Thread: Gender and Language

Originally Posted by Yarin

Religion is the backbone of everyone's opinion, and cannot be called crap.

No, but but forcing your religious beliefs upon someone else is.

Originally Posted by citizen

However, Elysia is both unwilling to look at things from another point of view on this particular issue and very much addressing the wrong crowd. We should have stopped talking about this a while ago.

This isn't about convincing each other that one way is right or wrong. It's a discussion.

Originally Posted by Yarin

Well, I brought up the wrong point, I really think male should be default because of tradition, not just religion.
And I don't see how it's intellectually bankrupt. Please enlighten me.

Originally Posted by Neo1

I agree with this though, it's called MANkind because that's the way it has always been, it has nothing to do with sexism or anything like that...

The problem to me seems that because it's been default for so long, you see no need to change it. So why should exactly males be default? What's the point?
Tradition has it that male is default because women were considered lower beings than men, which obviously we will all agree now is wrong.
It just seems to me you are unwilling to change to a new view in a new century which is much different from when tradition was made?
Is it so, or am I completely off track?

Originally Posted by Wraithan

...So you say you don't want to offend people by using the wrong gender in online discussion where it isn't commonly seen as a big deal. Then you take something that is close to peoples hearts and say it is crap?

Neo1, yeah, I have heard that song too, and heard that before, Religion is the opium of the people, but even those who 'aren't religious' are religious about being non-religious and might as well be just another faction on the deity battlefield.

No, I take offense at defending the use of "he" as neutrality based on some fictious facts of religion. Yes, I will admit I'm am atheist, and therefore I take big offense at people saying "males were created before females" or "male should be default because they were created first" or "because god is a he" or the like.
I can accept good arguments, but never from religion. That's because you can't force a religious belief onto someone else. Religion is not facts. There is no evidence. And as such I cannot accept it a good argument.
And that is all.

Oh, I can see where this is going.
But I don't remember deciding references are worthless. Indulge me, if you want.

Originally Posted by Wraithan

Neo1, yeah, I have heard that song too, and heard that before, Religion is the opium of the people, but even those who 'aren't religious' are religious about being non-religious and might as well be just another faction on the deity battlefield.

It's not a song, it's a quote from a german philosopher. But nonetheless, whether or not you choose to call atheism a religion, it doesn't change the fact that very few people use their religious beliefs as a backbone for their opinions, if that was the case then the world would be a better place to live...

And that they mean no offence by it, so there should be none taken because it is a simple language trait of English and it isn't meant to insult people but rather to simplify communication.

I agree wholeheartedly with this...

Originally Posted by Elysia

No, but but forcing your religious beliefs upon someone else is.

You too are trying to force your beliefs on others. Don't sidestep.

Religion is not facts. There is no evidence. And as such I cannot accept it a good argument.

I couldn't agree more with you in principle. However when in the context of this thread, you are quiet wrong as religion has only recently lose its hold on the western society. Until then it has profoundly shaped our lives, our culture and our history.

...

You seem to be jumping from bad argument to bad argument, trying to get a hold on something and always losing your grip. What I didn't hear you saying - and probably never will - is what would end this debate in a way that wouldn't diminish you in any way. And that is:

"Yeah. You people are probably right. Having a new word for that was a pretty dumb idea."

The fact that on this, or on any other debate I've seen you as the central piece, you were never able to come up with this words is a testimony to your character.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

You too are trying to force your beliefs on others. Don't sidestep.

No, what's the point? Neither side will listen.

"Yeah. You people are probably right. Having a new word for that was a pretty dumb idea."

The fact that on this, or on any other debate I've seen you as the central piece, you were never able to come up with this words is a testimony to your character.

Am I supposed to lie then? To tell lies to end an argument? No, that's even worse. Better to quietly ignore or give up argument.

And this clearly isn't getting anywhere and when people start blaming each other and posts such as yours shows up, things heat up and I'm getting out of the argument now.

Originally Posted by Elysia

On the contrary I say. You have a right to be wanted to be called a specific gender and not liking to be called simply "he" doesn't mean you don't pass the test to be on the Internet. That's ... isn't that discrimination?

No, I don't think so. Using he in a gender neutral way has no effect other than said; it's not like somebody actually has some sort of outcome that is different than would be otherwise.

I respond at your ideals because I challenge them. I believe in full use of gender neutrality and not pseudo-neutral "he."

yeah I know I was jj.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

The reason there is no need for a new word in the English vocabulary to deal with this issue is because there is no such new word in the English vocabulary.

Words in any language in the world are introduced by necessity and popularity. If there is the need for a new word, that word somehow becomes part of the popular vocabulary and when noticed and observed to be prevalent, it is added to the official language.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Wraithan

Elysia, you are how old, 15?16? at least that is what your arguments seem.

I so hate it when people assign intelligence to age.

In the end lets look at it this way, you all have your believes and recognize that other peoples believes exists, so one could figure that calling someone a pronoun that isn't the proper gender could just be someone who says he all the time unless they know for a fact it is a she. And that they mean no offence by it, so there should be none taken because it is a simple language trait of English and it isn't meant to insult people but rather to simplify communication.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Tradition has it that male is default because women were considered lower beings than men, which obviously we will all agree now is wrong.
It just seems to me you are unwilling to change to a new view in a new century which is much different from when tradition was made?
Is it so, or am I completely off track?

How do you know that is the reason?

Perhaps there just weren't women in job positions because they were busy at the home taking care of things because when to choose whether a man or woman to take care of family, the woman was chosen based on basic mammillian proximity requirements. Perhaps they got typecast into this role. [edit]I say this on the assumption that language would evolve more rapidly/stably in group settings.[/edit]

Not to say that that actually happened, although I think it was more likely.

Regardless, it's irrelevant because that is not the case now.

So what is the problem with having one word mean two similar things?

Originally Posted by Elysia

imho though, master is gender-inspecific.

I agree.

Are you aware that "master" also refers to the male head of a household, a male teacher, and as a term of address to (typically young) men and boys? "Master" ia an inherently gender-specific word when used in those contexts, just as "he" is an inherently gender-specific word when used in similiar contexts.

In other contexts "master" is gender neutral, just as "he" is gender neutral.

If you want to bring up political correctness, then "master" is also politically incorrect. I have a cousin who once complained to me when I called her a master of something she was good at. Oh yes, she was "wrong" to think "master" was gender-specific in that context, but then to be politically correct and not offend anyone...

And my elephant is blue.

Seriously, this is getting odd. After all, it's not about religion, traditions, history nor politics. It's about what would be the most suitable word to use. And that depends ONLY on what people think about it. No matter how you try to make it politically correct, it won't help.

Once an Estonian parliament member called someone a retard publicly. Then, instead of apologizing, he explained that the word retard actually doesn't mean anything bad! Do you think he got away with that? No way. All three main TV channels wouldn't give him a break till he publicly apologized.

So no matter how much you say that the word he is neutral, if people don't like it, you should use something else, like (s)he or whatever else seems to fit.

It's about what would be the most suitable word to use. And that depends ONLY on what people think about it.

That is correct. So we can choose appropriately depending on the audience, but with this medium we can also correct the misconception of our audience.

Once an Estonian parliament member called someone a retard publicly. Then, instead of apologizing, he explained that the word retard actually doesn't mean anything bad! Do you think he got away with that? No way. All three main TV channels wouldn't give him a break till he publicly apologized.

You must have missed my post where I pointed out that the situation for someone providing help on an online forum and that of a politician is different.

For the former, clarity, correctness and a sufficient level of politeness is sufficient. For the latter, more care must be taken to avoid sensitive areas (and that really is what is meant by being "politically correct"). Part of this is due to a power imbalance: someone providing help for free is in a position of "power" - if you do not like my help, you are free to ignore it, I do not really lose anything if you do not take my advice. A politician is not in a position of power, at least when the media and other forces can exert pressure, or the people can choose to elect someone else.

So no matter how much you say that the word he is neutral, if people don't like it, you should use something else, like (s)he or whatever else seems to fit.

In a face to face situation, of course that is the case. Typically, unless you are an English teacher or an editor, you would not bother with correcting a misconception concerning language (and indeed you may not be in a position to do so).

We already have this pronoun. It. But of course you knew this, since you used it several times in you appeal for a word with the same meaning as it.

How about sh-it? Combines "he", "she" and "it"...