Originally Posted by Crowley
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 (or racist, or in any other way prejudiced) connotation without intending the sexism? You don't think in intended slurs could be casually tossed around with no consideration of the implication? I guess you are 100% earnest all well-considered with everything's you say, right? Of course not, people use language shortcuts all the time, and can end up implying things they don't actually mean. They may not be sexist, but they're using language rooted in sexism, such as "man" to mean person, or "he" to mean they. It's not evil, but it merits correction.
1) If you honestly believe I don't think judges can be female then you really need to pay more attention.
2) What you wrote was, "...has an inherent sexism, intended or not…." Not intended
can also be stated as unintended or unintentional, and sexism is type of bigotry. Pretty fucking simple.
3) Wow, you are really not comprehending the difference between a writers intention and the reader's interpretation and you really need to read more if you think how you interrupt something is what the writer must have implied, but it does shed a lot of light on why this conversation was started by you in the first place.
4) The core of the issue is for some unknown reason you believe if you infer something that it must have been implied. Your entire premise is unsound and is logically no different from any other case of jumping to a conclusion that purports to know the thoughts of another without any evidence to prove it.
5) A shortcut in language is now proof of underlying bigotry? The WTF-o-meter just red-lined. You do know what shortcut means, right?
6) So what if a language was patriarchal (a topic I already mentioned earlier) and still has roots to it in modern vernacular? Most are, but if that's a problem for you then you need to stop writing, reading and speaking right now because all you're dong is supporting its inherent sexism? Oh wait, you're fine because when you use English you're not thinking of sexist thoughts (even though this whole conversation was started because you were thinking about sexism).
7) The intention of the writer is what's important, not some superficial notion of the graphemes and phonemes holding some power that when scribed or uttered make you
feel all weird inside. If you want to get upset by the terms man
, and tens of thousands of other words you go right ahead but stop making an ass out of yourself by claiming your inference equals an immobile implication
I have no idea if any of this is getting through to you but I hope it does and I've been patient with you despite your rampant ignorance and libel remarks. I'm hoping you're just an assassin and not really this dense. (see what I did there?)