The evolution of gender-inclusive language in French

As an Anglophone, the notion that a group of 99 women and 1 man should be referred to as “ils” (the masculine plural pronoun) has never sat well with me. I grew up in a society (England in the 1980s) where everyday sexism was already being called out on a regular basis. I distinctly remember several teenage girls crying out “that’s sexist, Miss!” when the dominance of the masculine in French grammar was explained to them. The teacher had no option but to meekly agree and explain “yes, but that’s just the way it is”.

Is it though? Although this is not a new debate, the issue of gender-neutral language – or as the French call it “langage epicène ” – is becoming increasingly heated. The French minister of education recently weighed in, explaining that the masculine form has a neutral value. Unsurprisingly, this fairly insubstantial claim did not hold sway with certain commentators.

In reality, the masculine “il” is the default pronoun, not a neutral pronoun. Indeed, the French High Council for Gender Equality makes this exact argument, stating that the use of the masculine pronoun “activates fewer representations of women” (i.e. people are less likely to assume that the subject is a woman). Others go further still, claiming that it is antifeminist and leads children to accept the domination of one sex over the other or that exclusive language is just the visible tip of the iceberg of gender violence.

It’s a compelling idea, but is there any evidence that it is true? Despite its enduring popularity, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which claims that the structure of a language affects how its speakers see the world, seems to rest on very little empirical research. John McWhorter, Professor of Linguistics at Columbia University, has rejected this kind of linguistic determinism. He argues that there is only a weak correlation between the features of a language and the behaviour of the people, and that culture influences language more than the reverse. So, let’s say that the jury is still out. But assuming that adopting gender-inclusive language would promote a more egalitarian society, what should we do about it?

Some activists want to replace “ils” as the default masculine plural pronoun with a neutral pronoun (which doesn’t currently exist in French), such as “iel”. However, this doesn’t resolve the problem that in French the adjective has to agree with the noun. One proposed solution to this is the “middot” or interpunct. A vertically centred dot is used to indicate that the group may feature men and women, so “ils sont contents” (they are happy) becomes “iels sont content·e·s”. Likewise, a group of teachers would be referred to as “professeur·e·s”.

Aside from the fact that this is complex, aesthetically unappealing, and does not even reflect the reality of the spoken word, I am unconvinced of the wisdom of imposing language on people from the top down. Contrary to what the Académie française (the authority that regulates the French language) would have you believe, language is an emergent phenomenon. It is organic. Compelled speech seems suspiciously authoritarian at the best of times and, to paraphrase Friedrich Hayek, we should be cognizant of how little we know about what we imagine we can design.

Despite the natural linguistic conservatism of the French, there is progress. French presidents begin all their speeches with “citoyennes, citoyens” or “françaises, français” – ostentatiously putting the feminine form first – and have done so ever since Charles de Gaulle’s presidency. Likewise, contrary to English, in French it is customary to start letters with “Madame, Monsieur”. Ladies first, right? Who says the French are misogynistic?

There are some perfectly simple and inoffensive changes that could be (and have been) imposed (or at least codified) by the Académie française. For example, the feminisation of certain professions (doctoresse, professeure, autrice, conductrice) is an ongoing process, although unlike the pronoun “ils”, it is unclear why nouns denoting professions cannot be considered gender neutral. So, maybe it is possible to eliminate the masculine default without completely re-engineering the language.

Finally, one must consider the case of non-binary individuals that do not identify as either male or female. It seems reasonable for non-binary individuals to be able to self-identify using a neutral gender pronoun if they so choose. Surely the creation (and widespread adoption) of a gender-neutral pronoun would constitute progress in terms of civil rights?

Maybe one day, once this hypothetical pronoun has entered the vernacular, people will more readily accept its use as a gender-neutral plural pronoun equivalent to “they” in English. And maybe, rather than deriding "epicene" language as a “mortal peril” for the French language, the Académie française should lean into the debate, and work with feminist and trans-gender activists to shape the future of their language. Otherwise it might move on without them.