Gendered nouns, nonstandard and otherwise

Yes and no. Can be a neutral pronoun.

No, it isnt sexist. If something or someone is sexist it needs to be designed with the intent to be sexist. Some is not sexist my default. Likewise, something isnt sexist just because you say it is.

You dont seem to understand the etymology of the words 'man', 'he', 'she', 'woman' or any other english gendered words. As such you have made assumptions which do not stand up when analysed in a linguistic sense.

Gender politics = worse politics. What makes it even more annoying is that it is ultiamtely meaningless, as all it is today is people who wasted their time on a gender studies degree whhining about things that dont ultimately matter.

Go on, ask the generaly public whether they care when someone uses the default pronoun of 'he' to refer to an unknown. I doubt you'd get much support outside of gender/womens studies graduates.

 

Ehhhh, if I need to use a non-gendered pronoun, I just grab the gendered pronoun I wanna use by instinct and lop off the leading "sh"/"h".

 

Unless i'm missing something, that would just leave you with 'e'...?

 

Yes, it can be. Unfortunately, it seems there's some ambiguity between the gendered case of the pronoun and the ostensibly-neutral case of the pronoun. How can you tell whether the pronoun "he" is used neutrally or in a gendered fashion, unless you have context which might not be available?

But here's a thought. If, as English speakers, we're willing to deal with the ambiguity between gendered-he and neutral-he, then maybe we can deal with the ambiguity between singular-they and plural-they, too.

If someone is sexist, they need to have been designed with the intent to be sexist...? I'm going to assume that you don't literally mean that, because A) that's stupid, B) people aren't 'designed' at all, and C) it's probably just a phrasing issue, and you just mean to say that sexism requires intentionality in general.

...well, actually, that's still fucking stupid. Let me walk you through this, but you can go ahead and tell me if you disagree with my premises:

• Cognitive bias in general is extremely well-documented in humans, and proven to exist.
• It is possible to have a cognitive bias and not to realize it (which is, indeed, why we need to study our cognitive biases in the first place).
• There's no reason that a human couldn't have an unjustly-discriminatory cognitive bias on the basis of sex.
• Our cognitive biases can have institutional effects and/or can influence the way we construct institutions.
• THEREFORE, it is possible that a human (or humans) could unjustly discriminate on the basis of sex without realizing or intending it.
• THEREFORE, is is possible that a discriminatory or sexist institution could exist without ever being designed as sexist.

If that doesn't sound convincingly like "sexism" to you, well -- inequality of outcome and opportunity seem to be able to exist without being intentionally created, so would total inequality still not count as sexist, so long as it was the product of cognitive bias and not intentional design?

If that argument-from-absurdity doesn't tell you that there's something wrong with your conception of "sexism", I have to wonder what kind of semantic game you're playing. This entire thread seems pretty semantic to me, but you get a trophy for particularly unhelpful semantics.

True, but 90% of people don't know the etymologies of the words they use, and simply use words as symbols-of-meaning without any consideration for the design of those symbols, or any consideration for the historical intent for the use of those symbols. What matters is what is actually communicated by words, between speakers extant in the here and now, not the historical context for how those words were used. The historical context can inform how we parse language now, and how we choose language, but it doesn't directly influence the meanings that we communicate and receive.

If you think that's a problem, I suggest you may be suffering from a case of linguistic functional-fixedness.

 

"E," "er," "is," "imself," or "erself," yes.

 

Well, to use the examples of the wiki article posted on the first page, it seems that the general rule is that when you are referring to an individual, the context states the pronoun 'he' is gendered, but when you are referring to an ambigutious other, such as customers in a supermarket, the context states that the pronoun 'he' is neutral.

I have nothing against using 'they' for unknowns, however in many respects and uses it can be gramatically incorrect, or just plain disruptive to readers. There have been times when I have been reading and the author has used 'they' in such a way that the sentence ends up feeling like it doesnt flow correctly.

Correct.

Cognitive bias exists, obviously however most people do not think about sex and gender with relation to every single god damn thing they do in their life.

You know what is actually more likely to make people sexist? This constant fascination with hunting for sexism where it doesnt exist. Morgan Freeman said that the best way to combat and eliminate racism is to stop talking about it. No one needs to be, in the words of SJWs, 'hyper aware' of race, just like people dont need to be 'hyper aware' of sexism. Especially as sexism in the modern Western world at least barely exists.

However, this can rapidly change if people see that people, usually women, are 'triggered' by stupid, menial things like pronouns.

Except SJWs when talking about how pronouns or othe words are 'sexist' and that they are therefore 'problematic' and 'need to change' completely forget to include context. When context is included, all the words they complain about arae not actually racist/sexist/<insert other '-ist' here>.

They arent a problem. They dont need to change. Stop trying to force people to change the way they speak and write.

Seems a bit silly, and jarring to readers.

 

...yes. That's how many cognitive biases work. You don't think about it.

Yes, Morgan Freeman's position on racial discrimination is completely relevant to this discussion about sexism and sexed pronouns. Morgan Freeman's oft-quoted statements are also a definitive authority on discrimination, even if they only contain an assertion made without evidence (and of course, an assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

I never said anything about being "triggered". I only think your position is almost completely baseless and stupid, but I'm far from being in the grips of PTSD.

Moreover, you make the claim that sexism in the modern Western world doesn't currently exist in a meaningful fashion, but it will return if people are "triggered" by pronouns. Which is to say, "women are getting triggered by pronouns" is a piece of evidence that people might take to support sexism as a worldview and a basis for policy.

• Now, if "women getting triggered by pronouns" is valid evidence for sexism, then have you adopted sexism? You seem to believe that women getting triggered by pronouns is a common state of affairs -- you yourself have seen people, usually women, acting in this manner, no? It only seems reasonable to update your beliefs and values as you encounter valid evidence...
• If "women getting triggered by pronouns" is NOT valid evidence for sexism, then why do you think people-at-large would take it as valid evidence? Surely that kind of widespread misunderstanding of evidence would suggest some kind of... cognitive bias, no? Perhaps even a cognitive bias that could lead to unintentional inequality of opportunity and outcomes between the sexes.

I'm not going to force people to change the way they speak and write. I'm sure some other leftist-type might try to do so, but not me; certainly not over someone using pronouns, as opposed to, say, someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. I'm sure you've heard the metaphor before.

No, I'm just going to use my ability to speak and write; namely, to voice my total and absolute disagreement with you and your arguments.

I'm also not willing to entertain your wild generalizations -- there may be SJWs out there who are completely ignorant of context, and for the sake of this argument I'll accept that might be all SJWs. Your generalization is still completely irrelevant, because you still have yet to make a convincing argument that the etymological history of our pronouns is sufficient evidence to show that the contemporary usage of our pronouns is not sexist. You've merely asserted as much without evidence or argumentation.

 

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "'e' is the silliest form of gender-neutral pronoun, except for all the others."
As to readers... this isn't a story thread, tovarisch. Jarringness is a non-issue.

 

Unless you can use it for a girl or woman, it is not.

...You are so utterly wrong I cannot believe it's unintentional. Looking at your following posts, I can confirm that you're not simply ignorant.

Unless "she" can be used in the same way, it is indeed sexist. Context indicates that it is sexist, so it is.

Because sexual equality is unimportant in your eyes, I see.

Appeal to ignorance and to majority at once. Impressive, but you didn't make the hat trick.
You did, however, prove that you have nothing to add to Tananari's nonsense. I won't regret putting you on ignore.

White noise can put together a better argument than you.