Gendered nouns, nonstandard and otherwise

[Valette-Serafina]

You cannot use a nongendered word to identify someone as gendered. That's kinda the literal definition of being a nongendered word.

'He' has a gendered homophone, sure, but that's a different (if similar) meaning. Homophone. It's a thing. Stop pretending it's not.



Apparently German does the same thing with a feminine pronoun that also runs double as a gender neutral.

Click to shrink...

Do you disagree with assumptions 4 and 5? If so, correct my logic.

 

[TanaNari]

I'm not disagreeing with your numbered assumptions. I have a problem with the part where you seem to assume they matter. Thus far, they have been utterly irrelevant to the discussion. And unless you're planning to change that, I don't know why you keep making them.

 

[TanaNari]

Assumption 5) "Male" and "female" are genders.

Click to shrink...

Actually. This one's wrong. Male and Female are defined as a set of biological characteristics mainly revolving around reproduction and assigned by the organism's genetic code. They are sexes.

Sexes, are biological absolutes that don't significantly change within a species aside from rare intersex or nonsex defects. Or billions of years of evolution. Or transhuman genetic manipulation. Whichever comes first. And the function of both sexes rarely change all that much even based upon species, at least in higher life. Male and female, and what they mean, is fairly universal for most species of animal.

Gender, on the other chomosomes, often changes meaning by asking two different people from the same culture about it. Let alone someone from a foreign culture.

Genders are social constructs invented by humans to give certain behavioral roles to those sexes. "Man", "woman", "boy", "girl". "Hijra". Plenty of others but I'm not going to go hunting down the spellings. As a social construct, gender is in a constant state of flux based upon culture. There was a time when cooking was a girl's thing, and that any man who cooks is not really a man. Go to Texas and express that belief during a BBQ/grilling competition. Enjoy your beating.


Ergo: Male and Female are not genders. Although they are the origin for our very concept of gender, and most human cultures often make the mistake of equating the two as one in the same.


But we'll assume you correct your statement to "man and woman" as genders, and then it'll be accurate.

And still irrelevant to the conversation. But accurate.

 

[Valette-Serafina]

Actually. This one's wrong. Male and Female are biological sexes defined by a set of characteristics mainly revolving around reproduction. They are not genders. They are sexes.

Genders are social constructs invented to give certain roles to certain sexes. "Man", "woman", "boy", "girl". Gender changes based upon culture.

Sexes are biological absolutes that don't change based upon culture. And rarely even change based upon species, at least in higher life.

Ergo: Male and Female are not genders.

Click to shrink...

Understood.

Correction: Assumption 5) "Man" and "Woman" are genders.

I'm not disagreeing with your numbered assumptions. I have a problem with the part where you seem to assume they matter. Thus far, they have been irrelevant to the discussion.

Click to shrink...

Understood. All assumptions are assumed correct by both parties, save for 3, 4, and 5 which have been altered. If you find assumptions 3, 4, or 5 to be false, correct me.
Assumption 1) The word "Neutral" means "To be without bias".
Assumption 2) The suffix "Less" defines an absence of the word it's attached to.
Assumption 3) The word "He" is used to identify a known person as a man.
Assumption 4) The word "He" is not used to identify a known person as a woman.
Assumption 5) "Man" and "woman" are genders.

Assumptions 3 and 4 determine that "He" can be used to refer to a known man, but not a known woman. This is a bias.
Assumptions 1 and 5 therefore prove that "He" cannot be gender-neutral, as it is not without gender bias.

Assumptions 3 and 5 show that "He" is used to identify gender.
Assumption 2 therefore proves that "He" is not genderless.

Conclusion: "He" is not gender-neutral, nor genderless.

Identify a flaw in this logic, accept it, or withdraw your claim of accepting logic and reason.

---

You will attempt to counter with your homophone defence. It is not adequate.

"He" is primarily used to refer to a person. As it is the primary man pronoun, it cannot be removed from its gendered aspect. The gendered use is more common than its use to refer to a person of unknown gender.

It carries a connotation of one gender, but not the other. Bias.

"He" is used as a default pronoun. It is gendered. It is not gender-neutral.

My argument is given, and my proof is logic. Disprove my points, accept them, or withdraw your claim of accepting logic and reason.

 

[mishie]

Thing is though, none of that matters simply because of the fact that well, English is a fucking weird language that constantly breaks rules and shit, and it's basically crept into common convention over the centuries that he was considered the default gender neutral noun. Over time this may change, but trying to ignore the past is only going to make you look like an idiot.

 

[Valette-Serafina]

Thing is though, none of that matters simply because of the fact that well, English is a fucking weird language that constantly breaks rules and shit, and it's basically crept into common convention over the centuries that he was considered the default gender neutral noun. Over time this may change, but trying to ignore the past is only going to make you look like an idiot.

Click to shrink...

The default noun. Not the gender-neutral noun, because it is not gender-neutral.
I do not care what grammatistes teach, nor what dictionaries say. Basic logic says that it has a gender bias, which renders it unsuitable as a gender-neutral noun.

If you disagree, prove my logic wrong.

 

[TanaNari]

Assumption 1)

Click to shrink...

I think in this, we should be using the "without (important) characteristics" definition of neutral. Bias implies a level of agency that I just can't assign to a word. It personifies, assigns intent, and that's a whole other conversation. The only intent in a word is what the humans using it assign to it.

Assumptions 3 and 4 determine that "He" can be used to refer to a known man/boy, but not a known woman/girl.

Click to shrink...

True. However, you're using two different definitions of the word "he" to do so. One of which cannot be used to refer to anyone of any known gender. Its homonym, on the other hand, only refers to known males.

This is a bias.

Click to shrink...

This, I disagree on. You've yet to prove to me that this is a bias. Feel free to try to do so, I'm sure it'll at least be an interesting conversation. But all you've been doing is claiming this is a bias without showing how or why. You once called it "self evident". And I call that bullshit. Nothing is "self evident". Either it's physically observable, and thus you can mechanically prove it, or it's a belief.

Now, granted, some beliefs are vastly more universal and/or sensible than others... but they still remain beliefs only.

it cannot be removed from its gendered aspect

Click to shrink...

It certainly can.

"No one is to come through this door. If anyone tries, shoot him." This is entirely valid English. There is no confusion as to the "him" at the end. There's no assumption of who the him is, merely a condition of what he (that could be either a man or woman) is not to do. And unless the guard's a goddamn idiot, a woman who tries is facing the same fate as a man. Gender. Neutral.

The gendered use is more common

Click to shrink...

The gendered use of "she" is more common than needing an unknown gender pronoun of any sort as well. So this point is true, but irrelevant.

Assumptions 1 and 5 therefore proves that "He" cannot be gender-neutral, as it is not without gender bias.

Click to shrink...

I still disagree. This is where it falls apart, because you're applying an opinion of "because one, then not the other" in a place where you just haven't been giving it substantiation.

It's a lot like saying that because apples are (culturally thought of as) red, and tomatoes are (culture again) red, and cherries are (still culture) red, then that means the color red in the culture cannot be associated with things other than fruit. That metaphor works here almost directly. It's not that 'he' is not a gendered pronoun. It's that it is not only a gendered pronoun. In the same way red does not only mean fruit. Although there is a pretty strong cultural association (in America, at the very least) between 'red' and 'fruit'. It's also associated with blood and caution/danger. Thus why it's on our stop signs and lights. Shorthand for "pay attention you moron".

My proof is given

Click to shrink...

These aren't proofs. You are providing a lot of correct facts, in much the same way I can provide a lot of correct facts about the association of red and fruit. But then draw an unsubstantiated conclusion from it.

Maybe correct, maybe not- but an entirely unsubstantiated one nonetheless.

my proof is logic

Click to shrink...

Your logic is illogical and based upon your emotions and opinions, not an observation of the facts.


I am asking you to substantiate that claim. Prove that because it does one, it cannot do the other. You claim this a lot, in fact I think it's the whole skeleton of your argument. But you're failing to provide evidence to that effect. Merely your opinion.

And that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion. You're just not entitled to pretend it's fact. And I am entitled to a different one until actual evidence shows that said opinion is flawed. At which point, I promise you I'll change it, and I'll acknowledge the factualness of the other opinion... but if you want that to happen, then I need the evidence, the science. The substantiation of your claims that takes it beyond opinion and into fact. Or I need to change my mind about my opinion, but that's far less likely considering my current opinion runs on mechanical fact.


Here's mine in a nutshell:

1) People are inventing new words to be a nongendered singular pronoun. Fact.
2) This is annoying as hell. Opinion. I'm not going to argue if you disagree. But it's goddamn annoying.
3) The word 'it' is our primary nongendered pronoun. It is considered highly insulting and dehumanizing to use the word "it" to refer to people, however.
4) English already has nongendered pronouns to use to refer to people. Singular they is a slang option. Use of 'one' is an option. Both of these are ill defined in their usage and come with weird grammatical issues, explaining their lack of popularity. Still, they do exist.
5) English also has 'he' as a nongendered pronoun. It is much more clearly defined, functions as seemlessly within the standard rules of English grammar. As much as anything can be expected to in this quagmire of a language. And isn't treating people as a nonhuman when it's used.
6) Actually, that's it. In fact, we can eliminate 1, 2 and 4 as well. Although parts of 4 are necessary. The whole point is English already has a functioning gender neutral pronoun in the exceedingly rare if we need one. We have a gender neutral pronoun already to exploit.



You cannot sit there and try to claim it's a fact that 'he' is not a gender neutral pronoun when it clearly gets used as such in English all the time. You want to argue that it shouldn't? I disagree, but that opinion can certainly be changed if the argument's good. I'm vastly less emotionally invested in pronouns than you seem to be. Make your case to me on why it should not be used and I'm all ears But you cannot rationally argue the fact that it exists.

There are absolutely parts of this language that need to change. The way we can change the whole meaning of a sentence simply by stressing a different word. Why "a cute little puppy" and "a little cute puppy" sound so different when heard, despite the fact that all I did was swap a couple adjectives. It's the most difficult thing for most foreign speakers to learn.

We could also use a new word to signify plural "you". Because it's frustrating as both a singular and plural, and "you all" sounds awful. Sadly, however, plural you is a perfectly valid use of the word in English so that's unlikely to change.

The introduction of "Ms." into the language denoting a woman of unknown marital status was a nice attempt that I totally agree with. Although in the end, the word "Miss" absorbed that role and now denotes any female you don't know for a fact is married. In much the same way "he" denotes any human you don't know is a girl/woman. And Ms. is now mostly used by pretentious yuppies in suits who aren't educated enough to demand to be called "Doctor" instead.

But it was a good linguistic change as far as my opinion goes. But that's my opinion, and can't claim the old method was grammatically wrong.

So now I'm of the opinion that as we have our "marriage neutral" (miss) and our married (mrs)... we really don't need Ms. anymore. But English is a language that loves having multiple additional alternate redundant optional backup words in reserve. Certainly I cannot argue that Ms. doesn't exist as a word.


So if you want to debate the validity of "he" as a word based on your opinion, please do so. But stop arguing the sky isn't blue just because you like the pink sunsets better.

 

[Valette-Serafina]

I think in this, we should be using the "without (important) characteristics" definition of neutral. Bias implies a level of agency that I just can't assign to a word. It personifies, assigns intent, and that's a whole other conversation. The only intent in a word is what the humans using it assign to it.

Click to shrink...

You accepted the assumption without issue. You've changed your mind after seeing where it leads you?

Bias
noun
1. inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.

Intent is where? A die can be biased to land on one face, and it lacks intent.

True. However, you're using two different definitions of the word "he" to do so. One of which cannot be used to refer to anyone of any known gender. Its homonym, on the other hand, only refers to known males.

Click to shrink...

No. I've gone over this before, and you've ignored it.
One last time: The only difference between the use of "He" as a masculine pronoun and as a default pronoun is whether the user knows the gender of the subject. There are no other differences. It is an assumption, not a homonym.

The words are far too close in meaning for them to be considered separately. This is not like bow and bow, nor even like arrow and arrow.

They are the same word, with one situational element altered. Their meaning is not independent of each other.


In order to be gender-neutral, "He" would need to be usable for both genders in all situations it can be used in. It cannot be used for a known woman. This, it is used for men and people of unknown gender as an assumption. This is a bias. It has a masculine connotation, and I defy you to argue otherwise.

In order to be genderless, it would need to have no gendered meaning. It does, and I defy you to argue otherwise.

Also, I will remind you that you have argued against the use of "male" as a gender term.

This, I disagree on. You've yet to prove to me that this is a bias. Feel free to try to do so, I'm sure it'll at least be an interesting conversation. But all you've been doing is claiming this is a bias without showing how or why. You once called it "self evident". And I call that bullshit. Nothing is "self evident". Either it's physically observable, and thus you can mechanically prove it, or it's a belief.

Click to shrink...

I just did, but once again: He cannot be used to knowingly refer to a woman, but it can be used to knowingly refer to a man. This is self-evidently a masculine aspect of the word.

You assert that a third use of the word, for a person of unknown gender, makes it neutral, ignoring the more common use of the word and all related connotations.

Let me illustrate this.

He is used for

A Man	True
A Woman	False
Unknown	True

Unknown may have either gender, so we may class it as a null result with no bias, or as a double result with no bias. That leaves the word biased towards a masculine meaning.


If you can use the same pronoun for one gender, but not the other, it is not gender-neutral. Given the meaning of the words, this is self-evident.

It certainly can.

"No one is to come through this door. If anyone tries, shoot him." This is entirely valid English. There is no confusion as to the "him" at the end. There's no assumption of who the him is or what the he will be doing. And unless the guard's a goddamn idiot, a woman who tries is facing the same fate as a man. Gender. Neutral.

Click to shrink...

False. Masculine pronoun possessing masculine connotation used as default because of literally hundreds of years of sexism. The connotation has not been removed.

The gendered use of "she" is more common than needing an unknown gender pronoun of any sort as well. So this point is true, but irrelevant.

Click to shrink...

Quite relevant, unless you think that a native speaker is going to forget that "He" is the pronoun for a man.

I still disagree. This is where it falls apart, because you're applying an opinion of "because one, then not the other" in a place where you just haven't been giving it substantiation.

It's a lot like saying that because apples are (culturally thought of as) red, and tomatoes are (culture again) red, and cherries are (still culture) red, then that means the color red in the culture cannot be associated with things other than fruit. That metaphor works here almost directly. It's not that 'he' is not a gendered pronoun. It's that it is not only a gendered pronoun. In the same way red does not only mean fruit. Although there is a pretty strong cultural association (in America, at the very least) between 'red' and 'fruit'. It's also associated with blood and caution/danger. Thus why it's on our stop signs and lights. Shorthand for "pay attention you moron".

Click to shrink...

... Very well, If we are to use metaphor and the like.

A box of sound construction is placed on a sturdy surface under a waterfall. Care is taken that the box cannot slip, nor be tipped. Five hours later, is the box empty?

It is not, as water will fill it.


"He" is used for the purpose of identifying a third person. The most common use is to identify a person who is known to be male.
This gives it a masculine connotation, that it cannot shake while it is still in use for that purpose. This connotation is the water.

In order for the word to be gender-neutral, it needs to be free of that connotation or in possession of a second.


"He" has historically used for the purpose of identifying a third person of indeterminate gender. This use began in a sexist society in which women were treated as chattel. It is very clearly an assumption.
If you wish to use argument from tradition, keep that in mind.

These aren't proofs. You are providing a lot of correct facts, in much the same way I can provide a lot of correct facts about the association of red and fruit. But then draw an unsubstantiated conclusion from it.

Maybe correct, maybe not- but an entirely unsubstantiated one nonetheless.

Click to shrink...

If my assumptions are sound, then my logic is sound.
If my logic is sound, then my conclusion is sound.

My assumptions were sound, as you agreed. "He" has a masculine meaning, but no feminine meaning.
My logic lead me to the conclusion that neither genderless nor gender-neutral words can have one meaning but not the other.

Ergo, "He" is not gender-neutral. Historic use of the word has no bearing on this. Nothing does. As long as my assumptions are correct, my logic is sound.

I have logically proven that "He" is not gender-neutral. You claim to recognise logic before emotion or politics.

Prove it.

I am asking you to substantiate that claim. Prove that because it does one, it cannot do the other. You claim this a lot, in fact I think it's the whole skeleton of your argument. But you're failing to provide evidence to that effect. Merely your opinion.

And that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion. You're just not entitled to pretend it's fact. And I am entitled to a different one until actual evidence shows that said opinion is flawed. At which point, I promise you I'll change it, and I'll acknowledge the factualness of the other opinion... but if you want that to happen, then I need the evidence, the science. The substantiation of your claims that takes it beyond opinion and into fact. Or I need to change my mind about my opinion, but that's far less likely considering my current opinion runs on mechanical fact.

Click to shrink...

You like metaphor. Here.

Consider a hermaphrodite. In order to be a biological hermaphrodite, a being must have both male and female sexual organs. Such a being can act as either sex.

Without female sexual organs, such a being is not a hermaphrodite. They are male, though they may identify otherwise.
Likewise, without male sexual organs, such a being is not a hermaphrodite. They are female, though they may identify otherwise.

One might compare a hermaphrodite to a gender-neutral pronoun, as both can function in either role. It's not a perfect comparison, of course, as a gender-neutral pronoun has another valid use.


A neuter word is one without gender. A genderless word is a neuter word. A gender-neutral word can be a neuter word. A gendered word cannot, in the same way that a meal containing nuts cannot be nut free.



My proof is logic. You claim to respect that, but if you want more?

Then you're a liar. Disprove my assumptions, or accept them. The burden of proof is now yours.

Here's mine in a nutshell:

1) People are inventing new words to be a nongendered singular pronoun. Fact.
2) This is annoying as hell. Opinion. I'm not going to argue if you disagree. But it's goddamn annoying.

Click to shrink...

The most revered poet in the English language was rather well known for making up words. As was Tolkien, and to a lesser extent Rowling.

English has a nongendered singular pronoun, that being "They". A number of people take issue with using it in this way, citing confusion of singular vs. plural. Some, like you, continue to use "He" as has been tradition, apparently unaware of their hypocrisy.

Some have decided that as English is an evolving language, they'll come up with their own.

3) The word 'it' is our primary nongendered pronoun. It is considered highly insulting and dehumanizing to use it to use this to refer to people, however.

Click to shrink...

True.

4) English already has nongendered pronouns to use to refer to people. Singular they is a slang option. Use of 'one' is an option. Both of these are ill defined in their usage.

Click to shrink...

"They" is quite clear, actually. As for being slang, that's disputed.

5) English also has 'he' as a nongendered pronoun. It is much more clearly defined in the language, functions as seemlessly within the standard rules of English grammar as anything can be expected to in this quagmire of a language. And isn't treating people as a nonhuman when it's used.

Click to shrink...

And as I have proven, it is gendered.

6) Actually, that's it. In fact, we can eliminate 1, 2 and 4 as well. Although parts of 4 are necessary. The whole point is English already has a functioning gender neutral pronoun in the exceedingly rare if we need one. We have a gender neutral pronoun already to exploit.

Click to shrink...

Yes, "They". It, unlike "He", is completely lacking in gender.

You cannot sit there and try to claim it's a fact that 'he' is not a gender neutral pronoun when it clearly gets used as such in English all the time. You want to argue that it shouldn't? I disagree, but that opinion can certainly be changed if the argument's good. I'm vastly less emotionally invested in pronouns than you seem to be. Make your case to me on why it should not be used and I'm all ears But you cannot rationally argue the fact that it exists.

Click to shrink...

Argument by tradition and argument by majority.

If something has been incorrect for a significant amount of time, it does not become correct.
If a majority believe something incorrect, it does not become correct.


English has evolved alongside English culture. Two centuries ago, long after "He" became the default address for an unknown third person, women in the United Kingdom could not vote, nor own property.

Tell me, does that sound like a culture that would produce a gender-neutral term?


You argue for tradition, but ignore context. Stop.

So if you want to debate the validity of "he" as a word based on your opinion, please do so. But stop arguing the sky isn't blue just because you like the pink sunsets better.

Click to shrink...

And again you ignore or miss my point.

I am aware the word is in use, but logic proves that it has a gender bias. Ergo, it cannot be gender-neutral, no matter what anyone says.
Words are cheap, but logic does not care about tradition. It finds truth, provided it is given the correct information.

---

Too long?

In order for "He" to be gender-neutral, you'd need to be able to use it for anyone.

 

[TanaNari]

I've gone over this before, and you've ignored it.

Click to shrink...

No. I explained that it was wrong, and you need more than your opinion to negate the fact that it's wrong. Give. Me. Facts. Or give up. Please.

. This is self-evidently a masculine aspect of the word.

Click to shrink...

*Sigh* You just don't listen. You're attaching an emotional value on something that doesn't have emotion. It's not logical.

If my assumptions are sound then my logic is sound

Click to shrink...

Except for your assumption of your logic. That is both false and illogical.

My proof is logic.

Click to shrink...

Your "logic" is not logical. Ergo it is proof of nothing. Except your feelings and how they're clouding your judgment.

You claim to respect that, but if you want more?

Click to shrink...

Never claimed to respect your logic. In fact, I've gone out of my way to point out how illogical your so-called logic is. You're arguing 1+1= the square root of fish, for all the logic I'm seeing in your claims.

I claim to respect your opinions as opinions. But there is no logic. I keep saying there's not, you keep coming back with "yes there is!" and repeating yourself instead of, maybe, explaining the logic behind your claim of logic.

Some, like you, continue to use "He" as has been tradition, apparently unaware of their hypocrisy

Click to shrink...

See, this is where you keep bringing up opinions. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about the use of 'he'. It doesn't fit the definition of hypocrisy if it if WERE somehow wrong. Which it is not. But if it were, it'd be wrong for a different reason than being hypocritical.

Either way, you're back to the insults again.

If something has been incorrect for a significant amount of time, it does not become correct.

Click to shrink...

Umm. This is language we're talking about here, not morality or science. The idea of absolutes fails on both a rational and spiritual level here. Language is absolutely nothing except a series of made up conventions agreed upon by a large number of people over a long period of time. It literally cannot be anything more than this. At least not until something magically rewrites the laws of the universe.

Some people call math a universal language... which is true in that you can communicate through it with great effort and time... but math isn't a language. And language is not math.

English has evolved alongside English culture. Two centuries ago, long after "He" became the default address for an unknown third person, women in the United Kingdom could not vote, nor own property.

Tell me, does that sound like a culture that would produce a gender-neutral term?

Click to shrink...

So... near as I can tell... your argument has nothing to do with fact and merit of language- but the historical detail that a number of the people who were involved in creating the language aren't egalitarian, and therefor the language is wrong? Honestly? You *believe* this? Well, that's an opinion you're entitled to, and you might even have sold me on it if you were arguing it in a way that was, y'know, sane and rational. But it's not in any way rational logic. It's a direct and active appeal to moral standard and emotion.

Which is fine. I approve of having both morality and emotion. I don't approve of pretending they're the same thing as logic. Although sometimes the three happen to agree with each other. Which is great... things would be so much nicer in the world if that were always the case...

You're arguing from a place of feeling, not a place of fact. The fact that 'he' *is* the default gender neutral term is *fact*. You want to reject it? That's fine, and maybe one day your way will be the reality. Maybe you can even convince me that it *should* be the reality if you start that conversation instead of trying to claim the actual reality isn't real.

but logic proves that it has a gender bias

Click to shrink...

No it doesn't. Or, at least, no logic I've seen used thus far does. What you present hasn't been logic. Maybe someone else will have a better approach to draw logic from your mess. But you, again, are arguing from emotion, not logic.

Words are cheap, but logic does not care about tradition. It finds truth, provided it is given the correct information.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. Logic does not care about tradition. Or history, for that matter. We can, and often do, use 'he' as a gender neutral pronoun. Ergo, at least sometimes, 'he' is a gender neutral pronoun. This is arguing that 1=1. It's not even logic at this point, it's just redundant.

You can make an argument that "can" does not equal "should". And that's absolutely true. Can does not mean should, it also doesn't mean shouldn't. It simply means can. You want to start there, please by all means start there, but don't try for "cannot" when "can" is already fact.

In order for "He" to be gender-neutral, you'd need to be able to use it for anyone.

Click to shrink...

You can use it for anyone. In proper context. It can't always be used in every context. But I doubt there's any word in the world that can be used in every context. Even "is" doesn't always fit. And that's pretty ubiquitous.

 

[skaro]

Aren't use "they"or " them" to call individual imply racism or discriminate?.

 

[TanaNari]

Aren't use "they"or " them" to call individual imply racism or discriminate?.

Click to shrink...

That's a different context. It *can* mean that... but only if the person saying it is going out of their way to imply that. Most of the time it doesn't. One of the many complicated features of our language.

Think of it in the same way that "candy" can be used to imply drugs. But usually just means a sweet to enjoy.

 

[skaro]

That's a different context. It *can* mean that... but only if the person saying it is going out of their way to imply that. Most of the time it doesn't. One of the many complicated features of our language.

Think of it in the same way that "candy" can be used to imply drugs. But usually just means a sweet to enjoy.

Click to shrink...

Ah,thank you,I see someone think of "muggle" as racism.

 

[Valette-Serafina]

No. I explained that it was wrong, and you need more than your opinion to negate the fact that it's wrong. Give. Me. Facts. Or give up. Please.

Click to shrink...

And once more.

Fact: He is used for men, but not women.
This gives that word a masculine aspect, but no feminine aspect.

Fact: This gives it a connotation of masculinity to any speaker of the language.

Fact: This makes it gendered.

Fact: It cannot therefore be genderless.

This is not an opinion, unless you feel like redefining what -less means.

*Sigh* You just don't listen. You're attaching an emotional value on something that doesn't have emotion. It's not logical.

Click to shrink...

And what part of that quote leads you to that assumption? Emotion is irrelevant. You may be trying my patience with your inability to understand basic concepts, but I am not discarding logic.

Except for your assumption of your logic. That is both false and illogical.

Click to shrink...

Proof. Now.

Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Prove that I am not using it. Now.

Your "logic" is not logical. Ergo it is proof of nothing. Except your feelings and how they're clouding your judgment.

Click to shrink...

This is a claim. Provide proof.

Never claimed to respect your logic. In fact, I've gone out of my way to point out how illogical your so-called logic is. You're arguing 1+1= the square root of fish, for all the logic I'm seeing in your claims.

I claim to respect your opinions as opinions. But there is no logic. I keep saying there's not, you keep coming back with "yes there is!" and repeating yourself instead of, maybe, explaining the logic behind your claim of logic.

Click to shrink...

... I took the basic meaning of the words "Genderless" and "Gender-neutral", and tested the word "He" against them. Basic pattern recognition, something that you apparently cannot understand, shows me that "He" does not match either word, being both gendered and unequally gendered.

See, this is where you keep bringing up opinions. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about the use of 'he'. It doesn't fit the definition of hypocrisy if it if WERE somehow wrong. Which it is not. But if it were, it'd be wrong for a different reason than being hypocritical.

Either way, you're back to the insults again.

Click to shrink...

Not necessarily. Use of "they" as a gender neutral singular pronoun has roots dating back very far in the history of the English language. Criticism of it has been fairly recent by comparison, and the idea is heavily debated by various people with PhDs who live for this sort of thing.

Click to shrink...

True, if a bit misleading. It had always been considered a "slang" part of English, possibly the oldest slang in English that didn't either vanish or get absorbed into the official language. And personally I find it clunky as hell. Still, it's an option to use, if you feel the need.

Click to shrink...

The only possible way that "They" could be misleading is a possible confusion between singular and plural. Other than that, it is an ideal word.
You take issue with it, but at the same time you support an equally misleading word.

If these two statements are correct, you are a hypocrite.

Umm. This is language we're talking about here, not morality or science. Language is absolutely nothing except a series of conventions agreed upon by a large number of people over a long period of time. It literally cannot be anything else.

Click to shrink...

Language is a method of social control and influence. You support an outdated model, and you cannot even see how inconsistent you are.

This is the last time I will attempt to help you understand.

So... near as I can tell... your argument has nothing to do with fact and merit of language- but that the people who were involved in creating the language aren't egalitarian, and therefor the language is wrong? Honestly? You *believe* this? Well, that's an opinion you're entitled to, and you might even have sold me on it if you were arguing it in a way that was, y'know, sane and rational. But it's not in any way rational logic. It's appeal to moral standard and emotion.

Which is fine. I approve of both morality and having emotion. I don't approve of pretending they're the same thing as logic. Although sometimes the three happen to agree with each other. Which is great... things would be so much nicer in the world if that were always the case...

Click to shrink...

... Insane.

You are calling me insane. For expecting you to think for yourself.

Alright. Now I have your measure.

No it doesn't. Or, at least, no logic I've seen used thus far does. What you present hasn't been logic. Maybe someone else will have a better approach. But you, again, are arguing from emotion, not logic.

Click to shrink...

Is "He" masculine? Provably yes. It can refer to men exclusively.
Is "He" feminine? Provably no. It cannot refer to women exclusively.

Is "He" Gender-neutral? Well, it looks like I've just proven that it isn't, as it cannot refer to men and women equally.


There, that's the logic. You want to break it? Go ahead and try, you crazy little troll.

 

[TanaNari]

He is used for men, but not women

Click to shrink...

True.

Fact: This makes it gendered.

Click to shrink...

Conditionally.

Fact: It cannot therefore be genderless.

Click to shrink...

Untrue.

This is not an opinion

Click to shrink...

Yes. It is. You believe these things above to be true, while they are in fact not. Your opinion is predicated upon an emotional, illogical need to assign things value that they do not have so that you may reject them.

Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Prove that I am not using it. Now.

Click to shrink...

The above. You make claims and claim they have a validity they do not have. You refuse to provide the validity when asked. Ergo- you are not using strict principles of validity. You are using an emotional basis to draw a conclusion. And getting angry at me for not buying into them the way you have.

It's hardly the first time I've seen such behavior. Thus my prior comparison of you to Jehova's Witnesses. This was not a random choice of words then, and it is not now. You are behaving like a zealot. The very definition of the word, in fact.

Although, in all fairness, the Witnesses are vastly more polite when I say "sorry, not buying it" than you've been. Which is my way of publicly apologizing to said Jehova's Witnesses for the comparison.

This is the last time I will attempt to help you understand.

Click to shrink...

They say stuff like that, too. Well, never the "last time" thing. They thank me for my time, wish me God's blessing, and leave. But we all know that they, or others like them, will be back sooner or later. Sometimes it makes me feel guilty for not converting. Then I realize that's probably the intended goal and get annoyed at the manipulation. These emotions nicely cancel each other out, and then I go on with my day.

"They" could be misleading

Click to shrink...

I didn't say "they" could be misleading. I said Clefable's statement was misleading.

You take issue with it

Click to shrink...

I do, for reasons listed in various places.

you support an equally misleading word

Click to shrink...

If by which you mean "not really at all unless you're deliberately going out of your way to make it seem misleading", then yes. He is by far the most well supported word in current English grammar. Short of inventing a new word (pretentious as fuck and historically very difficult to make happen without overwhelming public support) or completely rewriting how our language works (which we should do anyway, but we all know it's not happening), 'he' is logically the best choice in most circumstances. Your argument that it's not the moral best choice may have some merit. Pity you're not trying that instead.

If these two statements are correct, you are a hypocrite

Click to shrink...

Oh good! Not a hypocrite. Not that being called a hypocrite by a hypocrite means much to me. I live by my values. Always have, and hopefully always will. One of my values is trying not to talk too hard about future absolutes.

Is "He" Gender-neutral? Well, it looks like I've just proven that it isn't

Click to shrink...

No, you haven't. You've simply proven that he has a masculine pronoun form. Which I've agreed to so many times. You still haven't proven it doesn't have a gender neutral form.

And I've given you examples of 'he' used in its gender neutral form, which means I've actually proven it has one. With the same certainly as I can prove water is wet by splashing it in your face. Even if you refuse to accept those, due to them somehow being "tainted" (which is an illogical concept in and of itself unless we're LITERALLY talking about infectious disease) by prior history showing some men were assholes, that's a matter of your moral code. NOT logical thinking.

Historical Germanic culture wasn't exactly nicer to women... and they use the feminine word as also their gender neutral. So. It's just how things played out in the word usage. Not a moral force, simply an accident of history. And even if it were a moral force. That would still make this a morality argument, not a logical one.

For expecting you to think for yourself.

Click to shrink...

"Think for yourself by believing what I tell you to believe!" That's pretty much exactly what you just said. And I'm the supposed hypocrite?

I *do* think for myself. You are just angry that it's not your way of thinking that I have selected. I follow my path, my path is not you path. If I were to follow your path, THEN I would not be thinking for myself. Unless you somehow manage to convert me, then I suppose I've selected a new path. Humans are allowed that choice.

 

[Valette-Serafina]

Conditionally.

Click to shrink...

A word that is intrinsically linked to gender is gendered. Not conditionally, absolutely.

Untrue.

Yes. It is. You believe these things above to be true, while they are in fact not. Your opinion is predicated upon an emotional, illogical need to assign things value that they do not have so that you may reject them.

Click to shrink...

Are you perhaps incapable of quoting an entire sentence, or did you just feel incapable of confronting the actual meaning?

-less: Without, lacking. Ex: Senseless, like your argument.

Thus, a thing in possession of gender cannot be genderless. This is something a child can grasp.

The above. You make claims and claim they have a validity they do not have. You refuse to provide the validity when asked. Ergo- you are not using strict principles of validity. You are using an emotional basis to draw a conclusion. And getting angry at me for not buying into them the way you have.

It's hardly the first time I've seen such behavior. Thus my prior comparison of you to Jehova's Witnesses. This was not a random choice of words then, and it is not now. You are behaving like a zealot. The very definition of the word, in fact.

Although, in all fairness, the Witnesses are vastly more polite when I say "sorry, not buying it" than you've been. Which is my way of publicly apologizing to said Jehova's Witnesses for the comparison.

Click to shrink...

That's a lot of words to say nothing at all.
You'll agree that -less means an absence of something, right?

Oh, right, it goes against your argument so you can't accept it. Your loss.

I didn't say "they" could be misleading. I said Clefable's statement was misleading.

Click to shrink...

I don't see a full stop, so someone's quoting me out of context again~

You're really quite terrible at this, aren't you? Here's a little thing from someone who actually understands this language: If you take a sentence apart, it stops making sense.

I do, for reasons listed in various places.

Click to shrink...

And you can't be bothered to repeat them? Wow, you really are terrible.

If by which you mean "not really at all unless you're deliberately going out of your way to make it seem misleading", then yes. He is by far the most well supported word in current English grammar. Short of inventing a new word (pretentious as fuck and historically very difficult to make happen without overwhelming public support) or completely rewriting how our language works (which we should do anyway, but we all know it's not happening), 'he' is logically the best choice in most circumstances. Your argument that it's not the moral best choice may have some merit. Pity you're not trying that instead.

Click to shrink...

Nope, see, you're still not actually making an argument.
Tradition fallacy, in English...

You're clearly quite shameless, and a poor student.

No, you haven't. You've simply proven that he has a masculine pronoun form. Which I've agreed to so many times. You still haven't proven it doesn't have a gender neutral form.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I have. I've given you several explanations, and solid logical proof. If you can't understand English, I don't think you should be arguing about this.

And I've given you examples of 'he' used in its gender neutral form, which means I've actually proven it has one. With the same certainly as I can prove water is wet by splashing it in your face. Even if you refuse to accept those, due to them somehow being "tainted" (which is an illogical concept in and of itself unless we're LITERALLY talking about infectious disease) by prior history showing some men were assholes, that's a matter of your moral code. NOT logical thinking.

Click to shrink...

See, the thing is that you haven't. You've shown me the use of "he as a default form, and failed to understand anything past that.

You can be as stupid as you want, but don't expect me to play along.

Oh good! Not a hypocrite. Not that being called a hypocrite by a hypocrite means much to me. I live by my values. Always have, and hopefully always will. One of my values is trying not to talk too hard about future absolutes.

Click to shrink...

Ah, the old "No, You" counter. Such elegance. Well done.

"Think for yourself by believing what I tell you to believe!" That's pretty much exactly what you just said. And I'm the supposed hypocrite?

Click to shrink...

Archaic standard that's quite controversial, or basic logic: You pick the one that calls a woman "he". Does your brain have a switch, perhaps?

I *do* think for yourself. You are just angry that it's not your way of thinking that I have selected. I follow my path, my path is not you path. If I were to follow your path, THEN I would not be thinking for myself. Unless you somehow manage to convert me, then I suppose I've selected a new path. Humans are allowed that choice.

Click to shrink...

I've met people less capable of arguing than you, but not many. You've failed to provide any evidence other than argument from tradition.

Enjoy being wrong.

 

[TanaNari]

So. You ran out of arguments and are now defaulting to open insults instead of the catty barbs? Meh, at least this way you're more honest. Still wrong. But more honest.

At least this means I won't have to listen to your claiming emotionally guided arguments are logical anymore.

 

[Valette-Serafina]

So. You ran out of arguments and are now defaulting to open insults instead of the catty barbs? Meh, at least this way you're more honest. Still wrong. But more honest.

At least this means I won't have to listen to your claiming emotionally guided arguments are logical anymore.

Click to shrink...

I'm not arguing with you anymore~
Arguing requires a participant to explain their point, you see, but I don't need to argue with someone who can't understand how association works.

If I thought you were actually going to argue in good faith, I'd try and explain again. You're not, though. You've used up alllll of the respect you get, and you've still failed to make an argument.

 

[TanaNari]

That's wrong and you know it's wrong. I made my points. I followed those points with examples, logical progression, and polite explanation of where the existent alternatives are both useful and fall apart. Coming to the clean and clear logical conclusion based upon that path of thought.

You decided that because I'm using something that's traditional, it's therefor wrong, and refused to listen.

If this were back in debate club, there'd be no doubt who the clear winner on a mechanical level was. Now, the winner of a debate isn't a measure of right or wrong, merely ability to convey their points. By that standard, I have you beat. From the standard of actual right or wrong... well, I am the one with historical precedent and usable examples on my side. All you've presented is "it is... because it is".

You are a zealot. You do not listen to reason or logic, you're caught up in your own black and white morality and won't see beyond that. You accuse me of not having a mind of my own for disagreeing with you. Yeah, because I've never heard that one before.

There has never been an attempt at good faith on your part at any point in this debate. Don't insult either of our intelligences by pretending otherwise.

 

[Valette-Serafina]

That's wrong and you know it's wrong. I made my points. I followed those points with examples, logical progression, and polite explanation of where the existent alternatives are both useful and fall apart. Coming to the clean and clear logical conclusion based upon that path of thought.

Click to shrink...

Nope~ That's not what you did.

You decided that because I'm using something that's traditional, it's therefor wrong, and refused to listen.

Click to shrink...

Nope~ Also not true.

If this were back in debate club, there'd be no doubt who the clear winner on a mechanical level was. Now, the winner of a debate isn't a measure of right or wrong, merely ability to convey their points. By that standard, I have you beat. From the standard of actual right or wrong... well, I am the one with historical precedent and usable examples on my side. All you've presented is "it is... because it is".

Click to shrink...

And you can't even see where you're wrong~

FYI, I made a table to convey my point.
What'd you do, other than appeal to tradition?

You are a zealot. You do not listen to reason or logic, you're caught up in your own black and white morality and won't see beyond that. You accuse me of not having a mind of my own for disagreeing with you. Yeah, because I've never heard that one before.

Click to shrink...

Somebody's pro~ject~ing~

There has never been an attempt at good faith on your part at any point in this debate.

Click to shrink...

I made this thread for an honest argument. You? Derails, broken quotes, backtracking, and a refusal to directly confront my points.

Pro~ject~ing~

 

[TanaNari]

I made a table to convey my point.

Click to shrink...

A table that's using circular logic is still a wrong table.

What'd you do, other than appeal to tradition?

Click to shrink...

Pointed out the other mechanisms and how they don't work. Pointed out how the current "traditional" model is perfectly effective for what it's intended. Acknowledged that said mode may change with time, explained why it's hardly necessary that it do so. Continued going forward, observing other ideas and pointing out both their merits and flaw.

What have you done? Beyond "it is wrong because I don't like the people who created it" and calling that logic? Because that is all you've done. And made a chart that's using the same circular logic.

Somebody's pro~ject~ing~

Click to shrink...

This is what you've resorted to? "I know you are but what am I?"

Yeah, okay, I'm done talking to you. You're too far gone to be reasoned with.

 

[Valette-Serafina]

A table that's using circular logic is still a wrong table.

Click to shrink...

Ain't circular. If you can't see that, you may want to brush up on how to read.

Pointed out the other mechanisms and how they don't work.

Click to shrink...

'Cept, they do. So, that ain't a point in your favour.

Pointed out how the current "traditional" model is perfectly effective for what it's intended.

Click to shrink...

'Cept, it ain't. It's quite clear, 'less you've got your head stuck in the ground.

Acknowledged that said mode may change with time, explained why it's hardly necessary that it do so.

Click to shrink...

So, you hedged and you were still wrong? Wow.

Continued going forward, observing other ideas and pointing out both their merits and flaw.

Click to shrink...

Oh? And what's that when you strip out the jargon?

What have you done? Beyond "it is wrong because I don't like the people who created it" and calling that logic? Because that is all you've done. And made a chart that's using the same circular logic.

Click to shrink...

Wow, you're really bad at reading. Like, really, really bad.

Here's a hint: Circular logic starts with the assumption it's trying to prove.
That ain't what I was doing.

This is what you've resorted to? "I know you are but what am I?"

Click to shrink...

Now, see, you could say that if you hadn't posted this little gem.

Oh good! Not a hypocrite. Not that being called a hypocrite by a hypocrite means much to me. I live by my values. Always have, and hopefully always will. One of my values is trying not to talk too hard about future absolutes.

Click to shrink...

Your high ground seems to be underwater?

Yeah, okay, I'm done talking to you. You're too far gone to be reasoned with.

Click to shrink...

I did tell you that I wasn't arguing with you anymore~

 

[TanaNari]

... And this is why I need to learn to stop treating zealots like rational people. Such a waste of my time.

 

[Vanathor]

For my part I think super-special-snowflake pronouns like zi/xi/shi/etc are kinda retarded and the people who use them seriously (and demand they be used) are likewise, and they tend to be fooling themselves in trying to attract either attention and try to be 'special' in the tumblr sense of the word. Just because a person asks that I refer to them as 'Barney The Dinosaur' does not make it so.

 

[Xilph]

Let's go back a step then. TanaNari you had issue with the sentence "I'm marrying him." with the use of "him" as gender neutral because you claimed and didn't work and shouldn't be used there. However such a construction can be important, imagining someone who is trying to conceal the sex of the person he is marrying because he doesn't want them to know whether he is male or female for some reason is simple. So what would you recommend to him to use? Why can they not use "him" if it's truly without any implication of gender?

Also saying that I should be ashamed of myself for bringing up historical sexual discrimination in an argument about gender bias is ridiculous, it's completely relevant and hiding from the fact that historically there has been sexual discrimination and the use of masculine pronouns has been used to aid that doesn't make it not have happened.

 

[UrsaTempest]

I retract my previous statement. He is not gender-neutral.

Nevertheless, I urge to find some other alternative pronoun to use, instead of shi and whatnot. Maybe use they?

 

[pepperjack]

For my part I think super-special-snowflake pronouns like zi/xi/shi/etc are kinda retarded and the people who use them seriously (and demand they be used) are likewise, and they tend to be fooling themselves in trying to attract either attention and try to be 'special' in the tumblr sense of the word. Just because a person asks that I refer to them as 'Barney The Dinosaur' does not make it so.

Click to shrink...

I strongly suggest you reconsider your casual use of the word "retarded." It's not the only thing that makes your post repulsive, but it's the easiest to correct.

 

[Vanathor]

I strongly suggest you reconsider your casual use of the word "retarded." It's not the only thing that makes your post repulsive, but it's the easiest to correct.

Click to shrink...

No, I said what I meant. I think the flights of fancy that demand those sorts of terms border on mental illness if the person asking for them are not given the benefit of the doubt with them 'just' being attention seeking and trying to be special. It's the same sort of shit that leads someone to thinking they have 'headmates' or are 'otherkin'. Dumb assuming they are not being serious about it, and a serious sign of instability if they actually legitimately experience it and/or believe in it.

 

[Heaven Canceler]

I did not know this. Huh. I'm guessing people don't get angry over its supposed gender bias the way some Americans do over the word 'he'?

Click to shrink...

There are some People who want to gender everything and make all things politically correct. (always use s/he equivalents etc...) The majority seems to not give a shit.

 

[TanaNari]

Let's go back a step then. TanaNari you had issue with the sentence "I'm marrying him." with the use of "him" as gender neutral because you claimed and didn't work and shouldn't be used there.

Click to shrink...

As something where the person speaking the sentence should know the actual gender... then it's not an "unknown or undefined" pronoun...

However such a construction can be important, imagining someone who is trying to conceal the sex of the person he is marrying because he doesn't want them to know whether he is male or female for some reason is simple.

I'm using bold because the effing quote system is not working with me for your post for some reason. The top one did, nothing else will.

So... If this hypothetical he doesn't want someone to know the gender of the person he's marrying... then wouldn't he just, I dunno, lie about his (the spouse's) gender? I mean, this isn't something it's logical to be evasive about for the most part. You either lie, or you tell the truth, or you're talking to someone whom it's nobody's business.

I mean, if you don't say the gender... someone's going to ask. You're at the point where the only options are either lying, or making it clear your refuse to say. And if you're flat out refusing to, then you're flat out refusing and it's a part of the bizarre social situation you find yourself in.

Either way, once he makes it clear he's not going to reveal the biological sex and/or preferred gender of his partner (boy and/or girlfriend are clearly gendered and can't be used here), then the nongendered variant of "he" is a perfectly valid option. As is 'singular they', as much as I hate it. But just because I hate it and it's not formal English it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So what would you recommend to him to use? Why can they not use "him" if it's truly without any implication of gender?

It's because of the gender neutrality that it can't be used here. No gender neutral word or phrase I'm aware of can. Certainly there's no English option. Not unless you're marrying a Doctor or Professor and refer to them by title and last name... which is clearly unlikely as hell... not impossible, but unlikely. So much so that it can't be a valid example for general use.

English has little to nothing by way of pronouns for deliberately avoiding the proper gender when you actually know what the gender of the person your speaking of. Words like 'one' and 'singular they' don't work, either. Nor does the overlong, but often functional, "him or her".

Because "I'm marrying them" only works if you're talking polygamy. Not that I have an objection to polygamy- I don't- but that would be inaccurate in this situation. Also its own little grammar quagmire to slog through.

"I'm marrying him or her" is... in addition to all the problems with being mistaken for the polygamy one... also full of other problems and just clunky.

And "I'm marrying one" is pants on the head levels of stupid. Either for saying that at all, or someone's parents for naming them 'One'. So, yes, the word 'he' doesn't work... which puts it in exactly the same boat as all other gender neutral pronouns in this situation. Which is to say useless.

Maybe "I'm marrying someone" works, to some extent. You can certainly use it. But not quite the same way. After all, if you say "I'm marrying him" and point to that person, that makes sense. Saying "I'm marrying someone" and point to said person... that's just confusing...

Now... if you're in a scenario where you're like

"So, my cousin Chris is getting married."
"To whom?"
"Dunno, never met either of them. I dunno if he's even a guy or not."

In this case, it would be valid to refer to both Chris, who may or may not be a guy. And Chris's betrothed (can't use fiancée or fiancé- they're gendered words... also French, but that's never stopped this language before...) as 'he'. Or singular they, if you must. Or 'him or her'.


Or, a more immediate example. This example. The pair of us, not knowing EITHER party's gender (or, more accurately, knowing that there is no gender to these nonexistent hypotheticals), both can and in my case at least already have said something along the lines of "He's marrying him" without it being a gendered terminology.

Whereas "they're marrying them" sounds entirely plural. Or is it "they is marrying them"? Because that phrasing just makes my skin crawl.

"He or she is marrying her or she"... that one works, but is incredibly clunky. We'll set that alongside 'he' as 'valid'. But I feel 'he' is much more elegant.

"It is marrying it" makes me sound like a rat bastard. Seriously, anyone trying that one is probably not making any friends...

And "one marrying one" is... really wrong sounding. The use of one as a nongendered pronoun is... just ugh... and this is a prime example of why...

And while it's absolutely true that "they're getting married" is perfectly valid, it is also *actually plural* and is thus not a use of "singular they" or any other singular pronoun.

Also saying that I should be ashamed of myself for bringing up historical sexual discrimination in an argument about gender bias is ridiculous, it's completely relevant and hiding from the fact that historically there has been sexual discrimination and the use of masculine pronouns has been used to aid that doesn't make it not have happened.

Click to shrink...

Connecting ancient history to a modern event only works if the two are connected by a legitimate thread. You're exploiting legitimate crimes and legitimate hardships experienced by legitimate people, to win an argument. As if modern people who, for the most part, don't carry that same beliefs, have not committed the same crimes, and would find those who have to be repugnant... are connected to those crimes by virtue of nothing more than using the same language they did.

It is literally no different than claiming all Germans are Nazis because Nazis spoke German, and Germans speak German. Godwin's Law is utterly appropriate.

The word, the language structure, is not at fault for these crimes here. People, most of whom died of old age long before we were born, are at fault. And you legitimately should feel ashamed to attempt to use that as a tool to win your argument. It treats human beings as some cheap tool, when you inappropriately use the thing they went through this way. And I find it legitimately offensive.

Save comparing people to Nazis for the ones who tattoo swastikas on their heads. Save comparing people to misogynous scumbags for ones who are actually misogynous scumbags.

People who want to gender everything and make all things politically correct.

Click to shrink...

I don't know whether I'm glad, or disappointed, that the rest of the world is bogged down by the same utter inanity as America is. One part of me is relieved we're not alone. The other part weeps for humanity as a whole, instead of merely the ones that speak the same language as I.

 

[Nekraa]

Why wouldn't "he" be able to be both gender-neutral and for guys depending on the situation? Homonyms are a thing.

Like, "Gun Control" was difficult for me to translate to Swedish because "gun" can mean "pistol", "rifle", "cannon" amongst other things and which one should I use then? Because gun control isn't just about pistols or rifles, it's generally about both. And I don't think even pro-gun people generally argues that people should be allowed to have cannons (and now that I thought about it I used google translate which tells me it's "vapenkontroll", which I'd thought about but didn't think it'd be right. Well, show how much I know )