25 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeGoing "gender-neutral" is clumsy and I personally see little value in it. If emphasis
No it's still stupid, it's just a harder to fix stupid. [as the video I linked points out quite neatly,
it's worth watching for 5 minutes.]
There is a very easy and clear way to go gender neutral in English and considerable upsides and
no downsides to doing so.
Therefore it's stupid not to.
needs to made that both sexes are equally valid in the situation then I would use the
non-conventional gender.
i.e. If talking about Professor's of Physics then use "she"
if talking about nurses use "he"
I was lectured once for calling the head-teacher of a school the head mistress.
wtf.
A head mistress is a female head teacher.
A head master is a male head teacher.
Far more important to ensure both have equal opportunity
and equal remuneration than worry about names.
Plus artificially changing the language (rather than allowing the language to evolve)
will always get people's backs up and potentially do more harm to your cause than
leaving well alone. (It's just ammo for the Daily Mail!)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 May 16
Originally posted by wolfgang59You've said this before, and you were wrong then and you are wrong now.
Going "gender-neutral" is clumsy and I personally see little value in it. If emphasis
needs to made that both sexes are equally valid in the situation then I would use the
non-conventional gender.
i.e. If talking about Professor's of Physics then use "she"
if talking about nurses use "he"
I was lectured once for calling the head-teacher of a sc ...[text shortened]... tially do more harm to your cause than
leaving well alone. (It's just ammo for the Daily Mail!)
I defy ANY of you to produce any sentence that I can't make gender neutral and have it
not be clunky [or no clunkier than the original].
You're solution IS clunky and drives me nuts. You've recognised that there is a problem
and then decided to highlight it instead of fix it.
Funnily enough GB managed to copy-past a pretty decent explanation of exactly why this
matters.
Plus artificially changing the language (rather than allowing the language to evolve)
will always get people's backs up and potentially do more harm to your cause than
leaving well alone.
Funnily people use the same argument about everything they do that is harmful to others
[like for example anti-gay bigots] and it's no more right then than it is now.
Yes, people kick and scream and create a fuss... And then we get past it, the change happens,
and life gets a little bit better, and everyone wonders what all the fuss was about.
I find it deeply pathetic how much resistance people throw up [and the pathetic excuses] for
not using avoiding clearly sexist and harmful language that study after study demonstrates
promotes damaging stereotypes and gendered thinking that is not appropriate in this day and age.
I use gender neutral language all the time, in real life as well as in the written form...
And NOBODY notices or bats an eyelid at it.
Thus proving that all arguments based upon gender neutral language being hard or clunky are flat
out false.
I'm sorry, I call bull-excrement on your entire post.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 May 16
Originally posted by twhitehead
But it is more or less what you said. You said that even for European languages, it is stupid not to go gender neutral.
[b]The fact that the languages have genders is stupid but that's not the fault of the person speaking them.
Yet for English you seem to think it is the fault of the speaker.
Which is why I made the point of saying that in E ...[text shortened]... upid to assume there are no downsides. I would also dispute that the upsides are 'considerable'.
But it is more or less what you said. You said that even for European languages, it is stupid not
to go gender neutral.
I don't agree, but it's not worth fighting over.
I meant that it's still stupid that those languages require gendering [of all kind of things that
have no business being gendered] but that that is a harder problem to fix than english where
it isn't hard at all. It took me almost no effort at all to make the switch. [I do occasionally slip
up but it's pretty damn rare, and that's because I learned about this issue as an adult and
live in a world where many people still use such gendered language all the time. Someone
who grows up using gender neutral language would have no problems whatsoever]
Yet for English you seem to think it is the fault of the speaker.
Yes. Because unlike those languages which [to my knowledge] have no easy fix, English is trivially
easy to use in a gender neutral fashion.
There are excuses. You may not consider them good ones, but they are there.
And its not as easy as you suggest.
People can make 'excuses' for anything. That means absolutely nothing.
And it's exactly as easy as I am suggesting... I know this because I have done it.
Only some parts of English can be used in a gender neutral way, and not always easily.
Again. Give me an example... Because in over a decade I have found NOTHING that gave me any trouble
at all.
Which means even if such a case exists it's such a trivial edge use case that it's not a problem or any sort
of valid excuse not to switch.
And its stupid to assume there are no downsides. I would also dispute that the upsides are 'considerable'.
I don't assume that there are no downsides. I know there are no downsides having done it for well over a decade.
in which time I have had literally ZERO problems.
The only time I ever have a problem is with people stupidly trying to tell me how hard it is having never bothered
to try it.
THIS right here is the single solitary problem, and it only occurs trying to get OTHER people to switch.
If you switch yourself nobody notices unless you point it out.
Originally posted by googlefudgePerhaps you should just model the use of gender-neutral language in your own writing and then from time to time draw people's attention to it rather than browbeating them.
Apparently I'm feeling combative and cranky this evening... Probably best if I go to bed.
EDIT: Not that I'm not right... But I could probably manage being right in a less cranky way.
You're like a pop record where the sound has been normalized so much and subjected to such extreme dynamic range compression, that the quietest bits of the music sound exactly as loud and as blaring as the bits that actually need to sound loud.
Comporting yourself as a soldier in the "loudness war" does a disservice to the obviously more important causes that you champion. 😉
26 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudge"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away."
I defy ANY of you to produce any sentence that I can't make gender neutral and have it not be clunky [or no clunkier than the original].
That is one of the most gorgeous thoughts ever penned; if you can neuter it unclunkily, kudos.
If one does not keep pace with one's companions, perhaps it is because they hear a different drummer -- obviously does not work, because THEY aren't the ones who hear the different drummer, HE is.
If a man or woman does not keep pace with his or her companions ... is clunky.
If s/he does not keep pace with her or his companions ... is abominable.
Oh fuggito: if ya doesn't keep up wid ya buddies, mebee ya gots da wrong buddies!
26 May 16
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo my question to you is since you used to be a christian and then christianity didn't make sense and you became an atheist, what exactly made you change your mind? What did you find to be more compelling about atheism than christianity?
(by most standard definitions of 'god(s)' )
I do not believe god(s) exist.
I also believe god(s) do not exist (not the same thing). But not all atheists have this belief. And in my case it is not a 'belief system'.
I was born not believing god(s) existed. I was then taught by my parents that a specific God did exist and I believed them for a while. I ...[text shortened]... and over time have come to the conclusion (based on evidence) that they almost certainly do not.
26 May 16
Originally posted by moonbusIf a person does not keep pace with their companions, perhaps it is because they hear a different drummer.
"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away."
The 'they' is actually ambiguous, so I can see there is an issue there, but not a serious one in this case as it doesn't really matter which 'they' is hearing a different drummer, the meaning remains the same.
But in the one you tried does work, you just should have stuck with 'one':
If one does not keep pace with ones companions, perhaps it is because one hears a different drummer. Let one step to the music one hears, however measured or far away.
The second sentence takes on a very subtly different meaning, but not seriously so.
26 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkFirst off, atheism isn't a religion and I never found it 'compelling'. What made me change my mind was simply a realisation that the whole Christianity thing didn't make sense. It didn't add up. There were so many holes that it couldn't support itself in my mind. And one day I just thought 'maybe there isn't a god', and it made so much sense that I believed it.
So my question to you is since you used to be a christian and then christianity didn't make sense and you became an atheist, what exactly made you change your mind? What did you find to be more compelling about atheism than christianity?
I was only about 12 or 13 at the time and have matured a lot since then and have had many discussions with theists and thought long and hard about the issue many times, but why I continue to lack a belief in God(s) is still based on the fact that theism just doesn't add up and doesn't fit with the evidence.
'Compelling' is not the best word as it suggests a desire for a particular fact to be true or not. That is not the case.
26 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you changed your mind with a realisation that the whole Christianity thing didn't make sense but you can't seem to remember which parts exactly didn't make sense because it was too long ago? I guess then there is no point in pursuing this discussion any further. Thanks for your time.
First off, atheism isn't a religion and I never found it 'compelling'. What made me change my mind was simply a realisation that the whole Christianity thing didn't make sense. It didn't add up. There were so many holes that it couldn't support itself in my mind. And one day I just thought 'maybe there isn't a god', and it made so much sense that I believ ...[text shortened]... best word as it suggests a desire for a particular fact to be true or not. That is not the case.
26 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain with the "realization".
First off, atheism isn't a religion and I never found it 'compelling'. What made me change my mind was simply a realisation that the whole Christianity thing didn't make sense. It didn't add up. There were so many holes that it couldn't support itself in my mind. And one day I just thought 'maybe there isn't a god', and it made so much sense that I believ ...[text shortened]... best word as it suggests a desire for a particular fact to be true or not. That is not the case.
26 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeOriginally posted by googlefudge
The person you're quoting seems to know what they are talking about.
You could have managed to put some words down that were your own instead of pure copy pasting.
"The person you're quoting seems to know what they are talking about rather than "they"?
____________
Singular/Plural Addendum: "The person you're quoting seems to know what" [he and/or she is] "talking about"?
26 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudge"The truth will set you free but first it will piss you off." -M. Pancoast
You've said this before, and you were wrong then and you are wrong now.
I defy ANY of you to produce any sentence that I can't make gender neutral and have it
not be clunky [or no clunkier than the original].
You're solution IS clunky and drives me nuts. You've recognised that there is a problem
and then decided to highlight it instead of fix it. ...[text shortened]... being hard or clunky are flat
out false.
I'm sorry, I call bull-excrement on your entire post.