Feminism out of control?

[Montmorency]

All language is inherently gendered with reference to people

But it's not.

Then "Chairman" becomes not "chairman/chairwoman" but "chairperson" even though "person" is a feminine gender noun and "human" is a masculine gender noun. So we're not really any better off, we just think we are.

The real question is, why do you think we're not? You are muddled on two separate points: first, that the form in another, ancient, language has any present significance in the context of de-sexing language; second that grammatical gender is a form of sexed language in the way that we care about.

So your argument there only really holds up in a monoglot English context. It doesn't work in Iberia, or for anyone who learns Latin - which is still a lot of people in Classics, Medieval history, the Church or Law.

Presumably these people speak languages and lead lives outside Classics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But it's not.

We've back-formed "man" from "human" - and it is - or we wouldn't be worried about it.

The real question is, why do you think we're not? You are muddled on two separate points: first, that the form in another, ancient, language has any present significance in the context of de-sexing language; second that grammatical gender is a form of sexed language in the way that we care about.

As I have already said, people are happier with the language they're more ignorant of - because they feel it's de-sexed. They don't fully understand all the connotations of the word they're using, so they're happy with it.

The word "vagina" is just a great example, because it's so inherently sexist, reducing a woman's intimate parts to their function with relation to a man. People like the word, though, because they don't understand it. By contrast they dislike English words such as cwim which I tried to find a reputable reference for and can't because it's relegated to "slang".

Presumably these people speak languages and lead lives outside Classics.

Ja, some of them speak Spanish or Catalan. The defence that the word is so divorced from modern English that it's origin is no longer relevant only works in English​. Which was the sole point of those examples.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...As I have already said, people are happier with the language they're more ignorant of - because they feel it's de-sexed. They don't fully understand all the connotations of the word they're using, so they're happy with it....

They enact the meaning of the word(s) they use through their use of it and the acceptance of same by the message receiver. The word of itself is an arbitrary symbol with an ascribed meaning that alters as the mass of language users come to alter it based on their shared sense of what that symbol should signify.

I find the history of a word and how it developed interesting, sometimes fascinating. But I am an academic and history buff who plays alternative military history games for entertainment.

Most language users really don't give a hoot. They are content to use some form of the "f-word" as virtually any part of speech and it has little or no connection to its original denotative meaning. It is used like some kind of flavor enhancer to conversation.

Disrespect was seldom used as a verb -- and now it is commonly used so, and has generated an abbreviated version for quick use since three syllables are so much work.

Humongous is now in the dictionaries, though when I was in high school it was a slang neologism.

Gay used to be the term for hedonistic heterosexual behavior, but now the term is used almost exclusively to indicate same sex sexuality.


All the meanings exist only in our heads anyway.

[Montmorency]

Let me clear this up on homo and "man" as an aside.

Here's what the OED has to say about the Old English sense of "man":

I.1 A human being (irrespective of sex or age); = L. homo

English "man" is from the PIE root, not from Latin or Romance.

It's not a contraction or back-formation of "human". It doesn't even seem to be cognate.


Now, whether in English, a Romance language, or other, etymological descent still does not matter, and you have not explained why it should. It's bizarre to allege ignorance, when clearly language is self-contained and doesn't depend on history. Turn it around, and you might well argue that "nigger" is not a slur since it derives from a word merely meaning "black" or "dark-colored". Either way, why?

Just for fun:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The best Greek linguist that now exists does not understand Greek so well as a Grecian plowman did, or a Grecian milkmaid; and the same for the Latin, compared with a plowman or milkmaid of the Romans

Well, most languages I'm aware of originally have three genders, they tend to lose Neuter first irrc - like Spanish. The point I am arguing is that in the fight for "gender neutral language" we inconsistently apply the rules of grammatical and semantic gender. In general terms, it's often the word of which the people are more ignorant which is found to be more acceptable.

It's not predominant.

My bugbear is, these arguments annoy me because they are almost always trivial, made over small gramatical or linguistic points and the basis for the argument is fundamentally wrong.

What do you think you are doing?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let me clear this up on homo and "man" as an aside.

Here's what the OED has to say about the Old English sense of "man":



English "man" is from the PIE root, not from Latin or Romance.

It's not a contraction or back-formation of "human". It doesn't even seem to be cognate.


Now, whether in English, a Romance language, or other, etymological descent still does not matter, and you have not explained why it should. It's bizarre to allege ignorance, when clearly language is self-contained and doesn't depend on history. Turn it around, and you might well argue that "nigger" is not a slur since it derives from a word merely meaning "black" or "dark-colored". Either way, why?

Just for fun:





It's not predominant.



What do you think you are doing?

OK, my Latin is better than My Old English, but Wikipedia also says this:

"In Old English the words wer and wīf (and wīfmann) were used to refer to "a man" and "a woman" respectively, while mann had the primary meaning of "adult male human" but could also be used for gender neutral purposes (as is the case with modern German man, corresponding to the pronoun in the English utterance "one does what one must")."

The fact that I fell into the "Latin, everything Latin!" trap isn't actually germain to my point, because "man" and "homo" still mean what I said they did.

[Husar]

The word "vagina" is just a great example, because it's so inherently sexist, reducing a woman's intimate parts to their function with relation to a man.

But that's their primary biological function and biology is science.

I also find it odd to confuse grammatical gender with biological gender. In German a chair is male, a shovel is female and a baby is neutral because neutral is the third grammatical "gender". When we use English words like German ones, e.g. in Computer Science, we have to give them a gender for the article. There can be fights about that as some genders with some words just sound odd or wrong, but it's also hard to prove anything, at best you can derive the gender from a similar German word or so in some cases. By the way, a computer is male, a drive is neutral and a disc is female. A joystick is male, mouse and keyboard female, speakers are female, the screen is male and so on.

I find it quite odd to derive too much from that. Subconscious effects that are minuscule hardly sound like a reason to do a lot. In that case it would make more sense to spray our food with estrogene instead of or in addition to insect killers to solve gender issues.

And yes, I know you weren't saying the concerns are valid, but even the grammatical stuff you mention seems a biot overblown to me in general.

[Gilrandir]

I also find it odd to confuse grammatical gender with biological gender.

Properly speaking, there is no biological gender. There is biological sex, while gender is a social construct.

[Kagemusha]

I wish we still had female members active at backroom. Im sure this discussion would be lot more interesting, rather then focused at sexual bias of IE languages.

[CrossLOPER]

I wish we still had female members active at backroom. Im sure this discussion would be lot more interesting, rather then focused at sexual bias of IE languages.

Isn't frogwoman still around?

[Husar]

Isn't frogwoman still around?

In the Backroom?
Barely, that I remember. Magnoliawoman posted in the Backroom now and then but hasn't been around in a long time either.
The closest thing to women here are effeminate leftists like you, me and Fragony.

Perhaps some are lurking, but the more we call them out of control, the less likely they are to say anything I'd guess.

[Greyblades]

Properly speaking, there is no biological gender. There is biological sex, while gender is a social construct.

No there are just people who want to change genders meaning to "adherance to stereotype" and those foolish enough to believe it.

[Beskar]

How the mail lists sex offenders in a list with consensual relationships and kinky consensual sexual behaviours.

[HopAlongBunny]

No there are just people who want to change genders meaning to "adherance to stereotype" and those foolish enough to believe it.

Take a deep breath and try to relax: