START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
3,452,664 people care about Animal Welfare

Stop Calling Animals “It”

Stop Calling Animals “It”

The English language has lots of rules, but the one I dislike the most is assigning the personal pronoun “it” when discussing animals. People are never referred to as “it.” People pronouns are he or she, him or her and his or hers.

Human beings are living, sentient creatures who think, feel pain and joy, interact with their environment and so much more. But wait — so are animals! Then why are animals considered an it?

Historically, animals have not fared well in the human eye. We eat animals, we wear them, we use them to carry our heavy loads, we race them without regard for their welfare and we breed them in the name of money. Some get to be pets, but not even all of those escape abuse and torture at the hands of humans. The general attitude seems to be: if you are not human then you are there to serve humans’ needs. Does anyone else see something terribly wrong with this picture?

Way back in 2007, Anna West, Director of Written Communications for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) wrote to AP (Associated Press) editor Norm Goldstein asking AP to change the AP Stylebook’s (the definitive guide for journalists) grammatical rules to reflect that animals are living beings and not inanimate objects. The complete letter can be read here.

The response from AP was that the AP Stylebook already reflects that change. However, AP guidelines say, “Do not apply a personal pronoun to an animal unless its sex has been established or the animal has a name.” Otherwise “it” is the default.

Extrapolate that to mean a dog named Harry is a “he”, a mare (female horse) is a “she” and a wild turkey is an “it.”  Does that seem right to you?

For centuries, defaulting to he, him or his when human gender wasn’t known was considered correct. With the advent of women’s rights, that generally accepted grammatical style is no longer appropriate. So why then doesn’t the AP Stylebook instruct us to call humans “it” when their sex or name is unknown?

I posit that it’s because the prevailing attitude still exists that non-human animals are less important, have less value to society, and have less rights to life and happiness than human ones. That needs to change.

When I met a Greyhound named Ed, I erroneously referred to the pooch as “him” and was immediately corrected by the human family that Ed is a girl!  Knowing the name doesn’t always verify gender, does it?

It’s not only the AP Stylebook that confirms this bias. If you use spell/grammar check in commonly used word processing programs, the sentence “The dog who fell down hurt her paw” gets corrected to “The dog that fell down hurt its paw.” Of course, if you feel like I do on this subject, all you have to do is click “ignore rule” rather than “change.” Though, wouldn’t not having to always click “ignore rule” make much more sense?

The New York Times Best Seller list book by Dave Pelzer, “A Child Called It: One Child’s Courage to Survive,” chronicles an unfathomable account of child abuse experienced by the author as a young boy by his sadistic mother. The title alone makes you cringe because calling a child by the pronoun meant to describe an inanimate object just seems wrong, doesn’t it?

The reason it’s wrong is because a child is a young human being and not a thing. A table is an it; so are a coffee pot and a hammer. But a child called it? It’s counter-intuitive.

Then one can argue, and so do I, that animals who have so many of the same abilities to feel and live their lives should not be called it. It’s time to make this change.

My point here is that language is fluid; it is ever-evolving. It’s okay to make changes to grammar when the times and attitudes progress. So what are we waiting for?

A few years ago, In Defense of Animals (IDA) ran a campaign to change the term pet owner to pet guardian. This wasn’t about changing any rules, but it did raise awareness about how language can shape attitudes. Once awareness is raised, change can occur.

I would like to propose the pronoun “it” should never be considered acceptable when referring to animals, and that the substitution “s/he” become the norm. PETA’s TeachKind.org website offers a guide to writing and speaking tips that suggests this simple change. And a very smart idea it is!

If you agree, please sign the Care2 petition asking AP Stylebook to change its rules to no longer use the pronoun “it” in reference to animals under any circumstances. Help spread the word that words matter.

No animal should ever be called “it.”

 

Related Reading:

Pet Owner or Pet Guardian?  Which One are You?

Read more: , , , , ,

Photo credit: Thinkstock

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

461 comments

+ add your own
12:32PM PDT on Apr 26, 2014

I saved a turtle from a busy street once and I called the turtle "it" because I didn't know the gender, all I cared about was getting the turtle to a safer place than a road full of traffic. And I've heard people refer to live lobsters as "him" when they are making a selection at Red Lobster etc, they'll be like "Hm, I want that big guy over there! Look at the size of him!" So I don't think saying "it" is necessarily an indicator of how the person who says it thinks about animals.

2:57PM PDT on Sep 7, 2013

Some years ago I was travelling abroad and enjoyed working on a series of sketchbooks of the wild birds (and occasionally wild animals) I saw on my travels. Some could be easily sexed by colour, but many could not. So, when I wrote notes to accompany the sketches, this issue cropped up. I'm glad to say that any bird of either gender who made it into my sketchbooks was 'he', not 'it'! Apologies to all the hens but 'he or she' would often have been a bit clumsy.

11:51PM PDT on Aug 18, 2013

MyRepost CAT C. "Cat C. Let's just say, for opinion's sake, that a fly or mosquito was in my house... I would not say to someone, "Get the fly swatter and see if you can swat him or her!" Or if a rattlesnake was in the path of a hiker, I would rather say, "Look out -- it's going to strike!" than say "Look out -- he or she is going to strike!"

I do not think the use of the word "it", even for dogs and cats, encourages people to consider animals in lesser or derogatory light. If they are the kind of people who DO think of animals in a lesser light just because of a term of language, then they (IMHO) were insensitive buffoons to begin with, and in such cases, a change of language usage is not going to help them evolve one bit. They would need a lot more help than that."

11:48PM PDT on Aug 18, 2013

Repost ... My own preference is that animals be called by their gender designations when they do not have individual identity names; "bitch", "dog"; "mare" (sad about "female horse" bracket), "stallion"; "ram", "ewe"; "queen", "drone", "worker" (as in bee); etc. I'm OK about "it" when the gender isn't known, and the animal doesn't have a individual identity name; a shark; an ant; a moth; a dinosaur ("female dinosaur" if there is a known gender); a mosquito ("female" … gender); weevil; etc.

On the matter of this article, I think the AP Stylebook got it right ... because I haven't read a convincing argument against their ruling ...

The larger family of issues here is language use awareness; "terrorist", big business seen as "person" legally, etc; very important.

Thank you for your piece Megan. It was worth reading.

11:30PM PDT on Aug 18, 2013

Repost ... Many comments seem to link disagreement with the premiss with a lack of care, sympathy, or affection for animals and the converse to be true.

There isn't any substance to this ...

According to statistics by RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), the number of dogs abandoned between January and April 2010 was 4,966. I imagine all of them had names and were not referred to as "it".

Equally there is a line of comment that sees this article as trivial. Certainly it may seem trivial on the surface to many, but the underlying principals are important, even if there are no changes as desired by the author. Even prompting someone to let the forum know they believe the article is trivial, rather than just move on, is important. The situation of pet dumping is an example of how the bigger concern emerges from the subset of the article.

On the matter of this article, I think the AP Stylebook got it right ...

8:42AM PDT on Aug 10, 2013

signed

2:56AM PDT on Jul 30, 2013

Definitely not an "it"

5:58AM PDT on Jul 29, 2013

signed, thanks for sharing :)

12:21PM PDT on Jul 25, 2013

not it! thanks!

1:47PM PDT on Jul 24, 2013

Not it. Never!!!

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.