When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was writing briefs arguing against sex discrimination in the 1970s, her secretary objected to repeated use of the word “sex” in the documents. The secretary’s objection was that the predominantly male judges of that time would be so distracted by the word “sex” that their thoughts would turn to matters far from the merits of the case. Ginsburg substituted the word “gender,” and thus our contemporary misuse of that term was born. I think of this when I read articles in which the writer displays his PC credentials by using the feminine pronoun when the generic pronoun is required. Imagine, Ginsburg feared that all those sobersided judges and justices steeped in the dry intricacies of the law might be set to percolating by mention of sex, recalling their youthful forays into burlesque houses or whatnot. So likewise, when the feminine pronoun appears where it doesn’t belong, many readers will think of sex where it doesn’t belong. A writer may think he is being modish when he writes, for example, “a lawyer has to consider her client’s wishes,” but the effect on the reader may be to imagine a full-lipped honey in a short skirt.