Use of "he" when referring to hypothetical chess players - is this discrimination against women?

Question

I've seen the following comment used by a Stack Exchange user on several chess posts.

Please don't assume that a chess player must be male. There is too much discrimination against women in chess circles, and defaulting to male pronouns perpetuates the culture that women are unwelcome.

I wonder if the statement: "defaulting to male pronouns perpetuates the culture that women are unwelcome", with respect to chess circles, is actually true.

Are there any accredited studies/reports to support the commenter's claim? Or is this the user's own opinion/propaganda?

Answer 1

The Code of Conduct says:

Be inclusive and respectful.

Avoid sarcasm and be careful with jokes — tone is hard to decipher online. Prefer gender-neutral language when uncertain. If a situation makes it hard to be friendly, stop participating and move on.

What is meant by 'gender neutral' is explained in one of the FAQ:

5. "Gender-neutral"? Does that mean like "he/she"?

Not quite. While “he/she” and similar compound pronouns are better than a default masculine “he” alone, gender-neutral writing works to avoid gendered terms entirely when gender is unknown, either through rephrasing statements to avoid pronouns or through the usage of singular (or plural) “they”. For examples and other methods, see Kate Gregory’s answer to a related question - Define "gender-neutral language"? (CoC FAQ)

One could interpret that as only pertaining to the author of a question, answer or comment, not to a hypothetical chess player mentioned in the post under discussion. However, even in those situations, gender-neutral language is preferred:

But sometimes you find yourself referring to a poster or a person that a poster mentioned:

IMHO (but I could be interpreting the CoC wrong) it's not required to do so.

Answer 2

For me, it is simply ENGLISH. I care more about subject-verb agreement, and your opponent is singular. If you want to use a pronoun, you either have to write he/she, or just one of them for it to agree with the verb.

I am not going to bend to the PC police, and if a woman, or anyone, is that put-off by this, how are she, or he, going to deal with the real world, let alone, play chess?

See, how silly that starts to look when you try to make the PC police happy? They are the ones, who are making incorrect assumptions.

I also cannot imagine that it has any real affect on female participation in chess so maybe they should mind their own business, and worry about themselves, and their posts.

Answer 3

It is excellent that this is being talked about, it is a positive sign of growth in our chess community! I recall one of the moderator candidates in the last elections brought up this topic in their presentation and explained it quite concisely in my opinion. So I will simply quote them here:

Sadly, in many cultures there is a clear (not even implicit) bias against women playing chess, and when already one's tone and choice of pronoun (irrespective of the language) assume a hypothetical chess player to be male, that bias gets perpetuated, and finds its way into influencing choices made even at an individual level.

Also pertinent here were the follow-up discussions:

For instance in terms of gender assumptions, at least one instance can be found in nearly every post! These are wrong habits that have been established as normal in the chess community, starting from chess literature all the way to live commentaries. The general choice of pronoun in referring to a chess player is merely an example that reflects poor and sexist conventions. Often these are dismissed on account of practicality or tradition, when in fact, referring to a side in chess, it makes far more sense to simply speak about the pieces w.r.t their colors, and as such being a plural term (white/black pieces), it can be subsequently referred to as "they". Otherwise, simply using "they" and "their" instead of "he" and "his" respectively, is a perfectly valid way of maintaining the discussion gender-agnostic. This takes minimal effort to improve upon, but has far reaching consequences in breaking poor habits and sets an example for putting an end to such commonly perpetuated biases. With a community such as chess SE, filled so many great people, all gathered here for their love of chess, we can be setting that example!

Language habits are just an example of behavior and consideration. Their point of poor habits building their way into assumptions and people's judgments is oh-so-important. Even at the level of local clubs, I have often times (still to present time) witnessed male players e.g. resigning to their female opponent with disrespect [*] and acting in complete dismay that they are losing to a female player. And these behaviors are also witnessed by the kids playing around them and unsurprisingly this gets passed on: the typical chit-chat being "you lost to a girl!"

[*]: e.g., not shaking hands, playing until the checkmate when they would have otherwise already resigned against a male player, laughing in dismay and mockingly, not accepting to stay to post-analyse the game together, etc.

So I believe this question of how to talk about chess players and our adopted language for describing a chess game, has far reaching depths than it just being a question of the English language: it is just an example of something that takes minimal effort to incorporate into one's habits in order to break poor sexist habits. Clearly, this alone does not solve the aforementioned problems in the chess world, but it is a start showing commitment and will as a community to become more open-minded and inclusive, and talking about it matters as it creates more awareness.

Answer 4

Just to add a longer-form explanation to the comments I made above. I think what we're seeing now is not so much an increase in the acceptability of the singular 'they' in the english language as a decrease in the acceptability of the generic 'he.'

We had a minor revolt recently (hey, when you're as old as I am, you can call events from the last couple of centuries "recent" with only a modicum of irony) demanding that firm rules be applied to english usage that had not been in existence previously, along the lines of the ban on split infinitives and the terminal preposition (language rules up with which we should not put). But for the most part writers of the language from Chaucer to Dickenson were quite content to use the singular they, and people spoke it every day ("I'll leave a note for the next occupant telling them what happened before I leave").

But for almost as long as the English language has been around, 'they' has been capable of a singular meaning. Often it was paired with "one" to help establish the singular context, as in "one might think they had strayed from the path when confronted with that sight," but it's been acceptable usage for at least 80% of the timespan that generic 'he' has been. And as for agreeing with the verb, if you don't like 'they is' use 'they are,' after all we say 'you are' all the time without ever getting confused over how many of you there are by the second person singular construction.

The generic 'he' has followed right along and generally been accepted as well, but of late that is changing, and as the living thing it is, the rules of the language will change along with it. As such, the days of the generic 'he' are, I suspect, numbered. It may linger around, but start to feel as stilted as constructions like 'one wonders what to make of this' feel today.

As to whether feeling excluded by the generic 'he' has been the primary cause of the sad deficiency in the numbers of female chessplayers, I doubt there's been a study, and I would probably also doubt the veracity of that statement, as well. As a chess coach I have seen enough bad and exclusionary behavior by males toward females to believe there are far stronger reasons than a simple pronoun for that, but I also think that's beside the point.

The point is communicating effectively. Since both the singular 'they' and the generic 'he' have been acceptable usage for most of the lifespan of English, and one is causing more of a ruckus, and more of a distraction, shouldn't we be using the other, if not out of courtesy then out of a simple desire to communicate efficiently?

I'm not going to grammar-police someone's use of the generic 'he;' they can use it if they want to (see what I did there?). They just shouldn't use some non-rule foisted recently upon English speakers to justify it, and should be aware that a growing number of readers will simply stop listening and turn to the next writer if they do. The point of language isn't to follow rules made up by someone sitting off in an ivory tower somewhere; it's to communicate. And if a speaker's choice of words loses their listeners, they would be well advised to revisit that choice, eh?

(With that the old man steps down, folds up his portable soapbox, sticks it into his coat pocket, and trundles off into the darkness.)

Answer 5

I think it’s incorrect these days to use he when the gender is unknown. The meaning of he has changed. I would normally prefer to use “they” or “one”.

If you spot that I get it wrong in any of posts please forgive me and feel free to make the change.

Answer 6

No. It is standard English usage. Chess does not yet kowtow to the political nonsense some people are using to try to change how we talk, think, and what we believe.