Malcolm Rivera
The United States Constitution is a foundational document that has been interpreted and amended over time to reflect evolving societal values. Notably, the Constitution does not contain any nouns or adjectives denoting sex, with the word persons being used instead, which is gender-neutral. However, pronouns like he, his, and himself are present, reflecting the historical context of when it was written. The absence of specific mentions of man or male in the original Constitution has been interpreted to mean that the rights, privileges, and protections afforded to persons apply equally to both men and women. Despite this, women's rights activists have had to fight for equality, and amendments have been proposed to make the language more inclusive.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Pronouns used in the Constitution | “he”, “his”, and “himself” |
| Nouns or adjectives denoting sex | None |
| Use of the word "man" | None |
| Use of the word "male" | In the Fourteenth Amendment |
| Use of the word "woman" or "women" | None |
| Gender-neutral terms | "electors", "citizens", "members", "inhabitants", "officers", "representatives", "persons" |
| Amendments to include gender-neutral pronouns proposed | Yes |
| Political hurdles to amending the Constitution | Two-thirds vote in the U.S. House and Senate, approval by three-quarters of state legislatures |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The US Constitution's pronouns
The US Constitution, as transcribed by Jacob Shallus, uses the pronouns “he”, “his”, and “himself” in reference to the President of the United States. For example, Article II of the Constitution states that the President shall "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The use of masculine pronouns in the Constitution can be attributed to the historical context of its ratification in 1787, when women could not vote.
However, in recent times, there have been efforts to change the Constitution's pronouns to be more inclusive. For instance, a petition has been created to update the pronouns used when referring to the President, acknowledging that a woman can hold this position. While changing the Constitution's pronouns would face significant political challenges, some argue that it is important to raise awareness and spark discussions about this issue.
The absence of specific nouns or adjectives denoting sex in the original Constitution has been interpreted as granting equal rights, privileges, and protections to both female and male persons. The terms used, such as "electors," "citizens," "members," "inhabitants," "officers," "representatives," and "persons," are considered gender-neutral or non-sexist. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Constitution does not mention "man" or "male" in its original text.
Despite the gender-neutral language in the original Constitution, common law inherited from British precedents and state laws influenced the interpretation and application of gender-specific rights and privileges. For instance, after the Constitution was adopted, New Jersey initially granted voting rights to women, but these rights were later rescinded in 1807. The principle of coverture, which considered a married woman's legal existence to be bound to that of her husband, also impacted women's rights during this period.
Amendments to the Constitution, such as the Fourteenth Amendment, have played a role in shaping women's rights. While it established racial equality in voting, it also included the word "male," leading to a split in the women's rights movement. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment by Alice Paul aimed to address this by requiring equal rights for men and women, but it did not pass Congress until 1972.
Founding Fathers: Slave Owners and the Constitution
You may want to see also
Gender-neutral language
The United States Constitution, ratified in 1787, uses the pronoun "he" when referring to the President of the United States. At the time, women could not vote, which explains the exclusion of "she" or "they." However, in the modern era, with women running for president, the highest legal authority in the country should acknowledge a woman's ability to hold the office. This has led to calls for a change in the Constitution's pronouns, with a petition seeking to pique the interest of Congressman David Cicilline to bring the issue before the House of Representatives.
The petition's seed was planted in a Constitutional Law class, where a professor used gender-inclusive language when discussing the Constitution. This sparked a realization that the use of "he" in reference to the presidency was outdated and needed updating to include "she" or a gender-neutral alternative. While some may view this as a frivolous indulgence, supporters argue that it is not just a matter of semantics but a reflection of respect and inclusion for all genders and beliefs.
The concept of gender-neutral language gained mainstream attention in Western English cultures during the 1970s due to feminist efforts. The National Council of Teachers of English published guidelines on using "non-sexist" language in 1975, sparking a debate on enforcing such language. Since then, various organizations and academic institutions in Canada, Britain, and the United States have implemented policies or published guidelines promoting gender-neutral language.
While English has many gender-neutral words, some still carry gendered connotations. For example, "businessman" can be replaced with "businessperson," and "he or she" can be substituted with "they." Using gender-neutral language is essential because it demonstrates respect and inclusion for individuals with diverse backgrounds, genders, and beliefs, particularly those in the LGBTQIA+ communities. It can take time to develop the habit of using gender-neutral language, but awareness is the first step toward creating a more inclusive communication style.
American Indians: Constitution Influencers or Silent Bystanders?
You may want to see also
The Constitution's interpretation
The interpretation of the US Constitution has evolved over time, with various amendments and legal precedents shaping how it is understood and applied. Notably, the Constitution does not contain any nouns or adjectives that denote sex, instead using gender-neutral terms such as "persons", "electors", "citizens", "members", "inhabitants", "officers", "representatives", and "individuals". This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Constitution explicitly states that "all persons" shall be counted, which includes both males and females.
However, the Constitution does use masculine pronouns such as "he", "his", and "himself". This has led to debates about the inclusivity of the document, especially in light of the increasing number of women running for political office and the fact that a woman has won the popular vote for the presidency. While the use of masculine pronouns may reflect the historical context in which the Constitution was written, with women unable to vote at the time, there are efforts to update the language to be more gender-inclusive. For example, some professors consciously use gender-inclusive language when discussing the Constitution, such as saying "he – or she" or simply using "she".
The interpretation of the Constitution's silence on certain topics is also noteworthy. For instance, while the document does not explicitly mention "education", "schools", "labor unions", "corporations", "political parties", or "broadcasting", the courts have interpreted and deliberated on constitutional controversies related to these subjects. Similarly, the absence of any mention of race or slavery in the Constitution has been a point of contention, with some arguing that it was intentionally left vague to accommodate future changes, while others assert that it reflects the racist thinking of the time.
Amending the Constitution to be more inclusive is a complex process, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the US House and Senate, as well as approval by three-quarters of state legislatures. Despite these hurdles, there have been successful amendments that address issues of equality, such as the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified citizenship rights after the American Civil War and ensured that formerly enslaved people and other African Americans had full citizenship rights. Additionally, the Supreme Court has played a role in interpreting the Constitution, such as in the case of overturning Adkins v. Children's Hospital, which upheld protective labor legislation for both women and men.
Constitutional Courts in Georgia: How Many?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Constitutional change and women's rights
The US Constitution, as transcribed by Jacob Shallus, makes no mention of women. This is because, when the Constitution was ratified in 1787, women were not recognized as full citizens and did not have the right to vote. The Constitution also uses the pronoun "he" when referring to the President of the United States.
The exclusion of women from the Constitution has led to calls for constitutional change to include women's rights. One such proposed change is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination and dedicate the nation to a new view of the rights and responsibilities of men and women. The ERA was first proposed in 1921 by the National Woman's Party, led by Alice Paul, who believed that the Nineteenth Amendment would not be enough to ensure equality between men and women. The text of the proposed amendment read:
> "No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to its jurisdiction."
The ERA has gained increasing support over the years, particularly with the rise of the women's movement in the 1960s. In 1971, it was reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths and approved by the US House of Representatives. The following year, it was approved by the US Senate, submitting the ERA to the state legislatures for ratification. Despite facing opposition, particularly from religious conservatives and anti-abortion groups, the ERA has continued to gain momentum, with President Biden declaring it as the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution in January 2025. This declaration brings the US closer to joining the global community in denouncing discrimination based on sex and realizing gender equality as a fundamental human right.
In addition to the ERA, there have been other efforts to include gender-inclusive language in the Constitution. For example, a petition was started to change the Constitution's pronouns, arguing that the use of "he" is outdated and does not acknowledge a woman's ability to become president. While changing the Constitution's pronouns would face massive political hurdles, it is important to raise awareness and spark conversations about the issue.
Copyrights: A Constitutional Necessity?
You may want to see also
The Fourteenth Amendment
Another important provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is the statement that "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This "equal protection of the laws" clause is the most commonly used and frequently litigated phrase in the amendment, featuring prominently in landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), and Bush v. Gore (election recounts).
Jefferson's Vision: A Constitution with an Expiry Date
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The word "man" is not mentioned in the US Constitution.
The US Constitution uses gender-neutral terms such as "electors," "citizens," "members," "inhabitants," "officers," "representatives," and "persons" to refer to individuals. This means that the rights and privileges outlined in the Constitution are afforded to all people, regardless of gender.
Yes, the US Constitution does contain gendered pronouns such as "he," "his," and "himself." However, it is important to note that these pronouns are not used to denote gender or limit rights to a specific gender. The use of gendered pronouns was common in legal language at the time the Constitution was written.
