Politically Correct Grammar?

[Pamela H in Texas]

GRRRRRRRR....

 

Honestly, I think it SOUNDS better to say "he" or "man" in general. I think it's generally okay to assume sex roles too.

 

I am taking a grammar course and it's talking about sexist grammar and it's driving me batty because saying "his or her" or "person" just doesn't sound as NEAT in a sentence.

 

Now, if my son becomes a nurse, I'll probably appreciate that someone thought enough to not suggest he brings his husband to the BBQ <ahem> but mostly, I think this is being done to an extreme. I even heard of a Bible that changed everything to be PC!

 

Vent over. I'm now taking a :chillpill:

[Lovedtodeath]

I couldn't agree more. Political correctness is way too extreme in this world, not to mention messy and confusing.

[Mrs Mungo]

People make choices in life that are outside of the norm. If I say "please come to the coffee for the wives" Instead of "please come to the spouse social" it is unintentionally exclusionary. I prefer using inclusive language when possible. It's not about political correctness, it's about being polite.

[Pamela H in Texas]

it's about being polite.

 

And if you know it's a mixed sex group it makes sense to be as inclusive as possible.

 

But sometimes it's just MESSY and unnecessarily so. Almost all the exercise questions in my grammar program are MESSY, not polite.

 

I don't mind saying police officer, for example, but why does it have to be WRONG to say policeman? I mean, the officer that came to my house, for example, WAS a man!

 

Does that make sense?

[Storm Bay]

I started using less gender specific language when I was a radical feminist way back when (from about 10 yo to my early 20s or so). I don't use it to be PC now, but more out of habit. I don't know if I'm consistent, but have no trouble using he and man now because I recognize that often it's a short way of saying mankind. I'm really not interested in saying personkind. But I don't have any trouble reading s/he, but stumble over she/he, etc.

 

fwiw Where I grew up the term "guys" is not gender specfic, but here it is, and it took me a long time to stop calling a group of women I was with "guys."

[Heather in the Kootenays]

I've learned to write without resorting to he/she constructions and I don't feel awkward about it at all.

 

I hate to make a big deal about it but language is important to me because it paints a picture of the world. The word, policeman, conjures up a different image than policewoman so I prefer police officer when I don't know who it is. My friend, Martin, however, is a policeman.

 

I took some university courses in Japan where ...man was the default. I have to say that I found the use of male only language to be jarring and isolating.

[nmoira]

 

I started using less gender specific language when I was a radical feminist way back when (from about 10 yo to my early 20s or so). I don't use it to be PC now, but more out of habit. I don't know if I'm consistent, but have no trouble using he and man now because I recognize that often it's a short way of saying mankind. I'm really not interested in saying personkind. But I don't have any trouble reading s/he, but stumble over she/he, etc.

Using "they/their" in the singular is second nature to me.

[Storm Bay]

Using "they/their" in the singular is second nature to me.

Me too, I think I should have written that I have no trouble reading man and he now, because I think I tend to use their/they in the singular. I've just been doing it for so long I don't really think about it any more.

[Michelle T]

Using "they/their" in the singular is second nature to me.

 

I'm not generally much concerned with PC language, but I prefer they/their whether the words are originally meant to be singular or not.

 

Language always changes to reflect the culture it is being used in. Our English is very different from English used 500 years ago, and I would guess in another 500 years it will be changed more.

Michelle T

[Sahamamama]

I think that for job roles, it's probably good to keep these gender neutral.

 

For example, "flight attendant" rather than "stewardess."

 

"Police officer" instead of "police man."

 

"Mail carrier" instead of "mail man."

 

But this kind of language does at times become awkward and cumbersome to use in real life, especially in written form. He/she, him/her -- I agree, this drives me nuts.

 

I like the practice some authors have of alternating between he and she from chapter to chapter. Because I have three daughters, I admit, sometimes I get a little annoyed to read in, say, a parenting book, over and over and over -- he, him, his, son. I want to shout, I HAVE GIRLS.

 

Also, my generation grew up with this language and also lived through the changes -- messy changes. Language is not stuck in one place, so the way we use it helps, in part, to shape it. Let's pass on good grammar to our children, but let's make it inclusive whenever we can.

 

Incidentally, in most world languages, nouns have gender, so you have to specify the gender of the thing/person to which you are referring:

 

Teacher (male) -- maestro (Spanish); magister (Latin)

Teacher (female) -- maestra (Spanish); magistra (Latin)

 

How gender inclusive is THAT? ;)

[pqr]

People make choices in life that are outside of the norm. If I say "please come to the coffee for the wives" Instead of "please come to the spouse social" it is unintentionally exclusionary. I prefer using inclusive language when possible. It's not about political correctness, it's about being polite.

 

 

I understand the intent, but sometimes it is not polite it is simply rude, or at best lazy.

 

The woman I married is not my spouse, she is my wife. When someone is speaking directly to me and says something about my "spouse" they are displaying a distinct laziness of language.

 

In the case of wives' social where there is the possibility that a female co-worker's husband may attend, then by all means use the broader term, but we have now reached a society where even in cases where there is no question as to the sex of the person being described people frequently still choose broad terms.

 

On a personal note, spouse is such an ugly word, that it just grates when I hear my wife refered to with such a term.

[Parrothead]

I don't mind saying police officer, for example, but why does it have to be WRONG to say policeman? I mean, the officer that came to my house, for example, WAS a man!

I never liked the term policewoman or the sometimes used police lady when I was doing that job. I really didn't mind policeman.

 

Something amusing to ponder. The little old lady who sent me away because she wanted a man to help her. She'd locked herself out of the house. When I got there she wouldn't let me on the front porch. :D

 

Back to the topic at hand. The one that bugs me for some reason is fireman. I'll give my we-aren't-all-men speech in a heartbeat for that one.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Thanks for the discussion y'all.....

 

I do like the idea of whole new words to handle the he/she thing...

 

BTW, I'm in the dark ages on a few things. My mailman is a woman. Yes, I actually said that! LOL It sounds odd to say person or woman. I didn't think about CARRIER. I'll try to change it to that :)

[Mrs Mungo]

I understand the intent, but sometimes it is not polite it is simply rude, or at best lazy.

 

The woman I married is not my spouse, she is my wife. When someone is speaking directly to me and says something about my "spouse" they are displaying a distinct laziness of language.

 

In the case of wives' social where there is the possibility that a female co-worker's husband may attend, then by all means use the broader term, but we have now reached a society where even in cases where there is no question as to the sex of the person being described people frequently still choose broad terms.

 

I think this really depends on how well you know someone. I do agree that people sometimes use broad terms when they are not necessary. Recently I read an article that referred to "people with uterine cancer" clearly, that is something that only affects women and it broke my train of thought because the writer *should* use "women" in that case.

 

On a personal note, spouse is such an ugly word, that it just grates when I hear my wife refered to with such a term.

 

?? In what way is this an ugly word? Is it simply a pet peeve based on sound or what?

 

In military circles the word spouse is almost *always* used because there are a lot of female soldiers and nobody should feel excluded from support services based on their sex.

[Michelle in MO]

sex when referring to a group of people, but I have no problem with the generic use of "he" when the sex is unspecified. English doesn't have a neutral singular pronoun; perhaps it should.

 

I can't quite make the switch to this:

 

Using "they/their" in the singular is second nature to me.

 

I know this is becoming more accepted, but for some English teachers, using they/their as singular pronouns would be a big no-no. When we used Cindy Marsch for our writing tutorials last year, she would correct this every single time she saw it in my girls' papers and made a point of stating that, although this was becoming more common, she was going to continue to fight it! ;) However, if I'm around someone who has a preference one way or another, I would certainly try to accommodate his/her wishes.

 

I think in casual speech, though, many people use they/their; it's become more accepted. But, in writing, I'm going to continue to have them use singular pronouns with singular verb references.

[Zelda]

I agree with using the broader term when its either known that the group is mixed gender or when its not clear and the narrower term when it is known that the group is limited to one gender. For sure the narrower term when referring to an individual.

 

And while I try to be mindful of my usage I refuse to take umbrage with the usage of others' unless it seems spiteful or scolding (stubbornly refusing to use the broader term when appropriate or pointedly and needlessly using the broader term to prove how inclusive one is) which is rare. My father survived a massive stroke that destroyed the communication center of his brain and I've learned that being understood and being able to understand others trumps any of the nuances and semantics of communication.

[Storm Bay]

Incidentally, in most world languages, nouns have gender, so you have to specify the gender of the thing/person to which you are referring:

 

;)

 

You have to love German. Translated verbatim (not a good way to translate, but for fun):

 

Where is the turnip? She is in the kitchen.

Where is the maiden[girl]? It is in the kitchen.

 

Okay, my German is rusty, so I hope the turnip is a feminine noun.

[Sahamamama]

You have to love German. Translated verbatim (not a good way to translate, but for fun):

 

Where is the turnip? She is in the kitchen.

Where is the maiden[girl]? It is in the kitchen.

 

Okay, my German is rusty, so I hope the turnip is a feminine noun.

 

:cheers2: Yeah, Karin! Great example!

[Michelle in MO]

You have to love German. Translated verbatim (not a good way to translate, but for fun):

 

Where is the turnip? She is in the kitchen.

Where is the maiden[girl]? It is in the kitchen.

 

Okay, my German is rusty, so I hope the turnip is a feminine noun.

 

but you're essentially correct. The maiden is an "it" in German, even though "it's" really a she.

 

Yes, many languages have genders, and Latin has to take the cake there. German does have three genders, the noun declensions, and the adjectives have to agree with the nouns, but it's not as complex as Latin. Latin is a whole 'nother deal altogether.

 

I think the ancient Romans had this gender thing figured out a little bit better than we do! (Actually, for some great info. on how the English language has changed over the centuries, listen to The Teaching Company's series The History of the English Language, taught by Professor Seth Lerer). I've listened to the entire series at least once; if I remember correctly, English used to have three genders, more inflections on the ends of nouns, and perhaps even noun declensions---but Germanic in origin, of course, not Latin. Some of our irregular plural forms are remnants of those inflections: house/house-s; fox/fox-es; ox/ox-en; etc. Somewhere along the line the neuter pronoun was dropped.

[cathmom]

It is many times possible to make the sentence plural so you can use they/their correctly.

 

Every student should bring their book.

 

All students should bring their books.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I never liked the term policewoman or the sometimes used police lady when I was doing that job. I really didn't mind policeman.

 

Something amusing to ponder. The little old lady who sent me away because she wanted a man to help her. She'd locked herself out of the house. When I got there she wouldn't let me on the front porch. :D

 

Back to the topic at hand. The one that bugs me for some reason is fireman. I'll give my we-aren't-all-men speech in a heartbeat for that one.

Funny you should mention this. Let me preface by saying I typically use genderal neutral terms when speaking of occupations and try to stress to my dc that men and women can have any job they aspire to. Here's the funny: We spoke with a female firefighter and after she left my son turned to me and said "wow, that was a nice girl firefighter"

[Ellie]

I never use politically correct grammar. Proper grammar is never rude or exclusionary. To use "he" when you don't know the gender of the person being referred to is not rude.

 

I think it's acceptable to say "flight attendant" instead of "stewardess," although there's nothing wrong with having "stewards" and "stewardesses," either. "Letter carrier"...ok, that one's a little awkward, but I can do it. "Wait person"...oh, please. "Wait staff"....no. Draftsperson, craftsperson (crafter might be ok)...no. Draftsman and craftsman is fine. So is "foreman" of a jury; "Madam Foreman" is the correct designation for a woman who is the jury foreman. "Chairman" instead of "Chair" makes more sense to me, too.

 

I'll take my :chillpill:, too. Preferably with a cup of tea. Thank you.

[FlockOfSillies]

They/their in the singular drives me absolutely nuts. I still use "he" for the gender neutral. I think it's silly for people to get their panties in a twist if you use "he." I think a lot of our PC language has been spread by people who are looking for something to be angry about.

[In The Great White North]

What really gets me is when they change the words of songs, that have been around for ages and don't even mention it in the copyright info.

 

As if, in the 1800's, when there was no debate about it, people were actually using "their" as a singular pronoun. :glare:

 

And to make it worse, every publisher seems to have edited the songs differently, so that everyone in the group thinks they are singing the correct words but none are the same.

[Storm Bay]

I

I. "Wait staff"....no. I'll take my :chillpill:, too. Preferably with a cup of tea. Thank you.

 

Around here they now use the term server instead of waiter/waitress, which works remarkably easily since it's naturally gender neutral (I don't like "wait staff", either.) So, for eg, when you're seated you're told your server will be with you shortly.

[pqr]

 

 

?? In what way is this an ugly word? Is it simply a pet peeve based on sound or what?

 

In military circles the word spouse is almost *always* used because there are a lot of female soldiers and nobody should feel excluded from support services based on their sex.

 

 

You are correct. I have some time in the military and am aware of the wide usage of "spouse". It is a shame.

 

I suppose I do not like it because it always seems imprecise and quite honestly denigrates somone. As I said my wife is not my spouse, she is my wife (and if we really want to get into the PC usage that drives me nuts ,she is not a Ms. she is a Mrs. I have actually insisted that people retype documents that refer to her as Ms) and I am not her spouse I am her husband.

 

Rather than spouse I would far rather see Husband or Wife.

 

Why is it an "ugly" word. I suppose I just do not like the sound. Spouse, grouse, louse, mouse.... unpleasant words all.

[Melinda in VT]

You are correct. I have some time in the military and am aware of the wide usage of "spouse". It is a shame.

 

I suppose I do not like it because it always seems imprecise and quite honestly denigrates somone. As I said my wife is not my spouse, she is my wife (and if we really want to get into the PC usage that drives me nuts ,she is not a Ms. she is a Mrs. I have actually insisted that people retype documents that refer to her as Ms) and I am not her spouse I am her husband.

 

Rather than spouse I would far rather see Husband or Wife.

 

Why is it an "ugly" word. I suppose I just do not like the sound. Spouse, grouse, louse, mouse.... unpleasant words all.

 

How?

[nmoira]

You are correct. I have some time in the military and am aware of the wide usage of "spouse". It is a shame.

 

I suppose I do not like it because it always seems imprecise and quite honestly denigrates somone. As I said my wife is not my spouse, she is my wife (and if we really want to get into the PC usage that drives me nuts ,she is not a Ms. she is a Mrs. I have actually insisted that people retype documents that refer to her as Ms) and I am not her spouse I am her husband.

I'm quite happy to say that my DH knows I prefer Ms and will take the time to correct people the other way.

 

Spouse is a set. "Husband" is wholly contained within that set, as is "wife." How is that denigrating?

[pqr]

I'm quite happy to say that my DH knows I prefer Ms and will take the time to correct people the other way.

 

Spouse is a set. "Husband" is wholly contained within that set, as is "wife." How is that denigrating?

 

It is denigrating because it is imprecise and easy. The term husband or wife, in my humble opinion, has a certain grace, perhaps one would call it respect. I take pride in being a husband, it is a term of respect. It is something that I always wanted and that I strive to do well. When a child, I wanted to be a good and honest husband, not a good and honest spouse. The term is, to me, part of the PC morass into which many seem to have fallen.

 

Just as husband is, and you are accurate, within the set of spouse, human is "wholly contained within" the set mammal. I would be most offended if Reagan had said "My fellow" mammals. Accuracy and respect are two things that seem to be missing from the term spouse. It is, simply, a clumsy ill-refined word.

 

As to Ms. I would hope that my wife enjoys announcing to the world that she is married. Again there seems to be a certain grace to being a Mrs or a Miss that seems sadly lacking in the ambiguous Ms.

[kokotg]

Just as husband is, and you are accurate, within the set of spouse, human is "wholly contained within" the set mammal. I would be most offended if Reagan had said "My fellow" mammals. Accuracy and respect are two things that seem to be missing from the term spouse. It is, simply, a clumsy ill-refined word.

 

As to Ms. I would hope that my wife enjoys announcing to the world that she is married. Again there seems to be a certain grace to being a Mrs or a Miss that seems sadly lacking in the ambiguous Ms.

 

But it doesn't follow that the term "mammal" is offensive or denigrating. I am a mammal, and if someone is referring to all warm blooded creatures who give birth to live young, I certainly don't take offense at being called one. If someone, on the other hand, is ONLY talking about humans, it would not be offensive so much as just....odd for them to use the word mammal. I would find it equally odd to use the word "wives" when you really mean "spouses." And I'm 100% certain that the word "spouse" predates the concept of political correctness.

 

And I'm a "Ms" because I don't have the same last name as my husband. Calling me "Mrs." anything would be incorrect. I use Ms. because it's the correct term, not because I don't want anyone to know I'm married.

[Melinda in VT]

It is denigrating because it is imprecise and easy. The term husband or wife, in my humble opinion, has a certain grace, perhaps one would call it respect. I take pride in being a husband, it is a term of respect. It is something that I always wanted and that I strive to do well. When a child, I wanted to be a good and honest husband, not a good and honest spouse. The term is, to me, part of the PC morass into which many seem to have fallen.

 

Just as husband is, and you are accurate, within the set of spouse, human is "wholly contained within" the set mammal. I would be most offended if Reagan had said "My fellow" mammals. Accuracy and respect are two things that seem to be missing from the term spouse. It is, simply, a clumsy ill-refined word.

 

I disagree. "Spouse" originated in the eleventh century from the verb meaning, "to pledge."

 

"Wife," on the other hand, comes from a word meaning, "woman." And "husband" comes from Old English meaning "master of the house."

[pqr]

I am not advocating using soley the word wives when you mean something else. I am advocating using wives when you are speaking of wives. When someone references my spouse, they are being lazy. If married, I am obviously married to a wife.

 

As I said in the initial post "I understand the intent, but sometimes it is not polite it is simply rude, or at best lazy.

 

The woman I married is not my spouse, she is my wife. When someone is speaking directly to me and says something about my "spouse" they are displaying a distinct laziness of language.

 

In the case of wives' social where there is the possibility that a female co-worker's husband may attend, then by all means use the broader term"

 

I still do not like the term, but will accept it.

 

As you said in the discussion of the use of the term mammals "it would not be offensive so much as just....odd"... perhaps (we will still disagree as human is far more elevated than mammal), but then again, when you are speaking of my wife ... odd is offensive. To use a broad term, when speaking directly to me, and about my wife when the narrower term is more accurate is offensive. (Not grossly so, I will not throw a punch, but subtly so)

 

Regarding Ms. In your case it is, as you said, correct but in many cases it is not.

[kokotg]

I am not advocating using soley the word wives when you mean something else. I am advocating using wives when you are speaking of wives. When someone references my spouse, they are being lazy. If married, I am obviously married to a wife.

 

 

Really, though, I think the "but what if I KNOW the firefighter is a man/but what if it's just MY wife?" thing is a bit of a straw man (straw person? :lol:) I don't know anyone who objects to calling a specific person by a gender specific term. The objection, as I've always heard it voiced, is to using a gender specific term to refer to all members of a mixed gender group.

 

And I suppose we'll just have to disagree that spouse is a denigrating term when used to refer to a specific individual. It's not a word I use very often, but I consider it a matter of personal preference. I can't quite follow your argument that it is "lazy" as I can't see any difficulty or effort that is avoided by not saying "wife."

[nmoira]

 

If married, I am obviously married to a wife.

Depends which country or US state you're in.

[nmoira]

 

Regarding Ms. In your case it is, as you said, correct but in many cases it is not.

It is not correct or incorrect. It is solely a matter of personal preference, even in a case in which a woman adopts her spouse's surname. Note that I am using the word "spouse" to mean a man or a woman; I assume it's OK because I'm using it in the broader sense?

[pqr]

Depends which country or US state you're in.

 

 

No in my case it does not!.... yes if some one were speaking to me personally and said that I would find it incredibly insulting.

[nmoira]

No in my case it does not!.... yes if some one were speaking to me personally and said that I would find it incredibly insulting.

 

I am not willing to make assumptions about anyone. You used the word "obviously," and sorry, but it's not obvious to everyone. It's apparent from your discussion in this thread that you are married to a woman, and no one is questioning that. I'm curious why you would find it insulting? It really does depend on which state or country you live in. You might no like it, but it's a fact. :confused:

[pqr]

I am not willing to make assumptions about anyone. You used the word "obviously," and sorry, but it's not obvious to everyone. It's apparent from your discussion in this thread that you are married to a woman, and no one is questioning that. I'm curious why you would find it insulting? It really does depend on which state or country you live in. You might no like it, but it's a fact. :confused:

 

 

Why I would find it insulting is probably for another thread or might even get the thread deleted. I suspect you know exactly why I would find it insulting. It may also be a fact of law, but many of us can not and will not accept that a man can be married to anything but a wife.

[lovemyboys]

And if you know it's a mixed sex group it makes sense to be as inclusive as possible.

 

But sometimes it's just MESSY and unnecessarily so. Almost all the exercise questions in my grammar program are MESSY, not polite.

 

I don't mind saying police officer, for example, but why does it have to be WRONG to say policeman? I mean, the officer that came to my house, for example, WAS a man!

 

Does that make sense?

 

Someone may have mentioned this already, but what I've noticed is that it's led to more incorrect grammar. Rather than using the universal "he" as the default pronoun, people put a more generic "they, them, their" in instead.

 

"A player should bring his questions to the coach."

 

now you see "A player should bring their questions to the forum."

 

I'd rather go with the more cumbersome "A player should bring his or her (his/her) questions....." than the grammatically incorrect plural.

 

I hear that alot anymore in speech and writing.

 

Another nice solution I've seen is variety within a written piece. One section will use the "male" and the next "female" versions of pronouns. It's more noticeable but not in a bad way and also not as cumbersome as the constantly noticeable he/she.

 

I agree with Mrs. Mungo that an invitation or something similar should err on the side of politeness and caution. But for general writing, I think the generic he is fine.

[Melinda in VT]

Someone may have mentioned this already, but what I've noticed is that it's led to more incorrect grammar. Rather than using the universal "he" as the default pronoun, people put a more generic "they, them, their" in instead.

 

"A player should bring his questions to the coach."

 

now you see "A player should bring their questions to the forum."

 

I'd rather go with the more cumbersome "A player should bring his or her (his/her) questions....." than the grammatically incorrect plural.

 

I hear that alot anymore in speech and writing.

 

Another nice solution I've seen is variety within a written piece. One section will use the "male" and the next "female" versions of pronouns. It's more noticeable but not in a bad way and also not as cumbersome as the constantly noticeable he/she.

 

I agree with Mrs. Mungo that an invitation or something similar should err on the side of politeness and caution. But for general writing, I think the generic he is fine.

 

I'd probably say "A player should bring their questions" but I'd write "A player should bring questions" or "Players should bring their questions."

[Jenny in Atl]

Why I would find it insulting is probably for another thread or might even get the thread deleted. I suspect you know exactly why I would find it insulting. It may also be a fact of law, but many of us can not and will not accept that a man can be married to anything but a wife.

 

Well, maybe wives? But then you can still have Mrs., just more of them.

[Kay in Cal]

Yes, I use "they" as well, in written as well as speaking terms. Xince there is no existing single word for this usage, I think adopting "they" is just fine.

 

Gender neutral terms for specific professions are also only polite when speaking in general. My husband is certainly not a "pastor's wife" nor am I a "clergyman". My letter carrier is a woman, as are many of the police officers I see driving the streets. Firefighters themselves seem to have embraced the gender-neutral term over "firemen". Spouse is a wonderful word that accurately describes many circumstances--the person who is married to XYZ, regardless of gender. So there are clergy spouse gatherings at our conference, for example.

 

I simply think it is only polite to use gender inclusive language, unless one is certain that there are NO exceptions within the group. I'm happy to talk about women at a women's retreat, or men at a men's meeting. Though technically, in my denomination all pastors are automatically members of BOTH the women and men's groups. In my experience, the United Methodist Men serve better (though fattening!) food at their meetings.

[elegantlion]

When in doubt I simply use y'all, if there is more than one I use all y'all.

[Storm Bay]

Why I would find it insulting is probably for another thread or might even get the thread deleted. I suspect you know exactly why I would find it insulting. It may also be a fact of law, but many of us can not and will not accept that a man can be married to anything but a wife.

 

While I only use spouse if I'm including husbands and wives because it's shorter than saying "husbands and/or wives," I always try to be gender specific when I know who I'm talking about. Someone, though, may not know that you are a man if they haven't read many of your posts, because your moniker consists of 3 letters and you don't sign a name. The first few times I read posts of yours I wasn't sure.

[Storm Bay]

Someone may have mentioned this already, but what I've noticed is that it's led to more incorrect grammar. Rather than using the universal "he" as the default pronoun, people put a more generic "they, them, their" in instead.

 

"A player should bring his questions to the coach."

 

now you see "A player should bring their questions to the forum."

 

 

 

I'd go for "Players should bring their questions to the coach" but that's out of years of habit. It is grammatically correct. It peeves me to know end to see "A player should bring their..." because the subject and verb don't agree.

[Mrs Mungo]

It is denigrating because it is imprecise and easy.

 

Is referring to "my children" rather than "my son and daughters" equally "denigrating?" Just to be sure we're playing on the same field, you are using the word "denigrating" to mean "defamatory," from the Latin "to blacken?" Because I don't see how using a general term rather than a specific term blackens someone's name, that's just plain silly.

[pqr]

We will just have to disagree. As I said it is imprecise and seems to indicate a general laziness. My issue has always been that it is easy and simple just to use the word spouse, even in cases where the exact gender can be determined, but that it is lazy.

 

Perhaps it is a simple manner of the pedestal upon which I hold the title of "wife". I believe "wife" to be a more refined term than the relatively pedestrian "spouse". It is difficult to explain, but might be done so in the following manner. Queen Elizabeth II is certainly a lady but to refer to her as such, while accurate is denigrating, she is "the Queen" not "that lady" (both are accurate, but one is somewhat higher up the pedestal). In a larger grouping some would argue that it is acceptable to say "ladies", but when specifically directed to her it should not be done.

 

If the need to generalize is there then use the broad term, but when speaking of a single gender use the more accurate and potentially more lofty term.

 

As I said we will probably not agree.