Michelle Partridge-Doerr
November 29, 2009
ENG 524, Paper 2
Sensitive Language in Technical Communication
Technical communicators across all disciplines have a singular goal: to convey information to a
lay audience clearly and concisely. To accomplish that goal, technical communicators have to
become knowledgeable about the subject matter and interpret that information so that it is
easy for nonexperts to understand. This entails an essential function: the ability to understand
the needs of the audience for that information. Technical communicators rely on semantics to
guide their word choice. The following explanations and examples illustrate how important it is
to understand the social and cultural meaning of certain words and the consequences of
ignoring those meanings in technical writing.
The technical communicator is often considered a mediator between the knowledge holders
and the lay audience [9]. Because they work with both the academic or professional elite and
the lay people, technical communicators must gain the trust of both groups. To gain the
audience’s trust, the writer or editor should seek out words that have positive social meaning
and avoid words that have a negative social meaning. As Jean Hollis Weber explains in her
article on gender neutral writing, “If part of our audience is insulted (or offended, irritated,
confused, or misled) or stumbles over the way we express ourselves, that reaction will interfere
with the reception and understanding of our message” [10]. There are many types of words
that could potentially offend the audience. The following paragraphs focus on gendered
language, victim language, and object-centered language.
Gendered Language
Gendered language is language that appears to exclude or demean one sex through the use of
gendered pronouns, stereotypical gender roles, or sexual imagery. Gendered language is
particularly pervasive in the fields of medicine and science and technology. Feminist theory
suggests that science and technology are biased toward what are considered “masculine” traits:
rationality and objectivity. The reasoning behind this is that men dominated the field since its
inception and created the epistemology based on their own biases. Jo Allen makes this point in
her 1994 article, which examines women’s business and technical writing and looks for
characteristics of authoritative rhetoric. As a result of the masculinist bias in technology, “what
counts as knowledge (especially in academic circles) has been more frequently defined by men
and, as a male-dominated enterprise, has largely excluded women from knowledge-making”
[(10) p. 281]. And, because “science and technology has reflected the views of the dominant
group within its culture, the viewpoint has been a masculinist model of human experience…”
[(2) p. 477]. Therefore, the writing in these fields usually omit women altogether.
Pronouns
In examples like “The user must enter his user name and password to access the database,”
women are excluded as potential users of the database. It is irrelevant whether the writer was
referring only men as users or if the writer meant the pronoun to refer to all people; the
audience cannot know the writer’s intent. Indeed, a study has shown that when readers read a
masculine pronoun that is used generically, the reader still “pictures” a male. [5] [4] [3]. If
technical writing uses only masculine (or feminine) pronouns, it marginalizes the opposite sex.
There are several ways to avoid using gendered pronouns. The simplest is to avoid using third
person pronouns and rely on second person and plural pronouns. Here are two alternatives to
the preceding example:
 “You must enter your username and password to access the database.”
 “Users must enter their username and password to access the database.”
The writer can also avoid using pronouns altogether, as in the following example:
 “The user must enter a username and password to access the database.”
The writer can also choose to use both the gendered pronouns, as in the following example:
 “The user must enter his or her username and password to access the database.”
In addition to the preceding example, it is also accepted practice (particularly in technical
writing) to alternate pronouns among sections or chapters [(1), p. 80]. It is not recommended to
use the plural third person “their” to refer to a singular noun, as is often the practice in speech.
In this case, cultural meaning cannot guide the technical writer because clarity is lost. If the
plural pronoun is used, the reader could become confused as to whose passwords and
usernames the user should be entering.
Power Plays
Traditionally, if women are mentioned in technical writing, they are generally in subordinate
roles like patient and secretary. Men occupy the main roles, such as doctor and lawyer. This
again reveals the andocentric bias in the fields of science and technology. As Brasseur noted in
her 1993 journal article, when the “dominant group makes rules to govern society and its
institutions, it naturally imposes an order upon the other, more subordinate parts of the
culture” [(2) p. 476]. This offends female audience members by implying their subjugation by
men. Therefore, when providing examples in documentation or case studies, technical writers
must ensure that senior and subordinate roles are equally assigned to men and women. The
same holds true for any relationship with an implied power imbalance.
In addition, technical communicators should avoid reinforcing stereotypical gender roles. Just
as the pediatrician shouldn’t always be a man, the parent accompanying the child shouldn’t
always be the mother. This reinforces the stereotype that women are the sole caregivers to
their children. In another example, the help desk representative shouldn’t always be a man,
and the confused caller shouldn’t always be a woman. This would reinforce the stereotype that
women are easily confused by technology.
Sexual Imagery
Technical writing often employs sexual metaphor to describe machinery or a medical procedure
that is unfamiliar to the reader. The assumption is that the audience is male and that the best
way to explain an unfamiliar idea is through sex. Sauer, in her article about a machine’s
operator’s manual, examines the use of sexual slang by the author of a scholarly article. Using
the slang term “studgun” in scholarly writing, she posits, gives the term authority. Word usage,
especially in academic writing, is governed by social constraints. In other words, words chosen
for scholarly prose has the “seal of approval” of the society, or at least its most dominant group
[8]. At the same time, the term, which is overtly sexual and characterizes the tool as masculine
and potent, marginalizes the female readership. She critiques the sexually loaded metaphors
and violent imagery in technical operator’s manuals and explains how they interfere with the
proper operation of dangerous machinery. The “sexual metaphors of penetration, power, and
dominance reflect a deeper masculinist bias in science and technology…” [(8) p. 317].
Once a technical writer is introduced to the use of sexual imagery in technical writing, he or she
can easily avoid using it. The writer should avoid verbs that are often used to describe
intercourse (penetrate) or nouns that are used to describe reproductive organs (shaft) and
choose more descriptive terms (insert, metal rod). There is the possibility of being clearer even
in the case of certain terms that are widely accepted in academia and industry. For example,
the terms “male connection” and “female connection” are used to describe two different
connections at the end of cords. These are cumbersome terms and that are hard to abbreviate
for brevity’s sake, as illustrated:
(Illustration A) You have four (4) cords, each with a female connector and male
connector. Hold the male connector end of cord 1 and attach it to the female connector
end of cord 2. Hold the male connector end of cord 2 and attach it to the female
connector end of cord 3. Hold the male connector end of cord 3 and attach it to the
female connector end of cord 4. Hold the male connector end of cord 4 and attach it to
the female connector end of cord 1.
If the writer replaces “male connector” with the term “plug” and “female connector” with the
term “socket,” the language is brief and less repetitive.
(Illustration A) You have four (4) cords, each with a plug and a socket. Hold the plug of
cord 1 and attach it to the socket of cord 2. Hold the plug of cord 2 and attach it to the
socket of cord 3. Hold the plug of cord 3 and attach it to the socket of cord 4. Hold the
plug of cord 4 and attach it to the socket of cord 1.
Victim Language
In scientific and medical writing, there are hundreds of examples of impersonal clinical
language. When writing about a disease or disability, it is easy to relegate the people who are
affected to a secondary role as victim. For example, people are often referred to as “a victim of
prostate cancer” or “afflicted with cerebral palsy.” The National Center on Disability and
Journalism, a resource center for journalists who write about disability, explains why this is
offensive: “These terms carry the assumption that a person with a disability is suffering or living
a reduced quality of life. Not every person with a disability ‘suffers,’ is a ‘victim’ or is ‘stricken.’
[6]” Instead, technical writers should simply state the facts about the nature of the disease or
disability, as in “Susan has cerebral palsy.” Also, terms like “defective” and “invalid” should be
avoided because it implies that the person is somehow incomplete or sub-par. In addition, any
terms that imply that people without disabilities are superior should also be avoided. For
example, the writer should choose the term “woman with intact breasts” instead of “intact
woman.” Likewise, “able-bodied” or “normal” should not be used to refer to people without
disabilities.
Object-Centered or Object-First Language
It is often the case that technical writers choose insensitive language because it is more concise.
Writing “The AIDS patient” is shorter than writing “The patient who has AIDS.” Where brevity is
gained, however, sensitivity is lost. It may be imperceptible to the writer, but the reader who
has a disease could be offended by this because the disease precedes the person. It is always
preferable to introduce the person first, and then the disease: “The retarded 48-year-old man”
as opposed to “the 48-year-old man with cognitive impairment.” Otherwise, the individual is
defined “only in terms of their physicality” [6]. Consider the difference in the following
sentences:


“Invading cancer cells rob the patient of healthy tissue every hour.”
“The patient loses healthy tissue every hour as a result of the invading cancer cells.”
In the first sentence, the person is the object of the sentence and the victim of the disease. This
is understandable in medical writing—if the disease is the subject, the person is the object. The
challenge is to describe processes and procedures clearly without objectifying the patients who
are involved in them. In the second sentence, the person is the subject, and she is less like a
victim because the cancer is not personified. If any confusion remains, the technical
communicator should ask him- or herself this: “Does this language communicate the reality of
this human’s dignity” [(9) p. 4]? If the answer is no, the language could be considered
inflammatory, and therefore should be adjusted.
Social Change
As mentioned previously, the technical communicator is often the mediator between the
technical elite and the lay audience. This role allows him or her to influence meaning through
writing. Consider the effects of the following actions:
 A technical writer chooses to alternate pronouns in her scenarios when writing a user
manual.
 A medical writer chooses to omit victim language from all of his articles about disease.
 A journalist writes a story about a child who uses a wheelchair to increase her mobility,
instead of focusing on how a physical impairment has changed her life for the worse.
The technical communicator’s word choice makes a statement about what language is
acceptable in his or her field. The words the writer chooses set the example for peers and for
the audience. What follows after that could be a shift in perception of minorities in the fields of
science and technology. George Orwell, writing in 1964, refers to the idea of linguistic
relativism: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” [7]. Language
usage can affect language meaning. To those who believe that efforts to change language by
example are not worthwhile, Orwell offers this: “Modern English, especially written English, is
full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take
the necessary trouble” [7].
Bibliography
[1] A.S. Pringle and S. O’Keefe, Technical Writing 101: A Real-World Guide to Planning and
Writing Technical Documentation. 2003. Scriptorium Publishing Services, Inc. RTP, NC.
[2]
L.E. Brasseur, “Contesting the objectivist paradigm: gender issues in the technical
professional communication curriculum,” IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 114–123, Sep. 1993.
[3] S. Burkhart, “Sexism in Medical Writing.” British Medical Journal, vol. 295, December 1926, 1987.
[4] E. Falk and J. Mills, "Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily,
Intended Audience, and Offense." Women & Language, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 36–43, Fall
1996.
[5] J. Gatil, "Generic Pronouns and Sexist Language: The Oxymoronic Character of Masculine
Generics." Sex Roles, 1990, 23, 11-12, Dec, 629-643.
[6] National Center on Disability and Journalism Style Guide. http://ncdj.org/styleguide/;
accessed 11/29/2009.
[7] G. Orwell, “Politics and the English Language.” 1946.
http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-english-language1.htm; accessed
11/29/2009.
[8]
B. Sauer, “Sexual dynamics of the profession: articulating the ecriture masculine of science
and technology,” Technical Communication Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 309–324, Summer
1994.
[9] M. Smith, “Technical Writing and Language: A Philosophical Consideration.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21976983/Technical-Writing-and-Language-A-PhilosophicalConsideration; accessed 11/29/2009.
[10] J. Weber. “Gender-neutral technical writing.” Technical Editors’ Eyrie.
http://www.jeanweber.com/newsite/?page_id=55. 2002; accessed 11/23/2009.