{"id":54764,"date":"2020-11-09T00:00:40","date_gmt":"2020-11-09T08:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/world.edu\/?p=54764"},"modified":"2020-11-08T12:55:48","modified_gmt":"2020-11-08T20:55:48","slug":"debate-should-we-teach-inclusive-writing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/debate-should-we-teach-inclusive-writing\/","title":{"rendered":"Debate: Should we teach inclusive writing?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

What goals does what we call inclusive writing pursue?\u00a0Essentially, this writing aims to make women more visible, by explicitly indicating their presence, and to end the supposed domination of the grammatical masculine.<\/span><\/p>\n

On the linguistic and sociolinguistic level, we can distinguish three aspects which inform us about the treatment that the school should reserve for them.<\/span><\/p>\n

Professional names: feminization to integrate<\/strong><\/h4>\n

For nearly half a century, official language organizations have been advocating the use of feminine words to designate one or more women: we will say\u00a0<\/span>a lawyer<\/span><\/em>\u00a0and not\u00a0<\/span>a lawyer<\/span><\/em>\u00a0\u00a0;\u00a0<\/span>substitutes<\/span><\/em>\u00a0and not\u00a0<\/span>substitutes<\/span><\/em>\u00a0\u00a0;\u00a0for the diplomat,\u00a0<\/span>Madam Ambassador<\/span><\/em>\u00a0and not\u00a0<\/span>Madam Ambassador<\/span><\/em>\u00a0\u00a0;\u00a0etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, if the vast majority of names that designate women have always been feminine (\u00a0<\/span>farmer, singer, merchant, instructor, regent<\/span><\/em>\u00a0…), sectors where women have long been in the minority, positions of responsibility, the army , the world of justice, etc.\u00a0opposed (and still sometimes oppose) certain resistances.\u00a0But societies evolve, women have access to all functions, and using a masculine word to designate them contravenes the general principle of language.<\/span><\/p>\n

This feminization concerns the lexicon, which is also used orally.\u00a0The rules of feminization are well integrated by children from an early age.\u00a0Some\u00a0<\/span>guides<\/span><\/a>\u00a0are available.\u00a0They pose no problem in writing, and the school should have no trouble integrating learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ban sexist expressions<\/strong><\/h4>\n

A number of expressions can be considered sexist, because they present in an imbalanced way the distribution of roles between men and women.\u00a0This is the case with the\u00a0<\/span>basket for the housewife<\/span><\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0<\/span>as a good father<\/span><\/em>\u00a0, which can easily be replaced by neutral formulations, such as\u00a0<\/span>the basket for the household<\/span><\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0<\/span>as a responsible person<\/span><\/em>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

A particularly controversial expression today, and rightly so, is the one that describes the agreement of\u00a0<\/span>content<\/span><\/em>\u00a0in, for example,\u00a0<\/span>Pierre and \u00c9lisa are content<\/span><\/em>\u00a0\u00a0: \u201cThe masculine prevails over the feminine.\u00a0The wording of the rule is certainly heartbreaking.\u00a0It allows for some of the inappropriate transpositions, outside the framework of grammar, where men would “win out” over women.\u00a0But when the wording of a rule is sexist, what needs to be changed is the wording, not the rule.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is no longer how French textbooks express themselves, most of them simply saying: “The agreement is made in the masculine.\u00a0The formula nevertheless continues to circulate, but no more teachers, no more parents should use it.<\/span><\/p>\n

The school has a role to play in denouncing the ideologies which underlie certain ways of expressing oneself, and in disseminating irreproachable substitutes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The masculine plural: inclusive or exclusive?<\/strong><\/h4>\n

What the general public often understands by \u201cinclusive writing\u201d are the explicit indications of the presence of men and women, in particular through full doublets (\u00a0<\/span>teachers<\/span><\/em>\u00a0) or abridged using different graphic means (\u00a0<\/span>teachers, teachers, teachers, etc.<\/span><\/em>\u00a0).<\/span><\/p>\n

These choices have repercussions on the agreements, where the two genders should appear systematically: a sentence such as\u00a0<\/span>All farmers are concerned<\/span><\/em>\u00a0would then be rewritten in the form All\u00a0<\/span>farmers are concerned<\/span><\/em>\u00a0.\u00a0The same goes for the anaphors: instead of the pronoun\u00a0<\/span>they<\/span><\/em>\u00a0in\u00a0<\/span>Anne and Fran\u00e7ois will come, but they will arrive late<\/span><\/em>\u00a0, we would have\u00a0<\/span>her and him<\/span><\/em>\u00a0\u00a0;\u00a0instead of\u00a0<\/span>\u2026 local residents.\u00a0These will receive\u2026<\/span><\/em>\u00a0, we would have\u00a0<\/span>\u2026 the residents.\u00a0They will receive\u2026<\/span><\/em>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n

To bypass both the masculine and the doublets, we can resort to solutions like the following:<\/p>\n