Untangling some misconceptions about sex and gender

JUNE CASAGRANDE

Sex.

Now that I have your attention, can we talk about sex?

Recently, I used this attention-getting ploy to talk about

something other than sex (though I know a lot of you find grammar

every bit as exciting). But today, I really do want to talk about

sex.

OK, perhaps not exactly the way you’re thinking. I don’t want to

talk about the act. I want to talk about something even more

scandalous and so giggle-inspiring that most people feel the need to

euphemize by calling it “gender” instead.

A copy-editing guru I once knew used to rant about people’s use of

the word “gender” when they mean “sex.” Gender, he explained, is a

grammar term. It pertains to words. Sex, as well as being an act, is

a classification of people or animals. Your sex is male or female.

The gender of the pronoun is masculine or feminine.

I always accepted this editor’s words as gospel, so you can

imagine my distress when I finally decided to look it up for myself

and found that the dictionary isn’t as cut and dried. The first

definition for “gender” is all about nouns and pronouns. But the

second definition is clearly about the difference between boys and

girls.

Dissatisfied with this answer, I did what any good journalist

would do. I went looking for someone to tell me what I wanted to

hear. I didn’t have to look far.

“By the way,” say the writers of “Working With Words: A Concise

Handbook for Media Writers and Editors,” “only nouns and pronouns

have gender; people are described by sex.”

I suppose that our culture went astray on this one after one too

many wisenheimers filling out job applications saw the question that

asks about sex and couldn’t resist writing in, “Yes, please.”

Personally, I think that gender distinctions in language cause

much more trouble than they’re worth. Who hasn’t seen a cute baby and

had to stifle praise because she didn’t know whether to say, “he’s

adorable” or “she’s adorable”? Ditto for dogs, cats and same-sex

domestic partners.

As one of my favorite readers pointed out a while back, it has

become common to say “they” or some variation thereof instead of “he

or she,” “his or hers,” etc. For example, “someone with a blue Toyota

Camry parked their car in the street.”

Of course, this is wrong. But at the same time it illustrates how

silly gender can be. Who cares whether the Camry’s owner is an innie

or an outtie?

Sometimes I think I should officially launch a campaign for the

creation of a neuter pronoun. (Look for me on the ballot on Oct. 7.)

I really do wish we had some word, “they” for example, that could

mean “he or she.”

But we don’t. So in the meantime, I suppose we have to abide by

the rules.

I’m reading a book of essays on fiction writing, and I’ve noticed

that all the authors boldly assign a sex to hypothetical people

they’re writing about. For example, “In its simplest definition, an

amateur in any field is someone who does not get paid for what she

does,” one essayist wrote.

This is well and good for professionals whose job is to make bold

choices in their writing, but marketing writing is another matter.

Press releases, business letters and marketing materials usually need

to be as inclusive as possible. You don’t want to alienate men by

using feminine pronouns, as in, “Our company makes software for the

computer user who knows what she wants in a computing solution.”

Sure, you could say “he or she” every time, but that can get

awfully unwieldy. The best way to go, in my opinion, is to write

around the problem. That is, to cheat. “Our company makes software

for the highly knowledgeable user.” Another good way to cheat is to

use plurals: “ ... for computer users who know what they want.”

But if you get caught cheating, don’t go around telling people

that I suggested it in my sex column.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE covers Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport. She

may be reached at (949) 574-4232 or by e-mail at

june.casagrande@latimes.com.