🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3985@osc.COM> jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) writes:

   In article <67971@bu.edu.bu.edu> pamela@bu-bio.UUCP (Pamela Hall) wrote:
   >In a sci.* news board I would expect to see respect for precise and
   >accurate use of words.

   >If one wishes to refer to human behavior, regardless of gender
   >differences that may arise, use human.

   Normally i wouldn't point this out, but you are talking about accurate
   use of words.  The word `gender' is a linguistic term, with the
   possible values of `masculine', `feminine', `neuter', and maybe others.
   Therefore it is properly only used as an attribute of words,
   and not people.  Most living things have an attribute called `sex',
   with the possible values of `male' and `female'.

   I hope you all now remember to use the correct word.

And I respond:

Well, if we go by sheer numbers, most living things are neither male nor
female.  Even if we limit ourselves to a discussion of animals, or
even vertebrates, or better yet primates, no let's limit ourselves to
human beings, then even the words "male" and "female" have limitations
imposed on them by linguistics and by society.  Male and female are
most decidedly not the only possible values.
--
  \Chuck McCaffrey cmccaff@urbana.mcd.mot.com 1101 E University Urbana IL 61801
   \    Flashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fight,    [my words]
    \   Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flight,  [my opinions]
   / \   And for each and every underdog soldier in the night,
  /   \    And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.