1. The Struggle for Gender-Free Language: Is It Over Yet? by Jane Rea

2. Introduction  “Does gender-free writing still present problems, and if so, how are most of us resolving them?”  The most common bias in writing is called the ‘generic he’.  Author’s solutions: make the subject and verb plural with plural referents; use we or you instead of he; use he or she; or substitute passive voice.

3. Problems with these solutions  Editors are all too aware that write-around-the-problem strategies present problems of their own, not the least of which is sounding forced. Recasting a sentence into the plural or using second person instead of third works well as long as the revision fits in with the surrounding text. But if the discussion has been in the third person all along, changing persons simply calls attention to the problem without solving it. And while it's true that the passive has a place in our language, it pains us as editors to hobble an active verb, no matter how just the cause.

4. One Term for All and All Terms Inclusive  Not all gender-free language rolls off the keyboard quite so easily. In a survey with no scientific pretenses, the author asked some of her editing colleagues to review a list of problematic words and their suggested alternatives from Rosemary Maggio's classic, The Nonsexist Word Finder. Here are their reactions to three words people are likely to come across in formal writing:

5.  chair, when a woman in a group of fellow corporate who were all chairmen of a committee. Calling her something different singles her out as a woman, but she didn't want to be called a chairman, which she found sexist.  layman, as far as most respondents were concerned, this can easily be layperson, while a congressman can be called a representative or a member of Congress. No one wanted to replace ombudsman (the Swedish use is inclusive because "man" means "one") with ombud or ombuds, but this word suffers from the same drawback as other "man" words. The alternatives sound odd and a bit awkward — service member for serviceman and jury supervisor for foreman — but so does "Jane Smith is the foreman."

6.  forefather, Although ancestor and forebear were generally seen as acceptable substitutes for forefather, several people pointed out that the alternatives don't have exactly the same meaning. We are the direct descendants of our ancestors, but our forefathers include a broader group of those that preceded us. Nevertheless, these two substitutes are likely to find more favor than forefather and foremother, which Maggio says are acceptable if used gender-fairly. My colleagues agreed that, used gender-fairly or not, foremother is not a particularly euphonious or graceful way to solve the problem.

7. Conclusion  In the end the author realized it’s hard to change, because people want to be the same. However, it will change as the time goes by; the future generation won’t think of it as a big deal.