Article View: misc.writing
Article #844Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
From: Kenneth Sullivan
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 23:26
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 23:26
83 lines
4830 bytes
4830 bytes
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes: > In article <1992Nov4.134114.16362@psych.toronto.edu> grant@psych.toronto.edu > > >>If you are writing a book about automotive repair, and suddenly > >>everyone decides that the word "crankcase" has obscene sexual > >>connotations, you should probably change it to "gearbox," no matter > >>how stupid you think everyone is. If you don't, you risk offending > >>people and distracting them from your true message: how to fix a car. > > > >Isn't this a double edged sword? It seems that many people are offended > >by people using spellings like womyn and wimmin, and prohibitions on > >gendered pronouns. So, shouldn't the use of these PC terms be abandoned? > > Ultimately, one must decide what they think is reasonable, and what they thin > is not. Personally, I would think that objections to the word "crankcase" > were not reasonable, so unless the opinion was extremely widepread, I'd be > likely to ignore the issue. (And I would almost certainly *not* use the > word "gearbox" as an alternative--since that would be awfully confusing for > those of us who associate "gearbox" with the transmission! :) > > Personally, I find a preference for gender-neutrality reasonable for two > reasons: 1) I don't think I would be too comfortable if everything were > written as gender-specific to women, and 2) because, in reality, we are > talking about situations in which the ideas I want to express are *in fact* > gender-neutral--and it is only the limitations of the language that make > it more convenient and comfortable to write in a gender-specific form. > > That's my personal opinion. Since I feel that way, it's very natural to > wish that we has a few additional gender-neutral terms to make life > easier. Anyway who feels comfortable with gender-based terms should feel > free to continue using them. No one here is talking about compulsion to use > new terms. (Although some people may try to *convince* you to use the > gender-neutral terms.) > > On the other hand, in my personal opinion, concern over things like the > spelling of "women" is bordering on the non-sensical, and as such, I don't > think about it at all when I write. > > Agains, it is your perogative to feel and do otherwise. > > > But ultimately, anytime you find that someone is offended by something you > do, the best you can do is to evaluate whether you find the offense taken > to be reasonable, or to be ridiculous. If you think it is reasonable, > then you change. If you think it's ridiculous, you don't. > > It seems rather strange to suggest that, blindly, one should either always or > never react to complaints that something is offensive. > > > In essence, the stereotypical PC approach is to say that one should blindly > avoid offending people--without any concern over how *ridiculous* the > complaints may be. (And of course, we sometimes associate some sort of > compulsion to behave this way with the term "PC" too...) > > Now we have some people suggesting that we do the opposite--that is, blindly > refuse to avoid offending people--without any concern over how *reasonable* > the complaints may be. (And some of these folks seem to be suggesting > some sort of compulsion, too!) > > To me, both of these positions seem equally dumb. > > > -- > J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.e > (I like to put 'greeny' here, > but my d*mn system wants a > *real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange Excatly, in any situation there can be a reasonable explaination and solution, but people will always carry it to extremes, and screw it up. Like enviromentalists, the enviroment, in my opinion is a worthy cause, however I do not feel like admitting it when EARTH FIRST! fools put stakes into trees to hurt the loggers....nor can I agree with those who are so mad at these extremeists, that the go into thier own little terrorists organzations, and take the other extreme. Any extreme is evil. -- INTERNET: bigbro@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan) UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!bigbro NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<NNHsTB3w165w@netlink.cts.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!nosc!ryptyde!bigbroReferences:
<1992Nov4.231628.27277@newstand.syr.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!nosc!ryptyde!bigbro Newsgroups: misc.writing,alt.censorship Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare From: bigbro@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan) Message-ID: <NNHsTB3w165w@netlink.cts.com> References: <1992Nov4.231628.27277@newstand.syr.edu> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 15:26:58 PST Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA Lines: 83