h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Honest. Just do it.

Give me a fricken break. This whole political correctness crap is EXACTLY what's dehumanising and debasing the modern world.

I am not Sair so and so, I am Mr. So and So. and proud of it. People who are uncomfortable about having a gender should see a psychiatrist.

Hello Mr. So and So, and may I be the first to welcome you to h2g2? I'm curious as to why you think political correctness (of all things!) is dehumanising and debasing. Do explain...



I *don't* advocate universal use of gender-free pronouns. If I speak about you to someone else, I will refer to you as 'he', and 'Mr', and so on. To quote my entry:

> "[gender-free pronouns can be used] to refer to all people, regardless of gender, if gender is not relevant to the discussion. Someone who sees gendered pronouns as inherently sexist might follow this approach."

Some people do indeed take this approach. I'm not one of them. I don't personally know anyone who does. Do you?



Personally, I'm not a fan of words like 'Sair'We've got plenty of honorifics that are already gender-free: like 'mate', for example. And the loss of a few honorifics doesn't do huge damage to our range of expression - as opposed to trying to do entirely without third person pronouns.



Gender-free pronouns are not primarily about those 'who are uncomfortable about having a gender'. While that is one of the possible uses that I list, I also include other uses. To summarise the main ones:

* To refer to people of unknown gender.
* To refer to someone whose gender is unknown to you, but known to the person you're speaking to.
* To refer to someone whose gender you wish to keep secret.
* In descriptions of people who are somehow hypothetical.

Have you ever been in such a situation?



Finally, you talk about "People who are uncomfortable about having a gender" - and suggest that they see a shrink. Well, it's a viewpoint - but perhaps you could reflect that there are those who are *comfortable* about *not* having a gender. Those who are as proud of being Sair as you are of being Mr. Are they also in need of psychiatric help? Can you not respect their wishes, just as you would have them respect your own wish to be called 'Mr' ?

-Martin (have life, will travel)

RE: Hello Mr. So and So, and may I be the first to welcome you to h2g2? I'm curious as to why you think political correctness (of all things!) is dehumanising and debasing. Do explain...

Because political correctness has, at its core, the idea that certain things are nasty, uncomfortable, or "loaded" and therefore should be pussyfooted around as much as possible. I had a classmate in University who was a dwarf. I referred to her once as a "dwarf" - the medical expression, by the way. I was then totally upbraided by the PC hordes who said I should have said "PORG" or "vertically challenged" or some such crap. Of course, she summed it up nicely - I'd look her straight in the eye, and accept the fact that she was different and have no problem with it. None of THEM would make any eye contact with her, ever, and always tried to skate around something they were obviously uncomfortable about.

Call a spade a spade, damn it, not an "earth-inverting horticultural device". Political Correctness is NOT refusing to use the word "n*gger". That's human decency. Political Correctness is using "womyn" rather than "woman", "African American" rather than "black". There's something inherently condescending about it... "I'll find some fancy shmancy word to use to skate around saying "black" because deep down I can't get over the fact that you're black and think of you as black."

RE: I *don't* advocate universal use of gender-free pronouns. If I speak about you to someone else, I will refer to you as 'he', and 'Mr', and so on. To quote my entry:

I didn't say you were. But I'd suggest getting a life anyway - you researched, for six hours, ways to skate around suggesting gender, as if that was something loaded people should avoid.

RE: "Some people do indeed take this approach. I'm not one of them. I don't personally know anyone who does. Do you?

"Some people do indeed take this approach" - they're the ones needing their heads examined.

RE: * To refer to people of unknown gender.

So use the title: "The doctor in question", "Some ONE in Marketing", etc.

RE:* In descriptions of people who are somehow hypothetical.

Strangely enough, the English language already has this feature. "One".

RE: Those who are as proud of being Sair as you are of being Mr. Are they also in need of psychiatric help?

Yes.

PC stuff first

>> "African American" rather than "black" <<

And your point isn't at all weakened by the fact that African American doesn't mean black. The former is an ethnic grouping, the latter is skin colour. You can be African American without being black and (more commonly) you can be black without being African American.

You thought the point was to skate around the word 'black'?? Heck, I guess it might be for some people. But the two words stand for different concepts. If you're giving a description to the police, and you got mugged by a black person, then 'black' is the correct term: you don't necessarilly know what ethnicity sie is. If you are an anthropologist, or a statistician looking at the differences between races, then ethnic groups are the more useful concept.

And often this is the case: the 'politically correct' term has a different meaning to the 'plain English' term it replaces. 'Visually impaired' includes total blindness - but it's wider than that - it includes my grandad, for example, who has a tiny amount of very blurred vision in one eye. He's not blind, but he certainly is visually impaired. ()

>> Political Correctness is NOT refusing to use the word "n*gger". <<

Just as much as any other example. Difference is, the PC camp won that argument. But in its day, people fought for the right to use that word, just as strongly as you fight for the word 'dwarf'.

And as it happens, I vastly prefer dwarf to monstrosities like 'vertically challenged'. (Does anyone really say that? I thought it was just an urban myth...) Sometimes politically correct language is right - like using 'firefighter' instead of 'fireman'. And sometimes it's wrong, as in vertically challenged.

>> using "womyn" rather than "woman" <<

Which is only ever done to make a point. Nobody (bar random weirdos who've picked up the wrong end of the stick) seriously suggests that we should stop using the word 'woman'. But it's used in logos or names of groups to suggest a certain type of radical feminism and an ideal of strong women. And judging from your reaction, I'd say it's done a superb job communicating exactly what it's meant to communicate.



It's easy to mock political correctness by taking some word that was only ever suggested as a parody, and treating it like a serious attempt to change language use. She's not a bottle blonde, she's Otherwise Peroxidal. You've seen the chain mails, no doubt. Whatever. Back in the real world, the language has evolved some, and will continue to evolve.

Sure, I agree with you that some people use politically correct language out of nervousness and fear. And some people use racist language out of nervousness and fear. Sure, let's tackle that fear: let's get people to the stage where they can look each other in the eye, of course. But to dismiss PC language because of some of its users - that's a baby lost with the bath water.

-Martin (needs bath)

RE: And your point isn't at all weakened by the fact that African American doesn't mean black.

PC Usage has African American as black. Even if the person is from Jamaica, you still say "African American". Or, you're supposed to.

RE: You thought the point was to skate around the word 'black'?? Heck, I guess it might be for some people.

Well, why else?

RE: But the two words stand for different concepts. If you're giving a description to the police, and you got mugged by a black person, then 'black' is the correct term:

You want to watch your usage of the term "black" around PCers.

RE: Just as much as any other example. Difference is, the PC camp won that argument.

Did they really? Listen to any "urban" (yet another PC euphemism) station in the US and it's "yo, my n*gga" this and "yo, my n*gga" that.

RE: But in its day, people fought for the right to use that word, just as strongly as you fight for the word 'dwarf'.

Words in and of themselves are not evil.

RE: And as it happens, I vastly prefer dwarf to monstrosities like 'vertically challenged'.

Indeed. But you might end up tarred and feathered using the first thanks to the Word Nazis.

RE: Which is only ever done to make a point. Nobody (bar random weirdos who've picked up the wrong end of the stick) seriously suggests that we should stop using the word 'woman'.

Er, that's political correctness, mate.

RE: It's easy to mock political correctness by taking some word that was only ever suggested as a parody, and treating it like a serious attempt to change language use.

That's exactly what political correctness is- a deliberate reshaping of a language to try and modify thought patterns. Rather than "handout", refer to "welfare" as "the entitlement" - so that people aren't "stigmatised" by being parasitic scum, for example.

RE: Sure, I agree with you that some people use politically correct language out of nervousness and fear. And some people use racist language out of nervousness and fear. Sure, let's tackle that fear: let's get people to the stage where they can look each other in the eye, of course.

Did I ever say I wasn't opposed to racist language? I see it as a case of deus est canis inversus or whatever. Talk straight, think straight.

Sorry to butt in on your conversation, but if
Researcher 201516
would go back to there own page and then click on the "EDIT PAGE" button and then write a little something about your self, as this will activate your page and then a ACE can come and welcome you there properly
Sorry for interrupting your conversation

Manda

My biggest problem with "gender neutral" pronouns is that it
generates the idea that all people are the same irrespective of
gender.

This is false.

To reply to a previous post, with the GNP stuff

>> Strangely enough, the English language already has this feature. "One". <<

Rubbish: One just doesn't have that meaning. One is essentially an abbreviation for 'everyone' or 'anyone': it's used in sentences like "The older one grows the more one likes indecency". I can say "When I go out with someone, I like to treat hir by buying all hir drinks" - that sentence just doesn't have the same meaning if you replace 'hir' with 'one'.

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?r=67&term=one
- pronoun section, #2.

You might suggest *extending* the meaning of 'one' - but that's a quite seperate idea, which I don't think you're suggesting?

>> So use the title: "The doctor in question", "Some ONE in Marketing", etc. <<

A suggestion that's in the entry. And a suggestion which is cumbersome and tedious. Pronouns were invented for a reason.

>> I'd suggest getting a life anyway <<

I'm interested in language and in gender, so it was an enjoyable six hours. I learnt some useful stuff, and read some interesting ideas. More productive than staring at the TV, anyway.

-Martin

Well, perhaps it's different in the USA - I've never been criticised by hordes, PC or otherwise, for using words like 'black' or 'drawf'. You've obviously had different opinions. And if you want to criticise those who would tar and feather you for such words, then I'm not going to disagree with you.

From my perspective it's something of a straw man argument, but I can see where you're coming from. And if I ever meet someone who claims that a Pakistani should be referred to as an African American just because of hir skin colour, you can be sure that my response will be equally robust.



>> My biggest problem with "gender neutral" pronouns is that it
generates the idea that all people are the same irrespective of
gender. This is false. <<

Why don't you have the same problem with the 'colour neutral' pronouns 'he' and 'she' - which presumably might generate the idea that all people are the same regardless of skin colour?

-Martin

RE: Why don't you have the same problem with the 'colour neutral' pronouns 'he' and 'she' - which presumably might generate the idea that all people are the same regardless of skin colour?

Ah, right. Well, here's where common sense comes in. Keep in mind I'm not arguing against you per se, k?

He and she imply different needs. That's why the language has evolved terms to distinguish between a man and a woman. Women need more lavatories per capita than men, for example. Building codes that require an equal number of men's and women's lavvies, for example, end up with lineups at the women's and too many men's bogs.

However, there is nothing physiologically too different between a black man and a white man, of any real import.

Now, if you ask the PCers, by the way, there should be unequal treatment for "races". For them, putting an ad saying "no whites need apply" is not racist, whereas "no blacks need apply" would get the firm torched to the ground (and rightly so). I'm surprised that the next phase of political correctness doesn't have "nair" and "wair" - for example, so that if you're dealing with "Nair Jones" to give sair access to a job, whereas "wair Jones" can get stuffed.

Well, I don't argue for building codes that require an equal number of male and female lavatories, so I'll skip that. And while I have some sympathy with positive discrimination, I'm undecided on the matter, so I won't touch on it.

Anyway...

I think your evolution argument is ruined somewhat by the languages that don't have seperate pronouns for men and women (eg Finnish), and by the languages where grammatical gender is completely seperate from biological gender (eg French, German, etc). Given that, I don't think you can argue from the way things happen to be at the moment.

There's also an inherent contradiction in what you're saying: you're using past evolution to argue that evolution NOW is unnecessary. But if everyone had followed that line of argument, then the past evolution wouldn't have happened, and presumably we'd still be saying 'ook' to each other. Since life on this planet is continually changing, so our languages has to continually change. That's not to say that every proposed change is a good thing - far from it! But equally it's wrong to dismiss a change just because it's a change.



The other part of your argument is essentially saying that men and women are *physiologically* different, so therefore there should be different pronouns. I'm not entirely clear why only physiological differences count, but I'll let that one slide for now.

Well, yes men and women are different. And there are times (when constucting lavatories, for example) when those differences become important. And there are times when the differences are not important. In the former case, it's essential to talk about men and women and he and she, and gendered pronouns are appropriate. In the latter case, there's no need to talk about men and women, and it's vastly more convenient to talk about people.

Do you also have a problem with the word 'person', or the word 'firefighter'? All sie and hir (or singular they, universal male, etc) are doing is providing pronouns to match these gender-neutral nouns.

-Martin

RE: I think your evolution argument is ruined somewhat by the languages that don't have seperate pronouns for men and women (eg Finnish),

I'm not talking about Finnish, I'm talking about English. All those wacko Nordic countries with 75% income taxes and rampant socialism can finish the socialist P.C. job on themselves as far as I am concerned.

RE: There's also an inherent contradiction in what you're saying: you're using past evolution to argue that evolution NOW is unnecessary.

No, I'm saying that humans are wired to say "he" and "she" in our culture, and I don't see any reason to change this - and I don't like the dark designs the PC people have on it.

RE: But equally it's wrong to dismiss a change just because it's a change.

I'm maligning a daft change, not change per se.

RE: The other part of your argument is essentially saying that men and women are *physiologically* different, so therefore there should be different pronouns. I'm not entirely clear why only physiological differences count, but I'll let that one slide for now.

There are physiological, mental, emotional, cultural etc. reasons to emphasise these differences. Not so much so for color.

RE: And there are times when the differences are not important. In the former case, it's essential to talk about men and women and he and she, and gendered pronouns are appropriate. In the latter case, there's no need to talk about men and women, and it's vastly more convenient to talk about people.

That's when you talk about a role, not a person.

RE: Do you also have a problem with the word 'person', or the word 'firefighter'? All sie and hir (or singular they, universal male, etc) are doing is providing pronouns to match these gender-neutral nouns.

What's wrong with "one"?

>> All those wacko Nordic countries... <<

Ahh, I was forgetting that you were from the US... and I don't expect telling you about Turkish will help...


> "That's when you talk about a role, not a person."

Not necessarilly. Sometimes it is ("many firefighters were killed in the twin towers"). Sometimes it isn't ("What do you do?" - "I'm a firefighter").

Likewise, gender neutral pronouns are sometimes used of individuals ("I don't like the way that she-male treats hir partner"), but vastly more often used of roles ("Every firefighter who was killed in the twin towers sacrificed hir life that others might live").

Do you object to the use of GNPs only when referring to specific individuals, or do you dislike them when talking about roles as well?

>> What's wrong with "one"? <<

Like I said earlier, 'one' doesn't have the meaning that you appear to think it does. If I say "The firefighter saved hir dog", it's clear that the dog belongs to the firefighter. If I say "The firefighter saved one's dog", who does the dog belong to? Not the firefighter. Look up the word in a dictionary.

Like I say, if you want to argue that we should *extend* the meaning of one, then that's a different argument. But I don't think that's what you're saying?

-Martin

And of course, there's the fact that online, some would rather be gender neutral so that they aren't treated according to their gender, but related to as a person. Feisor, for example. Others choose names that are not clear, and say nothing about gender on their personal spaces, but that's just because they don't think of it. I haven't wandered by Also Ran's space for awhile, but IIRC, she says nothing about her gender there, though she does in her postings. And of course, she was at a meet and there are photos, so I'm very confident that she is, in fact, a she If I don't know someone's gender, I'll admit that I don't use the GNPs, but that's just because I think the words themselves are ugly (I object to being called Ms Pawloski for the same reason--I prefer Mrs) Perceived PCness has nothing to do with it (Though I'm not PC) And after all, Researcher 201516, if you'd not said anything in the first post here, no one would know what to call you, as you've not chosen a name (admittedly, that doesn't always clarify matters) nor have you written anything on your personal space yet... Though since you've not posted anywhere in 5 weeks, this could be a moot point, because you may well never see this...

Thanks for a very entertaining thread

I seem to remember discussing GNP's before. Was it a conversation about an earlier draft of this article? Anyway, I seem to remember not liking whatever it was. However, I do appreciate the article and I'm much more amenable to the idea of GNPs. Intellectually, at least.

It's strange, but GNPs generate a ... er... almost visceral response from me. I don't like them. I really don't. Horrid bloody things, they are. I'm guessing that the irate fella above had a similar response, and I'll also suggest that it'll be a widespread attitude:-

"Nice idea.... but... nah"

I'm actually quite dischuffed with myself, coz I'm generally quite open to new ideas, but there's something about GNPS....

Good article, though. As I said, I'm convinced intellectually. I'm just being a bit luddite-ish about it for some deep subconcious reason. Know what I mean?


Geoff

Yup geoff, I think there is something strange if you cant acknowledge your sex (or gender for the PC).

It is true that on line alot of pepole dont want to be known by gender because they want to be spoken to as person with out sex getting in the way, to be honest I couldn't give a t*ss what sex you are, most of the time I have no idea if I'm speaking to a man or a woman.

I dont know why but I dont like gender neutral language at all, I mean whats the f*****g point? The one of things we all have in common in humanity regardless of race, colour, or creed is that we are aproximately divided 50/50 into male and female.

BTW if people have a problem with dwarf (and I can understand why some may find it an iuncomfortable term; some medical conditions do have negative conitations such as "s*****c" or "cretin")then why not say short? PC gone mad is vertically challenged, which i'm sure is a tabloid invention I have never heard it used.

*thinks: Maybe I should start referring to myself as an 'African European'*


> PC Usage has African American as black. Even if the person is from
> Jamaica, you still say "African American". Or, you're supposed to.

I am an example of someone who'd resent being called African American but not black. And Jamaican people actually do come from America (the continent) anyway. America is not the same as the United States

Yeah, 'ugliness' is a hard thing to quantify. I *think* it's just linguistic conservatism (no bad thing in itself). For example, I used to find 'chair' somehow ugly (I still find 'chairperson' a little cumbersome), but nowadays it's the reverse: Teresa May deciding that she would be referred to as the chairman of the conservative party struck me as odd, even anachronistic.

By contrast with 'chair', my reaction to 'sie' and 'hir' was much more positive. I encountered them in an online article (it was a list - something like '101 things to do with your sub' - I forget). Anywho, I just took a liking to them - found them quite elegant. Taken me a while (like over a year...) to get to using them routinely, of course, but I never experienced any kind of negative reaction like that of Geoff.

I think part of the reaction may be due to the people who use GNPs. The PC movement does have an element (and let's be honest here) of holier-than-thou, even zealotry. I wonder if some of the negative reaction is down to that: it's not the words that are ugly, it's the people promoting and using them. I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether I personally (manally?) help or hinder the 'cause'...

-Martin

Heh, I might make use of that actually, in a kind of anti-anti-PC thing. The next time someone starts mocking 'parent nature' or 'epersoncipation', I'll know how to respond:

Mr. Jesman: Maybe it's just something in your manality that causes you take this manly - but most men don't manalize it like you. Come visit me on the sumanic concorde, or send your inmanator, and we can be the dramatis manae of a play in the third man. Just don't lay any inmane anti-men mines or man waste on my drive, and I might even write you a manal cheque for your expenses - oh the manity. Once we pull up a chairman each, we can demanalize it and ignore the famous manalities and supermen, I'm sure some inter-manal communication about the manities and man rights will find us in agreement.

-Martin/MyRedDice