Respect for Animals: It's in the Words, Stupid!

PETA recently presented an eminently sensible and long overdue suggestion to the editors of the AP stylebook that they not use the words "it" and "which" when referring to nonhuman animals, but instead "he", "she", and "whom", citing the fact that a more savvy public recognizes that nonhuman animals are intelligent and feeling creatures, just like humans. AP oddly protested that they were already using "he", "she" and "whom" for animals and that the stylebook dictated the use of "it" and "which" only if the sex or name of the animal in question is unknown.

Can you imagine using that same AP rule with humans, for some of whom, at least part of the time, the gender is indeterminate (transgendered people and transvestites, or humans who are too mutilated to be identified as male or female in an accident, for example)? Yeah, that would go over real well. Apparently the AP thinks it's just fine to say "The dog barked. It was protecting its home from burglars." But it's not OK to say "The human screamed. It was trying to get help because someone had broken into its house." That would never fly in a news story or anywhere else. So why impose it on animals? If the sex of the animal is unknown, as with humans, I suggest that the AP choose either "he" or "she", or "she/he".

Of course, PETA's request was met with the usual anthropocentric derision by blogging animal rights-phobes, who delight in grabbing every opportunity to diss PETA and other animal advocacy groups, calling them everything from "wacko" to "flaky" for defending our voiceless brethren: nonhuman animals.

Both the bloggers and the AP editors would do well to read the fascinating book "Animal Equality: Language and Liberation", in which author Joan Dunayer discusses how language has oppressed nonhuman animals and led humans to think in negative, patronizing ways about them. She includes a stylebook plus a thesaurus with suggestions on how to talk about nonhuman animals. For example, cows and humans EAT, they don't FEED, and the bodies of both dead animals and dead humans should be referred to as CORPSES, not CARCASSES. She discourages the use of demeaning terms like BEAST, BRUTE and DUMB ANIMAL, or employing the terms PEST or VERMIN. She suggests substituting words like ANYBODY, EVERYBODY, NOBODY and SOMEBODY for ANYTHING, EVERYTHING, NOTHING OR SOMETHING when referring to other animals to avoid objectifying them. She advises avoiding referring to CALVES RAISED FOR VEAL as VEALl; COWS as BEEF COWS or MILK COWS; or PIG RIBS as SPARE RIBS. Ms. Dunayer reminds us that biologically humans are categorized with MAMMALS, PRIMATES and APES and should be included with them. Using demeaning or violent cliché's like "kill two birds with one stone", "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", "eat like a pig", "have other fish to fry", "as mean as a snake"; or ethical oxymorons such as HUMANE SLAUGHTER or RESPONSIBLE BREEDING are no-no's. She explains that glamorizing inbreeding by using words like THOROUGHBRED or PUREBRED only adds to misunderstandings regarding our fellow animals. And a whole lot more. Anyone who considers herself an animal lover should read this book.

Considering that some 42 states now have felony animal cruelty laws, which recognize that nonhuman animals are not in the same legal category as, say, your plasma TV and are indeed sentient, sapient creatures worthy of protection and recognition, it is positively medieval for the AP stylebook to objectify animals for any reason. We don't do it to humans. Let's not do it to other animals.