Theinclusive writing is a topic often at the center of heated discussions. This writing style, also known as epicene language, is increasingly disparaged in France.
It aims to increase the visibility of women in writing, but is fought by language purists.
François Jolivet himself has proposed passing a law that would ban this type of language in administrative documents.
What is inclusive writing?
Inclusive writing is a set of practices aimed at removing the various gendered and sexist elements from language.
This involves different spellings and rules specific to the way French is written.
The goal is to revisit various rules of the language that borrow from gender stereotypes. Feminists advocated for these rules around 1970–1980.
It is not easy to describe the history of inclusive writing. It is an expression that groups together diverse approaches that divide supporters of inclusive writing.
How do you write inclusively?
To write inclusively, you must start by removing sexist expressions (e.g., "Mademoiselle"). This also involves dropping the maiden name.
Job and role titles are also feminized. Neutral words are preferred over masculine nouns. People speak more of human rights than of "rights of man."
Moreover, inclusive writing also aims to use both masculine and feminine forms in messages intended for mixed audiences.
Thus, in speech, people tend to say "the English men and the English women" even though English women are already included in "the English."
The masculine prevails over the feminine, but advocates of inclusive writing challenge this practice.
Admittedly, the masculine is considered neutral. Some opt for majority agreement. Here, the most represented agreement wins.
As a result, one writes “Marc and his four daughters have left” using the feminine form instead of “partis.”
Why should this practice be defended?
People who campaign for inclusive writing put forward various arguments.
The history of the language is one of them. Those who defend inclusive writing begin by recalling different rules. First, they confirm that the masculine takes precedence over the feminine.
They also advocate neutralizing professions and roles by using the masculine. Thus, one writes “Madame le maire.”
The masculine gender seems more noble and prevails over various feminine forms. It appears closer to adjectives than the feminine gender.
Experience is the second argument put forward. Indeed, we often say “nurses” while we also say “doctors.” Likewise, we spontaneously say “the secretary” and “the lawyer.”
This seems to point to prejudices.
Thus, when talking about nurses and doctors, we tend to place them in a collective unconscious. We end up believing that doctor is a profession for men and nurse a woman’s job.
Yet this hypothesis is false.
What about the opponents' criticisms?
Inclusive writing can also lead us to get confused during conversations.
According to opponents, inclusive writing tends to make learning much more complex. For others, this practice is rather “excluding,” especially with the use of “e-s.”
When you introduce a specification about sex, you end up with a separation — which is contrary to inclusion. You systematize the gender opposition while trying to abolish it.
The new writing can create an opposition between boys and girls, which ultimately produces exclusion for both groups. This exacerbates difficulties in small classes.
Inclusive writing: what reactions does it elicit?
Bringing new perspectives into the French language has caused major upheavals. New spellings and neologisms began to appear.
Moreover, linguists propose reverting to different forms of feminization that were banned in the 18the century.
We had to wait until the 20the century to feminize job titles (professeure, docteure…).
ESBC: what strategies are being highlighted?
There are several strategies to use to achieve readable, gender-neutral writing. It is recommended to combine different methods.
Use neutral phrasing
It is certainly possible to replace a gendered word by using a neutral word. You can use neutral nouns for job titles, collective nouns, or epicene nouns…
You can also use epicene nouns in the plural. Thus, it is better to say 'the librarians' instead of using 'the (male) or the (female)'.
It is recommended to use epicene adjectives, for example 'a capable candidate' instead of 'a competent (male) candidate, a competent (female) candidate…'.
It's better to use epicene pronouns such as 'a person' instead of saying 'a participant (male), a participant (female)'.
Use the truncated form or the doublet
It is advisable to use the doublet to make women and men visible in the text.
Women's presence is marked explicitly. It is recommended to use words with a feminine form that are easily recognizable when spoken.
Thus, one says 'chercheuse' instead of 'chercheure'.
Regarding the adjective and the article
When using a singular article, it is possible to double the article. If it's an example, it's better to vary the persons and genders.
Thus, instead of writing 'the journalist', write 'the (male) or the (female) journalist'.
Specify 'men and women'
It is recommended to mention men and women and to write 'the leaders, women and men' instead of writing just 'the leaders'.
Why use inclusive writing in communication?
Choosing inclusive writing can frighten some people. Indeed, this change is not always received as it should be.
Besides, many brands have paid the price for it.
Admittedly, using the median point signals a stance to be favored. For a company, it depends on the brand.
However, it must be noted that this practice is criticized by the visually impaired since screen-reading software still cannot decipher this type of writing.
That said, it is not mandatory to use the median point, which is not required to write an egalitarian text. You just need to follow the rules mentioned above.
Currently, inclusive writing seems to be gaining ground. It made headlines in a 2017 school textbook. As of August, Twitter standardized the inclusive pronoun “iel.”
This pronoun is used when a person’s gender is unknown. If social networks use this pronoun, the movement is not trivial.
By using inclusive writing in a company, leaders ensure they express themselves in an egalitarian way.
What does the Académie Française say?
The Académie Française is also part of this debate. Grammarians preferred to masculinize the language and have consistently proven it since the academy’s founding in 1634.
In short, this was a deliberate act. Feminized words existed until the 17th century and were often used alongside masculine forms.
This practice even dates back to the Middle Ages, when people would say authors and authoresses or teachers and teachresses.
This group of men then made a decision to state that the masculine takes precedence over the feminine for professions.
In 1651, the Academy decreed that the masculine gender is more imbued with nobility. It therefore prevails alone against multiple feminine forms.
This superiority of the male over the female was taught for more than 100 years. Students had to grasp this principle in writing.
The circular aiming to feminize job titles provoked the anger of this great academy, which sees itself as the sole guardian of language usage.
It rejects generic masculine and considers suffixes unnecessary. ‘Doctor’ therefore remains unchanged, and the same applies to ‘mayor’.
This position remained unchanged until February 2019, when the Academy preferred to withdraw from the debate. It leaves the matter to politicians.
Edouard Philippe's circular
Lionel Jospin and Laurent Fabius decided to issue circulars supporting the feminization of official job and office titles within the administration.
For his part, Édouard Philippe issued a circular that bans the use of inclusive writing in the official journal.
This prime minister asserts that the masculine is a form of neutrality suitable for both women and men.
That is not all, because he also requested that state services refrain from using this writing model.
According to Eliane Viennot, a literature professor, that circular was sheer nonsense. Admittedly, the prime minister decided to reduce inclusive writing to mere spelling.
It does not mention the median point, but it refers to it in convoluted terms, including the parentheses chosen by administrations and the Ministry of the Interior.
This circular has no binding force. Its restrictive definition of inclusive writing was not enough to prohibit the use of median points.
In local administrations and even at universities, expressions like ‘citoyens.nes’ and ‘tous.tes’ remain in use.
That is why right-wing politicians who rely on Édouard Philippe’s circular are trying to ban the use of inclusive writing, which they hope to reduce to the median point.
