Gender neutrality in defining professions

As a student of the German language, I made an attempt at introducing myself to the class a few weeks ago, only to stumble on the word for my profession (and despite my lovely teacher's consistent encouragement). It turns out that the word for 'economist' in the language is Wirtschaftswissenschaftlerin.I know, right? Challenging as the word is, this was only the tip of what is worth dwelling over.

It turns out, that in German, the word for a female economist is different from a male economist. The word being as opposed to Wirtschaftswissenchaftlerfor a male economist. Which, of course, led to a quick discussion on the question of gender neutrality in defining professions. Particularly so, since it is a sharp distinction from the terms used in the English language. An economist, is an economist, irrespective of their gender. No one is slotted as a female economist or a male economist. Which makes sense. Because, what difference does the gender make in a profession about numbers and analysis? In all the years of being one and engaging with other economists I have never seen difference in either inclination or capability.

But the same might not be true of all professions. Acting, for instance. Even though women are no longer being referred to as actresses but as female actors or just actors, just like the men; there is some logic to the gender differentiation here. In so far as there is a broad difference in gender behaviour and appearance, some roles can be played well by women and others by men. Therefore, the difference in term used, has to do with functionality.

Another set of professions where a distinction is made between men and women as professionals, is oddly enough, where the term is a combination of two words. As an instance is another term I encounter often: businesswoman. As opposed to businessman. The origins are understandable of course, given that traditionally men have been out and about in the working world. This could make some sense if women were in businesses that have a strong gender angle – beauty, female health etc. But this is not so for many women. Another instance in the same vein is sportswoman. Here too, rationality would say, the distinction is on account of women's sports being different from men's sports. This distinction, however, is being increasingly being lost as businessperson or sportsperson become replacement terms.

But these are just about the only professions where gender neutrality in terms doesn't exist. Consider professions like doctor, teacher, designer, architect, cleaner etc. But in no way does this mean that the English language has achieved some equality nirvana. There are still some very male centred terms in common usage. Like, mankind for instance. These too, are being replaced by terms like humankind. I for one have been using the latter term for as long as I can remember, but I would represent a minority.

Not everyone is up to climbing onto the language evolution bandwagon though. Their point is, that they don't see a term like 'mankind' as representing 'men' anymore than they do 'women'. It's almost like the term has lost any reference to context. Much like the use of the word 'shit' as an expletive or its stronger four letter replacements, which I will not spell out here, because I really don't want to offend a small remaining minority that still does find it offensive.

Here is the reverse argument, however. What we say, informs how we think. So when we continue to use a term like 'mankind' we are in our minds still defining the world from a genderised perspective, irrespective of its original idea. The question then is – what purpose does it serve? And if it doesn't, especially at a time of heightened awareness about gender equality, shouldn't we just let it go?