[by Xavier-Laurent Salvador]

In the recent "debate" between Elianne Viennot to Jean Szlamowicz, we witnessed one of those contortionist numbers that only the media can offer. And the roaring lioness transformed before the astonished eyes of the viewers into a gentle lamb. Here, listening to him, is a strange reduction of the inclusive sauce that does not fail to challenge those who, like us, since 2017 and the publication of the first school textbook in inclusive writing for CE2, have been following the developments of this file with dismay.

Our interlocutor, who presents herself here as a historian, sometimes as a linguist and we thought literary, offers a definition of rare modesty of the nevertheless thunderous and profitable inclusive revolution of spelling. It deserved to be reported, let's see a little. To begin, it is explained to us that "according to elle", the use of the midpoint – "that's how it is what "proceeds" - must be reduced in its uses to words which "are duets". We listened to the broadcast again, thinking at first that we had heard "duel" - which would not be uninteresting - but no, no, no: we heard it correctly: it is indeed "duet" that is in question, id est of the anglicism translating "duo". The logic of the pair or couple being undoubtedly too "marked", the use of "duet" visibly covers words that would exist in a quasi-homographic form in the masculine and feminine. Thus, while on the screen scrolls the now very old-fashioned Hatier en inclusive manual from 2017 with the famous image of the banner "farmers over time", we hear the theoretician who nevertheless inspired this masterpiece affirm:

No, I don't use "Farmer.rice.s". I reserve the use of the middle dot for the word which are duets.

"Agriculteur.rice" is therefore not a "duet" pair, it is ... a masculine and a feminine that therefore have nothing to link morphologically. On the other hand, we are interested to learn on this occasion that the eternal "student.e", is indeed a "duet". Well, yes: what! come on, we just have to add an "e" at the end. hmm, yeah: finally, it is indeed the meaning of the existence of a masculine and a feminine to underline pairs morphological of words linked by a morphological process which characterizes the spelling.

We will agree, however, that in this quagmire, the morphological distinction between "duets" and other words does not argue in favor of ease of teaching in primary school. Already the children's spelling level "diving" since 2016 (source the world), we do not see the teacher – or the teacher for that matter – launching into the marvelous description of the subtle distinctions between “the typical words students that serve the inclusive cause" and other words "that imply heavy repetition" such as: "farmers, but also women farmers". Because that is what it is about. And words that are not "duets", then? Are they neutral? Because suddenly the neutral bursts into the debate? While for years we have been told that the neutral in French is a figment of the imagination ? A whim of bitter, white, heteropatriarchal and unpleasant old grammarians? That's interesting. Ah, but we probably don't understand anything: the words "which are not duets" are words which have a feminine spelling that is too complicated to be abbreviated by the median point and which therefore, blah blah blah. Eh: tell me, what if, to make life easier, we admitted that the masculine is an unmarked gender? So, we would spare ourselves the question of heavy repetition, we would admit that spelling is a morphological process – without any link to any denoted or connoted reality (yes, because the regime of meaning in language is more complex than its reduction to an emoji-like iconicity). Yes, because that is the issue: the subtle question in which our colleague gets entangled is intimately linked to a misinterpretation of hermeneutics. Language, although sometimes conveyed by more or less complex graphic signs, is not illustrated by its sign. And writing is not an illustration of meaning.

It's different with emojis, for example. Emojis are funnier: you get it right away, without having to bother deciphering it. A smiling black face illustrates the joyful emotion of an interlocutor who is asserting his ethnicity.

In language, when we are satisfied with the text – it is more complicated to know if the author is smiling. What is his skin color? Nothing says. In addition, he can lie and delegate to a narrator a mediated speech. It is embarrassing. But nothing says in the writing where the truth lies: in the etymology? In the archaeology of the sign? In the sign itself? It so happens that I myself have written a small book on the question (see here) to which I refer the honorable reader: things are sometimes more complicated than one would like. Well, so the duets, it was not very happy.

The sequence was just as interesting when we found ourselves defining the midpoint as an abbreviation. An a-bre-via-tion. Like "Mr." (and "Mrs."?) or, according to the lady who is definitely using anglicisms, "Mr." So no, we'll come back for a moment to this new kind of madness.

An abbreviation is used in language, in administration, in correspondence, for the convenience of the writer. It is also quite improper: pardon me, but when you write a letter to a superior – unless you give up all hope of promotion for the next 20 years – I doubt that you start your letters with “Hello Madam, how are you?” No? Am I right or am I wrong? Now the “convenience of the writer”, or his laziness: this is precisely what the school is fighting against. We do not teach a child who is learning the spelling of his language to save himself writing. We teach him to write. And it would be a foolish idea to teach him to write abbreviations.

Then, it is wrong to say that the midpoint is an abbreviation, simply because we only ever abbreviate what we say. And the use of the midpoint does not abbreviate a usage, it imposes a new one and then presents itself as its abbreviation. It is absurd, it is true – but it is to Eliane Viennot that we must speak, not to us who are content to bail. And then, an abbreviation is done with the common signs of writers. The invention of the midpoint, which the wokes gargle with, who have made it an entry on Wikipedia for the pleasure of pretending to be encyclopedists without understanding that they are destroying the fragile edifice that supports them, is a variation of the spelling code without much interest but which requires learning (proof is in Wikipedia):

The midpoint is a typographic sign “ · ” similar to the point but placed above the baseline

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_médian

We remember the "French women, French men; Belgians, Belgians" of Desproges who cheerfully mocked De Gaulle and Giscard; we do not see that the thing was so brilliant that it had to be imposed for "farmers, male and female farmers", but hey...

So, let's summarize: "duets", abbreviations.

In short: inclusive writing, in fact, Mrs. Viennot does not know what it is. And let no one pull the stunt on us usage: it is not a usage, it is an ideological resource. We will not return to the spelling disinheritance of our students who often suffer from not knowing how to agree verbs with their subject: I do not see that they are now asked to refer to a vague use of an improbable duet whose use of the abbreviation requires the learning of a new typographic and spelling standard which implies having done bac+12 to grasp the nuance.

Everything in the posture of this debate actually showed the deflating of the idea. The lioness became the lamb. "But no, sleep, good people; it's not serious." The only contribution to the history of ideas of this foolish project will have been to engender a unique monster, the one that is also cited in the exchange: the eternal "students." It is likely that this form will remain because it is iconic (in the sense of emoji) of youth. But it will disappear from other jobs, because without a doubt, apart from the eternal activists of their own cause, few "directors" will be able to accommodate such an ugly title.

What to remember from all this

Inclusive writing, even for its supporters, who we do not know whether they reason as historians, linguists or associate professors, is a great unthought that is beyond them. The presupposition which consists in considering that invisibility of women through writing is based on a vision of language based on iconicity and which reduces spelling to an eternal emoji. Writing – in the manner of a hieroglyph – would illustrate rather than the sign would denote. This is absurd for any linguist. We try to say it, but we are forced to hear children's speeches: "finally, the masculine prevails over the feminine"! Come on... "The neutral does not exist!" Oh really? Do you ride horses? Have rats invaded Paris? The louse and the flea, do you know that they are a couple? Let's move on. At least, let us grant linguists, language historians the credit we give to any TV set expert.

The conspiracy against the fair sex in the 17th century – a period during which women were not lacking in power, but do our historians know this? – is a fascinating metaphor that says more about those who tell it than about those who hatched it. The idea that “language shapes man (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) is an approximation that makes us smile and that we thought we had eliminated from the landscape. The arbitrariness of the sign is a solid foundation of morphological thought, etc.

The problem remains that of the simplicity of access to the idea and its penetration into the University. Doctoral schools, administrations, their teachers communicate officially by feeding the juicy business of inclusive training. And young teachers, for more than five years now, claim to teach it in class as such, make petitions, say it and assume it. But the problem is not whether the reason why they do it is legitimate:
– Should we raise awareness among children about gender equality? Yes.
– should we teach gender equality, fight against patriarchy in the classroom? Yes, yes.
– should we confront the sectarian beliefs of children and their families? Yes.

But do you think it is necessary to do this by assuming one's position in class as part of a course? Or is it better to give oneself a clear conscience by doing it surreptitiously by teaching a vague orthographic usage that no one understands but which gives one a clear conscience?

Inclusive writing is a keyboard activism that avoids addressing real problems. Some have made it the driving force of their careers, so be it. But by instituting it in the middle school classroom, we divert the institution from its principles, we weaken the language and ultimately we end up doing the opposite of what we claim to do: we deconstruct the French language, and we do not in any way strengthen the position of the teacher or mistress in the classroom.

So Mr. Minister (and not: "Mr. l'M.str.e"): you are right to be worried. The problem is not limited to a delirium of academics. It has been a long time since it penetrated schools, for five years now attempts to impose it in textbooks have been recurring regularly and that behind the scenes, the same people who act like lambs on television are offering training courses hardcore for administrative staff in order to force them to accept this lamentable practice.

Let's give the floor to these ladies:

We have become serpents,
experts in viper language
Consonant vowel vowel that we sound
We are no longer in silence

https://cnnlngs.blogspot.com/p/le-e-muette-pendant-que-les-autres-se.html