My post on slaves and sons reminded me of a point I’ve been thinking that I don’t think I’ve ever discussed with anyone or written anything about. The term “gender-inclusive” has come to be associated with a certain translation philosophy in Bible translation, namely the translation philosophy that considers it accurate to translate terms referring to multiple genders only with terms that in contemporary English can apply to multiple genders. In other words, using “he” to refer to a gender-unknown or gender-unspecified person or using “sons” to refer to a gender-mixed group would not be gender-inclusive.
It strikes me, however, that the term “gender-inclusive” is actually ambiguous, and the translations that use “sons” for a gender-mixed group or “he” to refer to a gender-unspecified or gender-unknown person are actually the gender-inclusive ones in one sense of the term. After all, they’re using usually-masculine terms in a gender-inclusive way, right? They’re using a sometimes gender-specific term in a gender-inclusive way. So why is it the opposite approach that always gets to be called gender-inclusive?
My post on slaves and sons reminded me of a point I’ve been thinking that I don’t think I’ve ever discussed with anyone or written anything about. The term “gender-inclusive” has come to be associated with a certain translation philosophy in Bible translation, namely the translation philosophy that considers it accurate to translate terms referring to multiple genders only with terms that in contemporary English can apply to multiple genders. In other words, using “he” to refer to a gender-unknown or gender-unspecified person or using “sons” to refer to a gender-mixed group would not be gender-inclusive.
It strikes me, however, that the term “gender-inclusive” is actually ambiguous, and the translations that use “sons” for a gender-mixed group or “he” to refer to a gender-unspecified or gender-unknown person are actually the gender-inclusive ones in one sense of the term. After all, they’re using usually-masculine terms in a gender-inclusive way, right? They’re using a sometimes gender-specific term in a gender-inclusive way. So why is it the opposite approach that always gets to be called gender-inclusive?
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
