Abstract or Introduction
In February 2014, the former catering worker Valeria Jones sued her employer, the Bon Appetit Management Co. in Oregon, United States, after co-workers numerous times referred to her as "female". Jones felt offended by this term since she identified as "gender-neutral" (Andersen 2014). US$ 518,682 were adjudged to Jones as compensation money for "pronoun pain and humiliation" (Owens 2014).
This lawsuit , in which a particular usage of language was punished, demonstrates how quickly the idea of a genderised language can be exaggerated and thus discredited. However, it does not mean that a language which is sensitive towards sex and gender should be abandoned for its realisation might so easily be distorted. An enlightened society is indeed in need of a language that is gender-inclusive. Yet, taking into account the case of Valeria Jones, the inevitable question must arise whether and when such a language should be enforced by law and policy. In the following paragraphs, it is to be shown that a gender-inclusive language has to be enforced (only), when its non-application causes legal consequences by excluding people from rights. In all other cases, common sense is likely to be more thoughtful an adviser.
Therefore, this paper is dedicated to the practical aspects of a gender-inclusive language and its realistic implementation. Hopefully, it will have a share in reconciling the still ongoing differences between proponents and opponents of a genderised language.
- Quote paper
- Dominik Jesse (Author), 2015, The strange case of Valeria Jones. Argument over a thoughtful enforcement of a gender-inclusive language, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/294749
Similar texts
Publish now - it's free
Comments