CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Gender Studies in LanguageGender and Feminist StudiesLinguistic Variation and Morphology

Four dimensions of criticism against gender-fair language

Open access
Vergoossen, Hellen Petronella, Renström, Emma Aurora, Lindqvist, Anna, Gustafsson Sendén, Marie·2020·Sex Roles
DOI 10.1007/s11199-019-01108-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The gender-neutral third-person pronoun singular hen was recently introduced in Swedish as a complement to she (hon) and he (han). The initiative to add hen initially received strong criticism. In the present study, we analyzed 208 arguments from 168 participants with critical attitudes toward hen. We used Blaubergs’ (1980) and Parks and Roberton’s (1998) taxonomies of critical arguments against past gender-fair language reforms in English in the 1970s and 1990s as a basis for coding the arguments. A majority of arguments (80.7%) could be coded into existing categories, indicating that criticisms of gender-fair language initiatives are similar across different times and cultural contexts. Two categories of arguments did not fit existing categories (19.3%): gender-neutral pronouns are distracting in communication and gender information is important in communication. Furthermore, we established four overarching dimensions that capture assumptions and beliefs underlying gender-fair language criticism: (a) Defending the Linguistic Status Quo (39.4%), (b) Sexism and Cisgenderism (27.4%), (c) Diminishing the Issue and Its Proponents (26.9%), and (d) Distractor In Communication (6.3%). These dimensions of criticisms should be considered and addressed in different ways when implementing gender-fair language.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11199-019-01108-x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Only 6.3% of participants in Vergoossen et al. (2020) found gender-inclusive language to be disruptive to communication.

    “only a small proportion of participants, 6.3%, found gender-inclusive language to be disruptive to communication.”

    From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Vergoossen et al., 2020

    The Results report that 6.3% (13 of 208) of negative arguments were classified as ‘Distractor in Communication.’ The Participants and Procedure section says the analysis counted arguments rather than participants, some of whom gave multiple arguments. The claim therefore uses the right percentage and theme but incorrectly presents it as a percentage of participants. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Vergoossen et al. (2020) identified categories similar to Blaubergs' within broader dimensions, such as acceptance of sexism or cisgenderism, and the belief that generic formulations are not sexist.

    “Vergoossen et al. (2020) again identified categories similar to Blaubergs’ within broader dimensions, such as acceptance of sexism or cisgenderism, and the belief that generic formulations are not sexist.”

    From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Vergoossen et al., 2020

  • Approximately 40% of statements made by participants in Vergoossen et al. (2020) were categorized as emphasizing the traditional use of language, including the belief that linguistic change is too difficult.

    “Approximately 40% of statements made by participants in this study were categorized as emphasizing the traditional use of language, including the belief that linguistic change is too difficult.”

    From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Vergoossen et al., 2020

  • The use of gender-inclusive pronouns often faces resistance.

    “Consequently, the use of such pronouns often faces resistance (Hekanaho, 2020; Renström & Klysing, 2024; Vergoossen et al., 2020).”

    From A Sexist Language? Gender Differences in Attitudes and Use of Gender-Inclusive Pronouns (2025) · cites this paper as Vergoossen et al., 2020

  • Opposition to the Swedish gender-inclusive pronoun hen is associated with the belief that sexist language and its impacts are inconsequential.

    “Opposition to the Swedish gender-inclusive pronoun hen has been shown to be associated with the belief that sexist language and its impacts are inconsequential (Vergoossen et al., 2020)”

    From A Sexist Language? Gender Differences in Attitudes and Use of Gender-Inclusive Pronouns (2025) · cites this paper as Vergoossen et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & Bergh, R. (2011). Generalized prejudice: Common and specific components. Psychological Science, 22(1), 57-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610390384. · DOI
  2. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  3. Ansara, Y. G., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological re- search. Feminism & Psychology, 24(2), 259-270. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0959353514526217. · DOI
  4. Ansara, Y. G., & Hegarty, P. (2016). Misgendering in English language contexts: Applying non-cisgenderist methods to feminist research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(2), 160- 177. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.2.160. · DOI
  5. Bäck, E. A. (2013). Position toward the status quo: Explaining differences in intergroup perceptions between left-and right-wing affiliates. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2073-2082. https://doi. org/10.1111/jasp.12160. · DOI
  6. Bäck, E. A., & Lindholm, T. (2014). Defending or challenging the status quo: Position effects on biased intergroup perceptions. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2(1), 77-97. https://doi.org/10. 5964/jspp.v2i1.158. · DOI
  7. Magnusson, K. Milles, & Z. Nikolaidou (Eds.), Könskonstruktioner och Språkförändringar: En rapport från den åttonde nordiska konferensen om språk och kön [Gender constructions and language change: Report from the 8th Nordic Conference on Language and Gender] (pp. 71-90). Flemingsberg, Sweden: Södertörn University.
  8. Bäck, E. A., Lindqvist, A., & Gustafsson Sendén, M. (2018). Hen. Bakgrund, attityder och användande [Hen: Background, attitudes and use] (Vol. 8). Lund: Lund University. Retrieved from https:// www.psy.lu.se/sites/psy.lu.se/files/plr_1801.pdf.
  9. Bailey, A. H., & LaFrance, M. (2017). Who counts as human? Antecedents to androcentric behavior. Sex Roles, 76(11-12), 682- 693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0648-4. · DOI
  10. Blaubergs, M. S. (1980). An analysis of classic arguments against chang- ing sexist language. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 3(2- 3), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-0685(80)92071-0. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Braun, F., Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2005). Cognitive effects of mas- culine generics in German: An overview of empirical findings. Communications, 30(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2005. 30.1. · DOI
  12. Chatfield, S. (2018). Considerations in qualitative research reporting: A guide for authors preparing articles for Sex Roles. Sex Roles, 79(3- 4), 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0930-8. · DOI
  13. Eidelman, S., Pattershall, J., & Crandall, C. S. (2010). Longer is better. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 993-998. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.008. · DOI
  14. Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23(11-12), 629-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289252. · DOI
  15. Gustafsson Sendén, M., Bäck, E. A., & Lindqvist, A. (2015). Introducing a gender-neutral pronoun in a natural gender language: The influ- ence of time on attitudes and behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 893. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965-2004. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 377-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680. 10.4.377. · DOI
  17. Hegarty, P., Watson, N., Fletcher, L., & McQueen, G. (2011). When gentlemen are first and ladies are last: Effects of gender stereotypes on the order of romantic partners' names. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 014466610X486347. · DOI
  18. Hodel, L., Formanowicz, M., Sczesny, S., Valdrová, J., & Von Stockhausen, L. (2017). Gender-fair language in job advertisements: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 384-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022022116688085. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Horvath, L. K., & Sczesny, S. (2015). Reducing women's lack of fit with leadership positions? Effects of the wording of job advertisements. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(2), 316-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1067611. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Horvath, L. K., Merkel, E. F., Maass, A., & Sczesny, S. (2016). Does gender-fair language pay off? The social perception of professions from a cross-linguistic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1- 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02018. · DOI
  21. Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & van Anders, S. M. (2018). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74, 171-193. https:// doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307. · DOI
  22. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. B., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and uncon- scious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881- 919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823. · DOI
  23. Koeser, S., & Sczesny, S. (2014). Promoting gender-fair language: The impact of arguments on language use, attitudes, and cognition. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(5), 548-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14541280. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Lindqvist, A., Renström, E. A., & Gustafsson Sendén, M. (2019a). Reducing a male bias in language? Establishing the efficiency of three different gender-fair language strategies. Sex Roles, 81, 109- 117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0974-9. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Lindqvist, A., Gustafsson Sendén, M., & Renström, E. A. (2019b). What Is Gender, Anyway: A Review of the Options for Operationalizing Gender Psychology and sexuality, in press.
  26. Madson, L., & Hessling, R. M. (1999). Does alternating between mascu- line and feminine pronouns eliminate perceived gender bias in text? Sex Roles, 41(7/8), 559-575. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1018895321444. · DOI
  27. Milles, K. (2011). Feminist language planning in Sweden. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(1), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14664208.2011.541388. · DOI
  28. Milles, K. (2013). En öppning i en sluten ordklass? Den nya användningen av pronomenet hen [An opening in a closed word class? The new use of the pronoun hen]. Språk Och Stil, 23(1), 107-140.
  29. Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychol- ogy: How can Butler's work inform experimental social psycholo- gists' conceptualization of gender? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320. · DOI
  30. Moulton, J., Robinson, G. M., & Elias, C. (1978). Sex bias in language use: "Neutral" pronouns that aren't. American Psychologist, 33(11), 1032-1036. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.11.1032. · DOI
  31. Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (1998). Contemporary arguments against nonsexist language: Blaubergs (1980) revisited. Sex Roles, 39(5/6), 445-461. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018827227128. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M., & Moser, F. (2016). Can gender-fair lan- guage reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025. · DOI
  33. Stahlberg, D., Sczesny, S., & Braun, F. (2001). Name your favorite mu- sician: Effects of masculine generics and of their alternatives in German. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(4), 464- 469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X01020004004. · DOI
  34. Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn't mean you: Gender- exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology B u l l e t i n , 3 6 ( 6 ) , 7 6 7 -7 6 9 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 11 7 7 / 0146167211406434. Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Retrieved f r o m h t t p s : / / w w w . . s e / d · DOI · Paper page
  35. Tee, N., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in the United Kingdom. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16(1), 70-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/ casp.851. · DOI
  36. Willis, M., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2017). Ladies first? Not so fast: Linguistic sexism in peer-reviewed research. Journal of Sex Research, 55(2), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017. 1346058. · DOI
  37. Wojahn, D. (2015). Språkaktivism: Diskussioner om feministiska språkförändringar i Sverige från 1960-talet till 2015 [Language activism: Discussions about feminist language changes in Sweden from the 1960s until 2015] (Doctoral dissertation). Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vergoossen, H. P., Renström, E. A., Lindqvist, A., & Gustafsson Sendén, M.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
Corresponding author
Vergoossen, Hellen Petronella
ORCID
Venue
Sex Roles
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-01-06
Volume
83
Issue
5-6
Pages
328-337
ISSN
  • 0360-0025 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2762
DOI
10.1007/s11199-019-01108-x
OpenAlex
W2999008367
Cited by
121
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3
FWCI
11.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sex Roles (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet (2014-1150)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Variation and Morphology
Keywords
gender-inclusive language, Swedish language, critical argument, sexism, cisgenderism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review