“Just to the extent that man has freed himself from the dominion of ghosts he has advanced; to that extent he has freed himself from the tyrant’s poison. Man has found that he must give liberty to others in order to have it himself. He has found that a master is a slave; that a tyrant is also a slave.”

The above passage came from a lecture — later published — by the noted lawyer and orator Robert Ingersoll. A staunch abolitionist as well as an outspoken agnostic, Ingersoll was quite liberal by 19th-century American standards. But if he were writing and speaking today, the “Great Agnostic” would face sharp criticism (at least from liberals) for his use of generic male language.

The habit of using male-specific words to refer to both males and females continued long after Ingersoll and his peers left the scene. As a schoolboy, I knew that “mankind” referred to all people, that a “chairman” could, at least hypothetically, be a woman, and when Thomas Jefferson declared “All men are created equal,” he meant all women, too. But the rise of the Women’s Movement in the 1960s and 70s generated opposition to the use of male generic words. According to Selin Kesebir of the London Business School, “When male generic language is used, people are far more likely to picture men instead of women. This results in a lack of mental and linguistic representation, which excludes women and limits women’s opportunities.”

Some may feel that Kesebir and those who agree with her are making a tempest in a teapot, but in fact, there are research findings that back up her argument. In any case, if you are writing for an audience that includes young women and others who are sensitive to gender issues, you should use male-specific words with caution or even not at all.

So how can a writer avoid male-specific language when making statements about people in general or specific groups of people? Gender-neutral words provide part of the answer. “Humanity” is often a good substitute for “man” and “mankind.” Nouns such as “society” and “the civilized world” can also work sometimes. Replacing male generic pronouns is more challenging. Some writers avoid the issue by using plural nouns and their corresponding pronouns. Others pair a generic male pronoun with a generic female pronoun. This latter method, however, can lead to cumbersome, overly long sentences. Consider this example: An investor knows he or she must make wise decisions about his or her future, and about keeping himself or herself financially stable. The doubled-up pronouns may be gender neutral but they also help make this sentence awkward.

There is another option, less used than the others, that deserves more attention. It’s the use of male generic nouns and pronouns interchangeably with female generic nouns and pronouns. In this case, the writer doesn’t pair up the words side by side, but rather uses male generic words in some places, and female generic words elsewhere in the same composition. The logic behind this method is rooted in the belief the sexes are of equal value. If a male-specific word can represent all humanity, why can’t a female-specific word do the same? It also results in better, smoother writing.

Following this pattern, Ingersoll’s passage above could be restated as follows: “Just to the extent that woman has freed herself from the dominion of ghosts she has advanced; to that extent she has freed herself from the tyrant’s poison. Man has found that he must give liberty to others in order to have it himself. He has found that a master is a slave; that a tyrant is also a slave.”

While this sample illustrates the “alternating gender-specific word” method, it might be better if a writer stayed with the same gender throughout a whole paragraph before switching to the other. That will lend a certain balance and consistency to the composition, while still demonstrating the writer’s commitment to creating a gender-neutral message.

So I strongly recommend that a writer adopt the “alternating gender-specific word” method to maintain gender neutrality in his writing.

She won’t be sorry she did.