Kevin Bossuet is a professor of history and geography in the Parisian suburbs.
Inclusive writing, which designates all the graphic and syntactic processes aimed at ensuring equality of representations between men and women within the language, has been at the forefront of the media scene for several days. -Politics.
Indeed, François Jolivet, LREM deputy, has just tabled a bill aiming to prohibit it "
in administrative documents
" and for legal persons charged with a public service mission because, according to him, this writing would be a “
personal and militant
” act
which “
scrambles the messages
” and which “
complicates the learning of the French language
”.
Its text, which was signed by about sixty members of the majority and the opposition, demonstrates forcefully that the aversion to this “
degenerate
”
language
transcends political divisions.
Indeed, this propensity to want to include in each sentence the two sexes by the means of the use of the midpoint so that "
the masculine no longer prevails over the feminine
" (we will thus write "
the deputies
" or even “
voters
”) or by granting functions, professions or titles and ranks according to gender (we will thus write “
an author
” or even “
an author
”) simply makes the language French illegible while contributing very largely to distort it.
Some teachers go so far as to use inclusive writing in their classroom or even to teach it as such.
This new fad of the present time against a background of stupid and nasty militancy could make us smile if it had not made a sensational entry into our public services, and more particularly within the school of the Republic.
Indeed, many teachers, who seem to confuse personal convictions, pedagogical freedom and neutrality of the public service, do not hesitate within the framework of their mission to use it.
In fact, when you are a teacher, you just have to open your professional mailbox to realize how those who are supposed to transmit our beautiful French language are the first to cripple to better display their almost fanatic support for the pseudo- feminism of the beautiful neighborhoods.
Teacher unions, led by SNES-FSU and Sud Education, do not hesitate to use inclusive writing in their leaflets or in the messages that they regularly send by email to teachers in order to standardize and trivialize the better to make it accepted.
Worse still, some teachers push the vice to use inclusive writing in their classroom or even teach it as such.
Indeed, in November 2017, as part of a forum for the Slate.fr site, 314 teachers of all levels and all audiences stated bluntly: “
We, primary, secondary, higher and higher education teachers. of French as a foreign language, declare that we have stopped or are preparing to stop teaching the grammar rule summarized by the formula "
The masculine prevails over the feminine".
They add: "
Why [women] would not agree to earn less than their colleagues, or to accomplish chores which their companions do without, or to endure their blows, if it is accepted at the highest level that"
the masculine prevails over feminine
”?
The fight against gender stereotypes, which is essential to the progress of the real equality of women and men, cannot be effectively carried out if this maxim is not ostracized from school.
"
An article published last December on the Marianne.fr site and entitled "
These teachers who import inclusive writing at school:
Deconstructing can be done at any age" showed that for some teachers, teaching inclusive writing is a daily practice.
The example of Anne is eloquent from this point of view: “
Anne, who presents herself […] as a '
teacher who denounces discrimination at school', takes her '
small inclusive step
' in class.
To read also:
"When illustrious jurists start to inclusive writing"
For its part, it is by writing on the board “
the lists of adjectives to learn with the point of separation: content.e;
intelligent.
It doesn't cost anything, it doesn't shock [the students], and I tell myself that they will be used to this way of writing when they see it ”.
"Agnès, for her part, teacher of a CE2 class in the Val d'Oise"
also tries to "
advance morals and minds
" by distilling small touches of "
inclusion".
As she says in the article: “
There is no age to realize the main challenge of our generation and future generations, equality.
"
Gaël Pasquier, who is a lecturer in sociology at the Ecole Supérieure du Professorat et de l'Éducation at the University of Paris-Est Créteil and who a few years earlier was a school teacher and director of a nursery school in the Val -de-Marne, already noted in 2013 in an article published in the journal “
Training and teaching practices in questions
” that some teachers regularly engage in this practice.
Using inclusive writing in the classroom or teaching it is plainly criminal for students (who are not advanced readers) and for those who have the most difficulty.
Let us quote: “
At elementary school, where language learning is as essential in oral as in writing, the question also arises of the possibilities of getting around certain grammatical uses on paper, without having to as much to give habits to the pupils which would be detrimental to them in the future.
"He adds:"
Camille and Nathalie thus use hyphens which allow the adjective to be matched to both masculine and feminine, by combining the grammatical marks of each gender: girls and boys are tired.
This usage, established in feminist circles, also encourages adding masculine and feminine forms within a single word: teacher.
"Indeed, as he points out, for Camille, a teacher:"
when you write on the blackboard, well I chose the dash in writing because out of the question to put women in brackets, it lasted long enough as it.
"
Tools are even made available to teachers so that they can use or teach inclusive writing in the classroom.
For example, in March 2017, Éditions Hatier (a subsidiary of the Hachette group) designed a textbook for CE2 students in which we find titles in inclusive writing.
For example, we could read: “
Thanks to farmers, craftsmen and traders, Gaul was a rich country.
"
Read also:
Those excluded from inclusive writing
In November 2018, it was the turn of the Dunod publishing house (also a subsidiary of the Hachette group) to offer teachers a book entitled “
Teaching equality between girls and boys
” and aimed at reducing gender inequalities within schools.
One of the many dossiers in the book is devoted to language as a “
tool of equality
” and recommends that teachers promote egalitarian language practices such as inclusive writing or encourage learning, particularly in the context of foreign languages, gendered forms for names that traditionally refer to men as is the case for example of firefighter in English (fireman and firewoman).
However, using inclusive writing in the classroom or teaching it is simply criminal for students (who are not confirmed readers), and more particularly for those who are the most in difficulty.
Indeed, with this type of language, reading loses fluidity because it is disturbed by midpoints or dashes (which chops up words and sentences), especially when we know that among the youngest, many speak internally when they read a text.
As for reading aloud, it is made very complicated since the pupil must, for example, detect that "
teacher
" reads "
teachers
" and not "
teachers
".
This results in an increasingly yawning gap between oral and written.
In addition, with the word “
Muslims
”, for example, the student must learn the function of the midpoint beforehand to understand that the “
s
” is added to both masculine and feminine.
And what about children and adolescents suffering from dyslexia, dyspraxia or dysphasia and who will be even more in difficulty within the framework of the teachings?
An ideological process
In addition, inclusive writing which is purely and simply ideological delusion tends to reduce women to one gender or one sex.
Our identity is much more complex.
A woman is not just a woman and a man is not just a man.
Tackling sexism is good, but doing it through inclusive writing is completely silly.
A teacher can both teach that in the language "
the masculine trumps the feminine
" and explain that this should not be the case in society.
The truth is that inclusive writing, which has the primary goal of fighting against the invisibility of women, has nothing to do with the school of the Republic.
It is purely and simply a militant act of adults that children and adolescents do not have to undergo.
The teachers who decide to use it in class and to teach it indisputably violate their duty of neutrality and take their students for guinea pigs.
The teachers who decide to use it in class and to teach it indisputably violate their duty of neutrality and take their students for guinea pigs.
They sink into ideology and engage in politics instead of teaching, which they are paid for!
Classrooms are in fact neither ideological laboratories for azimuth progressives nor places of political activism of the most unbridled leftism.
Jean-Michel Blanquer has moreover condemned on several occasions the use of this writing within the school institution by affirming in particular that
the equality between men and women is a subject much too important for it to be damaged by totally unnecessary polemics over language.
He adds: "
I tell these teachers that grammar is not decided by an individual.
They have no right and are at fault.
" It can not be any clearer!
However, despite the unequivocal condemnation by the Ministry of National Education of inclusive writing, many teachers continue to use it and teach it as if nothing had happened.
The disapproval of the latter by members of the Académie Française who speak of a "
mortal danger
" for our language has also had no effect on those who, within the school, use and teach it. .
This is why it is now time to crack down and, as proposed by the deputy François Jolivet, to prohibit by law the use of inclusive writing at school, and more generally within our services. public.
Language is indeed the first knowledge and does not have to be damaged and falsified by those who are responsible for transmitting it.
As for the educational freedom available to each teacher, it cannot be that of being able to deform and dismantle the language for purely ideological and militant ends.
Traditional learning of the French language at school must remain a priority.
Our language is intrinsically part of our identity, it is its cement, its quintessence, which gives it its uniqueness and what marks its difference.
Inclusive writing shatters its symphony and spoils its scope and meaning.
It constitutes in fact a form of separatism which should no longer have its place within the school of the Republic.