No, all European and European-derived languages and cultures do that. It’s also irrelevant to the point we’re making.
Grammar Girl has 3 pages on this usage, which is considerably longer than most of her blog posts, which clearly makes this more complex than an Crowley wants to admit (or perhaps even realizes). I switch between both they and he, choosing the one that sounds best for the sentence, but for official writings, like say a cover letter I would use the verbose he or she. I almost never use s/he since it's ugly.
Most of my teachers were woman and they are the ones that taught me (and everyone else) to use he when the gender is unknown. Now all of a sudden I'm a sexist pig for it even though gender never crossed my mind.
Crowley's comments reminds me of this scene from South Park.
PS: What's funny is that most of the judges I seem to read about are women but I chose the gender-agnostic form of he instead of just assuming it was a women, which would have been my first guess.
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.
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.
1) I'm not sure why you think that necessity is a requirement. I certainly didn't need to say "the judge" either, when a shorter, common gender-agnostic pronoun was available.
2) Your true sexist nature is really shining through here today.
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 don't know why you don't just admit it and move on. Not buying your excuses.
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 don't know why you don't just admit it and move on. Not buying your excuses.
It's sexist because you can't conceive of the two letters 'h' plus 'e' or the sound /?hi?/ to mean anything other than a male despite the overwhelming evidence and history of this being used as a gender-agnostic pronoun. You read the word he and came to the erroneous conclusion that I don't think women can be judges. That's on you.
Do you even realize that about a quarter of the world's languages use grammatical gender? Do you know what gender is chosen when there is a mix of male and female objects? It's male, but I have a strong suspicion you aren't protesting the existence of these 1500 languages. Is hypocrite a gender neutral term?
BTW, I oft use phrases like "What are you guys doing?" to refer to a group of individuals. This could be an all male, mixed, or even all female group. Here is how the NOAD3 defines it.
guy |g?| noun informal a man: he's a nice guy.[mid 19th cent.]
• (guys) people of either sex: you guys want some coffee?
This is not just some fluke entry in one dictionary so I guess you need to get busy writing all these guys to let them know how sexist they are¡ hehe
Here's an idea: Next time why not wait until someone actually makes a sexist remark.
PS: Since you think words can only have one meaning you probably should get on your soapbox to get people to stop calling a cigarette a fag or maybe you are selective about making foolish statements?
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 attempt to make a grammar dispute into an accusation of sexism. Even if I'm wrong (I'm not) then I'm just that, wrong, not sexist. Moronic conflation of issues.
Do you even realize that about a quarter of the world's languages use grammatical gender? Do you know what gender is chosen when there is a mix of male and female objects? It's male, but I have a strong suspicion you aren't protesting the existence of these 1500 languages. Is hypocrite a gender neutral term?
When I learned that plural words in German default to the female definite article, I started the Campaign Against Women’s Plurality Of Otherwise Predictable Word-based Object W…identification.
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 attempt to make a grammar dispute into an accusation of sexism. Even if I'm wrong (I'm not) then I'm just that, wrong, not sexist. Moronic conflation of issues.
Done.
1) If he hasn't ever been used in an gender-agnostic way then why would there have been only a recent change to start using a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent?
2) Yes, guy has come to used in a certain way whilst he has been used in that same way for a long term and was taught to most readers here in that way, but that is beside the point. What matters is that you think I don't believe women can be judges and that my usage had to only refer to men despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
3) I had thought by now you would have actually educated yourself. Here is NOAD3 again.
he |h?| pronoun [ third person singular ]
used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified: everyone liked my father—he was the perfect gentleman.
• used to refer to a person or animal of unspecified sex (in modern use, now chiefly replaced by “he or she” or “they”): every child needs to know that he is loved.
• any person (in modern use, now chiefly replaced by “anyone” or “the person”): he who is silent consents.
Look at that, just like with guys the term can be used without specifying or assuming a gender.
4) You accused me of being a bigot and you don't like that I'm defending my use of the language? Would you rather I just say "A women belongs in the kitchen"*?
Hm, okay, maybe I'm reading too much into her remarks. My concern is her comment that Apple never claimed Siri would work "100% of the time." Am I wrong to think that was opening the door to misleading advertising? "Hey, our ad said you can drive around in this car, but we never said the brakes would work '100% of the time!'"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
You made your comment without caring, and yet assumed male as default. That matters. You shouldn't.
Most "experts" say the exact opposite, that "he" is the accepted pronoun when the sex is unknown. The group of writers right outside my door tell me that professional style guides still say exactly that. The quote below comes from a source of unknown expertise, but I include it because the excellent description of the issue ends with the conclusion that there are OTHER ways to handle the pronoun issue but not necessarily BETTER ways!
For years, if the gender of an individual referred to in a sentence is unknown, “he” would be used as the genericpronoun.
“We don’t know who started the fire,” a police officer might say, “but he will be held responsible.”
It is understood, by both the police officer and any listeners, that “he” could refer to either a woman or a man.
However, as culture changes, so does the language along with it, and many believe that the exclusive use of “he” for a person of unknown gender is sexist. There are a few options in this situation.
An archaic way of dealing with the issue is to use “one,” as in “One never knows what one can expect.”
Using this pronoun is often clunky and results in some strange-sounding sentences.
“He or she” can be used in moderation, but it cannot be used too many times at once: “he or she knows that if he or she needs to talk, he or she can visit his or her professor.”
Some use “they,” but this word cannot be used with a singular antecedent—it is only used with plurals.
Sometimes rewriting a sentence may help, but unfortunately you will at some point be forced to make a choice between sexist, clunky, or technically incorrect!
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.
I hope we don't adopt the ridiculous Facebook model of using "they" because English lacks a singular gender-neutral pronoun. It's wrong and makes this stupid language even stupider by adding even MORE ambiguity to perceived meanings -- like, trying to figure out just what the hell the judge meant when they said "100% of the time."
(See that? I not only made the point, but brought the discussion back on-topic!)
Hm, okay, maybe I'm reading too much into her remarks. My concern is her comment that<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> Apple never claimed Siri would work "100% of the time." Am I wrong to think </span>
that <span style="line-height:1.4em;">was opening the door to misleading advertising? "Hey, our ad said you can drive around in this car, but we never said the brakes would work</span>
<em style="line-height:1.4em;">'100% of the time!'</em><span style="line-height:1.4em;">"</span>
Your new car could break down. Everything we make has the potential to fail but your purchase agreement and the law protect you from this. I forget exactly what their complaint was but I recall when I originally it was unfounded. As consumers they had the right to return the product within the allotted time frame if the product (which includes the Siri service) didn't live up to their needs.
I was someone that did return their iPhone 4S because of a poor user experience. I was unable to connect to Siri reliably (and because cellular chip issues were causing my battery to drain too quickly) I, like millions others that weekend, was trying ask Siri all the stupid questions. figured I would buy in a month or so when issues got ironed out. I ended up keeping my iPhone 4 until the iPhone 5 came arrived. Apple not lost about $750 in revenue on me but it cost them to have to deal with me and take back a device to Refurbish that was probably perfectly fine after about a month.
When it comes to language how is Siri suppose to be 100% correct? Even if Apple had directly stated Siri fully understands every logical aspect of human language one shouldn't expect Siri to be 100% accurate all the time because there are dialects, accents, laziness, and speech impediments that would affect Siri's ability to understand what is being stated. Before the words can be processed the waveforms need to be converted into words. This seems like a far way off; I'd just be happy with the iPhone not making distant background noise sound oddly loud to people on the other end of the line.
PS: I seem to recall reading Stephen Hawking's A Briefer History of Time where I think he mentioned getting a new electric train set as a child that was in less than perfect condition when it arrived, but in those days he had little recourse to have it fixed. I think we live in a time with excellent consumer protection laws.
Most "experts" say the exact opposite, that "he" is the accepted pronoun when the sex is unknown. The group of writers right outside my door tell me that professional style guides still say exactly that. The quote below comes from a source of unknown expertise, but I include it because the excellent description of the issue ends with the conclusion that there are OTHER ways to handle the pronoun issue but not necessarily BETTER ways!</span>
For years, if the gender of an individual referred to in a sentence is unknown, “he” would be used as the genericpronoun.
“We don’t know who started the fire,” a police officer might say, “but he will be held responsible.”
<blockquote style="border-left-color:rgb(221,221,221);border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1px;color:rgb(111,111,111);margin-bottom:1.25em;padding-left:1.1875em;padding-right:1.25em;padding-top:.5625em;">
It is understood, by both the police officer and any listeners, that “he” could refer to either a woman or a man.</blockquote>However, as culture changes, so does the language along with it, and many believe that the exclusive use of “he” for a person of unknown gender is sexist. There are a few options in this situation.
An archaic way of dealing with the issue is to use “one,” as in “One never knows what one can expect.”
<blockquote style="border-left-color:rgb(221,221,221);border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1px;color:rgb(111,111,111);margin-bottom:1.25em;padding-left:1.1875em;padding-right:1.25em;padding-top:.5625em;">
Using this pronoun is often clunky and results in some strange-sounding sentences.</blockquote>
“He or she” can be used in moderation, but it cannot be used too many times at once: “he or she knows that if he or she needs to talk, he or she can visit his or her professor.”
Some use “they,” but this word cannot be used with a singular antecedent—it is only used with plurals.
Sometimes rewriting a sentence may help, but unfortunately you will at some point be forced to make a choice between sexist, clunky, or technically incorrect!
(your HTML formatting is holding for some reason)
As I mentioned to Crowley earlier I think style guides mostly suggest against it for formal writing, but they also suggest against "he or she" and "they" for reasons in your last two bullet points.
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.
What you're claiming now is moving the goal posts. Your claim was that I was sexist and your repeatedly defended your position that it didn't exist in the way I stated and proved. I even mentioned that it has been replaced early on in this conversation and even explained why I intermix this common, gender-agnostic terms.
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.
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.
1) No, you said I was being sexist for not considering the judge could be a women. When I explained the how he could be gender-agnostic you denied that was a possibility claiming the only option was that I didn't think a women could be a judge. You altered the argument.
2) How can someone be unintentionally bigoted by using the word he, guys or fag, as noted examples in this conversation? One can be unintentionally offended by the use of these terms when ignorance fails in one's comprehension, but the person making the comment is either believes in their prejudice of they don't, and none of it has to do with the arrangement of letters or way the sound waves vibrate the bones in your ears that make the words cursed*.
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 without intending the sexism (or racist, or in any other way prejudiced)? You don't think unintended slurs could be casually tossed around with no consideration of the implication? I guess you are 100% earnest all well-considered with everything 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 people, but they're using language rooted in sexism, such as "man" to mean person, or (if you must) "he" to mean they. It's not evil, but it merits correction.
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, 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.
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?)
As I mentioned to Crowley earlier I think style guides mostly suggest against it for formal writing
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'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 don't know why you don't just admit it and move on. Not buying your excuses.
When someone attacks you The natural thing is to defend yourself. Don't be a hater
Comments
Grammar Girl has 3 pages on this usage, which is considerably longer than most of her blog posts, which clearly makes this more complex than an Crowley wants to admit (or perhaps even realizes). I switch between both they and he, choosing the one that sounds best for the sentence, but for official writings, like say a cover letter I would use the verbose he or she. I
almostnever use s/he since it's ugly.Most of my teachers were woman and they are the ones that taught me (and everyone else) to use he when the gender is unknown. Now all of a sudden I'm a sexist pig for it even though gender never crossed my mind.
Crowley's comments reminds me of this scene from South Park.
PS: What's funny is that most of the judges I seem to read about are women but I chose the gender-agnostic form of he instead of just assuming it was a women, which would have been my first guess.
Facebook is in no way relevant to this point, whatever the size of it user base. Bizarre that you think it is.
1) I'm not sure why you think that necessity is a requirement. I certainly didn't need to say "the judge" either, when a shorter, common gender-agnostic pronoun was available.
2) Your true sexist nature is really shining through here today.
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 don't know why you don't just admit it and move on. Not buying your excuses.
It's sexist because you can't conceive of the two letters 'h' plus 'e' or the sound /?hi?/ to mean anything other than a male despite the overwhelming evidence and history of this being used as a gender-agnostic pronoun. You read the word he and came to the erroneous conclusion that I don't think women can be judges. That's on you.
Do you even realize that about a quarter of the world's languages use grammatical gender? Do you know what gender is chosen when there is a mix of male and female objects? It's male, but I have a strong suspicion you aren't protesting the existence of these 1500 languages. Is hypocrite a gender neutral term?
BTW, I oft use phrases like "What are you guys doing?" to refer to a group of individuals. This could be an all male, mixed, or even all female group. Here is how the NOAD3 defines it.
noun
informal a man: he's a nice guy.[mid 19th cent.]
• (guys) people of either sex: you guys want some coffee?
This is not just some fluke entry in one dictionary so I guess you need to get busy writing all these guys to let them know how sexist they are¡ hehe
Here's an idea: Next time why not wait until someone actually makes a sexist remark.
PS: Since you think words can only have one meaning you probably should get on your soapbox to get people to stop calling a cigarette a fag or maybe you are selective about making foolish statements?
A simple correction. Take it as supplementary information if you want, I don't care for your defensiveness and this bonkers attempt to make a grammar dispute into an accusation of sexism. Even if I'm wrong (I'm not) then I'm just that, wrong, not sexist. Moronic conflation of issues.
Done.
When I learned that plural words in German default to the female definite article, I started the Campaign Against Women’s Plurality Of Otherwise Predictable Word-based Object W…identification.
CAWPOOPWOW.
“How’s that working out?”
I get daily death threats from feminist groups.
1) If he hasn't ever been used in an gender-agnostic way then why would there have been only a recent change to start using a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent?
2) Yes, guy has come to used in a certain way whilst he has been used in that same way for a long term and was taught to most readers here in that way, but that is beside the point. What matters is that you think I don't believe women can be judges and that my usage had to only refer to men despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
3) I had thought by now you would have actually educated yourself. Here is NOAD3 again.
pronoun [ third person singular ]
used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified: everyone liked my father—he was the perfect gentleman.
• used to refer to a person or animal of unspecified sex (in modern use, now chiefly replaced by “he or she” or “they”): every child needs to know that he is loved.
• any person (in modern use, now chiefly replaced by “anyone” or “the person”): he who is silent consents.
Look at that, just like with guys the term can be used without specifying or assuming a gender.
4) You accused me of being a bigot and you don't like that I'm defending my use of the language? Would you rather I just say "A women belongs in the kitchen"*?
* An actual example of a sexist comment.
Hm, okay, maybe I'm reading too much into her remarks. My concern is her comment that Apple never claimed Siri would work "100% of the time." Am I wrong to think that was opening the door to misleading advertising? "Hey, our ad said you can drive around in this car, but we never said the brakes would work '100% of the time!'"
You made your comment without caring, and yet assumed male as default. That matters. You shouldn't.
Most "experts" say the exact opposite, that "he" is the accepted pronoun when the sex is unknown. The group of writers right outside my door tell me that professional style guides still say exactly that. The quote below comes from a source of unknown expertise, but I include it because the excellent description of the issue ends with the conclusion that there are OTHER ways to handle the pronoun issue but not necessarily BETTER ways!
From http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/grammar-rules-for-he-she-usage.html:
For years, if the gender of an individual referred to in a sentence is unknown, “he” would be used as the genericpronoun.
However, as culture changes, so does the language along with it, and many believe that the exclusive use of “he” for a person of unknown gender is sexist. There are a few options in this situation.
Sometimes rewriting a sentence may help, but unfortunately you will at some point be forced to make a choice between sexist, clunky, or technically incorrect!
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.
"In modern use chiefly replaced..."
I hope we don't adopt the ridiculous Facebook model of using "they" because English lacks a singular gender-neutral pronoun. It's wrong and makes this stupid language even stupider by adding even MORE ambiguity to perceived meanings -- like, trying to figure out just what the hell the judge meant when they said "100% of the time."
(See that? I not only made the point, but brought the discussion back on-topic!)
Your new car could break down. Everything we make has the potential to fail but your purchase agreement and the law protect you from this. I forget exactly what their complaint was but I recall when I originally it was unfounded. As consumers they had the right to return the product within the allotted time frame if the product (which includes the Siri service) didn't live up to their needs.
I was someone that did return their iPhone 4S because of a poor user experience. I was unable to connect to Siri reliably (and because cellular chip issues were causing my battery to drain too quickly) I, like millions others that weekend, was trying ask Siri all the stupid questions. figured I would buy in a month or so when issues got ironed out. I ended up keeping my iPhone 4 until the iPhone 5 came arrived. Apple not lost about $750 in revenue on me but it cost them to have to deal with me and take back a device to Refurbish that was probably perfectly fine after about a month.
When it comes to language how is Siri suppose to be 100% correct? Even if Apple had directly stated Siri fully understands every logical aspect of human language one shouldn't expect Siri to be 100% accurate all the time because there are dialects, accents, laziness, and speech impediments that would affect Siri's ability to understand what is being stated. Before the words can be processed the waveforms need to be converted into words. This seems like a far way off; I'd just be happy with the iPhone not making distant background noise sound oddly loud to people on the other end of the line.
PS: I seem to recall reading Stephen Hawking's A Briefer History of Time where I think he mentioned getting a new electric train set as a child that was in less than perfect condition when it arrived, but in those days he had little recourse to have it fixed. I think we live in a time with excellent consumer protection laws.
(your HTML formatting is holding for some reason)
As I mentioned to Crowley earlier I think style guides mostly suggest against it for formal writing, but they also suggest against "he or she" and "they" for reasons in your last two bullet points.
What you're claiming now is moving the goal posts. Your claim was that I was sexist and your repeatedly defended your position that it didn't exist in the way I stated and proved. I even mentioned that it has been replaced early on in this conversation and even explained why I intermix this common, gender-agnostic terms.
Not he. She. Or, in general neutral terms, the judge.
Exactly as I said from the start.
1) No, you said I was being sexist for not considering the judge could be a women. When I explained the how he could be gender-agnostic you denied that was a possibility claiming the only option was that I didn't think a women could be a judge. You altered the argument.
2) How can someone be unintentionally bigoted by using the word he, guys or fag, as noted examples in this conversation? One can be unintentionally offended by the use of these terms when ignorance fails in one's comprehension, but the person making the comment is either believes in their prejudice of they don't, and none of it has to do with the arrangement of letters or way the sound waves vibrate the bones in your ears that make the words cursed*.
* There is a South Park episode on that, too.
Did I say "unintentionally bigoted"? In any case, you don't think a person can use language that has a sexist connotation without intending the sexism (or racist, or in any other way prejudiced)? You don't think unintended slurs could be casually tossed around with no consideration of the implication? I guess you are 100% earnest all well-considered with everything 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 people, but they're using language rooted in sexism, such as "man" to mean person, or (if you must) "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, 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.
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?)
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!
My English Professor former acquaintance would probably say “Shut up and go away!”…
I knew your English professor?