English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is it correct to write:

He wants to explain X concept to the layman, not before warning him ...

Or should I write:

He wants to explain X concept to the layman, not before warning him or her ...

share|improve this question
Why not 'layperson'? – user19148 Oct 8 '12 at 21:42
Obviously your first suggestion is entirely correct. The masculine includes the feminine and "him or her" is unnecessary. Unless you are insecure or wallowing in political correctness. – Andrew Leach Oct 8 '12 at 21:43
@Carlo_R. I like your suggestion. If I mean "non-expert" or "non-professional", is 'layperson' really common? So, the solution would be "He wants to explain X concept to the layperson, not before warning him" ...? – c.p. Oct 8 '12 at 22:01
More common to say "He wants to explain X concept in layman terms..." The later construct "not before" overcomplicates the sentence, it might be better to rephrase that. Do you simply mean "after"? – Chris Oct 8 '12 at 22:02
Jorge, "He wants to explain X concept to the layperson, not before warning whom ..." is better. – user19148 Oct 8 '12 at 22:23
up vote 0 down vote accepted

The easy (and for once not inelegant) solution is to evade the issue by using the collective:

He wants to explain X to the laity, not before warning them ...

EDIT Since use of laity in a non-religious sense has excited considerable comment, I note that OED 1 dates it back to 1832, citing the Jurisprudence of John Austin, a leading philosopher of law:

The laity (or non-lawyer part of the community) are competent to conceive the more general rules.

And for those who object to grounding an argument on the usage of a lawyer, I offer the greatest modern master of English prose style:

All professions are conspiracies against the laity. —Bernard Shaw, Preface to The Doctor's Dilemma

share|improve this answer
That's right -- no more disrespectful than does "lay". "Laity" is the collective term for all lay persons; it is employed in the literal sense by religious writers (including those in the Church), and in the figurative sense wherever there is a clear distinction between experts and everybody else. If anything, disrespect is imputed in the other direction, when a writer wants to suggest that the experts take an inflated view of their status. – StoneyB Oct 8 '12 at 22:47
Right, it doesn't sound disrespectful, just a bit more religion-related. If it's not about the Church, then people sometimes use "amateurs" or "civilians", both fairly informal, or "nonprofessionals", more formal. – user21497 Oct 8 '12 at 22:49
Language use is a bitch. Words seem not to matter to so many speakers & writers until some word pushes their buttons, & then the sky falls. Everything said & written in English these days is indisputably disputable & has been exceedingly so since the 1960s. We're told in biomed that we must say "A patient with [disease X]" rather than "A [disease X] patient" because the latter makes it sound as if [disease X] is a personal trait (e.g., "a diabetic patient") rather than a temporary state of being ("fisherman" vs. "fishing man" vs. "sleeping man"). Makes writing tough sometimes. – user21497 Oct 8 '12 at 23:40
@BillFranke: Haha, ridiculous. PC-ness sucks. Just refuse! – Cerberus Oct 9 '12 at 0:57
This comment thread is now getting auto-flagged for its length. Everybody is reminded of our chat. Here, things that are not directly related to the answer will have to be deleted. Thanks. – RegDwigнt Oct 9 '12 at 9:43

I would suggest either using layperson and using either him or her or them which can be used as a singular.

Historically, he can be used to mean he or she, but nowadays I think it's less acceptible due to changing tastes and English being a living, changing language. I've also seen she used meaning he or she and I think that's fine but inelegant.

I would use he or she/*him or her* or they/*them*.

The singular-they has been used in English for a long time, and I think ultimately offends fewer people than just he or just she.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.