IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th November 2021, 05:42 PM   #121
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 8,476
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Why do you think I display mine?
Primarily so people know which pronouns to use and (more subtly) to persuade people that it's not always obvious which ones to use.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 05:46 PM   #122
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,925
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
So people know which pronouns to use, and to persuade people that it's not always obvious which ones to use.
Thanks for the honest answer, which is mostly correct. But there's a third reason - and again, I'm pretty sure I've said this in at least one of the pronouns threads - and that is that I would like to see more people do it, even when they don't need to eliminate ambiguity. I'd like to see it become normal. I want to see it on business cards, and on social media profiles, and in biographies and obituaries. That way, when someone does feel like they need to share their pronouns up front, it doesn't feel weird or awkward to do so.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 05:48 PM   #123
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,734
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I'm pretty sure we got into this in the Non-binary identities are valid thread, of which you were an active participant. Possibly also in Pronouns in Signature and Using your "Pronouns". Maybe review those threads? My position hasn't changed substantially.
I have no recollection of any argument that gendered pronouns in English marginalize minorities, but gendered pronouns in French and German are just grammar. I'm certainly not going to dig through those threads again looking for same.

Is the idea original to you, or did you get it from someone else? Maybe there's a blog post or youtube clip I can take in, that lays it out?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 05:53 PM   #124
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 8,476
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I'm pretty sure I've said this in at least one of the pronouns threads - and that is that I would like to see more people do it, even when they don't need to eliminate ambiguity.
You presumably have good reasons why it is important to state an individual's gender upfront, but simultaneously important to minimize gendered language most of the rest of the time. Personally, I don't see the harm in gendering or sexing people unless you're doing it for the sake of unwarranted discrimination (e.g. hiring aviators rather than aviatrices).
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 06:11 PM   #125
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,925
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I have no recollection of any argument that gendered pronouns in English marginalize minorities, but gendered pronouns in French and German are just grammar. I'm certainly not going to dig through those threads again looking for same.
I see you've decided to be annoyingly specific. Okay, I can work with that.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is the idea original to you, or did you get it from someone else? Maybe there's a blog post or youtube clip I can take in, that lays it out?
There are plenty of sources - I've already quoted one article, by Hofstadter. There's a PDF scan from a hard copy here. 2,192 Kb. This is what I was actually typing from.

It's worth a read in full, especially since it is the original source that convinced me that this is a worthwhile cause in the first place. It refers to a followup, and I strongly recommend you read that too: A Person Paper on Purity in Language. Together, these two articles make up pretty much the entire argument. If you want an easily digestible summary, there it is. They should only take you about 20 minutes to read.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 06:12 PM   #126
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,925
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You presumably have good reasons why it is important to state an individual's gender upfront, but simultaneously important to minimize gendered language most of the rest of the time. Personally, I don't see the harm in gendering or sexing people unless you're doing it for the sake of unwarranted discrimination (e.g. hiring aviators rather than aviatrices).
If by most of the rest of the time you mean when it isn't necessary, then you are correct.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 06:15 PM   #127
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 8,476
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
If by most of the rest of the time you mean when it isn't necessary, then you are correct.
It isn't strictly necessary to signal one's gender in sigs or bios (most of us get by without) but it is arguably helpful to further understanding of how an individual is situated relative to a culturally specific set of social and linguistic conventions.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 06:40 PM   #128
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,925
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It isn't strictly necessary to signal one's gender in sigs or bios (most of us get by without) but it is arguably helpful to further understanding of how an individual is situated relative to a culturally specific set of social and linguistic conventions.
It can be, yes. And when it is, then using gendered language is entirely appropriate. I'm not sure why you have the impression that I don't agree with that.

However, in many situations, gendered language is not necessary. It's not necessary to specify the genders of the firefighters who turn up to put out my house. It's not necessary to specify the gender of the pilot who's flying me to America for a holiday. Unless knowing the firefighter's or the pilot's gender is necessary for my narrative, I don't need to use a gendered term like fireman or aviatrix.

I look forward to your response to reading the two articles I just posted.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 08:23 PM   #129
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 8,476
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I look forward to your response to reading the two articles I just posted.
I'll have to PM you, we've gone fairly far afield from the OP.

ETA: Or I can respond in another thread which is more specifically about gender and language.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 30th November 2021 at 09:18 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 09:27 AM   #130
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 7,162
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Many alternative and bespoke nongendered pronouns have been proposed in a top-down manner. In general, though, the bottom-up trend is for they/them.
May God save us all from solemn fools.
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 01:29 PM   #131
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,018
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
There are plenty of sources - I've already quoted one article, by Hofstadter. There's a PDF scan from a hard copy here. 2,192 Kb. This is what I was actually typing from.
I don't think you're really making the case that gendered pronouns in English influence perception while grammatical gender does not. There's a good deal of evidence at this point that grammatical gender does, in fact, influence perception of the referenced objects of gendered nouns.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 02:39 PM   #132
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,847
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I don't think you're really making the case that gendered pronouns in English influence perception while grammatical gender does not. There's a good deal of evidence at this point that grammatical gender does, in fact, influence perception of the referenced objects of gendered nouns.
Yes there have been some studies that show that when French people are asked to draws say, a caricatured anthropomorphiszed table they will draw one that looks female.

This is part of some neo-Whorffian studies that have been done.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 03:00 PM   #133
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 30,882
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Personally, I don't think any significant language change happens due to any top-down effort. It all comes from usage.
Sadly, that's true.

Language is largely controlled by idiots. Sweet as.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
People seem to have settled on they as a singular gender-neutral pronoun, which has the advantage of already being a thing. You don't have to convince someone to use it, just point out that they already do.
They're welcome to it.

It was already used as an alternate to he/she when the actual pronoun wasn't obvious, so my only contribution is this:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Why does this thread make me want to put on my DVD of "My Fair Lady?"?
Audrey Hepburn. Mmmmm.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I don't think you're really making the case that gendered pronouns in English influence perception while grammatical gender does not.
I can't wait until gender Nazi realises ships are always female. Maybe amphibian class will be the new trans?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 03:34 PM   #134
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,018
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
It was already used as an alternate to he/she when the actual pronoun wasn't obvious, so my only contribution is this:
It's also used where the gender of the antecedent is obvious.

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend


Strictly speaking, they has been used as a singular pronoun in English where the antecedent is also singular, without consideration of whether the antecedent is a male or female. Its use is now expending to constructions without any antecedent at all, and that's notable because it's so rare.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 03:57 PM   #135
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,847
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Sadly, that's true.

Language is largely controlled by idiots. Sweet as.
The mistake is in thinking it is "controlled". If you want to see idiots, look at people who try to control it saying that you cannot end a sentence with a preposition, or can't split an infinitive etc...

You may as well try to argue that "woke" is being used incorrectly, etc...
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2021, 03:23 PM   #136
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,766
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
How about John McWhorter who works at a university and is an op-ed writer for the New York Times…. Is he “woke”?

John McWhorter on Why Woke Ideas Harm Minority Communities
__________________
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone." - Aldous Huxley.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2021, 12:14 AM   #137
digger
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
You didn't say that, but if that's what you meant then thank you for clearing it up.
I could appeal to the record but let's move on.

Quote:
I would say it is complete nonsense though. If it were true, why did Hillary Clinton become the Democratic nominee? Surely the left would have put in place a more "woke" candidate.
It was a very close thing. The Clintons have a lot of power and she was heir apparent. But she was beaten, first by a challenger from her left in a primary, and then by the worst candidate ever, besides evidently her. Along the way the party very nearly nominated a Jewish Socialist who doesn't comb his hair, who quite probably could have won it.

Quote:
And then, the second time round they nominated Biden.
And now they've settled on an old drug war dog with new woke tricks because everyone was too terrified of Trump winning again to take a risk.

Quote:
I think it is pretty extraordinary to assume that this is a case of the Democrats and the "left" moving further left. Have you not seen where the right is, these days?

It's a common argument that people seem to make that the Left has gone hurtling to the extremes, but if you look at what issues they have moved to the left on, they are on issues such as same-sex marriage - that was once crazy "woke" thinking, sure. And now it isn't. But according to the article, that is also a thing the "un-woke" agree on.
You just talked yourself into supporting my point. You listed a bunch of woke positions that the Democratic establishment has moved left to land on. This thread isn't about the right.

Quote:
They have moved to the left on things like minimum wage and universal healthcare and climate change. But is that Woke?
That is the current nomenclature I believe, yes.

Quote:
Seriously, if you think Obama, Clinton and Biden are now "Woke" and they fail to "triangulate" like in the good old days, how do you explain the Democrats's growing appeal in Georgia and Arizona? These states aren't "woke"! The Democrats aren't winning over woke voters.
Two main factors. Demographic trends are making Georgy and Arizona more competitive, along with several other formerly Red states. And Trump motivated a lot of people to vote against him.

Quote:
Also, please be aware that the Republicans have been moving at a rapid pace towards authoritarian right-wing craziness. If you are complaining that the Democrats are moving left as though the people in the centre are just being abandoned to the right, you have to explain how the "disaffected liberals" ended up voting Trump. Answer: they are not liberals by any stretch.
I never said any of that stuff. But you're right. Both parties moving to the extremes has left the center cold and lonely.

Last edited by digger; 7th December 2021 at 12:17 AM.
digger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2021, 01:02 AM   #138
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,847
Originally Posted by digger View Post
It was a very close thing. The Clintons have a lot of power and she was heir apparent. But she was beaten, first by a challenger from her left in a primary, and then by the worst candidate ever, besides evidently her. Along the way the party very nearly nominated a Jewish Socialist who doesn't comb his hair, who quite probably could have won it.
That directly contradicts your earlier point: "I didn't say that all institutional power is woke. I said that institutional power on the left is woke."

Yet Hillary Clinton apparently won the primary despite being unpopular. Why? Well, according to you, because she had power.

How was Hillary Clinton "woke"? She seems pretty much a standard centrist Democrat. The "woke" left, I would take to be representatives like the Squad who won in solid Democrat areas. Outside of those areas, they are not successful, so to say that institutional power is woke sounds like you are stretching the definition considerably, especially when you consider that it is Senators such as Manchin and Sinema who are disproportionately powerful given their ability to force the Democrats to dance to their tune.



Originally Posted by digger View Post
And now they've settled on an old drug war dog with new woke tricks because everyone was too terrified of Trump winning again to take a risk.
I thought you couldn't teach an old dog new tricks. In fact, Biden was reviled by most of the "woke" who didn't want to vote for him but felt they had to to stop Trump winning. The people making the concessions are not so much the centrists as the "woke".

Originally Posted by digger View Post
You just talked yourself into supporting my point. You listed a bunch of woke positions that the Democratic establishment has moved left to land on. This thread isn't about the right.
I said "same-sex marriage". That isn't a "bunch" of woke issues.

And minimum wage, universal healthcare and climate change are not "woke". The UK and most of Europe has had universal healthcare for decades. The fact is that the US is just mostly a pretty right-wing country. If you think it is "woke" to have some tepid compromise with health insurance companies (Obamacare) and think that is "woke" then really woke is a meaningless term.

As for climate change, that genuinely is a serious issue regardless of your politics. It is ridiculous to assign it "woke" status.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2021, 06:42 PM   #139
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,925
This isn't USA Politics, friends.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2021, 06:57 PM   #140
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 8,476
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
This isn't USA Politics, friends.
Speaking of staying on topic, I read the articles you posted and replied in the thread about gendered labels. It doesn't seem to me that Hofstadter's argument goes quite as far as you'd like.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 7th December 2021 at 06:59 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2021, 06:33 AM   #141
AcesHigh
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It doesn't mean that degendering Romance languages isn't a worthwhile enterprise, but if it's going to happen at all, it's going to take much longer and be much more complex. Not to mention the difficulty inherent in getting the Académie on board. Removing gendered references from English is a walk in the park by comparison.
It's not worthwhile. The entire language structure is based on gender, which is a class of words.

Gender in languages has a purpose which is entirely independent of human gender.

And that's precisely the reason you have CONCORDANCE. The gender of the word modifies articles, adjectives, etc, to match it.
AcesHigh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.