| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6368
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/21/15 10:58 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
justintyme is correct, mercfan3, the whole beginning of Savage's article is laying the context for the confrontation with the trans student and friend at the panel he was on at the University of Chicago, and his incredulousness that at the end of all of it the trans student wanted to be referred to by the ungendered pronoun "it", which (as he says in the beginning of the article) he's always been taught was the worst of the worst as far as insults.
I'm still waiting, jammer! 
Meanwhile, I don't have much context for the environment you live in, mercfan3, so I can't comment on what classes and identities are involved in your day to day life. There are a lot of populations where people are polite and try to "educate" as long as you are within a certain rung of the ladder from them. They can identify with you. The number of rungs in which that is acceptable will vary from population to population, and even from person to person, but it does exist.
I feel like as resources get more scarce, people are especially more prone to get what they can for their families, with everyone else being secondary. What jammer says about fear and anger is true. I have no concept of growing up with pre-conceived limits about what life should be in my head. Comfortable, middle-class, homogeneous suburb. But I can imagine. I know my existence was privileged.
Wait, what's my point? I guess it's that both you and jammer are right. But based on specific populations. And jammer is especially right about that vein of fear and frustration that Trump can tap into. And that to some the label of "PC" fits. Even though the perspectives you highlight of "PC" are true, and are positive. And aren't even the problem, necessarily.
There are too few worker protections these days. Read about Amazon, as a for instance. In many, many states you can be fired for no reason (as long as it's not for the reason that you are of an already-protected class). Meaning the employer doesn't have to say why. "Right to work". So you get fired for not fitting in comfortably in the social environment? Yeah. I can see it. I've not personally seen it, despite working in a Right to Work state, but I believe it exists.
It's interesting that we can tie this to politics. Anyone who is able to get elected I firmly believe has little to no idea of what day-to-day life is like for the poorest among us. They can be empathetic. They can try to imagine the worst. But they started out so far up the ladder, that I bet their worst imaginings aren't getting there. People who can't vote because they don't have time to. Because they're disenfranchised due to the fact that they have no political power, so no one represents them. It would be interesting if this invisible block was mobilized, and if Trump became what they believed (though they'd be wrong) mouthpiece just because he spouts off about "PC" and it's a label the working classes have had used against them, so suddenly they identify.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 11:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Political correctness is hateful. The whole point of it is to demonize people based on the way they express themselves. |
Hearing this tells me that we are using two completely different understandings/definitions of what "political correctness" means. Because this is most definitely not the point of PC, though it is sometimes used that way.
PC, at its heart, is about awareness of other people, the autonomy of self-identification, the avoidance of subjugating people through labels, and the power of language to shape the world around us.
These are not hateful, in fact, they are diametrically opposed to being hateful.
Now, do people take this too far? Absolutely. Some (very loud) people turn this concept into a weapon and use it to demonstrate their superiority. They do, as jammer pointed out, attempt to create a system where they actually subjugate others--the very thing they claim they are fighting against. This "we know the rules so we are better than you" mentality is wrongheaded and dangerous.
But this is a problem in the execution, not in the concept itself.
Jammer makes a very good point in his post. To create rules to enforce people's places in society is something that should not be tolerated. To use PC as a weapon to tear others down should not be tolerated. There is a rightful backlash brewing against this sort of behavior. In the social media age, things can get out of control way too quickly and otherwise well meaning people can turn into the equivalent of torch and pitchfork wielding villagers. And it can ruin people's lives.
But PC is also not based upon a set of rules created to "put people in their place", the way people use accents or speech patterns to arbitrarily label others. PC is based upon a real understanding of the way the world actually works when related to language. To reject it out of hand means rejecting a fundamental building block of our existence.
For instance, I do not really understand Einsteinian Relativity. I have a general understanding of such a thing, but all the intricacies? No way. I couldn't teach it, I couldn't tell you all the rules about it. Not to mention all of the other scientific laws that are tangential to it. That being the case, it would piss me off if I had real world consequences every time I messed up some aspect of it. If someone created a set of rules based upon relativity and made me feel lesser every time I failed to follow one. But on the other hand, relativity is how the world works. I can't just reject it out of hand. If my lack of knowledge of relativity hurts other people, hurts the world around me, I have some responsibility to try as hard as I can to at least learn what I can. To follow the "rules".
Whether or not people understand why, language does in fact create our reality. The words we use shape our perceptions. There is no avoiding this. Just as the laws of science are unavoidable whether we choose to embrace them or not, so too is the power of language.
So we have to understand that when we use a term to label someone, we are actually creating something. We put that person into a category for better or worse. So, when we label others, we are creating a new subject--or subjugating that person. If we ignore their preferred form of identification, and instead impose our own, we diminish their autonomy and agency. It is us saying that when it comes to them, we are the authority, not them. PC attempts to put the power back in the hands of the individual, to preserve that autonomy. A good example of this would be the term "retard". There was a time when it was actually the preferred terminology. It wasn't considered offensive. But due to the power of language, people started calling each other that as an insult. This means the word became freighted with a negative connotation. So then when it is used to refer to someone with actual mental deficiencies, it imparts that same connotation. So people starting asking to no longer be referred to in that way. They wanted the autonomy to define themselves without being saddled with that negativity.
Then there are phrases like "throw like a girl" or "play like a girl". Every time those words are used, it creates a reality in which women are lesser. Why? Because they are used as insults, and the only way those terms make sense as an insult is if being a "girl" is a bad thing. That means every time that phrase is used, it reinforces a "reality" in which women are inferior to men. PC asks us to be mindful of that fact. To understand the "reality" that is being created, and change it.
So PC is a powerful, needed tool that is essential to bring about a better world, but just like many tools it can be abused and turned into a weapon. But that does not make it inherently hateful, it just means we need to do a better job in our execution. We need to guide people and explain our preferences, rather than being reactionary and confrontational. We need to listen to intent and context, rather than going nuclear every time we take offense. We need to understand the difference between being made to feel uncomfortable and someone taking away our autonomy and agency. We need to make sure that we don't become the thing we hate...
So, ultimately, I agree with most of what jammer wrote, as our execution of these things has been piss poor. We strip others of their autonomy by labeling them racist, or "unrefined", or "pigs", or a thousand other things, even when the label doesn't fit. We cause lives to be ruined in a self-righteous huff, without regard to whether the punishment truly fit the crime. And we do seem to use PC to elevate ourselves at the expense of others. But that doesn't mean PC is wrong, it means we are. It means that we need to do better.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 11:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
mercfan you say the "PC crowd are more than willing to ask and/or explain what is offensive and why some things are offensive."
The PC crowd? So they're the ones really running the show. So there's this PC crowd and they put their educated minds together and decide what's offensive and they gently approach the guys down at the muffler shop or the security guards at the mall and explain the what and whys of political correctness. That's how it works? And then those guys go back and try to explain it all to their moms and shit? Okay. lol.
This is a preposterous fantasy. And don't bring up things like slurs. Yes, people know what slurs are and they don't belong anywhere let alone the workplace, etc. We're not talking about slurs and epithets. But we may be talking about a list of things that can be as detrimental to the user.
Here is how political correctness REALLY works. REAL world. FIRST PERSON, RIGHT NOW experience.
BREAKING NEWS> JAMMER'S A RACIST!
Here's how I know I'm a racist. And that it was the PC crowd that found me out.
I turned on the television a half hour ago and there is a debate going on over the use of the term 'anchor babies.' And while the debate rages above the text is emblazoned below that says something like, groups say use of the phrase 'anchor babies' is racist.
Well shit. I did not know that.  Because a few days ago I was using the term left and right, in writing, here on Rebkell's. I really didn't know. That I was dehumanizing infants and a racist to boot.
And now I'm thinking... I guess... I'm vulnerable. Someone has decided that anchor babies is a racist term, I didn't get the memo, and I was freely using the phrase here a few days ago. I'm busted. And oh shoot, there could be consequences. Who is to say that it won't have consequences for me? Where is the line? Where is the PC crowd and will they be gentle with me or will they seek to destroy me? I just. Don't. Know.
That is how PC REALLY works. 
So I may not have a perfect compass on political correctness, but I do have a formal education in political science. So here's the deal. Politics is a war of words. Pro Life is the example we were taught in college. The gold standard. The Right came up with that gem and it took YEARS for the Left to come up with what, Pro Abortion, etc. No, Pro Choice. But by then that battle had long been over.
Anchor Babies is another winner for the Right. The Latina pundit on CNN kept saying, angrily, of course, just describe the behavior or action of people coming over and having a baby just to gain a foothold in the US.... but don't use this offensive term that dehumanizes the innocent babies. lol.
Describe the behavior when there is the simple two-word phrase that magically captures that behavior and explains itself? Yeah. RIGHT!
Sure Maria Whatever. Let's displace from the public arena the phrase Pro Life and use instead to win our political battle some pod cast recording with a sucking sound of abortionists machine and all that. lol.
So I'm off on an tangent. But not without reason. The point of Anchor Babies being somehow conveniently added to the list of things YOU JUST CAN'T SAY in this country without being called a RACIST... is that PC is now being MISUSED, for political purposes. We're for open borders, pro-undocumented, hey, INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, to be perfectly honest, RECLAIMING THEIR LAND that we took from them, and we can't let the term 'anchor babies' fall into common usage so people are wrapping their minds around that little gem.
So that's a misuse of the concept, IMO. On the fly, after the fact. But with potentially retroactive consequences for some of us.  _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19789
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 12:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Great post Justin.
You know, I think the life experiences aspect of this is interesting. My experiences are that of a young woman.
I was a secretary for a green company. I constantly listened to jokes about women and Jewish people (my coworker was Jewish) from my boss. It was uncomfortable and infuriating. To the point where I actually went into a very deep depression. Two of us no longer work there, any guesses on which two? (Hint, my former boss still does.)
When I was younger, I worked in retail. Two of my female coworkers were told by a male coworker that they "only got good sales because of how they dressed." Amongst similar comments. When they complained to HR, our district manager supported the male coworker..one of the female associates was fired, the other was bullied into quitting.
At that same job, of the three days I worked there a week, I was probably sexually harassed (just with language) by a customer..three times a week. But I wasn't allowed to defend myself because the customer is always right, and a customer complaint would mean I would be at risk of being fired.
A very good friend of mine was ordered to hug her employer. She really would prefer to never be in the same room as him.
As a high school student, I was verbally sexually harassed by a teacher. (who not only said plenty of things to me and about me, but about the other female students in the class. Including not so subtly suggesting another female student was sleeping with a teacher..to the entire class.) I said something. I was talked to by a lot of people..the principal even suggested I was lying to my face. Now, this teacher no longer teaches at my former high school. He's a superintendent for a different district.
Walks where men are going to be around..those are fun.
So those are some of my life experiences of being a woman. And from talking to other women, these experiences aren't out of the ordinary. All examples of how language has effected me. Has made me or my female friends feel inferior, to feel unsafe. That have all had consequences on our livelihood.
And as much as I'm sure that some people use PC as a weapon. And sometimes it can go overboard and someone loses their job unfortunately. To me, the status quo seems to be that those who are made to feel uncomfortable, are not only those who lose out in personhood but also those who lose out financially, and I don't see a little pushback on the status quo to be a bad thing. Quite frankly, I'd rather it be too much than too little.
And I'd also argue that the things people attribute PC to doing (making people second class citizens) is what thoughtless language actually does.
edit: Jammer, come on. When I say "PC crowd" I mean people who are conscious about what they say, instead of those vehemently against the topic.
And when you say "anchor babies"..think about what you are saying. It's not that hard to figure out that it's not the nicest thing in the world to say.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
But PC is also not based upon a set of rules created to "put people in their place", the way people use accents or speech patterns to arbitrarily label others. PC is based upon a real understanding of the way the world actually works when related to language. To reject it out of hand means rejecting a fundamental building block of our existence. |
You have to lose the label. And you have to lose the imperfect vessels who are the proponents or 'PC crowd." From the initial charmless terrifying spokespersons back in the 90s who become the face of the movement to the people described in the latest Atlantic piece and going back a few months to the Savage piece. The maturity level of these individuals should preclude them from imposing anything on society as limiting as what can permissibly come out of other people's mouths.
In some ways, justintyme, you are correct when you assume the perspective that society progresses and moves forward and away from our more unacceptable thoughts and behaviors. We do that together and it's a long process. This is different. And I think, honestly, as respectfully as I can say this to both you and mercfan, you are both wrong when you skew how things have gone with PC, who has managed and administered the actual culture shaping movement, with this idea of there being a basic altruistic impulse at work and behind PC and how it is deployed and by whom.
We now have over 20 experience as a culture with PC in the public arena. We know how it has gone and how it continues to go. No doubt on the page, something debated over and agreed upon, there have been good things to come from having a debate about how language that is used improperly can and shouldn't be permitted to inflict damage to people.
That's really not the problem and as you alluded to with pilight, sometimes we are all talking about different things.
We are talking about the excesses and perceptions and realities outside of the classroom when the concept is put into the hands of real flawed human beings. And that IS an entirely different matter than an academic discussion of the merits and benefits of PC as a theory._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 1:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mercfan I'm really sorry you've had to endure those kinds of things as a woman in school and in the workplace. The country is a mess culturally and the American workplace reflects that. I think we're disagreeing on what we can do to make it better but it makes me sad and angry to hear of your experiences._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67015
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 1:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I disagree with justintyme about the roots of PC. It has always been a way of demonstrating superiority. It's right there in the name. We don't use those words and phrases, therefore we are correct. The unstated part is everyone else is incorrect and therefore lesser. That's always been the intent and the practice.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6368
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19789
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 1:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| mercfan I'm really sorry you've had to endure those kinds of things as a woman in school and in the workplace. The country is a mess culturally and the American workplace reflects that. I think we're disagreeing on what we can do to make it better but it makes me sad and angry to hear of your experiences. |
Jammer, that's the reality of being a woman. Just like it's the reality of being a black person. Or the reality of being an out homosexual. That's the tip of the iceberg with my experiences. It just is what it is. I didn't say it for sympathy, but if we're bringing real world experiences into it, then fine..let's talk about real world experiences of different kinds of people than the white straight male.
Do you not think language is important? Because to me, it seems obvious that it's a tool for oppression. And political correctness tries to address it. It tries to be inclusive and tries to account for the experience of others, and tries very hard to erase the straight white christian cis male default that the country continues to cling on to.
That is not a bad thing. I understand some people can be uppity about it, I really do. But once again, in my experiences..I've heard far more people complain about people being "uppity" instead of seeing people actually being uppity. In most cases, people just have a problem with being corrected.
And I also understand that it changes some. But I think people can play dumb more than they actually don't know. For instance, calling a trans person "it." I mean, maybe it's my educational privilege speaking..but I would think..that if someone thought about that word choice..it would become evident why maybe a trans person might not like that. (Does anyone like to be referred to as "it" ?)
"Anchor babies"..you can say you didn't know that it was a racist thing to say, but I'd have a hard time believing you didn't know it wasn't a particularly nice thing to say. That it didn't have a tinge of anti-illegals attached to it.
Not only that, but if you are using phrases like "anchor babies" and "it"..to refer to people, the intention behind it is likely not so nice, and probably worthy of criticism even without the specific word.
Now, I understand that sometimes less offensive words..said with no ill intention, can get people into trouble because language does change. I remember when it was taught to me to call black people "African American" but now that's changed because not every black person has their roots from Africa.
And that's the best anyone can do. Because attempting to understand the language to identify different people is showing respect to those people. If you get it wrong with no ill intent, odds are going to be that someone will correct you. At least that has been my experience, both giving and receiving the corrections. No big deal, learn it and move on, right?
And you know what, maybe the roots of political correctness weren't so great. (Although I wonder who actually coined that phrase? Was it the people aiming to change language or the people upset that language was being changed?) I don't know the history. But I do know what the intent is now.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 2:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
My opinion of political correctness is unchanged from the last time we discussed it...
http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=621258#621258
| Quote: |
| Political correctness is hateful. The whole point of it is to demonize people based on the way they express themselves. |
|
That's a good little thread, pilight. lol. You can FEEL the post 2008 nuclear cloud hanging in the air but it still has a good vibe to it._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67015
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 2:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
My opinion of political correctness is unchanged from the last time we discussed it...
http://boards.rebkell.net/viewtopic.php?p=621258#621258
| Quote: |
| Political correctness is hateful. The whole point of it is to demonize people based on the way they express themselves. |
|
That's a good little thread, pilight. lol. You can FEEL the post 2008 nuclear cloud hanging in the air but it still has a good vibe to it. |
Other than a couple of avatars getting replaced with that long Apple banner, it's a nice thread. It does remind me of how many good people we've lost since then.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/21/15 2:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| mercfan I'm really sorry you've had to endure those kinds of things as a woman in school and in the workplace. The country is a mess culturally and the American workplace reflects that. I think we're disagreeing on what we can do to make it better but it makes me sad and angry to hear of your experiences. |
Jammer, that's the reality of being a woman. Just like it's the reality of being a black person. Or the reality of being an out homosexual. That's the tip of the iceberg with my experiences. It just is what it is. I didn't say it for sympathy, but if we're bringing real world experiences into it, then fine..let's talk about real world experiences of different kinds of people than the white straight male.
|
mercfan3. Do you want to hear the experiences of a white straight male from I come from? lol. Do you guys really want to know? I mean really? Don't you like the perception you have of me as it is? lol.
Look, for me, nothing says WHITE PRIVILEGE faster than some white kid saying it... because that tells me he or she doesn't know the lives of the white working classes and poor. Which there are, I think the last time I looked at those numbers, something like 5x as many as there are African Americans living under the poverty line. Bring one of those people to Beverly Hills. Walk them down the street and see what kind of a response they get amongst the myriad cultures we have out here. This place would spit them out just as quickly as it embraces everyone else. Let me tell you. White working class? Instantly identifiable, stands out like a sore thumb, feared and if not MORE unacceptable in the affluent sections of LA than are black males.
The only color that matters now in this country is green.
This brings up yet another problem with political correctness and you can throw in the entire simmering bubbling race issues that continue to distract and divide us along with it. And this, to me, is the story of our time, what will be a very bad chapter in the story of the United States. While we're obsessing over these social divide issues, we are completely being overrun and run around by the most sophisticated and affluent from around the world. So many people are aware of this and that is why Trump may go quickly, quicker than we might ever imagine, from the blowhard TV boob to the bitingly articulate voice of an America that has and is being overtaken.
So how do we speak of these things that may or may not be happening if we're limited in our ability to use language or if a potential leader can be brought down by merely using the wrong word, phrase, perspective, etc.? What if, as I contend was done today, people use PC to try to take away a political catch phrase from one side or the other? Anchor babies says a mouthful. Sure people who are on that side of the debate would love nothing more than to take that phrase out of the mouths of their opponents who can use it to quickly and simply self-explain something that most Americans would characterize as an egregious abuse.
So there's all that.
Look. I'm sorry. We're not really quite through with fighting some wars we don't even know as a country yet that we are going to have to fight in order to survive. It's an ugly reality. Niceties are going to suffer.
Have a nice day. I have actual things to do.  _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67015
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/29/15 1:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214567/University-Tennessee-tells-staff-students-stop-using-switch-xe-zir-xyr-instead.html
| Quote: |
The University of Tennessee has told its staff and students to stop calling each other 'he', 'she', 'him' and 'her' - and to start referring to one another with terms like 'xe', 'zir' and 'xyr' instead.
The Knoxville branch of the public university, which has 27,400 students, sent a memo round to its members filled with unusual new parts of speech to avoid referring to anybody's gender. |
|
Or--and I know this is radical--how about just using the student's actual name?
Not to mention, in every institution in which I have tought, we get a class list that has the student's name, gender, and their student ID picture on it. This gender is the one the student self-identifies with, since it is the student who reports it to the school...
Beyond that, in academic writing we have, for the most part, shifted to using plural forms when gender is unknown. It is simply the least clunky method. There is no reason why it needs to be more complicated than that in speech.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67015
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6368
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/30/15 12:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Beyond that, in academic writing we have, for the most part, shifted to using plural forms when gender is unknown. It is simply the least clunky method. There is no reason why it needs to be more complicated than that in speech. |
Totally agree. Plural pronouns when gender is non-specified (in context meaning the subject could be any one of "them") is the way to go.
Is that article a satire? Or an academic experiment?
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67015
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/30/15 12:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| norwester wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| Beyond that, in academic writing we have, for the most part, shifted to using plural forms when gender is unknown. It is simply the least clunky method. There is no reason why it needs to be more complicated than that in speech. |
Totally agree. Plural pronouns when gender is non-specified (in context meaning the subject could be any one of "them") is the way to go.
Is that article a satire? Or an academic experiment? |
Not satire. You can see the instructions on Tennessee's website here:
http://diversity.utk.edu/2015/08/pronouns/
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6368
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/30/15 12:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Interesting. Still, I don't know why the first gender neutral line is t just adopted as both singular and plural. Context usually makes it clear when unknown, and otherwise just use the term the student identifies as.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/30/15 10:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| norwester wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| Beyond that, in academic writing we have, for the most part, shifted to using plural forms when gender is unknown. It is simply the least clunky method. There is no reason why it needs to be more complicated than that in speech. |
Totally agree. Plural pronouns when gender is non-specified (in context meaning the subject could be any one of "them") is the way to go.
Is that article a satire? Or an academic experiment? |
Not satire. You can see the instructions on Tennessee's website here:
http://diversity.utk.edu/2015/08/pronouns/ |
For the record, I write a lot for work and never - and I mean that literally - have needed to resort to plural pronouns to avoid specifying a gender when I'm not writing about a specific gender. If you do it often enough, you learn not to be clunky about it. It's not that hard.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/30/15 10:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So I assume that directive also outlawed the use of Lady Vol too, right? , I mean if we need to make up new words that have no gender suggestion, "Lady" should to be the first to go.
I wonder if some U of Tenn professor has received zir grant yet to rewrite all of Arthur Conan Doyle's books to substitute ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem, and xyr for the original text. Gotta fix those Sherlock Holmes stories after all.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/30/15 11:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| norwester wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| Beyond that, in academic writing we have, for the most part, shifted to using plural forms when gender is unknown. It is simply the least clunky method. There is no reason why it needs to be more complicated than that in speech. |
Totally agree. Plural pronouns when gender is non-specified (in context meaning the subject could be any one of "them") is the way to go.
Is that article a satire? Or an academic experiment? |
Not satire. You can see the instructions on Tennessee's website here:
http://diversity.utk.edu/2015/08/pronouns/ |
For the record, I write a lot for work and never - and I mean that literally - have needed to resort to plural pronouns to avoid specifying a gender when I'm not writing about a specific gender. If you do it often enough, you learn not to be clunky about it. It's not that hard. |
There are times when pronouns are inescapable in writing. Using plural forms is much, much preferred in academic papers to constantly using "he or she, he/she" or some form thereof. Some people try to alternate he and she, but that just gets to be too awkward and is ultimately pointless. Otherwise it is constantly using proper names or descriptive titles, and that can make the writing dry as can be.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6368
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/31/15 12:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I've seen when assigning a gender makes it easier, but the gender is non-specific some authors making a conscious choice to use "she" as the representative for all humanity, or the example subject in an experiment, etc. versus the heretofore accepted "he".
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
|
|
I should have just written that last night and gone off to bed! 
