Post originally by Anonymous Coward at 2003-12-22 14:44:51
Converted from Phorums BB System

WotC may have acted as the "manual of style" but sometimes they just get silly (such as with the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, wherein the pronouns - which reference a named character - alternate twice in the same sentence).

Simply put, I see the whole he/she thing as a complete non-issue. While I'll probably draw flames for this, the root of the problem is twofold; it starts in that the English language has only "his" and "her" and no third word meaning "his/her" (and no, "its" doesn't count) and is compounded by the fact that the long-accepted practice of using "his" to mean "his/her" has been adjudged "offensive" and "sexist" by another of the seemingly ubiquitous "we're offended by everything" groups. Hence, in an effort to pander to political correctness, we get clunky and unmanageable constructions such as s/he, he or she, and alternating of he and she.

The problem is that some people do not wish to accept the general definition that "he" and "his" are ALSO defined by centuries of convention to mean "he or she" and "his or her" - they are not merely male nouns, but are gender-neutral nouns. That they happen to be the same is, perhaps, unfortunate coincidence.

Perhaps we should solve the problem by providing an alternative. In honor of LotR, let us define "grond" the new word to express "person, with no gender connotations" - "grond" can be the nominative form, "grondin" the accusative form, "gronda" the dative form, and "grondil" the genitive form. These may all be pluralized by adding an "s" to the end of the appropriate word.

If "gronding" the "person, with no gender connotations" seems silly to you, now you know how I feel about trying to insert "his or her" when "his" is DEFINED as the gender neutral construction. The objections raised are quite silly and are merely the result of unnecessary paranoia.

Flame away, but do THINK my argument through before just retorting with, "it's insensitive to women." Why? One definition of "his" includes the concept of genderlessness - the same as "man" (e.g., when used as "mankind" - though some folks get upset at that and want "humankind" - and some even get upset at THAT and want "hu(wo)mankind". Sheesh.

--AC