Quote:
Originally Posted by Nox  So if I screw up on the gender of some unknown person, its somehow offensive? Seriously, that's a common mistake. It is human to assume something so innocent and be wrong. |
is that what I said? No, no it isn't. I said nothing of the sort, in fact. Again, it's amazing how well everybody seems to be missing my point.
Quote:
|
He and she are not gendered pronouns. They're sex pronouns. They are denoting if somebody or if someones possession is male or female. That's about it. You are finding hidden meanings in silly things, no wait, you are GIVING them meaning, and an incorrect one at that.
|
"he" and "she" are
gender-specific pronouns. I am not giving them any meaning beyond what they already have. Their meaning is quite specific. Every single person must either be male or female and this detail is so important, more so even than any other detail about a person, that you have to know it in order to even refer to a person. That's what gender-specific pronouns mean.
Quote:
|
Wow, now who is using straw men?
|
certainly not I. When did I make up an argument as a deliberate misrepresentation of your argument and then refute it? All I did here was tell you what my argument was, which you are apparently against, and ask you what exactly you had against it.
Quote:
I'm all for equality and individualisim. Should women get a fair hearing after being raped? Damn straight. Should they get equal pay? Of course! Should a man and woman be allowed to dress how they want and do what they want without consequence? Yes and that is exactly what I support about this preschool. It has the right idea.
However, attacking pronouns and calling them "divisional" and saying they "enforce gender stereotypes" has no logical basis. Its silly, sapping away any and all effort to actually fight actual discrimination. It is making a mountain out of an imaginary mole hill.
|
I've given you the logical basis already. I never said that gender-specific pronouns were discriminatory. They are not inherently discriminatory, except in the way that they exclude a large number of people. Instead they are simply
archaic, pretty much
useless, at times unnecessarily
confusing, often rather
awkward to use, sometimes completely
incorrect, and promote dividing the entire population of human beings into two distinct groups which they certainly do not and cannot fit into.
again I ask, would you have a problem if instead of basing pronouns on sex or gender our language chose instead to base pronouns on hair or eye or skin color? Or to preserve the imaginary dual nature we currently have, handedness? What purpose would such distinctions serve? Imagine the confusion and awkwardness they could lead to.
all I'm saying is that the pronouns our language currently uses are confusing, awkward, archaic, and useless and we could certainly do a lot better. Especially if we want to promote equality, uniqueness, and individualism of all people, since grouping them together based on irrelevant physical details of their body is inherently contradictory to this goal.
Quote:
|
If someone identifies themselves as a male or female, calling them what they want to be called is pretty respectful, no? If you want to be addressed as "Sir" or "Madam" I think it'd be nice to call you that, no? Because its how you want to be addressed.
|
what if I tell you I am neither male nor female? What will you do then?