Ah, inclusive writing, this linguistic revolution that is shaking up the academic and media world! What a magnificent adventure to try to make the French language more equitable, even if that means getting tangled up in doublets, midpoints and neologisms that would make an academician shudder!
My letter responds to the text entitled “For a moratorium on inclusive writing at college” published in The duty from May 17. One of the main arguments put forward in this text against inclusive writing is that it confuses grammatical gender and sex and that it abolishes the use of the undifferentiated masculine as neuter. However, this view obscures an important reality: language constantly evolves to reflect social changes. The so-called “neutral” masculine is in reality a manifestation of linguistic androcentrism that inclusive writing seeks to correct.
The text also mentions that the imposition of inclusive writing encroaches on freedom of education and imposes an ideology. However, the evolution of language is an integral part of cultural and social evolution. Teaching a fixed language would amount to ignoring this dynamic. Furthermore, inclusive writing is not an ideology, but a practice aimed at reflecting and respecting human diversity.
Many processes
There are many methods of implementing inclusive writing which, to varying degrees, make life easier for people who wish to integrate it into their text. Midpoints and abbreviated doublets are just two of about twenty other formulas.
Furthermore, to circumvent certain difficulties, we can integrate epicene writing (in other words, neutral) into our texts. For example, rather than talking about citizens, we can simply say “the population”. Easy as pie !
Pedagogically, the concern that inclusive writing conflicts with the way grammar has been learned and taught is dubious. Based on this postulate, all new knowledge (as in science, mathematics and history) should not be taught in CEGEP or university on the pretext that it was not talked about in primary and secondary classes. of secondary school.
Another example: the word “email”, which began to be used in Quebec in the mid-1990s, gradually came into use over time. Today, it is widely adopted and used here, replacing Anglicism E-mail. Should we have refused to use it and teach it in CEGEP and university on the pretext that it did not exist a few years earlier?
It is true that inclusive, or epicene, writing requires changes in habits that can seem enormous. But know that I always prefer a text that is partly neutral or inclusive, rather than making women, in particular, invisible.
Because the masculine prevails over the feminine
I worked for more than twenty years in the union world and I imposed a certain feminization in all communications of this organization, which was not the case before. Initially, I encountered some resistance from some colleagues (because masculine prevails over feminine, I was told) and I was clumsy in my writing, but as time passed , I became better. And people finally accepted the change.
However, I am neither a language expert nor loaded with diplomas!
This fight waged by certain groups or media which recurrently attack inclusive writing without recognizing the voluminous documentation which demonstrates its virtues has the merit of highlighting the importance of holding a healthy and more objective debate on this subject. But, in the end, it is usage that will prevail.
In conclusion, whether we deploy inclusive or epicene writing in all our communications gradually — or at full steam — hardly matters to me since the important thing is that everyone finds themselves in a dynamic, rich and inclusive, don’t you think?