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.
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.
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.
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 careful with what we say/write and be willing to accept correction.
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.
The reader is quite an important part of the writing equation. If your words imply something you didn't mean then you should think about revising your words, lest they misrepresent your opinions.
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).
So if a task is hard you don't bother attempting it? "He" is a default is a pretty clear case of male bias, and an easy win to stop using. Pretty simple.
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, guys, he, harlot, 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.
The intention of the writer is the most important part of a piece of prose, sure. But the form and the choice of languages
is not unimportant. If your writing is littered with curse words and racial epithets because "that's just the way I talk, I'm not racist" then you'll get pretty short shrift.
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?)
Libel? Come off it dude. Commenting on your language, attitude and sincerity in a conversation on a message board is not libellous. Or have I misunderstood your intention?
EDIT: I made a total hash up of the quoting first time, sorry if confusing.
I see your point !! I'm severely dyslexic people say things without realising the impact ! I right this with voice recognition so often make mistakes . Good luck with your argument
Just out of curiosity, not that it really matters, do you know off the top of your head which style guides say DON'T use "he?" The ones that say "do" are journalism-oriented, Associated Press and… can't remember who publishes the other one. My English Professor former acquaintance would probably say "Shut up and go away!" and tell us we're all idiots for arguing about it instead of going outside to play!
I have checked many this morning and they all seem to say that man and he are perfectly find when the gender is unknown and context allows for it. I did find that seemed to suggest against it by saying some writers don't use it and that CMOS prefers it, but it wasn't a direct no. It mostly talks about the awkward and ugly variations like he/she and s/he previously mentioned. Either way, a big mea culpa from me.
APA does not recommend replacing "he" with "he or she," "she or he," "he/she," "(s)he," "s/he," or alternating between "he" and "she" because these substitutions are awkward and can distract the reader from the point you are trying to make. The pronouns "he" or "she" inevitably cause the reader to think of only that gender, which may not be what you in ten
Here is what Grammar Girl has to say on the matte which seems different from what is quoted above.
...you should still at least consider the alternatives because all of the major style guides that I checked recommend against using "he" in a generic way. (I specifically checked MLA, APA, and Chicago, and I know I have seen it in others. The Associated Press allows "he," but also says it’s usually better to rewrite your sentence.)
I don't. Never outright said you did. But your language implied male as default.
No, you said I was sexist. Now you're moving the goalposts again. I already brought up the fact about 25% of all languages includes gender as well as brought up the fact that guys can now be gender-agnostic which you feel is perfectly reasonable. Your issue was 1) assuming that I couldn't conceive of a female judge because I'm sexist, followed by 2) statements that he could not be used as a general-agnostic term.
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.
1) You just buried the WTF-o-meter again, which is impressive considering it was re-calibrated last night in Switzerland because of your comments yesterday. Let's ignore that you were using style-guides as proof yesterday to defend your point before v5v proved otherwise and just think about what language is for a moment. You're saying that these style guides are incorrect yet language isn't inherent right or wrong so if a style guide wants to say one should use <she|he> then it's right for them because they say it's right for them. It's that simple, regardless of emotionally attached you are to it.
2) If you think people are sexist for using a term that has a gender associated with it — regardless of whether the writer is associating gender with it — then why aren't you rallying against languages that are considering more gender based than English. The majority of them give inanimate objects gender but not once have gotten up on your la plataforma improvisada (see what I did there?) to speak out against all these languages and the bigoted sexists that must be using it.
Because I speak English, obviously, and I'm not on a crusade, just calling what I see.
Thoroughly tired of this nonsense now, it was a simple point - the judge is female so he is incorrect, and using he as a default belies sexist bias. I stand by that, and can't be bothered to engage with you about it any more. Continue to be a tool of a patriarchal norm without thinking it through if you insist; your defensiveness in appealing to style guides and features of other languages do you no favours.
Hypocrisy hogwash, I never claimed that meanings can't change. Indeed, it's crucial to my point. At one time "he" may have been acceptable as the default because society deemed the male to be the default. That isn't the case any more, as your dictionary definitions illustrated "in modern use, chiefly replaced..."
You accuse me of moving the goalposts yet you keep throwing in these bizarre new angles of attack that make no sense.
I'm a sexist because I think the real world effect of words is more important than style guides and I'm a hypocrite because I think meanings of words change. Anything else?
Hypocrisy hogwash, I never claimed that meanings can't change. Indeed, it's crucial to my point. At one time "he" may have been acceptable as the default because society deemed the male to be the default. That isn't the case any more, as your dictionary definitions illustrated "in modern use, chiefly replaced..."
You accuse me of moving the goalposts yet you keep throwing in these bizarre new angles of attack that make no sense.
I'm a sexist because I think the real world effect of words is more important than style guides and I'm a hypocrite because I think meanings of words change. Anything else?
Modern use and chiefly, but are key here which in and of itself proves that I was correct without even having to look at the start of that definition which defines it as gender-agnostic (which you claimed was not possible) and the multiple style guides which v5v proves still prefer it over more clumsy tactics just to be politically correct.
You've also saying these professional style guides are wrong which is absolutely the dumbest thing you've stated in this thread.
If you had come at this from a stand point of actually defending against sexism you may have had a point to make her but you came at it as if sexism was rampant in simply used the term. You could have said you don't like the style guides use a male-based noun for gender-agnostic terms but you said they were wrong.
You also haven't considered how female actors prefer to be called actors, not actresses, which is using the long held male noun. I stated early on you need to look at yourself to see why you think everyone is sexist for using a male term. If actor and guys can become gender-agnostic then why not he. This all screams you being an bigot and a hypocrite, neither of which I care for.
PS: You've threatened to go leave this conversation on multiple occasions now and you're still here. I am perfectly fine with you digging your hole deeper but it does play into this hypocrisy and goal posts moving I've mentioned earlier.
PPS: Based on v5v's proving that it's still acceptable in the proper context I'm going to continue using it in the way I was taught by female teachers.
I love the insanity how some people who otherwise seem intelligent and rational can get so emotional over the graphemes and morphemes instead of the actual usage. Every single word is made up and the definition associated with it is taught and therefore can change. People today know the word harlot refers to a promiscuous women even though that is not considered a common use word, but it originally meant a young man. Why do Crowley and others guys with his mindset have such a problem with words changing and having multiple definitions. I'll never understand them but I certainly won't stop trying to get those guys to thinking objectively about language.
PS: In high school I saw a kid get beat up by a group of people by using the word bigger. I forget the exact context but he standing across the way from others in his group and he yelled it to them because something wasn't big enough. Maybe it was some banner, I honestly forget. There was nothing else in the sentence to indicate that he was being racist and had no history of such that I'm aware but it was said at the wrong time and heard in the wrong way that he got his ass beaten by a group of guys that heard something else. Why do some give the power to the word and not the intended meaning?
Yes, we know you’re incapable of drawing conclusions on your own. Yes, we know you have to have your hand held to every answer of every statement. Why keep arguing if this is the case?
I'm sorry Crowley, but I think on this one it's not a matter of opinion, you're just incorrect. "He" as a default is in no way sexist at all, it is simply a grammatical convenience and is a formally recognized correct usage.
(BTW: Saying "In modern usage it is often replaced by…" does not necessarily endorse the replacement term as "correct," it merely reports that people use it. Lots of people say irregardless, but it's still wrong.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Why do Crowley and others guys with his mindset have such a problem with words changing and having multiple definitions.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll tell you why *I* hate it: Because it hinders communication. When you use the word "sick" to mean impressive, unique and imaginative and I understand it to mean stricken with illness or disease, the potential for me to COMPLETELY misinterpret your message goes off the charts and I can't afford to keep buying bigger charts.
Okay so that's an example of slang vs. traditional usage, but you get the point. I'm just feeling too gay to waste time on a negative subject today!
Modern use and chiefly, but are key here which in and of itself proves that I was correct without even having to look at the start of that definition which defines it as gender-agnostic (which you claimed was not possible) and the multiple style guides which v5v proves still prefer it over more clumsy tactics just to be politically correct.
Aesthetic quality over treating people with respect and as equals. Sorry, aesthetics loses. I find it absurd that you'd consider otherwise. Plus, clumsiness is not essential to political correctness anyway, that's a total fallacy.
You've also saying these professional style guides are wrong which is absolutely the dumbest thing you've stated in this thread.
If you had come at this from a stand point of actually defending against sexism you may have had a point to make her but you came at it as if sexism was rampant in simply used the term. You could have said you don't like the style guides use a male-based noun for gender-agnostic terms but you said they were wrong.
Hang on, you think it's be better if I said "I don't like sexism" compared to "I think sexism is wrong"? I consider that to be nuts and if that's your stance then I consider every criticism I've made to be doubly justified. Also, I have no idea what you're talking about with the "sexism was rampant" comment. I've been very clear throughout that sexism in the language is not the same as sexism in the meaning. I've stated it outright in fact.
You also haven't considered how female actors prefer to be called actors, not actresses, which is using the long held male noun. I stated early on you need to look at yourself to see why you think everyone is sexist for using a male term. If actor and guys can become gender-agnostic then why not he. This all screams you being an bigot and a hypocrite, neither of which I care for.
What an absurd leap. If women want to claim gendered nouns and pronouns that's up to them, but I don't have to agree with them just because of their gender. Plenty more don't. I don't think it's a good idea to try to actively claim actor, or even guys (though since it has largely happened the latter is somewhat moot), as it creates confusion, and I think it reinforces the male as the norm rather than elevating the female.
This idea that a person can be sexist for having a different view on the evolution of language is frankly ridiculous.
PS: You've threatened to go leave this conversation on multiple occasions now and you're still here. I am perfectly fine with you digging your hole deeper but it does play into this hypocrisy and goal posts moving I've mentioned earlier.
I threatened to leave? Even if I did, changing my mind makes me a hypocrite? Your grasping for avenues to discredit me is lame.
PPS: Based on v5v's proving that it's still acceptable in the proper context I'm going to continue using it in the way I was taught by female teachers.
The fact that you rely wholly on external proof rather than internal logic and reasoning means I doubt we'll ever see the same way. So I'm not "threatening" (lol) to leave. I'm leaving. Good day to you.
P.S. The judge is definitely female, so I suggest you refer to her as she and her from now on. To be clear, this was evident in the original article and I pointed it out even before this exchange.
When your response to a suggestion of sexism is a joke (not really) about feminists then I have nothing to say to you.
That’s right. As I already said:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, we know you’re incapable of drawing conclusions on your own. Yes, we know you have to have your hand held to every answer of every statement. Why keep arguing if this is the case?
You both have a point however you do not seem to respect each other Point of view People defend people every day we do not mean to it's just society is changing . But when you are aggressive and offensive and very very rude there is no excuse get back to the point of the Fred please and kiss and make up xxxx
Comments
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 careful with what we say/write and be willing to accept correction.
The reader is quite an important part of the writing equation. If your words imply something you didn't mean then you should think about revising your words, lest they misrepresent your opinions.
Don't understand what you mean, or your consternation. My point is that the language used contains bigotry, and shortcuts lead to carelessness.
So if a task is hard you don't bother attempting it? "He" is a default is a pretty clear case of male bias, and an easy win to stop using. Pretty simple.
The intention of the writer is the most important part of a piece of prose, sure. But the form and the choice of languages
is not unimportant. If your writing is littered with curse words and racial epithets because "that's just the way I talk, I'm not racist" then you'll get pretty short shrift.
Libel? Come off it dude. Commenting on your language, attitude and sincerity in a conversation on a message board is not libellous. Or have I misunderstood your intention?
EDIT: I made a total hash up of the quoting first time, sorry if confusing.
I'm severely dyslexic people say things without realising the impact !
I right this with voice recognition so often make mistakes . Good luck with your argument
I have checked many this morning and they all seem to say that man and he are perfectly find when the gender is unknown and context allows for it. I did find that seemed to suggest against it by saying some writers don't use it and that CMOS prefers it, but it wasn't a direct no. It mostly talks about the awkward and ugly variations like he/she and s/he previously mentioned. Either way, a big mea culpa from me.
Here is what Grammar Girl has to say on the matte which seems different from what is quoted above.
No, you said I was sexist. Now you're moving the goalposts again. I already brought up the fact about 25% of all languages includes gender as well as brought up the fact that guys can now be gender-agnostic which you feel is perfectly reasonable. Your issue was 1) assuming that I couldn't conceive of a female judge because I'm sexist, followed by 2) statements that he could not be used as a general-agnostic term.
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.
1) You just buried the WTF-o-meter again, which is impressive considering it was re-calibrated last night in Switzerland because of your comments yesterday. Let's ignore that you were using style-guides as proof yesterday to defend your point before v5v proved otherwise and just think about what language is for a moment. You're saying that these style guides are incorrect yet language isn't inherent right or wrong so if a style guide wants to say one should use <she|he> then it's right for them because they say it's right for them. It's that simple, regardless of emotionally attached you are to it.
2) If you think people are sexist for using a term that has a gender associated with it — regardless of whether the writer is associating gender with it — then why aren't you rallying against languages that are considering more gender based than English. The majority of them give inanimate objects gender but not once have gotten up on your la plataforma improvisada (see what I did there?) to speak out against all these languages and the bigoted sexists that must be using it.
Thoroughly tired of this nonsense now, it was a simple point - the judge is female so he is incorrect, and using he as a default belies sexist bias. I stand by that, and can't be bothered to engage with you about it any more. Continue to be a tool of a patriarchal norm without thinking it through if you insist; your defensiveness in appealing to style guides and features of other languages do you no favours.
Don't forget your hypocrisy when you said that guys was perfectly acceptable despite its original meaning.
You accuse me of moving the goalposts yet you keep throwing in these bizarre new angles of attack that make no sense.
I'm a sexist because I think the real world effect of words is more important than style guides and I'm a hypocrite because I think meanings of words change. Anything else?
*cough*
Modern use and chiefly, but are key here which in and of itself proves that I was correct without even having to look at the start of that definition which defines it as gender-agnostic (which you claimed was not possible) and the multiple style guides which v5v proves still prefer it over more clumsy tactics just to be politically correct.
You've also saying these professional style guides are wrong which is absolutely the dumbest thing you've stated in this thread.
If you had come at this from a stand point of actually defending against sexism you may have had a point to make her but you came at it as if sexism was rampant in simply used the term. You could have said you don't like the style guides use a male-based noun for gender-agnostic terms but you said they were wrong.
You also haven't considered how female actors prefer to be called actors, not actresses, which is using the long held male noun. I stated early on you need to look at yourself to see why you think everyone is sexist for using a male term. If actor and guys can become gender-agnostic then why not he. This all screams you being an bigot and a hypocrite, neither of which I care for.
PS: You've threatened to go leave this conversation on multiple occasions now and you're still here. I am perfectly fine with you digging your hole deeper but it does play into this hypocrisy and goal posts moving I've mentioned earlier.
PPS: Based on v5v's proving that it's still acceptable in the proper context I'm going to continue using it in the way I was taught by female teachers.
I love the insanity how some people who otherwise seem intelligent and rational can get so emotional over the graphemes and morphemes instead of the actual usage. Every single word is made up and the definition associated with it is taught and therefore can change. People today know the word harlot refers to a promiscuous women even though that is not considered a common use word, but it originally meant a young man. Why do Crowley and others guys with his mindset have such a problem with words changing and having multiple definitions. I'll never understand them but I certainly won't stop trying to get those guys to thinking objectively about language.
PS: In high school I saw a kid get beat up by a group of people by using the word bigger. I forget the exact context but he standing across the way from others in his group and he yelled it to them because something wasn't big enough. Maybe it was some banner, I honestly forget. There was nothing else in the sentence to indicate that he was being racist and had no history of such that I'm aware but it was said at the wrong time and heard in the wrong way that he got his ass beaten by a group of guys that heard something else. Why do some give the power to the word and not the intended meaning?
Yes, we know you’re incapable of drawing conclusions on your own. Yes, we know you have to have your hand held to every answer of every statement. Why keep arguing if this is the case?
[…] using he as a default belies sexist bias.
I'm sorry Crowley, but I think on this one it's not a matter of opinion, you're just incorrect. "He" as a default is in no way sexist at all, it is simply a grammatical convenience and is a formally recognized correct usage.
(BTW: Saying "In modern usage it is often replaced by…" does not necessarily endorse the replacement term as "correct," it merely reports that people use it. Lots of people say irregardless, but it's still wrong.)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll tell you why *I* hate it: Because it hinders communication. When you use the word "sick" to mean impressive, unique and imaginative and I understand it to mean stricken with illness or disease, the potential for me to COMPLETELY misinterpret your message goes off the charts and I can't afford to keep buying bigger charts.
Okay so that's an example of slang vs. traditional usage, but you get the point. I'm just feeling too gay to waste time on a negative subject today!
Hang on, you think it's be better if I said "I don't like sexism" compared to "I think sexism is wrong"? I consider that to be nuts and if that's your stance then I consider every criticism I've made to be doubly justified. Also, I have no idea what you're talking about with the "sexism was rampant" comment. I've been very clear throughout that sexism in the language is not the same as sexism in the meaning. I've stated it outright in fact.
What an absurd leap. If women want to claim gendered nouns and pronouns that's up to them, but I don't have to agree with them just because of their gender. Plenty more don't. I don't think it's a good idea to try to actively claim actor, or even guys (though since it has largely happened the latter is somewhat moot), as it creates confusion, and I think it reinforces the male as the norm rather than elevating the female.
This idea that a person can be sexist for having a different view on the evolution of language is frankly ridiculous.
I threatened to leave? Even if I did, changing my mind makes me a hypocrite? Your grasping for avenues to discredit me is lame.
The fact that you rely wholly on external proof rather than internal logic and reasoning means I doubt we'll ever see the same way. So I'm not "threatening" (lol) to leave. I'm leaving. Good day to you.
P.S. The judge is definitely female, so I suggest you refer to her as she and her from now on. To be clear, this was evident in the original article and I pointed it out even before this exchange.
That’s right. As I already said:
Yes, we know you’re incapable of drawing conclusions on your own. Yes, we know you have to have your hand held to every answer of every statement. Why keep arguing if this is the case?
You don’t get it. You never got it.
Give up.
People defend people every day we do not mean to it's just society is changing . But when you are aggressive and offensive and very very rude there is no excuse get back to the point of the Fred please and kiss and make up xxxx
This is the best possible ending to the argument. I love it.