Rory Killelea Dr.

Michael Donnelly

Lindsey Vesperry 19 April 2011

Gender: a Consequence of Language?

Many of us go about our day-to-day life without ever thinking how the

language we use cultivates social order. However, studiers of sociolinguistics

and linguistic anthropology have given thoughtful insight to this concern that

they have termed “linguistic relativity.” As Lera Boroditsky, an assistant

professor of psychology, neuroscience, and symbolic systems at Stanford

University, asks, “Do the languages

we speak shape the way we see the world, the way we think, and the way we

live our lives?” (edge.org) The simple answer to her question is yes, and by

analyzing the language a certain society uses we can begin to understand

the implications of that language’s grammatical structures. More specifically,

we can examine the cultural creations of identity and identification through

the grammatical understanding of gender in its prevalent language. Thus,

this essay will examine the relationship between gender and language with

consideration to— (1) the significance of masculine and feminine

grammatical structures, and (2) cultural perceptions created by language

that is not grammatically exclusive to masculine and feminine classification.

In other words, the essay will explore how language and gender intersect

and how this connection reinforces cultural constructions of socially

acceptable gender denominations in public discourse.

While surfing the Internet recently, we stumbled across a blog post

about two new editions of the Bible, the New International Version and the

New American Bible, and how they would be using gender-neutral language

in their newest translations. As you might imagine, the conversation that

initiated within the readers’ comments addressed a few of the larger issues

surrounding the subject of the post, like American’s need for political

correctness and the dangerous implications of, as one commenter wrote,

“changing the Word of God.” The latter of these issues was quickly dismissed

by comments with more considerate and careful scrutiny; attempting to

explain that the Bible most of us have read is a translation of the document’s

original text, which would be a blasphemous deviation from God’s words.

However, the former of these issues really grabbed my attention as a

student of rhetoric and language. After reading through comments that

again and again alluded to the Bible being written, originally, in Hebrew then

translated into Greek, and again further down the timeline into English, we

began to wonder how the grammatical structures of those ancient languages

created notions of gender identity, and the consequences those perceptions

have had on the contemporary English-speaking American society.

This curiosity led us to an article on Wikipedia where we noticed a list

of languages organized by the grammatical genders they recognize.

Interestingly enough, Hebrew fell into the category of languages containing

exclusively masculine or feminine noun classes, which creates a clear

dichotomy in the speakers’ cultural understanding of gender identification.

After some additional reading on the Hebrew language, I learned that the
primary marker of noun class when referring to people and animals was the

biological and social concept of “natural gender.” However, this concept is

by no means limited to ancient languages like Hebrew, but was and

continues to be the authoritative indicator of grammatical gender in a

number of other languages. Among those is Modern English, the language

that is chiefly responsible for shaping public discourse in contemporary

American society. Examining our language’s use of pronouns can further

elucidate this point.

Modern English distinguishes gender threefold between masculine

(he/his), feminine (she/hers), and neuter (it/its) classifications. Traditionally,

the language’s neuter noun classification is not used when referring to living

beings, human or animal, in circumstances where the biological sex can be

determined. In other words, speakers of Modern English conceptualize

“natural gender” as exclusively male or female, leaving little tolerance for

social or even uncontrollable biological deviations from that dichotomy. With

this in mind, perhaps the best way to understand how gender might be

conceptualized outside of a two gender system is to consider how other

cultures define the concepts of gender assignment through non-exclusive

linguistics.

In the southwestern region of the Indonesian province Sulawesi, an

ethnic group known as the Bugis believes that there are five genders—

Oraoané (biological males living as men), Makkunrai (biological females

living as women), Calalai (biological males living as women), Calabai

(biological females living as men), and Bissu (the genderqueer). All five of

these genders are recognized as established individual groups of genders.

The Bugis has created the gender structures to include individuals who don’t

conform to only two distinct genders; this has been beneficial to the culture’s

well being, giving individuals more opportunities to explore gender

orientations and find the one that is most comfortable (“5 Genders?” :35-

2:30). Most English-speaking cultures recognize transsexuals, transgender,

pangender, androgyne, bigender, etc., but these labels are not technically

considered independent genders. Unlike the Bugis, English-speaking

cultures do not distinguish these labels as genders—they must be

haphazardly placed as sub-categories under the ‘he’ and ‘she’ classifications.

This may prove to be damaging to the people who consider themselves

transgender, transexual, etc.; if these individuals do not get recognized as

their own unique gender, then there may be the possibility of being mistaken

as psychological abnormalities. Without the freedom to explore multiple

gender groups like the Bugis, the individuals who don’t conform to either of

the two genders may be seen as a problem, rather than an entirely different

gender. In short, if the third gender is not recognized as an equal gender

with the ‘he’ and the ‘she’, then it would be considered less equal. If the

language does not have an acceptable, equal category to sort these

individuals, then they will become outcasts of their own language’s cultural

impact. The Bugis offers equality among its people’s identities by having

more than two genders, which grants a freedom among the people to decide
their own gender. In contrast, English-speaking cultures expect biological

sex from birth constructs the gender identification between only two

genders, leaving little room to deviate from these cultural standards.

The Bugis is not the only culture that offers multiple gender groups;

many languages also have a third gender, or a ‘neuter’ gender. English is

one of the few languages that have little or no grammatical gender. In

contrast, many languages—from Slavic, Germanic, and Romance—still retain

grammatical genders to construct sentences and dialect. Some of these

languages, such as Spanish, French, Italian, Hebrew, and Welsh have only

masculine and feminine grammatical genders; but many other languages,

such as Russian, Danish, German, Dutch, Romanian, and Norwegian have

three genders—masculine, feminine, and the ‘neuter’ gender. The aspects

of neuter vary from language to language; Dutch associates neuter with

ultimate femininity or masculinity, while Russian associates neuter with

complete lack of gender. But for many languages, neuter in language is

associated with words that are not specifically masculine or feminine, but

remain gender-neutral. One of the most interesting cultures that utilizes

neuter for ‘gender neutrality’ is the languages of the Balkan Peninsula, which

include Greek, Armenian, some Romance, and some South-Slavic languages.

For these Balkan languages there are three classes of gender: class one is

the ‘masculine gender’, class two is the ‘feminine gender’, and class three is

the ‘neuter grammatical gender’. While the neuter language of the Balkans

usually denoted children and elderly (these two groups were seen as ‘gender
neutral’, possibly by their lack of sexual appeal), but studies have shown that

Balkans used neuter to identify individuals of all sex and ages. The neuter

gender appears the most prominent for identification of non-elderly or non-

child individuals through a person’s name. If a baby is given a neuter name,

their references of ‘he’ or ‘she’ would be neuter centric, even as an adult.

These individuals are given the option of adjusting their names as adults to

become more masculine or feminine, which would in turn change their

linguistic reference from neuter to either masculine or feminine (Mladenova

38-39).

The Balkans can remain gender neuter in their language, which

signifies their ability to create a neutral gender denomination. And while the

preferred denomination is ‘masculine’, Balkan individuals can choose to

remain gender neutral, which is not an acceptable option in many other

cultures. Even though the Balkan languages still expected masculine and

feminine gender roles among its speakers, the language still managed to

recognize that a third gender exists. This made it more acceptable for

individuals to choose to stay gender neutral, because their language made it

possible for gender neutrality to exist in their culture. English-speaking

cultures, in contrast, does not have a neutral equivalent for the Balkan’s

neuter gender. While there is the ‘he’ and ‘she’, there is no third referential

category for the neuter gender in English. If English had a designated neuter

referential system, then perhaps there would be more acceptances for the

third gender in English-speaking cultures.

 Ultimately, we must ask if the issues around non-traditional gender

identification, are really that apparent in media and discourse? If you were to

turn on a news station right now, would you find a story about how a third

gender, or any gender for that matter, functions in our society? You will

probably hear accounts of income discrepancies between genders in the

labor market, maybe a story about sexual harassment, or something on

abortion rights that might give insight on gender specifics. Quite frankly, it’s

very rare to hear discourse on the ambiguous gender population. Perhaps

the most prominent ‘third gender’ story to make the news in recent years is

on Cher’s daughter, who underwent gender reassignment surgery. While this

celebrity gossip news story appears to have been mostly a spectacle rather

than a real in-depth investigation, it does seem to highlight our culture’s

distorted attitude toward the ‘third gender.’

In other words, if binary gender perceptions are as deeply rooted in our

public discourse and societal values as it appears, than it is no surprise that

the majority of our culture would fail to recognize these issues as

problematic. For example, as a result of our own preconceived notions of

gender identity, the National Geographic program addressing the five

genders of the Bugis seemed to hold an air of ‘otherness’ or ‘novelty’.

Therefore, because transgendered identity is considered novelty, then how

could we ever expect it to share equality with people whom fit into ‘he’ and

‘she’ classifications?
 Works Cited

“Five Genders?” Youtube.com. 28 Oct. 2008. National Geographic. 9 April

2011.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9VmLJ3niVo>.

Mladdenova, Olga M. “Neuter Designations of Humans and Norms of Social

Interactions in the Balkans.” Anthropological Linguistics. 43.1. Spring
2001:
18-53. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/30028582>.