Students lose marks for using 'he': Universities penalise undergrads for 'offensive' gender phrase - Sensationalist Headlines

This level of sexism (or anti sexism) completely undermines genuine and well placed feminist causes.

[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52052894]I'm working on a doctoral level degree and I have, quite literally, never heard of using "humankind" instead of "mankind"...Or not using anything with -man in it, for that matter. Also, A+ for using a source that requires people to sign up to view the entire article.[/QUOTE] Nice it looks like you didn't read the article nor any my other posts because that was the article used by the other two articles. [QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52054355]lease explain to me, in 250 words or less, 1) how the words manpower and manmade are gendered and not gender-neutral already, and 2) if they are, an equal gender-neutral synonym that is similarly succinct[/QUOTE] 250 words is nothing for such a topic. [quote]Revising to avoid sexist language will help make your message more accessible to readers who might otherwise feel excluded. But when you revise, avoid the easy edits that introduce stylistic clunkers such as “his/her” and “s/he,” or the questionable grammar of a mixed version such as “one should wash their hands every day” (“one” is singular, but “their” is plural).[/quote] [quote]Many English speakers feel that we need new ways to handle the thorny issue of gender. Our culture has changed faster than our language. No matter what I say, people will still go on talking about “women lawyers” and “women supreme court justices.” And while I may wince a little — deep inside — when I hear someone say “Whoever it was left their car running,” A far more important, more lasting point is that when push comes to shove, grammar changes to meet the needs of its users. Perhaps the current fuss over gender in language has something to do with the fact that English has been without the concept of grammatical gender for centuries now, so we think of gender personally, not grammatically. In Latin, the word for manliness was feminine in gender; in German, the word Mann means “a person, or a human male,” but man [lowercase] means “one” or “you.” I am very careful to avoid sexist errors on the one hand, and grammar errors (like those mentioned above) on the other. Still, writing this web page actually forced me to become a bit more of a traditionalist, since I noticed how easy it is to avoid sexist mistakes without introducing grammatical or stylistic ones.[/quote] [quote]I chose “Gender-neutral Language” as the title for this web page. Another option was “Non-gender-specific Language“, which I rejected as being too long (one often sees it written “Non-gender Specific Language”, but all three words form a single, hyphenated term modifying the word “language”). I could have titled my site “Gender-fair Language” or “Non-sexist Language,” terms used on some of the web pages I listed above, but I felt those were emotionally loaded titles, since the implication is that you are unfair or sexist unless you write in a certain way. Of course, to many people, that’s precisely the point! Is it the job of the writing teacher (or grammar handbook author) to effect social change by advocating a certain way of writing? Can language ever actualy be apolitical?[/quote] [quote]Discussion: Does Gender-specific Language Affect our Thinking? In 1972… some three hundred college students were asked to select from magazines and newspapers a variety of pictures that would appropriately illustrate the different chapters of a sociology textbook being prepared for publication. Half the students were assigned chapter headings like “Social Man”, “Industrial Man”, and “Political Man”. The other half was given different but corresponding headings like “Society”, “Industrial Life”, and “Political Behavior”. Analysis of the pictures selected revealed that in the minds of students of both sexes use of the word man evoked, to a statistically significant degree, images of males only — filtering out recognition of women’s participation in these major areas of life — whereas the corresponding headings without man evoked images of both males and females…. The authors concluded, “This is rather convincing evidence that when you use the word man generically, people do tend to think male, and tend not to think female” ([Miller et al. 1980, pages 19-20], quoted by Spertus; emphasis added).[/quote] [url]http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/grammar-and-syntax/gender-neutral-language/[/url] (Document Created in 1998)

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52055386]Nice it looks like you didn't read the article nor any my other posts because that was the article used by the other two articles. 250 words is nothing for such a topic. [URL]http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/grammar-and-syntax/gender-neutral-language/[/URL] (Document Created in 1998)[/QUOTE] Except our culture hasn't changed in this regard, it's just a very very loud minority forcing their silly politics onto everyone else. Mankind and manmade are both gender neutral words, the only people taking issue with them are whiny idiots with nothing better to do.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52055485]Except our culture hasn't changed in this regard, [B]it's just a very very loud minority forcing their silly politics onto everyone else.[/B] Mankind and manmade are both gender neutral words, the only people taking issue with them are whiny idiots with nothing better to do.[/QUOTE] See, you're saying this, but every month we see British Universities making new strides to push these "silly" politics on everyone else. Seems to me like they're not silly and they're not a small minority, or at the very least should not be seen as an inconsequential minority. You call them idiots, but people are [I][B]listening[/B][/I] to them and they're [I][B]agreeing[/B][/I] with them.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;52055589]See, you're saying this, but every month we see British Universities making new strides to push these "silly" politics on everyone else. Seems to me like they're not silly and they're not a small minority, or at the very least should not be seen as an inconsequential minority. You call them idiots, but people are [I][B]listening[/B][/I] to them and they're [I][B]agreeing[/B][/I] with them.[/QUOTE] They are a small minority and they are silly, they just know how to push their agenda. The main problem is that academia, particularly the liberal arts, tends to attract these sorts of people and thus they get into positions of power in those institutions where they can force their views onto people from above. On the large scale though they are a minority.

I was taught to write this way since elementary. Pretty sure this is neither new or news.

As someone who is in the university mentioned (Hull University, for those curious), this is only carried out for students on the Religion degree (or whatever the degree is officially called). I'm in Engineering and they don't enforce this. It was all over my Facebook, other students were laughing about it cause it only affects that one tiny course, and no one else.

Discussing a person when the gender is not known (or, stylistically, has not been stated to give ambiguity): [B][U]Someone[/U][/B] entered the doorway. [B][U]They[/U][/B] were about 5'8". [B][U]This person[/U][/B] grabbed the telephone. [B][U]Their[/U][/B] hands were shaking. Person has gender described, or gender is known: [B][U]John[/U][/B] entered the doorway.[B] [U]He[/U][/B] was about 5'8". [B][U]He[/U][/B] grabbed the telephone. [B][U]His[/U][/B] hands were shaking. [B][U]Mary[/U][/B] entered the doorway.[B] [U]She[/U][/B] was about 5'8". [B][U]She[/U][/B] grabbed the telephone. [B][U]Her[/U][/B] hands were shaking. Why is this so hard to accept? Do you just want everyone who's gender is not known to be referred to as he? That's dumb. You are then implying gender when it could be incorrect. When talking about a generic, gender unstated hypothetical person (let's say a doctor), and you keep referring to them as he, you are implying you are talking about a male. But, you are talking about a hypothetical doctor, that, unless the situation described requires specifically a male doctor, could be female. So, you use the gender-neutral them/they/their because you are discussing a person that could be male or female. When you refer to doctors as "he" and nurses as "she" you continue the stereotype of doctors being male and nurses being female which downplays the idea that all genders can be either. You might know in your head that "yeah it's possible to have a female doctor or male nurse" but you are still implicitly associating a gender to an occupation, which not only is incorrect in terms of grammar but contributes to the idea that a job is gendered a certain way. The male nurse stereotype, female secretary stereotype, etc. are constantly unintentionally reinforced this way. By using gender-neutral language you not only are assuming less (remember your childhood mnemonics: when you assume you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me!") and thus being more professional but you're also being more respectful. For people to make a huge deal out of this just shows that they are easily triggered by anything involving potential SJW shenanigans and also [B]didn't read the article.[/B] The mankind, manpower stuff is kind of bullshit because [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)"]the word "man" in this context refers to "mankind" rather than "male," and "mankind" implies all of humanity, not just men. [/URL]. [quote=Wikipedia]The Latin root word man means “hand.” This root word is the word origin of a number of English vocabulary words, including manuscript, manufacture, and manicure. An easy way to remember that man means “hand” is through the word manual, an adjective which describes a task done by “hand.”[/quote] [quote]However, man in traditional usage (without an article) refers to the species, to humanity, or "mankind", as a whole. The usage persists in all registers of English although it has an old-fashioned tone.[/quote] This fucking outrage culture, I swear. Use some critical thinking skills. Look at the sources, read the articles, and look for bias in the reporting. This entire non-issue is blown way out of proportion. The only potential issue is the "mankind" stuff but I could see a student talk their way out of lost points by discussing it with their professor and proving their case. Still, it'd be like a 1 point loss out of 100 for grammar.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52055386]Nice it looks like you didn't read the article nor any my other posts because that was the article used by the other two articles.[/QUOTE] You know what they say about assumptions. I did, in fact, read the articles cited in the op since I was considering sharing them on my facebook. I just looked over the two articles in the op again and neither of them cite the article you posted. Even if it did, it's always good to read the source material. Changing a few words can change the entire meaning of a cited work. The Guardian article is on the neutral side while the article by The Daily Mail borders on hostile. TDM also has less information than the article by The Guardian. Also, paywall: [url]http://i.imgur.com/Grqpjs0.png[/url]

[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52055809]You know what they say about assumptions. I did, in fact, read the articles cited in the op since I was considering sharing them on my facebook. I just looked over the two articles in the op again and neither of them cite the article you posted. Even if it did, it's always good to read the source material. Changing a few words can change the entire meaning of a cited work. The Guardian article is on the neutral side while the article by The Daily Mail borders on hostile. TDM also has less information than the article by The Guardian. Also, paywall: [url]http://i.imgur.com/Grqpjs0.png[/url][/QUOTE] I don't know what you say about assumptions, but I can say that you clearly didn't even read the post you quoted. The paywall article is the article being referenced by both of the articles in the OP. If you think it's inappropriate to use that article as reference then you've gone mad.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52055823]I don't know what you say about assumptions, but I can say that you clearly didn't even read the post you quoted. The paywall article is the article being referenced by both of the articles in the OP. If you think it's inappropriate to use that article as reference then you've gone mad.[/QUOTE] ..Because if you're supplying evidence to back up your claim, it makes sense that the source would be one that your intended audience can access?

[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52055856]..Because if you're supplying evidence to back up your claim, it makes sense that the source would be one that your intended audience can access?[/QUOTE] Jesus christ dude. The quote I provided that dispels the notion that you're not allowed to use the pronouns "he/she" in all cases is dispelled in the very first paragraph of the article, which is free to use. Do I need to remind you what my point was??? [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52052304]As for the rest of the garbage such as using "he" and "she"? [quote]Universities are already advising staff and students not to use masculine pronouns such as “he”, “his” and “him” if the person referred to could be either male or female. Instead, they are told to use “he or she”, “she/he” or “they”. [/quote] [url]http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/dont-man-up-students-may-lose-marks-for-using-he-t356wkdrq[/url] Again, incredibly standard but over-sensationalized. I encourage everyone to do their own research on the subject instead of relying on daily mail or a trash guardian article that doesn't even link to the source paper.[/QUOTE] It's an incredibly sensationalist article.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52055965]Jesus christ dude. The quote I provided that dispels the notion that you're not allowed to use the pronouns "he/she" in all cases is dispelled in the very first paragraph of the article, which is free to use. Do I need to remind you what my point was???[/QUOTE] It seems that you're the one who didn't read my post lol. No where in my post did I even mention "he/she", and in fact, later down on the page commented that I prefer to use "they/them" because "he or she" as a phase is clunky. My entire quote was "I'm working on a doctoral level degree and I have, quite literally, never heard of [B]using "humankind" instead of "mankind"...Or not using anything with -man in it, for that matter[/B]." Bolded for emphasis.

[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52055999]It seems that you're the one who didn't read my post lol. No where in my post did I even mention "he/she", and in fact, later down on the page commented that I prefer to use "they/them" because "he or she" as a phase is clunky. My entire quote was "I'm working on a doctoral level degree and I have, quite literally, never heard of [B]using "humankind" instead of "mankind"...Or not using anything with -man in it, for that matter[/B]." Bolded for emphasis.[/QUOTE] I was referring to your snarky comment of [QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52052894]I'm working on a doctoral level degree and I have, quite literally, never heard of using "humankind" instead of "mankind"...Or not using anything with -man in it, for that matter. [B]Also, A+ for using a source that requires people to sign up to view the entire article.[/B][/QUOTE] And I'm not going to debunk on your personal life because there is nothing I can debunk there other than the implication of "oh it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist for me" [editline]3[/editline] oh btw that wasn't your entire quote, why lie about it being your entire quote? [editline]3[/editline] Also what degree are you working towards? This is probably another case of "oh since I work in IT I've never heard of this before therefor it doesn't exist"

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056017]I was referring to your snarky comment of And I'm not going to comment on your personal life because there is nothing I can debunk there other than the implication of "oh it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist for me" [editline]3[/editline] oh btw that wasn't your entire quote, why lie about it being your entire quote?[/QUOTE] As I already said, it's poor practice to include evidence that people can't access. It doesn't matter if it's the "source" or not. Do you know how many times I've looked into sources for a research paper and discovered the authors misepresented the information? Well, you did the same thing in removing the section of your comment that I was referring to when I quoted your post to begin with. Fair's fair, aye? Edit: Pharmacist. Have taken several public health courses as part of my degree since pharmacists in the states are gearing towards provider status and re heavily involved with the public.

You shouldn't loose marks for unrelated politics. It's very simple.

[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52056049]As I already said, it's poor practice to include evidence that people can't access. It doesn't matter if it's the "source" or not. Do you know how many times I've looked into sources for a research paper and discovered the authors misepresented the information?[/quote] It's in the very first paragraph. That paragraph can be accessed for free, you don't even need to sign up for it. [QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52055809]Also, paywall: [url]http://i.imgur.com/Grqpjs0.png[/url][/QUOTE] You can even read it for yourself. Hell how about something better? [quote] Essays will be marked down unless they use 'gender-sensitive language', students at a British university have been told. [B][U]Many universities are already advising students and staff not to use 'gender-offensive' terms such as 'he' or 'she' to describe people that could be either male or female. [/U][/B] Read more: [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4372224/Now-students-lose-marks-using-he.html#ixzz4dFG4pfyu[/url][/quote] It's in the daily mail article. [QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52056049]Well, you did the same thing in removing the section of your comment that I was referring to when I quoted your post to begin with. Fair's fair, aye?[/QUOTE] Don't even attempt to try that with me. When I initially removed it, it was to highlight the post I was referring to. I then changed it because I thought it would be more honest to bold it instead. When you did it, it was to hide the fact that you said that snarky comment. [editline]40[/editline] [QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52056049]Edit: Pharmacist. Have taken several public health courses as part of my degree since pharmacists in the states are gearing towards provider status and re heavily involved with the public.[/QUOTE] That's what I thought. As a pharmacist you don't need to write persuasive bias-free essays so you don't need to worry about any of this.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056078]It's in the very first paragraph. That paragraph can be accessed for free, you don't even need to sign up for it.[/quote] Which doesn't give the full information and isn't the part of the ruling I have issue with. [quote]It's in the daily mail article.[/quote] As I said earlier, the daily mail article is biased and borderline hostile in its language. [quote]Don't even attempt to try that with me. When I initially removed it, it was to highlight the post I was referring to. I then changed it because I thought it would be more honest to bold it instead. When you did it, it was to hide the fact that you said that snarky comment.[/QUOTE] Again. I took issue with the "mankind". Go back to page 3 and see my post where I was perfectly fine with the idea of not using "he" and "she". I'm not entirely sure why you seem to think I draw issue with that part. I also don't hide my snark. It wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to make. edit: [quote]That's what I thought. As a pharmacist you don't need to write persuasive bias-free essays so you don't need to worry about any of this. [/quote] That shows how little you know about my profession. Last year I wrote three research papers. The first one was "The Effects of Peer Pressure and Its Role in Causing Negative Behavior in Adolescents", the second "America's Culture and How it Affects People with Clinical Depression", and the third "The Effects of Low Levels of Lead on Four Major Organ Systems". I've already written one paper this semester that was a drug information question. I have a second I need to write that's a criticism of a paper of my choosing.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056078] That's what I thought. As a pharmacist you don't need to write persuasive bias-free essays so you don't need to worry about any of this.[/QUOTE] Master's in History and can't report any professor in this field giving a flying fuck about anything like this. Nor in my in my Undergraduate classes in Global Business, except for one professor who was a English Master's graduate that already cared way too much about things like the Oxford comma usage that she would remove points for. She even called people racist in class, since the students were pointing out people's accents being from different regions, despite the students being right, and also from the same country (India). And I know in some of my papers I have used the word mankind, manpower (Military History especially), and whatever potentially offensive word you could probably imagined. Gender neutral pronouns was never even discussed either. People just used whatever was appropriate and respectful. We never needed a forced rule to be respectful, since that was the expectation going into a business school (duh).

Can someone point to a real life example where an author didn't use gender inclusive language to the detriment of the article and/or essay?

[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52056103]Which doesn't give the full information and isn't the part of the ruling I have issue with. As I said earlier, the daily mail article is biased and borderline hostile in its language. Again. I took issue with the "mankind". Go back to page 3 and see my post where I was perfectly fine with the idea of not using "he" and "she". I'm not entirely sure why you seem to think I draw issue with that part. I also don't hide my snark. It wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to make.[/QUOTE] I was trying to dispel your snark about how apparently it was bad of me to use a paywall article that [B]both the guardian and the daily mail[/B] were referencing and that somehow evolved into "you can't use that evidence because the whole article is paywall!" and later to "you can't use that evidence because it's in the daily mail even though it's irrelevant as to why the daily mail is shit!" Both of the articles reference a rupert murdoch owned paywall article but apparently the guardian is okay to use because it's non-hostile and slightly less garbage than daily mail. You're practically saying everything in the guardian article is fine even though by your standards the guardian article should be rendered null because it uses information from a paywall article. [editline]3rd April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52056103]That shows how little you know about my profession. Last year I wrote three research papers. The first one was "The Effects of Peer Pressure and Its Role in Causing Negative Behavior in Adolescents", the second "America's Culture and How it Affects People with Clinical Depression", and the third "The Effects of Low Levels of Lead on Four Major Organ Systems". I've already written one paper this semester that was a drug information question. I have a second I need to write that's a criticism of a paper of my choosing.[/QUOTE] Then alright I fully admit that I don't know about pharmacy. But my points still stand. If you want your paper to be 5% more influential, especially to women, you're going to want to replace all the needlessly gender-specific words with alternatives.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056145] But my points still stand. If you want your paper to be [b]5% more influential[/b], especially to women, you're going to want to replace all the needlessly gender-specific words with alternatives.[/QUOTE] How did you measure that out or is this completely out of your ass I assume? Do you think every woman actually cares enough to get agitated at the sight of "Mankind?" I mean sure, use them if you know your audience are a bunch of SJWs, but in reality most people will never care. Not even more than [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html]1/5 of American Women identify as Feminists[/url] because they probably don't give a shit about any of this stuff.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52056163]I mean sure, use if you know your audience are a bunch of SJWs, but in reality most people will never care.[/QUOTE] Not only will people not care, there will be a percentage of people who will actively dislike your usage of PC terms.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52056133]Can someone point to a real life example where an author didn't use gender inclusive language to the detriment of the article and/or essay?[/QUOTE] [quote]Discussion: Does Gender-specific Language Affect our Thinking? In 1972… some three hundred college students were asked to select from magazines and newspapers a variety of pictures that would appropriately illustrate the different chapters of a sociology textbook being prepared for publication. Half the students were assigned chapter headings like “Social Man”, “Industrial Man”, and “Political Man”. The other half was given different but corresponding headings like “Society”, “Industrial Life”, and “Political Behavior”. Analysis of the pictures selected revealed that in the minds of students of both sexes use of the word man evoked, to a statistically significant degree, images of males only — filtering out recognition of women’s participation in these major areas of life — whereas the corresponding headings without man evoked images of both males and females…. The authors concluded, “This is rather convincing evidence that when you use the word man generically, people do tend to think male, and tend not to think female” ([Miller et al. 1980, pages 19-20], quoted by Spertus; emphasis added).[/quote] [url]http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/grammar-and-syntax/gender-neutral-language/[/url] [editline]3rd April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52056168]Not only will people not care, there will be a percentage of people who will actively dislike your usage of PC terms.[/QUOTE] How will people know this though? Like what PC terms are you referring to that are exclusively PC? If you find that a person doesn't use the word "mankind" and instead "humanity" in their essay will people throw fits?

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056145]I was trying to dispel your snark about how apparently it was bad of me to use a paywall article that [B]both the guardian and the daily mail[/B] were referencing and that somehow evolved into "you can't use that evidence because the whole article is paywall!" and later to "you can't use that evidence because it's in the daily mail even though it's irrelevant as to why the daily mail is shit!" Both of the articles reference a rupert murdoch owned paywall article but apparently the guardian is okay to use because it's non-hostile and slightly less garbage than daily mail. You're practically saying everything in the guardian article is fine even though by your standards the guardian article should be rendered null because it uses information from a paywall article.[/quote] You can use whatever evidence you please. However, it does affect what the reader thinks. Again, I have seen so many papers where the authors misrepresented what the source material said. Hence why it's always good to see the source material. I never said that anything about the evidence not being able to be used because it's in the daily mail. My entire issue with [b]with[/b] the daily mail. The guardian actually is a better source due to more neutral language and it likely includes more of the original article when compared to the daily mail. C'mon man. Half of one of my classes this semester has been devoted to picking out biased vs unbiased sources. [quote]Then alright I fully admit that I don't know about pharmacy. But my points still stand. If you want your paper to be 5% more influential, especially to women, you're going to want to replace all the needlessly gender-specific words with alternatives.[/QUOTE] Know thy target audience. The women in my field aren't going to get upset over using the phrase "mankind". They're more concerned with, for example, the growing opiate abuse epidemic. If it was any sort of issue, it would have been brought up by one of my numerous female professors.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52056169][URL]http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/grammar-and-syntax/gender-neutral-language/[/URL] [editline]3rd April 2017[/editline] How will people know this though? Like what PC terms are you referring to that are exclusively PC? If you find that a person doesn't use the word "mankind" and instead "humanity" in their essay will people throw fits?[/QUOTE] Where can I find the actual study? Google isn't coming up with it. All I can find are tons of sites quoting that specific paragraph. I've even found sources attributing that quote to a different person altogether.

ROLFBURGER, what is this website? [t]https://s28.postimg.org/ie98tqs2l/thissite.png[/t] [t]https://s28.postimg.org/ammyr6j19/thisite2.png[/t] Is this a joke? Do you really think the majority of people in day to day actions are going to care about any of this? Even in the professional world you would be hard press to care unless you work in a heavily liberal-biased environment.

[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52056182]You can use whatever evidence you please. However, it does affect what the reader thinks. Again, I have seen so many papers where the authors misrepresented what the source material said. Hence why it's always good to see the source material.[/quote] Well the source material is the paywall article that I linked, which is why I linked it in the first place. The Guardian contains a lot of that source material but for some reason leaves out very important parts of that source material such as the very first paragraph that explains that you're allowed to use he/she properly. [QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52056182]I never said that anything about the evidence not being able to be used because it's in the daily mail. My entire issue with [b]with[/b] the daily mail. The guardian actually is a better source due to more neutral language and it likely includes more of the original article when compared to the daily mail. C'mon man. Half of one of my classes this semester has been devoted to picking out biased vs unbiased sources.[/quote] I'm not arguing whether or not the Daily Mail is a valid source but that one fact is visible in the free portion of paywall article. It really feels like you're pulling off these mental gymnastics because you don't want to admit your snark failed :v: And by the way you should get a refund on that class because just because they use neutral language doesn't mean that they're a non-bias source. You can write a completely biased article while looking as unbiased as possible. Look at the facts at the article. Compare them to other articles that provide facts. Does that article provide less facts? Does the removal of those facts paint a different picture? [QUOTE=SadisticGecko;52056182]Know thy target audience. The women in my field aren't going to get upset over using the phrase "mankind". They're more concerned with, for example, the growing opiate abuse epidemic. If it was any sort of issue, it would have been brought up by one of my numerous female professors.[/QUOTE] Just because people don't complain about it doesn't mean it isn't an issue. That being said, just because something is an issue for a few people doesn't mean that it's an issue for everyone. If you have a typo in your essay no one is going to complain about it, but it's best to fix that typo if you want to appear as professional as you can.

It's not a typo man, that's not comparable. A typo is an actual grammatical mistake. If people legitimately don't fucking care about your word choice then it's literally not a problem.

[QUOTE=bdd458;52056228]It's not a typo man, that's not comparable. A typo is an actual grammatical mistake. If people legitimately don't fucking care about your word choice then it's literally not a problem.[/QUOTE] When you're writing a bias-free article it is. Word choice is everything.