>>>>>>Q2) Is it true that in an attempt to enforce "equality" the words him and her have been combined into a new word "hem" ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Years ago I proposed (in casual amongst family, friends, anyone who would listen whenever the issue came up) that the word "heir" be extended to have that meaning (to be used in a case meaning his / her / their). It already has that type of connotation, meaning an heir can be a him, a her (or even a them). :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>I often see things like this in documentation:
>>>>>When the user clicks the login button, s/he will find the main screen appears.
>>>>
>>>>imo, if a new word is invented because it genuinely improves the use of language, improves communication and understanding between people, that is one thing. But to invent words in an attempt to be politically correct or to try and pretend that male and female are the same I think is pointless.
>>>>
>>>>(NB: I am not suggesting that is what the "heir" word is about - I dont know about that or how it would/might benefit communication or understanding).
>>>
>>>I remember when there was great debate (ok, more dicta from the PC police) regarding the words "fireman", "chairman" and "policeman" . I thought that gender equality meant redefining our conception of the existing word so that "fireman" meant a person who fought fires ( "firefighter" is kind of cool though so that one went through pretty easily ) "Police woman" really did sound sexist somehow so "police officer" works. "Chairperson" just never worked for me and I think "Madame Chairman" is now a correct form of address though I am sure some wopersons may not agree :-)
>>
>>I'm good with firefighter as it accurately describes that job. As does police officer. Chairman/woman/person... dont know really. I have no sexist ideas about a woman being called woman and a man being called a man. They are not the same so why do they need the same title? But, hey, I want to be called Supreme Ruler of the Entire Known, Unknown and Parallel Universe - but do you think my wife (the "Person" of the House) does what I say ...
>
>When I studied Spanish I learned that there were masculine and feminine endings of words. Latin based languages do not have a problem with sexual identity. Around 1970 it seems that the English language became sensitive to the sex of the individual being described. We attributed this to the movement at UC Berkeley, which spread around the world.
>
>The word “their” became “his/her”, and continues to change. What is acceptable today is not so tomorrow. English speaking people (especially Americans) have a real hang up with sexual identity. We really do not know what we are. In fact we are still making up words to describe our sexual selves. The emphasis is upon sex and not the role involved.
>
>If we are going to treat people according to “their” sexuality, then let us become more inclusive and add male, female, homosexual, lesbian, transvestite, bisexual or whatever you can add to the list.
>
>It is so much easier to just say “Mailman”, which had a specific meaning a few decades ago. Next you will have to say, “Mail male, female, homosexual, lesbian, transvestite, bisexual”, to indicate someone who delivers the mail. :)

The good thing is that at least we're paying attention to the real problems of society.