DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER NAME FOR MANHOLE?

Despite the current climate of gender sensitivity, the word manhole is still in use in certain areas while in others the usual neutralising substitute of person has been adopted. But person hole hardly sounds polite, let alone child-friendly. The other version is maintenance hole – out of context, that too could raise an eyebrow or two.

Am I being frivolous? Yes, to a degree I am, in an attempt to tease a smile out of my tedium-overload from the ongoing language regulations issued by governing bodies be they in the hallowed halls of academia, or within municipal codes or even social media.

Artwork by Sandra Garcia

The drive to eliminate gender-preference language has resulted in so strong a focus on neutralisation that the rich as well as nuanced degrees of expression have fallen prey to the lexicon pruning exercise.

In view of the number of words that currently fall under the axe I can only believe that freedom of speech along with the natural evolution of language have succumbed to a similar fate. The real growth of a language cannot be dictated by law.   

Consider how the word man creeps into a number of innocent words, either as a prefix or suffix.

As a prefix man has the Latin root meaning hand such as manual, manuscript, manicure. Those examples appear to speak for themselves. But others, not so much. It seems derivations can follow different paths of etymological discoveries. For example, a word that is currently bobbing along on the waves of fear is mandate, so let’s see who’s holding that hand. Date originates from the verb to give or to do. Away from the known definition of mandate which is official order or commission to do something, I would have interpreted that combination (hand and to give) as a slap! And for a random example, let’s see what hand has to do with mangrove. Well, nothing, because the word mangrove apparently originates from the Proto-Germanic grobe (hole or ditch), as well as the Spanish mangle and Portuguese mangue both meaning mangrove.

Man as a suffix, to put it very briefly, was not intended to underline gender. It stood for person. And historically such words would have done little to arouse questioning as by and large women were excluded from employment in roles with designations suffixed by man. An exclusion sanctioned by the social mores and expectations generated by patriarchy.

Now there is the crux of the issue, not the label that was probably accurately appointed at the time of its creation.

All languages continually evolve, so calling for a change that provides a beacon for social justice as well as honouring successful progress is completely worthwhile. But the longevity of the word change is surely dependent on the accuracy of its representation. So, for example, the words chairperson or even police officer do not sound as if they were preceded by a hasty editorial gear change, as males no longer predominate in those occupations. And depending on the country, the same applies to many other historically male-only positions.

It gets a little stickier when it comes to historically female-only positions such as sister from the nursing profession. The gender-neutral versions include RN (Registered Nurse), Charge Nurse and Ward Manager. A bit of a mouthful if you wanted to address or beckon one.  Matron can still be used or Chief Nurse. There is no gender-neutral substitute for midwife yet. The word itself is neutral (meaning with woman) however, the problem enters when the bearer of the child does not identify as a woman.

But how much does a word contribute to the change in circumstances or the level of acceptance? Is the word or the action the horse before the cart of non-discriminatory equality?

Change toward equality and away from oppression is to be heralded. Change that diminishes the capacity to offend is also welcome. But how far do the boundaries of offence reach before they encroach on the liberty of lexical choice.

Creating a gender-neutral word for designations, (or a new word for a newly recognised gender identity,) is opportune. But once regulation and legislation enter into the equation, it becomes a double-edged sword, the evidence of which arises when certain words are no longer permitted. For example, according to certain academic language guidelines, the word sibling must replace those of brother and sister. Disallowing previous names or words because they are gender-reflective is surely restricting the rights of those who may want to identify as a brother or a he, or those who wish to use the word in the knowledge of its acceptance and preference by the nominee.

Legislating the accommodation of one sect at the exclusion of another, which also happens to be the majority, seems to be redirecting the arrow of offence.

Ingrained linguistic patterns do not signify the intention to offend, or the lack of empathy for those who have suffered from the injustices of inequality, marginalisation or plain exclusion. And yes, intention may be difficult to clarify or scour for traces of offence, but shaming or castigating are hardly the means to sweeten the transition away from a discriminative society.   

Legislating linguistic leaps and forcibly barring the use of older versions falls into the camp of censorship, stemming the flow of expression and manacling freedom of speech under the oppressive laws decreed by the so-called guardians of liberation and equality.

Believe you me I’m not one to forsake my gender. I experienced first-hand the insane inequality in opportunities, as well as the automatic title of ‘Miss’ and only when married, ‘Mrs’, with associated connotations of successful gradation.

But I’m also really apprehensive and drained by the extreme nature of many resistance and activist movements these days, which seem to drown the essence of reason and integrity, and yes, liberty. Their tactics, often drenched in accusatory aggression, become so inflammable that much like the sweep of a runaway fire, many followers are engulfed by the flames of fear.

They are divisive, generating the ugly side effects of an ‘us and them’ scenario, where innocence in intention is denied and offence is automatically assumed. These movements create a code of conduct that absorbs the individualities of its members into a collective identity, creating a zenith of enforcement that eclipses that of the original reason for the movement. Individual thinking is replaced by the movement’s narrative.

Offence is so easily triggered these days and worn as a badge of victimhood, allowing all manner of antics in the fight for justice.

Yet to be offended is a choice, one in which sovereignty of feeling is assigned to another. That little snippet of information may be a hard pill to swallow when an utterance hits an emotional trigger. But it is up to the one who is provoked to gently tend to those triggers. And it may take much practice preceded by awareness to regain responsibility for one’s feelings thereby removing the knee-jerk reaction to provocation (or the misinterpretation thereof) while simultaneously rendering the would-be offender toothless, or should that be voiceless.

We can never truly win others over through force. Aggressive coercion may gain superficial compliance atop brewing resentment. Long lasting change, sustainable change, comes through peaceful and dare I say it, mindful actions. Effort in understanding, rather than judging, expands the capacity for compassion.

So as the snowman melts and mankind dissolves into humankind, how do we transcend the enigma in human?