Words Matter for Nonhuman -- and Human -- Animals

Recently a female animal advocate posted an item on Facebook about Heston Blumenthal, a British chef she dislikes. A guy commented on it, calling the chef a "cunt." I responded by writing, "Let's respect women, as well as animals, and not use the word 'cunt.'" He told me to "get real ok and wake up and smell the coffee!" The woman subsequently told me to "fuck off."

In the animal-rights movement we're told, "Speak your mind even if your voice trembles." When we encounter animal abuse or speciesism in any form, we are encouraged to speak up. But some of the same people who say this are those who criticize others for speaking out against sexism.

What one person considers sexist, another may not, and that's fine. But the discourse, if there's one, should be civil and respectful. People can agree to disagree. But it's not helpful if one person is ridiculed -- or worse -- when she chooses to confront what she sees as sexism.

Stephanie Ernst at "Animal Rights & AntiOppression" recently wrote about sexism and misogyny in the animal-rights movement. While I haven't experienced abuse like many who've commented have -- either firsthand or indirectly -- the exchange I had on Facebook is a minor example of some animal advocates not recognizing that women deserve just as much respect as any other living being, be they nonhuman animals or men.

Just as I no longer use animal terms as insults (e.g. "That guy's a pig"), I am against using female terms in negative ways. Calling someone a "cunt" or a "pussy" implies there's something wrong with vaginas and, by extension, with women.

The man's response to me touched on an argument carnists use against animal advocates. They accuse us of being idealistic, of not living in the real world. They say we're never going to get everyone on Earth to go vegan, so why even try? Of course, we see value in trying. Each day we see our world moving in that direction.

I really don't know what the man meant by his words. Perhaps he thought I'm a prude. Maybe he thought, "Sexism exists. Get used to it." But I refuse to accept sexism, just as I refuse to accept speciesism or racism, etc.

Dealing with 'It'

As a journalism major and former newspaper copy editor, "The Associated Press Stylebook" is like a bible. It's easy to navigate and answers whatever grammatical, style or formatting questions I have: Does "Ph.D." have periods in it? Should I write "Web site" as one word or two?

And I owe it an apology. Too often when reporters write stories about an animal, they refer to him or her as "it." I assumed it was because the AP Stylebook called for the non-personal pronoun. It does, but only in some cases.

Do not apply a personal pronoun to an animal unless its sex has been established or the animal has a name.

While I would prefer a personal pronoun ("he" or "she") were used in every case, I'm glad the stylebook calls for it in at least some cases.

If only reporters -- even Associated Press reporters -- knew that.

The most recent example I've come across of "it" being used incorrectly was in stories about the bull who escaped a burning truck in Indiana and now lives at Farm Sanctuary.

A group of children found the 2-year-old bull several miles away from last week's crash scene near Chesterton. It was taken to the Porter County Animal Shelter [...]

Bulls are males. This bull, who now has a name (Jay), should have been referred to as "he."

Reporters also usually refer to animals using "which" or "that" instead of "who" or "whom." Like the above rule, the AP Stylebook calls for the latter only if the gender is known or if the animal has a name. Still, reporters usually choose the former pair of words regardless.

Using "it," "which" and "that" implies the animal is an object, not a living, feeling being.

It's important to consider what implications a word has, not only for women and animals but for all groups in society.

(Image courtesy of Feminists for Animal Rights.)