42 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al.

HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53

Gender-fair language usage among Kalinga State University faculty,

correlational with gender stereotype impressions
Abigail Quimosing-Ocay1*, Odette C. Pannogan1, Lailani C. Banggawan1
1
Kalinga State University, Tabuk City, Kalinga, Philippines
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

DOI:10.46223/HCMCOUJS. This study assessed the relationship between gender-fair

soci.en.14.3.2803.2024 language usage and the extent of gender stereotype impressions
among the faculty of Kalinga State University. Specifically, it
determined the extent of gender-fair language usage and the
Received: June 07th, 2023 extent of gender stereotype impressions among the respondents,
and it also identified if there is a significant relationship
Revised: September 20th, 2023
between the extent of gender-fair language usage and the extent
Accepted: October 01st, 2023 of gender stereotype impressions among the respondents.
Significantly, the study revealed that the faculty are very
sensitive to gender-fair language usage and very sensitive to
their level of gender-stereotype impressions. It also revealed
that there is a significant relationship between the extent of
gender-fair language usage and the extent of gender stereotype
impressions among the Kalinga State University faculty. Thus,
it was concluded that there is a high regard for gender
Keywords: sensitivity among the faculty of Kalinga State University as a
result of their very sensitive level of gender-fair language usage
gender and development; gender
equality; gender-fair language; and very sensitive level of gender-stereotype impressions.
gender issues; gender stereotype Consequently, one’s perception of gender-fair language usage
impressions also affects one’s impression of gender stereotyping.

1. Introduction
The world is gradually changing. Along with the changes that occur due to the advent of
new and high-end technology are the changes in education and workplace settings, business
sectors, community trends, family orientations, and the less observed but massively influenced
by the change is language - the way people perceive things and talk are becoming contemporary
and open as compared to the past decades.
Consequently, an undying issue that is certainly tackled in media, in the workplaces, in
the community, in schools, and even at home is gender. Gender topics such as gender
stereotyping, sexism, gender roles, gender bias, and LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, etc.) community, among others are sensitive issues that
need to be given attention. Along with these issues is the advocacy of gender sensitivity (Pandey,
2018; Rajesh, 2017). If we look around, many are still insensitive about how they carry
language, gender sensitively and ethically, and the most considerable influence is certainly the
media. Media plays a primary role in shaping gender stereotypes (Ward & Grower, 2020).
Examples identified in the blog of 21st Century Group 2 (n.d.) are movies such as The Hunger
Games, Divergent, and the Disney movies such as Aladdin, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and
 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53 43

Cinderella, among others. From a different perspective, the positive role of media could help
overcome gender stereotyping (Hussain, Naz, Khan, & Daraz, 2015). Hence, when media
spreads positive advocacies on gender, the viewers include different social individuals such as
parents and children, who are also employees, students, or employers. If this media platform
becomes consistent, these social individuals can reflect and become responsible in their
workplaces and in the schools where they belong to.
In the workplace and in school, where diverse people share beliefs, traditions, and
cultural values, gender is an inevitable issue. Further, according to 21st Century Group 2’s (2012)
blog, Why Does Gender Stereotyping in the Workplace Occur, gender stereotyping is apparent in
the workplace because it is assumed that women belong at home. Additionally, in a school where
gender stereotyping is also evident, the school cannot choose the gender of the teachers who will
teach and the students who will study. Subsequently, teachers are known to be role models to
students and the society they live in as they carry the “noblest profession.” Anent, the manner in
which they use their language could influence their students and the community. Moreover, for
educators to be effective with a varied population, they must first be cognizant of their own
racial and cultural biases (Alismail, 2016; Cannon, 2010; Lin & Bates, 2014; McAllister &
Irvine, 2002), including gender bias. This gender sensitivity or gender awareness is an essential
first step towards promoting morale in the school.
Hence, this study will make it possible to continue advocating gender-fair language
usage, especially among teachers who are the number one role models in the classroom. They are
responsible for the strategies and approaches to address the student’s strengths and needs
(National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environment, n.d.). Whatever changes in the
language dispositions of the teachers will also influence the way students will display their
language. Long (2011) contended that all teachers are language teachers because students in the
classroom adopt the way they use language. Hence, they are expected to be the number one to
carry gender-fair language in the school.
2. Literature review
The study foregrounds the following concepts, which share insights on the significant result
of the relationship between gender-fair language usage and gender-stereotype impressions.
2.1. Gender and education
Gender is a broad issue that many authors have extensively discussed for decades. It has
always been a significant topic as it affects all ways of life - language, culture, personalities,
workplaces, trades and industries, and laws, among others. Generally, it refers to the socially
constructed roles of an individual - whether one chooses the roles of men or women regardless of
sex (male, female). That is why there are males who choose the roles of women, referred to as
“gays,” and women who prefer the roles of men called “lesbians.”
Gender is an inevitable issue in education. It is a broad topic that includes the categories
of “socialization in schools, the social experience of schooling, textbooks/books/curriculum,
educational attainment, educators/education workers, higher education, and cross-cultural
educational practices” (Khurshid, 2015, p. 113). Consequently, gender contemplates many
relevant issues, such as social interactions in the school, integration of gender equality in the
curriculum, development of gender-sensitized instructional materials, and use of gender-sensitive
language in communication among teachers and students.
44 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53

In the Philippine education system, gender equality is mandated for its strict
implementation. From the Basic Education, Department Order 32, s. 2017 encloses the Gender-
Responsive Basic Education Policy (Department of Education, 2017), which secures women’s
rights from any form of discrimination. The same is carried in the Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs), as the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) established the policies and guidelines
on gender and development in HEIs through CHED Memorandum Order No. 1, s. 2015 - gender
mainstreaming as one of the strategies used to disseminate gender equality, responsiveness, and
sensitivity (CHED, 2015). Thus, educators are expected to model gender equality among the
students, their constituents, and the community with the use of gender-fair language.
2.2. Gender-fair language and Gender-stereotyping
Many authors delved into the vital role of gender-fair language in promoting gender
equality. Koeser and Sczesny (2014) posited that speakers are motivated to use gender-fair
language terms when exposed to arguments promoting gender-fair language. As the law of
reciprocity imparts, one may relate it to Koeser and Sczeny’s study that an individual positively
reciprocates using gender-fair language as learned from others. Moreover, Harris, Blencowe, and
Telem (2017), through their research on why gender-fair language matters, initiated the use of
gender-inclusive language among medical practitioners as it promotes gender-fair language and
racial and social equality. Further, Xiao, Strickland, and Peperkamp (2023) perceived in their
study that gender-fair language reduces male bias and promotes neutral or female-stereotype
professions, however, inducing female bias for male-stereotype professions.
As studies continue to explore gender-fair language usage, Vergoossen, Renstrom,
Lindqvist, and Senden (2020) also identified four dimensions of criticism on the use of gender-
fair language, which include: (1) Defending the Linguistic Status Quo - the use of gender-neutral
terms; (2) Sexism and Cisgenderism - gender bias and disbelieving other genders aside from
original sexes from birth; (3) Diminishing the Issue and its Proponents - the more the proponents
discuss gender, the more issues are revealed; and (4) Distractor in Communication - making
considerations of gender in all forms of communication whenever possible. Discussing further,
the use of neutral terms, such as using the pronoun form “he/she” instead of “he” alone, would
create an awkward structure of the text, mainly seeing “he/she” if subjects are in pronoun forms.
As such, it brings about linguistics and gender. On cisgenderism, it draws back to the genetic
origination of human beings that it is either male or female. Whatever roles an individual take,
they are still considered male or female. As to diminishing issues, gender is a never-ending issue
as it reveals more topics of discussion the more it is being studied because gender covers all
ways of life, such as personalities, choices, aspirations, professions, cultures, workplaces, and
relationships. With the inevitable entangling of gender with all ways of life, considerations in all
communication forms would become a distraction, as one should think before uttering words that
may discriminate against any particular gender.
Further, Sczesny, Formanowicz, and Moser (2016) discussed that gender-fair language
aims to reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination. Hence, two strategies were offered:
neutralization and feminization - replacing male-masculine forms with gender-unmarked forms
for the former and using feminine forms for the latter. Examples of neutralization are using the
terms police officer, chairperson, or sales associate instead of their gender-bias counterpart,
policeman, chairman, or saleslady, respectively. As to feminization, examples include female
professors, comediennes, or heroin instead of professors, comedians, or heroes, which are only
signifying males.
 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53 45

Finally, in the school context, where language must be carried with the utmost care, the
more the expectation of using gender-fair language should be guaranteed. Whether teachers or
students, gender-fair language is a significant awareness of the use of gender-nondiscriminatory
words between and among students and teachers. As emphasized by Cendaña (2018), the
inclusion of the concepts of gender fairness in the curriculum is essential across instructional
materials, classroom activities, and assessment tools. Significantly, the government, the school,
and the teachers should ensure a safe and supportive learning environment (United Nations,
2022), and part of that environment identified by the UN includes gender-sensitive teachers’
programs, training teachers, comprehensive sexuality education, and respect regulations.
Moreover, “every teacher is accountable to possess the essential teacher competencies so as to
make the teaching-learning environment gender-neutral” (DurgaLekshmi & Vitus, 2022, p. 189).
Hence, the school should work together with the government to provide a gender-fair
environment, which cuts across the use of language carried by the teachers that would then
reflect to the students.
3. Research method
The study made use of a quantitative research design, employing a survey-correlational
approach. The survey approach elucidated data on the extent of gender-fair language usage and
on the dominant gender stereotype impressions. The correlational approach was employed to
solicit answers on the relationship between the extent of gender-fair language usage and the
extent of gender stereotype impressions among the respondents. The correlational part was
conducted after employing the survey approach.
This study was conducted at Kalinga State University, which is composed of three
campuses: Dagupan Campus, where the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and the
College of Business Administration and Accountancy are situated; Bulanao Campus, which caters
programs under the College of Education, College of Engineering and information technology,
College of Agriculture, College of Forestry, College of Health and Natural Science, College of
Public Administration, and the College of Entrepreneurship, Tourism, and Hotel Management;
and the Rizal Campus, which caters the College of Agro-Forestry and Environmental Studies.
The respondents of the study were the permanent faculty members of Kalinga State
University (KSU) who were employed for the School Year 2021 - 2022. Specifically, the study
comprised 103 respondents or 45.37 percent of the total population of permanent KSU faculty.
The researchers made use of a questionnaire as the main instrument in gathering data,
which comprised: (1) Part I solicited information on the respondents’ profile as to age, sex, years
of teaching, and GAD-related training attended; (2) Part II delved into the extent of gender-fair
language usage among the respondents; and (3) Part III dealt with the extent of gender stereotype
impressions among the respondents.
The questionnaire was partly adopted from the study of Clemente and Clemente (2015)
entitled “Sociolinguistic Competence in Gender-Fair Language Usage among Faculty of
Cagayan State University.” Modifications were made, specifically on the common expressions of
gender stereotypes and some items on the dominant impressions of gender stereotypes, in order
to fit the objectives of the study. In order to give results to the objectives posed in this study, the
following steps were undertaken:
The following scale was used to determine the extent of gender-fair language usage
among the respondents:
46 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53

Table 1
Scale as to the extent gender-fair language usage
% of Correct Responses Description Symbol
80 - 100 Very Much Sensitive VMS
60 - 79 Much Sensitive MS
40 - 59 Moderately Sensitive MoS
20 - 39 Less Sensitive LS
0 - 19 Not Sensitive NS
Source: The researcher’s data analysis
On the other hand, the following scale and interpretations were used to describe the
dominant impressions of gender stereotypes of the respondents:
Table 2
Scale as to the extent of gender-stereotype impressions
Arbitrary Interpretations of Impressions on
Limits Answer Categories Symbol
Value Gender Stereotypes
5 4.21 - 5.00 Very Much Agree Not Sensitive NS
4 3.41 - 4.20 Much Agree Less Sensitive LS
3 2.61 - 3.40 Moderately Agree Moderately Sensitive MoS
2 1.81 - 2.60 Less Agree Much Sensitive MS
1 1.00 - 1.80 Not Agree Very Much Sensitive VMS
Source: The researcher’s data analysis
Moreover, Pearson Product of Moment Correlation was used to determine the significant
relationship between the extent of gender-fair language usage and dominant gender-stereotype
impressions among the respondents. The level of significance to be used in testing the null
hypothesis is at a .05 level.
4. Results and discussion
This section presents the discussions of findings as to the objectives identified in the
study. The first discussion is the extent of gender-fair language usage, the dominant impressions
of gender stereotypes, and finally, the significant relationship between gender-fair language usage
and the dominant gender stereotype impressions among the faculty of Kalinga State University.
4.1. Extent of gender-fair language usage
Table 3
The extent of gender-fair language usage (N = 103)
No. of Correct Percentage
Indicators DE Rank
Responses (n) (n/103)*100
1. Greeting the newlywed groom 67 65.05 MS 14
2. Greeting the newlywed bride 65 63.12 MS 15
3. The finest manner to identify/address an unmarried
71 68.93 MS 12
female person during formal conversations
 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53 47

No. of Correct Percentage

Indicators DE Rank
Responses (n) (n/103)*100
4. The courteous manner to identify/address a married
80 77.66 MS 7
female person during formal conversations
5. Describing the finest ethics of a lady/woman for
69 66.99 MS 13
being prim and properly behaving when in public
6. Describe the ethical sensitivity manifested by a
72 69.90 MS 11
well-behaved man when in public

7. Calling for an openly known or identified sex worker 88 85.43 VMS 6

8. A more acceptable oral remark as an impression
to an effeminate male, who, with him in public is 76 73.78 MS 9
a group of people of mixed gender
9. A more acceptable remark of impression to a
known homosexual woman, who, with her in 79 76.70 MS 8
public, is a group of people of mixed gender

10. A more acceptable remark when in a line of

73 70.87 MS 10
people transacting any business

11. When mentioning about the job title of female

99 96.12 VMS 1
personnel in the Fire department
12. When mentioning the job title of a female helper
97 94.17 VMS 2
in a department
13. When mentioning the job title of a male helper in
89 86.40 VMS 5
a gasoline station
14. When mentioning more needed assistance
90 87.37 VMS 4
from people
15. When a boy cries about being picked by somebody 91 88.35 VMS 3

Total Average Percentage 82.60 VMS

As apparent from the table, the Kalinga State University faculty are very much sensitive
in terms of gender-fair language usage, as indicated by the total average percentage of 82.60.
This finding implies that there is a high regard for the use of gender-fair language at Kalinga
State University, as the University is also known as an advocate of Gender Equality and
Development. In fact, GAD topics are also integrated into the syllabi of the faculty members
because the faculty members are very much encouraged to incorporate them into their lessons.
While gender inequality is a vital issue of concern in society (Galamgam, Baustista, &
Rosario, 2021), the more that it is a significant concern in schools, where diverse learners
interact and where most bullying issues take place. As significantly asserted by Wade and Ferree
(2015), schools are gendered institutions where there is always the use of gender in all social
interactions, such as when the teacher determines the males and females in the class, teaches
when to use “Ms.” or “Mr.,” among others.
48 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53

Subsequently, Khurshid (2015) identified textbook/curriculum as one of the categories of

the inevitable gender issues in school. In addition, several studies suggest the need to integrate
gender into the curriculum because it can not only help alleviate problems of gender inequality
but also contribute to improving the learners’ academic performance. Hernandez and Cudiamat’s
(2018) study on integrating GAD into the curriculum pursued integrating a gender-responsive
teaching approach to widen the access of different gender groups and improve academic
performance. Their study was conducted at the Basic Education level, wherein they claimed that
GAD must be integrated as early as possible for learners to be acquainted with the issue as soon
as possible. The same is true with Cendaña (2018), where she suggests the inclusion of gender
sensitivity in the curriculum and the conduct of orientations and seminars, and gender sensitivity
training and workshops among teachers. Teachers play a vital role in advocating gender equality
as they are seen by learners as role models. Hence, they must become models of gender equality
themselves in order to influence the learners to do the same.
As to the percentage per indicator, indicator 11, When mentioning the job title of female
personnel in the Fire department, ranked first with a percentage of 93.20 or very much sensitive
in the description, indicator 12, When mentioning the job title of a female helper in a
department, ranked second with the percentage of 89.42 or described as very much sensitive, and
indicator 15, When a boy cries for being picked by somebody, ranked third with the percentage of
88.35 and the same description of very much sensitive.
The above-cited findings reflect that as to mentioning job titles, the KSU faculty
members are very sensitive and opt to use gender-neutral terms such as “firefighter,” “police
officer,” or “sales associate” over gender-biased callings such as “fireman,” “policeman,” and
“sales lady,” among others. The result coincides with Sapir-Whorf’s hypothesis that language
shapes one’s thought process, so striving for a gender-neutral language is vital. It further affirms
(Brown, Rogers, & Caldwell, 2022, p. 02) that “creating a gender-inclusive climate can
powerfully impact learning and school success for all students.” The same is true of the finding
of Garcia (2021) that gender-inclusive language strengthens gender equality, which increases
student participation. Thus, using gender-neutral or inclusive language among faculty can also
impact the students’ language as teachers set the climate in the classroom.
Moreover, indicator 15, which ranked third, implies that the KSU faculty can determine
gender stereotyping as most of them, indicated by 88.35% response, do not overgeneralize that a
boy is feminine when he cries; instead, they chose “cry kid” in such situation to describe a crying
boy. Hence, this finding affirms that gender-fair language reduces gender stereotyping and
discrimination (Sczesny, Formanowicz, & Moser, 2016). Hence, they further offered two
strategies, to wit: neutralization and feminization - replacing male-masculine forms with gender-
unmarked forms for the former and using feminine forms for the latter.
Further, indicators one and two, ranked 14th and 15th as indicated by the percentages of
65.05 and 63.12, respectively. These indicators both refer to the terms used in greeting
newlywed bride and groom. People may be used to the traditional greetings, wherein
“Congratulations” is meant only for the groom and “Best Wishes” is only for the bride. It might
sound indiscriminatory, but to avoid derogatory on the part of the bride, who also deserves to be
congratulated, either of the greetings may be used. The same is true on the part of the groom.
 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53 49

4.2. Extent of gender stereotype impressions

Table 4
The extent of gender stereotype impression (N = 103)

Indicators Mean Interpretation Rank

1. Women always smell good 1.12 Very Much Sensitive 3

2. Women work in department stores 1.02 Very Much Sensitive 1
3. Women are more brilliant than men 1.12 Very Much Sensitive 3
4. Women are always moody 1.57 Very Much Sensitive 9
5. Women try to work out problems while men take
1.65 Very Much Sensitive 13
immediate action
6. All women like the color pink 1.32 Very Much Sensitive 5
7. Women like fashion magazines 1.12 Very Much Sensitive 3
8. Women become cheerleaders 1.69 Very Much Sensitive 18.5
9. Women take 02 hours to shower 1.77 Very Much Sensitive 27
10. Women love mirrors 1.74 Very Much Sensitive 25.5
11. Women are discrete about intimacy 1.73 Very Much Sensitive 24
12. Women do not drive well 1.80 Very Much Sensitive 29
13. Women never take chances 1.72 Very Much Sensitive 22.5
14. Women always talk too much on the phone 1.70 Very Much Sensitive 19.5
15. Men are stronger and more aggressive 1.59 Very Much Sensitive 11
16. Men are better at sports 1.70 Very Much Sensitive 19.5
17. Men hate reading 1.61 Very Much Sensitive 12.5
18. Men always have an “I don’t care” attitude 1.57 Very Much Sensitive 9
19. Men don’t get grossed out by scrapes and bruises 1.72 Very Much Sensitive 22.5
20. Men are tough 1.78 Very Much Sensitive 28
21. Men take 02 seconds to shower 1.45 Very Much Sensitive 6
22. Men could care less if they become bald 1.74 Very Much Sensitive 25.5
23. Men like cars 1.85 Much Sensitive 30
24. Men usually work in messy places 1.69 Very Much Sensitive 16
25. Men brag about intimacy 1.70 Very Much Sensitive 19.5
26. Men take too many chances 1.61 Very Much Sensitive 12.5
27. Men always lose all arguments against girls 1.68 Very Much Sensitive 15.5
28. Men who are not into sports are termed as gay 1.45 Very Much Sensitive 6
29. Men can play musical instruments better 1.57 Very Much Sensitive 9
30. Men talk less 1.70 Very Much Sensitive 19.5
Total 1.57 Very Much Sensitive
50 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53

As reflected in the table, the KSU faculty members are very sensitive as to their level of
gender-stereotype impressions, indicated by a total average weighted mean of 1.57. This finding
implies that there is a high regard for gender equality among the faculty members. As evidence,
KSU has a designated Director for Gender and Development, who sees to it that GAD is
practiced among faculty and students of the University. In fact, GAD topics are integrated into
the syllabi of the faculty members, and there is annual or semestral conduct of GAD seminars
and training among faculty and students of KSU. In some instances, GAD seminars and training
are even extended to the community through extension projects.
As to each gender stereotype indicator, the KSU faculty members are mostly gender
sensitive as to the notion that Women work in department stores, which ranked first with the
mean of 1.02 gender-sensitive impression, followed by indicators 1, 3, and 7 - Women always
smell good, Women are more brilliant than men, and Women like fashion magazines - all three
indicators with 1.12 mean of gender-sensitive impressions. Of the first mentioned indicator, it
reveals that all faculty members disagree that women work in department stores, which also
indicates that they are not female-gender stereotypes. Subsequently, the growing number of
researches regarding the impact of gender-fair usage, especially in the workplace, has advocated
equality of perceptions of work, whether feminine or masculine, both for either male or female
or any gender representations. As Xiao et al. (2023) perceived in their study, gender-fair
language reduces male bias and promotes neutral or female-stereotype professions.
The same is true with the next three (3) indicators; the findings indicate that the faculty
members are not female-gender stereotypes and that most of them disagree that women always
smell good, are more brilliant than men, and that women only like fashion magazines. Instead,
these findings affirm that the faculty members are aware that the roles and characters of men and
women should be equally perceived, depending on the choices of the individual, either male or
female. This further confirms with Koeser and Sczesny (2014) that arguments promoting
gender-fair language motivate speakers to use gender-fair language. While it is true that there are
still gender biases encountered, the more that people encounter such arguments, the more that
awareness is initiated and advocated on the use of gender-fair language.
Moreover, as to the three (3) lowest ranks on gender-stereotype impressions, third to the
last in rank is indicator 20, Men are tough, followed by indicator 12, Women do not drive
well, and the last in rank is indicator 23, Men like cars - described as much sensitive compared to
all the other indicators which were all described as very much sensitive.
Significantly, Ellemers (2018) claims that the way people pay attention to, perceive, and
recall information about themselves and others is impacted by gender stereotypes. If so, it
implies that gender stereotypes could have cognitive and motivational influences among men
and women. It is, therefore, in this case, that men should not be generalized as tough as others
could be feminine and that women, on the other hand, could also be tough and masculine.
4.3. Relationship between the extent of gender-fair language usage and the extent of
gender stereotype impressions
Table 5
Relationship between the extent of gender-fair language usage and the extent of gender
stereotype impressions
Variables Computed Value Tabular Value Interpretation
The extent of Gender-Fair Language Usage Significant
0.5531 0.183
Extent of Gender Stereotype Impressions relationship
*Significant at α = 0.05
 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53 51

The table shows that there is a significant relationship between the extent of language
gender-fair language usage and the extent of gender stereotype impressions among the KSU
faculty. This finding is signified by the computed correlation coefficient, which is greater than
the tabular values at a 5% significance level. Thus, this implies that the respondents who have a
high level of sensitivity to gender-fair language usage also are affected by gender-stereotype
impressions at a high level, and those who have a low level of sensitivity to gender-fair language
usage are also affected by gender-stereotype impressions at a low level.
Significantly, the above-cited finding reflects that one’s perception of gender-fair
language usage also influences one’s impressions of gender stereotyping. Consequently, this
finding further signifies that the KSU faculty members that their perception of gender equality is
bearing gender-fair language and avoiding gender stereotyping
5. Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, it is therefore concluded that there is high regard of
gender sensitivity among the faculty of Kalinga State University as results to their very much
sensitive level of gender-fair language usage and very much sensitive level of gender-stereotype
impressions. Significantly, one’s perception of gender-fair language usage affects also his
impressions of gender stereotyping.

References
21st Century Group 2. (n.d.). Gender stereotyping in media. Retrieved October 10, 2022, from
https://example33195.wordpress.com/home

21st Century Group 2. (2012). Why does gender stereotyping occur? Retrieved October 10, 2022,
from https://example33195.wordpress.com
Alismail, H. A. (2016). Multicultural education: Teachers’ perceptions and preparation. Journal
of Education and Practice, 7(11), 139-146.
Brown, M., Rogers, B. A., & Caldwell, M. (2022). Gender and sexuality in the classroom: An
educator’s guide (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cannon, E. (2010). Measuring ethical sensitivity to racial and gender intolerance in schools.
Journal of School Counseling, 8(20), 1-22.
Cendaña, J. (2018). Integration of the gender-fair education in the grade 9 curriculum. Journal of
Education and Society, 2(1), 64-75.
CHED. (2015). Establishing the policies and guidelines on gender and development in the
commission on higher education and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Retrieved
October 10, 2022, from https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CMO-no.-01-s.-
2015.pdf
Clemente, B., & Clemente, R. (2015). Sociolinguistic competence in gender-fair language usage
among faculty of Cagayan State University. Cagayan State University Journal, 2(1), 46-58.
Costas, H., & Shi, Z. (2015). Attitudes toward ethical sensitivity: Implications related to gender
identity and personality. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 18(3), Article 31.
Department of Education. (2017). Gender-responsive basic education policy. Retrieved October
10, 2022, from https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DO_s2017_032.pdf
52 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53

DurgaLekshmi, G. S., & Vitus, G. J. (2022). Maintaining gender-neutral classrooms: A glimpse

to the desired teacher competencies. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(4), 189-194.
Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 275-298.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719
Galamgam, M., Bautista, J., & Rosario, E. (2021). An analysis on the implementation of gender
responsive Basic Education Policy. International Peer Reviewed Journal, 5(1), 31-42.
Garcia, J. V. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of gender inclusive language in the classroom.
International Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Translation, 4(3), 110-116.
doi:10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.3.12
Gender Equality Law Center. (n.d.). Gender stereotyping. Retrieved October 10, 2022, from
https://www.gender equalitylaw.org/gender-stereotyping
Harris, C. A., Blencowe, N., & Telem, D. A. (2017). What is in a pronoun? Why gender-fair
language matters. Annals of Surgery, 266(6), 932-933. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002505
Hernandez, T. A., & Cudiamat, M. A. (2018). Integrating Gender and Development (GAD) in
the classroom: The case of Lucsuhin National High School, Department of Education-
Philippines. KnE Social Sciences, 3(6), 1135-1141. doi:10.18502/kss.v3i6.2430
Hussain, M., Naz, A., Khan, W., & Daraz, U. (2015). Gender stereotyping in family: An
institutionalized and normative mechanism in pakhtun society of Pakistan. SAGE Open,
5(3), 1-11. doi:10.1177/2158244015595258
Khurshid, A. (2015). Islamic traditions of modernity: Gender, class, and islam in a
transnational women’s education project. Gender & Society, 29(1), 98-121.
doi:10.1177/0891243214549193
Koeser, S., & Sczesny, S. (2014). Promoting gender-fair language: The impact of arguments on
language use, attitudes, and cognitions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
33(5), 548-560. doi:10.1177/0261927X14541280
Lin, M., & Bates, A. (2014). Who is in my classroom? Teachers preparing to work with
culturally diverse students. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 5(1),
27-42.
Long, M. (2011). The psychology of education. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2002). The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse
students: A qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5),
433-443. doi:10.1177/002248702237397
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environment. (n.d.). How are you integrating
social-emotional learning (SEL) into your schools and classrooms. Retrieved October 10,
2022, from https://safesupportivelearn ing.ed.gov
Pandey, A. (2018, July 16). Gender sensitization: Problems and strategies. XIX Isa World
Congress of Sociology. Canada: International Sociological Association.
Rajesh, V. (2017, March 18). The importance of gender sensitivity. Retrieved October 10, 2022,
from https://bloncampus.thehindubusinessline.com/columns/out-of-syllabus/the-importance-
of-gender-sensitivity/article9590873.ece
 Abigail Quimosing-Ocay et al. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 14(3), 42-53 53

Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M., & Moser, F. (2016). Can gender-fair language reduce
gender stereotyping and discrimination? Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1), 1-25.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025
United Nations. (2022). Gender education monitoring. Progress on the sustainable development
plan: The gender snapshot. Retrieved October 10, 2022, from
https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals/gender-equality
Vergoossen, H. P., Renstrom, E. A., Lindqvist, A., & Senden, M.G. (2020). Four dimensions of
criticism against gender-fair language. Sex Roles, 83(1), 328-337. doi:10.1007/s11199-
019-01108-x
Wade, L., & Ferree, M. (2015). Gender: Ideas, interactions, institutions (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: WW Norton & Company, Inc.
Ward, L. M., & Grower, P. (2020). Media and the development of gender stereotypes. Annual
Review of Development Psychology, 2(1), 177-199. doi:10.1146/annurev-devpsch-051120-
010630
Xiao, H., Strickland, B., & Peperkamp, S. (2023). How fair is gender-fair language? Insights
from gender ratio estimations in French. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
42(1), 82-106. doi:10.1177/0261927X221084643

©The Authors 2024. This is an open access publication under CC BY NC license.