Bostonist is introducing a new feature, MassDebate (yes, it's as massdebatory as it sounds!), in which we present the opposing sides of a controversial local issue. If you have a hot-button topic you'd like to see us cover, or if you want to represent your view on a subject under debate, email us at tips at bostonist dot com. Bostonist does not endorse any opinions expressed in MassDebate.

Some people (a gender neutral term!) are up in arms because the Massachusetts House recently approved a bill that would require all Massachusetts legislation to use gender neutral language. Sponsored by representative Cory Atkins, the bill is designed to recognize that not everyone making or obeying laws is gendered male.

Perhaps the most telling argument in favor of the bill's necessity has been the response to it. Its opponents--mostly male--argue with straight faces that "he" represents "all of mankind," apparently failing to realize that mankind is itself another gender-specific term. This reveals that opponents to gender neutral language not only think in male-centric terms, but they don't even realize they think that way--which is even more worrying. As George Lakoff pointed out in his recent book, humans are all too unaware of the way they think, and the ways in which their thinking can be manipulated. Language has great power to shape our minds and values; consequently, it must be used with great care.

The American Prospect recently ran a special issue focusing on women in politics "Beyond Hillary." Ann Friedman's detailed article points out that the "year of the woman" in politics (1992) was nearly two decades ago, and even that only saw 27 women elected. Though the total number of women in Congress has grown since then, there's never been a similarly large incoming class of women. Friedman says, "For all the progress made in electing women over the past 16 years, however, the glass ceiling remains stubbornly in place... women are still less than 25 percent of senators, representatives, governors, and state legislators." Just over half the population, less than a quarter of the representation, and none of the legislative language? Doesn't seem quite right.

Think of the issue in a different light. Would men be up in arms if laws referred explicitly to "she" only? Probably. Would we allow the passage of laws that refer only to white men? Certainly not. So why continue to write laws that specifically refer to men only? And if the law specifies that “a man must not stab another man on the Orange Line,” and I have a vaginée, can I go ahead and start stabbing?

Gender neutral language is becoming widespread. The Chicago Manual of Style recognizes that "Using he, his, and him as common-sex pronouns is now widely considered sexist, if not misleading," and the AP Stylebook recommends humanity, a person, or an individual as good choices in lieu of man or mankind. The written word is evolving as our conceptions of women evolve. Our legislative language must expand with it.

Opponents who argue that the bill constitutes a waste of time are grasping at straws in their efforts to maintain the patriarchy. The bill does not require that past legislation be reworded (that would be a nightmare), just that future legislation be written in gender neutral language. It's not all that difficult to make a sentence gender neutral--one can pluralize, use a slashed construction, or re-use nouns to avoid gendered pronouns. We're not saying that we should change the word “manhole” to “staffhole,” but that laws applying to real people should acknowledge the very real diversity of those people.

As long as we live in a society that privileges the masculine pronoun, we will live in a society that privileges men. If we want to move toward truer equality, we need to talk about people in a way that includes them all--male, female, black, white, gay, straight, left-handed, right-handed, angry, happy, and so on. If the punishments and protections of the law are to apply to everyone, they must be written as such. If inclusiveness and accuracy are a waste of time for the legislators, one wonders what is worth their time. Our legislature should set an example for the nation and recognize the diversity of its citizens. Gender neutral language is an excellent way to start.