound awareness may seem harmless, there is a risk posed in the idea that our choice of language is merely a reflection of how society perceives gender, rather than an expression that both reflects and shapes societal attitudes. Without acknowledging this risk, resistant attitudes that dissuade societal change will only grow, creating another barrier in the effort to accept gender outside of its traditional binary structure. In the same way a musician may claim their use of violent lyrics is only a reflection of what they see in society, students may resist genderless linguistic options, perhaps intending to reflect the gender-specific environment they grew up in. This attitude completely rejects the potential language has in shaping our understanding of gender. An additional challenge, however, arises when sexist terminology is not as easily identified as gendered or intentional. While there has been significant progress in recognizing sexist language here at Washington College, the unconscious use of certain gendered rhetoric continues to reinforce binary roles, as well as the constricting attitudes and norms surrounding them.

In order to make the claim that linguistic choices can influence attitudes towards binary concepts, a definition of sexist—otherwise referred to as “gendered”—language is necessary. Former professors Janet B. Park and Mary Ann Robert define this rhetoric as “words, phrases, and expressions that unnecessarily differentiate between women and men or exclude, trivialize, or diminish either gender” (2004). This definition identifies certain gendered vocabulary that may be less societally recognized as sexist, such as “mankind” or the phrase “man and wife.” Alternatively, examples of terminology more openly acknowledged as sexist—most notably gendered insults—may include “bitch”, “slut”, or “whore” (2004). Analysis of these terms reveals that female-directed insults typically refer to sexual morality and non-human entities like animals, as noted in “Bad Language for Nasty Women (and Other Gendered Insults),” an article written by computational linguist Chi Luu (2016). These derogatory examples tend to receive contempt and disapproval from the general public if used in a casual or professional environment. At Washington College, the use of gendered insults is handled with a meticulous reporting and investigation process in which consequences are determined by administrators and the Honor Board. The problem persists, however, when subconsciously used sexist rhetoric goes unidentified and unreported, lessening the chance of backlash or correction.

While categorizing language as either sexist or gender-inclusive may seem an obvious feat to most, one must remember that subconscious use of language inevitably reinforces binaries, no matter how gender-neutral we believe ourselves to be. This is especially important for the 18-year-old freshman who may be encountering new linguistic options for the first time; these differences distort their pre-conceptions of how language is, or is not, gendered. However, being presented with the notion that “mankind” or “surgeon” could be considered gendered terms may be difficult to internalize for students of any background. As t’works, a website offering translating and linguistic research services, says, “Historically we used ‘mankind,’ ‘man- hours,’ ‘manpower’… to refer to things associated with all people and… we automatically (in our minds) assign male gender roles to neutral nouns like ‘footballer’ or ‘surgeon’ or ‘army officer’, no matter how equality-minded we think we are” (Recognizing gender bias, n.d.).

Despite unconscious use of these terms without ill-intent or a sexist attitude, the words fortify the strict barrier around traditional gender concepts, prohibiting us from seeing a nonbinary concept as a potential norm in society. Internalized, this perspective only strengthens our prejudice against those who identify as anything but a “man” or “woman.” Hence, the use of gendered, and inherently sexist, language helps the individual recognize who is not performing their gender correctly. Subconsciously, it also encourages the use of gendered insults to prove an individual’s own performance adheres well to what their gender demands.

To further illustrate this concept of performative gender, it may be useful to consider the ingenuous 18-year-old once more. Finding it more important than ever to ground oneself among the chaos of change and uncertainty, performing gender and solidifying an identity may constitute an integral part of their college experience. This act of grounding oneself may allow the individual to create a sense of predictability in the face of an unforeseeable future. Thus, we perform gender to solidify certain expectations for us. For example, a student identifying as female can be somewhat aware of the difficulties a major in a male-dominated field may entail because she understands what is generally expected of her gender. Judith Butler, an awarded scholar in gender studies, claims gender is established through the stylization our bodies; it should be understood as a way our gestures, actions, and dress constitute an enduring image of a gendered self (1988). Furthermore, just as physical presentation paints a picture of gender, what we verbally communicate only either enhances or disrupts this image. The use of gendered language, in this case, is essential for those who wish to reinforce a binary structure of gender and retain a sense of certainty in their social setting. Consequently, the binary may pose a challenge to nonbinary individuals who tend to prefer gender-neutral pronouns when being addressed. Butler suggests that “discrete genders are part of what ‘humanizes’ individuals within contemporary culture; indeed, those who fail to do their gender right are regularly punished” (1988). Since nonbinary people may not adhere to the traditional usage of he/him or she/her pronouns, they may contradict what their physical appearance conveys and subsequently not “do” their gender right. The usage of gendered pronouns such as “he” or “she” when referring to a nonbinary person is used as punishment for these individuals to aggressively socialize them into the binary structure. Thus, the incorrect usage of pronouns may be intrinsically sexist because it encourages a binary structure and, subsequently, gender norms that box men and women into societally constructed expectations. In the context of Washington College, it is more important than ever to understand how the use of correct pronouns on campus helps to avoid unintentional discrimination.

Much of the impact of sexist rhetoric we see being used at campus events and parties among social groups and faculty members is considered in the context of women. However, gendered language does not only work to box women into their societal roles; it uses that damage to keep men from exploring the spectrum as well. According to one study, 60 undergraduate students were asked to rate a question containing terminology either sexist towards men or sexist towards women. The results found that students tended to be sensitive to sexist language towards women but were much less sensitive to sexist rhetoric aimed at men (Hale et al., 1990). It becomes a challenge to encourage the use of genderless terminology when male-identifying individuals are unable to recognize the abusive language directed at them. A part of this lack of acknowledgement could be a result of the level of abuse of male-directed derogatory terms compared to female-directed derogatory terms. Derogatory terms aimed at women tend to be much more offensive than those toward men, despite the surprisingly overwhelming number of male directed terms (Luu, 2016). Regardless, there is little headway in the effort to eliminate the extensive number of male-directed terms, a contrast to the progress made in the eradication of those towards women. Being introduced to a new environment in which self-exploration is possible, the typical undergraduate student may question and challenge what is traditionally thought of to constitute a male identity. This exploration, however, may be hindered by the constant usage of sexist language. As this type of rhetoric works discreetly to maintain stereotypical masculine norms, it may even further encourage the use of abusive language directed at women.

In a more local context, we can truly see how, without a clear definition of sexist language, certain terminology meant to reinforce a binary structure is still prevalent among students at Washington College. According to a short survey conducted among 23 Washington College participants, students were asked to identify which of the following terms they consider to be sexist: male nurse; female CEO; policeman; craftsman; waiter; stewardess; landlord; mankind; boyfriend/girlfriend; Miss, Ms., or Mrs. The majority voted “yes” for the terms “male nurse” (13 votes) and “female CEO” (14 votes), while all other options only received between a 1 to 2 range in votes. In accordance with Park and Robert’s definition, every one of these terms can be considered sexist, as they in some way unnecessarily insinuate a difference between men and women (2004). It is clear participants did well in recognizing sexist terminology with the addition of gender-indictive terms like “male” and “female” to a neutral title. However, there was a lack in awareness on needlessly gendered terms like “policeman” and “mankind,” which tend to normalize male domination in certain career fields, as well as society in general, compared to their gender- neutral counterparts, “police officer” and “human kind.” This could suggest that despite being gendered by definition, these terms are not recognized as relating to gender, and, in some cases, are even considered gender-neutral on campus. There is a clear misunderstanding as to how gendered language is defined, and perhaps how this choice of rhetoric works to maintain the inflexible sexist norms within society.

Nevertheless, efforts to promote the usage of gender-inclusive rhetoric, such as the push for faculty members to respect their students’ preferred pronouns, are certainly thriving in the academic domain here at Washington College. Professor Elizabeth O’Connor, director of the gender studies program, validates this in a recent interview, noting the effort to identify, value, and willfully use a person’s desired pronouns has grown significantly with the arrival of the current generation of students (2023). As already stated, the incorrect usage of a student’s pronouns may encourage the use of sexist rhetoric, because it confines a person to the gendered expectations others place onto them, even if said unintentionally. Thus, it suggests they in some way deserve derogatory language in order to re-socialize them into their “correct” gender role. According to another promising report, only 28.6% of surveyed Washington College students admitted the use of sexist language is an issue on campus, whereas a larger majority of 33.3% disagreed, and 23.8% remained neutral (2023). Keeping in mind these results may reflect a lack of insight on a clear definition of sexist language, as previously discussed, it is still important to recognize that gender is less intentionally used on campus as a means of provocation compared to 2016 and more politically agitated years. Dr. O’Connor mentions that during the 2016 presidential elections, tensions were high and divided among students of various genders. She reported the use of sexist insults, consequently, were most frequent during that period, even in the classroom setting (2023). These findings are favorable in WAC’s effort to diminish what has been thought of as “sexist language”, suggesting they have seen success and potential in creating a more inclusive environment.

Research regarding gendered language may have little use in a scholarly community that does not strive to be both diverse and inclusive in its practices. Washington College, however, could see, and has seen, great benefit in de-gendering the language used to communicate informally and academically. As reported by numerous authors in “Conscious and Unconscious Gender Bias” by Insight Policy Inc., a business management consultant firm dedicated to policy research serving disadvantaged populations, rates of gender-related discrimination and stereotyping tend to decrease when language is converted from its gender-specific form to a gender-neutral one (Gaddes et al., 2018). When preparing students for their career paths, the use of genderless language encourages the notion that future job positions are available to all, regardless of the possible discrimination their initial gendered title may perpetuate. Looking forward, a more diverse workforce could emerge as students are no longer restrained by the expectations of their perceived gender. However, there does exist another unspoken barrier that may be more tangible in an environment like Washington College. Kaaren Jillian Brown, a wellness and self-care journalist for Well+Good, comments on this obstacle, suggesting, “We can’t assimilate [to gender-neutral language] if people are resistant to using it because they think they’re going to make a mistake” (2021). It is very possible the fear of unintentionally misusing gender-neutral language can make faculty and students hesitant to adopt it. There is also concern surrounding this misuse and subsequent unintentional damage, which could result in administrative punishment of the user, even when no harm was intended. These fears and possible conflicts will only grow as gender-specific language navigates further into the public’s attention. Thus, constant, professional discussion and education on the topic could aid in the means of eliminating these concerns altogether. Making faculty and students more confident in their linguistic choices, and the inclusive message they wish to convey, could diminish resistant attitudes towards adaptation based on these concerns.

Above all, confidence, optimism, and acceptance are key to progressing even further in the recognition and elimination of sexist rhetoric here. A stronger awareness of the more subtle gendered terminology could allow faculty members and students to become more inclusive in the most conventional way possible—through the words they speak. Although the process of de-gendering the most elusive of sexist language on campus seems a futile effort— after all, how likely is it one of the men on our public safety team will take offense to being called “policeman” over “police officer” —it is important to keep in mind indifference is an impregnable barrier to social change if internalized. Revisiting the aforementioned survey, a notable 23.8% of participants had answered “neutral” when asked if they believed the use of sexist language is an issue on campus (2023). While there is a strong possibility this neutrality could stem from a lack of fervid stance on the issue, indicating this discussion is not yet in the forefront of students’ sphere of attention, there is also a chance it derives from an indifferent attitude. Perhaps the immediate issue at hand is not the recognition of the gendered words we voice, but a matter of getting people to care about the damage sexist rhetoric has on each of their lives. No progress can be made to eliminate the intentional nor unintentional use of gendered language if this concern remains unaddressed. However, 33.3%, the proportion of students who claimed sexist language is not an issue on campus, is a promising statistic. It may even prove that if WAC continues to value this discussion with heed, gender norms constructed by the language we speak will have less and less impact on our possibilities in the future.

Bibliography

Brown, K. J. (2021, June 28). Degendering Language Is About Expanding Your Vocabulary, Not Limiting It. Well+Good. https://www.wellandgood.com/degendering-language/

Butler, J. (1988). Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893

Gaddes, R., Jacobson, Z., Montgomery, S., Moore, C. (2018). Conscious and Unconscious Gender Bias: Response to DACOWITS RFI 4. Insight Policy Research. https://dacowits.defense.gov/Portals/48/Documents/General%20Documents/RFI%20Doc s/Dec2018/Insight_RFI%204.pdf?ver=2018-12-08-000555-027

Hale, R., Nevels, R. M., Lott, C., & Titus, T. (1990). Cultural Insensitivity to Sexist Language Toward Men. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(5), 697–698.

Luu, C. (2016, November 9). Bad Language for Nasty Women (and Other Gendered Insults). JSTOR Daily. https://daily.jstor.org/the-language-of-nasty-women-and-other-gendered- insults/

(n.d.). Recognizing gender bias in language and why it needs to change. t’works. https://www.t- works.eu/en/recognizing-gender-bias-in-language-and-why-it-needs-to-change/

Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (2004). Attitudes toward Women Mediate the Gender Effect on Attitudes toward Sexist Language. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 233–239.