or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Crowley

1) Never said that. Never thought that. 2) Didn't say that. Should not, not could not. Because it's not an adequately gender agnostic term; you would never knowingly refer to a woman as "he", but you would a man. If style guides say different then they're wrong. But hey, why address something with straight up logic when you can just argue from the establishment and accuse people of moving goalposts.
I don't. Never outright said you did. But your language implied male as default.The language being sexist is different from the person being sexist. You seem to be having difficult with this and are therefore taking this much more personally.I comprehend it fine. Language is imprecise and people use it it in precise ways. The language chosen has an independent implication of the implications the writer intended. One of the those implications can be sexism. So we should be...
I didn't deny it was a possibility ("no serious person does that" implies that there might be non-serious people who do) just stated that I thought you claiming it was nonsense. I still do. No goalposts have been moved. But having arrived at a stalemate, I'll give you a "best case" that takes you at your word, even though I don't really believe it. Did I say "unintentionally bigoted"? In any case, you don't think a person can use language that has a sexist connotation...
The goalposts haven't moved, I'm still claiming what you said has an inherent sexism, intended or not. I've just modified it in line with your own explanations, which I find dubious, but I don't care about enough to argue. Not he. She. Or, in general neutral terms, the judge. Exactly as I said from the start.
Nicely done :-)
"In modern use chiefly replaced..." End of argument. Your language was at best archaic with a sexist implication, at worst overtly sexist. In either case, it would be better reworded to avoid ambiguity, especially since the judge's gender was hardly unspecified. Just read the article.
Weird argument you make. You're appealing to grammatical gender when he, she and it are at the very root of grammatical gender. And you used the wrong one. Guy has informally come to be a gender neutral term in a way that he hasn't, so I don't accept that premise, or the fumbling accusation that I only understand one meaning for words. Nonsense. A simple correction. Take it as supplementary information if you want, I don't care for your defensiveness and this bonkers...
I'm not sure how you think your argument, which rests on grammar, in any way implies I'm a sexist. Classic case of attempting to turn a mirror on your accuser, but a clear case of bullshit. You're defensiveness belies your guilt. You could have just taken the original point as a correction, an additional piece of information, but instead you took umbrage and tried to justify yourself. A casual assumption that the judge was male isn't the most awful crime in the world, I...
Or y'know, you could have said "the judge" or read the article properly since "Claudia" is pretty clearly a woman. Was no need to say he or his. Your fault. End of. Facebook is in no way relevant to this point, whatever the size of it user base. Bizarre that you think it is.
You made your comment without caring, and yet assumed male as default.  That matters.  You shouldn't.   The argument that you use "he" or "his" as genderless singulars is nonsense, no serious person does that.  Facebook is not relevant.   She and her.  Or "the judge" if you want to keep gender out of the equation altogether, as would be proper.
New Posts  All Forums: