Seattle Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles will be introducing a bill in Olympia this session to make sure that inclusive gender terminology is used in the legal language that supports Washington State’s laws.
So, for example, if you are a woman who has enjoyed kindling out-of-control fires on her property, and so far you have felt legally justified in kindling such fires because state law regarding out-of-control fires only limits what “he shall” do on “his own land”—well, your days of being able to claim this as a defense are probably numbered.
Here’s RCW 4.24.040, one of hundreds of laws that would be affected by the Kohl-Welles bill, as the senator would like it be amended:
If any person shall for any lawful purpose kindle a fire upon his or her own land, he or she shall do it at such time and in such manner, and shall take such care of it to prevent it from spreading and doing damage to other persons’ property, as a prudent and careful ((
man)) person would do, and if he or she fails so to do he or she shall be liable in an action on the case to any person suffering damage thereby to the full amount of such damage.
A step forward for gender equality, certainly. Also, and just as certainly, a setback for lady pyromaniacs.
I’m outraged. They should have an equal number of “he or she” as they do “she or he”. The man shouldn’t always come first.
Great way to conflate the already ridiculously stilted language of legislation. Are they this worried about word count?
And by conflate I of course mean inflate.
Ziggity, come on now. Would you be happy if all legal documents just said “she”? If it was only self-evident that “all women are created equal”?
Does this serve any legitimate legal purpose? Does it close loopholes? If not, why bother?
Him or her.
Thank you Loretta.
How long will it take before someone gets upset that this excludes the intersex?
The correct genderless singular pronoun is “their”. As in: “If any person shall for any lawful purpose kindle a fire upon their own land, they shall do it at such time and in such manner, and shall take such care of it to prevent it from spreading and doing damage to other persons’ property…”
Look it up before calling me out, grammer lusers.
I think they should just ensure that any new laws meet the standard, and only update old ones when they are modified for other reasons. In a budget crisis where our democratic governor is talking about slashing General Assistance to the Unemployable, is this a priority? Sigh.
I shall rest easy tonight.
Even if the US Constitution still says you’re second class …
this Senator is an air head
if she were not a stone advocate of medical mj, she would have no purpose in the legislature
how about some action about how single women out of work are going to rais their kids (food and housing) in the depression?
and all the changes proposed are already assumptive and mandated by law – just the words reflect the past – NOT current implementation
Kohl-Welles needs to get on her bike and ride.
@4 – It would not bother me, if that were any kind of established convention. Granted, “he or she” has become an establishment of its own, but it is unwieldy and cumbersome. And the masculine default is an artificial latinization of English, so I don’t care much for that either, to be honest. I don’t see why we can’t just use “they,” for fuck’s sake.
Just one of the many reasons why I would dread being a lawyer.
@8. Moron. “Look it up?” Person=single, they=plural… Gaaa! I just got hooked! I’m getting reeled in! I can’t help it. Grammar idiocy is just so TASTY!
As amusing is the one example cited in The Stranger’s article, the reality is that the legislation is a Code Reviser agency-request bill that addresses the need to comply with what’s been required in state law since 1983 — that being that all statutes be written in gender-neutral terms, unless a specification of gender is intended.
In 2007, the Legislature passed ESB 5063 that changed gender-specific terms to
gender-neutral terms in several chapters of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), including those chapters dealing with firefighters and police officers (formerly references were only to firemen and policemen). The Legislature directed the Code Reviser, in consultation with the Statute Law Committee, to develop and implement a plan to correct gender-specific references throughout the code. As legislators were surprised to learn of the enormity of the task, we directed the Code Reviser to make annual recommendations to the legislature for the changes so that the code will be completely gender-neutral by June 30, 2015.
The 2009 bill comprises the second installment. Some examples are in references to “man” or “men” being changed to “person” or “persons,” “councilman” is to “councilmember,” and “chairman” to “chair.”
The original 2007 legislation was brought to us as a recommendation by local government officials and supported by the state firefighters and others (many female firefighters did not appreciate being referred to as firemen). It may seem trivial, and is certainly not priority policy legislation of mine, but it has bipartisan support and basically updates our statutory language in synch with the 21st century.
Jeanne Kohl-Welles
State Senator
36th Legislative District
you’re an it.
she’s an it.
he’s an it.
it’s an it.
i would not h{it} that sh{it}.
i would, however, it that it.