There is no excuse not to use gender-neutral language

Chief sub-editor Stephen Manning explains why ‘manning’ isn’t good enough

What is wrong with mankind? I don’t mean the endless cycle of war, suffering and injustice (I will sort all that out in a future column). I mean the word itself.

The Independent favours gender-neutral words and terms where possible, which, when you make a bit of an effort, is all the time.

There is no need to say “mankind” when you can say “humankind” instead. The argument that “man” has two distinct meanings – male; and the species as a whole – and therefore there is nothing implicitly sexist about its usage doesn’t really cut it. Language evolves and adapts, and there’s no good reason to cling to outdated forms of usage.

There is not much disagreement in the Indy office on the point; it’s more about habit. Mankind, manned, manning (shudder) all turn up in raw copy not because the writer is in some way trying to sustain the patriarchy but because those words and terms seem more familiar than the alternative. But there are always alternatives, and it doesn’t take a gargantuan effort to find them.

Recently two stories came up that triggered office discussion and some degree of discomfort about habit-breaking. One was on a space flight that was, in one draft, “unmanned”. (The report did not specify how many women were aboard.) What was wrong with “unpiloted”? No sensible answer came forth, yet there was palpable discomfort from some quarters.

The other concerned dinner ladies. Not all those who serve food to schoolchildren are female; the modern job title is something along the lines of “lunchtime assistant” or “canteen worker”. The fact that “dinner ladies” is a well understood term is beside the point: The Independent is concerned not only with being understood but with factual accuracy.

Our writing style must evolve to reflect the world in which we live. As such, job titles are gender-neutral. For example, until recently, “actress” was listed as an exception to this rule in our style guide – but if we don’t say doctress or editress or prime ministress, why really should we say actress? So now a female actor is an actor. When we give a little thought to the language we use, humankind is the better for it.

Yours,

Stephen Manning

Chief sub-editor